Why Expect Evidence of God?

[Sunstone]

It seems to me that many theists, along with many non-theists, to some degree expect there to be logical and/or empirical evidence of deity while -- at the same time -- believing that, if deity exists, deity is supernatural. If that's so, is there any contradiction between supposing that, if deity exists, and if deity is supernatural, there should be some logical and/or empirical evidence for deity?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It seems to me that many theists, along with many non-theists, to some degree expect there to be logical and/or empirical evidence of deity while -- at the same time -- believing that, if deity exists, deity is supernatural. If that's so, is there any contradiction between supposing that, if deity exists, and if deity is supernatural, there should be some logical and/or empirical evidence for deity?

Are the two necessarily mutually exclusive? Does something being supernatural mean that there can't be empirical evidence of its existence?

 

[ignition]

Are the two necessarily mutually exclusive? Does something being supernatural mean that there can't be empirical evidence of its existence?

Yeah. It isn't possible to prove something empirically, at least upon request, something that is considered supernatural. Technically speaking, I did see very blatant empirical evidence of something that is supernatural, but it isn't something that can be replicated upon request because of its very nature.

 

[Sunstone]

Are the two necessarily mutually exclusive? Does something being supernatural mean that there can't be empirical evidence of its existence?

Now that you mention it, I think I have been wrong to believe that. I suppose a supernatural entity could influence nature in some ways. That really, really torpedos the whole premise of this thread, though. Worse, it's such an obvious criticism to make, even if I overlooked it myself. You've ruined my whole day, Kilgore! Absolutely ruined it, I say!

But thank you, anyway.

 

[HeatherAnn]

It seems to me that many theists, along with many non-theists, to some degree expect there to be logical and/or empirical evidence of deity while -- at the same time -- believing that, if deity exists, deity is supernatural. If that's so, is there any contradiction between supposing that, if deity exists, and if deity is supernatural, there should be some logical and/or empirical evidence for deity?

Yeah! Basic logic!
Exactly & what's even more ironic is that there are countless, infinite ways of defining God. No 2 people see anything, including an abstract concept like God, the same.
To assume to know for certain that none of it exists, or all of it exists, is claiming to be all-knowing oneself!

And as Paul Tillich explained, God can be universally simplified by that which one worships - one's "ultimate concern." To deny that someone has a concern that is more ultimate than other concerns is ridiculous.
To suggest that everything that is REAL can be measured & "scientifically" proven is also short-sighted... why we do many things we do, including goals & plans for the future - cannot be proven, yet the consesquences are real.

IMO, What it comes down to - both in Theist and Non-theist groups is group thought. People are too quick to go along with what "everyone's thinking" & too lazy or scared to think for themselves.

The most pressing question that I very rarely have come across - if ever - is... "Which of all ultimate concerns is best, for this moment in my life?"

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You've ruined my whole day, Kilgore! Absolutely ruined it, I say!

Aw, that just makes my day!

Seriously, I can see how that would slip by in forming the thread idea though. I've done similar things before. Sometimes the simple things slip by (particularly assumptions) if you don't catch them early enough in the formulation process.

 

[Sunstone]

"Which of all ultimate concerns is best, for this moment in my life?"

I find it interesting that you would add the qualification, "for this moment in my life". If I were thinking along the same lines as you, I would also want to add that qualification. But I don't think that's all that common a thing to do. Rather, I think most of us are encouraged to find an ultimate concern that is ever lasting. What do you think?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I'm going to agree with Kilgore, but I'm going to add this: why do we assume that something is supernatural? Just because we have no current way to explain something that is, doesn't mean it's supernatural. All that means is that we currently don't have the proper knowledge to explain it in empirical means.

 

[Meow Mix]

It seems to me that many theists, along with many non-theists, to some degree expect there to be logical and/or empirical evidence of deity while -- at the same time -- believing that, if deity exists, deity is supernatural. If that's so, is there any contradiction between supposing that, if deity exists, and if deity is supernatural, there should be some logical and/or empirical evidence for deity?

There is if the deity expects you to believe it exists with eternal consequences on the line (and the deity is benevolent).

 

[idav]

It seems to me that many theists, along with many non-theists, to some degree expect there to be logical and/or empirical evidence of deity while -- at the same time -- believing that, if deity exists, deity is supernatural. If that's so, is there any contradiction between supposing that, if deity exists, and if deity is supernatural, there should be some logical and/or empirical evidence for deity?

If something is supernatural then there isn't necessarily evidence since supernatural implies that we are missing something. Once we attain the evidence though it is no longer seen as supernatural but rather and explainable process of a natural world. That said I think that finding evidence for god would mean finding that god is part of the natural world.

 

[Quintessence]

Now that you mention it, I think I have been wrong to believe that. I suppose a supernatural entity could influence nature in some ways.

How?

If something is truly supernatural, it has nothing whatsoever in common with nature (aka, all of reality). If two things have absolutely nothing in common, they can't interact with each other, period. This problem of interaction makes the very idea of "supernatural" anything patently illogical and nonsensical to me. Even if it does exist, it can have zero interaction or influence on reality. So it might as well not exist.

 

[seeking4truth]

What would you accept as evidence?

Over centuries prophets and many true religious leaders as well as many ordinary believers, including people of the highest moral character, have said that they have experienced God in one way or another.

Why is their evidence not acceptable?

 

[Dickyh995]

First post here although a long time lurker...

It seems to me that science deals with only the natural world and is the best method of taking observation and reaching conclusions based on evidencen (scientific method). Even if god is claimed as completely supernatural, any miracle claim would necessarily be interaction in the natural world, which should be completely in the realms of science to investigate. So, yes, i would expect that even if god is supernatural there would be evidence of his interactions with the natural world.

I haven't yet seen or been presented with any...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How?

If something is truly supernatural, it has nothing whatsoever in common with nature (aka, all of reality). If two things have absolutely nothing in common, they can't interact with each other, period.

I'm not sure that's what most people mean when they talk of something being "supernatural". The way I understand it, the supernatural can still interact with the natural. If I had some magical ability to summon fire, for instance, it could be defined as supernatural if there were no scientific reasoning for it, but it could still physically interact with the physical world. If the supernatural exists in any way that is meaningful and detectable, it should still have some discernable impact on the physical or natural world. Otherwise, as you say, it might as well not exist and we'd have no reason to believe it did.

 

[idav]

I'm not sure that's what most people mean when they talk of something being "supernatural". The way I understand it, the supernatural can still interact with the natural. If I had some magical ability to summon fire, for instance, it could be defined as supernatural if there were no scientific reasoning for it, but it could still physically interact with the physical world. If the supernatural exists in any way that is meaningful and detectable, it should still have some discernable impact on the physical or natural world. Otherwise, as you say, it might as well not exist and we'd have no reason to believe it did.

If you could conjure fire there would likely be some natural means of it happening. Supernatural would just mean it is beyond our understanding of how it could naturally happen.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Does something being supernatural mean that there can't be empirical evidence of its existence?

No, it means that there need not be empirical evidence of its existence.

 

[Meow Mix]

No, it means that there need not be empirical evidence of its existence.

Does this mean that a priori truths are supernatural, such as "If A > B and B > C then A > C?" Because that doesn't require empirical evidence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Does this mean that a priori truths are supernatural, ...

No ...

 

[Meow Mix]

No ...

I'm just pointing out that there must be something more than "doesn't require empirical evidence" to sufficiently define what might be meant by "supernatural" as opposed to "natural."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm just pointing out that there must be something more than "doesn't require empirical evidence" to sufficiently define what might be meant by "supernatural" as opposed to "natural."

You could also point out that pizza is significantly different from labne, but that too would not be at all relevant to my comment.