What counts as evidence for God?

[Sehnsucht]

Eh, well you still have to discuss each of them one by one. Regardless of how it was meant to be taken, the arguments either stand on their own or not. I suppose it was just meant to be more convincing when taken altogether.

That's likely the case. It's only that I've seen that line of thinking before -- that these arguments ought to be considered in their gestalt, and to pick at them individually defeats the point -- so it seemed worth noting.

We're in general agreement otherwise.

 

[YamiFury]

There is no way to prove that God exists and there's no way to prove God doesn't exist. Personally, I don't believe in him. Someone would have to be insane to state that there's a way to prove the fact that he doesn't exist. It's impossible.

 

[Maven89]

1. Either scientific or Philosophical arguments for the existence of an intelligent creating force

2. Direct, documented historical interactions between the diety and human society.

I think Aquinas's five ways demonstrate evidence (not proof) that there is a God, and I think the possible resurrection of Jesus Christ counts as evidence (not proof) of the Christian God. Evidence isn't proof, I don't think there will ever be direct proof of God or what he's like, I think the best anyone will ever have is evidence and direct experience.

 

[SSG SAX GAMER]

I'd say there isn't anything that counts as evidence for god because people build up god as someone who is invisible (or he doesn't show himself), can't be observed, leaves no marks and traces (that by itself is enough for no evidence for god to come out), is intangible, and when he does interact with the world you can't see him do it.

This means that anything that we could attribute to god (as in a miracle that can't be scientifically explained yet) you could also blame on an invisible pink elephant since they are both unfalsifiable. The way my friend put it was,

"Did you know that elephants are really good at hiding in trees?"
"Elephants don't hide in trees"
"have you ever seen an elephant hiding in a tree?"
"no"
"exactly"

 

[TRJV]

As a Catholic, I was under the impression that it was the entire point for there not to be any objective proof for God to exist. Assuming that he does, the natural universe is little more that a test you must pass in order to achieve eternal paradise. For there to be sure proof of his existence would make everyone pass it, regardless of worth, entirely defeating the purpose of the test.

Don't quote me on this though.

EDIT: I apologize if this has been said earlier. I haven't been able to read through the whole thread.

 

[Deleted member]

There's an endless possibly of things you can't technically disprove. However, in order of being incapable of being disprove, you also have to be incapable of existing too. And there's an unlimited amount of capabilities of that.


God doesn't physically exist as far as ANYONE knows, but he does as a concept. Not that means a god couldn't exist, many things technically don't exist until they are discovered or labeled. Though still the chances of it being anything related to human theology is highly unlikely as that is something not only created, but much more importantly CHANGED by culture. And with time it'll fade eventually just like it previously exist.

They act as moral codes more so than anything, however, no moral code is timeless, people will continue to change and adapt as culture changes. For better or for worse.(Even though there's no objective answers.)

With that being said though, I don't mind people believing in a religion, it is needed in order for some people to keep themselves going everyday. Or perhaps for a moral code.(I'm a Satanist for this reason.) I just don't like it when it dictates the government. It also doesn't belong with science as the concept of religion itself is unscientific due to its structure. I feel the longer our lifetimes expand, the more we can see change through our own eyes, the better living conditions are, and the more the human race comes closer together, then we'd be more so wise and kind in general. Life is too short, it's pretty frighting.

 

[Ten of Nine]

None of this is directed at anyone here, but your post reminds me.....I love when people I talk to bring up moral code when defending their religion.

It is literally the easiest thing to debunk, usually I leave them feeling completely dismantled (let alone having their mind blown)

1. Secular laws and beliefs have always been so far ahead of any religion, always forcing it to conform and drop antiquated disgusting/disturbing previous beliefs in morales. Only in hindsight do all religions conveniently alter their obsolete morale code to fit with popular opinion (usually 50-100 years too late). They also actively ignore those parts of the scripture or try and force a nonsense re-interpretation.

2. "So you have to have a book tell you what is wrong and what is right? So if there weren't 10 rules written down and you didn't read them you'd be going about throwing babies, stealing from others, and stabbing old people? That is worrying....thank God those words exist to keep people like you in check"

3. "So the only reason you do good things is to gain favor with your objective God in hopes of getting into Heaven later? Well instantly that makes you less righteous because you need a motivation, an ulterior motive just to be a good person (and to be good to others). I believe in no afterlife or gods, I don't need a carrot dangling from a stick or some words on a page to do what is naturally right, what is abundantly obvious. Treat others as you would like to be treated; this leads to a more productive, progressive, and bountiful society. Among intelligent people this is what being Human is all about."

 

[Crystanium]

You would need to define what "god" means, give coherent, ostensible definitions, and somehow show that said god can be in a controlled setting to allow predictive results. Seeing as how there is no clear definition of what "god" is, let alone the fact that omni-attributes aren't coherent, and the Abrahamic god doesn't like to be tested, I don't see such a thing being possible. Scientists who don't believe in gods would likely find that any attempt at proving such existence would get nowhere in methodological naturalism. Besides, if there could be proof for the existence of a god or gods, then they would fall under the realm of what's natural.

 

[Blacklooter]

The minimal way to show God exist's is to have people that have the experience of God..and or know him/her..to honestly speak up about their experience..

 

[Maven89]

People don't believe you if you do

 

[BagrB0y]

Is there anything that would really count as evidence?

Everything is so subjective, while one person may argue based on text in the bible, another may demand visible scientific proof they can see of God.

At the end of the day, the only way to truly prove or disprove the existence of god (with visible evidence) is not one that is feasible for human beings.

 

[WinAce]

The minimal way to show God exist's is to have people that have the experience of God..and or know him/her..to honestly speak up about their experience..

Anecdotal evidence isn't considered to be reliable evidence in Scientific Circles It's designed to accompany already established empirical evidence.

1. Either scientific or Philosophical arguments for the existence of an intelligent creating force

2. Direct, documented historical interactions between the diety and human society.

I think Aquinas's five ways demonstrate evidence (not proof) that there is a God, and I think the possible resurrection of Jesus Christ counts as evidence (not proof) of the Christian God. Evidence isn't proof, I don't think there will ever be direct proof of God or what he's like, I think the best anyone will ever have is evidence and direct experience.

Aquinas' Quinqae viae IIRC were the basic of modern Christian Apologetics, which is shaky at best. Argument from First Cause, Design, motion, etcetera... All been pretty much refuted at this point. Philosophical arguments either way is like being in stalemate for 2000 years.

Also, gonna single out a part of the article of it on WIkipedia:

"The 20th-century philosopher of religion Richard Swinburne argued in his book, Simplicity as Evidence of Truth, that these arguments are only strong when collected together, and that individually each of them is weak."

Five bad arguments dont make one good one. I just find this to be rediculous

Personally, "I don't know" sums up my belief, or lack thereof. I used to say "Who cares" until I realized I literally became a sysop at a wiki that explores concepts like this, and that other people do care. Will we ever know? Maybe, maybe not.

 

[Diddy Kong]

Both highly intelectual people with a far higher understanding of these things are athiest and believers. I personally view as it's sort of a forced stereotype where we automatically assume athiests are more intelligent than believers. Albert Einstein believed in God, Steve Hawking does not. We cannot compare whole belief systems like that, that's what I want to say first of all.

This is what I see back in the society of so-called "spiritual but not religious" people. They also vary deeply with their belief in a Creator God and not. Some say he exists, and I share that belief,

I am by no means a scientist but I've dugged into some basic explanations of sacred geometry. And how it explains how literally everything is connected through a strict universal mathematical code. I believe a lot of quantum physics is also related to this exact knowlegde. And personally, am really troubled that science and religion have separated so much from each other, while originally these where all once studied under the same principles.

I cannot explain it myself, but I've seen with simple explanations of sacred geometry and quantum physics how there's a definiate pattern or better yet, design in which life operates. How it all comes back to a sacred order and mathematical code. There's no way that came to be just random. I see the very fact that we know so little of what life really means that there's not a definitate answer to anything. We are all wondering, and sort of asking the same questions to ourselves anyway.. What does life mean, does it ever really end at all, and how did I get here on Earth. We are not always conscious about it, but hey, that's what the physical world is there for... To distract.

See what I've came to understand, is that all is consciousness. It separates the physical world from the mental, spiritual and emotional world. Where do our thoughts come from? Who is the voice inside that reasonates with you? Why do we have intuition, and why is it more accurate than everything else tangable most of the times? Ever get that gut feeling to not trust a situation? These, I found, are all messages from higher up there. I am not saying The Most High God himself, but he has a lot of workers. It's a voice inside that speaks to all of us. And therefore it's really our consciousness that's all what we 'are' as person, and as our real self. And as soon as we follow that, there's no more illusion of separation.

This elevated consciousness and feeling of oneness is the closest proof of God that I can name. It takes a lot to get there, but you must be willing to let go of everything before. It's a thing that both science, religion and spirituality share, and I know this to be the highest truth in the universe.

There's no separation, there's no me, no you, we All Are, One.

 

[Whia]

Thoughts come from the brain, intuition is basically just cognitive shortcuts, and it definitely is not more accurate than everything else most of the time.