As someone who is currently agnostic, let me throw this out there in a very simplistic term for now:
Definition for God: An intelligence (be it collective, individual, or “other”) that created the universe we find ourselves living in.
Assuming that definition to be correct, the only evidence I can find that might support that notion is existence itself. The fact there is something rather than nothing.
That’s where I’m philosophically, theistically, and skeptically hung up. Until science has a much sharper, clearer view on the nature of nature (as I believe there is a “new physics” somewhere on the horizon) which will paint a much more beautiful and elegant picture of existence, the jury will be (and should be) out. And even then, the matter is probably out of its jurisdiction. There’s no telling what things may exist that we just cannot know, as I don’t believe that human intelligence is infinite in its capacity for understanding, nor do I believe we can overcome all the engineering problems we’d need to probe deeper into these mysteries.
First, when you say “I don’t know”, is that an implied question or merely an acknowledgement of ignorance?
Second, who are you referring to when you say “we”? Are you the leader or spokesperson for some group?
As for historical evidence, are you saying that there is absolutely no historical evidence that supports the claim that God exists? Furthermore, are you saying that anyone who has ever believed in God has done so with a complete lack of evidence?
This thread is not about proving the existence of anything. As brock points out:
And, are you saying that scientific evidence is the best type of evidence for demonstrating the existence of God? If yes, please provide the rationale for your claim. If no, then please clarify what you mean by your question/statement.
Who cares about Santa Claus? Everyone knows he & his elven workers are pure fantasy, but it’s a fantasy created for the children. Naturally, every child eventually learns that Santa Claus isn’t real, but everyone who grows up still holds onto the fantasy, because of what the fantasy represents = Happy Holidays.
Heck, even NORAD preserves the fantasy; every Xmas, they announce that there’s an unidentified craft flying south from the North Pole. It’s obviously an inside joke, and everyone gets it.
Given the usual attributions people give to the gods they claim exist, a more appropriate definition would address the question of the god having a direct effect on human lives or the universe in general. For example, does the god change the predicted outcome of a process? Or, can the god invalidate F = m*a for some random planet in some random galaxy?
Also, if the god you are defining created the universe then you’ll have to tell us what created the god you’re defining. Otherwise, if the universe is just the result of a physical process, like the interaction of two membranes as described in String Theory, then your definition applies the god label to the universe itself.
If you consider it carefully, you’ll have to define an entity that exists outside the parameters of its own existence. An entity like that is absurd, illogical and false, and definitions of things that don’t exist are pointless.
The problem with your definition is that it irrelevant to anyone’s life. The existence of such a god or gods would not mean anything to anyone because if that was all they did, we would never know anything about them or have any interactions with them. It would only be of interest in an abstract philosophical way.
Anyone correct me if I am wrong, but there are only three types of evidence for god that I have ever encountered:
[ol]
[li]Hearsay. My father/mother/priest/teacher told me that there is a god. Or, more often, my great-great-------grandparent saw god. The problem with this one is that the closer in time to us the claim is the less credible it becomes. When we start looking at the current day prophets and others who claim direct contact with god, they don’t seem very believable. The more we find out about any of them the less likely we are to accept their evidence at face value. [/li][li]Gap evidence. Ice crystals form such beautiful patterns. They must be designed. Or this biological structure is so complex it could not have arisen via evolution. Unfortunately these arguments depend on ignorance. The more we learn the fewer gaps. At this point many of us assume that the gaps will be filled like all the rest rather than treating them as a divine mystery.[/li][li]Subjective revelation. This is very powerful evidence to the one experiencing it. The problem is to everyone else there a millions, or more likely billions, of these experiences and they don’t all agree. Which are valid and which are false?[/li][/ol]
I will say that I doubt anyone has every been really convinced by #2. Most passive believers go by #1 and most converts have experienced #3. None of them have much objective value in establishing the truth of any particular deity.
As for “I don’t know”, I’m not aware of any atheists who would reject the first person written evidence, with a good documentation trail and support from multiple sources, that we have for real historical figures. We have to be careful in evaluating it, since historians 2000 and more years ago did not have the same worldview as historians today, but it would be a start.
We have written evidence that Alexander the Great performed miracles. We have written evidence that George Washington performed miracles. I’d like higher quality evidence for gods. That’s why I mentioned that the definition of evidence was important.
For this type of good evidence, everyone who has ever believed in any sort of God has done so with a lack of it. (An exception perhaps for those who believed in fraudulently generated evidence.)
Perhaps, which is why I disclaimed the definition was simplistic. Of course, the idea could be probed deeper, such as, perhaps the universe itself is God and our consciousness is but a fractured manifestation of this. Woo woo, for sure… but who knows.
No matter if we’re talking secular or theistic origins of the universe, it always comes down to the profound question of, “Why does anything exist at all?”
Of course, I agree that saying the universe is God or was created by God adds an unnecessary logical step in that line of reasoning, but it doesn’t necessarily rule out the possibility either.
For me, the question isn’t “Does God exist?”, it’s more “Can God exist?”. If the latter question is valid but unanswerable, I can’t honestly call myself an atheist or a believer.
We’re talking about evidence for God, right? What do you mean by “I’m not aware of any atheists who would reject the first person written evidence”? It seems to me that you are arguing against the Bible, not against the existence of God.
Sorry, where in this thread did you mention that the definition of evidence was important? In any case, when you mention “higher quality evidence for gods”, you are implying that there is evidence, but of “lower quality”.
So now it is “good evidence” that is required. That suggests that there is “bad evidence” for the existence of God, right? But bad evidence or lower-quality evidence is still evidence.
I agree with you, and this is what I said earlier:
BTW, I’ll ask just once more: What did you mean by “we” when you said: “I don’t know who thinks we demand only scientific evidence”?
I’m asking because it seems that you were speaking on behalf of all atheists, rather than expressing just your viewpoint.
I see this as only true by the popular, but perhaps misguided, belief that God should or has interacted with humans, if He indeed exists.
It could be that He created the universe, and 14 billion years of consequences resulted in the evolution of humans who would invent the internet so we can have these conversations, and that’s good enough for Him. Such an entity doesn’t owe us anything, and a being of such power, if He decides to, can remain a “wizard behind the curtain” as long as He wants for His own reasons.
In other words, the fact that there may exist other galaxies, worlds, or beings beyond the observable universe, the “cosmic horizon”, that we have no hope of ever probing doesn’t mean they don’t exist or are irrelevant simply because we can’t interact. Ever.
I suppose I’m one of those that believe a tree does make a noise if it falls in a forest and no one’s around.
For questions like these we have to be aware of the inability of language to be comprehensive when expressing ideas or reality.
The word “why” has too many connotations, and given the inherent vagueness of human communication, we have to be careful not to mistake the human bias as an established universal law.
The “why” most people are asking is legitimate, but it has more to do with emotional gratification rather than examining reality.
Why does F = m*a ? We don’t know… we may eventually find out. Does the question have any inherent meaning in the first place? It may not.
You’re falling into the trap of accepting unsupported claims as true. Is there a possibility that 3 yellow butterflies are controlling your destiny? Reasonable people do not assume baseless claims as true or even as possible.
The latter question is meaningless. You tried to define the god as a creator when you did not address the creator of the god itself, which would result in another absurd and illogical conclusion, and you did not say if the god you’re asking about has a direct effect in universal processes. The qualities you choose to ascribe to the entity you imagine as a god are subjective and therefore have to be dismissed.
The only meaningful question is: “Does any god exist?” and the answer is a universally true “No”.
It was a matter of expression. What I meant by that, in a rhetorical manner is:
The fact that something exists, either implies that for absolutely nothing to exist is meaningless or it’s just as likely.
I feel free to dismiss such absurdities, because butterflies are not at the heart of the origin of the universe. We don’t know what was, and most likely never will.
It’s such an old question (If God exists, then who created God?), that I chose to jump ahead of the rhetoric there, and get to the point. This recursive question as to the origin of the universe has no end. If the Big Bang happened because of two colliding branes, where did those branes come from, and so on…
I don’t think we can ever have enough evidence to satisfy both sides of this question without being god-like ourselves.
The recursive question is a problem only if we assume a creator that exists outside the parameters of the known universe. Such an assumption or a claim is false.
If String Theory is correct and two branes caused our existence, then it’s reasonable to ask what caused the existence of the branes, and ask that question as far as it will go. There is no problem there because the question does not bias the answer to be a supernatural entity. Answers that adhere to the laws of the universe are acceptable. Anything else has to be discarded as mindless drivel.
It doesn’t really matter if we know the why right now. Only dozens of decades ago we thought headaches were caused by evil spirits and we were smashing people’s skulls to make wholes in it so the evil spirits can escape.
Reality, Nature and the Universe exist independently of the human mind. What we know is not there because we know it. We know it because for some reason we were able to discover truths that are independent of our existence.
Precisely why I called for high quality evidence. When I was on a jury a friend of the defendant testified to things which contradicted what he told the prosecutors and wasn’t even self-consistent. It was evidence which we had to consider - just not for very long.
I probably made my point in another thread on evidence for god. Hard to keep up.
First person written evidence is not even close to the Bible. If we found Egyptian records of the plagues or the parting of the Red Sea, that would be excellent first person evidence. If we found written records of any of the crucifixion story, that would be excellent first person evidence.
You appeared to be stating that all atheists just wanted scientific evidence, and I was speaking more broadly based on 35 years worth of on-line observation of atheists in discussion groups. Maybe you could find me some atheists who stated this? There is a call for scientific evidence for scientific religious claims, like the age of the earth. But that is not the only evidence that could be useful.
Interesting that you bring up testimony in a jury trial and you refer to it as evidence. When it comes to a discussion about the existence of God, it seems to me that testimony (personal experiences, conversions, miracles, etc.) is evidence, just poor-quality evidence. The degree to which this evidence can be dismissed depends on the extent of our knowledge of naturalistic explanations of those experiences. We know a lot more now that we did in the past, but not everyone knows, and not everyone accepts all current knowledge. It then becomes an interpretation and evaluation of the evidence, similar to how trials are not decided at the moment that evidence is submitted, but rather by an evaluation of the evidence. When it comes to the existence of God, some jurors decide that there is sufficient evidence, while others say “not even close”. Fine. But there is evidence.
This is what I said:
There’s a big difference between “I’ve seen some people” and “all atheists”. In any case, right in this thread, there’s this (in response to my quote above):
The post doesn’t say that scientific evidence is the only acceptable type, but it suggests it.
