Atheists: What is acceptable evidence that there is a God?

Question

I've read some answers to questions on this site about the existance of God (or any god, for that matter). Many athiests chimed in and said they were non-believers in a deity because there is a lack of evidence that any deity exists.

I'm wondering what is considered acceptable evidence? I'm guessing possibly a stimulation of one of the five physical senses; i.e. you saw a god, you heard a god's voice, you felt the physical touch of a god, etc. Also perhaps a combination of such evidences?

What would be the indicator that it was indeed a god or deity providing the stimulations?

Am I on track, or is there some other evidence that would be needed? I'm not being sarcastic or anything; I just want to know.

Answer 1

What would it take? A rational and logical proof that could encompass anything from an empirical argument to a rational argument. William P. Alston is famous for his road to a logical and rational proof for God, he stood outside and suddenly it hit him that the ontological argument was a sound argument. I don't think he is correct mind you, but thats a nice story.

What I find interesting is this: what it would take for an atheist to believe in God should be *exactly* what it would take for a theist to not believe in God. How so? If the atheist seeks a rational or empirical argument that is both sound and valid, then the theist should seek the same thing.

Of course, that is not always the case, given that faith is employed in lieu of rational arguments, and if this be the case, it is conceivable that both the theist and the atheist could hold said belief in God because of faith. The theist has faith that God exists and the Atheist holds that God does not exist, and the justification for this would be faith. Yet, if this were the case, then the atheist and the theist have created an inconsistent system where at least one is wrong. But here is the fun part, for if this be the case, then we should be able, or at least try, to figure out logically which one is correct and which is incorrect. Of course, by doing so, we have not only made faith irrelevant but either proven God or his lack of existence through philosophy of religion.

What does that mean? I think it means that faith is epistemically unjustifiable, which means that belief in God must depend on a sound and logical argument in either case. Hence, a rational, sound, and logical argument should be the justification either an atheist or theist will need.

Answer 2

If an atheist saw, heard, or felt a god he would immediately, under his own definition, be crazy. So, that's not it.

Probably a huge demonstrative miracle would convince most skeptics. How about: making all the water in the world hover 80 feet above it's usual levels for 2 hours. Or, causing all the wind in the world to cease for an hour. However, such demonstrations might cause damage to the Earth and her peoples. God might also displace the asteriod belt to another location for a few weeks, or cause the sun to somehow warm up Pluto (with advance notification). Or, he could take atheists for a helicopter ride through the middle of the sun and out through the other side.

However, they could always claim subsequently that it was the work of aliens or mass halucinations. What kind of miracle would be acceptable to God (he can't just go wrecking stars or planets if he is benevolent) and atheists? Not sure. Atheists complain when something is not falsifiable, but how about when something cannot be verifiable, even when given extraordinary circumstances and evidence?

If we measured "god's presence" from earth, how could we be sure that the energy was emanating from God, the source? It might still be alien deception. If "god" assisted us in building a spaceship that took us into his presence, how could be sure that the entire journey was not a hallucination?

e fn w: I happen to think that mankind's failures are in part due to his inability to recognize his own divinity. When Jesus said, "The kingdom of god is in you" (although I don't subscribe to Jesus in particular) he meant that literally. We are all God. If that makes me an egomaniac, then I am also an egomaniac for everybody else (all men are ceated equal). Our problems are ours to solve, God just provides the unconditional energy and the intelligence, which is at our disposal. You can't run a car without filling the gas tank. As for a plan, I believe that light conquerors darkness because there is more of it. That is just a fact.

I'm more "can-do" than anything else. Prayer can have an effect, it has been proven. It won't solve all the Earth's problems, but it can have a positive impact to the degree it is excersized.

Answer 3

Any one of the following would convince me:

1. Anything that defies known physical laws.

2. Any verifiable 'miracle.'

3. Any proof of an afterlife.

4. observation that the Andromeda Galaxy will not impact the Milky Way in a trillion upon trillion years from now.

5. observation that Apophis has changed its course and will not come close to impact in the Year 2036 (or whenever the astronomers say there will be near impact)

6. logical explanation other than evolution of why men have nipples, tailbones, appendixes, body hair or other useless appendages.

7. The cessation of predation, disease, child rape, tornadoes, earthquakes and other untold evilness or calamities in the world.

I don't need all of the above to happen, any one would turn me into a believer.

Answer 4

i am not an athiest, but a doubter of everything. here are my thoughts:

if i saw god, i would doubt because I would have thought I could have hallucinated, or been tricked

if i heard god, i would doubt because I would have thought I could have had an auditory illusion, or been tricked

if I felt God's touch, i would doubt because I would have thoought I could be delusional, or had been tricked

in any case, if i experienced any of this directly, either individually or in concert, I would probably seek a psych eval just to make sure I wasn't crackin up.

for me...i'm not sure...although.....if I saw, felt, and heard God in the act of performing a major miracle, before my eyes, that had a direct and monumental effect on either numerous individuals and or a physical effect on terrain or water, I may very well fall to my knees in awe

after which I would immediately seek pychological counseling

Answer 5

i could settle for info of recorded miracles that the god had preformed so, info for: the creation, a international flood, the exodus, the sunlight struggling with, the sunlight reversing, the large call of Bethlehem etc. i could additionally settle for empirically verifiable miracles, at the same time with amputees recovering their limbs, executed interior the presence of qualified, purpose observers. Edit: i like the respond approximately non-imprecise writings and prophecies, this could make greater experience than the present state of holy writings, if this god had actual designed the universe. In different words, a innovations that replaced into element orientated sufficient to layout this universe would not communicate vaguely.

Answer 6

I am not an atheist, but if there is more evidence that there is a God than there is not a God, that should be enough to tip the scales for a rationally thinking individual.

Answer 7

The type of evidence which was supposedly presented to biblical characters such as Moses and Jesus' disciples would be convincing.

Answer 8

it seems that most atheists here had ignored your question. was it because they couldnt have answered it satisfactorily? the truth is most atheists do not know what evidence means. they claim to be the more rational people when in fact they practice selective rationality when it comes to proving the existence of evidence of a God.

Answer 9

not an atheist either but an acceptable evidence? how about cease all talks of paris hilton from everywhere... that'd convince anybody that He, the Almighty, exists.

Answer 10

the proof is that theres life......what more proof do we need there is a force that is responsible to being the architect of the universe.