You seem to be using a scientific usage of evidence and therefore anecdotes definitely do not fit, but I take seriously things told to me by friends I trust and they would make me ponder and put something into the category of 'hmm, worth further thought, mind not made up' - of course this is not really possible over the internet. The law accepts first person testimony.
It would seem to me that what we are talking about here is a question about reality, not a question of law, therefore a scientific usage would seem to be appropriate. The legal system (another man-made thing) does accept personal testimony, but it is deemed far inferior to physical evidence. Still, we aren't arguing the commission of a crime, so that analogy is moot (as lawyers like to say.
)
The approach you suggest is eminently sensible and it does make sense to me why a number of people have adopted it but it is a leap to believe that only scientifically testable things exist, or things that have been tested so far.
The question then becomes, "is it even theoretically
possible to test for the existence of God"? Well, it is
if you give God specific characteristics. For example if you say "God grants the prayers of Christians in preference to those of other faiths," then you can set up an experiment (with placebos and double blinding) whereby a selection of Christians and non-Christians are asked to pray (or "hope") for a specific thing to happen. If the result shows that it happens more often with prayer, then that experiment is positive evidence for
that characteristic of God. I believe this has been done to judge the efficacy of intercessory prayer on illness and the results (depending on who you ask) range from no effect to a very very tiny effect.
Perhaps you would like to comment on this phenomenon which I posted earlier?
"I was in a prayer group of about 5 or 6 people and people prayed out loud on various subjects. At that time I was more able, I would have to provisionally say, to 'hear' some words that God wanted to be prayed (Yeah, I know it sounds very woo, but bear with me). When this bloke started praying out loud the exact same words came into my mind at the moment he said them; it was as though I thought the words and he spoke them. I think he spoke only a few sentences at the most but I found it quite striking. I have not experienced anything like it before or since. This is why I wonder a bit about science not having discovered stuff because maybe there is no God and our minds were somehow in sync?
I have considered various questions about this and answered them as best I can. No, I didn't hear the words and then think I thought them at the same time. Yes, it is possible that it is just an amazing coincidence that we were thinking exactly the same sentences at exactly the same time in exactly the same order. I have found this to be an interesting phenomenon because it not just one that occured solely in my own mind because it involved the other bloke too. In addition I didn't know the bloke so I had no knowledge of his previous thoughts and speech patterns."
This falls under the catagory of "anecdotal evidence" and could have many explanations, primary of which could be confirmation bias and selective memory (how many times do you remember that you prayed together and your words
didn't come out the same.) It could also be that you had both heard the words somewhere before (prayers tend to have a certain vocabulary) and subconsciously, something reminded both of you of them at the same time. (Even though you didn't know each other, it is likely that you share some experiences, both being Christians). To test if this was a real effect, you'd have to do something like a
Zener Card study where you both wrote down your prayer without knowledge of the other and without feedback. It's a lot of work.
In short, all of us have had amazing coincidences. But the law of averages says that given enough time, we
should have amazing coincidences. What would truly be amazing is if you
never had an amazing coincidence. I think though that trying to give God credit for amazing coincidences is not justified. After all, everybody has them.
I haven't come across the idea that rational=idea supported by scientific evidence; it is a whole new meaning to me and, therefore, of course, seems to be playing with definitions as the second meaning is one which is more familiar.
Again, rational has many meanings, but when you are talking about whether or not a thing actually exists, the scientific definition seems to me to be the methodology to use. For example, evidence showed that X-rays exist. It showed that there was no evidence for the existence of
N-rays.
But I applaud your willingness to consider this unfamiliar (to you) meaning.
I might have a dip into that thread, if you recommend it a second time, but there is so much to read and so little time!
Word, bro.
It is possible that God is very hard to define because his nature is too big for our minds or language. That doesn't mean that many descriptions are loopy and wrong.
Possible? I'd say it is unavoidable. Even lifelong students of theology will freely admit that it is impossible to come up with a comprehensive (and non-contradictory) definition. The possibilities for
some kind of God to exist are virtually infinite, which is why I refrain from saying God is impossible. I can only say that the definitions I have heard are either self-contradictory or totally unsupported by evidence. I don't
expect that to change, but I've been wrong before.
But as CapelDodger said it is obvious there is no God and saying that to try and define 'obvious' is to play games, perhaps religious people struggle also to define 'God' and also resort to metaphor, and neither is a bad thing.
Well, as much as I admire CapelDodger, we don't agree on everything. I think, though, that CD is just speaking in shorthand. It becomes cumbersome to say "no definition of God that I ever heard is both internally consistant and supported by objective, verifiable evidence." When speaking of the God of Christ, we tend to use the descriptions of that God that we are most familiar with, which include the tri-omni definition. This can be a bad mistake, because not all Christians use this definition. It is quite clear that your way of defining God is very different from the way Kurious Kathy defines Him.
Atheists can be just as guilty of making assumptions about how you view God as Christians can be about what atheists believe. I've heard more than one Christian here
insist that atheists "hate" God, which is certainly not true in most cases. So if I mischaracterise your definition of God, I expect you to correct me and I will try to remember what you said. I expect you will try to do the same for my beliefs. (I also expect that there is no
way anyone can remember all of the various beliefs that any given member may hold.)
Try putting quantum mechanics into words and not sounding a bit woo.
But it
could be done, and it QM can be objectively and verifiably demonstrated. Frankly, I have too little interest in QM to pursue this, but I could if it were important to me.
I could say that God is 'the personal ground of being', the source of everything that also relates. That would be the first order of meaning and one would then have to spend a lot of words unpacking this, but it will still not be testable scientifically.
LOL. Yep. It's a quandary, is it not? The problem is that most Christians believe that God has some effect on the physical universe. Skeptics say, "show us the evidence of that effect". If it is physical, there
must be evidence. If your definition of God is that He has
no effect on the physical universe, then He isn't powerful enough to appeal to most Christians.
You may have an irrational notion about the term 'rational' but you aren't too bad yourself.
I suspect you and I shall have no animosity between us.
. I identify with Welsh rugby - it's so visceral, so heartfelt, and I love the game - and the All Blacks are, of course, gods.
