Evidence for God

Status
Not open for further replies.

RainyDayNinja

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
362
Reaction score
56
Location
Oregon
I've heard a lot of people on these Religion boards and elsewhere about the evidence for God. Most atheists and agnostics will claim that there is no evidence, while theists will claim that there is. That leads to a question that I don't think has been covered here: What constitutes evidence for God?

I don't think anyone doubts that there have been thousands, if not millions, of accounts of miraculous events throughout history, even up to the present day. On the other hand, I don't think anyone doubts that many of these have been hoaxes, hallucinations, or misunderstandings. For the sake of illustration, I have two friends that have told me of personally experiencing miraculous healings, which they were able to see happening directly, after being prayed over. While I didn't see either of these events with my own eyes, I have no independent reason for doubting their truthfulness, and they both mentioned multiple witnesses present.

So for the "non-believers": What would you accept as evidence for God? Does my account qualify, and if not, why not?

For the "believers": What evidence do you accept for the existence of God? How would you differentiate between possibly legitimate visions, miracles, etc., and hoaxes or misunderstandings?
 

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
20,322
Reaction score
3,513
Location
Transcending Canines
As I believe now, I can't imagine anything that could convince me that God exists. I'd much more likely believe someone had done a slight-of-hand or other trick, or slipped me a psychoactive drug, than believe claims than an incident I'd seen or experienced myself was a God-induced miracle.

I think that many or most believers claim faith, and so don't need evidence. Some may consider looking for evidence to show a lack of faith, or even be blasphemous.
 

Calla Lily

On hiatus
Staff member
Super Moderator
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
39,307
Reaction score
17,490
Location
Non carborundum illegitimi
Website
www.aliceloweecey.net
This is totally not antagonistic or anything, honest: I can't see myself telling the stories of my God-encounters in this forum. All y'all are great people and I like to interact with you as fellow writers, but such intensely personal experiences are, well, personal. I think I've talked about them with four people.

Perhaps others will feel the same. Don't know.

[derail] And that's probably why I'm not a "good" Christian: because I don't try to convince anyone of the reality of God or that any one faith's experience is the only right one. For example, my friend's encounter with The Morrighan was incredibly similar to one of my encounters with Jesus. So. [/derail]
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
One atheist has been very thorough and documented a two-part guide on Youtube, describing what it would take to convince him. He also asks the reverse question: what would it take to convince you there was no god?

For me, his tests are not tests of godhood, but for something we might call 'magic', so they wouldn't actually persuade me about theism -- and like Ben I'm not sure that they'd persuade me of magic either. It seems to me that there's nothing stopping a search for physical cause for any event -- no matter how surprising.

The only effective definition I've ever been able to find for 'god' is a cultural one: a figure that people worship. Since I'm not disposed to worshipping figures and can't see why I would, I can either take the position that gods exist for others but not for me, or that no gods exist at all because morally, I consider figure-worship to be empty and unwise.
 

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
I understand your interest, ninja, but for myself don't find it a fruitful line of inquiry. Faith and evidence (with the associated realm of science) are, as Stephen Jay Gould wrote, nonoverlapping Magisteria.

It is, however, an old question. For example, check out St. Anselm's so-called Ontological Proof for the Existence of God. It dates from the 11th century.
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
This is totally not antagonistic or anything, honest: I can't see myself telling the stories of my God-encounters in this forum.
I 'd be reluctant in your place too, Lily. It may not be possible for some punters here to comprehend, much less sympathise with, what you've experienced -- and if it's sacred to you then their candid responses could be unpleasant or hurtful.

My own head seems to be wired well away from the ability to comprehend stuff mystically, much less understand others. I can't even find the right questions to ask about mystical experiences. All I can do is hit them with a hammer and pick through the pieces trying to understand it -- and people generally don't want hammers on their sacred crockery. :)

But if you did post about something personal and mystical in this forum, I for one would hope to recognise that and not hammer-smack or challenge it. I'd hope that our other hard-wired rational/material/objectives would be respectful enough to do the same. :)
 
Last edited:

DeleyanLee

Writing Anarchist
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
31,660
Reaction score
11,407
Location
lost among the words
My first question would be "How is 'god' defined?" because I don't default to the Judeo/Christian standard.

Depending on the definition, the requirements might change.
 

AMCrenshaw

...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
4,671
Reaction score
620
Website
dfnovellas.wordpress.com
I like the ontological argument because it's really elegantly silly.

Hence there is no doubt that there exists a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.

And the naming of this being is "God", which allows the other properties of "God" - frex. goodness, omniscience, omnipotence, etc - to piggyback their way into existence!



AMC
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
I liked it too. Thanks for posting, CG! I'm not sure what it does for ontology (the study of what exists), but think it's a really important early foray into epistemology (the study of what is knowledge). As an argument though, I stumbled at step one. St. Anselm seems to have loaded up with Platonic assumptions that I can't personally swallow.
 

STKlingaman

Followed the Red Brick Road
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
526
Reaction score
55
Location
lost in Arizona
Faith is all the evidence you need.
That is why it's different for everyone,
and religion is flawed.
You and the relationship you have with
your God is yours and yours alone.
Believe in God or not - arguing about
is foolish.
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
Courage is all the faith you need.
That is why all inspiring myths,
Are tales of human courage,
And mystic promises of pelf or peace,
Are empty, and to dream of them
When one may act instead,
Is foolish.
 
Last edited:

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
I liked it too. Thanks for posting, CG! I'm not sure what it does for ontology (the study of what exists), but think it's a really important early foray into epistemology (the study of what is knowledge). As an argument though, I stumbled at step one. St. Anselm seems to have loaded up with Platonic assumptions that I can't personally swallow.
Anselm was indeed a Platonist. He lived before the Aristotelian invasion into theology that found its apogee with Aquinas.
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
Anselm was indeed a Platonist. He lived before the Aristotelian invasion into theology that found its apogee with Aquinas.
Well, Eastern Orthodoxy has managed to keep its Platonism all this time, while in the west the Deists seem to be holding out pretty well. I have no personal use for Platonism, but wouldn't see it gone from our world -- it spawns far too much genius.

I suppose it's the job of Aristotelians to apply the necessary Natural Selection to keep Platonic bloodlines pure. ;)
 

PeterL

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
1,129
Reaction score
91
Before you start trying to define the evidence, I think that you should define the question. Specifically, what sort of god do you mean? Evidence of some Gods and Goddesses is readily available. No one Can deny the existence of Bacchus, because he is wine, and there are other Gods of the same sort. If you mean some "infinite god" then you should define in detail. Then there are the ones that are somewhere in between. About 15 years ago on Prodigy we had a lengthy back and forth about proving whether "God" (the Christian one) existed. All sorts of attempts were made, and they were all quickly destroyed, except one that looked like it might prove that a limited deity existed, or could exist.
 

RainyDayNinja

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
362
Reaction score
56
Location
Oregon
Sorry ColoradoGuy, but I don't accept the classification of faith and evidence as non-overlapping magisteria. To make such a distinction is to claim that God (or some other spiritual/metaphysical/supernatural being) has never intruded upon the physical world, a very strong negative claim that can't be proven. Any god, as conceived by any but the most extreme deist, will have made an impact on some part of the natural world, which can then be observed and analyzed.

Also, I wasn't referring to abstract philosophical arguments for the existence of God. Anyone can wriggle out of a philosophical argument by finding some premise they disagree with. I'm talking about actual physical observation of the form "I prayed to deity X, and immediately saw the object of my prayer realized, in a way that can't be explained by natural laws as we understand them."

Edit: Perhaps I should expand the question to include evidence for supernatural entities or influence of any kind, i.e. gods, spirits, reincarnation, etc.
 
Last edited:

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
Sorry ColoradoGuy, but I don't accept the classification of faith and evidence as non-overlapping magisteria. To make such a distinction is to claim that God (or some other spiritual/metaphysical/supernatural being) has never intruded upon the physical world, a very strong negative claim that can't be proven. Any god, as conceived by any but the most extreme deist, will have made an impact on some part of the natural world, which can then be observed and analyzed.
Don't be sorry -- lots of folks don't agree with me. My evidence of God at work is the selfless, good act done with no expectation of return from it. But that's not really evidence if you don't share my conception of God. If you don't, it becomes mere question begging -- using the conclusion to prove the premise. But it is one reason I agree with Gould.
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
I like the idea of Non-Overlapping Magisteria, except that when I come to applying it in a way that seems sensible to me, it's not Gould's division and I think that most theologists wouldn't accept it. Morality for example, is an entirely secular question to me. I'd allow theology to monitor it, but not to drive it. I see selfless good as being as much part of the human condition as pointless spite, so it's not mystical to me. Cosmology is also secular, which means that only the most toothless creation myths are admissible, and theological metaphysics are not (in fact, I'm not sure that any metaphysics is, except as speculation for new physical experiments).

What's left is essentially storytelling as an adjunct to human decency, spiritual art for the joy of it, and ritual for its own sake -- which coincidentally are all the things about religion that delight me, and none of the things that irritate.

So perhaps the key problem of a functional NOMa is who sets the boundaries. :)
 

AMCrenshaw

...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
4,671
Reaction score
620
Website
dfnovellas.wordpress.com
IMO, to the extent one can translate meanings of poetry into facts, faith and evidence are overlapping Magisteria.

Hmm. I wouldn't mind hearing "metaphorical" evidence (as gods are certain to exist in the realm of poetry).

Perhaps a different thread? :D


AMC
 

Paul

Banned
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
4,502
Reaction score
482
Location
Close to mother Sea
Before you start trying to define the evidence, I think that you should define the question. Specifically, what sort of god do you mean? Evidence of some Gods and Goddesses is readily available. No one Can deny the existence of Bacchus, because he is wine, and there are other Gods of the same sort.

OMG!!!! (OMB!!!)

At last a God I can believe in....
 

Paul

Banned
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
4,502
Reaction score
482
Location
Close to mother Sea
Of course, the definition of God is 'that which cannot be proven to exist'

Cos if one could, well then,what'd be the point?
We all believe, and so that's it. No doubt, no dispute etc.
(assuming it is one God, clearly defined, which is what we're talking bout)
So, cos he can't be proven, he exists.
simple really....
 

AMCrenshaw

...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
4,671
Reaction score
620
Website
dfnovellas.wordpress.com
so theoretically, if everything that has a reported effect in the universe can be proven to exist or not, do you still think god alone :)) part of the definition, if one is "that which cannot be proven to exist") would remain unprovable? We could prove everything or not, "save god." "Keep god safe," as Derrida wrote, I think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.