On the nature of evidence.

[trmof]

Fair enough, I missed that particular part. I would expect this being to send me lots of obvious signs of it's existence which would speak to me personally, and then it would throw lot's of unasked for material providence at me on a regular basis after I confirm that I could hear it and was interested in what it had to say, so as to maintain the relationship. Since I don't know what God looks like or whether he prefers to localize in your basement at present, it's entirely possible they are one and the same.

---

Now that I've offered my own standard of evidence, which is not going to be swayed by any of your opinions since it's conditions have already been met and surpassed, can we please put a button on this topic and meet again on another thread? I'm getting tired and I have literally nothing to do with my life except compulsively answer these posts.

I could make my invisible purple nothing diametrically opposed to your Christian version in all ways possible, and then there would be nothing to choose between them. There in lies the problem. If there is nothing to choose between them, then they are both equally likely, or unlikely.

I don't of course actually believe in the invisible purple nothing (I'm sure you're relieved) but people do believe and have believed in the past, in a number of gods who do contradict the Christian god on essentially the same evidence as yours, and who is to choose between them?

I can see why you'd wish someone would put a button on this thread. It's because as you've defined god there is not possible evidence for or against him, only how you and others feel. And people feel there is and isn't a variety of gods.

The bulk of those gods could because of their assumed powers, prove their existence, but all decline to do so.

All which is to say that you've defined your god as scientifically unprovable and then asked what proof of him we'd accept.

Failing scientific evidence you say, well the heart is proof. Well, I don't accept feelings as proof of anything because so many people feel so many different things. Mine is the rational position. Yours is one of feeling. If ALL people felt as you do, it would give me pause. But since what people feel about god is largely cultural, it does not.

What would you consider to be a reliable scientific test for the existence of my God or any other?

[genkaus]

Let's assume for a second that you did experience just such an Old Testament miracle.

A) why would you assume it actually happened if a simpler explanation is that you imagined it and are developing mental illness.

Because there would be others corroborating it.

B) What would you expect to be the reaction of other atheists with whom you shared this experience? And assuming you believed what had happen to you, how would you convey this knowledge to another person besides simply telling them and hoping they believe you?

OT miracles weren't limited to one person at a time. They were witnessed by many and they left verifiable, tangible evidence.

[trmof]

I think you might be setting your standards too high. As someone who I presume lives an ordinary life without major worldwide repercussions, it might be unreasonable to ask God for something so major that he has to make the laws of physics jump through hoops. He has to take into account the butterfly effect this would have on everything in your immediate vicinity and beyond.

He doesn't seem to have any problem with making laws of physics jump through hoops in any of your scripture. The standard of proof here is the same it was 2000 years ago - that's not setting the bar too high.

In my experience God is much more likely to communicate with people through strange circumstances which speak to them personally, as these are much easier to engineer. I would suggest you ask humbly for a very simple sign of this kind, and don't immediately write it off as a coincidence when something unusual happens; but ask God to provide a larger, bolder sign to confirm the first. If he is an active personality as I believe, he will see fit to give you these signs and make them more and more obvious. However, if you DO receive these increasingly obvious signs and still refuse to acknowledge them as circumstantial evidence, then God will eventually stop trying.

Been there, done that, got nothing. What's next?

What you do next is irrelevant to the discussion.

---

Let's assume for a second that you did experience just such an Old Testament miracle.

A) why would you assume it actually happened if a simpler explanation is that you imagined it and are developing mental illness.

Because there would be others corroborating it.

B) What would you expect to be the reaction of other atheists with whom you shared this experience? And assuming you believed what had happen to you, how would you convey this knowledge to another person besides simply telling them and hoping they believe you?

OT miracles weren't limited to one person at a time. They were witnessed by many and they left verifiable, tangible evidence.

Groups of people all around the world report instances of miracles all the time.

[bennyboy]

As for my personal testimony, I plan on posting that at some point in the near future in another part of the forum. Feel free to dissect it there.

I'll save you the time of posting-- the wonderful feelings and deep sense of connection you have are all emotions, and you do not have any more reason to believe in your God than Hindus do in theirs, or the dog-talking serial killer in his.

[Surgenator]

Giving mankind undiscovered secrets of physics would be very unwise for even a PERSON to do, let alone a God. The first thing we have done with any new piece of scientific knowledge is start exploring the possibilities of weaponizing it.

Your assumption that it will immediately lead to a weapon proves you don't know much about physics.

You can ask your god to tell you how to cure aids, cancer, or ebola.

I suspect your god doesn't have any knowledge beyond your own, much less the knowledge of the all the humans on this planet. Which would mean he is just a figment of your imagination.

[bennyboy]

Groups of people all around the world report instances of miracles all the time.

They also once reported that the world was flat. Unfortunately, reality is not an issue of the consensus of superstitious people.

[Mudhammam]

This is nothing but your intuition on healthy social conduct. You have already stated that personal intuition is not a reliable indicator of reality, therefore I will apply your own standard to this statement and discount it as false and irrelevant on it's face.

Simply because you have nothing but assertion and intuition to ground your vain philosophies in does not implicate anyone else in such laziness but yourself. 10+ pages of rebuttals to your absurd suggestion that evidence for God exists on account of a person's feelings or uniformed conclusions about the conditions of causation in immediate experience is sufficient for me to point out that your insistence to the contrary is either dishonest or delusional, or you're simply not sophisticated enough to formulate an affirmation of your claims. That you thought I was speaking about "healthy social conduct" only serves to illuminate your dissonance from the conversation you initiated. In fact, I'm quite enjoying your sheer lack of cogency while others take to it like sport.

[genkaus]

I think that you are taking standards which apply to things we can scientifically test for and applying them to things which we can't scientifically test for. You're discounting that any number of things about the universe could be true simply because we aren't currently able to measure them, which is a fine skeptical analysis, but lacking as a philosophical analysis and is the reason philosophy exists in the first place. There is no reason to dicount one form of evidence simply because another form is better. I would argue that THIS places limits on our ability to examine what is and isn't true.

Defining god as "something we can't scientifically test for" is special pleading to begin with. Any insane notion could be true, but the question here is establishing that it is true and we won't lower the standard of proof where that is concerned. And having a more reliable method of verification is a very good reason discount one that isn't reliable.

[trmof]

As for my personal testimony, I plan on posting that at some point in the near future in another part of the forum. Feel free to dissect it there.

I'll save you the time of posting-- the wonderful feelings and deep sense of connection you have are all emotions, and you do not have any more reason to believe in your God than Hindus do in theirs, or the dog-talking serial killer in his.

I'm glad you're so open minded. I'll save you the time responding and point out that this is sarcasm.

---

Giving mankind undiscovered secrets of physics would be very unwise for even a PERSON to do, let alone a God. The first thing we have done with any new piece of scientific knowledge is start exploring the possibilities of weaponizing it.

Your assumption that it will immediately lead to a weapon proves you don't know much about physics.

You can ask your god to tell you how to cure aids, cancer, or ebola.

I suspect your god doesn't have any knowledge beyond your own, much less the knowledge of the all the humans on this planet. Which would mean he is just a figment of your imagination.

Then you should probably spend your time doing something more productive than conversing with me. I'll do the same.

---

I think that you are taking standards which apply to things we can scientifically test for and applying them to things which we can't scientifically test for. You're discounting that any number of things about the universe could be true simply because we aren't currently able to measure them, which is a fine skeptical analysis, but lacking as a philosophical analysis and is the reason philosophy exists in the first place. There is no reason to dicount one form of evidence simply because another form is better. I would argue that THIS places limits on our ability to examine what is and isn't true.

Defining god as "something we can't scientifically test for" is special pleading to begin with. Any insane notion could be true, but the question here is establishing that it is true and we won't lower the standard of proof where that is concerned. And having a more reliable method of verification is a very good reason discount one that isn't reliable.

I've already responded to your points in other comments. If you have nothing further it would appear we are at an impasse.

---

I think that you are taking standards which apply to things we can scientifically test for and applying them to things which we can't scientifically test for. You're discounting that any number of things about the universe could be true simply because we aren't currently able to measure them, which is a fine skeptical analysis, but lacking as a philosophical analysis and is the reason philosophy exists in the first place. There is no reason to dicount one form of evidence simply because another form is better. I would argue that THIS places limits on our ability to examine what is and isn't true.

Defining god as "something we can't scientifically test for" is special pleading to begin with. Any insane notion could be true, but the question here is establishing that it is true and we won't lower the standard of proof where that is concerned. And having a more reliable method of verification is a very good reason discount one that isn't reliable.

I have specifically asked several times how one would go about testing for the existence of God scientifically and have received no answer. If that's your standard of proof that's your prerogative. It is not shared by me or most people.

---

This is nothing but your intuition on healthy social conduct. You have already stated that personal intuition is not a reliable indicator of reality, therefore I will apply your own standard to this statement and discount it as false and irrelevant on it's face.

Simply because you have nothing but assertion and intuition to ground your vain philosophies in does not implicate anyone else in such laziness but yourself. 10+ pages of rebuttals to your absurd suggestion that evidence for God exists on account of a person's feelings or uniformed conclusions about the conditions of causation in immediate experience is sufficient for me to point out that your insistence to the contrary is either dishonest or delusional, or you're simply not sophisticated enough to formulate an affirmation of your claims. That you thought I was speaking about "healthy social conduct" only serves to illuminate your dissonance from the conversation you initiated. In fact, I'm quite enjoying your sheer lack of cogency while others take to it like sport.

You have serious trouble not letting others have the last word, even when you are forced to repeat your previous assertions ad naseum. This is indicative of poor social skills. Feel free to leave another comment without reiterating points you've previously made, and I'll be more than happy to stop pointing out your personal flaws in a public forum.

---

Groups of people all around the world report instances of miracles all the time.

They also once reported that the world was flat. Unfortunately, reality is not an issue of the consensus of superstitious people.

Then why would you give weight to their testimony as evidence in your previous statement?

[genkaus]

Let's start with the basics - your god is supposed to be an intelligent immaterial entity. Start with proving that intelligence can exist without a material medium and then we'll go to the next step.

I never claimed him to be immaterial.

That makes your job even easier - if he is material, get his picture.

---

What you do next is irrelevant to the discussion.

You mean your next idea about inquiry regarding evidence of god's is irrelevant to this discussion?

Groups of people all around the world report instances of miracles all the time.

Did you miss the part about leaving tangible, verifiable evidence?

---

Defining god as "something we can't scientifically test for" is special pleading to begin with. Any insane notion could be true, but the question here is establishing that it is true and we won't lower the standard of proof where that is concerned. And having a more reliable method of verification is a very good reason discount one that isn't reliable.

I've already responded to your points in other comments. If you have nothing further it would appear we are at an impasse.

There is no impasse - you have been proven wrong and all you have to offer are shoddy rationalizations.

I have specifically asked several times how one would go about testing for the existence of God scientifically and have received no answer. If that's your standard of proof that's your prerogative. It is not shared by me or most people.

Actually, you have received many answers. Like proving the OT miracles. Or immaterial intelligence. Your problem is that you know your hypothetical god would fail any such scientific test which is why you want to posit him as unscientific to begin with.