What is this evidence of God atheists talks about?

What is this evidence of God atheists talk about which can convince them about existence of God? Is it a scientific evidence?

As far as I understand different branches of science have different types of evidences or proofs and demonstration. Physics and chemistry are only branches of science that shows cause and effect almost instantly. That means when we do some physics or chemistry experiments it shows results instantly. Biological experiments takes time to show the relationships between it’s cause and effect unless it is somewhere related to chemistry i.e. biochemistry. For example, genetics.

Then there’s psychology kind of things in which cause and effect shows in long duration, and in that duration many unknown factors makes there influence or effects, which makes cause and effect in psychology appears very random and unfathomable. It is difficult to understand cause and effect relationship in psychology or anything related to life or living things, unless it is biochemistry.
The concept of God is about kind of living or conscious being, who knows what we are thinking at any given time, where we are watching him, what we want etc. Such being is impossible to be found out unless he himself wants to show himself.
The other way is to pray or request him to show himself, which he doesn’t do very clearly, and atheists don’t like to do it.
So I wanted to ask what kind of evidence of God atheists actually want? Is it physical, chemical, biological psychological or something else?

I’d take any of them, but they have to be demonstrable. Chemicals show only chemicals, math proves only math. The best evidence would be god/gods appearing before each of us, as many of them, as believers conceive them, ought to be empowered and interested in doing.

Interesting :face_with_monocle:. As an agnostic… what is your standard for evidence?

Really??? How do you determine these “qualities”. Germs are “living” and they don’t have the mind to care.

Are you claiming “consciousness”? Something defined as alive isn’t necessarily “conscious”.

Is this your definition or “concept of god” you are offering up?

Welcome… btw

Lol. Really. And you’re agnostic? What does that mean to you?

I don’t know what evidence would convince me of the existence of a god or deity.
But, an all-powerful all-knowing god would.

3 Likes

I’m taking a Matt Dillahunty:

I have no idea, specifically, what would change my mind about the existence of a god. But if there is such a being as a god, then one would think that god knows exacly what would change my mind, and should be capable of taking the action to present the case that would change my mind. And this hasn’t happened. Which means that either this god does not exist, or this god doesn’t want me to know that he exists. Yet. Either way, it’s not my problem.

Edit to add source: Watch Matt Dillahunty Describe What It Would Take to Change His Mind About God | Hemant Mehta | Friendly Atheist | Patheos

1 Like

Its something theists make up in a spurious attempt to divert attention from the fact they can’t demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity.

1 Like

Yet you keep making assertions about it?

Try starting with the best you have, it’s bizarre you have to be told really, especially after all your irrelevant verbiage.

He’s a theist, and his posts in the past have been as filled with sophistry as they were with unevidenced hubris.

1 Like

That is strange; even considering this is clearly from someone who isn’t a native English speaker, it is still strange. Very strange.

All information is stored, transmitted, and received physically. So it kind of needs to be physical for you to be able to transmit it to others; it isn’t a specific requirement, it’s just the way things work out.

I think OP means that experiments in biology (for example genetics) take a lot of time to perform to establish a clear causal link between cause C and effect E, while in physics and chemistry (including biochemistry) the time it takes to establish C causes E is near instantaneous.

I’m not sure what the relevance is, but I’m pretty sure i can sum it up like this: :poop:.

What kind of evidence do you actually want for all the deities you dont believe in?

Could you list each one please, and then explain what evidence you want in turn. It can’t be the same obviously, otherwise you’d either believe they were all real, or be able to offer some objective difference, which you have failed to do after multiple requests.

My criteria is unbiased, as it applies to all claims, including god claims,and of course you know what it is, active told you more than once before. I can’t of course speak for any other atheists, but I am prepared to believe claims for which sufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated.

Sufficient objective evidence.
Sufficient objective evidence
Sufficient objective evidence
Sufficient objective evidence
Sufficient objective evidence.
Sufficient objective evidence
Sufficient objective evidence
Sufficient objective evidence
Sufficient objective evidence.
Sufficient objective evidence
Sufficient objective evidence
Sufficient objective evidence
Sufficient objective evidence.
Sufficient objective evidence
Sufficient objective evidence
Sufficient objective evidence
Sufficient objective evidence.
Sufficient objective evidence
Sufficient objective evidence
Sufficient objective evidence

:roll_eyes:

2 Likes

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Something, anything, substantial.

1 Like

There is not really anything called “scientific evidence.” Are you asserting the scientists are making up the evidence?

There is evidence that comports with reality and we determine this by applying the scientific method. Different forms of evidence require different levels of inquiry to determine their ‘truth’ value. (How well they match up with and explain the world around us.)

So, by scientific evidence, I assume we are speaking of evidence that has held up against scientific investigation. Is ‘No.’ There have been no ‘God claims’ that have stood up to scientific inquiry. That is not the same thing as “no evidence.” There is a whole lot of evidence. The problem with the evidence is that it is not good evidence and it does not and can not lead us to the conclusion that a god exists.

Let’s take the evidence of Miracles. Okay, odd things happen. The fact that an event, asserted to be a miracle, remains unexplained (Most have been explained by natural events.) does not automatically lead us to… “therefore a god did it.” This is a massive leap of assertiveness without actual evidence of a god existing in the first place. To assume a god did anything, you must first demonstrate that the god thing is a possibility. For it to even be a possibility it would have to exist. “It must exist before it can be considered a possibility.” Failure to establish god as an existent thing, prior to giving it any attributes or motivations is “An Argument from Ignorance.” (I can’t think of anything else… therefore God.)

So the evidence theists most frequently cite are Miracles, Souls (OBE, NDE), Personal Experience, Appeals to Emotion, The Bible, and, my favorite, Presuppositionalism (I know god is real, prove me wrong.) This last one involves shifting the burden of proof. It’s like saying, “I know Peter Pan is real and he lives in the land of Lost Boys.” Prove me wrong. Psych wards are full of people that believe all sorts of crazy shit without good evidence to back up their claims.

Okay, bottom line, … “There is a ton of evidence for god.” To some degree, all the things listed above are in fact ‘evidence.’ It is not good evidence. And here is the clencher… A whole bunch of bad evidence does not add up to good evidence. That would be like piling layers of shit, one on top of the other, and then calling it a strawberry shortcake. I don’t care what you choose to call it, it is still a pile of shit. Bad evidence does not add up to good evidence. Bad evidence is discarded and we do not count it.

3 Likes

And exactly how did you determine this? What led you to believe that such a thing is even possible? As I said in a previous post. Prior to taking anything at all seriously about God claims, you must first demonstrate the actual possibility of this thing existing.

You have asserted that there is a 1. Being 2. Out there somewhere. 3. That can read minds. Can you demonstrate any of this?

1 Like

What’s hilarious is how much time theists waste asking atheists what they’ll accept, without ever actually offering anything.

I mean the thread author believes something, he’s come to a forum where he knows most posters are dubious.

Just fucking tell us the best reason you have ffs, how hard is that?

And exactly how did you determine this? What led you to believe that such a thing is even possible? As I said in a previous post. Prior to taking anything at all seriously about God claims, you must first demonstrate the actual possibility of this thing existing.

You have asserted that there is a 1. Being 2. Out there somewhere. 3. That can read minds. Can you demonstrate any of this?

1 Like

My standards of evidence are the same as would be applied in a court of law. I do not accept a “logical” argument because of the failed search for Vulcan, which was a logically consistent story that adhered to the then-present evidence and knowledge base. Thus to me, one can not argue a god into existence, one must provide evidence or proof.

2 Likes