Questions for the atheists/agnostics: Have you ever contemplated what kind of evidence you would need to be (or begin to be) convinced of the existence of God? What would it take?

Questions for the theists: Do you believe there is evidence for the existence of God? What is that evidence?


[Edited for content]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2017 04:13PM by lurking in.

Empirical evidence that Zeus exists, or wait are you talking about Ra? Apollo?

Before I can rationally discuss this, please state which God you are asking about and state your reasoning as to why that God it the true god over all the others.

Here is a list that may help you find God:

http://pagan.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Deities

Is it really your position that if someone cannot name a specific deity as the creator God this somehow proves no god at all was involved? That's a stunning bit of illogic that you'd never dream of applying to any other event where the cause is under discussion.

It's a common argument, but not an especially clever or logical one.

Why is that an illogical argument? Having a common frame of reference is important and the wide variety of "Gods" out there lead to a lot of different "evidences" for the proof of their existence.

For example, proof of Zeus would be vastly different than proof for the Christian God.

His also asking for reasoning why the God in question is more likely to be the true one also works with the OP's question about what evidence would be required to show that that one is real.

Because this is an argument of ideology, not actual forensics.

There is no doubt that the universe exists and displays certain characteristics. Most honest conversations regarding the existence of a deity as the first cause of the universe will start by examining what we know and see if leads us to conquer what we don't know.

To arrive on the scene and say, "If you don't know who did this, you have nothing to add to this conversation" is simply idiotic. Deal with the parts you know, and then extrapolate to the unknown. No detective arrives on the scene and says, "If we can't at the start of our investigation name the person responsible for this, our investigation is pointless."

Look at what we know, and see which answer is most likely true after weighing all the factors.

Did the universe have a beginning?
Does it run based upon rules and perhaps design?

Those are good starts, but the list is long.

The question was asked what would convince us of God.

Ideology would not do it. Everyone of the gods on that list has an ideology associated with it. Often these ideologies have parts that conflict with others.,

The question remains, what ideology is being asked about, and why what that ideology selected above all the others?

Here is a hint to my question: If you can supply the empirical evidence to support a version of God, you have evidence I am willing to look at. If you can't even define the god at least in someway, you have no evidence.

We've been "investigating" since the beginning of our awareness of the world around us. Religion has produced nothing of substance to support their claims.

The investigations have never produced any evidence whatsoever. When you come to the end of the investigation, sometimes the root cause is "unknown" and there are no more rocks to look under unless new evidence arises.

If your premise is that something must have created this, the investigation must lead to that something. Then that something is studied in depth (how did the something come to exist?).

So, go ahead and postulate anything you want. If you can't find a way to investigate it - with definitive reproducible proof- then no, you are not adding anything to the conversation.

With evidence, we can advance in our investigation. If it is just brainstorming for ideas, that's great, but ideas without evidence are opinions, and everyone has those.

And you do know the difference between discussing "Ideology" and "the existence of God", right?

God is supposedly and entente, Ideology is a system of ideas and ideals that often has nothing to do with god. Are you saying that God is nothing but a system of ideas and ideals? If which one?

If you want to talks about what would get me to believe in God, ideology would be the last thing to talk about.

An entente should be able to be defined. If you can not define an entente, you can't have evidence of its existence, if you have evidence, you have something that defines the entente.

Is misrepresenting what I wrote in order to discredit my legitimate question the best you can do?

I asked a legitimate question, do you have an actual answer?

Funny; I've been thinking about this a lot this week.

I like to think that I'm fully willing to change my mind if ever provided with tangible, testable, repeatable evidence for god. But what kind of evidence could possibly work? I'm liable to dismiss any potential "spiritual experiences" or "miracles" as hallucinations, coincidences or tricks. If something like the Second Coming were to occur, I'd be more likely to explain it as an alien invasion or a massive "magic" trick than Jesus. Even if I were to die and come face-to-face with god, I'd still wonder if it was a dream, or if I had gone insane.

So I think the only way I can honestly answer the question is to frame it from the theists' point of view. If god did exist, and was both omniscient and omnipotent as the major monotheistic religions claim, then he must by definition know precisely what kind of evidence it would take to convince me, and furthermore be fully capable of providing that evidence. So why doesn't he? Why was god so active in the world back in the times before Christ (read: before history) but only pops up these days on toast or dogs' butts?

What I do know for certain is that "feeling" won't do it for me. Human emotions are incredibly volatile , and thus are terrible indicators of truth. If god actually wanted me to believe again, he'd have to do a far better job of making himself known.

That's the crux of the problem. It seems like the vast majority of the "evidence" people give for the existence of God is based on very mundane "miracles," the explanations for which are fairly simple and/or based on natural law (from the spontaneous disappearance of tumors to the existence of the universe, itself). But even "difficult" miracles could have explanations not requiring God--invoking finite alien intelligence and abilities makes more sense to me than demanding that an infinite God did it.

The god of the Bible is an evil, petty, jealous, mean, cruel monster. I'm glad he's not real.

Any believable evidence. There is none

According to fossil records, modern man has existed for approximately 200,000 years. Yet, Christians believe that Christ appeared 2000 years ago. And they base this belief on texts that were written long after the fact.

What was so special about that time? Where was God the prior 200,000 years?

We know the earth isn't 6000 years old. We know man isn't 6000 years old.

For me to believe, I would need a personal visitation from God, in front of scientists, family, and friends that I respect.

rebeljamesdean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For me to believe, I would need a personal
> visitation from God, in front of scientists,
> family, and friends that I respect.


^^ That.

(I still might believe him/her/it to be an alien though.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2017 04:37PM by Greyfort.

For me, it (appearance, message, etc) must be reproducible. A one time event is subject to trickery, elaborate preparations, hallucination, etc.

rebeljamesdean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> For me to believe, I would need a personal
> visitation from God, in front of scientists,
> family, and friends that I respect.

If God is who many of is imagine he may be, do you believe you could spend time in his presence and still retain any semblance of free will afterward? Do you really think the being that could speak universes into existence could chat a few moments with you, and you'd leave the experience somehow free to ignore him?

If he values human free will above all else, haven't you set up circumstances that are impossible?

What if he didn't tell you what to think, say or do? He just chatted and said "do you thing." Isn't free-will intact?

I can't even imagine hypothetical evidence that could convince me. Maybe personally witnessing God, or other spiritual entities, multiple times while not under the influence of any drugs? But that scenario is so implausible it's hardly worth considering.

If the next time I am in my garden God descended in a pillar of light and then took me flying through the skies like the ride Superman gave to Lois Lane I would be tempted to believe but I would also have to wonder if someone slipped something into my wine.

However, as the Bible states in "Luke 11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet." Huh? Jonas? Why drag him into this. Nice sidestep there Jesus.

The Pharisees and Herrod and everyone were always asking Jesus for a sign. He dodged the issue every time. Maybe he was Mormon?

"The Pharisees and Sadducees came up, and testing Jesus, they asked Him to show them a sign from heaven. But He replied to them, "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.' "And in the morning, 'There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.' Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times?"

Now that is how you dodge a question! Learn from the master.

So all I know for sure, is if I ever get a sign from God, it won't be from Jesus cause he doesn't do them.

This was on one of my philosophy tests a few weeks ago regarding ultimate reality and such. I told my prof that it would take god him/her/itself coming down and proving as such and even then I would wonder if I was having a psychotic break or someone slipped me a heavy dose of LSD or other hallucinogen.

An that's the problem with "God" as described, at least the modern Christian God... He's illusive, evasive, and his "acts" (weather, people healing, etc) happen at the exact same rate as if he didn't exist.

The amount of evidence would be pretty very large. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (or the quote is something like that). Think of the recent shows where "God" was a character who spoke through a chosen prophet... There was "Joan of Arcadia" and "Eli Stone" come to mind. In both cases, even after the "Prophet" character thought they had enough proof that they were talking to God, it turned out that they also had some brain malfunction to through doubt into it.

If God were to come down, show himself to thousands of people, an perform repeatable miracles, regrowing someone's amputated leg, people who were a well known to be amputee's maybe then I'd believe, but there'd have to be a lot of evidence to show that it wasn't an elaborate hoax.

For me all of the things in creation we see with our extremely complex eyes, is ample proof of the existence of God.

Romans 1:20

"Ever since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities—God’s eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through the things God has made. So humans are without excuse."

Bekah:

What other possibilities besides God have you considered?

It would take a personal appearance by the god itself, so large that everyone would see it, and it would have to explain why there had been no contact for so long. It would also have to explain/apologize for a lot of things that make no sense, and would have to make some pretty hefty promises about not doing such things in the future, doing only good things, and not letting any more of the bad shit happen. And those changes would have to begin immediately and be visible and real with no doubt. Even then, I would probably suspect some type of mass hysteria brought on by something that somebody slipped into the water, or a group hallucination of some kind, or possibly an alien invasion from good aliens. So I guess I am saying I doubt there could ever be any evidence that would actually convince me beyond doubt.

Awesome Post - that was very entertaining.

You're describing the "Santa Claus god," AuntSukey, used to humorous effect by RealJamesDean, below: a god who will "deliver the goods" just the way we want them. God doesn't work that way. For one thing, he does allow bad things to happen to good people--even you, as you well know. This is the problem of theodicy, not easily (or wisely) covered in a post.

You post reminds me, in a strange way, of Madeleine Murray O'Hare, the famous atheist (and crook), who went out in a lighting storm and, screaming, demanded that God prove Himself to exist by striking her dead with a lightning bolt! He didn't--confirming her belief that He isn't.

Christ described this approach in Matthew 11:

"...like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their playmates, ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.’

Methinks you want Santa Claus or Mandrake the Magician, not the Creator of the Cosmos.

Just one miracle

Maybe a miracle would convince you, and maybe it would not.

According to the Gospel records, quite a few people witnessed, or even benefited from miracles. Some came to believe; others did not. How an individual soul intersects with the Divine, or not, is a mystery, at least to me.

You can throw zingers at us believers, and we may provide acceptable answers, or maybe not. I wish I could come up with the one verifiable event (or Bible verse) that would make you slap your palm against the side of your head, and say, "Yes--YES!! It's all true--I want to be a Christian!"

But I know that is not to be. Somehow I think there's a little something itching at your spiritual scalp. If you want to give Christianity a fair chance, consider going to "christian book" (cbd.com), then enter "apologetics" into the search field. I especially recommend titles by Lee Strobel and Ravi Zacharias (a former Brahman priest, and I'm not talking "Boston Brahman!")

Last thought: when you stand before the Almighty, I'm pretty sure you won't be quizzed on the Genesis narrative. It's your understanding of and faith in Christ that counts.

I haven't zinged or criticized anyone. I asked a question which I think deserves an answer. If you can't answer it, just tell me.

Okay, James, there's a bit of a sassy element to your questions, but I take them seriously.

I ask you to reflect honestly on your motives.Do you want to know about God, or do you want a snap answer to dismiss God? With respect to your sentiments above ("It makes no difference") (tip of the hat to Lethbridge here, too), if there IS a God, then it has to affect our understanding of ourselves and what we do with our lives: who we are, what is our purpose, and most importantly, how we prepare for eternity.

An entertaining approach is Warner Wallace's "Cold Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels." He points out that pieces of evidence which at first seem weak or inconclusive can be combined for a powerful case. Bear in mind that "jury nullification" can occur with even the most iron-clad case. That would be judicial equivalent of the "hard heart" I discussed on another thread.

"Cold Case Christianity" is an enjoyable, non-academic read. See if your local library has it.

Caffiend - would you mind answering my question? Please be responsive.

I'm trying, James, but I fear I'd start repeating myself.

Miracles served God's purpose in a certain way at certain times in Mankind's past. God now uses Scripture, the Holy Spirit, the witness of Nature and Creation, and people (like your poor, fumbling Caffiend here) to bring people to faith. And, once in a rare while, a miracle.

I see myself as a worker in the field: you know, some sow the seed, others water and till, and others work the harvest. I like to think the seed has been sown somewhere in your heart and mind; I'll never know, of course. This is part of my faith practice.

I also realize that sometimes the most I can hope to be is not a jerk Christian who impedes other people's work. I apologize if I've been offensive in anyway. It took me a few years to go through various permutations of agnosticism, remnant Christian Science, New Age "spirituality," atheism, Eastern thought, etc. I only ask that you consider that God is so much more than your LDS-tinged concepts, and works mostly in ways we are ignorant of, both experientially and theologically.

Last thought, not that it really argues things one way or another: There are three parts of the Bible where miracles are clustered: The Exodus/Canaan conquest period (Moses, Aaron, Joshua and Judges); the Elijah/Elisha narratives, and the Gospel/Acts period. They are found in other parts of the Bible, but not so much. (Just a Scripture tidbit.)

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to the Gospel records...

Following the admonition of Voltaire ("If you would speak with me, first define your terms"), we have to clear up the terminology first: the canonical gospels are not "records" in the way we use that term today. "Record" connotes something like a stenographer's report of court proceedings, but the canonical gospels (not to mention the myriad other gospels and early Christian documents that were deemed unimportant or heretical by early church leaders; you can read translations of many of them at <earlychristianwritings.com>) are more akin to a journalist's article on a 50-year-old urban legend to run in the National Enquirer. We don't know who wrote the canonical gospels; we don't know who wrote most of the letters attributed to Paul; we can date these documents with reasonable certainty, and the earliest of the gospels did not appear until around 70 CE, 40 years after the events it purports to describe. The latest canonical gospel, John, did not appear until the end of the first century (the fact that it is written in first person tells us one of two things, only one of which is likely: the author was present at the events and lived an extraordinarily long time, or he was comfortable making things up). Time wasted investigating the claims of the canonical gospels as if they are, pardon the phrase, gospel truth and not of extremely dubious and unknown origin, might be better spent sussing out the legal ramifications of Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

Imaginary beings exist if you think they exist, but only in your mind. But if we are all one mind, like a sea anemone, the imaginary being could be real to us all. Yup, you have to think like that to make "God" work. Fortunately, my species of talking ape has quite the imagination.

What would it take for you to believe that Santa Claus actually lives?

All it would take is a personal appearance from Santa, all 12 of his reindeer, a few elves, and all the presents I want that I never told anybody about.

Yeah - then I would believe. Also, bring Santas daughter Sandy Clause, with him, who is magically smitten with me.

Now, my belief is getting really strong.

Especially if Sandy is immodestly revealing her shoulders.

Coming from the North Pole I am sure she would be fully clothed.

Email from HeavenlyFather@CelestialCity.org:


specifying the location of my lost car keys

Why do all my emails bounce back.

First of all, I would have to have a detailed definition of what "god" means. The evidence would have to start out by stating precisely what it was trying to prove.

I have never seen any definition of any god that is not logically faulty and ultimately absurd.

What does it make a difference if there is a god or not?

If there isn't, it makes no difference. If there is, it may make a difference.

I could care less if he/she/it exists or not.

I'm with L the R on this one. It does not matter.

Evidence

I think both of us would accept real evidence. But it doesn't exist.

I keep seeing a billboard that says there is evidence, so, golly, there must be.

Show himself.

I know, we mere mortals couldn't withstand the perfect glory of God yadda yadda yadda. Okay, but if God is omnipotent, then he has the ability to show us a dialed down version of himself that we could withstand but still be left knowing, okay, that was definitely God.

With all respect, StrayMutt, He has:

"He is the image of the invisible God..." (Col. 1.15a)

"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits a of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,..." (Col 2.8,9)

"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,a who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped ,but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.(Phil 2.5-8).

We're wandering a bit here, theologically, Mutt, but that's what the Incarnation is about: in some mysterious way, Someone who has no physical essence, or "stuff,"* made Himself of molecular matter, and lived and died among us. Some people didn't "get it" (e.g. Pilate), some people refused to get it (Pharisees and Sadducees). Some people were slow to get it (Thomas, Caffiend), and others got it over the course of time (Peter, James, and John).

So, Christ is your "dialed down" (neat term!) of the Divine. I don't expect an "ah-HA!" epiphany moment, but I hope you'll tuck that away for serious consideration. It may seems to strange to believe, I know, but when you consider the other pieces of the Divine mystery, it fits in nicely.

*"God is a spirit" (John 4)

Yeah, he was so dialed down that he needed people like you to try and convince others.

I'm thinking maybe dialed up enough that he could figure out how to actually communicate and present himself to every person at once, in ways people could verify, compete with answers. Nothing lame like faith or hearsay.

Maybe he could let scientists experiment to verify whatever is in question so they can agree. The god would have to show us behind his magic curtain and explain the tricks. He'd need to have pretty good answers about why he exists and what he is made of.

I would like him to demonstrate and explain how he is breaking laws of physics. I would expect he would know what each among us would need to meet our standards of evidence, being god and all.

Clearly it doesn't take much for most to believe. Just give them a book of stories and tell them to have faith.

For others, like me, the evidence would have to be extremely sound. It would need to be externally verifiable by anyone who wants to check the evidence first hand. No holograms from other dimensions or night-club level miracles will do without meeting testable standards. Depending on the nature of this god, I'd need the whys, the chemistry, and proof that would rule out fraud.

I'd expect real verifiable answers to questions we have about everything from the cure for cancer to the origins of the universe and before, including the god's origins.

As others said above, this would be an extraordinary claim, so it would take extraordinary evidence. I'd accept the evidence that would become undisputable. I'd need some proof to rule out things like aliens or mass hysteria. I figure a god could dial it up to address us on our intellectual level.

Funny how the gods seem to have the qualities of the people who invent them. If a real god were as petty as the one in the Bible, it would indeed be disappointing.

We're talking EVIDENCE here, and none of that qualifies. It's just apocryphal -- a story or statement of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true. And since the question is what it would take to convince ME, that stuff doesn't do it.

You keep quoting the scriptures for evidence of God.

The books included in the OT and NT were selected hundreds of years later and were written and compiled by people who were not live witnesses to the actual events.

All the miracles described defy common sense and logic, they aren't any different from Santa Claus.

NONE of these things I mention are proof that they didn't happen.

You cannot prove a negative.

You have to really need and desire to believe, to overlook the absence of evidence to support these beliefs.

Many people are comfortable reconciling this - I am not.

Give me all the perks a GA gets, and I'll believe anything.

The term "god" is incoherent nonsense. The God-botherers have never completed the first step of communicating what they mean when they use the word. So, that is a first step. Then we can discuss logical and coherent proofs for said utterance.

Here is a simple question: "What is god?" How can you determine "god" from "not-god." Should you pass "god" on the street, how would you know? How would you know if thought you had passed "god"on the street and learn that you were wrong?

We non-deists really need to stop arguing were the deists start. We should always make them take the first step in any legitimate discussion and define our terms. If term are ambiguous then they have no communicative value and the discussion is absurd on its face.

HH =)

Yeah, HH.

What is it going to take for you to believe in %se*$#!dix?

I would probably believe again if gawd came down and parked his flaming chariot at Home Depot and then moved the Wasatch Front mountains over to the other side of the valley by Tooele. Yeah, then I'd believe again, for a while.

It's easy to get bogged down in definition of terms when discussing the existence/non-existence of God.

To respond accurately to this question is very simple.

Given the reality of the placebo effect, it is easy to understand how early humans got the idea that an invisible force was pulling the strings. We have always been driven to find explanations for the unexplained.

You are asking what follow-up experiment would convince me that a God was responsible for unnamed unexplained phenomena.

Simple: Set up a double blind test, which can be replicated and doesn't include the possibility of placebo effect and I'll accept the result.

I conducted my own private test before I became an atheist. I used intuition instead of prayer over a couple of months and had more success than when I let Jesus take the wheel. So, for me, I realized that I loved me more than God does---OR---there is no God and those prayer answers were not from him.

Now that I'm so much happier and peaceful as a godless Buddhist with no Satan and no Jesus, it would be pretty hard on me to go back to the guilt-apology-fear syndrome again.

Oh, and by the way, one of my grown sons recently told me he felt inspired in his recovery from alcoholism by the fact that I had made such massive changes to myself late in life. Made him feel that he could too.




Kathleen