What would count as proof of God

[steve_bank]

There are contemporaneous independent accounts of Mohamed. Not so for any biblical accounts, like the Exodus. I don't think there are any Egyptian records of a Jewish enslavement.

The idea that large group of people wandered the desert between say Cairo and Jerusalem r for 40 yeras without leaving any trace or being noticed is laughable. It is only about 300 or 400 miles as the crow flies.

From an archoogy show the Exodus tale as written is probably a conflation of multiple events at different times.o
There are no contemporaneous accounts for Jesus, nothing in Roman records.

In my senior apartment biding rumors and gossip spread. Events end up being told quite differently by different people as time passes.

The ancient Jews were minor players in a world dominated by the likes of Egypt. amd Babolon. Myths of power and greatness grow over time. Myth crtion an justification by divine right grnated and backed by a god was the rue not the exception.

Christians in the USA have always believed the USA was ordained by god. Not biblical by a myth creted by a culture to create the image and feeling of power.

Henry 8th set himself up as the word of god.

Conservative Israelis like Netanyahu justify seizing land for modern Israel and the ongoing colonization of the West Bank via biblical divine right. Ine bible god gave it to Jews exclusively.

Because some historical events can be correlated to the bible does not serve as a proof of god.



.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Sorry, but I'm a little confused. I think that you are saying that you believe that the bible is correct because the bible emphasizes witnessing and testimony? Correct? If the Koran also emphasizes witnessing and testimony (I'll do some research on this); would you not also consider it to be true? If so, which book should we believe in?

Why are you confused? Well firstly... the bible was written well before the Koran. Witnesses (plural) are many in the bible. Witness singular, by Mohammed in the Koran has less weight. The old argument against the bible: that there were many writers etc.. strangely enough is actually better than one single witness, so to speak, just like lonesome Joseph Smith.

So are you agreeing with Harry’s effort to reflect your position?
That you believe whatever book is the oldest one with witnesses?

Just by pointing out that the bible IS the originator of the biblical prophets and Jesus, all mentioned by their names. Which suggests that the bible could NOT have copied or plagarised from the much later religions,, who as different religions, acknowledge those same biblical characters by name - who happen to be mentioned in their own religious books.

And I have a follow-up question; does this mean that you do not believve the parts of the bible that are written by people who are not witnesses? Like Paul’s stuff, and Revelations? And Genesis?

I don't follow that concept that Christians should not believe in any parts of the bible, which would be at odds with the faith. I suppose for arguments sake, that even if we are to say that certain particular things apply to a certain groups of people; this does not mean theists should not believe them, or for that matter, not preach them either.

*wing-shrugs* Truth be told, the only member of the old pantheons I care much for is Ningishzida.

Well, Hecate was nice, too...

 

[Learner]

Its nice that the bible shows you that they were quite aware of old pantheons - since it is acknowledged, and mentioned, under various names as the opposing god worships to the biblical God.

(sorry to previous posts not yet responded to, various interuptions this moment)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In its own way biblical woo is simpler than pantheistic woo, probably an idea it borrowed from Egypt. It's a step in the right direction but doesn't mean the simple woo is any more believable than the less simple woo, it doesn't prove the woo is more real.

 

[Stephen T-B]

Its nice that the bible shows you that they were quite aware of old pantheons - since it is acknowledged, and mentioned, under various names as the opposing god worships to the biblical God.

(sorry to previous posts not yet responded to, various interuptions this moment)

 

[Stephen T-B]

Teachings and stories (oral and written) songs, pictures and sculptures set the parameters within which a person's imagination perceives a particular god.
Every now and then, however, a person comes along who is charismatic, manipulative, narcissistic and creative (Ron L Hubbard) or charismatic and deluded - may or may not be a manipulative narcissist (Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell) - who either adds embellishments to the "received" model or invents a new one, leading to the emergence of new cults and religions.

Gods are experienced in texts, stories, songs, pictures, sculptures and imagination.
That's their reality. Their only reality.

It is why no god manifests as a physical entity independent of human agency.
Creatures of imagination, no amount of wishful thinking will change it.

 

[Elixir]

It’s not that it is at odds with the faith, it is that it’s at odds with YOUR DEFINITION of a reliable source. You said the bible was more real than other stories because it was written earlier and by witnesses. Does your definition mean anything? If it means anything, why do you not apply it to your biible?

Or are you saying you believe any book that has parts of it that are old and written by witnesses, and you believe all of it because of adjacency?

I ask this because it is an interesting - a very interesting - thing to ponder, IMHO. The question of HOW people believe. Not what they believe, but how they believe it.

You seem to be suggesting some rules that you follow about whether to believe or not believe a religious or supernatural story. I’m always interested in how religionists believe one religion, but tell themselves they have a valid logical reason to disbelieve others.

My evidence-based mind asks, So you have a formula with criteria that, once a story meets it, then it is believable. Let’s test it out on other religions. Let’s see if you have a formula that makes yours true and all the others false. That would be a useful formula, would it not?

But here you are saying, I have a formula, and then I violate it, but I don’t care, I’m still right.

And if someone else uses your same formula and it points to another religion being true, you still say they are wrong. But that you are right because you used a formula.

So far you’ve suggested that the oldest story, with witnesses = Truth. But then you say, if part of your story is not the oldest, and does not included witnesses, it’s still Truth, because it is stapled ogether with one that did pass your test. The Associative Property of Religious texts, perhaps? To me it says you don’t have a formula at all. You just believe in whatever makes you feel good.

Excellent, Rhea. That’s brilliant and clear.
And probably fruitless. I don’t think Learner is inclined to evenly apply “truth standards” to all documents held to be scripture by religious groups.
Can’t say that I blame him, since doing that tends to gore whole herds of sacred cows, including a lot of Christian ones.

 

[Drew2008]

So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?

I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.

Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?

What would count as proof of God​

Probably right only some universally held other wise inexplicable manifestation would act as proof.

There are degrees of proof. The highest degree of proof is scientific proof such as when scientists establish the truth of a claim through observation and independent experimentation. Very rare are scientifically verified facts upended. Unfortunately not everything lends itself to scientific verification.

So there are legal degrees of truth such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. A simple preponderance of evidence (meaning more for than against) in civil cases.

The real question is what would atheists accept as evidence we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator? In my experience atheists deny there is any such evidence no matter what is submitted. Because one of the key arguments against theism is the claim there is no evidence. They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?

I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.

Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?

What would count as proof of God​

Probably right only some universally held other wise inexplicable manifestation would act as proof.

There are degrees of proof. The highest degree of proof is scientific proof such as when scientists establish the truth of a claim through observation and independent experimentation. Very rare are scientifically verified facts upended. Unfortunately not everything lends itself to scientific verification.

So there are legal degrees of truth such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. A simple preponderance of evidence (meaning more for than against) in civil cases.

The real question is what would atheists accept as evidence we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator? In my experience atheists deny there is any such evidence no matter what is submitted. Because one of the key arguments against theism is the claim there is no evidence. They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.

You are thinking of evidence. Proof is proof.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There are degrees of proof. The highest degree of proof is scientific proof such as when scientists establish the truth of a claim through observation and independent experimentation. Very rare are scientifically verified facts upended.

No. This is the process of acquiring evidence in support of a theory and finding no observations that the theory cannot explain.
But it remains a theory. By definition. Because there's always a possibility of finding something that the theory cannot explain, leading to the overhaul or rejection of the theory to ibclude new facts.

Facts do not get overturned. The theory attempting to explain them might.

Unfortunately not everything lends itself to scientific verification.

So there are legal degrees of truth such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

That's not a 'degree' of proof, it's a completely different philosophy.

In my experience atheists deny there is any such evidence no matter what is submitted. Because one of the key arguments against theism is the claim there is no evidence. They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.

Then offer a preponderance of evidence.
Or a demiponderance?
A smidgen?
Worst that can happen, your prediction is fulfilled.

 

[atrib]

So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?

I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.

Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?

What would count as proof of God​

Probably right only some universally held other wise inexplicable manifestation would act as proof.

There are degrees of proof. The highest degree of proof is scientific proof such as when scientists establish the truth of a claim through observation and independent experimentation. Very rare are scientifically verified facts upended. Unfortunately not everything lends itself to scientific verification.

So there are legal degrees of truth such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. A simple preponderance of evidence (meaning more for than against) in civil cases.

The real question is what would atheists accept as evidence we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator? In my experience atheists deny there is any such evidence no matter what is submitted. Because one of the key arguments against theism is the claim there is no evidence. They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.

If a universe-creating god exists and interacts with its creation, then it is reasonable to believe that this god could make itself known to every single human on this planet with minimal effort if it wanted to. The fact that it doesn't speaks volumes.

If you make the claim that a god exists, it is your burden to provide the facts and reasoning that would convince others. Feel free to provide the evidence when you see fit.

Proof is for legal trials and math. Scientists use evidence, and estimate confidence intervals or reliability indices to quantify uncertainty. It would help if you understood the nomenclature.

 

[steve_bank]

A preponderance of a lack of evidence...the case for a creator is dismissed with leave to refile when the plaintiff has evidence to present. If the plaintiff wastes the court's time on frivolous claims he will be charged with contempt.

I grew up watching Perry Mason..

Seriously, to creationists I have had face ti face talks with, the claim of a god or creator is based on a preponderance of perceived evidence.

I was talking with a Christian who pointed out the window and said just look, that a creator exists is obvious.

Wan;t there a claim that multiple peole saw the sun stand still?

If Jesus appeared before you, how do you tell it is not just advanced ET technology?

 

[blastula]

The real question is what would atheists accept as evidence we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator? In my experience atheists deny there is any such evidence no matter what is submitted. Because one of the key arguments against theism is the claim there is no evidence.

I do deny I have ever been presented any good evidence for theism. It's not out of denialism, it's just that the claim has failed scrutiny.

I would ask you to provide some, but I am sure you have nothing I haven't seen already.

They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.

Anyone who believes because they think they have good evidence is just wrong. Consciously believing out of faith is a more respectable position.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[Jarhyn]

The real question is what would atheists accept as evidence we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator? In my experience atheists deny there is any such evidence no matter what is submitted. Because one of the key arguments against theism is the claim there is no evidence.

I do deny I have ever been presented any good evidence for theism. It's not out of denialism, it's just that the claim has failed scrutiny.

I would ask you to provide some, but I am sure you have nothing I haven't seen already.

They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.

Anyone who believes because they think they have good evidence is just wrong. Consciously believing out of faith is a more respectable position.

Welcome to the forum.

The most universal phenomena I have observed based on evidence is the phenomena that "what one believes, no matter what their evidence, is wrong, excepting facts that relate to the interactions within a system of axioms; it is the axioms, however, that can not be proven in any way necessary, sufficient or complete, ever."

 

[Drew2008]

What would count as proof of God​

Probably right only some universally held other wise inexplicable manifestation would act as proof.

There are degrees of proof. The highest degree of proof is scientific proof such as when scientists establish the truth of a claim through observation and independent experimentation. Very rare are scientifically verified facts upended. Unfortunately not everything lends itself to scientific verification.

So there are legal degrees of truth such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. A simple preponderance of evidence (meaning more for than against) in civil cases.

The real question is what would atheists accept as evidence we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator? In my experience atheists deny there is any such evidence no matter what is submitted. Because one of the key arguments against theism is the claim there is no evidence. They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.

If you make the claim that a god exists, it is your burden to provide the facts and reasoning that would convince others. Feel free to provide the evidence when you see fit.

We'll have to agree on what evidence is.

evidence​

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

In short evidence are facts that make a proposition more likely to be true or less likely to be true. For instance if I accuse someone of shooting a gun the fact they own a gun makes my claim they shot a gun more probable. Not a certainty for sure. That fact alone wouldn't win the day as in any circumstantial case it is a preponderance of facts that make a case. It can work the other way if the person I accused of shooting a gun doesn't own one, that fact would be evidence in disfavor of the contention they shot a gun.

Secondly this discussion is not a one way street I know some atheists believe atheism is a negative claim not in need of any evidence or have any burden of proof. The claim theism is an answer to a question how did the universe and humans come to exist? Theism isn't a religion its a philosophical belief that the universe was intentionally created to cause sentient life to exist in contrast to the belief no God(s), or Creator of any sort was needed. If so existence of the universe was caused unintentionally and human existence was just an unintended coincidence.

There are certain facts that have to be true for some claims to be true. For instance in a murder case it has to be true that someone is dead. Usually its easy you merely present a corpse. In some cases its harder nonetheless a foundational claim to murder is a dead human. It may sound trivial but anyone proving someone murdered someone has to prove a death occurred. They have to prove a whole lot more to prove murder. For theism to even possibly be true certain facts must be true or there is no case for theism. Those facts that have to be true for theism to be true are evidence theism is true. Proof no, evidence yes.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Do yoj have an actual sorce for the definition you posted? I am curious if there are other definitions alongside this one.

 

[Jarhyn]

Do yoj have an actual sorce for the definition you posted? I am curious if there are other definitions alongside this one.

I tend to use evidence in the idea of "that which may disprove, when known, some set of potential causalities"

I find a leaf on the road. It disproves real causalities absent leaves.

I find a footprint in my house of a boot that is not mine... It disproves causalities wherein my home has not been entered by someone who is not me.

And so on.

 

[steve_bank]

What would count as proof of God​

Probably right only some universally held other wise inexplicable manifestation would act as proof.

There are degrees of proof. The highest degree of proof is scientific proof such as when scientists establish the truth of a claim through observation and independent experimentation. Very rare are scientifically verified facts upended. Unfortunately not everything lends itself to scientific verification.

So there are legal degrees of truth such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. A simple preponderance of evidence (meaning more for than against) in civil cases.

The real question is what would atheists accept as evidence we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator? In my experience atheists deny there is any such evidence no matter what is submitted. Because one of the key arguments against theism is the claim there is no evidence. They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.

If you make the claim that a god exists, it is your burden to provide the facts and reasoning that would convince others. Feel free to provide the evidence when you see fit.

We'll have to agree on what evidence is.

evidence​

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

In short evidence are facts that make a proposition more likely to be true or less likely to be true. For instance if I accuse someone of shooting a gun the fact they own a gun makes my claim they shot a gun more probable. Not a certainty for sure. That fact alone wouldn't win the day as in any circumstantial case it is a preponderance of facts that make a case. It can work the other way if the person I accused of shooting a gun doesn't own one, that fact would be evidence in disfavor of the contention they shot a gun.

Secondly this discussion is not a one way street I know some atheists believe atheism is a negative claim not in need of any evidence or have any burden of proof. The claim theism is an answer to a question how did the universe and humans come to exist? Theism isn't a religion its a philosophical belief that the universe was intentionally created to cause sentient life to exist in contrast to the belief no God(s), or Creator of any sort was needed. If so existence of the universe was caused unintentionally and human existence was just an unintended coincidence.

There are certain facts that have to be true for some claims to be true. For instance in a murder case it has to be true that someone is dead. Usually its easy you merely present a corpse. In some cases its harder nonetheless a foundational claim to murder is a dead human. It may sound trivial but anyone proving someone murdered someone has to prove a death occurred. They have to prove a whole lot more to prove murder. For theism to even possibly be true certain facts must be true or there is no case for theism. Those facts that have to be true for theism to be true are evidence theism is true. Proof no, evidence yes.

Political hand waving and diverseness, Pressed for facts and saying nothing. Like trying to get Trump to present factual evidence of voter fraud.

What is your evdebce?


When working on real problems I have used syllogisms to help make it clear.


P1 evidence 1 for a creator
P2 evidence 2 for a creator
C Given P1 and P2 a creator must exist.

What are your premises?

Just for once I'd like to hear a theist say I know it is not logical and I jave no objective factual evidence, but I belive in god. I coud actually res[ect that.

 

[Drew2008]

Do yoj have an actual sorce for the definition you posted? I am curious if there are other definitions alongside this one.

I tend to use evidence in the idea of "that which may disprove, when known, some set of potential causalities"

I find a leaf on the road. It disproves real causalities absent leaves.

I find a footprint in my house of a boot that is not mine... It disproves causalities wherein my home has not been entered by someone who is not me.

And so on.

Evidence is a fact (the leaf) that supports a contention reality isn't absent leaves. The more difficult questions in life are rarely as cut and dry. This discussion revolves around what happened billions of year ago minus eyewitnesses. Like detectives at a crime scene any evidence we have is after the fact.

 

[Drew2008]

What would count as proof of God​

Probably right only some universally held other wise inexplicable manifestation would act as proof.

There are degrees of proof. The highest degree of proof is scientific proof such as when scientists establish the truth of a claim through observation and independent experimentation. Very rare are scientifically verified facts upended. Unfortunately not everything lends itself to scientific verification.

So there are legal degrees of truth such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. A simple preponderance of evidence (meaning more for than against) in civil cases.

The real question is what would atheists accept as evidence we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator? In my experience atheists deny there is any such evidence no matter what is submitted. Because one of the key arguments against theism is the claim there is no evidence. They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.

If you make the claim that a god exists, it is your burden to provide the facts and reasoning that would convince others. Feel free to provide the evidence when you see fit.

We'll have to agree on what evidence is.

evidence​

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

In short evidence are facts that make a proposition more likely to be true or less likely to be true. For instance if I accuse someone of shooting a gun the fact they own a gun makes my claim they shot a gun more probable. Not a certainty for sure. That fact alone wouldn't win the day as in any circumstantial case it is a preponderance of facts that make a case. It can work the other way if the person I accused of shooting a gun doesn't own one, that fact would be evidence in disfavor of the contention they shot a gun.

Secondly this discussion is not a one way street I know some atheists believe atheism is a negative claim not in need of any evidence or have any burden of proof. The claim theism is an answer to a question how did the universe and humans come to exist? Theism isn't a religion its a philosophical belief that the universe was intentionally created to cause sentient life to exist in contrast to the belief no God(s), or Creator of any sort was needed. If so existence of the universe was caused unintentionally and human existence was just an unintended coincidence.

There are certain facts that have to be true for some claims to be true. For instance in a murder case it has to be true that someone is dead. Usually its easy you merely present a corpse. In some cases its harder nonetheless a foundational claim to murder is a dead human. It may sound trivial but anyone proving someone murdered someone has to prove a death occurred. They have to prove a whole lot more to prove murder. For theism to even possibly be true certain facts must be true or there is no case for theism. Those facts that have to be true for theism to be true are evidence theism is true. Proof no, evidence yes.

Political hand waving and diverseness, Pressed for facts and saying nothing. Like trying to get Trump to present factual evidence of voter fraud.

What is your evdebce?


When working on real problems I have used syllogisms to help make it clear.


P1 evidence 1 for a creator
P2 evidence 2 for a creator
C Given P1 and P2 a creator must exist.

What are your premises?

Just for once I'd like to hear a theist say I know it is not logical and I jave no objective factual evidence, but I belive in god. I coud actually res[ect that.

I wrote my premise above. Of course there is factual evidence. To be evidence it must be an established fact.

Do you accept the definition of evidence? Do you agree 'For instance if I accuse someone of shooting a gun the fact they own a gun makes my claim they shot a gun more probable.' Its far from proof but do you concede it is a fact that makes the subsequent claim more probable? Not true just more probable. By the same token if the suspect didn't own a gun though far from conclusive it better supports the contention he didn't shoot a gun. Those are facts and such facts are evidence.

I'm not deliberately being difficult. I know as soon as I list P1 some folks in here will make up a new definition for what is and isn't evidence. For many the absolute core foundation of atheism is the mistaken idea there is no evidence in support of theism.