Re: What evidence would make you believe?

Scott Satko said:

Since the oft-repeated line from the agnostics/atheists on this forum seems to be that "there's not a shred of evidence" favoring the existence of God, this makes me curious. Just what type of evidence would you need to see to accept as proof that God exists? Or is there any? No flames here--just trying to understand you guys better.

A repeatable experiment showing, by whatever means, action that could only be attributable to a supernatural entity. IOW...NOT;

What's written in the ancient book of an ignorant and primitive people.

Not what somebody feels in their heart.

Not what people say they believe and/or want to believe because they fear death or feel lonely.

Not because some famous man or woman beleived it.

A tall order? Perhaps...as Carl Sagan was wont to say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Scott Satko said:

Rod, thanks for your opinion. I was hoping for something a little more specific, though. Tell me what your ideas are for the design of a specific experiment that would prove the hypothesis that we're discussing. The problem with using vague terms is that even if such an experiment could be done, there would always be naysayers who would say "that doesn't count," and would claim that they disagreed with the conclusions of the experiment.

It is not up to me to design an experiment in hopes of supporting these ridiculous claims. That is the province of those who posit the existance of a supernatural being. I wouldn't waste my time worrying about something that is nonsensical on the face of it.

The place to look for gods and goddesses is not "out there," but "in here," in the human heart. Gods and goddesses clearly have no physical reality at all...but they do have psychological reality and they COULD be a force for good if their believers would let them be.

The problem with using vague terms is that even if such an experiment could be done, there would always be naysayers who would say "that doesn't count," and would claim that they disagreed with the conclusions of the experiment.

Yes, Yes, Yes...

This is how science works, naysayers question everything, new experiments are proposed to test new hypothesis's, people do disagree with the conclusions, with the conditions, with the execution, with ever facet of an experiment.

No one simple does an experiment and the results are taken for granted.

So... this is how science works... I have a hunch, a leap of faith, an idea based on intuition. It's my idea so it's up to me to turn that idea into a hypothesis and then try to validate that hypothesis with some type of test. Others may think it is good idea and do the same, helping me. Still others will think it is not a good idea and devise their own hypothesis's to try to disprove the original hypothesis.

This process leads to further understanding of the original idea, whether negative or positive, the result is further understanding.

So, in this case, if you want to devise a hypothesis and a test, then we can be the peer reviewers, those naysayers who question your assumptions, your evidence, etc.

Jon Isaacs