What Would Evidence for God's Existence Be Like?

[Yon Yalvin]

MacBeth and King Duncan are discussing the politics of Scotland when an eccentric prophet-like figure barges into the room.

"There is a Shakespeare!" he says.

"What's a Shakespeare?" replies MacBeth.

"What's a Shakespeare?! Shakespeare is the creator of our world. He's responsible for everything that we are and see. He's the author of life. He created us and sustains our existence. We owe everything to him!" the prophet says.

MacBeth and Duncan smile at one another and look around the room.

"I don't see any Shakespeares." says Duncan. "Where is this Shakespeare?"

"He spoke to me. He sent me. I come from him and will return to him. I've come with a message!" says the prophet.

"Anyone can make such a claim. What evidence do you have for his existence. What evidence do you have that he sent you?" asks MacBeth.

"The whole world is evidence of his existence!" replies the prophet...

***

When we ask for evidence for something that's within creation we all know the kinds of things we're looking for. We're looking for tangible, physical evidence. Different claims require different sorts of evidence.

"I am your father." What evidence is required of this claim? DNA testing, photographs, common memories, etc...

"It rained this afternoon." What evidence is required here? Wet cement, video footage or pictures, personal testimony, etc...

But God is the creator. If He exists he is in an entirely different category from everything else. He alone is creator, everything else is creation. He is unique. What would evidence for the existence of God be like? It's too simplistic to ask for the sort of physical evidence that applies to claims like the two mentioned above. If God exists the whole world is, indeed, evidence of his existence. But certainly more can be said.

What light does the MacBeth parable shed on the sorts of evidence we're looking for when we're looking for evidence of God's existence? What would evidence of God's existence even be like?

[WanderingLands]

I think that the evidence of God's existence would probably be looking at the 'liveliness' of life itself; the textual qualities or this 'vital energy' that permeates existence. If we were to know God and the 'creation' of the Universe, we would need to capture the aesthetics and 'spirit' of life alongside the higher logical reasoning that is accessed through the mind (such as the a priori knowledge of mathematics).

[Ginkgo]

What light does the MacBeth parable shed on the sorts of evidence we're looking for when we're looking for evidence of God's existence? What would evidence of God's existence even be like?

I guess we could say that Shakespeare is the author of the play so he is the creator. As the author he tells the character what to do and what to think. If Shakespeare wants to give his characters an insight into his existence then he will write himself into the play.

The use of a play in your explanation is interesting but it doesn't really count as evidence because we can never prove anything by way of analogy.

[Yon Yalvin]

What light does the MacBeth parable shed on the sorts of evidence we're looking for when we're looking for evidence of God's existence? What would evidence of God's existence even be like?

I guess we could say that Shakespeare is the author of the play so he is the creator. As the author he tells the character what to do and what to think. If Shakespeare wants to give his characters an insight into his existence then he will write himself into the play.

The use of a play in your explanation is interesting but it doesn't really count as evidence because we can never prove anything by way of analogy.

I agree that it's not evidence for God's existence. But if this is analogous to the creator/creature relationship, what does this say about what evidence for God's existence would be like? It's interesting that you say that one way that Shakespeare could disclose himself to his characters would be to write himself into the play. Christians believe that this is exactly what God has done in Jesus Christ.

[Ginkgo]

What light does the MacBeth parable shed on the sorts of evidence we're looking for when we're looking for evidence of God's existence? What would evidence of God's existence even be like?

I guess we could say that Shakespeare is the author of the play so he is the creator. As the author he tells the character what to do and what to think. If Shakespeare wants to give his characters an insight into his existence then he will write himself into the play.

The use of a play in your explanation is interesting but it doesn't really count as evidence because we can never prove anything by way of analogy.

I agree that it's not evidence for God's existence. But if this is analogous to the creator/creature relationship, what does this say about what evidence for God's existence would be like? It's interesting that you say that one way that Shakespeare could disclose himself to his characters would be to write himself into the play. Christians believe that this is exactly what God has done in Jesus Christ.

Yes, this is very much a Western philosophical phenomena, going back to at least Plato I would think.

[Wyman]

'What would evidence for God's existence be like?'

I could think of a lot of ways God could let His presence be known. How about a big hand reaching out of the sky, grabbing your lapel so as to bring you face to face with Him and him saying, 'How do you like THIS for evidence!'

Nietszche once said of God, in a similar context to your question: 'Worst of all: He seems incapable of clear communication: is he unclear?'

I guess He's just playing hard to get.

[Yon Yalvin]

If MacBeth or anyone else in Shakespeare's world is to know of Shakespeare's existence, it will only be because Shakespeare has intentionally revealed himself. It would be impossible for MacBeth to discover Shakespeare or stumble upon him apart from the will and design of the author. Shakespeare would have to write himself into the story.

Likewise, if God exists, God can in no way be "discovered" like facts within creation. We can discover a new species because it's written into creation waiting to be discovered. It's available for discovery. God can only be known by man through revelation - if God chooses to make his presence known. Without revelation no one can know of God's presence, even though it would be the most fundamental fact of the universe.

[sjeff70]

What light does the MacBeth parable shed on the sorts of evidence we're looking for when we're looking for evidence of God's existence? What would evidence of God's existence even be like?

I guess we could say that Shakespeare is the author of the play so he is the creator. As the author he tells the character what to do and what to think. If Shakespeare wants to give his characters an insight into his existence then he will write himself into the play.

The use of a play in your explanation is interesting but it doesn't really count as evidence because we can never prove anything by way of analogy.

I agree that it's not evidence for God's existence. But if this is analogous to the creator/creature relationship, what does this say about what evidence for God's existence would be like? It's interesting that you say that one way that Shakespeare could disclose himself to his characters would be to write himself into the play. Christians believe that this is exactly what God has done in Jesus Christ.

By Jesus you're not referring to the gnostic Jesus.
You're referring to the Christian Jesus...the churche's version of Jesus.

[Yon Yalvin]

By Jesus you're not referring to the gnostic Jesus.
You're referring to the Christian Jesus...the churche's version of Jesus.

Yes. I believe the orthodox, Christian Jesus is the actual Jesus.

[sjeff70]

Having been raised a Catholic I understand you. I was not allowed to look at other religions or faiths growing up because it was considered a mortal sin. This sense of control goes all the way back to the origin of church and its control of the people during the reign of the Roman Empire. It's a sensitive task but I will eventually ask a Christian why not a gnostic Jesus.

Just because one may not understand gnostic teaching doesn't make it heresy. It can only be heresy toward one's own belief.

[Yon Yalvin]

I was not raised in the church. It's something I chose for myself. The church certainly maintained control over which Jesus it authorized. This is only responsible. With a plethora of alternative takes on Jesus and the meaning of Jesus it only makes sense that the apostles and their predecessors would try very hard to guard what they understood to be the truth and to combat what they understood to be error.

[sjeff70]

Are you talking about the original apostles, the ones who were personal followers of Jesus?
Who did you mean by predecessors?

[HexHammer]

OP that's a silly definition, and it would be a fool's errand to try define god's existance.

[henry quirk]

"What Would Evidence for God's Existence Be Like?"

Speaking only for me: a one-to-one conversation with God would do it.

Not an angel, or His Son, or some other proxy (to hell with prophets).

If God gives a flip about what I think: come to my house...I'll make coffee...we'll chat.

[jackles]

god is ya own consciousness.cos it ,your consciousness that is existed before your brain did.ya brain aint you henry.