Evidence?

[Rolling_Stone]

Something I hear frequently from non-believers is that they would believe in God if there were any evidence. I have two issues with this statement.
1) There is some - admittedly very weak - evidence: the widespread reports of personal experiences with God. Now, I can see why this is unconvincing, but it is evidence. Weak, yes, but evidence nonetheless, which is more than can be said for the argument that there is no God. With that nit picked....
2) What evidence of God's existence could there be? You say that evidence would convince you, but what would qualify?
Please note, I am asking about God's existence only, not assuming that God wants us to believe/ worship. I don't believe that God cares one way or another what we believe, so those arguments - while valid when appropriate - are not relevant to this particular conversation.

While it may not constitute formal evidence of the kind skeptics usually require, there is the evidence of logic And since science is open-ended, a skeptic (or theist) using it to force a conclusion in its favor is wrongheaded.

My logic is quite simple:

1. Does existence (existence itself, not the observed universe) have a beginning?
2. If existence is self-existent, what properties must we assume in order to get to where we are today?
3. Can it be less than what I am? Allowing that infinite complexity can arise from a few simple rules without antecedent causation, why are we to assume infinite complexity it is not intrinsic to existence, which is without a beginning? Why must we assume complexity can only arise in a time-space material universe?
4. Any extremely large, complex, and highly automatic-appearing mechanism will naturally tend to conceal the presence of the originating mind behind it from any and all inhabiting intelligences very far below it. Therefore, is it inevitable that the universe mechanisms would appear to be mindless to the lower orders. This being the case, evidence apart from personal experience is suspect.
5. (From another thread) The questions and possibilities are endless. This is not an appeal to "God in the gaps," but only to point out that reason is not reasonable if it does not carefully examine the full range of personal experience, all possibilities, and allow for their conceptual interpretation on a personal level. If personal experience is suggestive of intrinsic intelligence being its source and cause, why not accept it as fact even if the concept needs constant revision? Skepticism is not a discoverer of truth: if it cannot give a positive reason to reject or doubt my beliefs and I have no compelling reason to take a different cognitive stance, then it has nothing to say. (The Principle of Belief Conservation.)

 

[gnostic]

I know that I am little late in joining this thread, but I would like address Storm's OP before tackling others.

Something I hear frequently from non-believers is that they would believe in God if there were any evidence. I have two issues with this statement.

1) There is some - admittedly very weak - evidence: the widespread reports of personal experiences with God. Now, I can see why this is unconvincing, but it is evidence. Weak, yes, but evidence nonetheless, which is more than can be said for the argument that there is no God. With that nit picked....

2) What evidence of God's existence could there be? You say that evidence would convince you, but what would qualify?

Please note, I am asking about God's existence only, not assuming that God wants us to believe/ worship. I don't believe that God cares one way or another what we believe, so those arguments - while valid when appropriate - are not relevant to this particular conversation.

I would like to say that I want more real evidences. Not just someone's testimony.

We also have literary evidences, which include scriptures and extra-literature, such as the Bible, Tanakh, Qur'an. These are better evidence than someone's testimony and belief, however, there are enormous literature on pagan religions about Zeus, Odin, Ra, Osiris, etc, but Abrahamic religions dismiss these as myths. Well non-Abrahamic people believe these Abrahamic to be nothing more than myths as well. So scriptures are hardly a great evidences, because these can't be verified and validated.

The evidences needs to be more real before I can accept them and believe.

But believing doesn't mean I would worship a god or gods, because I don't know if these beings are good or evil. I am less like to worship an evil god.

Christians believed that God is omnipresent. If so, then he can prove his existence, by appearing and communicating in person (directly) before everyone, at the same time.

If God is omnipotent and omni-benevolent, then he can ensure that no child or family would starve, due to poverty or famine.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

The evidences needs to be more real before I can accept them and believe.

This is fine, but FYI, even modified evidentialism--the beliefs it is irrational for anyone,anywhere, at any time, to hold any evidence-receptive belief without sufficient evidence--fails in philosophy if there are evidence-receptive beliefs which can be rationally held without sufficient evidence as true, or probably true.

But believing doesn't mean I would worship a god or gods, because I don't know if these beings are good or evil. I am less like to worship an evil god.

Fair enough, but what if the only way to know God were experientially?

Christians believed that God is omnipresent. If so, then he can prove his existence, by appearing and communicating in person (directly) before everyone, at the same time.

Considering the chasm between God and man, between the infinite and the finite, you may be demanding of God to make a square circle.

If God is omnipotent and omni-benevolent, then he can ensure that no child or family would starve, due to poverty or famine.

This may be counterproductive to human progress, not to mention presuming to know better than God what the good of the whole consists of.

IMO and in my experience, in order to love other persons you must first know them; in order to know God, you must love him (in order to be receptive to his presence).

No one comes to know God unless they want to and it is futile to try to convince someone they should. :angel2:

 

[gnostic]

This may be counterproductive to human progress, not to mention presuming to know better than God what the good of the whole consists of.

Then what do you suggest?

Man is known for his ingenuity to survive and the generosity of donation to charity is all good and well, but it's really not enough. Tens of millions...if not hundreds of millions...don't have enough food or clean water, and charities can only do so much.

I am not asking for powers, riches, fame or glory for myself, so what's the harm on feeding those multitude of starving families. If God is so benevolent, then he should do something. He had no qualm about saving the Israelites in the Exodus about providing food and water. Do people have to worship in order for him to lift his lazy divine finger?

Oh, I forgot! *smack forehead*

He like to watch people to suffer, and then grovel on the ground, just as He made Job do. It is the only way He can control them. And after that, if they haven't converted to his religion and worshipped Him, He will make them suffer some more in the afterlife, forever and ever in hell.

And to think that Satan was vicious.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Then what do you suggest?

Man is known for his ingenuity to survive and the generosity of donation to charity is all good and well, but it's really not enough. Tens of millions...if not hundreds of millions...don't have enough food or clean water, and charities can only do so much.

I am not asking for powers, riches, fame or glory for myself, so what's the harm on feeding those multitude of starving families. If God is so benevolent, then he should do something. He had no qualm about saving the Israelites in the Exodus about providing food and water. Do people have to worship in order for him to lift his lazy divine finger?
Oh, I forgot! *smack forehead*

He like to watch people to suffer, and then grovel on the ground, just as He made Job do. It is the only way He can control them. And after that, if they haven't converted to his religion and worshipped Him, He will make them suffer some more in the afterlife, forever and ever in hell.

And to think that Satan was vicious.

Are you claiming your personal likes and dislikes should be the criteria of the good of the whole?

1. Is courage--strength of character--desirable? Then must man be reared in an environment which necessitates grappling with hardships and reacting to disappointments.

2. Is altruism--service of one's fellows--desirable? Then must life experience provide for encountering situations of social inequality.

3. Is hope--the grandeur of trust--desirable? Then human existence must constantly be confronted with insecurities and recurrent uncertainties.

4. Is faith--the supreme assertion of human thought--desirable? Then must the mind of man find itself in that troublesome predicament where it ever knows less than it can believe.

5. Is the love of truth and the willingness to go wherever it leads, desirable? Then must man grow up in a world where error is present and falsehood always possible.

6. Is idealism--the approaching concept of the divine--desirable? Then must man struggle in an environment of relative goodness and beauty, surroundings stimulative of the irrepressible reach for better things.

7. Is loyalty--devotion to highest duty--desirable? Then must man carry on amid the possibilities of betrayal and desertion. The valor of devotion to duty consists in the implied danger of default.

8. Is unselfishness--the spirit of self-forgetfulness--desirable? Then must mortal man live face to face with the incessant clamoring of an inescapable self for recognition and honor. Man could not dynamically choose the divine life if there were no self-life to forsake. Man could never lay saving hold on righteousness if there were no potential evil to exalt and differentiate the good by contrast.

9. Is pleasure--the satisfaction of happiness--desirable? Then must man live in a world where the alternative of pain and the likelihood of suffering are ever-present experiential possibilities. (UB)

Even at our level of existence, the evil of charity is evident when it robs people of their dignity and self-respect.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Please note, I am asking about God's existence only, not assuming that God wants us to believe/ worship.

But therein lies the problem.

As you said, the "stories" are only a partial (very weak) evidence of God's existence. There is also much scientific evidence (I have already given one such evidence twice on these forums to no replies). But all those are not real proof. I believe those things give us sufficient reason to believe a God might exist but not real evidence.

Real evidence comes only and only if you, yourself, have an experience ... a miracle. Or through direct revelation from God that may/may not include prophecies. Or knowing someone very close to you who makes claim to revelations or makes prophecies that actually come to pass.

And the first two can be obtained by praying to God and asking Him for such evidences. But you have already disbanded the worship option so ...

 

[Phasmid]

Something I hear frequently from non-believers is that they would believe in God if there were any evidence. I have two issues with this statement.

1) There is some - admittedly very weak - evidence: the widespread reports of personal experiences with God. Now, I can see why this is unconvincing, but it is evidence. Weak, yes, but evidence nonetheless, which is more than can be said for the argument that there is no God. With that nit picked....

No that is not evidence at all. It merely shows that people have experiences of some kind and just attribute it to a god. Or that they're delusional or simply mistaken. There is no evidence of a god at all. The only thing religious experiences prove is that people have active imaginations. Proof needs to be empirical, not emotional.

2) What evidence of God's existence could there be? You say that evidence would convince you, but what would qualify?

YouTube - How to Convert an Atheist Part 1

YouTube - How to Convert an Atheist Part 2

 

[wednesday]

No that is not evidence at all. It merely shows that people have experiences of some kind and just attribute it to a god. Or that they're delusional or simply mistaken. There is no evidence of a god at all. The only thing religious experiences prove is that people have active imaginations. Proof needs to be empirical, not emotional.

I agree with your statement.

Humans and liars and always have been. How would you know if the person is telling the truth, or just lying to make themselves look like a hero?
If there is any god he has left long ago, we suffer poverty, lack of food and water, natural distasters. What kind of loving god would do such a thing. There is no evidence of God, just people looking for an excuse to see something they don't but wish they did.

 

[Willamena]

Any extremely large, complex, and highly automatic-appearing mechanism will naturally tend to conceal the presence of the originating mind behind it from any and all inhabiting intelligences very far below it. Therefore, is it inevitable that the universe mechanisms would appear to be mindless to the lower orders. This being the case, evidence apart from personal experience is suspect.

Why is that "natural"?

 

[Storm]

No that is not evidence at all. It merely shows that people have experiences of some kind and just attribute it to a god. Or that they're delusional or simply mistaken. There is no evidence of a god at all. The only thing religious experiences prove is that people have active imaginations. Proof needs to be empirical, not emotional.

Of course it is. It's anecdotal evidence, which is so weak it barely qualifies, but it is evidence.

YouTube - How to Convert an Atheist Part 1

YouTube - How to Convert an Atheist Part 2

I'm not interested in converting you. I'm asking what you would consider evidence of God's existence. It's a thought experiment.

 

[Phasmid]

Of course it is. It's anecdotal evidence, which is so weak it barely qualifies, but it is evidence.

But is it really evidence of god, or evidence of delusion?

I'm not interested in converting you. I'm asking what you would consider evidence of God's existence. It's a thought experiment.

The list in those videos seems logical enough. If those criterea were met then that would be evidence of god.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Why is that "natural"?

The hardest thing for a fish to see is the water in which it swims.

 

[Storm]

But is it really evidence of god, or evidence of delusion?

In the absense of other symptoms, we have no reason to assume delusion.

That said, such experiences might well be misinterpreted. IOW, "God" might well be a neurological illusion, which is why I don't think the evidence of personal experience has significant merit.

The list in those videos seems logical enough. If those criterea were met then that would be evidence of god.

Sorry, I haven't had time to watch them yet; my previous response was a knee-jerk reaction to the title. I despise proselytization.

Anyway, I'll watch them as soon as I've caught up here, and respond to their actual content.

 

[Storm]

YouTube - How to Convert an Atheist Part 1

I'm typing as I listen, so this might be kinda stream-of-consciousness.

OK, first off, I'm not trying to prove any religion. I'm not even trying to prove God. I'm just asking what you would consider evidence for the existence of God. Not a personal God, not a God who intervenes. We're stripping down to the very basic question, here. That stuff is extra.

Verified, spicific prophecies that could not have been contrived. That wouldn't convince me. Prophesy need not come from God.

Scientific knowledge that was not available at the time. That one's good for a religion, but not this conversation.

Miracles, especially by prayer. "Miracles happen within the rules," and "any advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." IOW, I believe in miracles - in fact, I believe myself to be the recipient of one - but they're just strange things we don't understand yet.

Prayer is a separate issue from the existence of God. While the one is predicated upon the other, they are not inseparable. In the OP, I point out that I'm NOT asking about evidence for a personal, active God.

Direct manifestation. I refer you to point 3 in Post # 160. I believe we are evolving the means to perceive God, but it's a work in progress. ATM, it takes a great deal of time, skill, and luck to learn how to do it.

Alien religion. Again, this is a good one if I cared about proving a religion. I don't.
​

 

[Storm]

YouTube - How to Convert an Atheist Part 2

Flawless and consistant Holy Book: Again, this is religion, not God.

Lack of Internal Disputes and factions: Heh, mine. But that's because I'm the only member.

More seriously, still religion, not God.

Followers have never comitted atrocity: The Eastern religions are actually pretty good about this. But once again, religion, not God.

Sorry, Phasmid, but none of this answers my question. I'm just guessing at the problem here, but try assuming a deist model rather than Abrahamic.

 

[3.14]

1) There is some - admittedly very weak - evidence: the widespread reports of personal experiences with God. Now, I can see why this is unconvincing, but it is evidence. Weak, yes, but evidence nonetheless, which is more than can be said for the argument that there is no God. With that nit picked....

2) What evidence of God's existence could there be? You say that evidence would convince you, but what would qualify?

1 most people that claim that have very weak cases, i seen seintologists with better claims

2 well in every system there is an exeption so to prove god would be to prove that the universum was perfect with no exeptions, but since that won't be able for a long time i would settle by a force of nature that is consistently broken without any reason for it to break

 

[Storm]

1 most people that claim that have very weak cases, i seen seintologists with better claims

Well, even the strongest cases are still just anecdotal evidence, which ain't worth a hill of beans.

2 well in every system there is an exeption so to prove god would be to prove that the universum was perfect with no exeptions,

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

but since that won't be able for a long time i would settle by a force of nature that is consistently broken without any reason for it to break

That would definitely be evidence for an interventionist God, but that's not the question.

 

[Phasmid]

Sorry, Phasmid, but none of this answers my question. I'm just guessing at the problem here, but try assuming a deist model rather than Abrahamic.

:sad4:

Yeah I should have read your OP more closely, sorry.

What does IOW mean?

 

[Storm]

In Other Words

 

[Phasmid]

Ahhhhh...