Our server costs ~$33 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: 20th January 2017, 05:55

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What would you consider to be evidence for God?
#1
What would you consider to be evidence for God?
I know the question seems nonsensical, but hear me out. 

I've often encountered my fellow atheists say that there's no evidence for God's existence. This seems true, but I think that the answer may be fairly loaded.
Does it come across to anyone that people sometimes assume we can get evidence to begin with? or is it just me? 
I know a fair portion of atheists would disagree, and that everyone knows that you're really saying

"no, and there really is no way to get evidence for such nonsense".


If we can't get evidence, because evidence (at least by scientific standards) is by it's very nature falsifiable,
(something which the god claim can't provide [currently]) then what would anyone constitute as evidence? Are those who use the "we don't have evidence yet" claim literally, deceived?

Seeing it with our own eyes? How would we know it's not a hallucination?
If by some chance we are provided falsifiability, how would we know we aren't deceived by an alien hallucination inducing device?
(Pardon the bong logic format)

If evidence can't point us toward or away from answers to this kind of question, are they even reasonable to ask? 
How could anyone who is honestly seeking an answer be expected to come up with one in the face of such obstacles?

Given what is said, does anyone think that there is evidence that would convince them that God exists?
Plato had defined Man as an animal, biped and featherless, and was applauded. Diogenes plucked a fowl and brought it into the lecture room with the words,

"Behold Plato's man!"






Reply
#2
RE: What would you constitute as evidence for God?
I have no idea what would convince me that God exists. But if he does exist, he would know exactly what it would take to convince me. I'm just waiting to be presented with said evidence.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#3
RE: What would you consider as evidence for God?
We've only had that question about a gazillion times already.

But I'm pretty sure an omniscient, omnipotent being could think of something to convince me or any sceptic for that matter.
[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]
Reply
#4
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
(25th June 2015, 11:26)abaris Wrote: We've only had that question about a gazillion times already.

But I'm pretty sure an omniscient, omnipotent being could think of something to convince me.

Soz. Seriously, I probably should have engaged in more lurk.

Edit: to add, I've thought that same thing. I've just thought it's a bit of an intellectual cop out. Why can't there possibly be an answer that we would be able to attain?
If so, how would we know it? so on, infinite regress, etc.
Plato had defined Man as an animal, biped and featherless, and was applauded. Diogenes plucked a fowl and brought it into the lecture room with the words,

"Behold Plato's man!"






Reply
#5
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
Evidence is possible for anything that interacts with the material universe. What would be evidence for god(s)? That depends on the god-claim we're discussing, mainly.

The reason why it would seem difficult if not impossible to judge something as evidence of the Christian god is because that particular superstition is described in uselessly (and usually deliberately) vague terms which forestall accrediting any phenomena with it, in order to claim that all phenomena accrue to it.
http://www.soberrecovery.com/

Into the blue ...
Reply
#6
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
As long as a human has to make god's case for him, he's only becoming less convincing. His omnipotentness speaks for himself or else he stays in the box of stupid human ideas.


But my tears would drown the world, as my inner fire would reduce it to ashes.
Emil Cioran, On The Heights Of Despair
Reply
#7
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
Anything verifiable repeatedly by multiple observers is a good start for evidence.

So if a "whatever" becomes visible to us all, then we can acknowledge it. If it talks to us (actually talks) we can verify that. If it starts throwing fireballs around, we can witness and test that (if we survive). Whether or not this thing is a "god" is another question. It's too ill defined to mean anything. It would be what it is. We have no examples for reference.

Trying to correlate it to a storybook is an impossible task.
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
#8
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
How do we know that blue whales exist? I've only seen pictures and video, and we know that those can be faked. I've read about them, but men are fallible and can lie and mislead us! How do we know that molecules exist? Atoms? Neutrinos? Gas giants? Cedar waxwings? Gatling guns? Gravity? The color red????

We are where we are today as a species and a global community because we are able to filter out the stuff that is real from the stuff that is bullshit most of the time. Even with the special exceptions we make for religion and other forms of woo, we've managed to build a pretty modern and advanced world for ourselves. If god was real and decided to make himself known, what makes anyone think that we'd have a problem figuring it out? Why would anyone expect that god would show up, perform a card trick for a few people, then duck back into his metaphysical closet and wait to see how billions of us react?

Maybe the problem is that we expect so little from god, while extolling his almighty virtues. Just show up already. We'll figure it out.
"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
#9
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
(25th June 2015, 11:43)Tonus Wrote: How do we know that blue whales exist?  I've only seen pictures and video, and we know that those can be faked.  I've read about them, but men are fallible and can lie and mislead us!  How do we know that molecules exist?  Atoms?  Neutrinos?  Gas giants?  Cedar waxwings?  Gatling guns?  Gravity?  The color red????

We are where we are today as a species and a global community because we are able to filter out the stuff that is real from the stuff that is bullshit most of the time.  Even with the special exceptions we make for religion and other forms of woo, we've managed to build a pretty modern and advanced world for ourselves.  If god was real and decided to make himself known, what makes anyone think that we'd have a problem figuring it out?  Why would anyone expect that god would show up, perform a card trick for a few people, then duck back into his metaphysical closet and wait to see how billions of us react?

Maybe the problem is that we expect so little from god, while extolling his almighty virtues.  Just show up already.  We'll figure it out.

Isn't it really that we've just figured out what works, from what is observed? we haven't actually solved any of those problems. Like you said, we've just filtered it out, it doesn't necessarily mean we've settled the issue. 

I've taken a pretty strong stance against Bertrand Russell and the other correspondence truth theorists. It seems like a useless way of thinking. 
Which is really the question hidden behind this question. That being said, can we really get a proper correspondence to anything? or is it forever going to be what "works"? 
Does the correspondence even really matter if it works?
Plato had defined Man as an animal, biped and featherless, and was applauded. Diogenes plucked a fowl and brought it into the lecture room with the words,

"Behold Plato's man!"






Reply
#10
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
Been there - done that.


http://atheistforums.org/thread-28668-po...#pid752753
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Evidence for the existence of God Yadayadayada 138 2581 Yesterday, 13:40
Last Post: Neo-Scholastic
Question How Much Evidence Will It Take You To Believe In God??? Edward John 370 6293 16th November 2016, 04:03
Last Post: robvalue
  Supernatural Evidence? Soldat Du Christ 266 6719 13th November 2016, 10:44
Last Post: chimp3
  What would you do with an empty church? Casca 55 1316 31st October 2016, 07:19
Last Post: Mr Greene
  Religion doesn't need evidence purplepurpose 105 2082 26th October 2016, 19:17
Last Post: Arkilogue
  Not All Demand Evidence chimp3 28 1020 22nd September 2016, 21:03
Last Post: Jehanne
  If the bible/quran/whatever was better, would you've remained theist? A Handmaid 23 1040 14th September 2016, 07:08
Last Post: paulpablo
  What would evidence of a God even look like? Excited Penguin 153 4929 12th September 2016, 09:05
Last Post: Alasdair Ham
  Evidence for atheist claims Wryetui 629 27549 10th June 2016, 12:22
Last Post: madog
  Why the bible ISN'T evidence. Socratic Meth Head 34 3152 11th April 2016, 00:57
Last Post: an0nemus



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)