By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Is God's existence objectively verifiable?

 

Well, is it objectively verifiable?

Yes 57 15.20%
 
Not Sure 20 5.33%
 
No 244 65.07%
 
What's objective mean? 16 4.27%
 
Results 38 10.13%
 
Total:375
OutlawStar on 30 January 2016
JWeinCom said:
Oh absolutely. 100% proof? Probably not. But there could be enough proof that it would be stupid to think otherwise.

For example...

If the laws of physics were consistently violated in the favor of one particular religious group.

If someone claiming to be god came to Earth and was able to do things that completely defied known laws (like morphing a dog into an elephant, levitating everyone on Earth simultaneously etc.

If tomorrow, all wars and conflict ended.

If we woke up tomorrow and Pokemon were real.

If Half Life 3 releases.

If everyone simultaneously heard the same identical message in their minds saying "yo watup. I'm god. Here's what I need you to do from now on.

There are literally millions and millions of ways an omnipotent god who wanted people to know about his existence could prove it. Instead he used the "tell people about it in a book that contains unverifiable information" method.

If there is a god, he's a rather poor communicator.

 

This disproves any God by itself. 



~-~

Around the Network
BMaker11 on 30 January 2016
JWeinCom said:
Oh absolutely. 100% proof? Probably not. But there could be enough proof that it would be stupid to think otherwise.

For example...

If the laws of physics were consistently violated in the favor of one particular religious group.

If someone claiming to be god came to Earth and was able to do things that completely defied known laws (like morphing a dog into an elephant, levitating everyone on Earth simultaneously etc.

If tomorrow, all wars and conflict ended.

If we woke up tomorrow and Pokemon were real.

If Half Life 3 releases.

If everyone simultaneously heard the same identical message in their minds saying "yo watup. I'm god. Here's what I need you to do from now on.

There are literally millions and millions of ways an omnipotent god who wanted people to know about his existence could prove it. Instead he used the "tell people about it in a book that contains unverifiable information" method.

If there is a god, he's a rather poor communicator.

If any of those things happened and someone was claiming he was able to do it because he was Jesus or God or whatever....people would just say he was the devil. 

Seriously, when some book from 2000 years says Jesus walks on water and that's a proof that he's divine, modern day people believe the divinity. When Chris Angel walks on water and does it right in front of hundreds of people (although he doesn't make claims of divinity), people say "we know its a trick" at best and "its devil magic" at worst. So which is it? Defying physical laws is a proof that you're divine or not? If it makes you a devil, why does everyone bow to Jesus? It could have just as easil been a "trick" back then.

"Oh, the devil is a powerful being. He's meant to deceive you". So, both Jesus and the devil can allow things to walk on water? How do you know which is which, then? Why do you deny direct evidence but accept a book from thousands of years ago?





alabtrosMyster on 30 January 2016

If it exists it is possible to verify objectively, otherwise it's subjective... Or made up

 

Now the argument could always be made that we have not found god yet, so people can keep looking if they think God is out there (they subjectivity feel God's presence, or god was revealed to them in some spiritual way) ... But as of now, if someone says they have found god, this is not a rational thing and it should be taken with a grain of salt!



Porcupine_I on 30 January 2016

Not unless we have answered all questions



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

Volterra_90 on 30 January 2016

It's impossible to justify objectively God's existence. And it's impossible to deny his existence too. So, I remain agnostic. Though I don't believe it's possible the existence of an interventionist God, like some religions say. Maybe it's a physical force which keep the Universe balanced and non-chaotic. It's a complex subject.



Around the Network
archer9234 on 30 January 2016

I just play the Hitchhikers Guide on God, in my head. It will all go poof, in a puff of logic.



RenCutypoison on 30 January 2016

Yes

OT : God(s)'s existence is non verifiable nor is its non-existence, which is the whole point of faith. Religious people, without proof of its existence, are 100% positive that god exists, while atheists, with no definitive proof that god does not exist , are 100% positive he doesn't.



Dulfite on 30 January 2016

I am a Christian that believes in God, however I would just like to focus on one thing that I've considered for years. It is something that was not required for me to have faith (my faith preceded this understanding by years/decades).

Imagine not existing. Can you do it? I'm not asking you to imagine dying, I'm talking about imagine ceasing to exist. Now, if you will one day cease to exist entirely, would you even remember this present time that your in right now? Now some may argue "well it's the present and I'm in existence, not the future when I won't be, so of course my memory is still working" but let me ask you, does someone who loses all their memory feel like they were alive before they "woke up" (if you will)? No. So why would it be any different for anyone else that loses all their memory (ceases to exist, in this case, after death)? If, one day, we all are destined to not exist, then none of us would have comprehension of our own existence like we do now.

Self-awareness is one of the key objective pieces to the concept of the divine.

I also look at the universe. How likely is it that something came from nothing compared to God making something come from nothing? That's like comparing me exhaling my breath in winter (seeing it) to my breath just randomly appearing there for no reason at all without me or anything else causing it to appear.

If I hadn't read the Bible and accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, I certainly would have not been an atheist because there is just too much ridiculously coincidental things that have happened in existence (including self-awareness and existence itself) that have no reason for being around if there isn't some kind of divine being running the show, if you will.

People always argue that the Big Bang happened from a single thing/atom, but how? How was that single atom there to begin with? Where did it come from? Nothing? That doesn't make any sense.

But if you put God into the equation, it makes a whole lot more sense for something to come from nothing.



Turkish on 30 January 2016
RadiantDanceMachine said:

It is my position that no amount of subjective evidence would be sufficient to prove a claim. 

Since subjective evidence is mere opinion, it serves no function in matters of truth. For example, suppose I claim to have seen Bigfoot. Someone else makes the same proclamation. So on and so forth...would this be convincing to anybody? I should hope not.  The reason for this is because the subject is unable to self-confirm his or her experiences. The subject can be mistaken, can hallucinate, can have invalid sensory interpretation. 

Now contrast this with the objective - that which is not subject to interpretation. For example, suppose I had filmed the 9/11 terror attacks. No one can argue that two planes did not collide with the WTC because it's right there on video. (ignoring the possibility of doctored videos, which can be detected anyway)

Now, can anyone think of objective evidence for the existence of God? If so, please share it. I would be supremely interested in it.

There is no evidence, but do you have evidence that God does not exist?

 



 



JWeinCom on 30 January 2016
Turkish said:
RadiantDanceMachine said:

It is my position that no amount of subjective evidence would be sufficient to prove a claim. 

Since subjective evidence is mere opinion, it serves no function in matters of truth. For example, suppose I claim to have seen Bigfoot. Someone else makes the same proclamation. So on and so forth...would this be convincing to anybody? I should hope not.  The reason for this is because the subject is unable to self-confirm his or her experiences. The subject can be mistaken, can hallucinate, can have invalid sensory interpretation. 

Now contrast this with the objective - that which is not subject to interpretation. For example, suppose I had filmed the 9/11 terror attacks. No one can argue that two planes did not collide with the WTC because it's right there on video. (ignoring the possibility of doctored videos, which can be detected anyway)

Now, can anyone think of objective evidence for the existence of God? If so, please share it. I would be supremely interested in it.

There is no evidence, but do you have evidence that God does not exist?

 



 

Do you believe in everything until you have evidence that it doesn't exist O_o..?