Biff the unclean

theophilus: I'm sure I should understand what you mean, but I don't. Do you mean a "piece" of God, like a "tissue" specimen? Please help

Sure a piece would be fine. A living specimen would be best but not necessary. A fossil would be okay too.
That's how you prove beings exist. You want to prove that there are celocants you need to hook one. Giant Squid, a mantle washed up on the beach or a half-digested tentacle in a sperm whales stomach is fine. A fossilized vertebrae is great proof of a T Rex.
That's how you prove a claim that something exists. No fancy word play, no appeals to convoluted philosophy, no appeals to "faith". You simply provide a specimen. Couldn't be simpler.

fishbulb

What constitutes evidence depends primarily on what you mean by the Christian God. Do you mean the Christian God you believe in? The Christian God my dad believes in? The Christian God outlined in the Greek Orthodox theology?

First, start with a definition of God. This definition must be clear, consistent, and concrete. The definition must posit specific characteristics that define God sufficiently well that he can be distinguished from other entities which may exist. It must ascribe specific characteristics which are empirically verifiable, and must use words with definite, concrete meanings; you must be able to provide a clear definition of any term you use. Terms like infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, existing everywhere, existing outside of time, and other nonsensical or abstract terms which can niether be properly defined nor empirically verified cannot be used.

In other words, you must define God in the same way you would have to define any other subject whose existence was in question.

To put it another way, we can only establish the existence of those characteristics that are concretely defined. We will never be able to validate claims like "God is omnipotent" because we can't test for an abstract or nonsensical quality.

If your definition fails to meet these criteria, I and most atheists will dismiss it as nonsensical, incoherent, and unverifiable. You cannot verify what you cannot define.

Assuming you are able to define god concretely and clearly, the next step would be to provide evidence that demonstrates the likelihood of this being. Question begging will not work; you cannot argue that the Bible says God exists, and the Bible must be believed because it is the word of God. Any evidence you present must be able to stand on its own, and must not assume the very thing you are trying to prove.

You don't have to prove beyond any doubt that God exists. Rather, you just have to provide enough evidence to demonstrate that the existence of the Christian God is more likely than his non-existence.

Contrary to what you may think, most atheists, myself included, do not have faith that there is no god, nor are they emotionally and spiritually invested in belief in a godless universe. If there really is a God, I would very much like to know it. But, no matter how much I might like the idea of there being a God who will take care of me and send me to paradise when I die, I cannot simply be convinced by mere speculation and assertion. I require real, tangible, evidence that can be studied, evaluated, and debated.

Clutch

Theophilus,

You need to provide some more information before I can answer, I'm afraid.

I mean, consider some of the intuitive answers: voices in the sky, loved ones long dead apparently raised from the grave, and so forth. For each of these things, I can think of explanations for the appearance that are, if very unlikely, at least perfectly unmysterious in the mechanisms they invoke.

So what I need to know is, What's the independent probability of a supernatural event? How unlikely would I have to judge an alternative explanation, before concluding that it must have been a sign from a god?

I'm not ruling it out in advance. I'm saying that I don't know how to rule it in or out. Because one thing is incandescently obvious: the usual standards that (eg) Christians invoke for accepting events as miracles and signs should also lead them to accept the miracles and signs of every religion, cult, supernatural scam, and alien abduction conspiracy theorists.

Unless you have some still more reasonable standards for me to adopt in this matter, the only rational thing would be for me to accept the very reasonable standards I already have.

sourdough

yeah,maybe there is REINCARNATION,
and if I BELIEVE it,it has to be RIGHT obviously.:boohoo:

theophilus

Well, this certianly came sooner than I thought (and I expected that I'd have to bring it up). Thanks for exposing the basic problem with this whole issue of "evidence."

The fact is, most atheists are disengenuous when they ask for evidence and suggest that the'd really like to believe but are just prevented by the lack of evidence.

Since atheists have a precommittment to the non-existence of God (this is a moral, not an intellectual condition), any phenomenal evidence could always be challenged, denied, or admitted as simply "something that we can't explain now" but will be able to when science discovers more about them, i.e., faith in science.

Harrumphrey

Keep your pigheaded assumptions to yourself.

First, I am an atheist and have no desire to "believe" in your psychotic god-construct. Why would I want such a pathological bully to exist?

Second, your charge that atheists have "a precommitment to the non-existence of God" is a sly evasion. Do I have a "precommitment" to the non-existence of Santa Claus? Perhaps, because my sense of reason is outraged by the notion of him and therefore requires first logical coherence and then evidence as antecedents to belief.

Moreover, explain how "morality" is involved in this suspension of belief. This is a cute pretense, glibly parenthetical. Disbelief is not an "intellectual condition" -- but a "moral" one? Even if morals had anything to do with it, they are the property of intellect. Or do you pull yours out of your ass?

Regarding the opening topic of this thread, it's meaningless to ask for a standard of evidence that would prove the validity of a nonsensical and self-defeating concept. The concept itself must make sense before you ask how it could be proved. Until you can define god without contradicting the rules of logic then you have no business demanding an argument built on those very rules.

Silent Dave

If anyone is looking for a sure-fire way to fail at scholarly debate and/or discussion, this is an excellent technique which I highly recommend. Simply define your position as moral, and the other guy's position as immoral. You can then spend the rest of your career feeling good about yourself, and failing miserably.


Dave

theophilus

Well, I think you have illustrated some of the problems with this whole atheist challenge that Christians produce "evidence" of God.

I think you're making too much out of the definition problem. If your dad believes in the God of the bible, I doubt very much that we'd differ over a definition. We'd both say that God is spirit, i.e., immaterial, that he is eternal, that he is all powerful, everywhere present, and all-knowing, even if we couldn't nail down precisely what we mean. I doubt your dad would suggest that God is 6' tall and has blue eyes - I certainly wouldn't.Besides, I offer the Bible as the definition.

The question is, what kind of evidence would be "convincing" of the existence of such a being? Obviously, there could be no direct material evidence, since he is immaterial. So, the idea of him "putting in an appearance" as Gordon Stein suggested in his debate with Gregg Bahnsen, is clearly non-sensical.

It is interesting that the Bible never "argues" for God's existence; it is assumed. All the supernatural events occurred to strengthen faith in those who believed.

Atheists are not being honest with themselves when they say they'd believe if "God would just...."
Pharoah did not believe after seeing the plagues appear and disappear at Moses command. Most of the Israelites who left Egypt in the Exodus did not truly believe. Many of those who saw Christ's miracles did not believe.

theophilus

If anyone is looking for a sure-fire way to fail at scholarly debate and/or discussion, this is an excellent technique which I highly recommend.
First, don't read your opponent's post carefully.
Second, take one section out of context.
Third, misquote him.

I said belief is a "moral" condition, not an intellectual difficulty. It was an Ontological statement about the "nature" of unbelief, not a judgement about the "immorality" of unbelievers.

theophilus

Again, who says?