On the nature of evidence.

[trmof]

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?

---

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.

I have not received any answers. How would one go about testing the validity of the Old Testaments miracles? What would your hypothesis be and how would you go about gathering data for it? What does immaterial evidence have to do with an explicitly material God? Furthermore, why have you decided to resort to the immature debate tactic of exasperatedly declaring victory without actually answering my previous question?

[psychoslice]

What would Micky Mouse have to do to convince me he is real ?, ...the same thing.

[genkaus]

How would one go about testing the validity of the Old Testaments miracles?

One would start by showing such events actually happening - like the sun actually going back.

What would your hypothesis be and how would you go about gathering data for it?

Hypothesis and data gathering would come after those events are established as factual.

What does immaterial evidence have to do with an explicitly material God?

Nothing - which is why I'm asking for material evidence.

Furthermore, why have you decided to resort to the immature debate tactic of exasperatedly declaring victory without actually answering my previous question?

Because your questions have been answered and your failure to understand your loss is not an obstacle to my declaring victory.

[bennyboy]

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.

No. It really is not sarcasm. I believe you DO have wonderful feelings and a deep sense of connection, and that you interpret these as a direct experience of Godhood. And I really do want to know what is so special about your personal life experience that makes your feelings a more valid source of truth than those of Hindus or dog-talking serial killers. See, that's why non-believers want physical evidence-- because even a Hindu or a dog-talking serial killer has to refer to things the rest of us can experience in terms to validate his own conclusions. And so do you. Or, if you cannot, you must explain why the inferences YOU draw from your religious experiences are more valid than the inferences others draw, which differ greatly from yours.

[downbeatplumb]

I would like to know what the atheists on this forum WOULD consider to be persuasive evidence of God's existence. If you are interested in scientific evidence of the existence of God, how would one go about acquiring this evidence?

First define your god in a way that is testable and verifiable, then produce evidence to support the claim.

Assuming God is a personality and not just a force of nature, it would seem that it would be impossible to scientifically test for the existence of his personality and it's characteristics; just as it is impossible at the moment to come up with a functioning theory of another human's personality other than "It does what it does when it does it, and sometimes it doesn't." It's theoretically possible that if you had all the information in the universe available to you, you would be able to predict another person's behavior accurately. But given that this is currently unfeasable, it would seem to me that experiential and testimonial evidence are the only two avenues through which we could currently examine the possible existence of God.

Oh I see, you have nothing that we would class as evidence so you want us to alter the definition of evidence so believing in god wont seem so stupid.

what could a God do that would personally convince you of it's existence? I presume for most of you that if he started talking to you
personally, you would simply assume that this was mental illness.

Correct. How come you don't think this? it is the most logical conclusion.

So if a God with a personality WERE to exist, setting the standard of evidence this high would be putting him in a position where it's impossible for him communicate with you in any way whatsoever.

So how would you know delusion from reality with no actual evidence?
I guess you would just "feel" what was right yeah, just like all the other faiths have done.

[Aoi Magi]

@trmof It seems you completely overlooked or misunderstood what I tried telling you earlier.
- An unverifiable circumstance cannot be considered "evidence" if it can be interpreted as anything or everything, and we cannot assume it to be God when far more understandable naturalistic explanations are present.
- Furthermore evidence has to be presentable and verifiable by anybody who wishes to do so. Personal evidence/experience, as you said yourself, cannot be proven so it is pointless.


You constantly claimed the we are setting the standards too high, that may be so for your god concept, but we set the standards based on the definition of god that we have been presented with. So as you've been asked many times, define the standards, and what your god can and cannot do. If his capabilities are limited to only what YOU can do, then there's no reason to suppose he has any existence outside of your mind. If he can do something more, define that and we can move on to verify that.

You also claimed he is able to talk to you, but have constantly failed to prove that is the case, as you haven't shown any bit of supernatural wisdom in the slightest. Also is talking in a person's head the only quality he has? Because that power is attributed to any and all supernatural forces, including the devil and all of the other pagan gods, and science has shown it to be just a mental disorder in multitudes of cases presented before it.

[Cyberman]

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.

Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit on this one. Several of us, myself included, have asked repeatedly and specifically for you to give us something about the nature of your god that we can examine. Each time you've dodged around with "that’s not what my god is", constantly moving your god out of the spotlight so it cannot be tested. Worse, you've tried to shut down discussion of these things every time someone's tried to respond to you. That's not going to engender much confidence in any evidence you think you have outside of concluding you don't have any. At least, none that you feel would stand up to scrutiny.

You spoke of miracle claims; fine, let's examine those. Give us some of the miracles that you feel best support the existence of a god and why you think that.

[Aractus]

I would like to know what the atheists on this forum WOULD consider to be persuasive evidence of God's existence. If you are interested in scientific evidence of the existence of God, how would one go about acquiring this evidence?

Christianity is a faith. It cannot be proved, most Christians would acknowledge that.

Evidence? Well where's the evidence that humans are special? We evolved, and we even cross-bread with Neanderthals (about 2% of our DNA comes from that species). If we're such a unique and special species, what business did we have cross-breeding with another??

So what could a God do that would personally convince you of it's existence?

Supposedly he spoke to Moses on Mt. Sinai.

He could start by speaking to people, then they might listen.

[Cato]

This guy is as full of shit as the rest of them. He is only trying to conceal the stench through pseudo-philosophical argument. I say pseudo-philosophical because he has no problem making excuses for the fallacies that are demonstrated rather than correcting his reasoning. My favorite is when he employed a strict Cartesian skepticism to assert that anything imagined is just as real as knowledge that can be demonstrated.

The OP creating a thread asking what evidence would be required for belief only to then prescribe the A/S/K-"burning bosom" method of ascertaining knowledge of god is fucking hilarious. The OP is to philosophy what Deepak Chopra is to physics.

There's also the matter where ideas for demonstration of god are dismissed because god may not want to participate or we're not worthy. Either way, the OP seems consistent in maintaining that god is not testable which makes me wonder what the purpose of this thread is other than to annoy people. Part of this has to do with the OP's reluctance to define the qualities of the god to be tested; I believe he used words to the effect "that's not the purpose of the thread". See pseudo-philosophical and Chopra comparison above.

To answer the OP, this is what would do it for me:
God could simultaneously hijack all forms of communication to proclaim that at midnight (GMT) tomorrow, he will restore all amputated limbs with full functionality. Of course this doesn't resolve which god is performing what amounts to a simple parlor trick so it would also serve him well to be specific about which book and set of rules we are to live by afterwards. This won't happen because god doesn't exist, but I'm sure as with other attempts to answer the original question it will be passed off due to god's disinterest or some other 'mysterious ways' excuse.

As I eluded to before, same ole shit.

[Mudhammam]

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.

Good luck with your time here. Judging by your posts thus far, you'll need it.