Evidence?

[Minimalist]

Im quite interested in what you consider evidence for God.

There is none.

Nor is there any evidence for any of the thousands of other 'gods' which mankind has invented to soothe its fears and hide its ignorance.

[Edwardo Piet]

I have no idea what evidence for God looks like. Because if I saw and felt and heard him, how would I know it's not a superhuman alien? Or I could just be hallucinating, deluded, hearing voices etc....or some other explanation that's more likely, than to jump the conclusion that it's a supernatural creator that requires no explanation for himself...unlike the superhuman alien, which evolved.

I do not know whether there can be evidence for God or not, or what that evidence will look like. But I'm sure as hell not going to just go ahead and believe without any.

There may be a God, I consider it highly improbable - but whether there can be evidence for him or not, yes, he may exist. With or without the possibility of evidence, I'm not going to believe without any. I do not know if evidence for him is possible, and I do not know if he is possible, I can't prove a negative. I'm just not going to believe without.

If there can be evidence for God, I can't imagine what it would be...because he seems unfalsifiable as far as I can tell....

EvF

[theblindferrengi]

If you could prove god exists in a court of law, I would believe in him, and be mildly and hesitantly christian.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

So what do you call evidence?

Start with this:

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either a) presumed to be true, or b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

Many issues surround evidence, making it the subject of much discussion and disagreement. In addition to its subtly, evidence plays an important role in many academic disciplines, including science and law, adding to the discourse surrounding it.

An important distinction in the field of evidence is that between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, or evidence that suggests truth as opposed to evidence that directly proves truth. Many have seen this line to be less-than-clear and significant arguments have arisen over the difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

At first I disagreed with Dawkins' claim that faith and science are incompatible. Of course it's true with the lunar religious right,whose literalism allows them some quiet surreal denials of reality.However,I've come to accept Dawkins is right in principle: Mainstream believers are fine with science right up until it contradicts dogma,then dogma always wins.

[Godless]

Yep, it's up to the claimant to show the proof. The quality of the proof would depend on the reasonableness of the claim being made.
For a God claim to stand, the evidence, for me, would have to be substantial and repeatable.
But for, say a Green Elephant claim just a video might well do. If a close, long standing friend made this claim I might just take his word for it......providing he was sober!
Albert.

[lilphil1989]

Yep, it's up to the claimant to show the proof. The quality of the proof would depend on the reasonableness of the claim being made.

Exactly, the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient being that created the universe is an extraordinary one to say the least, and as such requires extraordinary evidence.

Solarwave, I think my original question was perfectly relevant to the thread, but if you'd like I'll start a new thread for that discussion.

To answer you question, I don't consider anything to be evidence for a god (yours or otherwise), if I did then I'd believe in him/her/it.
As for what could constitute evidence in the future, as others have said, a statistically significant, repeatable prayer study would certainly make me reconsider.
or a god appearing before a large number of credible witnesses.

Or if the face of a man that looks vaguely like the traditional image of jesus somehow appeared on a piece of toast, then I'd be sold!

[Retorth]

Basically, in the words of Carl Sagan:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Godless]

Yep, it's up to the claimant to show the proof. The quality of the proof would depend on the reasonableness of the claim being made.

As for what could constitute evidence in the future, as others have said, a statistically significant, repeatable prayer study would certainly make me reconsider.
or a god appearing before a large number of credible witnesses.

Credible witnesses?....When I see what Darren Brown can do to what appears to be intelligent
people I do wonder how credible anyone is as a witness to anything. :-(
Albert.

[solarwave]

Avoiding the question or what by some of you

Saying things like 'The burden of proof is on you' simply side steps the question. I know its me who needs to give a reason but that doesn't mean you can't answer what that proof might look like to you.

Also lot of people said 'There can be no proof for God's existance'. Doesn't that leave your position unverifiable and unfalsifiable? Isn't like saying, 'This is what I think and theres no possible way I could be wrong'. I dunno, just seems a bit fishy to me.

Thanks to those who did answer though summed up as prayer studies and miracles.

Why would God hide from us? Especially seeing how present he was in the bible. Is he afraid of labcoats?

Rhizo

The bible is based over hundreds of years in a small area of land. God doesn't act a huge amount based on the time scale and compared to the area of the earth.

lilphil1989 :

I'll answer your question now (not right now because I can't be bother with a huge post at the moment). I didn't answer it in the first place because if I did everyone would be arguing against what I was saying rather than answer the question.

[amw79]

Telling you the that the burden of proof lies with yourself, is not side-stepping the question - its simply stating a fact. But to try to answer the question....

The main critera being evidence that is independently verifiable and repeatable, according to the highest scientific rigour.

I think in a nutshell it would need to be evidence of prayer or miracles which demonstrate that the laws of physics or biology were temporarily suspended or overruled to produce a measureable result, that could be specifically attributed to God.

I.E. Miracles such as people recovering from severe illness - not good enough. However if all the theists on this forum could tonight pray for my mate who lost a leg in a car crash for it to grow back; I'll give him a call tomorrow and report back on the results....