What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[maestroanth]

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?

If reality was really more like dungeons and dragons vs mathematics, I figure that would be about the only thing that would convince me.

[snowtracks]

This is why we have the scientific method, to check the accuracy of our results. Evidence is collected at the end of the process, not at the beginning.

We start with observations, then we form a hypothesis, then we find a way to test the hypothesis in a falsifiable way, then we carry out the test.

---

Just using logical arguments misses out all these latter vital steps.

It's basically trying to use the tools of science, but in a magical way scientists never thought of to achieve astonishing new results. But the results apply only to the world you're exploring in your head, until you can demonstrate otherwise.

These things almost always amount to:

1) Make observations

2) Announce binding rules based on these observations

3) Notice an apparent paradox caused by the rules

4) Define a special thing that violates the rules, to plug the apparent paradox

---

Scientific Method yielded the following -
The universe's expansion rate has been balanced at just the right rate to make advanced life possible. if the expansion rate were to rapid, stars and planets would not form since gravity wouldn't have adequate time to pull together the gases and dust that make up these bodies. If the expansion rate weren't rapid enough, the stars formed would rapidly collapse and become black holes or neutron stars. What determines this expansion rate is gravity and dark energy (a property that stretches the universe's space/time surface. In the book 'The Grand Design' by Hawking, Modinow, of which I have in eBook form, in chapter 7 this statement is made. "the laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without the possibility of the development of life as we know it". Goes on to say that the Cosmological Constant (the energy density that causes the universe's expansion, referred to as dark energy) has a value 10^120” (as a comparison, the est. atoms in the observable universe is 10^80) ---
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=how...e+universe --- Continuing "the one thing that is certain is that if the value of the Cosmological Constant were much larger than it is, our universe would have blown itself apart before galaxies could form--once again--life as we know it would impossible".
The sample size is one (scientific); the multiverse is hypothetical set of finite and infinite possible universes. So there it is, the scientific method rules out chance.

[Foxaèr]

The scientific method does not rule out chance. It merely makes the mention of that chance being highly improbable. Yet, here we are, so it was clearly probable.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The scientific method does not rule out chance. It merely makes the mention of that chance being highly improbable. Yet, here we are, so it was clearly probable.

How convenient.

[Goosebump]

This is why we have the scientific method, to check the accuracy of our results. Evidence is collected at the end of the process, not at the beginning.

We start with observations, then we form a hypothesis, then we find a way to test the hypothesis in a falsifiable way, then we carry out the test.

---

Just using logical arguments misses out all these latter vital steps.

It's basically trying to use the tools of science, but in a magical way scientists never thought of to achieve astonishing new results. But the results apply only to the world you're exploring in your head, until you can demonstrate otherwise.

These things almost always amount to:

1) Make observations

2) Announce binding rules based on these observations

3) Notice an apparent paradox caused by the rules

4) Define a special thing that violates the rules, to plug the apparent paradox

---

Scientific Method yielded the following -
The universe's expansion rate has been balanced at just the right rate to make advanced life possible. if the expansion rate were to rapid, stars and planets would not form since gravity wouldn't have adequate time to pull together the gases and dust that make up these bodies. If the expansion rate weren't rapid enough, the stars formed would rapidly collapse and become black holes or neutron stars. What determines this expansion rate is gravity and dark energy (a property that stretches the universe's space/time surface.

In the book 'The Grand Design' by Hawking, Modinow, of which I have in eBook form, in chapter 7 this statement is made.

"the laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without the possibility of the development of life as we know it".

Goes on to say that the Cosmological Constant (the energy density that causes the universe's expansion, referred to as dark energy) has a value 10^120” (as a comparison, the est. atoms in the observable universe is 10^80)

--- http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=how...e+universe ---

Continuing "the one thing that is certain is that if the value of the Cosmological Constant were much larger than it is, our universe would have blown itself apart before galaxies could form--once again--life as we know it would impossible".

The sample size is one (scientific); the multiverse is hypothetical set of finite and infinite possible universes. So there it is, the scientific method rules out chance.

*** emphasis mine ***

I put in some line breaks in the above quote to make it a little more legible. Just in case anybody that want's to know why I said what I'm about to say wants to read it.

In bold above you say: "So there it is, the scientific method rules out chance." 

Just to be clear, No it didn't. And nothing you posted does either.

[Foxaèr]

How convenient.

Convenient enough for you to have been born in order to state that, and with no god involved.

[Divinity]

The following evidence only counts if one already believes in both an intelligibly ordered universe and the efficacy of human reason. Someone that doubts either of these will not accept the evidence offered. However if both are accepted then the existence of God logically follows from the following observations:

Some causal sequences are essentially ordered.
Effects follow regularly from specific causes.
Some beings better exemplify their kind than other beings of the same kind.
There is something rather than nothing.
Some things gain their existence, preserve it, then cease to exist.

Great!

Then universe creating pixies do exist! I always suspected...


On a serious note, could you please define "intelligibly ordered universe" as you are using it?

Without reading too much into that phrase, I am detecting some possible flaws.

My youngest daughter recently asked me: "If something created the Universe, why would it have to be God?"

Magic Universe Creating Pixies is just as good of an explanation.  Maybe some of them decided to fuck around with people, and created religion.  Fucking Magic universe creating pixies.  Or at least some of them.

[Neo-Scholastic]

My youngest daughter recently asked me: "If something created the Universe, why would it have to be God?"...

Clearly you were not equipped to provide a reasonable answer.

[Cyberman]

Wanker.

[Divinity]

My youngest daughter recently asked me: "If something created the Universe, why would it have to be God?"...

Clearly you were not equipped to provide a reasonable answer.

Clearly, you aren't either.