What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[robvalue]

For me, pragmatic scepticism at a personal level should be graded not just on the unlikelihood of the claim but also the importance. So even if blue whales don't exist, it doesn't make much difference to me. If atoms don't exist, my understanding of things would be a bit shaken up, but still it wouldn't affect me. So I'm happy to rely on a robust but not highly critical level of inspection and "trust".

However, if you're planning to devote your life to something, donate money, preach to others about it, life your life by its values and so on... I'd say it's pretty fucking important to be very sure that it actually exists!

[Psychonaut]

Been there - done that.


https://atheistforums.org/thread-28668-p...#pid752753

The lesbian guy has a point you know.

[Tonus]

Isn't it really that we've just figured out what works, from what is observed?

From what is observed, and what is tested, and what is confirmed. We know that radio waves exist because we see the results attained by those who did more than just observe and theorize. We know what cholesterol is and how it works because of decades of medical and scientific research and testing. We know that aliens routinely visit our planet in their little space ships because... well, many people don't believe that at all, in spite of all of the evidence and claims. Why? Because we have ways to learn and to verify and to add or change to our constantly growing collective base of knowledge. This allows us to accept some wild claims if they can be proven (do you know that you can hold the contents of the Library of Congress in a device the size of your thumb?) and it allows us to remain suspicious of other claims until they are proven (Bigfoot, as an example).

The question of "what would god need to do for you to believe he exists" often relies on a single experience or event. But we already know that such occurrences do not convince most people. We know that they occur all the time to people from various walks of life and varying belief systems, and that they are used to confirm or deny all kinds of beliefs. We don't accept those claims as true because our experiences through human history have helped us to develop ways to determine which are reliable and which are not. If god wants to convince us that he's there, he just needs to show up and let us do the rest. We've gotten pretty good at figuring this stuff out.

[Psychonaut]

For me, pragmatic scepticism at a personal level should be graded not just on the unlikelihood of the claim but also the importance. So even if blue whales don't exist, it doesn't make much difference to me. If atoms don't exist, my understanding of things would be a bit shaken up, but still it wouldn't affect me. So I'm happy to rely on a robust but not highly critical level of inspection and "trust".

However, if you're planning to devote your life to something, donate money, preach to others about it, life your life by its values and so on... I'd say it's pretty fucking important to be very sure that it actually exists!

So inadvertently (or perhaps intentionally), those pesky religionuts have conjured up a question format which points to ultimate importance. We could always just remove the object (God) from the bible or any other holy book and insert blue whales, thus making the blue whales of infinite importance. This is why I'm a bit stuck on this question, because that's actually the case. I've previously thought that we could do that with an infinite number of concepts represented by letters or numbers or images etc. and then insert the heaven/hell dichotomy. Ultimately being left at an impasse. There's really no way out of the argument that I can see. 

I mean this is why I ask. I feel like I've dedicated a lot of time (possibly unnecessarily [as a lot of people here have probably done as well]) to this question. 
Which is why (unfortunately) Old Berty has got me stuck. 

Any suggestions on a way out?

[ReptilianPeon]

Well, Quran 2:73 says that if you strike a dead human with a piece of beef (heifer) then that human will be resurrected. If I saw a dead man come back to life after being hit with a piece of beef then I'd consider that evidence for Allah. Naturally, nobody will be willing to die for the purposes of testing this verse. Come on people, where is your faith in Allah?

Quran 2:72-73 "Remember ye slew a man and fell into a dispute among yourselves as to the crime: But Allah was to bring forth what ye did hide. (72) So We said: "Strike the (body) with a piece of the (heifer)." Thus Allah bringeth the dead to life and showeth you His Signs: Perchance ye may understand. (73)

[Psychonaut]

Isn't it really that we've just figured out what works, from what is observed?

From what is observed, and what is tested, and what is confirmed.  We know that radio waves exist because we see the results attained by those who did more than just observe and theorize.  We know what cholesterol is and how it works because of decades of medical and scientific research and testing.  We know that aliens routinely visit our planet in their little space ships because... well, many people don't believe that at all, in spite of all of the evidence and claims.  Why?  Because we have ways to learn and to verify and to add or change to our constantly growing collective base of knowledge.  This allows us to accept some wild claims if they can be proven (do you know that you can hold the contents of the Library of Congress in a device the size of your thumb?) and it allows us to remain suspicious of other claims until they are proven (Bigfoot, as an example).

The question of "what would god need to do for you to believe he exists" often relies on a single experience or event.  But we already know that such occurrences do not convince most people.  We know that they occur all the time to people from various walks of life and varying belief systems, and that they are used to confirm or deny all kinds of beliefs.  We don't accept those claims as true because our experiences through human history have helped us to develop ways to determine which are reliable and which are not.  If god wants to convince us that he's there, he just needs to show up and let us do the rest.  We've gotten pretty good at figuring this stuff out.

I agree that having a testable, repeatable, falsifiable hypothesis is of primary importance when seeking what works.
in the 5000 years of civilization we've had, we still haven't figured out a solid method for determining the "truthiness" of a claim. Other than descartes' cogito ergo sum, which would probably be better said as "there is experience, therefore verification of experience is immediately possible" as concepts of "me" and "am" are vague and crazy.
In the history of man, the only thing we've managed to say with 100% certainty is that there is experiential stuff? 

That doesn't sound much like progress to me. I know, planes, space, medicine, etc. It just seems that this is fairly important water we're wading through.
One would think we could've moved slightly forward in that pursuit (if it's even possible to do so).

[TubbyTubby]

I would need more than the 'second plumbing' as evidence, that's for sure.

http://metro.co.uk/2010/06/30/is-this-th...ry-426748/

[Tonus]

In the history of man, the only thing we've managed to say with 100% certainty is that there is experiential stuff?

I get what you're saying.  And in the case of things outside of our ability to detect, I think it really comes down to whether or not they interact with the world we can experience.  If they do not, then we have no way of knowing if they are real.  In that case, all of the claims of such beings or planes of existence are made up, even if one of them might be accurate, since we have no way of experiencing them.

If they are able to interact with the world we can experience, then we must consider whether it makes sense that they can do so in ways that are consistent and give us a clear indication that (1)they are there and (2)who or what they are and what they want.  If not, we get a world where there are gods/angels/demons that we cannot possibly understand because the best we can get are inconsistent and fragmented experiences that lead us to varied and contradictory conclusions.  That could certainly explain many of the 'unexplained phenomena' that people report, while also explaining the many different varieties of religion and spirituality that people have (and continue to) practice(d).

But what most people seem to believe in (or want to believe in) is a universe with a specific and personable god capable of interacting with us in ways that we can experience.  And that we can share those experiences, whether it is by being with others who verify it, or telling others and comparing.  With enough of those experiences across the spectrum of humanity, it becomes easier to reach a consensus.  If a few people see a man walk on water, we are likely to want to know how he tricked us into seeing that.  If that man is able to repeat his feat regularly and in conditions where we can't duplicate or foil him, we begin to accept that he is doing just that.  Even if we can't explain it.

That latter may shake our sense of order, but we'd eventually accept that certain things are real, and that they are possible.  If the universe that is being claimed really does exist, then there's no reason we can't eventually reach such a level of certainty about things that we dismiss otherwise.

[Chad32]

Something that can't be explained by natural means. Someone prays for a cancer patient, and the cancer goes away. Was it god, or did the cancer just go into remission? This is why people ask for prayer to grow lost limbs back.

If someone can do something blatantly breaking the laws of physics, or something else that can only be explained by magic, I'll start believing they are a god, or their god works through them. Worship may or may not follow.

[robvalue]

Personally I don't actually care, it's of no relevance to me if there is or isn't a god, especially as it's doing such a good impression of not being there anyway.

But yeah, we can't have certainty of anything, that's the problem of solipsism for a start. So we can only work with reasonable probabilities. In order to ask what evidence is needed for "God" we need a definition of it. And more often than not, people's definition actually excludes it from ever being able to provide evidence. Of course they are generally just ranting and throwing out impressive sounding words like metaphysical and omni this and timeless and whatever. Fact is they have no real experience of it, so they wouldn't know it if it hit them over the head. "God" can mean anything, and until a sensible definition with actual testable attributes or some way of collecting evidence is given, it's just unfalsifiable garbage.