Empirical Evidence of God

I can do neither. But that is what you require of God?

Nooooo

I don't require anything of god

How come religious people have, in my opinion, a exceedingly difficulty problem understanding atheist do not believe in god leading to strange questions like "But that is what you require of God?"

Remember your question was what evidence is required

Soooo moving Everest and or walking through the Great Wall for me would be evidence

You stated YOU cannot do either

Now is the time to produce god and ask him to do one or both

If such happens he may get more than me as a convert

:)
 
So we have much to say on the subject of God, but I'm curious what would serve as empirical evidence for those who don't believe in God. What is it that you need to prove God's existence? Would it be something physical, solid--something you can hold in your hand? Or is there something else that would prove his existence?

People are asking for evidence, but I'm not certain what it is exactly that would satisfy their needs. ???
It's a good question but one to which my only honest answer is: I don't know.
People may talk of moving mountains, or walking through walls, but I am not sure this would convince me of anything more than an incredibly powerful alien.
I would, however, avoid starting with any a priori assumption of God's existence, that might simply result in question-begging, the "God Is therefore everything is evidence of God" approach.
But ultimately, I simply don't know.
I think God, if God exists, is beyond empirical evidence, and God's existence is empirically unprovable and unfalsifiable.
But then I don't start with the assumption that God exists, nor with the assumption that God doesn't exist.
 
There would be no cancer and there would be peace...and all was good! :)
So the general principle here is that conflict and cancer do not arise from our individual and collective lifestyle choices?
 
but I am not sure this would convince me of anything more than an incredibly powerful alien.

Soooo what would it take a
But ultimately, I simply don't know.
I think God, if God exists, is beyond empirical evidence, and God's existence is empirically unprovable and unfalsifiable.
to convince you of existence of god or will you stick with "beyond empirical evidence, and God's existence is empirically unprovable and unfalsifiable"

If you are going with beyond it appears to me you had already had a mind set to negotiate our evidence put forward because of the beyond mind set

:)
 
So the general principle here is that conflict and cancer do not arise from our individual and collective lifestyle choices?
Seems somewhat of a non sequitur.
First, the cause of conflict and/or cancer is irrelevant to whether one would find its absolute cessation / cure to be evidence of God (as asked by the OP).
Second, cancer can be reduced through lifestyle choice but not eliminated: mutations will always occur naturally, some leading unfortunately to cancer.
Lifestyle choices merely raise or reduce the risk, but it is always non-zero.
 
Soooo what would it take a

to convince you of existence of god or will you stick with "beyond empirical evidence, and God's existence is empirically unprovable and unfalsifiable"

If you are going with beyond it appears to me you had already had a mind set to negotiate our evidence put forward because of the beyond mind set
As said, I find the only honest answer to be: I don't know.
How would you tell whether moving Everest to the pyramids was genuinely the work of God or just really powerful aliens, capable of performing such feats?
Similarly with walking through the Great Wall of China?
 
God should be able to appear in physical form for each human on the planet...all the time...so he can guide protect and be with the object of his love.At present it seems he is there for all so all that is laxking is a physical manifestation.. .he could help you lift things.
He is in all of us now well be God present as a big helper mentor real love.
I wonder if because I just made that up if it will come to pass...
I do conclude the future is after tomorrow and there is a lot of it in next month.
Little bits of future next year as well.
Believe it or drown for ever in the infernal bucket of filth and disgust.
Alex
 
How would you tell whether moving Everest to the pyramids was genuinely the work of God or just really powerful aliens, capable of performing such feats?
Similarly with walking through the Great Wall of China?

Get a few physics Scientists involved and ask for their expertise if if such feats were feasible

I'd be surprised if they were
But let's push it further

Let's ask god to give us a tour of the inside of the sun or a black hole

:)
 
Again, it's your premise, and therefore your burden to prove. I don't think it's possible, it's a nonsensical question.
It is already proven by any empirical line of inquiry delivering a grossly incomplete picture of the world.
If you want more proof, you will have to start being more specific.
 
So what criteria would a photograph of God have that a regular photograph would not?
I didn't say a photograph. I said sit Him down on my couch. Photographs can be faked.

And yet you can't produce even a photograph of God.
 
I didn't say a photograph. I said sit Him down on my couch. Photographs can be faked.

And yet you can't produce even a photograph of God.
So what are you looking for specifically in God? Like if God knocks on your door, and asks if its still ok to come in and sit on your couch, how are you going to spot an imposter?
 
Like if God knocks on your door, and asks if its still ok to come in and sit on your couch, how are you going to spot an imposter?
Roll Him out and we'll worry about imposters later. The question is about whether the thing exists at all, in any tangible way, not whether fakes are possible.
 
Roll Him out and we'll worry about imposters later. The question is about whether the thing exists at all, in any tangible way, not whether fakes are possible.
If you can't bring criteria to a "thing" you can't begin to move in the direction of existence (or no existence). For instance if you have no clue about what a gold bullion bar is, you will probably have no shortage of people willing to sell you one at a very special discount price.
 
If you can't bring criteria to a "thing" you can't begin to move in the direction of existence (or no existence).
Your "criteria" is a red herring. I'm not asking for anything that I wouldn't ask about any "elephant in the room". If it's there, you should be able to show it in any number of ways.
 
Your "criteria" is a red herring. I'm not asking for anything that I wouldn't ask about any "elephant in the room". If it's there, you should be able to show it in any number of ways.
On the contrary, your lack of criteria is a red herring. If you don't believe me, you should head down to the fruit stall to buy this incredibly cheap gold bullion :

images
 
On the contrary, your lack of criteria is a red herring.
Lack of something is not a thing.

I'm saying use ANY criteria. Show us ANY evidence. IF we reject it, you can have your favorite whine. You can't reject the rejection until the rejection is done.
 
If you believe in a god or gods, present your proof. Don't ask people who don't believe in elves and fairies to think up things you can't seem to produce.
 
Back
Top