Empirical Evidence From God?

[gav]

36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I accept that nature can be taken as indication of the existence of God. There are a few things that seem unnecessary for human life but oddly convenient. I would even suggest that the Universe can be seen to reflect that God has an eye for beauty. 

The are those for sure and even though the odds are astronomical there are sophisticated arguments to absolve the Creator of any responsibility for those convenient niceties.

Quote

Where I have a hard time is looking at nature and saying it indicates God is good.

It's all a matter of perspective and how one defines good.

[gav]

44 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, you are correct to suppose that those nay-sayers do claim that there is zero evidence for LDS claims which can be independently verified by the scientific method.  In my experience that has always been a false claim due either to (a) ignorance of science or (b) ignorance of the content of LDS Scripture.  One must at least be competent in both to do any comparative work.

Exactly.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, gav said:

Our standard works claim very specific things happened on very specific dates. A number of these events specifically mention heavenly body configurations or these heavenly body configurations can be derived using empirical methods. The macro motions of our heavenly bodies and their observable relations to our planet are completely deterministic and therefore we can wind back the clock of the heavens to any date in antiquity and know exactly what configuration the night skies would be in. If the scriptures imply or state a certain configuration on a certain date anybody with a little knowledge of the methods and the right tools(readily accessible) can go back to that date and verify for themselves if that is indeed the case.......................................

The dates contained in the Bible are usually generic, but can sometimes be precisely correlated with certain historical events, which does verify the historical nature of much of the Bible.  I demonstrate how that works in my “Book of Mormon Event Structure: Ancient Near East,” FARMS Preliminary Report/Study Aid, SMI-84 (Provo: FARMS, 1985/1986), later republished in JBMS, 5/2 (1996):98-147, and online at http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol5/iss2/5/ .  That is helpful, since the Book of Mormon begins in the first year of King Zedekiah of Judah.  More importantly,  the BofM contains a very tight and continuous chronology, which includes very specific dates for the birth and death of Jesus -- which we cannot get from the Bible.  And, oddly enough, the year-count used in the BofM is the dominant Mesoamerican year-count known as the 360-day "Long Count" (as pointed out first by John L. Sorenson).

[strappinglad]

I present Exhibit A ---   The DNA molecule  which is absolutely impossible to have been created by chance. It is evidence of a great intelligence. 

 

That , and the fact that the Area under a curve is given by the anti-derivative of the function which generates the curve. 😎

[Hamba Tuhan]

18 hours ago, gav said:

It is often claimed that there is no empirical evidence for God.

From the Cambridge Dictionary definition of empirical: 'based on what is experienced or seen rather than on theory'.

In my case, the evidence I have for God is exclusively empirical.

And one of the coolest things about it is that it's replicable.

Edited October 9, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[Jracforr]

18 hours ago, gav said:

Is there any, and if so what in your minds would qualify?

It is often claimed that there is no empirical evidence for God. I personally refute that claim but would love to hear others opinions.

Only a few individuals have empirical evidence of the existence of God, the brother of Jared being one, the rest of humanity are told to exercise Faith which is circumstantial evidence. This circumstantial evidence/ Faith will in time become empirical evidence if pursued with diligence, as was the case of the brother of Jared. If you prematurely  discard your circumstantial evidence/ Faith, you will never attain empirical evidence/ Enlightenment, therefore the answer to your question, depends entirely on the individual.

[CV75]

19 hours ago, gav said:

Is there any, and if so what in your minds would qualify?

It is often claimed that there is no empirical evidence for God. I personally refute that claim but would love to hear others opinions.

...did someone just say "Emperorcal?..."

Edited October 9, 2020 by CV75

[Fair Dinkum]

20 hours ago, gav said:

Is there any, and if so what in your minds would qualify?

It is often claimed that there is no empirical evidence for God. I personally refute that claim but would love to hear others opinions.

It is painful to even consider the possibility that we are all alone in a godless universe the mere happen chance of random events that led to billions of years of evolution and yet this is were the scientific evidence leads.  The thought seems impossible to even imagine.  It is impossible to prove the existence of God but it is easy to have faith and belief in one.

What with the vastness of the universe there has to be evidence of life in some form out there right?  And yet to date, nothing has been found.  I'm old enough to remember when the thought of other worlds capable of supporting life was the stuff of science fiction and yet today Science has discovered numerous earth-like planets in the "Goldie Locks Zone" that would be capable of supporting life.

I don't know if a God exists, but I can hope that one does.  Anyone who states that they know that a God exist has the burden to demonstrate how they have come to that conclusion.  Human-kind can not even agree on the character of God or gods let alone if god exists.  It's turtles all the way down.

[Fair Dinkum]

20 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

I am evidence, irrefutable evidence of his (their) existence, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. 

Your existence is NOT evidence of God.

[CA Steve]

Which god(s)?

[Fair Dinkum]

16 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Of course there is empirical evidence.  But it is Spiritual.  One can only experience it for oneself.  One can temporarily convey that Spirit to another person, but not permanently.  That person needs to build on that spiritual experience to create his/her own testimony.  Most people are apparently too indifferent or skeptical to give this a try.

From the profane POV, of course, there is no empirical evidence.  Only circumstantial evidence obtains.  Which I would assert is significant.  But it can all be rationalized.

Sorry but I'm going to hold your feet to the fire.  Spiritual experience is not empirical evidence for the existence of God.  Your spiritual experience is an individual experience and can not prove to me that their is a god, therefore it is not empirical nor provable evidence.  I am not suggesting that it is not real to you...but it is only real to you alone.

[gav]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The dates contained in the Bible are usually generic,......

Some Biblical events, especially those relating to important events in the mission of Jesus Christ, happen around holy days on the Jewish calendar. This is a luni-solar calendar which differs from a 365 day solar calendar in a similar fashion(but not exact) to the Mesoamerican year count. The interplays between the days of the week, which have remained constant despite the changing calendars and different cycling of months etc. make for useful diagnostics. 

For instance passover does not always fall on a Friday so when we know that an event occurred on a passover that was also a Friday we can automatically draw up a short list of years on which that was possible.

Add to that celestial events like new stars appearing and eclipses and then that short list becomes even shorter.

 

Quote

......but can sometimes be precisely correlated with certain historical events, which does verify the historical nature of much of the Bible.  I demonstrate how that works in my “Book of Mormon Event Structure: Ancient Near East,” FARMS Preliminary Report/Study Aid, SMI-84 (Provo: FARMS, 1985/1986), later republished in JBMS, 5/2 (1996):98-147, and online at http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol5/iss2/5/ .  That is helpful, since the Book of Mormon begins in the first year of King Zedekiah of Judah.  More importantly,  the BofM contains a very tight and continuous chronology, which includes very specific dates for the birth and death of Jesus -- which we cannot get from the Bible.  And, oddly enough, the year-count used in the BofM is the dominant Mesoamerican year-count known as the 360-day "Long Count" (as pointed out first by John L. Sorenson).

Once we factor in the exact time frames given in the book of mormon (that you highlight)then that short list boils down to single possibilities. From modern revelation we have other dates and events that then allow us to correlate things to the very day and in some instances the very hour.

A list of such events that can be calculated and demonstrated using the full cannon of revealed scripture would start with at least these:

• The new star (conjunction) forerunner appearing that heralded the upcoming birth and started the magi on their journey.
• The new star (conjunction) announcing the overshadowing of Mary and conception of Christ to the very night
• The birth of Christ to the very night
• The arrival of the Magi to the very week
• The crucifixion of Christ to the very hour
• The resurrection of Christ to the very hour

We can then use night sky software to input these dates and witness the very signs and marvels that the ancients saw, and truly, they are astounding. Then when you see what is mentioned in the Bible, but made sure and exact, through the Book of Mormon and modern revelation it creates a network of interlocking celestial events and signs that are completely empirical since anybody can do the calculations, input the results and see the heavenly signs for themselves.

Once the key events of the meridian of time are established with astronomical exactness then other revealed numbers and cycles correlate once again with important days and events:

• at the fall Israel
• the multiple destructions of Jerusalem,
• the rise of predicted kingdoms, empires and dominions
• later significant events of the restoration
• the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum
• the fall of dominions and kingdoms
• the restoration of the jews
• key struggles surrounding that time of travail and rebirth
• other last days events

 

The mind boggles at just how much empirically verifiable evidence there is available for those willing to do the homework, learn the basics and follow the method.

[Kevin Christensen]

25 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Sorry but I'm going to hold your feet to the fire.  Spiritual experience is not empirical evidence for the existence of God.  Your spiritual experience is an individual experience and can not prove to me that their is a god, therefore it is not empirical nor provable evidence.  I am not suggesting that it is not real to you...but it is only real to you alone.

I keep citing Barbour, on Empiricism and why an Empiricist approach to God ideologically unsound.  That is, the fundamental assumptions of the Empiricist mindset impede it's capacity to notice and value the kinds of evidence and experience that supports relgious faith.

Quote

1. The influence of theory on observation. The empiricists of the 1950’s had claimed that science starts from publicly observable data which can be described in a pure observation-language independent of any theoretical assumptions. By the early 1960’s this claim had been challenged by a number of authors who tried to show that there is no neutral observation-language; both the procedures for making observations, and the language in which data are reported, were shown to be ‘theory-laden’. Kuhn’s volume gave historical illustrations of the paradigm-dependence of observations. He concluded that rival paradigms are ‘incommensurable’. I will maintain that even though data are indeed theory-laden, it is possible to make pragmatic distinctions between more theoretical and more observational terms in any particular context. Rival theories are not incommensurable if their protagonists can find an overlapping core of observation-statements on which they can concur.

2. The falsifiability of theories. The empiricists had claimed that even though a theory cannot be verified by its agreement with data, it can be falsified by disagreement with data. But critics showed that discordant data alone have seldom been taken to falisfy an accepted theory in the absence of an alternative theory; instead, auxiliary assumptions have been modified, or the discrepancies have been set aside as anomalies. I will suggest that comprehensive theories are indeed resistant to falsification, but that observation does exert some control over theory; an accumulation of anomalies cannot be ignored indefinitely. A paradigm tradition, then, is not simply falsified by discordant data, but is replaced by a promising alternative. Commitment to a tradition and tenacity in exploring its potentialities are scientifically fruitful; but the eventual decision to abandon it is not arbitrary or irrational.

3. The choice between rival paradigms. The empiricists had portrayed all scientific choices as rational, objective and in accordance with specifiable criteria. Kuhn replied that criteria for judging theories are themselves paradigm-dependent. He described the change of paradigms during a ‘scientific revolution’ as a matter not of logical argument but of persuasion and ‘conversion’. I will argue that there are criteria of assessment independent of particular paradigms. But in the early stages, when a new contender first challenges an accepted paradigm, the criteria do not yield an unambiguous verdict; the experimental evidence and the relative weights assigned to diverse criteria are debatable and subject to individual judgment. Yet because there are accepted criteria common to all scientists, the decision can be discussed, reasons can be set forth, and an eventual consensus can be expected.

Corresponding to these three issues arising from the discussion of paradigms in science are three similar issues in religion:

1. The influence of interpretation on experience in religion is more problematical than the influence of theory on observation in science. There is no uninterpreted experience; but descriptions of religious experience can be given which are relatively free from doctrinal interpretation. To be sure, any set of basic beliefs tends to produce experiences which can be cited in support of those beliefs, and agreement on the data of religion seems to be exceedingly difficult to achieve. Yet because members of different religious traditions can appeal to areas of shared experience, communication is possible.

2. Flew’s demand that the theist should specify falsifying conditions for religious beliefs seems unreasonable if such falsifying conditions cannot even be specified for comprehensive scientific theories. I will submit that though no decisive falsification is possible, the cumulative weight of evidence does count for or against religious beliefs, but with greater ambiguity than in science. Religious paradigms, like scientific ones, are not falsified by discordant data but replaced by promising alternatives. Commitment to a paradigm (understood, again, as a tradition transmitted through historical exemplars) allows its potentialities to be systematically explored.

3. There are no rules for choice between religious paradigms, but there are criteria of assessment. The application of such criteria is even more subject to individual judgment in religion than in the controversies between competing paradigms during a ‘scientific revolution’. Moreover religious faith includes personal trust and loyalty; it is more totally self-involving than commitment to a scientific paradigm. Nevertheless the existence of criteria means that religious traditions can be analysed and discussed. Religious commitment is not incompatible with critical reflection. It is my hope that the new views of science described here can offer some encouragement to such a combination of commitment and enquiry in religion.

These three themes -- the diverse functions of language, the role of models and the role of paradigms -- combine to support the position of critical realism which I will defend in both science and religion. Such a position recognizes the distinctive non-cognitive functions of religious language, but it also upholds its cognitive functions. Critical realism avoids naive realism, on the one hand, and instrumentalism, which abandons all concern for truth, on the other. Naive realism is untenable if models are not literal pictures of reality and if the history of science is characterized by major paradigm shifts rather than by simple cumulation or convergence. But the inadequacies of naive realism need not lead us to a fictionalist account of models, or to a total relativism concerning truth, if there are indeed data and criteria of judgment which are not totally paradigm-dependent. In the concluding chapter I will suggest some implications of critical realism for the academic study of religion and for the encounter of world religions, as well as for personal religious faith.

https://www.religion-online.org/book-chapter/chapter-1-introduction-3/

The whole books is very important, exceedingly clear and practical, manageable at just over 200 pages, so not a steep hill to climb, and bursting with relevance for discussions like this.

Many years ago, I spotted a bumper sticker that said, "God said it, I believe it, That settles it."  Clearly a fundamentalist mindset.  But notice the direct parallel with the controlling assumptions of Empiricism.

Quote

The empiricist accounts of science which were prevalent in the 1950’s emphasized agreement with experiment as the main criterion for judging between rival theories. They defended the objectivity of science through three claims. (1) Science starts from publicly observable data which can be described in a pure observation-language independent of any theoretical assumptions. (2) Theories can then be verified or falsified by comparison with this fixed experimental data. (3) The choice between rival theories is thus rational, objective, and in accordance with specifiable criteria.

What is missing in both cases (Fundamentalism and Empiricim, which, not coincidentally, come out of the same historical period) is the effect of theory on data, that as N. R. Hanson demonstrated in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, "All data is theory-laden."  And of course, in Godel, Escher and Bach, Hofstatder observes that "The important thing to keep in mind is that proofs are demonstrations within fixed systems of propositions," (p 18), and that "Godel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiomatic system is involved." (p 19). 

And that is where Kuhn and Alma 32 come in.  If we cannot have absolute certainty, how to we assess competing axiomatic systems, when neither is provable to the other because both involve self-referential axioms, not shared with the other, where do we look for viable "cause to believe?"  The things that mean that spiritual experience is not proof to an outside skeptical ideology have nothing to do with the fact that spiritual experience can be, and frequently is, suffient and rewarding "cause to believe."

https://oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/A-Model-of-Mormon-Spiritual-Experience.pdf

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Fair Dinkum]

9 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I present Exhibit A ---   The DNA molecule  which is absolutely impossible to have been created by chance. It is evidence of a great intelligence. 

 

That , and the fact that the Area under a curve is given by the anti-derivative of the function which generates the curve. 😎

While it is true that man has not been able to create DNA in the lab, science has shown the process where by DNA formed naturally.  Simple chemicals became complex molecules which became complex organic molecules which became roble nucleotides which become RNA which is structurally similar to DNA and happens s to be the basis for the simplest forms of life on earth.  This is all Evolution 101.

[Fair Dinkum]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

From the Cambridge Dictionary definition of empirical: 'based on what is experienced or seen rather than on theory'.

In my case, the evidence I have for God is exclusively empirical.

And one of the coolest things about it is that it's replicable.

I agree... and the U 0f U was able to artificially duplicate spiritual experiences see  https://unews.utah.edu/this-is-your-brain-on-god/

[Maestrophil]

9 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I agree... and the U 0f U was able to artificially duplicate spiritual experiences see  https://unews.utah.edu/this-is-your-brain-on-god/

This article says nothing about artificially stimulating spiritual experiences, unless I missed it.  It said they had people read quotes, listen to talks and music etc. and then studied their brain when they said they were 'feeling the spirit'  So really, they were just exploring what the brain looks like 'on the Holy Ghost'  🙂  

[Robert F. Smith]

30 minutes ago, gav said:

Some Biblical events, especially those relating to important events in the mission of Jesus Christ, happen around holy days on the Jewish calendar. This is a luni-solar calendar which differs from a 365 day solar calendar in a similar fashion(but not exact) to the Mesoamerican year count. The interplays between the days of the week, which have remained constant despite the changing calendars and different cycling of months etc. make for useful diagnostics. ............................

The Jewish calendar then and now is a solar calendar (with formulaic insertions of an extra month) and is not similar to the Mesoamerican Long Count.

30 minutes ago, gav said:

Once we factor in the exact time frames given in the book of mormon (that you highlight)then that short list boils down to single possibilities. From modern revelation we have other dates and events that then allow us to correlate things to the very day and in some instances the very hour.

A list of such events that can be calculated and demonstrated using the full cannon of revealed scripture would start with at least these:

• The new star (conjunction) forerunner appearing that heralded the upcoming birth and started the magi on their journey.
• The new star (conjunction) announcing the overshadowing of Mary and conception of Christ to the very night
• The birth of Christ to the very night
• The arrival of the Magi to the very week
• The crucifixion of Christ to the very hour
• The resurrection of Christ to the very hour

We can then use night sky software to input these dates and witness the very signs and marvels that the ancients saw, and truly, they are astounding. Then when you see what is mentioned in the Bible, but made sure and exact, through the Book of Mormon and modern revelation it creates a network of interlocking celestial events and signs that are completely empirical since anybody can do the calculations, input the results and see the heavenly signs for themselves...................................

The mind boggles at just how much empirically verifiable evidence there is available for those willing to do the homework, learn the basics and follow the method.

Your preference for conjunctions rather than novae indicates that you have not consulted the BofM and that you and I are not on the same page in our calculations.  This may not be as easy as you imagine.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Jracforr said:

Only a few individuals have empirical evidence of the existence of God, the brother of Jared being one, the rest of humanity are told to exercise Faith which is circumstantial evidence. This circumstantial evidence/ Faith will in time become empirical evidence if pursued with diligence, as was the case of the brother of Jared. If you prematurely  discard your circumstantial evidence/ Faith, you will never attain empirical evidence/ Enlightenment, therefore the answer to your question, depends entirely on the individual.

Does Alma 32 partake of the experimental method of science?  Is it an empirical process?

[gav]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Jewish calendar then and now is a solar calendar (with formulaic insertions of an extra month) and is not similar to the Mesoamerican Long Count.

The similarity is that they are not purely solar calendars/counts but also have lunar elements. Hence in the Jewish/Hebrew, the need to insert intercalary months to realign it with the solar year every couple of years. The phase of the moon determines the start of the months and the new year. Hence it is lunisolar. The long count also has Lunar element which renders an even longer count and the determines the "lords of the night". So, it is also not purely solar like our Gregorian Calendar.

Quote

Your preference for conjunctions rather than novae indicates that you have not consulted the BofM and that you and I are not on the same page in our calculations.  This may not be as easy as you imagine.

The Book of Mormon gives us a direct relationship between the sign of Christ's birth (night without darkness) and the sign of his death (three days darkness) It is not only a nova that can produce a night without darkness and novae are far less predictable and reliant on documented observations rather than astronomical clockwork.

Night without darkness aside, due to the calendric relationship of these two signs we can work out the length of the life of Jesus Christ with a certainty that is not available from the bible. It is this certainty of length combined with revealed dates that give us the right areas to look for the astronomical marvels that just happen to show up at exactly the right time in exactly the right places.

[Robert F. Smith]

22 minutes ago, gav said:

The similarity is that they are not purely solar calendars/counts but also have lunar elements. Hence in the Jewish/Hebrew, the need to insert intercalary months to realign it with the solar year every couple of years. The phase of the moon determines the start of the months and the new year. Hence it is lunisolar. The long count also has Lunar element which renders an even longer count and the determines the "lords of the night". So, it is also not purely solar like our Gregorian Calendar.

Again, the Jewish calendar is a solar calendar, with lunar elements which do not change the precise correlation with the Gregorian calendar and alignment with the seasons.  This is quite unlike the Muslim calendar which is actually lunar.  When calculating years, Jewish years are effectively solar.  As to the Nine Lords of the Night, see my analysis at https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=4682EB322DD9603E&id=4682EB322DD9603E%211860&parId=root&o=OneUp .

22 minutes ago, gav said:

The Book of Mormon gives us a direct relationship between the sign of Christ's birth (night without darkness) and the sign of his death (three days darkness) It is not only a nova that can produce a night without darkness and novae are far less predictable and reliant on documented observations rather than astronomical clockwork.

Night without darkness aside, due to the calendric relationship of these two signs we can work out the length of the life of Jesus Christ with a certainty that is not available from the bible. It is this certainty of length combined with revealed dates that give us the right areas to look for the astronomical marvels that just happen to show up at exactly the right time in exactly the right places.

The exact length of Jesus' life is given in the BofM, and is not based on celestial signs.  Jesus' birthdate is based on the 600-year (Long Count) prophecy, which is only 593 solar years from 597 B.C. (Zedekiah's' first year) to the Fall of 5 B.C. (the latest possible year for Jesus' birth).  32 1/2 years later (33 solar years) Jesus is crucified at Passover.  It is a nova which alerts to his birth, not conjunctions.

[jkwilliams]

On 10/8/2020 at 2:00 PM, gav said:

Is there any, and if so what in your minds would qualify?

It is often claimed that there is no empirical evidence for God. I personally refute that claim but would love to hear others opinions.

The value of a religion is whether it blesses your life and the lives of others, not whether there is empirical evidence. Trying to nail down empirical evidence for God or the LDS church or whatever is a fool's errand. It doesn't work that way.

[gav]

25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Again, the Jewish calendar is a solar calendar, with lunar elements which do not change the precise correlation with the Gregorian calendar and alignment with the seasons.  This is quite unlike the Muslim calendar which is actually lunar.  When calculating years, Jewish years are effectively solar.  As to the Nine Lords of the Night, see my analysis at https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=4682EB322DD9603E&id=4682EB322DD9603E%211860&parId=root&o=OneUp .

 

Quote

The exact length of Jesus' life is given in the BofM, and is not based on celestial signs.  Jesus' birthdate is based on the 600-year (Long Count) prophecy, which is only 593 solar years from 597 B.C. (Zedekiah's' first year) to the Fall of 5 B.C. (the latest possible year for Jesus' birth).  32 1/2 years later (33 solar years) Jesus is crucified at Passover.  It is a nova which alerts to his birth, not conjunctions.

How do these dates gel with other dates? revealed or otherwise?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

While it is true that man has not been able to create DNA in the lab, science has shown the process where by DNA formed naturally.  Simple chemicals became complex molecules which became complex organic molecules which became roble nucleotides which become RNA which is structurally similar to DNA and happens s to be the basis for the simplest forms of life on earth.  This is all Evolution 101.

I have no doubt that human technological capacity will soon be able to make RNA, DNA, etc., and to actually create life in a lab.  However, this likelihood is a major problem for your actual skepticism about God.  Humans are able to synthesize all manner of things right now, and will likely be able to do many more such things in the future.  If humans can do it, why can't God do it?  Major atheist scientists have already admitted publicly that there must be sentient beings in the universe who have already acquired such godlike powers.  Yet you are in denial of the existence of just such godlike beings, Fair Dinkum.

For those who think of LDS theology as simply a version of normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology, that may seem irrelevant.  But there is actually no similarity between LDS theology (which posits a naturalistic, finite, humanistic god) and normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology -- which posits the god of the Greek philosophers, a god outside time and space, who is the only necessary being in the universe.  See Norbert Samuelson, "That the God of the Philosophers is Not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," Harvard Theological Review, 65/1 (Jan 1972):1-27, online at https://www.jstor.org/stable/1509360 , and at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816000002352

[Islander]

On 10/8/2020 at 12:00 PM, gav said:

Is there any, and if so what in your minds would qualify?

It is often claimed that there is no empirical evidence for God. I personally refute that claim but would love to hear others opinions.

Empirical evidence means such that was obtained through experimentation and observation, which can be verified and replicated. I suggest that such penitentiary method can not be applied to God Himself. We can say that there is significant evidence gathered from the historical record to conclude that a belief in God is rooted in events that were recorded by eyewitness, whom, testified they were miraculous in nature and caused by God. 

So you can apply other types of research; historical, biological, etc that would lead you to believe with a significant degree of scientific certainty that there is a superior intelligence, creator (aka God) in the universe.

[gav]

31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The value of a religion is whether it blesses your life and the lives of others, not whether there is empirical evidence. Trying to nail down empirical evidence for God or the LDS church or whatever is a fool's errand. It doesn't work that way.

I'm not so sure...

2 Nephi 11:4

4 Behold, my soul delighteth in ^aproving unto my people the truth of the ^bcoming of Christ; for, for this end hath the ^claw of Moses been given; and all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world, unto man, are the ^dtypifying of him.