What would evidence of a God even look like?

[Excited Penguin]

I'm talking about any kind of Gods here. I notice that we, atheists, generally tell theists they should show some evidence for their claims. I'm wondering, is any sort of evidence even possible? What kind of evidence could conceivably prove the existence of a supernatural being that created everything?

What would that even look like? 

This goes back to why I became an atheist in the first place. The original argument that propelled my atheism seems very solid to me even now, and might even justify a position of strong atheism. Thing is, given the nature of what we're talking about with theism, I really don't think it's a question science(in the "traditional" sense) can or should even attempt to answer. I think it's more of a philosophical question, if you will.

My argument goes like this. If there's a God that created the Universe(the Universe being everything in existence) then this God is either a part of the Universe or the Universe itself. It can't be merely a part of it, since it created it, so it must be the Universe itself. But then, there's no use calling it God. You might as well do away with the shady language and call it what it is. Nature, Universe, Cosmos. Whatever your secular preference.

Thoughts?

[Chad32]

I would assume evidence for a god would be something that can't be explained naturally. Gods do not stand on clouds and throw lightning bolts at the world, for instance. Some consistent benefit that a follower of a certain god has, that no one else has. If a christian's life was always better than a non christian's, then most of the world would convert so they get the same benefit.

People worship other gods, and not the "true" god, so whatever they're praying to must give them the same benefit that the real one does. People have to rely on interpretations to learn anything about a god they're supposed to have a personal relationship with? There's just no concrete consistency there.

[Expired]

The sudden disappearance of all cancers. Or an enormous foot sticking out of the clouds.

[Excited Penguin]

No guys, what you described wouldn't be evidence for Gods. It would just be a couple of interesting phenomena with no apparent explanation.

[Expired]

No guys, what you described wouldn't be evidence for Gods. It would just be a couple of interesting phenomena with no apparent explanation.

I kept it short. here is another.. an enormous note pad dropping to earth with the words eradicate cancer crossed out.

[Jesster]

Once the evidence is there, then we can decide what the evidence is supposed to look like. Before then, describing the non-existent evidence is pointless. We can only say what kind of evidence we won't accept.

[Excited Penguin]

Once the evidence is there, then we can decide what the evidence is supposed to look like. Before then, describing the non-existent evidence is pointless. We can only say what kind of evidence we won't accept.

That's being a little closeminded, to say the least.

[Jesster]

Once the evidence is there, then we can decide what the evidence is supposed to look like. Before then, describing the non-existent evidence is pointless. We can only say what kind of evidence we won't accept.

That's being a little closeminded, to say the least.

In what way?

[Excited Penguin]

That's being a little closeminded, to say the least.

In what way?

See OP.

[Jesster]

In what way?

See OP.

Nope. I've done that. Explain.

Never mind. I'll jump in ahead of you.

I never once said we should ignore evidence that shows up. That is the only way to be close-minded in this case. Instead, I am saying that it is the claimant's job to provide the evidence. We should not be doing their work for them. Once the evidence is there, we can investigate it to make up our minds. Until then, there is no point in us lifting a finger.