What would count as proof of God

[Politesse]

If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he can prove his divinity to me in a way I find convincing, and knows how to do it.

Since I am not god, I don't have to say what method he should use, because I don't know it.

But the fact I can't think of anything is no barrier to God's omnipotence. Any being who can't convince me is, by definition, not omnipotent, and therefore not god.

It would be quite easy for a being to convince me that it has god-like powers, simply by doing things.

He might. But let me warn you, it may do nothing to convince your friends and neighbors if he does.

 

[Sarpedon]

It's a good thing I'm not pushy about my beliefs, isn't it?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

At the risk of sounding snide, convincing evidence would be something that convinces me. I have absolutely no idea what kind of activity I'd classify as divine as opposed to classifying it as either a mental aberration or mistake on my part or something done by an alien instead of a god.

However an omniscient being would know exactly what would convince me and an omnipotent being would be able to provide that evidence. Therefore, if God exists and he was interested in providing me with proof of his existence, he would succeed, despite the fact that I am personally unsure of what exact method he would use in order to succeed. It may be something simple and banal that just kind of clicks with me or it may be something extraordinarily complex which I couldn't find a way to attribute to anything else. If he's real, he knows what it is and the ball's in his court.

 

[skepticalbip]

If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he can prove his divinity to me in a way I find convincing, and knows how to do it.

Since I am not god, I don't have to say what method he should use, because I don't know it.

But the fact I can't think of anything is no barrier to God's omnipotence. Any being who can't convince me is, by definition, not omnipotent, and therefore not god.

It would be quite easy for a being to convince me that it has god-like powers, simply by doing things.

Yes, demonstrating that, if there is a god, he doesn't really give a shit whether or not we know it.

 

[Politesse]

It's a good thing I'm not pushy about my beliefs, isn't it?

Always a prudent quality.

 

[bilby]

The problem isn't with the form the evidence takes. The problem is the "one day" part.

A one-off event isn't good enough evidence for any extraordinary claim. The more extraordinary a claim is, the more important it becomes that the evidence backing that claim is repeatable.

And "There's just no way (he/she/I) could possibly have known that, other than (god/psychic powers/supernatural means)", is always false, and is the hallmark of a scam.

Even if it's very unlikely that someone else could know something you believe to be known only to you, it's still less unlikely than gods. And actually it's very rare for someone to be the only person who knows some secret. Information is more pervasive and leaky than most people realise - a LOT more.

If someone tells you something that you believed you were the only person who knew, that's very persuasive indeed as an argument for some supernatural phenomenon. That's why stage psychics and astrologers are so successful. It shouldn't be persuasive - but it is, because it plugs straight into our innate desire to be special, important, and interesting.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Such a god would simply have to implant the knowledge of its existence in our brains such that we could not ever believe other. This is, of course, just one of the many many fatal flaws in any cult that posits such a being in the first place.

Cult member: God wrote the bible so that you would know his word!
Sane person: Why go to such bother? Why didn't he just implant that knowledge?
Cult member: Because...umm....he wants you to...learn how to read....and, you know, no robots....?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is no such thing as 'proof of god'. The trouble is, there is no way for us to make a distinction between a super powerful alien individual or race and a god.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The problem isn't with the form the evidence takes. The problem is the "one day" part.

A one-off event isn't good enough evidence for any extraordinary claim. The more extraordinary a claim is, the more important it becomes that the evidence backing that claim is repeatable.

And "There's just no way (he/she/I) could possibly have known that, other than (god/psychic powers/supernatural means)", is always false, and is the hallmark of a scam.

Even if it's very unlikely that someone else could know something you believe to be known only to you, it's still less unlikely than gods. And actually it's very rare for someone to be the only person who knows some secret. Information is more pervasive and leaky than most people realise - a LOT more.

If someone tells you something that you believed you were the only person who knew, that's very persuasive indeed as an argument for some supernatural phenomenon. That's why stage psychics and astrologers are so successful. It shouldn't be persuasive - but it is, because it plugs straight into our innate desire to be special, important, and interesting.

Lots of people have "proven" that Bigfoot is real because they have encountered the beast, provided kooky accounts, grainy videos and pictures, etc. Proof that there's a god isn't much different than proof that there's a bigfoot or a leprechaun.

Like Sagan said, you can't prove there's a dragon by the burn on your hand from its fiery breath. You have to have the dragon. Events don't prove there's a god, you gotta have the god to prove the god.

 

[Kharakov]

So the main problem seems to be the strawman tri-omni God.


What about the God (perhaps it's a group of beings that presents itself as one being every time it interacts with you, for continuity of experience for you) that learns to control its self, in such a way that it can create other consciousnesses, and respond to them?

Maybe it sets up the natural system.

Maybe the natural system is a byproduct of it acting in the best interests of a consciousness it deliberately creates.

Maybe the natural system is how it reacts to and interacts with the beings it creates- maybe it does not know another way, or this is the best way.


If it is this type of God- not the bullshit tri-omni God of the ignorant: If it only knows how to create in this (natural) manner, or believes that it is best to start out in this way.


How would it reveal itself to you in such a way that you wouldn't think it was other intelligent beings fucking with you? Should it?

What if it isn't a God, but rather we are created by the actions of many intelligent beings that arose from quantum chaos? How would they reveal themselves to you?

What if there is one God, but it acts for all beings, so there are conflicts that the beings have to work out themselves. It cares, it works for you, but it cannot resolve conflicts between you and other beings because it attempts to satisfy them as well. So blessed are the peacemakers.

How does this last God reveal itself to you? Politics? Putting someone entirely unpalatable to everyone on top so that everyone learns to be good to one another? Sigh. anyway. If there is a God, it better be smarter than me.

 

[skepticalbip]

So the main problem seems to be the strawman tri-omni God.

.

I see a much more basic problem. I see no more reason to accept as real any imaginary critter whether it be a god with limited or unlimited magical powers, King Kong, Godzilla, the Sand Man, Superman, Puff the Magic Dragon, or the Silver Surfer. Just because someone can imagine such a critter and tells others about it doesn't make it real even though some others may say, "yeah, I can buy that."

 

[bilby]

So the main problem seems to be the strawman tri-omni God.

.

I see a much more basic problem. I see no more reason to accept as real any imaginary critter whether it be a god with limited or unlimited magical powers, King Kong, Godzilla, the Sand Man, Superman, Puff the Magic Dragon, or the Silver Surfer. Just because someone can imagine such a critter and tells others about it doesn't make it real even though some others may say, "yeah, I can buy that."

Yeah, the main problem is the persistent lack of evidence for any gods of any kind.

When something is indistinguishable from a fictional construct, and one is surrounded by people with a penchant for imaginative fiction, it's foolish to assume that anything is non-fiction until actual evidence for it is presented.

And the more extraordinary the claims, the more evidence is required.

I have yet to see an argument for any gods that would not be equally applicable to a number of superheroes.

I am not about to accept that either are real world phenomena, and find it laughable that others do.

Being tri-omni isn't a big deal; It's certainly not a requirement for me in order to reject a god claim. Any more than it's a sticking point for the existence of a superhero that he can leap tall buildings in a single bound.

I don't believe that there really is a man who can leap tall buildings in a single bound. But that doesn't make a man who can do whatever a spider can, one iota less implausible.

 

[Kharakov]

So the main problem seems to be the strawman tri-omni God.

.

I see a much more basic problem. I see no more reason to accept as real any imaginary critter whether it be a god with limited or unlimited magical powers, King Kong, Godzilla, the Sand Man, Superman, Puff the Magic Dragon, or the Silver Surfer. Just because someone can imagine such a critter and tells others about it doesn't make it real even though some others may say, "yeah, I can buy that."

Yeah, the main problem is the persistent lack of evidence for any gods of any kind.

Or persistent lack of mathematical and physical knowhow that would allow one to discern that the physical constants in the universe were set in one of the ways I mentioned, which would provide direct evidence that the universe (at least our portion) was created (if it was). It would simply be a lack of scientific and mathematical accumen, on the part of atheists, that led to their disbelief. Of course, learning the truth will just be another step in the right direction: but would they trust scientists who say there is a message in the physical constants of the universe, or not?

If it costs them nothing, then maybe. Maybe they would still be suspicious. Maybe they would be curious (I'd be curious. And annoyed.).


Of course, it could just be other beings playing a long con- beings who desire to make fun of presumptuous, uneducated atheists.


So no claims here. Basically, if there is a hidden message, it's evidence the universe was created. Depending on what the message is (like "fuck you guys, I'm making another universe full of nice people"- think SMBC Jesus "He stops by all the time. When he came the first time, we gave him a box of chocolates. What did you guys give him?" ). But that assumes a lot.

 

[Rhea]

If we woke up in the morning and every religionist on the planet agreed on what a god was and every aspect of its nature and desires.

Or, yeah, if it’s a god, it makes it happen. Ipso facto, right? It’s a god. It’s not smaller than me, it knows what to do.

 

[bilby]

Essentially, there are lots of things that would count as proof of gods.

But none of them are actually going to occur, because gods don't exist.

You might as well ask what would count as proof that the Earth is flat.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If the ability to bring a universe into existence makes something a god, then what is a person who plants a seed in the proper conditions and brings forth an apple tree and apples? If I had the knowledge and means to bring forth a universe does that make me a god? How does that make me a god, or is that just the definition of a god?

Gods seem to be nothing more than creatures of emotion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

AIDS, might.
I mean, if the virus really did have a sexual-preference preference like Uncle Howard insists.

If AIDS could not be transmitted at all through moral behavior, but was 100% contagious across immoral lines. Like, you could contract the disease from sharing drug needles, but a surgeon who cut himself during surgery just never ever ever ever caught HIV from a patient. An AIDS patient who caught it from a gay prostitute could never pass it to their spouse. Blood donations never threaten ER patients, though blood-play in a BDSM session would be a suicide pact.

Something behaving that much like a cartoon villain as the faithful insist, that might be compelling. But then, we'd have to be living in the cartoon world of the evangelical, and this conversation would be moot.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?

I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.

Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?

Nothing. It's a stupid concept. If God would appear and do something, we'd just add that to science and our understanding of how the world works.

And if God actually exists what do you think the chances are that anybody managed to nail it? I'm sure everybody is wrong. That's usually how science progresses.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Essentially, there are lots of things that would count as proof of gods.

Such as...?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Essentially, there are lots of things that would count as proof of gods.

Such as...?

What about the tide going in and out?