I myself do not know if God exists, but I am curious to know what most non-believers would accept as evidence for God? Besides the obvious "seeing with your own eyes", what kind of evidence should one expect to find?
2006-12-24 03:34:25 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Thank you everyone for your input. I can see that some of you are somewhat defiant and will only believe in God if he operates according to your rules. It appears that many atheists or agnostics will only believe in God if he provides irrefutable proof that he existed. Of course, then you wouldn't really "believe" in God, because you would have a firm knowledge of God.
I suppose that witnessing some kind of amazing miracle or doing an experiment to obtain measurable and repeatable results are good ideas, but then, the results would be dependent on God's will, right? What if curing the world of poverty and sickness is not a part of God's plan? What if he wants us to exercise faith, rather than to have a perfect knowledge of him? Although these are nice concepts, one cannot conclude that God is unreal just because he doesn't work according to our will.
2006-12-27 09:02:25 · update #1
Personally, I find myself a little more open-minded and will consider the possibility that there may be a God who chooses to hide himself from our view and wants us to walk by faith. I was hoping there might be some kind of evidence that doesn't require asking God to show himself or perform miracles for us. I suppose for some of us, though, seeing is believing.
2006-12-27 09:39:50 · update #2
"seeing with my own eyes" is probably the only acceptable evidence.
I can't see why that would be such a big problem for any god.
2006-12-24 03:38:33 · answer #1 · answered by Thinx 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
There is no reason to exclude the most obvious evidence. Let him show himself. If such a being exists, there is certainly no reason for him to be shy or fearful. Nobody is going to pelt him with rotten fruit and old beer bottles.
Or, he could do something that would leave no doubt. A nice International Distress Orange sign in the night sky, visible to the entire planet at the same time might be a starter. Or, perhaps, the instant elimination of all disease and hunger. Still too much? Ok, let's try something small like a basic sanitation system providing clean water popping up overnight in some third-world region where children die of horrible diseases for no reason greater than the want of a drink. None of these should be a problem and would take only a moment out of his busy schedule of doing absolutely nothing other than manipulating his creations for the sole purpose of amusing himself.
.
2006-12-24 03:57:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The same as anything else: A consistent, measurable outcome to any experiment performed. For example, the case mentioned above with the prayer study, which I remember being covered in the news. I'm not asking for a 100% recovery rate or anything, but say the experiment was performed again and again, and there was a consistent, decent margin of recovery that was higher among those prayed for. Say, even 25% higher than the control group. If this consistently came up, I'd start looking into this.
If it was 100% consistently, not just once but many times, count me in.
2006-12-24 03:58:18 · answer #3 · answered by angk 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If a god exists, I'd think he'd be able to convince me that he exists. You have convinced me that you exist, and you are hardly a god. A god is supposed to be much more powerful than you, so I'd expect this would be a piece of cake for him, her or it.
Therefore, I don't even have to think about what would be required to convince me. I can't "expect to find" evidence of a god of any kind. There are just too many variables in the possible types of gods there could be. So it would be a useless expectation, no matter what I came up with.
Personally, I think that if a god existed, it would be pretty obvious that he was there, unless he wanted to hide.
2006-12-24 03:36:41 · answer #4 · answered by nondescript 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
data that God exists... could comprise something traceable to the Bible, considering that it quite is the expert data on him. It won't be ready to be something that people can administration, the two, like "a conflict will happen and a guy would be there and another human beings will build a development." It must be the two an magnificent prediction of a organic journey, or an unnatural journey. It ought to narrate to the Bible, otherwise it must be the paintings of Zeus.
2016-11-23 15:08:33 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some say that the "evidence" that they would require has to be measurable. Well, since God is eternal with no beginning and no end, if that "evidence" is measurable then it would not fit with the definition of God.
The atheist automatically rejects any suggestion of anything that is beyond human understanding. The atheist is not looking for divine evidence but for human evidence only.
Therefore, it is impossible for God to prove His existence to an atheist because the atheist will never accept God for who God is.
Faith always precedes understanding.
.
2006-12-24 03:55:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Something that is measurable and repeatable would be evidence.
For instance, the Christian's theory predicts that prayer will help you to heal. That wouldn't be a clincher, but it would be evidence. Scientists recently did a very large study where they had Christians pray for one group and not for a control group (same condition). If the results had been that the prayed for had a significantly higher recovery rate, then that would have been evidence.
What happened was that you were slightly better off in the control group. This is very, very strong evidence that the theory put forth by the Christians is flawed. Things predicted by it failed.
2006-12-24 03:46:21 · answer #7 · answered by Alex 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I was an atheist for 31 years. I absolutely denied the existence of God.I always said that he'd have to show up on my doorstep with Jesus at his side. Jesus would have needed to present me with his birth certificate, and DNA tests would have had to prove that the person next to him was his father. Very flippant.
In my heart, I asked for something different, and a little more personal. For 31 years I asked. On the day I decided that I had been right all along, and that in no way could what we call God exist....I received what I had begged for over those 31 long years. Needless to say, I am no longer an atheist.
2006-12-24 03:40:41 · answer #8 · answered by iamnoone 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
First, I'd like to know what exactly anyone means by the word "god". If the terms is completely meaningless then why should it even matter to me? Please visit this link for a much more eloquent explination of this position: http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism/
In the event that "god" is defined in an adequately comprehensible manner, I'd also like to know if it's logically possible for this "god" to exist given it's nature and characteristics. If it isn't, why should I consider its possible existence beyond that point?
Third, I'd like it to be produced to explain it's notable absence from... well... everything in observable life (and no, I don't mean "visibly perceptible" when I say "observable").
2006-12-24 06:38:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Walking right up to me, showing me some ID, and then preforming some so called "miracle". And it would have to be a good one. An honest miracle, not these fake ones that everyone calls a miracle.
2006-12-24 04:48:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
i used to be an agnostic-athiest until about three months ago when i actually "spoke" with god thats what it took for me
and i answered the age old question if god talks to people why is it always the crazy ones its because talking to god will make you crazy
fyi there is no hell but the one we create here on earth
2006-12-24 03:41:31 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋