Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 5:00 am

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What would you consider to be evidence for God?
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
if it was a honest discussion using observations this question might have meaning.

but this is not about honesty for the people that are fighting the most. There is no way to close the gap for people that have an emotional reason as to why they literally follow any belief system. Even if they believe in "lack of belief" as something real.
anti-logical Fallacies of Ambiguity
Reply
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
(December 19, 2016 at 6:43 pm)Asmodee Wrote: But here's the deal, it doesn't even matter that I don't know.  Because if God is real then SHE (God is genderless right?  So this is EXACTLY as accurate as "he") knows what it would take to convince me.

Most of the "what would it take for you to believe" questions I've seen assume that it should only take one piece of evidence --an event, an experience, etc-- to convince us of something as important as whether there really is a god and whether it is the specific god they follow. Aside from the issue of the ease with which we can be fooled into accepting something that is not true --a tactic theists use as well, when dismissing one another's god claims-- why should we expect so little of God? Why would I expect that God will only ever tap me on one shoulder and duck behind the other as a way of proving that he's real?

If he showed up and did the things that only God can do and went about his Godly business for all to see, we'd figure it out soon enough. Instead, I'm supposed to look at the sky and be awed by the view, or see a powerful creature and assume it was designed, and learn about flesh-eating bacteria and, uh... blame it on Adam and Eve???
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

-Stephen Jay Gould
Reply
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
(December 19, 2016 at 6:43 pm)Asmodee Wrote: I've thought about it and come to the conclusion that I don't know what would be "good evidence" for the existence of God, specifically.  I once had a Catholic ask me if I would believe if God were standing right before me and I had to answer, "I wouldn't be sure.  The Bible says that the devil can disguise himself as an angel of light."

But here's the deal, it doesn't even matter that I don't know.  Because if God is real then SHE (God is genderless right?  So this is EXACTLY as accurate as "he") knows what it would take to convince me.  What's more, she WANTS me to believe.  I would not deny the evidence God, herself, put before me.  So IF there really is a God and IF she really wants to save me, I don't need to know what would convince me because she knows and she is going to do it because she wants me to be saved.

That's assuming that satisfactory evidence is possible in principle.  Given the typical characteristics given for God -- omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence -- it seems unlikely that one could construct adequate justification for believing that a being has these traits, if at all, it would seem the evidence of such would itself be transfinite.  What's more disturbing is that people are regularly convinced by less than adequate evidence for such traits.  If that is the case, it seems beside the point to ask what evidence would adequately justify belief in such a god.  So obviously that's not the relevant standard in play and the question would more sensibly be, what evidence does it take to convince a person that God exists.  The answer to that question appears to be "because my parents told me so."  The standards of evidence the typical theist employs in justifying their belief is woefully inadequate.
[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
(December 19, 2016 at 9:01 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:
(December 19, 2016 at 6:43 pm)Asmodee Wrote: I've thought about it and come to the conclusion that I don't know what would be "good evidence" for the existence of God, specifically.  I once had a Catholic ask me if I would believe if God were standing right before me and I had to answer, "I wouldn't be sure.  The Bible says that the devil can disguise himself as an angel of light."

But here's the deal, it doesn't even matter that I don't know.  Because if God is real then SHE (God is genderless right?  So this is EXACTLY as accurate as "he") knows what it would take to convince me.  What's more, she WANTS me to believe.  I would not deny the evidence God, herself, put before me.  So IF there really is a God and IF she really wants to save me, I don't need to know what would convince me because she knows and she is going to do it because she wants me to be saved.

That's assuming that satisfactory evidence is possible in principle.  Given the typical characteristics given for God -- omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence -- it seems unlikely that one could construct adequate justification for believing that a being has these traits, if at all, it would seem the evidence of such would itself be transfinite.  What's more disturbing is that people are regularly convinced by less than adequate evidence for such traits.  If that is the case, it seems beside the point to ask what evidence would adequately justify belief in such a god.  So obviously that's not the relevant standard in play and the question would more sensibly be, what evidence does it take to convince a person that God exists.  The answer to that question appears to be "because my parents told me so."  The standards of evidence the typical theist employs in justifying their belief is woefully inadequate.

That's the beauty of it.  If God exists, she is omnipotent, all-powerful.  If she truly wants me to believe I cannot NOT be convinced.  If it is her will then I WILL be convinced if she has to take apart my brain and put it back together differently.  So given that God wants to save my soul, wants me to believe and has the power to make me believe it is impossible, if God were real, for me not to believe.  I do not believe, therefore she is not real because if she were she would get what she wants, my belief, which would lead to my worship.  Fucking eternal life with no sickness, injury, death, boredom, etc.?  Sign me up as soon as you have proof!

(December 19, 2016 at 7:59 pm)Tonus Wrote:
(December 19, 2016 at 6:43 pm)Asmodee Wrote: But here's the deal, it doesn't even matter that I don't know.  Because if God is real then SHE (God is genderless right?  So this is EXACTLY as accurate as "he") knows what it would take to convince me.

Most of the "what would it take for you to believe" questions I've seen assume that it should only take one piece of evidence --an event, an experience, etc-- to convince us of something as important as whether there really is a god and whether it is the specific god they follow.  Aside from the issue of the ease with which we can be fooled into accepting something that is not true --a tactic theists use as well, when dismissing one another's god claims-- why should we expect so little of God?  Why would I expect that God will only ever tap me on one shoulder and duck behind the other as a way of proving that he's real?

If he showed up and did the things that only God can do and went about his Godly business for all to see, we'd figure it out soon enough.  Instead, I'm supposed to look at the sky and be awed by the view, or see a powerful creature and assume it was designed, and learn about flesh-eating bacteria and, uh... blame it on Adam and Eve???

Hey, don't sweat it.  Jesus is coming back any minute now to prove himself.  Any minute now...
Have you ever noticed all the drug commercials on TV lately?  Why is it the side effects never include penile enlargement or super powers?
Side effects may include super powers or enlarged penis which may become permanent with continued use.  Stop taking Killatol immediately and consult your doctor if you experience penis enlargement of more than 3 inches, laser vision, superhuman strength, invulnerability, the ability to explode heads with your mind or time travel.  Killatoll is not for everyone, especially those who already have convertibles or vehicles of ridiculous size to supplement penis size.
Reply
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
(December 19, 2016 at 7:59 pm)Tonus Wrote:
(December 19, 2016 at 6:43 pm)Asmodee Wrote: But here's the deal, it doesn't even matter that I don't know.  Because if God is real then SHE (God is genderless right?  So this is EXACTLY as accurate as "he") knows what it would take to convince me.

Most of the "what would it take for you to believe" questions I've seen assume that it should only take one piece of evidence

God reveals Himself through Scripture, and Nature. Science interprets Nature, theologians interprets Scripture. If the interpretations of these sources appear to contradict, adjustments will harmonizes to the truth. For instance as a starting point, the 1'st chapter of Genesis* gives a 13 billion year flawless summary of Nature. One of 4 definitions of the word 'Day' is: 'a long but finite period of time'. This scriptural definition of 'day' is compatible with Nature's scientific record. The process then precedes forward for additional details. Using just one of these sources, makes the evidence harder to discern, but nevertheless is still adequate.

*Note: 2'nd chapter of Genesis, tell the 'why' of creation and therefore is not in chronological physical order as chapter 1.
Atheist Credo: An universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.
Reply
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
(December 26, 2016 at 11:17 pm)snowtracks Wrote: God reveals Himself through Scripture, and Nature. Science interprets Nature, theologians interprets Scripture. If the interpretations of these sources appear to contradict, adjustments will harmonizes to the truth.

In other words, just make up crap until it fits.

Quote: For instance as a starting point, the 1'st chapter of Genesis* gives a 13 billion year flawless summary of Nature.


No.  Even if one buys into that "day=1000 years" nonsense, Genesis only accounts for 6000 of the 13,700,000,000 years.  The account is out by over 6 orders of magnitude.
Reply
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
(December 26, 2016 at 11:17 pm)snowtracks Wrote: God reveals Himself through Scripture, and Nature.
So he's a bloodthirsty warmonger who treats women as property, and the inventor of smallpox. Got it.

Quote:*Note: 2'nd chapter of Genesis, tell the 'why' of creation and therefore is not in chronological physical order as chapter 1.
The second chapter gives a different account, not a different version of the same account. In chapter 1 he creates man and woman together and gives them the whole Earth to fill and every plant to eat. In chapter 2 he creates man, puts him in a garden and says that he may eat of any tree in the garden with the exception of one. Only later does he create the woman as a companion. The creator of chapter 1 speaks his creation into existence, whereas the creator of chapter 2 forms things, plants things, and makes things grow... a hands-on approach.

The account in chapter 2 looks to be a fragment from a different creation story that sought to make god more personal and more human, not unlike many of the gods of the ancient past. The god in chapter 1 is the magical being that most people would describe him as today, conjuring a universe out of thin air with an incantation and creating humanity in his image (or their image, based on Genesis 1:26: "Let us make...").

And let's keep in mind that those theologians who interpret scripture are considerably less unified than those scientists who 'interpret' nature. It seems to me that only one of those groups is doing its job properly.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

-Stephen Jay Gould
Reply
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
(December 26, 2016 at 11:17 pm)snowtracks Wrote: *Note: 2'nd chapter of Genesis, tell the 'why' of creation and therefore is not in chronological physical order as chapter 1.

This is officially known as, "making shit up." AKA pulling shit from your ass.
[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
A flawless summary of 13 billion years of nature is not what I see. I see a bronze ager trying to explain existence without any knowledge. A bit like telling your kid the stork brought him/her.



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
Say I decided that I want to "worship God", but I don't know which religion to pick. How would I choose?

Their arguments and "evidence" are all pretty much interchangeable. You get adherents from each professing "knowledge" and "certainty" and "experiences", yet a large proportion of these people are totally wrong and have no idea they're having a relationship with their own imagination. Either that, or it makes no difference at all which religion you're in.

How is an outsider supposed to distinguish the truth from the delusion?

Not that I'm actually interested in joining any religion, God or not. It's just a hypothetical.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  If you learned that the god of [insert religion] is real, would all bets be off? Sicnoo0 58 3428 February 25, 2024 at 1:04 am
Last Post: Nay_Sayer
  Dear Atheists: what would convince you God/Christ is Real? JJoseph 207 9023 February 12, 2024 at 1:51 am
Last Post: Goosebump
  The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Nishant Xavier 38 2370 August 7, 2023 at 10:24 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  When were the Gospels Written? The External and Internal Evidence. Nishant Xavier 62 3095 August 6, 2023 at 10:25 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Veridical NDEs: Evidence/Proof of the Soul and the After-Life? Nishant Xavier 32 1565 August 6, 2023 at 5:36 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Isaiah 53, 700 B.C: Historical Evidence of the Divine Omniscience. Nishant Xavier 91 4539 August 6, 2023 at 2:19 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Conscience and the Moral Argument as Evidence for the Goodness of God. Nishant Xavier 162 7389 July 9, 2023 at 7:53 am
Last Post: Deesse23
  Signature in the Cell: DNA as Evidence for Design, beside Nature's Laws/Fine-Tuning. Nishant Xavier 54 2715 July 8, 2023 at 8:23 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Why the resurrection accounts are not evidence LinuxGal 5 1012 October 29, 2022 at 2:01 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Can you consider Atheism an ethnicity UniverseCaptain 31 2601 September 27, 2021 at 7:23 pm
Last Post: UniverseCaptain



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)