What kind of evidence would prove god ?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

How do you know that?

Because God has already revealed it to us.

This is the central mystery to your argument antiskeptic, you are actually ignoring the main revelation from God while at the same time harking on about how great revelations from God are and (most hypocritical) how it isn't our place to say what a revelation from God shouldn't be, ie we don't dictate to God what he reveals to us. Yet as soon as you are confronted with a revelation from God you don't like, you ignore it.

Think of it this way. God has already decided we are bad at personal assessment and good at empirical assessment and he has been kind enough to reveal that to us. He has revealed the wisdom of his creation to us, and nicely enough has made it easy for anyone to see and judge and you don't need your 3rd eye opened or any of that stuff, you don't need to be a Christian, you don't need to be born again you just need to look, with your normal 2 eyes. That is revelation 1 (the Big One).

Now, you are supposing that some time after that God pulled you aside personally and said "Its all bull****", (I'm paraphrase) "Actually I've made it so you can have high confidence in any personal revelation I give to you. The other revelation was nonsense, after all I'm God, I can do what I like, I'm a boss"

Ok, so lets go through the difference scenarios here.

1) God lies. Both of those were actually revelation from God, but he has no requirement to hold to what he has already revealed and thus some of his revelations can be lies. You thus are left in a situation were even if you suppose all the revelations from God actually are from God you cannot have confidence in them because you cannot tell if God is lying or not. God could make you have confidence in them, but since he can lie that doesn't mean anything for the truth value of what he is making you have confidence in.

2) God doesn't lie. Which means the fault must lie some where with you and how you assessed the meaning of both revelations. Some where you misunderstood one, or both, of the revelations from God. Which means you cannot have confidence in your ability to accurately assess revelations from God, irrespective of what ever God is doing.

3) Its not God. This speaks for itself, if it isn't God at all doing this then you cannot have confidence it is God at all.

Liamario

What kind of evidence would prove god?

Anything. Anything at all really. Anything.

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

How about appearing at every moment in time simultaneously and speaking to everyone who has ever lived and will ever live? Omniscience + omnipotence would make that pretty damn easy for god to do.... Innnnnnnn 5..... 4....... 3......


:pac:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How would what I suggested not show that it was omniscient, infinite and omnipresent?
If it can interact in any way it chooses at any point in space time, to the point of being able to access other universes (or no universe at all) and interact fully with them, then it would be omnipresent (and therefore infinite), omni-powerful and omniscient. What else is it missing?

I broadly agree that would be impressive evidence, but what would turn it into actual scientific evidence ?

Basically if it could be established as scientific fact (and not opinion) that this being/spirit existed, and was also infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, the supreme being and origin of all things, (as most mainstream theism claims) then it could said that 'God' exists.

Liamario wrote: »

What kind of evidence would prove god?

Anything. Anything at all really. Anything.

Hmm, a bit too theistic for my liking. I'd much prefer some scientifically proven evidence that it was actually God that did it, and not left open to something else.

Liamario

Sertus wrote: »

Hmm, a bit too theistic for my liking. I'd much prefer some scientifically proven evidence that it was actually God that did it, and not left open to something else.

I think you've failed to read between the lines

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Liamario wrote: »

I think you've failed to read between the lines

Oh no, not more theism. :pac:

Obliq

An extraordinary event/miracle, like raising someone from the dead, creating a new planet etc. etc.

Sertus wrote: »

Basically if it could be established as scientific fact (and not opinion) that this being/spirit existed, and was also infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, the supreme being and origin of all things, (as most mainstream theism claims) then it could said that 'God' exists.

Hmmm. Dark matter? Maybe "God" already is scientific fact. Would explain "God's" apparent inability to change anything when asked to do so.

Liamario

Sertus wrote: »

Oh no, not more theism. :pac:

I'm atheist. The point I was making, is that I am confident that not a single ounce of evidence will be shown which proves god; ever!

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Liamario wrote: »

I'm atheist. The point I was making, is that I am confident that not a single ounce of evidence will be shown which proves god; ever!

Indeed, and I'd like to narrow it down even further to what actually would, as most suggestions of what would be 'evidence', would not be scientific evidence at all to me.

e.g. even if a being/spirit could juggle suns on demand as someone suggested, this would not be scientific evidence that it was 'God.'

Mark Hamill

Sertus wrote: »

I broadly agree that would be impressive evidence, but what would turn it into actual scientific evidence ?

Basically if it could be established as scientific fact (and not opinion) that this being/spirit existed, and was also infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, the supreme being and origin of all things, (as most mainstream theism claims) then it could said that 'God' exists.

Well the difference between scientific fact and opinion is reproducibility, and from independent sources. So if you mix my, and Nervous Wreck's, responses together you end up with an omniscient, infinite and omnipresent being who simultaneously proves it to everyone at once (by letting everyone play with every level of the universe).

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Zombrex wrote: »

Because God has already revealed it to us.

Are you back to utilising a conflation here (to which I have responded: 40,000 people not having a revelation from God is a different thing to 1 having a revelation from God)? Your counter to the fact that the two are different things: "how can a man tell the difference between them without method" invokes the need for a method when:

a) there is no absolute need for a "method". Only if the means chosen by God needs method is method needed (say in the case of fallible senses)

b) most fatally, you reason in a circle since method doesn't itself provide confidence. The point was made about method being mere vehicle and that God is the decider on what the vehicle carries by way of confidence quotient. You might respond to that now so we can progress?

This is the central mystery to your argument antiskeptic, you are actually ignoring the main revelation from God

a) I'm not ignoring it, I saying it potentially ranks less than Revelation when it comes to confidence-raising about God's existence. I don't see any means to argue one means more confidence raising than the other and so the argument halts at potential (which has consequences sufficient)

b) how do you conclude "the main"? If there is a higher confidence-raising attached by God to a means of making himself known then that becomes the main Revelation.

(paraphrasing antiskeptic) "it isn't our place to say what a revelation from God shouldn't be, ie we don't dictate to God what he reveals to us."

Indeed. Are you suggesting we have control of it? Elaborate, remembering that empiricism is in his hands too. Are you the one to decide that God's preferred means of self demonstration need be empirical. You're going quite far and so do need an argument to establish this.

Yet as soon as you are confronted with a revelation from God you don't like, you ignore it.

What revelation would that be?

Think of it this way. God has already decided we are bad at personal assessment

Revelation doesn't rely on personal assessment, it relies on God imparting knowledge of his existence directly and without the medium of method. He doesn't need method to bring things about - he speaks and it is.

Rather than keep repeating this mantra of personal assessment (which receives the same counter) could you progress things and deal with the counter?

Now, you are supposing that some time after that God pulled you aside personally and said "Its all bull****", (I'm paraphrase) "Actually I've made it so you can have high confidence in any personal revelation I give to you. The other revelation was nonsense, after all I'm God, I can do what I like, I'm a boss"

Who's saying the other revelation is worthless? If God is spiritual and I am spiritual (in the sense of my consisting of a heirarchy: spirit > mind > body) then the primary means of God's relating with me will be spiritual. Sure, he can take on empirical form but there isn't any particular need to do that - especially since empiricism is subject to fallibility and because we know that, doubt can enter. You can only be tentitive with empiricism.

Whilst general revelation speaks of God (in the sense of understanding him from what he has made) and adds a layer to the cake, it's not quite the same thing as direct, personal contact.

1) God lies. Both of those were actually revelation from God, but he has no requirement to hold to what he has already revealed and thus some of his revelations can be lies.

What lies would those be?

Undergod

To be honest, any huge cosmic event or personal revelation I observer, seems to me to rationally be stronger evidence in favour of mental illness than the existence of a deity. Lots of people are crazy and hallucinate impossible events or personal communication with supernatural beings; there has never been strong objective evidence in favour of a deity. So the weight is already hugely skewed towards mental illness.

Now of course, saying that, by definition I'm not exactly thinknig rationally if this event comes to pass, so my views on the matter may change.

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well the difference between scientific fact and opinion is reproducibility, and from independent sources. So if you mix my, and Nervous Wreck's, responses together you end up with an omniscient, infinite and omnipresent being who simultaneously proves it to everyone at once (by letting everyone play with every level of the universe).

It might go someway to proving the being/spirits ability to be omnipresent, but I'm still not sure about infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent, in all times and space, past present and future.

So scientifically speaking, how best could this be independently monitored on a sufficient scale and reproduced as many times as necessary ( assuming this being/spirit was willing to co-operate) ?

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Sertus wrote: »

Infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent...

So scientifically speaking, how best could this be independently monitored on a sufficient scale and reproduced as many times as necessary?

The answer is in the question..


_


Does anyone see a problem with subjecting God to scientific tests to prove that he's God? What does that make Science .. if not god. And atheists insist theirs isn't a religion :rolleyes:

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

The answer is in the question..


_


Does anyone see a problem with subjecting God to scientific tests to prove that he's God? What does that make Science .. if not god. And atheists insist theirs isn't a religion :rolleyes:

I'm referring to the scientists who would be gathering said scientific evidence, and they are not infinite.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

And atheists insist theirs isn't a religion :rolleyes:

Does believing in the existence of God means ones believes in the existence of all gods?

BTW - Buddhism is an atheistic religion but that does not mean all atheists are Buddhists or have a religion. No matter how much you want to believe atheism is a religion - that does not make it true.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Does believing in the existence of God means ones believes in the existence of all gods?

No.

BTW - Buddhism is an atheistic religion but that does not mean all atheists are Buddhists or have a religion. No matter how much you want to believe atheism is a religion - that does not make it true.

Religion in the sense of being a faith based system. I take it you don't see the double irony of Science being knelt down to when it comes to declaring on Gods existence?

Ironic in that God is subject to Science

Ironic in that God would have been the one who 'invented' science as a way of arriving at truths. Which is, of course, the subject of discussion

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Sertus wrote: »

I'm referring to the scientists who would be gathering said scientific evidence, and they are not infinite.

So instead of declaring God exists, they'd arrive at a tentitive conclusion that God exists.

I take it from your silence that you have no problem with something God would have invented (Science as a way to truth) being the decision maker on whether the Inventor of Science exists?

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

No.




Religion in the sense of being a faith based system. I take it you don't see the double irony of Science being knelt down to when it comes to declaring on Gods existence?

Ironic in that God is subject to Science

Ironic in that God would have been the one who 'invented' science as a way of arriving at truths. Which is, of course, the subject of discussion

I don't see anyone kneeling down to science.

The question asked by the OP was what kind of scientific evidence would prove the existence of God.

Since you already believe in the existence of God and therefore require no evidence whatsoever, I am a bit puzzled by your presence in this thread.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Since you already believe in the existence of God and therefore require no evidence whatsoever, I am a bit puzzled by your presence in this thread.

Not all are as puzzled as you.

swampgas

antiskeptic wrote: »

Ironic in that God would have been the one who 'invented' science as a way of arriving at truths. Which is, of course, the subject of discussion

So God created a world, which seems to obey scientific principles, in such a way that he'd be impossible to find?

And he created me in such a way that having studied the world he created, I conclude he doesn't exist?

The creator of the universe is quite the shy retiring type these days.

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

So instead of declaring God exists, they'd arrive at a tentitive conclusion that God exists.

I take it from your silence that you have no problem with something God would have invented (Science as a way to truth) being the decision maker on whether the Inventor of Science exists?

I'm not too keen on analogies as they are rarely equivalent, but if you mean do I have a problem with God being detected by my burglar alarm if he broke into my house, and I might doubt the result because in theory he caused the invention of the burglar alarm, that would not be my first and foremost thought ; I'd simply be more interested in how could it be proven scientifically that he was in fact God and not some merely God like intruder.

On a separate point :

Clearly many of us prefer to rely and operate on a high standard of evidence rather than belief for the important things in life. I don't think that is an unreasonable position. Knowing that many perfectly reasonable and moral people will only believe with a high standard of evidence, why would a loving God decide that no such evidence will be provided to the vast majority of the human race, thus potentially condemning many honestly skeptical human beings to hell ?

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

Religion in the sense of being a faith based system. I take it you don't see the double irony of Science being knelt down to when it comes to declaring on Gods existence?

Ironic in that God is subject to Science

Ironic in that God would have been the one who 'invented' science as a way of arriving at truths. Which is, of course, the subject of discussion

Atheism does not encompass anything to do with science. You can be utterly ignorant of anything science-related and still be an atheist. Atheism is about lack of faith - for any reason - in the claim of religions. Nothing more.

It's such a lame argument. "Okay so we need faith for our beliefs but SO DO YOU!"

No, we don't need faith to not have faith.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not all are as puzzled as you.

I think you'll find they are toying with you.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think you'll find they are toying with you.

They can do whatever they like so long as they bring their arguments into the playpen with them.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Dades wrote: »

Atheism does not encompass anything to do with science. You can be utterly ignorant of anything science-related and still be an atheist.

Then let me clarify: I was addressing those atheists who place their faith in science. Especially those who would worship Science to the point where they rely on it to establish the existence of it's Inventor.

In other words, most in this forum.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you back to utilising a conflation here (to which I have responded: 40,000 people not having a revelation from God is a different thing to 1 having a revelation from God)? Your counter to the fact that the two are different things: "how can a man tell the difference between them without method" invokes the need for a method when:

a) there is no absolute need for a "method". Only if the means chosen by God needs method is method needed (say in the case of fallible senses)

b) most fatally, you reason in a circle since method doesn't itself provide confidence. The point was made about method being mere vehicle and that God is the decider on what the vehicle carries by way of confidence quotient. You might respond to that now so we can progress?

I already have. God has already decided we are as we are.

antiskeptic wrote: »

a) I'm not ignoring it, I saying it potentially ranks less than Revelation when it comes to confidence-raising about God's existence.

But you don't decide that, God does.

antiskeptic wrote: »

b) how do you conclude "the main"? If there is a higher confidence-raising attached by God to a means of making himself known then that becomes the main Revelation.

Main as in God's creation. All other actions come secondary to his creation, by definition.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you suggesting we have control of it?

No, exactly the opposite. I'm pointing out that your argument falls down precisely because we don't control it, God does. You can say the revelation from creation is not important, but that is you attempting to tell God what is or isn't important

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you the one to decide that God's preferred means of self demonstration need be empirical.

No, God did. It could have been anything, it wasn't. This has been revealed to us through his creation. You seem to wish to ignore this.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What revelation would that be?

Creation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Revelation doesn't rely on personal assessment, it relies on God imparting knowledge of his existence directly and without the medium of method. He doesn't need method to bring things about - he speaks and it is.

You are missing the point. God has given us free will, thus we evaluate everything, including revelation from God. Otherwise we would be robots, unable to think about how we think.

And again God decided this, not you.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Who's saying the other revelation is worthless? If God is spiritual and I am spiritual (in the sense of my consisting of a heirarchy: spirit > mind > body) then the primary means of God's relating with me will be spiritual.

Says who? Cause it certainly isn't God saying that.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sure, he can take on empirical form but there isn't any particular need to do that - especially since empiricism is subject to fallibility and because we know that, doubt can enter. You can only be tentitive with empiricism.

So now you are dictating to God how his own creation should work?

antiskeptic wrote: »

What lies would those be?

That the revelation of creation is not true.

IT-Guy

A visit from one of God's Angels

antiskeptic wrote: »

No.




Religion in the sense of being a faith based system. I take it you don't see the double irony of Science being knelt down to when it comes to declaring on Gods existence?

Ironic in that God is subject to Science

Ironic in that God would have been the one who 'invented' science as a way of arriving at truths. Which is, of course, the subject of discussion

So to paraphrase, there's no need for evidence, just faith? It's a wholly unsatisfactory answer to me and if your claim that God made me is true then my dissatisfaction at his method(s) of giving confidence of his existence shows how flawed those methods are (circular reasoning ftw!).

The concept of god isn't subject to science in the power-play way you describe it. It's a subject of scientific inquiry, when we fully understand the forces behind the creation of the universe and everything in it then what room does that leave for god? Answer: none, it will be a redundant concept, a hypothesis put forward from a position of ignorance (not meant condescendingly, there are many things people are ignorant about, no doubt to you faith is one ). Can you point to one thing that to you is unequivocal evidence for God? Personal anecdotes will do with the proviso that they won't be given the same weight as physical evidence.

I too am intrigued by your earlier post about your wife's direct experience of jesus, can you provide a bit more info on it?

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

They can do whatever they like so long as they bring their arguments into the playpen with them.

Any chance you could bring an actual argument for the existence of God beyond 'he exists therefore he made everything and we will know him if he wants us too QED' you have been spouting up til now into the discussion?

IT-Guy

A visit from one of God's Angels

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Any chance you could bring an actual argument for the existence of God beyond 'he exists therefore he made everything and we will know him if he wants us too QED' you have been spouting up til now into the discussion?

Very little substance to any of the arguments he's put forward, nothing new anyways. We've also had the usual accusation that science and atheism are faith based systems. Touch of tu quoque?

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Sertus wrote: »

I'm not too keen on analogies as they are rarely equivalent, but if you mean do I have a problem with God being detected by my burglar alarm if he broke into my house, and I might doubt the result because in theory he caused the invention of the burglar alarm, that would not be my first and foremost thought ; I'd simply be more interested in how could it be proven scientifically that he was in fact God and not some merely God like intruder.

Rarely equivilent indeed.

Clearly many of us prefer to rely and operate on a high standard of evidence rather than belief for the important things in life. I don't think that is an unreasonable position.

See post #19 in this thread for an indication why it's not a reasonable position in this particular regard. By all means partake in finding a way around it.

Knowing that many perfectly reasonable and moral people will only believe with a high standard of evidence, why would a loving God decide that no such evidence will be provided to the vast majority of the human race, thus potentially condemning many honestly skeptical human beings to hell ?

Although a person may decide that these are the rules by which they will decide on the matter, God is not so constrained. His mechanism of salvation operates on it's terms and will ensure a level playing field.

It's important to realise that: God demonstrating his existence to you is a consequence of your already having been saved. The issue then isn't that people don't 'upper-consciously' believe in his existence (why would they if he hasn't made plain to the 'upper-conscious' that he does). Rather, the issue is their resisting (via his mechanism of salvation) being brought to the point where they can be saved. And failing that, he doesn't turn up.

So, it's not because they don't believe that they are damned, it's because they refused to be brought to the point where he would enable them to believe.