Posts: 55
Threads: 10
Joined: September 30, 2013
Reputation:
1
What would you consider to be evidence for God?
June 25, 2015 at 11:22 am
(This post was last modified: June 25, 2015 at 11:24 am by Psychonaut.)
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!"
Posts: 7045
Threads: 20
Joined: June 17, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: What would you constitute as evidence for God?
June 25, 2015 at 11:24 am
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
Posts: 13122
Threads: 130
Joined: October 18, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: What would you consider as evidence for God?
June 25, 2015 at 11:26 am
(This post was last modified: June 25, 2015 at 11:27 am by abaris.)
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.
Posts: 55
Threads: 10
Joined: September 30, 2013
Reputation:
1
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
June 25, 2015 at 11:27 am
(This post was last modified: June 25, 2015 at 11:29 am by Psychonaut.)
(June 25, 2015 at 11:26 am)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!"
Posts: 23210
Threads: 26
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
June 25, 2015 at 11:35 am
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.
Posts: 7318
Threads: 75
Joined: April 18, 2015
Reputation:
73
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
June 25, 2015 at 11:38 am
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.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
June 25, 2015 at 11:41 am
(This post was last modified: June 25, 2015 at 11:42 am by robvalue.)
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.
Posts: 7156
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
June 25, 2015 at 11:43 am
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
Posts: 55
Threads: 10
Joined: September 30, 2013
Reputation:
1
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
June 25, 2015 at 11:49 am
(June 25, 2015 at 11:43 am)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!"
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
June 25, 2015 at 11:59 am
|
![[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-d-3rfdI7nG0%2FTerwtFyFXoI%2FAAAAAAAACak%2F7kFSmHeVrng%2Fs320%2FBumper%2BSticker%2B-%2BAsheville%2B-%2BPraise%2BDog3.JPG)
