Criteria for evidence of a God.

Post Reply New Topic

So... all this talk of whether or not God is real and all this dispute over what evidence is good everything. But the criteria for the evidence of God's existence is a little unclear to me. Without falling down the thorny cliff face that is the classic 'Richard Dawkins vs the Pope' debate we seem to get a lot on here (an over-simplification, I know, but such a fantastic mental image), what are both the theistic types, and the athestic types on WP willing to consider evidence for the existence of God? i.e. Is leftover static from the Big bang an atheistic idea, or is it possible it's caused by something with a consciousness? Those familiar with the design argument may want to throw that around a bit.
I'm not saying a big yes or no to the big question that dominates this forum, rather, how are we reaching the yes AND the no?

It's hard to establish criteria for physical evidence of God, because not all theists ascribe to identical views of God. It could be possible to argue philosophically whether the concept of a God (note: [b]a[/a] God, which is not necessarily described perfectly by any given set of religious beliefs) makes sense and is logically necessary. Many philosophers throughout history have argued that a God of some sort is required for the universe to make sense.

How about showing us something that's here that cannot possibly be explained in any way without involving a God or something of that nature? It'd be a start.

simple- answered prayers for things that cannot be otherwise explained.

Maybe if we found some provably ancient relic billions of years old that had a caption:

Made by God. ® All rights reserved. No part of this creation may be copied or distributed without the written consent of God.
Copyright © year zero. Any violation of these terms will result in penalties up to and including eternal damnation in a hot place.

Just think if that was etched into the DNA of every plant and animal on the planet

A direct, one-to-one, face-to-face meeting between myself and God, plus a minor miracle or two (such as regenerating somebody's missing limb).

That's why cloning is not allowed

The meeting might be scheduled already for the judgement day, be patient


What if God can't break his own laws of physics?

believers' criteria for god is that they exist. they don't need evidence or any reasonable proof. just their own existence justifies it to them.

religion is very much an ego driven endeavor like that.

Cannot be otherwise explained? Do these answers violate the laws of physics? Can it be proven that they would not have occurred without someone praying for them?

The way I see it the only way to prove a force outside the universe exists is for it to directly influence the interior and violate causality.

However if that has never occurred then either God does not exist or he/she/it caused the big bang and never touched it again.

It would be impossible for God to make his existence known without violating causality but since that has apparently never happened (or no evidence of it exists) then the only explanation left is that man invented God (or they are at most a creation of the universe perhaps powerful but not God).

Then the person presenting him- or her-self as God is lying.

If God can bring people back from the dead and heal people of cancer, diabetes, or other terminal illnesses, then why do we never hear of God regenerating anyone's amputated legs? After all, there are plenty of potential candidates in America's V.A. hospitals, right?

lol that brings us to the good old paradox- could God create a stone so heavy that even he couldn't lift it? either way, God loses

Said loudly in a sergeant majors voice:


All right then!
Which one of you jokers created this lot then?
Will the real God step forward now and reveal himself?
No?
No god admitting responsibility?
Right then, for punishment you will all create a parallel universe by dinner time - and it better be a good one!
... And no silly gestures like a whale floating through the abyss of space either. You aren't Douglas Adams.

So the only God permitted is a God of the Gaps?

I didn't say that, I said show something that cannot possibly be explained without mentioning a God. The things the God of the gaps seems to answer are all generally answerable, we just don't have the answer. Also I said it would be a start, other evidence could be different signs, if there was a God I think it would be pretty damn obvious though in general which is one of the main reasons it's so unfathomable.

Last edited by z0rp on 08 Dec 2008, 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There is no paradox involved in regenerating someone's legs. After all, according to the Bible, God ressurrected people from the dead! Which is easier: To raise a person from the dead, to regenerate an amputated limb, to heal a sick person, or to convince millions of believers that God can perform such miracles without ever having to actually demonstrate it?