can we agree on what's evidence of god and what's not?

Question

not list:
fortunate coincidences, existence (non sequitur), beauty (subjective), faith (hoping, guessing), a holy book, a good feeling

yes list:
god making a personal appearance (not to be confused with a good feeling), god suspending the natural laws of physics

do we agree?

Patrone-- Are you adding to the "Not" list? If so, I agree with you.

Answer 1

There is no evidence that point to only one God or a God. The only constant in this universe in creation. This is why the universe is constantly expanding. All intelligence in this universe is not from just one source. You only need look at yourself to understand the creative force in the universe. Are you not an unique individual with your own thoughts that are different from everyone else?

All life imitates all other life. What you find within yourself is the truth about God, universe and creation. All you need do is look inside yourself and see this fact. Man has an eternal spirit that cannot die. This eternal spirit is what is part of the universal intelligence which is also part of what holds this universe in place. I know this will be hard for many to fathom but it is truth.

All thought is creative. Creation is love and love is the highest form of creation.

Answer 2

Fortunate coincidences could be signs of a Providential God. For instance my first girlfriend had a disease that medical science had and still has no cure for, but one day the disease just utterly vanished. Oh, and this goes along with "suspending the natural laws of physics".

Faith is not "hoping/guessing" it is trust, which is gained by personal experiences.

A holy book..... Well I'd say that is secondary evidence. For instance if you had a business card you would trust the person has the business where the card says it is, but once you actually go to the business place and meet the boss the business card is largely secondary evidence.

Answer 3

ok, i will supply you that my experience of ask your self on the impressive universe all of us share has slightly credence. i do no longer think of that empirical know-how is the only style of know-how with cost. previous that, you lost me. Archaeological information has shown that some places reported interior the Bible existed, and that some activities would have been in accordance with historic activities. It does not persist with that the Bible is subsequently the word of God. i do no longer have confidence in prophesy. each and every guy or woman i've got ever prevalent has lied. each and every guy or woman I certainly have ever prevalent has believed a lie at a while. Are you asserting those authors are the exception? that they had suited readability, knew the certainty? And wrote it infallibly? it fairly is plenty greater stable to have confidence than than they have been faulty. Did each and every druid who ever lived basically lie? Are the truthful of the different faith deceivers? of course no longer, the do exactly no longer have confidence you (or me for that remember). Jesus would have been divine, mendacity, and loopy, all on an identical time. For all i be conscious of, each and every human beings qualifies as all 3 in God's eyes in short, I see little information. i'm afraid the communicate maintains to be unsettled. Peace.

Answer 4

I can see some merits of your lists, but I also can see some major limitations of both. Since you are using legal terminology such as evidence, you ought to use the same kind of procedural control that a court uses to allow or dismiss evidence, that is if you wish to truly do it justice.

First, if you wish to dismiss fortunate happenings, you will need to have some forensic basis for assessing them in order to determine their worth as evidence. For example, let's say I pray for a sick person and he or she gets well. You could say, "Ha! That's just the placebo effect." How many times in a row would I have to do this (not saying I can) before you would be willing to admit this as evidence? Twice in a row? Ten times? How serious does the untreated illness need to be? Just a fever? Dying of cancer? How quick of a recovery? Instantaneous? An hour later? You see, even a "coincidence" if repeated sufficiently accumulates a body of evidence over time that would be silly to deny. Conversely, failure to produce the stated effect ought to be sufficient evidence to invalidate the claim.

I will allow the dismissal of beauty since I don't really want to squabble about words and why a purposeless universe produces such purpose driven, beauty obsesses creatures as mankind.

Faith, however, is certainly worth examining, especially the testimonial sort. After all, eye witness testimony is admitted in court all the time. It has been my experience that faith is not blind, but is the result of becoming convinced by the accumulated evidence. Evidence of this sort will depend on the credibility of the witness, which is what cross examination is all about.

Dismissal of a "holy book" ought to be decided in the same manner. You can NOT dismiss something as false just because you have a preconceived notion that it must be - no! Like any other sort of thing which purports to be evidential, it must be examined and accepted or discarded on its own merits.

Dismissal of a "good feeling" ought to be tried in the same fashion. If one has been dealing with a manic depressive who suddenly and permanently "feels good," then this deserves examination.

Lastly, since you would accept God making a personal appearance, you ought to very seriously examine any book which claims that He has done so or which claims that God suspended the laws of physics. Don't expect for one second, however, that you will personally induce Him to show up at your beck and call so that you can have faith in Him. He is not your performing monkey; you come to Him on His terms; He does not come to you on your terms.

From what I have seen so far of your reasoning, any jury you would select on the above criteria would have to be dismissed as unnecessarily biased in favor of rejection of God. In order to do your search any justice, you ought to recruit a number of people from either party and examine the evidence of both sides in detail.

By the way, I can also tell you mere Bible reading will get you nowhere, nor will debating as we are doing. The Bible never teaches that you should start a search for God by reading the good book, or by praying or any other such. It starts with repentance. If you are like most people, that is THE problem - you will not take the first required step which is to admit the wicked things you have done (lying, stealing, lusting, violence or whatever) and bring them to a halt. God will make ABSOLUTELY NO STEP IN YOUR DIRECTION WITHOUT YOUR REPENTANCE.

Tom

Answer 5

Unfortunately for you, even if the Almighty came in front of you, and displayed his attributes and powers so that you should believe, you most likely would not. Just the posing of this question shows that you are not interested in proof, but just to debunk the belief that God exist. And you probably could with a lot of theoretical science, and quantum mechanics. Only the ones with the right Heart condition can come to Know him. Jesus had to deal with your type even in his day. "for the knowledge of God is Foolishness to the world."
But I will ask you to prove something:
Prove that you love your Parents (or whoever you protest love), and then prove it in the scientific method. See if you come up with anything but symbioses, opportunism, or just survival of the fittest.

Answer 6

I can agree with both lists, with a modification to the yes list: I think that in this day and age, any appearance of a deity should be recorded by all available media, in front of multiple witnesses.

It shouldn't be difficult to arrange.

Answer 7

I would mostly agree.

God making a personal appearance including demonstrations would be highly convincing.

Suspending of natural laws of physics would probably be good but there would always be the question of - maybe we just don't understand enough physics yet.

But, yes, you make excellent points.

Answer 8

how about these:

1.) consience: Science proves that our psyche cannot have a physical or biological origin, which proves that the only answer is a transcendenant spiritual power (God), because there is no trace of consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc. in the equations of physics (natural, empirical world)The only possible materialist explanation of consciousness and emotions implies that objects such as electrons and electromagnetic fields have emotions, feelings, awareness, etc. That would make them idols.
Every materialistic attempt to explain our psychical life implies that what thinks, loves, suffers, desires etc. in us are objects such as electrons or electromagnetic fields.The point is that objects can feel nothing at all; objects cannot feel happiness, sadness, love, anger, self-awareness, etc. Science has proved that the equations of the electromagnetic field are universal; they describe the electromagnetic field within our brain as well as within a copper wire or an atom.

2.) morals (right. vs. wrong), where do they come from?

3.) design of life:Scientists estimate that they could fill a 1,000-volume encyclopedia with the coded instructions in the DNA of a single human cell if the instructions could be translated to English.

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man"
-Albert Einstein

Answer 9

No, we cannot ever agree sadly.
I see the Mona Lisa, but Leonardo Da Vinci never appeared to me. Who says that Da Vinci painted it? Books?

Answer 10

If you do not believe that God exists then how can you believe that something is evidence of his existence? If you believe that something is evidence of the existence of God then how can you believe that he does not exist?

What is evidence of intellectual dishonesty?