So, we are always asked, what would we constitute as evidence to give even a slither of credence to the notion of some god(s)...
What would you think would be a rational and fair description of something that could pass as some kind of evidence?
I suppose that I did once think that if the news broke on live tv of a guy literally walking on water, but that water being say... the Atlantic ocean, with the sea never touching him, even if stormy... that would be compelling!
But I'll go to something more scientific and rational... something that if I was a god, I would do!
There would be one true holy book, and the materials that made it, would not correspond to any known element on this planet.
Furthermore, this would be noted in the book.
I think that would be reasonable evidence and would certainly make me sit up and pay attention.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@Randomhero1982: RE: Evidence
It's God, the all powerful, omniscient creator of the universe and everything in it. He knows exactly what it would take to convince us all. In the mean time, it's just not my problem. He can pop on down and convince me himself or he can put the right information in some theists mind to share with me. Who cares. All I know so far is that whatever the theists have been saying is not what god gave them to convince others. That's just demonstrably factual.
I would begin the process by verifying multiple independent witnesses.
it would be even better if there was some record, such as video or data gathered.
@Thread
At this point, from all I learned here and elsewhere, expecting any sort of real evidence for any god, would be a futile waste of my thought, as millions (billions?) of people been trying for thousands of years to find real evidence for and still after all that time and effort got: nothing.
If anything this "evidence" for the various "god" ideas is going backwards, as what might of been possible evidence in the past has been thoroughly disabused long ago at this point.
It is however, still fun for me to point out, over and over, that there is zero actual evidence, and people might as well believe in a rainbow farting unicorn god I made up based on their standard of "evidence" needed. The above helps me cope with the thought that such a large percentage of the human race can be so grossly mislead about something that when examined even lightly is obviously a pile of steaming bullshit.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
I completely agree Logic, especially in that there is zero evidence to support the cosmic wizard myth.
I suppose the point of my post is that I have great conversations with my brother in law and recently we discussed this topic.
We both agree there is no evidence, but hypothetically if there was a god (In our thought experiment is was almost like the god of spinoza, and not any othe the major deities)... what evidence would we expect would make us at the very least, give it due attention.
I really struggled with this notion, but in the end settled on the... one kind of book or text etc... that was made of materials/elements, not known to man.
Even then I'd want more as I would sway to intelligent alien life before concluding it was from a god... but it was a start.
Honestly, I have NO IDEA what it would take to convince me a god is real. With that in mind, I have to agree with Cog. Because any all-knowing/all-powerful god would (SHOULD) know exactly what it would take to convince me it is real. And it should most certainly be able to make that happen. As it is, IF such a god were actually real, I can only conclude either: A. It does not want me to know it is real. Or, B. It is too stupid and/or not powerful enough to know how to convince me. Or, C. It simply does not exist. Either way, it's not my problem. Meanwhile, I have better things with which to occupy my mind/time... *shrugging shoulders*...
But hey, what about D) He wants us to know Him and has given us the means to know Him (well established laws of nature) and has fine tuned our brains to be able to understand them? Further giving us a shortcut, to just believe the ancient records that describe all He had done to show mankind He still cares.
@Rabbi Mark
Provide evidence that the human brain is fine-tuned. Explain how a collection of religious writing , internally inconsistent and inconsistent between themselves are evidence of a uber supernatural entity.
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any of that vapid rhetoric?
@Randomhero1982
Heh funny, I just had a long chat with a family member last night about religion.
After several hours it boiled down to (in my mind, the family member did not admit to this fully.)
They believe in god because they fear death. God = shot at afterlife = shot at not really dying.
Makes me wonder, how many people are religious because they fear death, and perhaps loss of other family members, and its all based on fear of death and the hope that they will live on and perhaps be reunited with lost love ones?
The logic, evidence and reasoning heavily HEAVILY favor no god, so what holds otherwise intelligent people back from dismissing religion/god? I am forced to conclude, for many of them, fear of death. Maybe pain as well.
I have no idea what would constitute evidence for any god. There would have to be a description of a god that was more than "All powerful" or "beyond space and time". Once we have a description of something we can look for evidence of that thing. Believers regularly claim that their god intervenes in our daily lives, the weather, our bodies, etc. If this is true then there must be some force or mechanism that impacts physical reality. A description of that force would give us something to search for. Otherwise, all the evidence points towards human imagination.
I would require objective evidence, that could be tested by anyone, and get the same results. A voice in my head wouldn't work, because I hear voices in my head due to my mental disability.
@Cognostic; terrific answer (translation: my thoughts too)
Burden of proof remains with those making the claim. That I can't imagine what the proof might be changes nothing.
The assertion that a god as described by Christians would know exactly what proof would convince an atheist (even different proof for different atheists) is the best answer I've ever come across on this matter. Can't wait to try it out on anyone who asks the question.,
The best answer for me is in Cog's response.
First of all different people require different types of what should be considered real proof to convince them. The proof should never come from others whether it comes from theists or science. It should be direct in order for it to be convincing.
Everyone should have their own personal direct concrete experience. I would eliminate all previous versions of tales of God so that we can observe it without preexisting notions that may lead us to the wrong conclusion. If there is something beyond us and aware of us and our world then it is fully aware that this world is filled with lies and that we do not trust everything we see or hear from others. That's why I say the proof must be direct from the source to each human individual..
In Spirit
"First of all different people require different types of what should be considered real proof to convince them. The proof should never come from others whether it comes from theists or science. It should be direct in order for it to be convincing."
No, that is legitimizing personal experiences that could be generated by medications, drugs, or a malfunctioning brain. This "personal direct concrete experience" is not testable or falsifiable, thus invalid. Basically you are falling back on the lame "you have to have faith", which is a weak argument in here that doesn't hold water.
If there is convincing evidence, then it should be able to convince anyone who is exposed to it. Notwithstanding the tin hat foil brigade and insanity, if a large amount of people people were exposed to the same evidence, over 90% should agree with the evidence.
David Killens
Please excuse my vague response. I agree with your reply. In no way did I want to imply faith is enough. As for personal experience I will clarify my view on that as follows... Personal direct observations that can be verifiable. Even with that not everyone can be convinced by the same observations
That's why I said different people require different experiences ( verifiable observations )
Edited to add: Cog has it right. He said the deity should know what it takes to convince him. What it takes to convince Cog is not identical to what it takes to convince everyone . That is the personal.experience I am referring to , not faith. Not everyone will be convinced by science
Not everyone is comfortable to understand science and take it's evidence as substantial.
@In Spirit
"Personal direct observations that can be verifiable."
How can that be done? A personal observation is personal, no one but you can confirm whatever was seen or occurred. If that observation can be demonstrated to others, then it is no longer personal.
For Cog, we are discussing two distinct viewpoints. One is that a god should know what is required. The other is what standards the observer has.
I do wonder how much you understand what science is. Science is just a process. A darn rigorous process, but it's job is so to discover and describe phenomena. One integral part of the scientific process is that if someone is not comfortable or understands the explanation or results, then it should be challenged. If you are not comfortable with a scientific conclusion, then the entire process is available for dissection and examination. One does not just blindly accept.
Which is contrary to religion, where edicts are made, and they can not be challenged. The inquiry stops when it is pronounced "god did this".
Which process are you most comfortable with? One that must present all relevant data for examination, where the conclusions should be challenged, or a process where an edict is issued, and the conversations stops then and there.
David Killens
“If there is convincing evidence, then it should be able to convince anyone who is exposed to it.”
What you may claim to be convincing is not applicable to every human being. Don’t expect everyone to understand science nor to be convinced by it. One reason being many don’t comprehend it. If science says they found God, have the evidence but can’t visibly show it to you and you personally can’t ‘experience’ it, not everyone is going to buy that, even if every scientist claims to have tested it. Different people need different types of methods to be convinced.
Everyone is blindly accepting some things from science that they don’t comprehend. Not only from science but world events or personal stories we say about what happened yesterday at work for example, or the stranger we met once and never saw again.
This is what I am referring to and agree with..............Cog's words..." He knows exactly what it would take to convince us all. ……He can pop on down and convince me himself ..."
The one on one experiences are valid and please don’t bring up faith, that has nothing to do with what I speak of. Experiences that are as real as your real world and please don’t bring up the drug thing again.
A stranger gave me a sandwich a year ago. I have never seen her since. What do I care if no one believes me and if science can’t find the evidence? That personal experience is good enough for me…. nothing to do with faith.
As Cog said, God would know what it takes to convince us whether it is all of us together at the same time or on an individual experience. Faith has nothing to do with it.
@In Spirit
"Don’t expect everyone to understand science nor to be convinced by it."
Then that is their problem. Yes, the math and other disciplines may be advanced, but anyone with enough brains can learn that. And all the data supporting a valid scientific claim is published, and available for anyone to read. There are no secrets, there is nothing hidden. The only thing standing in the way of anyone understanding a scientific claim is their own self-generated ignorance.
"A stranger gave me a sandwich a year ago. I have never seen her since. What do I care if no one believes me and if science can’t find the evidence? That personal experience is good enough for me…. nothing to do with faith."
That is not an extraordinary claim. We know there are strangers, we know that a "her" can exist, we know what a sandwich is, and we know that this kind of interaction is common.
The god claim is on a completely different level, it is extraordinary. And to quote Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
And this god claim involves a being that is outside of time (whatever that means), knows everything, burning bushes, talking snakes, resurrecting the dead, and a heck of a lot of other stuff that no one can replicate or expect to see happen here. Yes, that is as extraordinary as anything can get, far removed from a stranger giving you a sandwich.
I have absolutely zero problem believing the stranger and sandwich story, one reason being you have nothing to gain by telling this story. But when it comes to god and religion, you are heavily and completely invested. Your beliefs requires you to commit everything in defending and proving your god and religious beliefs.
David Killens
"The only thing standing in the way of anyone understanding a scientific claim is their own self-generated ignorance." FALSE. Common sense please.
"And all the data supporting a valid scientific claim is published, and available for anyone to read." FALSE
In the world I live in some people can't read , can't afford education , are too busy trying to survive, are just a few reasons why people can't access or learn the data. These people require different methods of being convinced.
Your preconceived notions of the God that must be evidenced and proven are unjustified. The slate must be empty. What is evidenced may be completely different than anything we have heard about.
@In Spirit
""The only thing standing in the way of anyone understanding a scientific claim is their own self-generated ignorance." FALSE. Common sense please."
Why are you referencing common sense, and for what reason? Turing the tables, if someone desires to learn about the life of jesus, there is information and scholars available. Can you dispute this following statement?
"The only thing standing in the way of anyone understanding jesus and his message is their own self-generated ignorance."
""And all the data supporting a valid scientific claim is published, and available for anyone to read." FALSE
In the world I live in some people can't read , can't afford education , are too busy trying to survive, are just a few reasons why people can't access or learn the data. These people require different methods of being convinced."
Despite a person's personal situation (poverty, illiteracy) that does not negate the simple fact that any scientific paper is still available for them to read. Yes, they can not read it, and they may not be able to easily access it, but it is still out there for them to read and comprehend if they can overcome the liabilities in their personal life.
In science, one must come to the source of information (find and read papers, attend universities, sit in on lectures), but that information is not hidden, it is always open for challenges and discussion. And that information may be revised if new information is revealed.
In religion, missionaries or "holy people" dispense their brand of knowledge, which can not be challenged. And they reveal only what suits the moment and their agenda.
David K
"Turing the tables, if someone desires to learn about the life of jesus, there is information and scholars available. Can you dispute this following statement?"
First of all, to dispute it you would have to have access to the old writings and the words of the scholars . Not everyone has heard of Jesus
Those who have heard of Jesus may not have the means to access the information or scholars needed to dispute it.
Perhaps you are envisioning your statements in well established nations. There are places in the world that are so remote and poor that this access does not exist or they don't have the means to access it. Not their fault it's just the way things are.
@In Spirit
"First of all, to dispute it you would have to have access to the old writings and the words of the scholars . Not everyone has heard of Jesus"
If I desired to learn about jesus, all I have to do is walk down the street to the nearest christian church, walk in, and ask. I can guarantee you with 100% certainty someone will definitely perform that task. And If I am patient enough, someone will knock on my door and attempt the same.
In very remote and poverty-stricken areas of this world, there are missionaries who's task is to do the same, inform the people of the life of jesus.
And if I am very lazy, my TV remote can take me to some theist program. Personally, I like to smoke a joint and watch Ernest Angley, that old hyprocrite is a barrel of laughs. Did you know that he owns a freaking 747 as his private jet?
@In Spirit: I think the only thing that would convince cog is holding a gun to his head. I would have no way to distinguish a god from a highly advanced alien life form. Then there is the OTHER PROBLEM. Even if I accepted the fact that a god existed, why in the fuck would the asshole who created this world be worth worshiping? While it is great being alive, I can point to at least a million people with imaginations that could have designed a better place for human beings to live than this little rock. Hell. a child with a box of crayons could have done a better job. If this is design, God is a fucking idiot.
Cog
How about a gun that shoots out meatballs , can that convince you...lol
Again , like David you are holding on to preconceived notions of what this world tells you God is. My slate is empty and whatever else is out there can't disappoint the expectations I don't have.
Come on atheists you know better than I do that what theists claim is not true so why must their notions be the basis to be evidenced and proven. Geez now I feel more atheist than you guys...lol
@In Spirit. I seriously doubt you can construct a preconceived notion from anything at all I have said.
Cognistic
Perhaps then you can elaborate and enlighten me on what you mean by your following statements...
1) He knows exactly what it would take to convince us all.
2 )He can pop on down and convince me himself
3)....or he can put the right information in some theists mind to share with me.
1. How is it not self evident. If there is any kind of omniscient god at all who wants people to worship him, follow his directives, be religious in any way, then he knows exactly what to do to convince every single living thing on the planet. If not, you would be arguing the case for 1) An all powerful god that just does not give a shit. or 2) A creator god with limited powers that has no influence at all on his creation. NEITHER THE TRADITIONAL THEIST VIEW OF GOD.
IF THERE IS AN ISSUE ABOVE IT IS THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE NOT DEFINED YOUR GOD. NOT THE FACT THAT I HAVE SIMPLY USED THE MOST COMMON VERSION OF GOD.
You made three points but every one of them is exactly the same. All you have done is challenge your own god's Omniscience. If your god is limited in some way, it is up to you to define those limitations prior to asking your question. If I have made him too powerful with my assumptions the fault actually lies on your shoulders for your lack of definition.
Cognistic
I cannot define God nor do I accept any theistic or non theistic definition. I'm not saying that a god does not exist but I am saying that I don't believe in any God presented to me by mankind. I don't like the word god because it jumps at all the man made definitions of it and I have a problem with that in many ways mainly because the definition limits itself within those parameters.
"An all powerful god that just does not give a shit. or 2) A creator god with limited powers that has no influence at all on his creation. NEITHER THE TRADITIONAL THEIST VIEW OF GOD."
That is as valid as any other claim made of God which by the way would make for an interesting controversial book or movie.I once thought of writing such a script or book but decided I wanted to live a longer life.
In Spirit: RE: YOU SAID - you don't believe in definitions of god... " I have a problem with that in many ways mainly because the definition limits itself within those parameters."
CONSIDER THIS AND LOOK AT WHAT I DID..... I EXPANDED EVEN YOUR DEFINITION (THE LIMITS YOU CREATED) OF GOD.... Are you asserting your GOD THING is too weak or not powerful enough to .....
1. Know what would convince me?
2. Just pop down and share this information with me?
3. Give you the information to convince me?
One of us is putting limits and restrictions on the abilities of this thing called god and one of us is not. One of us is supporting a man made position, and one of us is not. Perhaps you could try another post and before you ask the question, fill us all in on the man made limitations of the God you are talking about.
CAN YOU SEE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE?
Cognistic
The assertion I made was the same you brought up. That assertion of the weak God and the book I wanted to write about was from my old life decades ago when I believed in the man made definitions of God.
I have no message for you from any God. Your own words defined God. Theists claim to know God ad they define it. Your words called on an all knowing God to come down and prove itself to you because you said it should know how to convince you. You have defined God. Is God all knowing or limited? Is God a creator or not? Is God all powerful or not? Answering any such question limits the parameters of what a God can be.
I'll give you this much. I had previously agreed with you that God would know how to convince you and to that respect i had given it a definition. Since then i have changed my opinion. I realise that I would limit myself to parameters set by people. I prefer not to buy into anyone's interpretation of what a God is or what a God is not.
Pages