What constitutes reasonable evidence for God's existence or non-existence?

[ScottM]

Hi everyone:

Can the existence of God and/or the supernatural be proven? If so, what constitutes reasonable evidence?

I know some of you will roll your eyes and say “We’ve covered this topic before.” Well, I don’t care. I’m new to TWeb and haven’t participated in this topic here before.

I bring this up because MaxVel and I have been discussing on another thread whether the existence of God and/or the supernatural can be proven. That thread was a Jimbo rant about the nonexistence of God, and for reasons he described in the thread, Max chose not to offer evidence of God’s existence on that thread. But he did say he was willing to consider discussing it on a thread devoted to that topic; so, here’s that thread.

To get started: My position is that it is impossible to prove or disprove that God and/or the supernatural exists or doesn’t. Max disagrees, and I’m sure some of you do as well. I don’t doubt that people can make compelling arguments either way, but definitive proof is impossible to achieve, and the question will remain unsolved. I believe that God’s existence is beyond our human competence to solve; it’s insoluble.

Now before anyone takes offense, I’ll say here that I don’t intend to try to prove or disprove God’s existence, and I don’t intend to belittle anyone’s particular beliefs (although I might attack unsubstantiated claims that arise from those beliefs). My interest here is in seeing how some of you support your positions either way. If you believe you can prove God exists, please offer your evidence. If you believe you can prove he doesn’t exist, please offer your evidence.

I suppose it’s proper for me to address “proof.” I understand the Oxford English Dictionary says “prove” means to “make a trial of, put to the test.” How do we put God to the test? If we can prove God exists or doesn’t exist, we should be able to conceive of an experiment that could confirm or disconfirm God’s existence. I know some of you will want to offer logical or philosophical thought experiments, but I don’t see where these actually put God to the test in a way that can give us confidence in the answer that God exists or doesn’t.
If you believe you can put God to the test, I’d like to see how you would do this.

I’m interested in whatever evidence you offer, and I hope this can be a civil and fruitful discussion.

A caveat: If you jump in and say that this person or that person is wrong, please be kind enough to support your own position with reasoned opinion that includes facts. Too many people here like to make assertions – such as that there is such a thing as objective morality – without offering examples or evidence to prove the point. When that happens, discussion deteriorates into a shouting match, which is a pointless endeavor.

Thanks for joining in.

Scott

P.S.: I apologize in advance if this is the wrong forum for this discussion. I placed it here because I believe that, ultimately, the issue of proof for or against God's existence is a philosophical or theological venture. If I'm wrong, someone please advise me on the correct forum. Thanks.

[Minnesota]

I guess it depends on the quality of the evidence one is willing to settle for. Person A may find evidence X quite reasonable whereas person B may find X hardly reasonable at all. My "reasonable" may be quite unlike your "reasonable." So, unless a basis for reasonable evidence can be agreed on people will be left butting heads. "Your proof is no proof at all."

As for the god of Christians, I don't foresee any proof ever emerging. Not that it might not happen, but so far there is nothing that points to it.

[salvationfound]

My position is that it is impossible to prove or disprove that God and/or the supernatural exists

Well for this statement to be accurate you would imply that you have knowledge of what would
constitute evidence.

Remember your position is this:
-It is impossible to prove or disprove God.

This statement implies a knowledge of what would be needed to prove a God and then have
knowledge that we don't currently hold such evidence. Remember your not just saying I haven't
seen any evidence of God your saying it is impossible for there to be evidence which is an
absolute and a claim of knowledge above and beyond human perception.

Remember Christianity is different from Islam and Judaism because we believe in a God who
actually interacted with the creation as Jesus Christ. If its even possible that Jesus was and/or
is God then your statement is ruined.

I'm sorry you may disagree but I don't have the burden of proof in this. You didn't just say I know
of no proof of disproof you said it is impossible to prove or disprove God. Which means you
need to show that it is impossible for Jesus to be God. But if it is even slightly possible for
Jesus to be God then your position has been refuted. After all it was certainly possible for the
people who walked with him 2000 years ago to come to the conclusion that Jesus was God.

[ScottM]

Well for this statement to be accurate you would imply that you have knowledge of what would constitute evidence.

Yes, and that evidence isn’t available. That’s my position.

Remember your position is this:
-It is impossible to prove or disprove God. This statement implies a knowledge of what would be needed to prove a God and then have knowledge that we don't currently hold such evidence.

OK. You’ve already said as much.

Remember your not just saying I haven't seen any evidence of God your saying it is impossible for there to be evidence which is an absolute and a claim of knowledge above and beyond human perception.

Read carefully, SF, and try to understand this. I don’t claim to have not seen evidence of God. I claim only that it’s impossible to prove or disprove God’s existence and the existence of a supernatural realm.

Further, I don’t claim – nor can you fairly and reasonably assert – that I have knowledge above and beyond human perception. In fact, lack of such knowledge is exactly why we can’t prove or disprove that God and/or the supernatural exists.

Remember Christianity is different from Islam and Judaism because we believe in a God who actually interacted with the creation as Jesus Christ. If its even possible that Jesus was and/or is God then your statement is ruined..

I accept that this is what you believe. I also note that you haven’t applied yourself to the basic purpose of this thread, which is to discuss reasonable evidence for proving God and/or the supernatural exists or doesn’t exist.

I'm sorry you may disagree but I don't have the burden of proof in this.

Actually, you do have the burden of proof. I started this thread to discuss what constitutes reasonable evidence to prove or disprove God and/or the supernatural. It’s obvious you disagree with my position that one can’t prove whether God exists. But instead of engaging in fruitful discussion, you attack my position as being wrong while offering no evidence for why I’m wrong. Like it or not, the monkey is on your back. If you believe you can prove me wrong, please offer evidence to do so. Give me some reason to continue discussing this with you.

You didn't just say I know of no proof of disproof you said it is impossible to prove or disprove God.

Correct. By the way, I already know what I said. You needn’t tell me.

Which means you need to show that it is impossible for Jesus to be God.

No. That’s not the point of this discussion. If you want to discuss whether Jesus is or was God, start your own thread on it.

But if it is even slightly possible for Jesus to be God then your position has been refuted.

No. That’s not what we’re discussing on this thread. We’re discussing what I believe is the impossibility of proving whether God/supernatural realm exists. Discussion of Jesus at this point is irrelevant.

After all it was certainly possible for the people who walked with him 2000 years ago to come to the conclusion that Jesus was God.

And how does this relate to the point of this thread?

SF, I’m not surprised you’ve jumped in so early with absolutely nothing of value related to the topic at hand. On your next post on this thread, I hope you can get back on track and offer reasoned points of discussion about reasonable evidence to prove or disprove whether God/supernatural realm exists. If you can’t do that, please stay out of this conversation. Thank you.

Scott

[ScottM]

I guess it depends on the quality of the evidence one is willing to settle for. Person A may find evidence X quite reasonable whereas person B may find X hardly reasonable at all. My "reasonable" may be quite unlike your "reasonable." So, unless a basis for reasonable evidence can be agreed on people will be left butting heads. "Your proof is no proof at all."

Hi Minn:
I agree, and this is one reason why I contend that one can't prove that God exists or doesn't exist.

Reasonable evidence would have to overcome the objections of all parties to the debate, leaving the parties with little or no justification for denying what the evidence points to.

In my discussion with MaxVel on the "leprechaun" thread, Max asked me what I would expect to see as evidence of the supernatural. I replied that expectations are borne of experience, and I had no experience with the supernatural (with one possible exception). But let's say for the moment that my one possible experience with God/supernatural was, in fact, a true experience of God. How would I confirm this for a skeptic? I don't believe I could. I can't use it to prove God exists; it's simply not a reasonable piece of evidence. My experience was mine alone, and not everyone would agree that it was or could have been, shall I say, a communion with God.

So, can we use peoples' personal experiences as reasonable evidence to prove that God exists? I don't think so. And that's somewhat disappointing to me. Personal experiences might be the only real physical evidence we have that God exists, yet we can't really rely on them as proof, as they can be way too subjective.

As for the god of Christians, I don't foresee any proof ever emerging. Not that it might not happen, but so far there is nothing that points to it.

Agreed. But at the same time, evidence that disproves God's existence is also not likely to emerge. I guess this is why people can believe in so many different Gods; one can't be proven wrong in any such belief.

Cheers

Scott

[MaxVel]

Hi everyone:

Can the existence of God and/or the supernatural be proven? If so, what constitutes reasonable evidence?

I know some of you will roll your eyes and say “We’ve covered this topic before.” Well, I don’t care. I’m new to TWeb and haven’t participated in this topic here before.

I bring this up because MaxVel and I have been discussing on another thread whether the existence of God and/or the supernatural can be proven. That thread was a Jimbo rant about the nonexistence of God, and for reasons he described in the thread, Max chose not to offer evidence of God’s existence on that thread. But he did say he was willing to consider discussing it on a thread devoted to that topic; so, here’s that thread.

Cool. Hopefully I have some intelligent things to say about this topic...

To get started: My position is that it is impossible to prove or disprove that God and/or the supernatural exists or doesn’t.

To break this down, as I understand your statement above, you are saying:

'It is impossible to prove that:

a: God exists
b: God doesn't exist
c: The supernatural exists
d: The supernatural doesn't exist.'

Is that correct?

Max disagrees, and I’m sure some of you do as well. I don’t doubt that people can make compelling arguments either way, but definitive proof is impossible to achieve, and the question will remain unsolved. I believe that God’s existence is beyond our human competence to solve; it’s insoluble.

I'd really like to hear your reasons for this belief... why is it beyond our ability to know if God exists (or not)?

{I realise you give some reasoning bellow, but I'd like more detail here so I understand where you're coming from...}

Now before anyone takes offense, I’ll say here that I don’t intend to try to prove or disprove God’s existence, and I don’t intend to belittle anyone’s particular beliefs (although I might attack unsubstantiated claims that arise from those beliefs). My interest here is in seeing how some of you support your positions either way. If you believe you can prove God exists, please offer your evidence. If you believe you can prove he doesn’t exist, please offer your evidence.

I suppose it’s proper for me to address “proof.” I understand the Oxford English Dictionary says “prove” means to “make a trial of, put to the test.”

Hmmm... I think that there are other definitions that may be more relevant:

"1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration."

(Random House Unabridged)

"1 : the effect of evidence sufficient to persuade a reasonable person that a particular fact exists
2 : the establishment or persuasion by evidence that a particular fact exists"

(Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law)

{Quoted from Dictionary.com)

I think the last two definitions from both the dictionaries above are better for our purposes. Using them in your previous statement would give something like:

'...it is impossible to establish the truth or falsity of the propositions: 'God exists' and 'the supernatural exists''

Does that fairly represent your position? If not, what changes would be needed?

How do we put God to the test? If we can prove God exists or doesn’t exist, we should be able to conceive of an experiment that could confirm or disconfirm God’s existence. I know some of you will want to offer logical or philosophical thought experiments, but I don’t see where these actually put God to the test in a way that can give us confidence in the answer that God exists or doesn’t.

I'm not sure about this at all, Scott. If a logically valid argument with true premises can be constructed, whose conclusion is : 'God exists', then I think most would agree that such an argument would be proof ('the establishment of the truth of anything').

Conversely, if it can be shown that God (as defined by group 'A' is a being with logically contradictory properties/qualities, then that IMHO, would count as a disproof of group 'A's 'God'. This is the kind of approach taken in the Problem of Evil, which is an attempt to show that God's omnibenevolence and omnipotence is incompatible with the existence of evil in the world.

Are you restricting 'proof' to (broadly speaking) scientific experiments?

If you believe you can put God to the test, I’d like to see how you would do this.

I’m interested in whatever evidence you offer, and I hope this can be a civil and fruitful discussion.

A caveat: If you jump in and say that this person or that person is wrong, please be kind enough to support your own position with reasoned opinion that includes facts. Too many people here like to make assertions – such as that there is such a thing as objective morality – without offering examples or evidence to prove the point. When that happens, discussion deteriorates into a shouting match, which is a pointless endeavor.

Thanks for joining in.

Scott

P.S.: I apologize in advance if this is the wrong forum for this discussion. I placed it here because I believe that, ultimately, the issue of proof for or against God's existence is a philosophical or theological venture. If I'm wrong, someone please advise me on the correct forum. Thanks.

[zorathruster]

What if the description fails to correlate to known qualities:

Most people accept the god described in the bible as a valid description.

Most people believe god loves his chosen people.

God kills thousands of his chosen people in the story of the exidus from Egypt.

It is inconsistent to accept he can love his people and at the same time kill thousands of them.

Either the story is incorrect in depicting events, ie the bible is wrong, or the description of a loving god is incorrect because to love someone necessarily precludes killing them.

[MaxVel]

Zoro - what definition of 'love' are you using here?

[salvationfound]

Well for this statement to be accurate you would imply that you have knowledge of what would constitute evidence.

Yes, and that evidence isn’t available. That’s my position.

ahhhh now you've refuted your position. You've said earlier that it was impossible to prove or
disprove the existence of God. But if it wasn't possible then you wouldn't be able to think of
what evidence could do so. Because if you can think of possible evidence then its possible
that evidence has been around and just no one has seen it yet or that the evidence is gone.
The only way you could be consistent with your premise is if you admitted you can't think of
any possible evidence. But then we run into the problem of being able to make the absolute
claim of it is impossible to prove or disprove God.

I claim only that it’s impossible to prove or disprove God’s existence and the existence of a supernatural realm.

You've already refuted yourself here above. If it was impossible then you couldn't think of a
possible piece of evidence that could prove his existence.

I don’t claim – nor can you fairly and reasonably assert – that I have knowledge above and beyond human perception.

Well if you were consistent you would have to but since you've already refuted your
original premise then this statement doesn't matter.

I also note that you haven’t applied yourself to the basic purpose of this thread

I've been showing that your claim "its impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God" is
illogical. If you said, "I haven't seen any proof for God's existence" that's logical but an absolute
claim of it is impossible is not logical. But since you've refuted your own premise my purpose
now in this thread has changed.

It’s obvious you disagree with my position that one can’t prove whether God exists.

And you agree with me now considering your statement that you can think of evidence refutes
that premise.

We’re discussing what I believe is the impossibility of proving whether God/supernatural realm exists.

Which you've already refuted.

Discussion of Jesus at this point is irrelevant.

Well I disagree if Jesus was/is God then its highly relevant.

you attack my position as being wrong while offering no evidence for why I’m wrong.

Don't have to. You did that yourself.

[zorathruster]

Zoro - what definition of 'love' are you using here?

I don't think any definition of "love" includes killing a person much less thousands of people. Except in the psychotic realm.

[ScottM]

SF: Well for this statement to be accurate you would imply that you have knowledge of what would constitute evidence.
Scott: Yes, and that evidence isn’t available. That’s my position.
SF: ahhhh now you've refuted your position.

No. Read on and find out why.

SF: You've said earlier that it was impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Correct.

But if it wasn't possible then you wouldn't be able to think of what evidence could do so.

No. Listen carefully, SF. I can think of at least one thing that “would constitute evidence” (your words) for God’s existence: an appearance by God himself to all humans at the same time with the same message about who or what God is.
If such a thing happened, I’m sure the circumstances of the appearance and any revelations God would impart would be extremely hard to deny, as everyone would have the same message at the same time. As far as I’m aware, that’s never happened; I certainly don’t recall ever receiving a revelation from God that all other humans also received. If you’re aware of such an event, please inform us about it.

It's more difficult to conceive evidence that would prove God doesn't exist, as it's inherently more difficult to prove a negative. And that, of course, is one reason why proving God doesn't exist is impossible.

Because if you can think of possible evidence then its possible that evidence has been around and just no one has seen it yet or that the evidence is gone.

If the evidence is gone or no one has ever seen it, it’s useless to the task of proving or disproving God’s existence.
In the cosmos of all possible possibilities, it’s possible that evidence exists that proves whether God exists. My view is that such evidence is not available to humans, even if it’s possible that the evidence exists. Since it’s not available to us, we can’t use it to prove or disprove God’s existence. Get it?

The only way you could be consistent with your premise is if you admitted you can't think of any possible evidence.

What school of logic did you graduate from?
The only way to reasonably approach this topic is to try to think of what would constitute evidence for or against God. If you can’t or won’t do that, you’re not prepared for this discussion.
I’ve already offered you one piece of evidence that would prove me wrong. I can conceive of this as evidence, but it doesn’t mean that this evidence actually exists.

But then we run into the problem of being able to make the absolute claim of it is impossible to prove or disprove God.

You see it as a problem because you haven’t attempted to think this through. Perhaps you would benefit by seeing this as a challenge – a challenge to offer the evidence that, in your case, proves God exists.

Scott: I claim only that it’s impossible to prove or disprove God’s existence and the existence of a supernatural realm.
SF: You've already refuted yourself here above. If it was impossible then you couldn't think of a possible piece of evidence that could prove his existence.

Why do you repeat yourself? Do you believe that saying something twice makes it more believable than it was the first time?

Scott: I don’t claim – nor can you fairly and reasonably assert – that I have knowledge above and beyond human perception.
SF: Well if you were consistent you would have to but since you've already refuted your
original premise then this statement doesn't matter.

No. I’m consistent in saying that we can’t prove or disprove that God exists. I’m consistent in saying that the evidence that could prove or disprove God is not available to humans.

Scott: I also note that you haven’t applied yourself to the basic purpose of this thread.
SF: I've been showing that your claim "its impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God" is illogical.

No, you haven’t shown that. Even if you had done that, it’s not the purpose of this thread. The purpose of this thread is to discuss what constitutes reasonable evidence to prove or disprove God's existence. So far, you haven’t entered that conversation.

If you said, "I haven't seen any proof for God's existence" that's logical but an absolute claim of it is impossible is not logical.

Perhaps you could apply yourself to this and explain why it’s not logical to say it’s impossible to prove God exists or doesn’t exist.

But since you've refuted your own premise my purpose now in this thread has changed.

I don’t care how you see your purpose in this thread. You may involve yourself in any way you like, but you won’t derail my purposes. If you don’t bring value to the discussion, you’re not worth my time, and I’ll ignore you. I’ll engage with people who apply reason, respect and logic to this discussion. So far, you haven’t done that.

Scott: It’s obvious you disagree with my position that one can’t prove whether God exists.
SF: And you agree with me now considering your statement that you can think of evidence refutes that premise.

No, I don’t agree with you. Don’t stick your nose so high in the air.

Scott: We’re discussing what I believe is the impossibility of proving whether God/supernatural realm exists.
SF: Which you've already refuted.

Sorry to disappoint you, but my point still stands.

Scott: Discussion of Jesus at this point is irrelevant.
SF: Well I disagree if Jesus was/is God then its highly relevant.

I don’t care what you think is relevant. Your point is not relevant to what I’m discussing in this thread. If you want to talk about Jesus being God, start a thread on that subject.

Scott: you attack my position as being wrong while offering no evidence for why I’m wrong.
SF: Don't have to.

A more accurate description is that you can’t offer evidence for why I’m wrong.

I think you’ve just about used up your chits for this discussion. If you want to stay in the discussion with me, you need to do a better job of sticking to the purpose of the thread.

Scott

[ScottM]

Cool. Hopefully I have some intelligent things to say about this topic...

I believe you will, and I look forward to it.

To break this down, as I understand your statement above, you are saying:

'It is impossible to prove that:

a: God exists
b: God doesn't exist
c: The supernatural exists
d: The supernatural doesn't exist.'

Is that correct?

Yes

Scott: I don’t doubt that people can make compelling arguments either way, but definitive proof is impossible to achieve, and the question will remain unsolved. I believe that God’s existence is beyond our human competence to solve; it’s insoluble.
Max: I'd really like to hear your reasons for this belief... why is it beyond our ability to know if God exists (or not)?
{I realise you give some reasoning bellow, but I'd like more detail here so I understand where you're coming from...}

Here’s why I believe this (hope this isn’t too long-winded):

We humans live in what we call a natural world. We’re all born into it, we all die in it, and, like it or not, it’s around us all the time. We study it, we understand much about it, and we have boundless curiosity about it. Through experience and reason, we know with certainty that we live in a natural world. Or perhaps I should say that we define as “nature” the world we live in and the universe in which our world resides – the things our human senses allow us to identify as real.

Having said that, I must acknowledge that we know through research that every human civilization that we know of had its beliefs in the supernatural realm and in gods. I know from my own experience in life that some people claim to be able to interact with this supernatural realm. I know that some people claim to have glimpsed heaven in near-death experiences. I know that I experienced something a long time ago that I believe was “of God.” I know that people sincerely believe in life after death, or the circle of life (reincarnation and all that). I know humans have developed religious dogma and doctrine that adherents to these religious ideas treat as “gospel truth,” as it were.

Some people might believe there must be some truth to the idea of a supernatural realm, given that humans as a species seem to feel drawn to the supernatural (obviously, not all humans go along with this) as if its reality is obvious. And, of course, we’re the only inhabitants of this earth whom we know for sure even consider the idea of a supernatural.

So on one hand, we have the world we know exists – the natural world, and on the other hand we have the world we believe exists – the supernatural.

But how do we separate supernatural experiences – assuming for the moment that they’re real – from natural experiences for which we don’t understand the cause? How do we know when something we experience can’t be explained by natural causes?

It seems to me that no two people ever seem to have experienced the exact same facet of the supernatural at exactly the same time in exactly the same place and in exactly the same way. All accounts I’ve ever heard of are singular (except for a few in the Bible) – limited to the person who claims to have had the experience. Sure, there seems to be some general themes that people as a whole say they experience – like ghosts, chills up the spine, the feeling of being watched, the feeling of being looked after by a guardian angel, etc. – but these are things people experience when there’s no one else there to verify the experience as it happens, and many of these can probably be explained by quirks of the human mind.

And then there’s the problem of interpretation. In the thread called “What Mystical Experiences Have You Had” (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=99928), you can read some … well … mystical experiences some people have had, including me. Each of us who described our experiences interpreted them as mystical. But were they? They were to us, I’m sure, but skeptics can probably offer reasonable alternative explanations.

The supernatural, by definition, is insensible to us humans; it’s beyond our comprehension, above or outside the natural world. We can’t visit this realm on command; when we speak of supernatural experiences, these are things we don’t plan to experience ahead of time (except, perhaps for supposed mediums). When they happen, it’s always a surprise to us. Mine certainly was to me.

The human concept of God is usually wrapped in “mystery.” We pray to God (or gods) in the hope God will answer our prayers, not in the knowledge that he’ll do so. If God answers our prayers, we don’t always know it. We wonder why God allows misery and suffering to occur on earth. We conjure stories about how God created this thing or that without anything to tell us if we have the story right. We concoct rituals to keep us in communion with God. We believe we must live our lives in certain ways to avoid God’s wrath, yet we find that when we stray off that path, God doesn’t necessarily punish us for it. There’s a lot we believe we know about God, but, paradoxically, it’s all a mystery to us.

And, not least of all, we humans have believed and do believe in a wide variety of gods. We have invented an array of religions and their attendant rituals, traditions and dogma, and, generally, adherents to each believe they’re right and all nonbelievers wrong. But if everyone is wrong, no one can be right.

So as I see it, while we humans seem to generally believe in God or gods, and while we generally believe in a supernatural realm, we’ve never settled the issue of exactly what these magesteria are, and some of our explanations oppose each other. Why? It’s because the evidence needed to settle these issues just doesn’t exist in a form that we humans can understand.

Hmmm... I think that there are other definitions that may be more relevant:

"1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration."

(Random House Unabridged)

"1 : the effect of evidence sufficient to persuade a reasonable person that a particular fact exists
2 : the establishment or persuasion by evidence that a particular fact exists"

(Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law)

{Quoted from Dictionary.com)

I think the last two definitions from both the dictionaries above are better for our purposes. Using them in your previous statement would give something like:

'...it is impossible to establish the truth or falsity of the propositions: 'God exists' and 'the supernatural exists''

Does that fairly represent your position? If not, what changes would be needed?

I think it does. I would add one element to the definition of proof that may play an important role in examining evidence: check against a standard or standards (from Dictionary.com). At the moment, we have no standard idea of who or what God is, or what the supernatural realm is. The nature of the beast is that we’re all free to adopt our own “understanding” of God and the supernatural, and this is one reason why proof of any particular view is impossible to come by; they’re all, essentially, equally correct (or equally wrong). A standard by which to measure evidence, then, is crucial if we’re to assemble evidence that can actually prove or disprove these propositions. I’m not sure what such a standard would be.

I'm not sure about this at all, Scott. If a logically valid argument with true premises can be constructed, whose conclusion is : 'God exists', then I think most would agree that such an argument would be proof ('the establishment of the truth of anything').

If we weren’t discussing the supernatural, I’d agree wholeheartedly with the idea of true premises coupled with logic to prove a point. But in this discussion, I have some reservations about being able to establish true premises vis-à-vis God and the supernatural. I look forward to what you’ll offer as we progress.

Conversely, if it can be shown that God (as defined by group 'A' is a being with logically contradictory properties/qualities, then that IMHO, would count as a disproof of group 'A's 'God'. This is the kind of approach taken in the Problem of Evil, which is an attempt to show that God's omnibenevolence and omnipotence is incompatible with the existence of evil in the world.

Logically contradictory properties would certainly be a huge impediment. But how do we establish the properties of something that is beyond our comprehension? If we say we know the properties of God, this implies that we’ve already established proof of God’s existence. It seems to me that knowing what God is like can only happen (if it’s even possible) once we know he exists. If we use God’s properties as a basis for proving or disproving his existence, are we not forming a circle of reason?

Are you restricting 'proof' to (broadly speaking) scientific experiments?

Broadly speaking, yes. I see no way to settle these propositions without employing scientific methods of inquiry. Your view may differ, and if it does, I’m interested in how you would investigate the evidence.

I think we’ve made a good start Max. Thank you for engaging.

Scott

[ScottM]

What if the description fails to correlate to known qualities:

Most people accept the god described in the bible as a valid description.

Most people believe god loves his chosen people.

God kills thousands of his chosen people in the story of the exidus from Egypt.

It is inconsistent to accept he can love his people and at the same time kill thousands of them.

Either the story is incorrect in depicting events, ie the bible is wrong, or the description of a loving god is incorrect because to love someone necessarily precludes killing them.

Zora:
I agree with the contradictions you offer; they do seem to present some real problems.

But I disagree that we can try to correlate descriptions to known qualities of God. It's simply because I don't think we can "know" anything about God; therefore, whatever qualities we assign to God are qualities we want God to have, not necessarily the qualities God possesses.

Where do you stand on my premise that we can't prove/disprove God's existence? Do you believe that the contradictions you mention are sufficient to disprove God's existence, or are they only able to instill disbelief? Just curious.

Scott

P.S.: Is your nom d'screen related in any way to Nietzsche's Zarathustra?

[technomage]

Hmmm ... an interesting proposition, but one with potential problem: if we restrict ourselves to scientific methods, our study is restricted (because of the nature of science) solely to natural phenomena. If there are phenomena that do not qualify as "natural," what methodology would you suggest?

ETA: Struck out redundant question/

[technomage]

It is inconsistent to accept he can love his people and at the same time kill thousands of them.

Careful, Zora, you had an amphiboly there.