What kind of evidence would prove god ?

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

robindch wrote: »

First-off, the religious need to define exactly what they mean by "god" as well as the range of attributes, activities and so on that their chosen deity is alleged to have, do, etc. Once that's done, then one can go checking to see which are testable, and if any are, go ahead and test where possible.

If its ever established by scientific proof, that 'god' exists, then we could starting trying to determine which religion's version is most correct, but I think its a bit premature to be going down that route.

The dictionary definitions of theism and 'god' do me just fine, I don't need a theist for that.

Most mainstream religions/theism have the following common characteristics for 'god' : Infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent :

So, scientifically speaking, what would constitute scientific evidence for the above characteristics ?

Lelantos

Sertus wrote: »

If its ever established by scientific proof, that 'god' exists, then we could starting trying to determine which religion's version is most correct, but I think its a bit premature to be going down that route.

The dictionary definitions of theism and 'god' do me just fine, I don't need a theist for that.

Most mainstream religions/theism have the following common characteristics for 'god' : Infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent :

So, scientifically speaking, what would constitute scientific evidence for the above characteristics ?

Is not Identifying God by scientific means an oxymoron?

antiskeptic

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

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes we are, for all the reasons I've already explained and which you have choose to ignore (again see magic trick suggestion)

Man must examine why they are confident in something.

There is good reason I've chosen to ignore it - it stems from my first post in this thread and the argument I'd welcome your dealing with.

The argument says the why you are confident, once God is considered to exist, stems from act of God. Not method. Method is subsequent to and reliant on God to give it effect (once God is considered to exist). And so, method only has a relevance in so far as God gives it relevance.

You're attempting to examine the evidence for God's existence as if you can use a means independent of God rather than a means which would be derivative of God's assigning it any value.

Do you understand the argument and if so, could you continue back to God [/I for your confidence and stop stopping downstream at method? Then explain why the value God assigns to various means of displaying himself is a matter for you to decide?

1) Firstly it leaves humans confident of things they cannot explain or justify (I'm sure the answer is 79, I just don't know why).

2) Secondly, this puts such "knowledge" (if it can even be called that) squarely into the realm of things we know humans are poor at judging, thus the confidence in this knowledge is tentative at best.

1) What of it (assuming you are dealing with the original argument)

2) You're back to placing reliance on man and not in the ability of God. Could you formulate an argument which deals with the argument presented, not one I'm not making?

You seem to not care, which I appreciate. You have a belief that you feel works, you feel confident in it. Why would you want to examine it further.

But then, again 1 theory of electro-magnetism, 40,000 religions. The world is full of people who believe they are confident in something but unable to rationalise or justify this. Saying if God exists then they might be right is true, but then also utterly missing the point.

Again, you need to deal with the original argument which merely raises a realisation in your head once God appears empirically (or before that point, if you reckon God is capable of demonstrating himself empirically).

Because you are not God, and thus are fallible and prone to mistakes/errors.

Not if God decides otherwise. That's the focus of the argument: what God does and is capable of doing, not what I do or am capable of doing. The bolded bit above is the focus of the discussion

antiskeptic

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

robindch wrote: »

Making it, even in theory, bascially impossible to design any tests, and therefore, produce any evidence, that could ever establish the deity's existence

I was reading something recently about the glory of God. It's one of those things you come across frequently in the bible "and the glory of God rested on that place" or some such ... but I'd never gotten around to figuring out what that actually meant.

Apparently the word "glory" finds it's Hebrew root in the sense of something of 'immense stature'.

Which is something of an understatement should it involve the Creator of all* but then again, immense can mean.. immense.


-


Can I suggest the best test of whether you reckon you're being confronted by God or not? You'll find yourself saying "that's God!" and the notion that you could turn to Science (or anything else for that matter) for an opinion on whether it is or isn't God strikes you at once as laughable (irrespective of whether that laughable-ness is undergirded by joy or terror)?


Immense stature can be expected to stamp out the opposition - yours included.


*in one sense or other, e.g. evil

pauldla

Knowledge of Santa can only come through Santa, by Santa manifesting himself to you. If you find a heap of presents at the foot of your bed one cold December morning, and your knowledge of Science cannot explain how they got there, then that must be Santa.

You're being very quiet about your wife's meeting with the Lord, antiskeptic. Such a meeting would be pretty solid evidence of the existence of God...if it were true, of course. Can I invite you one more time to elaborate on the encounter?

antiskeptic

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

pauldla wrote: »

You're being very quiet about your wife's meeting with the Lord, antiskeptic. Such a meeting would be pretty solid evidence of the existence of God...if it were true, of course. Can I invite you one more time to elaborate on the encounter?

Post #19 on page 2 of this thread sets out my stall for the discussion. Begin there and deal with my response to this very issue: the insolidity of the demand for solidity of evidence.

Lelantos

antiskeptic wrote: »

"The hearing voices is as good as any other method" argument. You got a counter?

Not being schizophrenic is enough of a counter for me. Next

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Post #19 on page 2 of this thread sets out my stall for the discussion. Begin there and deal with my response to this very issue: the insolidity of the demand for solidity of evidence.

Post 65 on page 2 of this thread (40 posts/page ftw ) debunks your argument. Would be nice for you to discuss it.

pauldla

antiskeptic wrote: »

Post #19 on page 2 of this thread sets out my stall for the discussion. Begin there and deal with my response to this very issue: the insolidity of the demand for solidity of evidence.

Dude, you can't post 'My wife met the Lord' in a serious discussion about proving the existence of God and not expect to be called out on it. Stalls are for livestock: stalling, however, is another matter....

How did she meet the Lord? And do you believe she met Him?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The argument says the why you are confident, once God is considered to exist, stems from act of God. Not method. Method is subsequent to and reliant on God to give it effect (once God is considered to exist). And so, method only has a relevance in so far as God gives it relevance.

Correct

The flaw you are making is then saying that because of this any method God uses to give us confidences in what we believe is as good as any other method.

It isn't, because God has already made us

The only methods that God can use to give us confidence in our beliefs are ones that are consistent with how we are already designed, by him, to function.

Either that or he has to change the universe. He hasn't changed the universe. I still cannot just distance as well as a laser pointer because God doesn't want me to

You rely on a method that is inconsistent to how you are made. That is both flawed in of itself, and also presents the problem that God is hardly going to appear to us using a method that he himself has designed to not work very well.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're attempting to examine the evidence for God's existence as if you can use a means independent of God rather than a means which would be derivative of God's assigning it any value.

I'm not.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you understand the argument and if so, could you continue back to God [/I for your confidence and stop stopping downstream at method? Then explain why the value God assigns to various means of displaying himself is a matter for you to decide?

Its not. It is a matter for him to decide. Guess what, he already decided.

If God exists, and made us, and made us a particular way, and we are consistent in how we are made, then we can only have confidence in the various empirical and scientific forms of assessment.

This is the case before we get to the question of God.

The question of God himself is then introduced and you for some reason think we can now throw out all of that because well its God doing it. But you ignore the point that it was always God doing it (which is ironic since that is the central pillar of your initial argument)

When I look over to a far off city and don't get the distance to the city correct because I'm just using my eye sight while realizing that I have no confidence in my guess that is all God

When I touch a plate just out of the oven and attempt to guess the temperature of the plate, and have no confidence in that result because I'm terrible at assessing temperature through my skin that is all God

When I'm waiting at a train station and think man I wonder how long I've been here, and think it might be 5 minutes but really I can't be all that confident in that assessment because I'm terrible at judging passage of time accurate, particularly when I'm bored, that is all God

So it is ridiculous for you to think that you are suddenly changing something significantly by attempting to introduce God when the does God exist question comes up.

God is always there (if he exists). God is as present when I'm attempting to assess the passage of time as he is when I'm attempting to assess if that funny feeling I'm experiencing is God communicating with him.

God could make it so we are perfect at assessing time. He hasn't.

God could make it so we are perfect at judging temperature. He hasn't.

God could make it so we are perfect at measuring distance. He hasn't.

And he certainly hasn't made it so we are perfect at telling he exists.

We require empirical assessment for all these questions because God decided we do. If you don't like it, take it up with God. But introducing the "God can do what he likes" argument just for the existence question as if that some how squares the circle is stupid. God can do what ever he likes. But he hasn't. Wishing he had won't change that.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're back to placing reliance on man and not in the ability of God. Could you formulate an argument which deals with the argument presented, not one I'm not making?

I am, you are simply ignoring it.

You think it is important that God can invalidate the need for empirical assessment any time he likes. It isn't, that is not important. God could decide tomorrow that every was perfect at measuring how far things are from us, even up to the stars. But that isn't important.

The important bit is has he invalidated the need for empirical assessment.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not if God decides otherwise. That's the focus of the argument

No, that is what you want the focus of the argument to be, because you are getting ready for the greatest jump in magical thinking, the jump all you believers routinely take on instinct, like throwing your hands out beside you when falling on ice. Because something can happen I'm going to assume it did happen

The rest of us are falling over ourselves to get you to realize that the important question is not can God invalidate the need for empirical assessment, but has he already invalidated the need for empirical assessment.

antiskeptic wrote: »

: what God does and is capable of doing, not what I do or am capable of doing. The bolded bit above is the focus of the discussion

God decides what you are capable of doing. He already decided what you are capable of doing. You are not capable of doing what you think you are capable of doing.

You prefer to imagine a universe that doesn't exist, because in this universe you can have more confidence in the things you wish to be true. Well the problem is that isn't the universe we are in. We are in this universe, and if God exists he made this universe. You have to deal with how this universe is, not the one you wish it could be, even if you keep repeating over and over that God could have made that universe instead. He could have. He didn't.

carpejugulum

Offered evidence can be explained by insanity and hallucinations. After all, this kind of evidence already exists and is laughable at best.

If proved to exist, it can only be rejected as it's clearly an asshole.

Zombrex

carpejugulum wrote: »

Offered evidence can be explained by insanity and hallucinations. After all, this kind of evidence already exists and is laughable at best.

If proved to exist, it can only be rejected as it's clearly an asshole.

True, and you then have the problem that one omnipotent being is indistinguishable from another omnipotent being.

So say the devil turns up and does all the things we think God could do to prove he is God. Well from our point of view the devil is act just as God would. Then God turns up and says that is not me, its the devil. And he does a whole load of physics breaking things also. Who do you believe?

It becomes some what pointless to suppose that the particular omnipotent being you are observing has any relationship to any other omnipotent being you have previously see or heard about.

The thing is that God, being omnipotent, surely already knows this. Which makes it stupid that he would require us to believe in him.

So it is perfectly consistent and logical to suppose that if a god does exist he would expect, and probably require, that we don't believe in him.

IRWolfie-

To be pedantic about something in the original question, scientific physical evidence validated by scientific experts wouldn't "prove" something. Nothing is ever "proven" in science like in, say, maths. Rather overwhelming evidence is gathered.

Further, "An unmerited gift of belief and faith given to you by God (Grace)" presumes it is known that god gave you the gift. If God gave you the gift, then clearly god exists, but it doesn't answer how you know god was the one to give the gift.

Similarly, "A personal appearance of God right front of me" which presumes that you can recoqnise that it's god that has appeared in front of you, same with the "God's Angels" and "Hearing the voice of God".

Canis Lupus

I don't see how we could prove a god existed. There's nothing to say a being that appeared and did magic tricks way beyond our comprehension couldn't simply be an advanced form of life. Godlike to us undoubtedly but not provable as the 'god' that people pray to etc.

seamus

I think a far more interesting question for believers is "what kind of evidence would disprove God", given that the onus to disprove is frequently placed on atheists.

It's the opposite side of the same question. Though theoretically should be simpler to answer.

King Mob

seamus wrote: »

I think a far more interesting question for believers is "what kind of evidence would disprove God", given that the onus to disprove is frequently placed on atheists.

It's the opposite side of the same question. Though theoretically should be simpler to answer.

Nah it's trickier, as disproving something's existence is not really possible. This gets even trickier when the concept of God is so loosely defined.

Zeus coming down and showing himself might possibly disprove the Christian god to some exist, but there's always a gap or mysterious way he could hide in.

carpejugulum

Why would a believer want to prove or disprove a god though? That would make faith meaningless. And faith (delusion) is crucial, as it masks fear and wishful thinking. If god and its qualities were known, there would be no place for faith.

IRWolfie-

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I don't see how we could prove a god existed. There's nothing to say a being that appeared and did magic tricks way beyond our comprehension couldn't simply be an advanced form of life. Godlike to us undoubtedly but not provable as the 'god' that people pray to etc.

That's a good point. God is typically described as a non-material "spiritual" concept outside of the universe (or encompassing it in some vague way), and sometimes described as not being subject to time passing (It's pretty hard to differentiate an abstract object from a vague non-material "spiritual" being). A being coming down saying he's God (i.e Jesus) is pretty much inconsistent with that view of God.

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I don't see how we could prove a god existed. There's nothing to say a being that appeared and did magic tricks way beyond our comprehension couldn't simply be an advanced form of life. Godlike to us undoubtedly but not provable as the 'god' that people pray to etc.

IRWolfie- wrote: »

That's a good point. God is typically described as a non-material "spiritual" concept outside of the universe (or encompassing it in some vague way), and sometimes described as not being subject to time passing (It's pretty hard to differentiate an abstract object from a vague non-material "spiritual" being). A being coming down saying he's God (i.e Jesus) is pretty much inconsistent with that view of God.

Those are similar to my thoughts/queries

The simple dictionary definition of 'God' is some type of supreme being / spirit, and most mainstream religions/theism define the common characteristics for 'God' as Infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent :

So, scientifically speaking, what would constitute as proper scientific evidence for the above characteristics ?

IRWolfie-

Sertus wrote: »

Those are similar to my thoughts/queries

The simple dictionary definition of 'God' is some type of supreme being / spirit, and most mainstream religions/theism define the common characteristics for 'God' as Infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent :

So, scientifically speaking, what would constitute as proper scientific evidence for the above characteristics ?

The religious would say it's beyond science etc, so there could be no scientific evidence.

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

IRWolfie- wrote: »

The religious would say it's beyond science etc.

They would, but I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in what, scientifically speaking, would constitute as proper scientific evidence for the above characteristics ?

fitz0

I don't think there's any evidence that could persuade me. Should a seemingly all powerful being appear, I'd look for the curtain. On the other hand, if it were a 'god' it would have a long way to go to proving which god it is. I'd imagine any god that appears would be a tad embarrassed to claim the nonsense from the bible.

'LOOK UPON ME MORTALS!'

'Uh, yeah... I did say that about the gays... and that part about genitals like those of donkeys and emissions like that of horses. Heh, seems a bit silly in hindsight. But, uh, CONTEXT, PUNY HUMANS, CONTEXT!'

On the plus side, maybe if the Christian god did appear, he could answer for some of the bull**** his followers get up to.

Zillah

antiskeptic wrote: »

You'll find yourself saying "that's God!" and the notion that you could turn to Science (or anything else for that matter) for an opinion on whether it is or isn't God strikes you at once as laughable (irrespective of whether that laughable-ness is undergirded by joy or terror)?

The problem with this is that it has been shown that the brain has the ability to create a sense of the presence of God just from being stimulated by scientists. People have been falling foul of this trick for millennia. Once it was thunder, or a mountain, or drug induced dream quests, or meditation. You think your feelings about God are special when they are not, and it is your failure as a rational human being to overcome that. You might find your subjective experience to be extremely convincing. So did Mohammed, and countless other prophets for countless other Gods and you're all as mad as a bag of cats.

antiskeptic

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

pauldla wrote: »

Dude, you can't post 'My wife met the Lord' in a serious discussion about proving the existence of God and not expect to be called out on it. Stalls are for livestock: stalling, however, is another matter....

The discussion I'm involved in isn't about proving God - something you'd have noticed if you'd taken the time to start at post 19 rather than jumping mid stream.

Deal with it all. Or expect nothing.

Mark Hamill

Sertus wrote: »

Those are similar to my thoughts/queries

The simple dictionary definition of 'God' is some type of supreme being / spirit, and most mainstream religions/theism define the common characteristics for 'God' as Infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent :

So, scientifically speaking, what would constitute as proper scientific evidence for the above characteristics ?

I gave a response a while back, I think you might have missed it.

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I gave a response a while back, I think you might have missed it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well assuming by "god" you are talking about an omnipowerful and omniscient entity claiming to have created the universe, then it showing us it creating the universe would be a start. Letting us make alterations to the creation and showing us the outcomes would also help.

Cheers, so how would you do that scientifically ?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

The discussion I'm involved in isn't about proving God - something you'd have noticed if you'd taken the time to start at post 19 rather than jumping mid stream.

You weren't asked to prove god, you were asked to elaborate on a claim you made. Why can't you do this? Is it really so hard? Start a new thread if you think its off topic, you know that there will be interest in it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Deal with it all. Or expect nothing.

Thats rich coming from someone who wont deal with any of the responses he has been getting. Post 65, still waiting.

Mark Hamill

Sertus wrote: »

Cheers, so how would you do that scientifically ?

By getting this god to allow us to control creation like god does. Allow us to experience it (so move through space/time at a whim, see every level of existence) and alter it (see the effects at any point) and interact with it. Note that I say "us" and not just "me", outside verification is a must.

This is just the most extreme extension of the "juggle suns" type examples given before. Something so extreme and massive that the odds of it not being god are significantly reduced. Its never going to be a perfect scientific test (I don't think you can get one), but a being capable of interacting with reality and the universe on the level I've described might as well be god, so its not a bad test imo.

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

By getting this god to allow us to control creation like god does. Allow us to experience it (so move through space/time at a whim, see every level of existence) and alter it (see the effects at any point) and interact with it. Note that I say "us" and not just "me", outside verification is a must.

This is just the most extreme extension of the "juggle suns" type examples given before. Something so extreme and massive that the odds of it not being god are significantly reduced. Its never going to be a perfect scientific test (I don't think you can get one), but a being capable of interacting with reality and the universe on the level I've described might as well be god, so its not a bad test imo.

I understand you're point of view, and it is the juggling suns/planets examples rephrased again, but again what i'm wondering is how exactly would you confirm that scientifically it was the theistic/dictionary 'God' (i.e. supreme being/spirit, infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient etc.), and not another extremely advanced, but inferior, being/spirit, and not 'God'

Grayditch

One simple flower.





Pahahahaha. No idea, honestly.