Evidence?

[Jose Fly]

I'll tell you what I told him: pick one. There are many well-defined God-concepts, and I really don't care which one you use.

A "god concept" does not aid in defining the characteristics that will then be used to determine its existence or nonexistence. Further, many of the "god concepts" are mutually exclusive, which kinda throws a monkey wrench in the whole thing.

IMO, the fact that "god" is apparently so difficult to define and/or describe is one bit of evidence against its existence.

 

[Storm]

IMO, the fact that "god" is apparently so difficult to define and/or describe is one bit of evidence against its existence.

That's fascinating, but I think discussing it would be off-topic. Would you mind terribly starting a thread to elaborate on this statement?

 

[Jose Fly]

I dunno Storm...the whole "God exists! No he doesn't!" thing has been done to death, especially on the internet. I seriously doubt I would bring anything to the table that hasn't already been covered ad nauseum.

I look at it as if a god does exist, then it's either letting stuff run all on its own, or it's one cruel SOB. Either scenario leads me to the feeling of indifference I have about it all.

 

[Storm]

I dunno Storm...the whole "God exists! No he doesn't!" thing has been done to death, especially on the internet. I seriously doubt I would bring anything to the table that hasn't already been covered ad nauseum.

Aw. Well, it's your call, but I think we could have a mature, enjoyable discussion.

I look at it as if a god does exist, then it's either letting stuff run all on its own, or it's one cruel SOB. Either scenario leads me to the feeling of indifference I have about it all.

Fair enough.

 

[Autodidact]

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 agree that there is some weak evidence, including what you list and more. I submit that it is not of the kind of quality that any reasonable person relies on in any other area, and that it is better explained by other theories.

What evidence would be more persuasive? One type that would at least get my attention is if intercessory prayer was effective.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What evidence would be more persuasive? One type that would at least get my attention is if intercessory prayer was effective.

“ I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs.”
- Frederick Douglass, escaped slave

So far, the only thing that's twigged my attention was the "Milk Miracle". That seems kinda funky, especially if it only happens some of the time. It makes me think that something odd is going on here... though I don't think that "something" necessarily has to be a god.

 

[Willamena]

So far, the only thing that's twigged my attention was the "Milk Miracle". That seems kinda funky, especially if it only happens some of the time. It makes me think that something odd is going on here... though I don't think that "something" necessarily has to be a god.

Maybe non-religious statues drink milk, too, but no one yet has tried to feed them.

 

[autonomous1one1]

I agree that there is some weak evidence, including what you list and more. I submit that it is not of the kind of quality that any reasonable person relies on in any other area, and that it is better explained by other theories.

What evidence would be more persuasive? One type that would at least get my attention is if intercessory prayer was effective.

Greetings Auto. Effective intercessory prayer as evidence would be interesting, although there may be other explanations for it also. Your comment was noticed in the other thread on prayer that you are familiar with all of the 'scientific' studies on prayer and found the studies wanting, with no exceptions. Thus, I have been wanting to ask you what you think about Lynne McTaggart's "The Field" and "The Intention Experiment." Storm can cut us off if she deems this off-target but if one considers your effective intecessory prayer as evidence it could be remotely pertinent.

Regards,
a1

 

[Autodidact]

Greetings Auto. Effective intercessory prayer as evidence would be interesting, although there may be other explanations for it also. Your comment was noticed in the other thread on prayer that you are familiar with all of the 'scientific' studies on prayer and found the studies wanting, with no exceptions. Thus, I have been wanting to ask you what you think about Lynne McTaggart's "The Field" and "The Intention Experiment." Storm can cut us off if she deems this off-target but if one considers your effective intecessory prayer as evidence it could be remotely pertinent.

Regards,
a1

I don't think that is quite what I said and if so then I would like to amend that. I have read quite a lot, and think I'm familiar with the leading studies in this field. I have not found them all wanting, quite the contrary. Some of the studies have been quite good, and have found no effect from intercessory prayer. Some studies that seemed to indicate a small positive effect, initially, were found to be flawed because they did the retrospective error, in which the standards are changed after the study is completed, aka circling the arrows and calling it a bullseye.

Dr. McTaggart's and Dr. Popp's work is not about prayer, and I only know a little bit about it. I am skeptical, and would like to see others replicate these results. I am also curious about what exactly they think the mechanism is. I have not read her books.

In general, I am at least as skeptical about New Age claims as I am about religious claims.

In any case, if confirmed, this work would not provide evidence for the existence of any personal God.

 

[Father Heathen]

I look at it as if a god does exist, then it's either letting stuff run all on its own, or it's one cruel SOB. Either scenario leads me to the feeling of indifference I have about it all.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[aris]

While personal experience is sufficient evidence for the person having the experience, how can it qualify as evidence for anyone else? If I cannot repeat your experience and get the same results, then how can I measure the truthfulness of your experience?

As for what evidence of God's existence could there be, you would have to ask "what would be different about the universe if God existed?" If the claim by YEC's that everything is only 6,000 years old were true, then why do we find so many things that appear to be much older? The typical explanation is that God created everything to look the way it is, but that assumes characteristics of something of which we know nothing about.

why dont you try to ask god to prove hem self to you but you most also promisse to obeyhim once he does. do this with all honesty if you dare
your life will change

 

[Autodidact]

why dont you try to ask god to prove hem self to you but you most also promisse to obeyhim once he does. do this with all honesty if you dare
your life will change

Done that. No reply. You're right; my life has changed. Thanks.

 

[autonomous1one1]

I don't think that is quite what I said and if so then I would like to amend that. I have read quite a lot, and think I'm familiar with the leading studies in this field. I have not found them all wanting, quite the contrary. Some of the studies have been quite good, and have found no effect from intercessory prayer. Some studies that seemed to indicate a small positive effect, initially, were found to be flawed because they did the retrospective error, in which the standards are changed after the study is completed, aka circling the arrows and calling it a bullseye.

Dr. McTaggart's and Dr. Popp's work is not about prayer, and I only know a little bit about it. I am skeptical, and would like to see others replicate these results. I am also curious about what exactly they think the mechanism is. I have not read her books.

In general, I am at least as skeptical about New Age claims as I am about religious claims.

In any case, if confirmed, this work would not provide evidence for the existence of any personal God.

Thank you for your response, Autodidact. The following is the quote that my post was referring to and your amending statement seems quite consistent with the original.

......I'm familiar with all the research in this field, and the sum total result shows that prayer does not work. For example, .......

If my understanding is correct, your finding is that all of the significant research supporting that prayer is effective is flawed, but not some of the research finding no effectiveness. Your opinion is respected and that is why the question about Lynne McTaggart came up - whether or not you included in arriving at your finding all of the research she covers.

Am not sure that we are addressing the same McTaggart. The Lynne McTaggart of my post is a journalist and best-selling author including the two books mentioned above. Her subject matter in "The Intention Experiment" was broader than 'prayer' but included prayer of sorts. It was aimed at whether the mind can influence any physical reality remotely. Her book covered an enormous amount of research and her review of research is fairly in depth. However, it probably gets too far off target for me to attempt to derive any evidence of God from her analyses so will let it await another thread at another time.

 

[Father Heathen]

why dont you try to ask god to prove hem self to you but you most also promisse to obeyhim once he does. do this with all honesty if you dare
your life will change

What if I do end up finding god and he tells me that every single religion and holy book (including yours) are frauds and falsehoods?

 

[Copernicus]

Storm, in another thread, you asked me to contribute here. So here is my reaction to the OP (not having read any of the rest of the thread).

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....

I agree with the nitpicking. What atheists ought to say is that there is not reasonable evidence, not that there is no evidence at all. Then the argument can turn on whether these admittedly "weak" types of evidence are reasonable enough to license belief.

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

It would need to be evidence that satisfies Occam's Razor, i.e. that provides the simplest explanation to account for the facts. For example, a persistent, repeatable miracle that defied all attempts to explain scientifically, but which had a religious explanation, would count as reasonable evidence for the supernatural. Scientific proofs are never considered absolute or permanent, so the evidence would just have to be such that the religious explanation of some physical event was simpler than the alternative natural account.

 

[Willamena]

I would question the whole method of evidence having to be presented in order to be believed. It seems highly dubious.

 

[Storm]

I agree with the nitpicking. What atheists ought to say is that there is not reasonable evidence, not that there is no evidence at all. Then the argument can turn on whether these admittedly "weak" types of evidence are reasonable enough to license belief.

It would need to be evidence that satisfies Occam's Razor, i.e. that provides the simplest explanation to account for the facts. For example, a persistent, repeatable miracle that defied all attempts to explain scientifically, but which had a religious explanation, would count as reasonable evidence for the supernatural. Scientific proofs are never considered absolute or permanent, so the evidence would just have to be such that the religious explanation of some physical event was simpler than the alternative natural account.

Well, that makes sense, but you didn't really answer the question. In the other thread you challenged my assertion that God is beyond the scope of science. That implies you think science could potentially provide evidence for or against God's existence. So, my question is what that evidence would look like.

If I've misunderstood your position, please clarify.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I would question the whole method of evidence having to be presented in order to be believed. It seems highly dubious.

No doubt. I generally believe all claims as long as people say they have evidence. I can't believe that people would lie, or be mistaken about something like that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It would need to be evidence that satisfies Occam's Razor, i.e. that provides the simplest explanation ...

• Simplicity is exceptionally difficult to define.
• There is no basis for asserting that the "simplest explanation" is necessarily the correct one.
• The simplicity of a scientific theory has inherent value iff simplicity serves as a rough measure of falsifiability [see Popper].

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, that makes sense, but you didn't really answer the question. In the other thread you challenged my assertion that God is beyond the scope of science. That implies you think science could potentially provide evidence for or against God's existence. So, my question is what that evidence would look like.

That would depend on the god in question, wouldn't it?

Theoretically, any god that interacts with the natural universe would produce effects that could be measured scientifically in some way or another.