Absolute undeniable evidence for existence of God?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I've seen the entire Stargate series, but I couldn't quite get over how the Asgard race justified letting the humans keep thinking they were gods, especially if we're supposed to believe that the Asgards were morally better than the Goa'uld. I actually started spreading the idea among other fans that the Asgards were the worst of the "Four Races". They couldn't beat the replicators, and their technology actually helped spread the little buggers; they beguiled people into worshipping them just like the Goa'uld; they committed mass suicide as a race instead of continuing to advance the causes of the other races. Although Thor was cool.

Oh i wasn't actually talking about the asgards. Do you remember that episode where they wanted to get some resources from this group of people that resembled the native american indians? (don't remember what resource) and these people believed in spirit animals and worshipped them? and turns out the spirit animals do have "supernatural" powers but they were also an alien race, and were just there to watch over the people.

About the asgards, yea ... but it doesn't take much to be morally better than the gao'uld. they couldn't beat the replicators but they tried, and thor sacrificed a lot in that effort. hmm. Idk, I mean yea the part about them pretending to be gods is pretty bad. I'm not too concerned about the mass suicide, they couldn't reproduce, they were having lots of problems because of genetic degradation and such, it was a sooner or later thing. And Stargate makes a big deal of giving a civilization advance technology before it is ready will lead to catastrophic results, so all the advance races are really annoying in that sense, not surprised the asgards died to prevent the spread of their technology.

[Bad Writer]

Not the best episode, but I see where you're going with it. Supernatural is no longer supernatural when it's explained.

[Chas]

I see a world richly endowed with meaning and essential truths. Others see an absurd one with only proximate meaning. This in part explains my inclination toward Swedenborg. His writings pro-port to be revelations of the inner symbolic meanings found in Scripture. Most consider it hokum, as did I many years ago, but after a second look I found them very compelling. YMMV

No, you were right the first time.


And the word is 'purport'.

[bennyboy]

I'm actually pretty surprised at the responses thus far, considering this is a philosophy forum!

Let me rephrase that again, for the sake of argument, what evidence would make you believe in the existing of a supernatural being that created the universe?

If no evidence, none whatsoever is sufficient, then you are no different from the theists. You claim you will change your mind when provided with evidence? Give me an example of an evidence that would change your mind. Is this clear enough? Geez.

God is not a clearly defined term, and so I wouldn't even know what to look for. I can't imagine anything I could see that could be attributed ONLY to God, and not to advanced technology or an alien entity.

So you tell me exactly (exactly!) what God is, and how he manifests physically, and then I'll tell you what evidence I'm looking for.

Geez.

[genkaus]

I'm actually pretty surprised at the responses thus far, considering this is a philosophy forum!

Let me rephrase that again, for the sake of argument, what evidence would make you believe in the existing of a supernatural being that created the universe?

If no evidence, none whatsoever is sufficient, then you are no different from the theists. You claim you will change your mind when provided with evidence? Give me an example of an evidence that would change your mind. Is this clear enough? Geez.

Okay, since you invoked the p-word, let's look at it philosophically.

What is evidence? It is something you present to support your assertion. Reasonable and sufficient evidence would mean that it should convince your rational, average person of the truth of the assertion.

But what are the philosophical grounds for evidence? That is, why should I think that any given argument/data/physical specimen support the truth of anything at all?

We are assuming a few things to be true.

We assume that there is a natural world.
We assume that this natural world works in a specific way and its workings can be understood as natural and logical laws, such as cause and effect.
And we assume that we are, in fact, observing this natural world understanding its rules and principles.

Without the given assumptions, the concept of evidence is pointless. For example, if there is no cause and effect, then anything presented as evidence (effect) does not point to a particular cause and thus cannot support any particular assertion.

Now, getting to the evidence for a supernatural being. That is a tall order indeed, because all we can tell from a word like supernatural is that it transcends atleast some of the natural laws. Supernatural could be something entirely different with its own, independent set of rules. It could be something different with no rules at all. It could be something that follows all of physical laws of nature but goes against certain biological laws, e.g. vampires and werewolves. It could be something that goes against the physical laws but still, broadly, follows rules of logic, e.g. ghosts and spirits. Or it could be any weird combination of any of the above. The point is, unless a specific nature of this "supernatural" is given, we cannot even begin to conceive what evidence it would require. It may very well turn out that this supernatural is such that the concept of evidence doesn't apply at all.

Moving on, the best description available to us regarding this supernatural being called god is that he is someone who transcends all laws of nature. A common attribute given to him is that all the laws of nature are due to his will. So the evidence required would be his capacity to break all the laws of nature. And that means laws of logic as well, i.e. such a being would not be subject to causality and he would be able to make a rock that he can't lift and then lift it. It'd also separate this being from sufficiently advanced aliens, since these aliens, while working according to certain supervening laws of nature that we happen to be ignorant of are still subject to them.

And the funniest part of this experiment would be that after this, the whole concept of evidence would be rendered useless. We assumed in the beginning that evidence is valid because everything in nature works according to certain set of rules and yet, here we see something capable of changing those rules on a whim. Which means we can no longer rely on evidence to correctly support any claim - which would apply to this evidence as well leading us back to where we started.

[Kim]

Now, getting to the evidence for a supernatural being. That is a tall order indeed, because all we can tell from a word like supernatural is that it transcends atleast some of the natural laws. Supernatural could be something entirely different with its own, independent set of rules. It could be something different with no rules at all. It could be something that follows all of physical laws of nature but goes against certain biological laws, e.g. vampires and werewolves. It could be something that goes against the physical laws but still, broadly, follows rules of logic, e.g. ghosts and spirits. Or it could be any weird combination of any of the above. The point is, unless a specific nature of this "supernatural" is given, we cannot even begin to conceive what evidence it would require. It may very well turn out that this supernatural is such that the concept of evidence doesn't apply at all.

Moving on, the best description available to us regarding this supernatural being called god is that he is someone who transcends all laws of nature. A common attribute given to him is that all the laws of nature are due to his will. So the evidence required would be his capacity to break all the laws of nature. And that means laws of logic as well, i.e. such a being would not be subject to causality and he would be able to make a rock that he can't lift and then lift it. It'd also separate this being from sufficiently advanced aliens, since these aliens, while working according to certain supervening laws of nature that we happen to be ignorant of are still subject to them.

And the funniest part of this experiment would be that after this, the whole concept of evidence would be rendered useless. We assumed in the beginning that evidence is valid because everything in nature works according to certain set of rules and yet, here we see something capable of changing those rules on a whim. Which means we can no longer rely on evidence to correctly support any claim - which would apply to this evidence as well leading us back to where we started.

Ok, that's the first eloquent response to my question. If there is no such evidence of which we can rely on to prove the existing of a supernatural being, why do we ask theists to provide us with evidence for their chosen deity? Doesn't that mean that regardless of whatever evidence is provided, none would ever suffice?

[genkaus]

Ok, that's the first eloquent response to my question. If there is no such evidence of which we can rely on to prove the existing of a supernatural being, why do we ask theists to provide us with evidence for their chosen deity? Doesn't that mean that regardless of whatever evidence is provided, none would ever suffice?

Sort of missing the point here. I'm not saying that no amount of evidence for a supernatural being would ever suffice. I'm saying that depending upon the nature of supernatural and the degree to which it contravenes the known laws of reality, what we call sufficient evidence would be be different. So when someone starts talking a supernatural being, the most obvious thing to do is ask what they mean by it and what evidence they are ready to provide. Its not my fault that they start by positing something that would negate the concept of evidence itself.

Its kind of like when someone asserts that 2+2=5 or there are square circles. While on the face of it both ideas seem absurd and illogical and it may not seem like any amount of arguments would ever convince me of it, I'd still ask them to provide arguments. And while one maybe able to prove the first by rounding off 2.4 to 2 and 4.8 to 5, the argument for the latter may very well end up undercutting logic itself. Doesn't mean that asking for evidence is pointless.

If nothing else, if the required "evidence" for god is provided, I'd atleast end up realizing that evidence doesn't work and give up my commitment to reason and start taking things on faith.

[Kim]

Sort of missing the point here. I'm not saying that no amount of evidence for a supernatural being would ever suffice. I'm saying that depending upon the nature of supernatural and the degree to which it contravenes the known laws of reality, what we call sufficient evidence would be be different. So when someone starts talking a supernatural being, the most obvious thing to do is ask what they mean by it and what evidence they are ready to provide. Its not my fault that they start by positing something that would negate the concept of evidence itself.

Ok, what sufficient evidence would be required to prove the existence of, say, God as defined by Christianity?

[bennyboy]

Sort of missing the point here. I'm not saying that no amount of evidence for a supernatural being would ever suffice. I'm saying that depending upon the nature of supernatural and the degree to which it contravenes the known laws of reality, what we call sufficient evidence would be be different. So when someone starts talking a supernatural being, the most obvious thing to do is ask what they mean by it and what evidence they are ready to provide. Its not my fault that they start by positing something that would negate the concept of evidence itself.

Ok, what sufficient evidence would be required to prove the existence of, say, God as defined by Christianity?

I'd have to wake up in a pit of fire.

[Bad Writer]

Ok, what sufficient evidence would be required to prove the existence of, say, God as defined by Christianity?

Which Christianity? There are many brands out there to choose from.