God - the evidence

A philosopher should have nothing to do with the quest for “evidence” of a God.

“What has evidence got to do with God?” seems a good question to ask. A relationship to things that are confirmed by “evidence” isn’t going to be the sort of relationship someone would want with a God.

But then it is only material objects that are “evidenced”. Or more precisely, it is only materiality that can be evidenced. All “objects of evidence” are material - they do not vanish and appear but can be hidden and revealed. Such a description of God would create a superstitious object. Indeed such a description of even sound or colour would create a superstitious object.

In other words, the demand for “evidence” of a God is the demand for a superstitious object, and those that search for that evidence are already commited to the superstitious idea of a material God. A philosopher should have nothing to do with the quest for “evidence” of a God, but should pursue the relationship in another way.

Nice post. You are assuming there is a relationship to be pursued, though - on what terms?

Within eternal existence isn’t it more logical and sane to persume existence of God than not?

We are surely not Gods as of now, but also, we cannot be anything less than God in becoming.

I don’t know. As a desire, a respect, an encouragement, an understanding or search driven by ideas such as the idea that God is the face behind the mask called mankind.

Or maybe to take a transcendentally ideal perspective and view God as the framework for meaningful events without being an event he/she/itself.

Or maybe to look no further than in the evidentially inaccesible space of private experience.

That there is existence at all could not be more surprising than the existence of a god, if that’s the sort of thing you mean.

“X exists”
“Oh ya? Hmm…I didn’t know that.”
“Ya, it exists.”
“Well, not that I don’t trust you man, but…do you have any evidence for that.”
“Evidence? Of course not man. Doesn’t even make sense to ask for evidence for it.”
“K, well…guess I’ll hold out on believing you then.”

Some facts:

  • Existence is eternal
  • Existence is infinite
  • We exist
  • We evolve
  • We are conscious

Given eternity why assume there isn’t a being, or rather a state of beingness, who/which is completely evolved?

Human race got a long way to go, and if we imagine us far, far into the future, wouldn’t we see that as God?

Well, word God means different things to different people. To me God simply means highest possible state of beingness.

And why even demand evidence for such a ‘thing’ within eternal and infinite existence. There must be one. And evidence for It are ourselves

Yes, if X is a colour or a sound then it makes no sense to ask for evidence of it even though we know it exists. That is an example to show that there are limits to what the search for evidence can hope to yield.

we already know how colors work. there is evidence. physical evidence. same for sound.

god=the ultimate reality of everything. I will stick with evidence and common sense. I love agnostics.

god=lisa lampanelli. i will stick with evidence and common sense. I love titties.


This is one idea that I’ve always agreed with Kant on. Whether God exists or not, a belief in God (religion) has become a necessary means of keeping the masses moral.

How do you justify the first two as ‘fact’?

Eternity is not a solid premise. This is begging the question.

Are we Gods compared to human beings far, far in the past?

What do you mean by “highest”? How would one define the “highest possible state of being”? Moreover, how can one be confident that your standard of measure does not actually describe a fictitious, human ideal?

Even though I don’t agree with your premise, I’d still like to know your rationale–

“Given that existence is both eternal and infinite, ‘God’ must exist.”


There is no physical evidence for colours or sounds. There cannot be physical evidence for colours or sounds. They aren’t that type of “evidential” object. They don’t contribute any material properties to the material that bears them, so how would you find “evidence” for them?

How do you find evidence for anything?

Sense perception.

Also, can you define “physical evidence” how you are using it? Colors exhibit optical wavelengths and sound exhibits vibration.

Sound and colour have no physical properties.

If we use our senses to weigh things, then our perceptions of the measurement don’t have any weight. We attribute weight through perception.

We are forced to use our senses to weigh experience, in conjunction with our sentiments. What else do we have?

To measure or weigh that which is being experienced we create tools and standards of measurement, which become objects of perception (rather than the result). If you are claiming that we determine ‘weight’ and measurement on a solely objective basis, I would firmly disagree.

Measurement is typically preconceived, meaning we attribute weight through measurement. The experience is attributed through perception. Even still, I’m not saying we use our senses to weigh or measure, just experience or observe something evidential. Both sound and color exhibit physical evidence, and have observable properties (with the right equipment). We can observe sound waves or the chemical structure of a color, for example.

Existence cannot arise out of non-existence.

Or, if you will, something cannot come into existence from nothing. Thus, existence of something has to be eternal or we could never exist. We are proof of that eternity. Whatever essence of existence might be, perhaps quarks or consciousness or cellular-automata or spirit etc.

If existence might not be infinite then what else would ‘be’ there - absolute nothingness? But nothingness cannot exist, per definition, so what else is there or is not there? If we say existence is finite then we have a border, an edge, but what’s on the other side of that border?

Anyway, if existence is finite or infinite is not that important, but that we recognize it’s eternal.

After reading what I wrote above you still think the same? If so, why?

My point is, that given eternity all states of beingness are realistic, from lowest one (say quarks) to highest one (say God).

Highest possible state of beingness is what I’d name God… whatever that might actually be - perhaps it is highest level of consciousness, which might be something as being aware of whole existence at once, where process of thinking becomes unnecessary, perhaps it is deepest feeling and experience of love, where whole existence is felt as truly One ‘thing’, one single I, perhaps it’s about total peace, utmost beauty, complete joy, incredible intensity of vibrant energy. Probably it’s all of thi and much more, probably it’s so amazing that no words can ever describe it. What I wrote here might cover as much of it as one drop of water is to whole ocean.

Did I make any sense to you thus far?

Because of all I wrote above. And simply put, it’s logical and makes existence complete.

Believing in God is believing in existence, in its potential and completeness.

Believing in God is also believing in ourselves.

They both do have physical properties. You’re being silly.

That’s not a logical necessity, so it must be empirical. What about spontaneous particle-antiparticle pair creation?

A ball has a circumference which is finite, but there’s nothing on the other side of the circumference. There’s nothing on the other side of its mass. Finite-but-all-there-is is not any sort of contradiction at all; there needn’t be a border or edge.

If 650nm of electromagnetic radiation weighs anything, it is not because it is “red”.