Evidence of Alteration

Is there, or could there be, evidence of God?

The answer may depend on the functions of God. I attempted to distinguish the basic general functions of the common interpretation of God, in a post from 11 days ago; Distinguishment of Divinity. From my perspective, in summary, it seems God's general functions are to allow humans to exist with free will, and to aid us to some degree, after that point. But whether or not there is, or could be, evidence of these functions, likely depends on the specific methods which God uses for these functions. 

There seems to be 2 basic mutually exclusive types of method of which God could function; scientific, or non-scientific. Scientific is basically as it sounds, in that God functions scientifically, and within the laws of physics. As far as I know, this is a lot less common of a belief, as most people who believe in God, seem to be more traditional, and in the case of Christians, take the Bible to be more literal. My personal beliefs are that God does function with scientific methods, as I’ve further questioned the potential of, in posts from 3 yrs ago; Methods of Miraculous Manipulation, and Control to Free, Allowance Degree, and a post from 17 days ago; Method of Guidance. 

I’ll refer to the 2nd type of method of God’s functioning as non-scientific, as I can’t think of any other word that fits the description (other than perhaps “magic”, but that may have more negative connotation, or be confused with human “magic tricks”). This type would be the common belief that God breaks the laws of physics, as his method of function. This type includes the “creation” belief, as well as that God often caused (and perhaps still does cause) situations to occur, including miracles, which would not be scientifically possible. 

Potential evidence of God may be dependent on which of these methods God uses, because if God is scientific, there may be no potential for solid evidence, but if God is non-scientific, it seems there could potentially be evidence. The definition of evidence may be relevant here, for distinguishing what counts or not. Evidence, in general, is technically defined as; “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.” By this definition, many things could be used as evidence for either belief of God’s method type, as long as it “indicates” that belief. In this post, by the word “evidence” I’m insinuating the meaning of “empirical evidence”, which is technically; “information acquired by observation or experimentation, in the form of recorded data…”. So basically, I’m considering evidence to be verifiable through experiments and tests. 

By these terms, I suggest that there may be no potential evidence of a scientific God, because if God’s methods do not break the laws of physics, then anything which God causes to occur could not be proven to be caused by God, rather than regular, or fluke, circumstances. All occurrences could be explainable through scientific cause and effect of the laws of physics. 

It may still be possible for some suggestive evidence, in the form of prediction of occurrence, and statistical data verification. If predictions were made, of future occurrences, or data of past occurrences, that God would likely cause certain circumstances, and recorded data verified the prediction, it could be considered suggestive evidence. The only way for it to be empirical evidence, is if the predictions were accurate and reproducible. It seems unlikely that the evidence could fit that description, because (by my understanding) predictions of God altering circumstances are likely very difficult to predict and measure. Considering the obscurity of someone’s legitimate will for God to cause something is 1 thing. Another, is the lack of knowledge of any person to know what is the ultimate best outcome of any given circumstance, which may be requested of God. If God is truly all knowing, then a lot of circumstances would result differently than may be predicted, since God might cause results which indirectly affect something else, which would be near impossible for a person to know of, or take into consideration.

On the other hand, if God uses non-scientific methods, there may be the potential to prove that God causes some alterations within this world. If it was proven through measurement or experiment that a circumstance defies the laws of physics, this could be empirical evidence. 

Besides the difficulty of prediction of Gods alterations for either function method type of God, lack of direct confirmation of evidence of God could plausibly have an additional effect intended by God. As I further explained a hypothesis in my 2nd last post; Unknown Freedom, absolute knowledge of God, can cause an influence on free will, of ulterior motives, which may be dispreferable for an effective scenario of free will. 

Between the 2 types of Gods potential methods of function, it seems a scientific God would likely be unfalsifiable. It may be predictable to some degree of suggestive evidence, but predictions would likely be too inaccurate to be considered empirical evidence. A non-scientific God could potentially be provable of defying the laws of physics, but either way, if there is a God, it may be an intended effect, to have a lack of confirmable; Evidence of Alteration.