What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[comet]

if it was a honest discussion using observations this question might have meaning.

but this is not about honesty for the people that are fighting the most. There is no way to close the gap for people that have an emotional reason as to why they literally follow any belief system. Even if they believe in "lack of belief" as something real.

[Tonus]

But here's the deal, it doesn't even matter that I don't know.  Because if God is real then SHE (God is genderless right?  So this is EXACTLY as accurate as "he") knows what it would take to convince me.

Most of the "what would it take for you to believe" questions I've seen assume that it should only take one piece of evidence --an event, an experience, etc-- to convince us of something as important as whether there really is a god and whether it is the specific god they follow. Aside from the issue of the ease with which we can be fooled into accepting something that is not true --a tactic theists use as well, when dismissing one another's god claims-- why should we expect so little of God? Why would I expect that God will only ever tap me on one shoulder and duck behind the other as a way of proving that he's real?

If he showed up and did the things that only God can do and went about his Godly business for all to see, we'd figure it out soon enough. Instead, I'm supposed to look at the sky and be awed by the view, or see a powerful creature and assume it was designed, and learn about flesh-eating bacteria and, uh... blame it on Adam and Eve???

[Angrboda]

I've thought about it and come to the conclusion that I don't know what would be "good evidence" for the existence of God, specifically.  I once had a Catholic ask me if I would believe if God were standing right before me and I had to answer, "I wouldn't be sure.  The Bible says that the devil can disguise himself as an angel of light."

But here's the deal, it doesn't even matter that I don't know.  Because if God is real then SHE (God is genderless right?  So this is EXACTLY as accurate as "he") knows what it would take to convince me.  What's more, she WANTS me to believe.  I would not deny the evidence God, herself, put before me.  So IF there really is a God and IF she really wants to save me, I don't need to know what would convince me because she knows and she is going to do it because she wants me to be saved.

That's assuming that satisfactory evidence is possible in principle.  Given the typical characteristics given for God -- omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence -- it seems unlikely that one could construct adequate justification for believing that a being has these traits, if at all, it would seem the evidence of such would itself be transfinite.  What's more disturbing is that people are regularly convinced by less than adequate evidence for such traits.  If that is the case, it seems beside the point to ask what evidence would adequately justify belief in such a god.  So obviously that's not the relevant standard in play and the question would more sensibly be, what evidence does it take to convince a person that God exists.  The answer to that question appears to be "because my parents told me so."  The standards of evidence the typical theist employs in justifying their belief is woefully inadequate.

[Asmodee]

I've thought about it and come to the conclusion that I don't know what would be "good evidence" for the existence of God, specifically.  I once had a Catholic ask me if I would believe if God were standing right before me and I had to answer, "I wouldn't be sure.  The Bible says that the devil can disguise himself as an angel of light."

But here's the deal, it doesn't even matter that I don't know.  Because if God is real then SHE (God is genderless right?  So this is EXACTLY as accurate as "he") knows what it would take to convince me.  What's more, she WANTS me to believe.  I would not deny the evidence God, herself, put before me.  So IF there really is a God and IF she really wants to save me, I don't need to know what would convince me because she knows and she is going to do it because she wants me to be saved.

That's assuming that satisfactory evidence is possible in principle.  Given the typical characteristics given for God -- omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence -- it seems unlikely that one could construct adequate justification for believing that a being has these traits, if at all, it would seem the evidence of such would itself be transfinite.  What's more disturbing is that people are regularly convinced by less than adequate evidence for such traits.  If that is the case, it seems beside the point to ask what evidence would adequately justify belief in such a god.  So obviously that's not the relevant standard in play and the question would more sensibly be, what evidence does it take to convince a person that God exists.  The answer to that question appears to be "because my parents told me so."  The standards of evidence the typical theist employs in justifying their belief is woefully inadequate.

That's the beauty of it.  If God exists, she is omnipotent, all-powerful.  If she truly wants me to believe I cannot NOT be convinced.  If it is her will then I WILL be convinced if she has to take apart my brain and put it back together differently.  So given that God wants to save my soul, wants me to believe and has the power to make me believe it is impossible, if God were real, for me not to believe.  I do not believe, therefore she is not real because if she were she would get what she wants, my belief, which would lead to my worship.  Fucking eternal life with no sickness, injury, death, boredom, etc.?  Sign me up as soon as you have proof!

---

But here's the deal, it doesn't even matter that I don't know.  Because if God is real then SHE (God is genderless right?  So this is EXACTLY as accurate as "he") knows what it would take to convince me.

Most of the "what would it take for you to believe" questions I've seen assume that it should only take one piece of evidence --an event, an experience, etc-- to convince us of something as important as whether there really is a god and whether it is the specific god they follow.  Aside from the issue of the ease with which we can be fooled into accepting something that is not true --a tactic theists use as well, when dismissing one another's god claims-- why should we expect so little of God?  Why would I expect that God will only ever tap me on one shoulder and duck behind the other as a way of proving that he's real?

If he showed up and did the things that only God can do and went about his Godly business for all to see, we'd figure it out soon enough.  Instead, I'm supposed to look at the sky and be awed by the view, or see a powerful creature and assume it was designed, and learn about flesh-eating bacteria and, uh... blame it on Adam and Eve???

Hey, don't sweat it.  Jesus is coming back any minute now to prove himself.  Any minute now...

[snowtracks]

But here's the deal, it doesn't even matter that I don't know.  Because if God is real then SHE (God is genderless right?  So this is EXACTLY as accurate as "he") knows what it would take to convince me.

Most of the "what would it take for you to believe" questions I've seen assume that it should only take one piece of evidence

---

--an event, an experience, etc-- to convince us of something as important as whether there really is a god and whether it is the specific god they follow.  Aside from the issue of the ease with which we can be fooled into accepting something that is not true --a tactic theists use as well, when dismissing one another's god claims-- why should we expect so little of God?  Why would I expect that God will only ever tap me on one shoulder and duck behind the other as a way of proving that he's real?

If he showed up and did the things that only God can do and went about his Godly business for all to see, we'd figure it out soon enough.  Instead, I'm supposed to look at the sky and be awed by the view, or see a powerful creature and assume it was designed, and learn about flesh-eating bacteria and, uh... blame it on Adam and Eve???

---

God reveals Himself through Scripture, and Nature. Science interprets Nature, theologians interprets Scripture. If the interpretations of these sources appear to contradict, adjustments will harmonizes to the truth. For instance as a starting point, the 1'st chapter of Genesis* gives a 13 billion year flawless summary of Nature. One of 4 definitions of the word 'Day' is: 'a long but finite period of time'. This scriptural definition of 'day' is compatible with Nature's scientific record. The process then precedes forward for additional details. Using just one of these sources, makes the evidence harder to discern, but nevertheless is still adequate.

*Note: 2'nd chapter of Genesis, tell the 'why' of creation and therefore is not in chronological physical order as chapter 1.

[Astreja]

God reveals Himself through Scripture, and Nature. Science interprets Nature, theologians interprets Scripture. If the interpretations of these sources appear to contradict, adjustments will harmonizes to the truth.

In other words, just make up crap until it fits.

For instance as a starting point, the 1'st chapter of Genesis* gives a 13 billion year flawless summary of Nature.

No.  Even if one buys into that "day=1000 years" nonsense, Genesis only accounts for 6000 of the 13,700,000,000 years.  The account is out by over 6 orders of magnitude.

[Tonus]

God reveals Himself through Scripture, and Nature.

So he's a bloodthirsty warmonger who treats women as property, and the inventor of smallpox. Got it.

*Note: 2'nd chapter of Genesis, tell the 'why' of creation and therefore is not in chronological physical order as chapter 1.

The second chapter gives a different account, not a different version of the same account. In chapter 1 he creates man and woman together and gives them the whole Earth to fill and every plant to eat. In chapter 2 he creates man, puts him in a garden and says that he may eat of any tree in the garden with the exception of one. Only later does he create the woman as a companion. The creator of chapter 1 speaks his creation into existence, whereas the creator of chapter 2 forms things, plants things, and makes things grow... a hands-on approach.

The account in chapter 2 looks to be a fragment from a different creation story that sought to make god more personal and more human, not unlike many of the gods of the ancient past. The god in chapter 1 is the magical being that most people would describe him as today, conjuring a universe out of thin air with an incantation and creating humanity in his image (or their image, based on Genesis 1:26: "Let us make...").

And let's keep in mind that those theologians who interpret scripture are considerably less unified than those scientists who 'interpret' nature. It seems to me that only one of those groups is doing its job properly.

[Angrboda]

*Note: 2'nd chapter of Genesis, tell the 'why' of creation and therefore is not in chronological physical order as chapter 1.

This is officially known as, "making shit up." AKA pulling shit from your ass.

[downbeatplumb]

A flawless summary of 13 billion years of nature is not what I see. I see a bronze ager trying to explain existence without any knowledge. A bit like telling your kid the stork brought him/her.

[robvalue]

Say I decided that I want to "worship God", but I don't know which religion to pick. How would I choose?

Their arguments and "evidence" are all pretty much interchangeable. You get adherents from each professing "knowledge" and "certainty" and "experiences", yet a large proportion of these people are totally wrong and have no idea they're having a relationship with their own imagination. Either that, or it makes no difference at all which religion you're in.

How is an outsider supposed to distinguish the truth from the delusion?

Not that I'm actually interested in joining any religion, God or not. It's just a hypothetical.