What do you take to be the requirements for "evidence" in the context of debate on the existence of (a) God(s)

Question

In a lot of debates here and elsewhere about the existence or otherwise of a God or Gods, people refer to the need for evidence to support or refute either side of the argument. However, one of the biggest differences between the two sides seems to be what they regard as the necessary features that "evidence" has to posess in order to be valid, relevant, and ultimately persuasive.

Personally, the main essential features of evidence that immediately spring to mind are:
- transparency
- repeatability / replicability
- the capacity to lend support to a theory with predictive power and
- objectivity (though this is partly encompassed by transparency; also see below).

An interesting argument that I have read this evening (at http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm), however, is that evidence can never be viewed objectively. Our assessment of any given piece of evidence will be influenced by our prexisting "emotions and prejudices".

The argument I've outlined above has made me look at the debate in a new way (though it has certainly not changed which side of the debate I subscribe to), and I am interested to explore this avenue more fully. I would therefore be grateful if you would give me your thoughts as to the features that evidence must posess to be valid in this debate. If you feel that evidence is unnecessary, or that my question is irrelevant, please explain why.

Though you may have inferred it from the question, in the interests of objectivity(!!) I think it better if answers do not know whether I am an Atheist or a Theist. I would therefore be grateful if you didn't read my question/answer history until after posting your answer.

Finally, please indicate what your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are.

Thanks,

Z.

Joe Cool: I am unsure about your comment Quantum Mechanics. While I'm no expert, my understanding is that it's a mathematical framework that was developed in order to overcome the inability of classical mechanics to explain phenomena at a sub-atomic level. As such, it is designed to AID the replicatability/reproducibility (I will use the terms interchangeably) of observed phenomena/experimental results.

I would also question whether replicatability is an appropriate term to apply to a theoretical or mathematical framework at all. Quantum mechanics is a set of tools for explaining the results of experiments/observations (i.e. interpreting & using evidence by developing & testing theories). The meaning I intended for the word replicability when I used it above was the ability of a given set of conditions to produce the same outcome under independent testing. Replicability therefore relates to empirical evidence, but is irrelevant when describing/evaluating a mathematical framework.

troothskr: Thank you for reminding me of Occam's Razor, - a principle first described by a monk! - though an explanation in English would probably be helpful, lol.

(If anyone want's an English explanation of Occam's Razor, I would suggest wikipedia!)

Actually, thinking about it further, Occam's razor is really applicable to theories, rather than evidence, as it states that the preferred theory is the simplest one that supports all observed evidence.

Answer 1

A photo would do me!!

Answer 2

What evidence do you want with all the religious beliefs and books that our world has you have a lot to choose from. The most apparent evidence you can take with you into a debate is PEOPLES BELIEFS and I (not such a believer ) don't think we can ask for anything else. No matter who thinks what what is real what is not Belief gives the world courage and a direction in life although this will take us all in different directions and enhance your debate but where is the proof that anyone of our beliefs is wrong? And who would destroy a belief that some one lives with just to justify their own. I would not would you and would any GOD ?????

Answer 3

I am a Lutheran and without even looking at you Q&A history I can tell you are an evolitionist. Because if you were a creationist you would know that the created will never feel oblogated to justify the creator. We are content to live life by the rules God created for us within the world without trying to prove to you that there is a God.
GOD DOSEN'T NEED US TO PROVE ANYTHING FOR HIM. If he wants it proven you will know.
I think that the debate of this issue has gone beyond rational thought. Both sides of the issue will throw out the evidence that they think proves the other side.
Every time an Archeologist finds a skull of a person with abnormal features they want to say it's a new species. I also know that they want people to fund their research and that only comes with showing some sort of progress. If people would find another way to show progress without undermining the priciples of standard beliefe we may be better off.
But anyone who trys to get funding to support the Bibe is ostricized from the field of research. This should end.If you don't fear the Bible is true, why push these people out? What ARE you afraid of?

Answer 4

The criteria you have proposed for evidence of a scientific phenomena are indisputable. I would only add 'occam's razor'- namely ' non sint entia multiplicanda preater necessitatem!'
Scientific theories are ultimately falsifiable not provable. Einstein's theories replaced newtonian physics because they were more successful at explaining the behaviour of matter at speeds approaching that of light and the motion of light in a gravitational field for example. Quantum theory explaiined the photoelectric effect and the stability of atoms and their spectra etc. The only 'faith' scientists have is that when new discoveries occur they are subject to rational discovery and explanation.
'Proof' exists only in mathematics
'Belief' is subjective and sometimes rational.
Religious experiences seem to be subject to neither 'evidence' or proof, this is neither to deny their validity or value, merely that they lie beyond these domains. Anyone fancy a pint??

Answer 5

A believer has no evidence of his beliefs,but then he wishes no outcomes.If you are converted to my beliefs(Roman Catholic),I do not gain anything, not in this life anyway.
You will recall that Christianity started as an under ground religion and may end up that way(Islam and atheism are on the increase).Certain emperors had the idea that the world would be a better place.But that is not why Jesus came.

Answer 6

-Agnostic

The whole purpose people look for God/Gods or no God/Gods is to find meaning. Both sides do provide meaning. Is it not possible that both coexist? Atheist feels that God is all in the mind, which to an extent is true. But the problem with this is what pushed him to conceive this thought, which is the search for meaning. Also, the search for meaning could concievable have created the idea of no God in the mind too. Similarly goes for those who believe in God/Gods. Searching for meaning is to define one's existence.

The closest I have come to finding the meaning is both God and no God coexist. The closest identifiable thing this existence could be made of would be energy, which it is also gentle towards the Atheists and other religious views points.

Anyways, my point is that anything is possible. Our reality is made up of the rational and irrational, which both are entwined together. In the absence of something there is nothing, in the absence of nothing there is something.

I used philosophy and started with the foundation of reality. In my opinion, both the concepts of God(something) and no God(nothing), coexist. Both coexisting together makes the most sense.

Answer 7

A miracle that could not be explained away by reasoning. I have not heard of one yet.

I am agnostic.

Sorry I can't give your eloquent question the attention that it deserves, but I'm a bit tired and this is the biggest of subjects.

I do feel that your approach to such an emotive issue deserves total respect from both sides of this debate.

I am going to check back tomorrow to see how things are going here.

Answer 8

Yes we all interpret evidence in different ways, but there are still commonalities given that we are all human. I'm an atheist and it would take something like an amputee or a retarded person suddenly being healed and having it witnessed by some doctors or something to convinve me otherwise.

Answer 9

The transparency of God is to see how the Devil is doing in its Creations. And if the Devil is seen, how could he convince that He doesn't exists and pretend to be God? Thereby the creation just dwells upon its very own existence in ever seeing eyes of God.
If it is hard for us to see the Devil, how much more of the evidence God had left us... so reversing the search, let us examine the evidence the Devil had left us. maybe just maybe, we could have God's evidence. But beware, the wrath of the Peace is unpredictable.

Answer 10

I am an atheist, to start with. For me, the best proof of God would be something like the instant creation of a new mountain, a bunch of new stars, or anything else which would defy physics and have no explanation other than supernatural.

Answer 11

All the "evidence" available for a god boils down to hearsay and anecdote. That's the same level of evidence available for Zeus, Odin, leprechauns and many other such supernatural notions.

If you believe in a christian god, why not believe in all those others? Because more hearsay says you shouldn't?

Dumb.