I often wondered what kind of evidence is actually required to prove without any doubt the existence of God?

Please note Clarke's "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Also, an advanced civilization might also be able to put you in something like the Matrix and show you all kind of crazy stuff.

So, could there be an absolute evidence for God?

(July 23, 2013 at 11:49 am)Kim Wrote: So, could there be an absolute evidence for God?

Define god.

What you want is evidence for something that is indistinguishable from God, yet is not that which is indistinguishable from god but is not god.

Good luck.

---

(July 23, 2013 at 11:53 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(July 23, 2013 at 11:49 am)Kim Wrote: So, could there be an absolute evidence for God?

Define god.

Anything that inspires awe in, and is said to demand obedience from, the yokel.

(July 23, 2013 at 11:49 am)Kim Wrote: I often wondered what kind of evidence is actually required to prove without any doubt the existence of God?

Please note Clarke's "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Also, an advanced civilization might also be able to put you in something like the Matrix and show you all kind of crazy stuff.

So, could there be an absolute evidence for God?

Its a mistake to ask for "absolute" evidence - science doesn't deal in absolutes.

We'll, however, settle for sufficient evidence for a reasonably formed god-hypothesis. Let's have atleast that much first and then we can talk about proving it beyond all doubt.

(July 23, 2013 at 11:56 am)genkaus Wrote:

(July 23, 2013 at 11:49 am)Kim Wrote: I often wondered what kind of evidence is actually required to prove without any doubt the existence of God?

Please note Clarke's "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Also, an advanced civilization might also be able to put you in something like the Matrix and show you all kind of crazy stuff.

So, could there be an absolute evidence for God?

Its a mistake to ask for "absolute" evidence - science doesn't deal in absolutes.

We'll, however, settle for sufficient evidence for a reasonably formed god-hypothesis. Let's have atleast that much first and then we can talk about proving it beyond all doubt.

Propose a god hypothesis, more or less consistent with popular perception of "god", that is in principle falsifiable.

The argument for god essentially all boils down "if a god hypothesis is so constructed as to be unfalsifiable, then and only then is its falsifiability itself evidence for it being true. With any other unfalsifiable hypothesis this is not the case".

It's an oft-quoted truism that any god deserving of the title - and most especially "God" - ought to know what evidence would prove its own existence. Be nice to see some of it.

Yes, but omniscience god needs you to prove to him that you would believe in him even if he would not allow you reason to believe in him.

For a god that is already everything, he certain wants a lot.

(July 23, 2013 at 12:09 pm)Chuck Wrote: Yes, but omniscience god needs you to prove to him that you would believe in him even if he would not allow you reason to believe in him.

For a god that is already everything, he certain wants a lot.

But you make it sound as if this perfect god really needs our groundless, absolute confidence in him for some reason. But if He is so perfect what does he need with the tin money* of our worship? Surely he can do without it. But if he is really smitten with us the way we might be with a puppy, why would he expect us to come seeking Him. In dog training circles, that would be considered an unreasonable expectation. Something just doesn't add up. Either bible-God isn't so perfect, isn't too bright or really doesn't give a hoot about us .. assuming He exists at all.



*Mark Twain

Well, OK, let's say God = supernatural being that created the universe, but doesn't care about anything else. What kind of sufficient evidence is required to prove the existence of this supernatural being?

Any evidence that can be peer-reviewed and reproduced is good enough.

Imagine the evidence required to show that Bigfoot exists. Pictures aren't enough to show that he is real: we need to be in constant contact with the creature, be able to meet up with it from time to time, or even capture it, file away a blood sample...anything more than the silly plaster casts of its foot that we currently have.