Objective evidence of god/religion?

[dyanaprajna2011]

Here at RF, the debates about whether god exists or not, or how one can prove a religions validity, rage on. And unfortunately, there's never a clear answer. So instead of asking for proof of god's existence, or for proof of a religion's validity, let's look at it from a different perspective.

What would be considered objective evidence of claims of god's existence or the validity of a religion?

For example, some people would say miracles are evidence of the validity of a religion, or some would say religious experience.

So, what would objective evidence for god/religion look like?

 

[sandandfoam]

I believe that for each of us there is only subjectivity.

 

[Jainarayan]

I believe that for each of us there is only subjectivity.

^ This. :yes:

We've been having conversations about Bigfoot, Goblin universes, parallel universes, people and things popping in and out of existence in this universe and so forth. I may have seen it happen, but it is purely subjective to me, because even with photographic and/or videographic "evidence", I can't convince anyone else of the reality of what I saw.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Here at RF, the debates about whether god exists or not, or how one can prove a religions validity, rage on. And unfortunately, there's never a clear answer. So instead of asking for proof of god's existence, or for proof of a religion's validity, let's look at it from a different perspective.

What would be considered objective evidence of claims of god's existence or the validity of a religion?

For example, some people would say miracles are evidence of the validity of a religion, or some would say religious experience.

So, what would objective evidence for god/religion look like?

It is often noted that the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence- and that is true enough. However, the absence of necessary evidence is necessarily evidence of absence. Thus, the absence of the evidence entailed by a theistic deity is evidence of the absence of that theistic deity (so, the absence of evidence entailed by scriptural/doctrinal claims). Absent a refutation of this evidentiary principle, here's how we can evaluate the evidence/lack thereof for the existence of ANY deity:

-Is the world scientifically observable?
-Are events/changes in the world scientifically observable?
-Does (any) god cause events, or changes, in the world?
-Which events, or changes, in the world can only be accounted for by (any) god?

If there are no events, or changes, in the world which can only be accounted for by (any) god, then there is no non-subjective, non-anecdotal, corroborative, basis on which it be reasonably claimed that (any) god is real.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

The same evidence exists for the concept of the void in Buddhist
From a seekers prspective God is "experienced" when the mind is one pointed and empty of notions.
The word we like to use is just The inherent reality dressed up in the minds favorite concept.
God, energy, void, they are outfits.
From a scientific standpoint objective evidence of God would be found in the realm of quantum physics.

People from religious cultures will attain some level of enlightenment then reason it to be God, then these people are named saints.
"Were there are people, there are always flies and Buddhas"-zen saying

 

[George-ananda]

Here at RF, the debates about whether god exists or not, or how one can prove a religions validity, rage on. And unfortunately, there's never a clear answer. So instead of asking for proof of god's existence, or for proof of a religion's validity, let's look at it from a different perspective.

What would be considered objective evidence of claims of god's existence or the validity of a religion?

For example, some people would say miracles are evidence of the validity of a religion, or some would say religious experience.

So, what would objective evidence for god/religion look like?

I would say objective evidence (not PROOF) for belief systems exist.

For my beliefs, I would say that a study of the so-called paranormal can objectively lead one to believe that it is highly likely (short of PROOF) that this universe is something dramatically more complex than the standard material view can contain.

So next, the question would be is there any way we can get our minds around what this expanded view of the universe looks like. We can't get there by our own objective thinking but we can objectively consider teachings of those who claim to see/know beyond where our minds can take us.

 

[nazz]

Here at RF, the debates about whether god exists or not, or how one can prove a religions validity, rage on. And unfortunately, there's never a clear answer. So instead of asking for proof of god's existence, or for proof of a religion's validity, let's look at it from a different perspective.

What would be considered objective evidence of claims of god's existence or the validity of a religion?

For example, some people would say miracles are evidence of the validity of a religion, or some would say religious experience.

So, what would objective evidence for god/religion look like?

Good question. I haven't a clue. I think a better question would be what kind of evidence would make an atheist believe in a god. I've asked that one before on another site.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I would think such evidence would require a high degree of uniqueness and uncommonality that cannot be compared conventionally, remaining exclusive and responsive to a particular religion or is something that is objectivly demonstrable that a person can determine for him or herself on a personal level, although the latter would not likely be evidence for the masses per say.

 

[Sunstone]

So, what would objective evidence for god/religion look like?

Ultimately, there is no such thing as objective evidence. What you most likely have in mind is inter-subjectively verified evidence. That is, evidence that is verified by two or more "subjects" or people.

Miracles might qualify for inter-subjective verifiability if either they could have been or they actually were witnessed by two or more people. So, if you and I are sitting next to each other, and we both see -- or claim to see -- a guru levitate off the ground, fly a hundred yards, and land again, then that would amount to inter-subjective verification. However, note well that one instance of inter-subjective verification alone does not preclude a later instance of inter-subjective verification that it was all done with smoke and mirrors.

Mystical experiences are a bit more problematic. If you and I are sitting next to each other and you have a mystical experience, who am I to say you have had one? On the other hand, if you describe your experience in terms that significantly match or correspond to another person's experiences, such that we can say you most likely experienced something the same or similar as that experienced by the other person, then your and their experiences are inter-subjectively verified.

However, they might not be reliably replicable. That is, it might be impossible to replicate them in any reliable manner using any known technique or means.

Last, even if you had a mystical experience of, say, "seeing deity", that would not necessarily mean you had seen an actual deity. It is possible that you have merely uncovered a relatively rare kind of brain fart. Or you might have merely seen something that bears the same relationship to deity as colors bear to the electromagnetic spectrum. That is, colors are not "real" in the sense that they are properties of electromagnetic energy, but are only "real" in the sense that they are mental interpretations of the presence of various wavelengths of electromagnetic energy.

Ideally, to provide solid inter-subjective evidence of deity, you would need to make a prediction about some event that will come about if and only if there is a deity, and which eventually does come about. Good luck finding that event!

 

[nazz]

Miracles might qualify for inter-subjective verifiability if either they could have been or they actually were witnessed by two or more people. So, if you and I are sitting next to each other, and we both see -- or claim to see -- a guru levitate off the ground, fly a hundred yards, and land again, then that would amount to inter-subjective verification.

Didn't you and I see that very thing stoned out of our minds on acid back in '67?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Ultimately, there is no such thing as objective evidence. What you most likely have in mind is inter-subjectively verified evidence. That is, evidence that is verified by two or more "subjects" or people.

What does "objective" mean if not "inter-subjective" in this context?

 

[Sunstone]

What does "objective" mean if not "inter-subjective" in this context?

Just trying to error on the safe side is all.

 

[InChrist]

Here at RF, the debates about whether god exists or not, or how one can prove a religions validity, rage on. And unfortunately, there's never a clear answer. So instead of asking for proof of god's existence, or for proof of a religion's validity, let's look at it from a different perspective.

What would be considered objective evidence of claims of god's existence or the validity of a religion?

For example, some people would say miracles are evidence of the validity of a religion, or some would say religious experience.

So, what would objective evidence for god/religion look like?

[FONT=&quot] I think the uniqueness of prophecy in the biblical scriptures and the accuracy of foretelling future events is objective evidence of the existence of the God who is revealed in the scripture, existing outside human time limitation, and omniscient.[/FONT]

"In communicating Himself and His will, God provides both subjective and objective evidence. The Bible is full of accounts of God having given tangible "signs" to those who wanted to know Him and His will. To "put out a fleece" is a common expression that is understood worldwide. It comes from Gideon's use of a sheep's fleece as a sign: asking God for dew on the fleece and not on the ground one morning, then dew on the ground but not on the fleece the next (Judg 6:36-40).

God has, in fact, given a "sign" to the entire world for all generations. That sign is the land and people of Israel. God refers to "Israel my glory" (Isa:46:13) and says of her, "in whom I will be glorified" (Isa:49:3). How would this come about? By God's specific dealings with Israel before a watching world, after having prophesied precisely what would happen (2 Chr:7:20). Referring to the rescue of Israel at Armageddon, the subject of many Old Testament prophecies, Ezekiel:38:23 declares, "Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself; and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am the Lord."

The Bible declares that the prophecies it provides concerning Israel supply the irrefutable evidence for God's existence—and for the fact that He has a purpose for mankind. History is not merely happenstance. It is going somewhere. There is a plan. Biblical prophecies declare it irrefutably."

"Significantly, the God of the Bible identifies Himself as the One who accurately foretells the future and makes certain that it happens as He said it would. In fact, God points to prophecy as the irrefutable evidence of His existence and the authenticity of His Word: "For I am God, and there is none else. ...Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, my counsel shall stand..." (Isa:46:9-10 ).


The God of Prophecy | thebereancall.org

 

[Levite]

Beliefs are inherently subjective. If religions could be proven objectively, they would be sciences, not religions.

Personally, I think there is too much focus on "proving" the unprovable, rather than utilizing the moral and ethical lessons of religion to try and create more just and compassionate societies.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Beliefs are inherently subjective. If religions could be proven objectively, they would be sciences, not religions.

Personally, I think there is too much focus on "proving" the unprovable, rather than utilizing the moral and ethical lessons of religion to try and create more just and compassionate societies.

now now now, that would be actually using religion as a social tool rather than an individual one...that's just crazy....

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Beliefs are inherently subjective. If religions could be proven objectively, they would be sciences, not religions.

So, religious truth-claims (that God exists, that Christ is of one substance with God, that God created the universe, etc.) cannot be evaluated in terms of their truth? How's that work?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Personally, I think there is too much focus on "proving" the unprovable, rather than utilizing the moral and ethical lessons of religion to try and create more just and compassionate societies.

And if religion really amounts to nothing more than ethics, then it would appear to be redundant (as ethics exists with or without religion), and we should just dispense with it entirely, yes?

 

[Levite]

So, religious truth-claims (that God exists, that Christ is of one substance with God, that God created the universe, etc.) cannot be evaluated in terms of their truth? How's that work?

Unless you can figure out some objective measurement and scale for revelation, no. It's subjective. You don't believe a religion because it is the sole objective Truth, but because it is a true way to approach spirituality, community, and ethics in your life: it resonates with you. There may be cultural motivations also, but again those are at least partly subjective.

 

[Levite]

And if religion really amounts to nothing more than ethics, then it would appear to be redundant (as ethics exists with or without religion), and we should just dispense with it entirely, yes?

Why should we entirely discard any system of ethics that works for people? It's not like outside of religions there's just one monolithic school of ethical philosophy. Why should we not also have religious systems?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Why should we entirely discard any system of ethics that works for people? It's not like outside of religions there's just one monolithic school of ethical philosophy. Why should we not also have religious systems?

Well, for one because we could get the ethics without all of the negative things religion brings to the table; divisiveness and intolerance, arbitrary reinforcement of the status quo, etc. For another, for at least some systems of religious ethics, such as with the Abrahamic faiths, the ethics is sort of a house without a foundation without the doctrinal claims; if God doesn't exist, then his ethical mandates have no force, and barren any other ethical criteria, the whole thing falls apart. But then, given such a criteria, we essentially have created a system of secular ethics.