What would count as proof of God

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

Such as...?

What about the tide going in and out?

Don't be stupid... no one can explain that... not even god.

 

[abaddon]

Even theists know tides are the push and pull of gravity... but THAT is the mystery of God. Where'd "the laws" come from?

Theists like mysteries with "a mind did it" as the answer. And that mind is, to them, more wonderful than the wonders of nature. Anything, ANYTHING, so long as they don't have to attribute the wonder of nature to where it belongs: nature itself. That'd be so disappointing.

Why? Cuz ultimately, deity is humans projected out onto nature thereby giving it a familiar face. Theists say they like the wonder of mystery... But mostly they don't want a mindless, uncaring nature squishing them. So long as it's "manned" by somebody who can pick some favorites from among us, then they might not get randomly squished by "random" nature.

 

[bilby]

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

Such as...?

Such as actual gods being seen doing godly things as a matter of routine.

Basically the same things that make people confident in the existence of real things in the real world. I know my dining table exists, because my spaghetti doesn't land in my lap.

I know gods don't exist, because theists have to eat off their knees.

 

[Copernicus]

Even theists know tides are the push and pull of gravity... but THAT is the mystery of God. Where'd "the laws" come from?

Theists like mysteries with "a mind did it" as the answer. And that mind is, to them, more wonderful than the wonders of nature. Anything, ANYTHING, so long as they don't have to attribute the wonder of nature to where it belongs: nature itself. That'd be so disappointing.

Why? Cuz ultimately, deity is humans projected out onto nature thereby giving it a familiar face. Theists say they like the wonder of mystery... But mostly they don't want a mindless, uncaring nature squishing them. So long as it's "manned" by somebody who can pick some favorites from among us, then they might not get randomly squished by "random" nature.

Right, but I think that the reason for the projection is grounded in the way human cognition develops in a growing child. The brain interprets incoming sensations by creating experience-based models of reality. Our most powerful first experiences are bodily experiences in which we control sensations by willing body parts to move (arms, legs, eyes, mouth, tongue). That's why babies are constantly moving, grasping, touching, smelling, tasting, etc. Volition causes body parts to move. So the easiest way to understand the behavior of things not under our own control is to imagine them as under the conscious control of other beings like us. That represents a good initial explanatory model of things that happen in our surroundings.

Animism is perhaps the first, most widespread form of religious belief. It is a model of reality in which souls (volitional entities) exist in animals, plants, physical objects, and natural phenomena. So their behavior can be interpreted in terms of volitional causation. Gods are clearly idealized human entities, and pantheons tend to be structured in terms of family structure--the earliest social experience that children have. God can be a "father" or "mother" to whom obedience is owed. To a young child, parents can do anything. They are omnipotent and omniscient. So it seems likely that religion is a natural outcome of the process by which cognition develops in a human mind. As we age, our models become more complex and sophisticated. Projecting human attributes on natural phenomena is a legacy of childhood, and that explains, IMO, why most people find it difficult to give up belief in the existence of gods, especially the monotheistic God. It takes a lot of experience and critical thinking for us to come to realize how impersonal the universe really is.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

Such as...?

Such as actual gods being seen doing godly things as a matter of routine.

Basically the same things that make people confident in the existence of real things in the real world. I know my dining table exists, because my spaghetti doesn't land in my lap.

I know gods don't exist, because theists have to eat off their knees.

But what would be godly verses just highly advanced?

 

[bilby]

Such as actual gods being seen doing godly things as a matter of routine.

Basically the same things that make people confident in the existence of real things in the real world. I know my dining table exists, because my spaghetti doesn't land in my lap.

I know gods don't exist, because theists have to eat off their knees.

But what would be godly verses just highly advanced?

I'm not sure it would be possible to tell the difference, but as neither is in evidence, I don't really care

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Such as actual gods being seen doing godly things as a matter of routine.

Basically the same things that make people confident in the existence of real things in the real world. I know my dining table exists, because my spaghetti doesn't land in my lap.

I know gods don't exist, because theists have to eat off their knees.

But what would be godly verses just highly advanced?

I'm not sure it would be possible to tell the difference, but as neither is in evidence, I don't really care

Well, seeing that the OP is asking, I do think it is relevant. We are incapable of telling if something is incredibly advanced or whether it is a deity.

 

[bilby]

I'm not sure it would be possible to tell the difference, but as neither is in evidence, I don't really care

Well, seeing that the OP is asking, I do think it is relevant. We are incapable of telling if something is incredibly advanced or whether it is a deity.

But the question doesn't arise; We see neither, so needn't care.

If Q turns up, we can ask him. Though we may not want to take his word for it either way.

But until he turns up, the question is unimportant.

Except perhaps in the observation that we DON'T have a Q to ask - so his absence is strong evidence of the absence of both gods and advanced aliens, at least on our planet. Which squashes most theistic worldviews.

If people pray, and an advanced alien detects and acts on their prayers, then that alien is indistinguishable from a god.

But if people pray, they actually get the same response we would anticipate in the absence of either gods or aliens - so we can conclude that neither exists.

 

[AdamWho]

No amount of evidence can justify a causal link to the supernatural.

It is a meaningless question from the beginning.

 

[skepticalbip]

I'm not sure it would be possible to tell the difference, but as neither is in evidence, I don't really care

Well, seeing that the OP is asking, I do think it is relevant. We are incapable of telling if something is incredibly advanced or whether it is a deity.

But the question in the OP is just a 'god of the gaps' argument or an argument from ignorance- something happens that 'we can not currently explain therefore god'. Some inexplicable event is not proof of god any more than it is proof of magic turnips. An inexplicable event simply means we can't yet explain it.

 

[abaddon]

Such as actual gods being seen doing godly things as a matter of routine.

Basically the same things that make people confident in the existence of real things in the real world. I know my dining table exists, because my spaghetti doesn't land in my lap.

I know gods don't exist, because theists have to eat off their knees.

But what would be godly verses just highly advanced?

"Actual god" versus "just highly advanced" = semantic issue.

A "God" is merely a being or power that's super-duper impressive to those who want to worship him/her/it. Call the conjectured power or being "advanced" instead if you like, but if the worshiper calls it "God" then that's how... and is the one and only way... to determine that it's a deity. It has to be someone's deity to be a deity.

So, could the OP's scenario convince me it's God? If I valued the noise 'gawd' as an explanation for anything, then Yes. But I don't, so No.

"Is it a deity?" is not a problem you can solve like an engineering issue (what is it? what's it made of? how does it work?). Instead it's a question of values. Do you value the word "God" as meaningful? Do "sentient" and "very powerful" and "incorporeal" and "deserves worship" seem like they all fit together in your mind? If not... if the values aren't all there (maybe especially if the "deserves worship" bit is missing)... then probably "advanced alien being" is what your more science-informed sensibilities are going to make of a powerful incorporeal being that can make you believe it exists.

 

[bilby]

Such as actual gods being seen doing godly things as a matter of routine.

Basically the same things that make people confident in the existence of real things in the real world. I know my dining table exists, because my spaghetti doesn't land in my lap.

I know gods don't exist, because theists have to eat off their knees.

But what would be godly verses just highly advanced?

"Actual god" versus "just highly advanced" = semantic issue.

A "God" is merely a being or power that's super-duper impressive to those who want to worship him/her/it. Call the conjectured power or being "advanced" instead if you like, but if the worshiper calls it "God" then that's how... and is the one and only way... to determine that it's a deity. It has to be someone's deity to be a deity.

So, could the OP's scenario convince me it's God? If I valued the noise 'gawd' as an explanation for anything, then Yes. But I don't, so No.

"Is it a deity?" is not a problem you can solve like an engineering issue (what is it? what's it made of? how does it work?). Instead it's a question of values. Do you value the word "God" as meaningful? Do "sentient" and "very powerful" and "incorporeal" and "deserves worship" seem like they all fit together in your mind? If not... if the values aren't all there (maybe especially if the "deserves worship" bit is missing)... then probably "advanced alien being" is what your more science-informed sensibilities are going to make of a powerful incorporeal being that can make you believe it exists.

Yup, sycophancy isn't part of my makeup, so even if some religious sect did present me with their god, and it was able to do all kinds of inexplicable things, and it knew everything, and it was kind and caring, and etc. etc., I still wouldn't worship it.

I might respect it (if it earned my respect, for example by alleviating human suffering); I might learn from it, if it could teach me something plausible and interesting. But worship? Worship is for tyrants. It's a human mechanism for building the ego of a leader, while reducing the risk of rebellion from his minions.

A god worthy of the name would neither want nor demand worship - and a god that's not worshipful is no god at all.

I know that most people are in awe of powerful and/or famous people. But kings, rock stars, CEOs etc. do nothing for me. I don't care if you own the company, or if you are the janitor - the respect you get will depend on what you do and say, not what titles you hold. If you can sack me on a whim, I might fear you; But if you would do so, just because you can, I wouldn't want to work for you anyway. And fear isn't respect - a mistake that is common amongst gangsters and theists is to conflate the two.

If a being can damn me to eternal suffering, it won't get respect from me as a result - and indeed it would instantly lose any respect I had for it if it damned anyone (including me). Fear? Perhaps. But not worship, nor respect.

The very foundational principle of most religions - that a god can command respect - is deeply wrong.

Fear god? Sure, if you show me a scary one. Worship god? Why?

 

[ideologyhunter]

The HLN network ran a two-parter on the Oklahoma City Bombing last night. There was a comment from an Oklahoma sheriff that I found choice. They had just reenacted McVeigh's capture after the bombing. What happened, briefly: he was stopped on the highway because his car had no plates. When the officer spotted a gun on him, he was cuffed and detained. Meanwhile, from a truck axle found near the bomb site, the FBI tracked down the rental truck McVeigh had used. When they canvassed the motels between the rental site and Oklahoma City, they got his name off a motel ledger. The next day, just before he would have most likely posted bond on the license plate and concealed gun charges and been released, they arrested him for the bombing.
Okay -- with all that as preface -- the sheriff who brought McVeigh in said, "I always said that it was divine intervention that put all those things in place."
Can you imagine that level of religious conviction? First of all, it was FBI intervention. Second, he imagines that God, who knows all, sees all, judges all, watched McVeigh pull off the murder of 168 people, including kids at day care, but it warms his heart to think that God set up the arrest. It makes it into a 'faith story.' Sheesh. I guess it's not dumber than the typical faith story in Guideposts, but I laughed loud enough to wake up my dog.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The HLN network ran a two-parter on the Oklahoma City Bombing last night. There was a comment from an Oklahoma sheriff that I found choice. They had just reenacted McVeigh's capture after the bombing. What happened, briefly: he was stopped on the highway because his car had no plates. When the officer spotted a gun on him, he was cuffed and detained. Meanwhile, from a truck axle found near the bomb site, the FBI tracked down the rental truck McVeigh had used. When they canvassed the motels between the rental site and Oklahoma City, they got his name off a motel ledger. The next day, just before he would have most likely posted bond on the license plate and concealed gun charges and been released, they arrested him for the bombing.
Okay -- with all that as preface -- the sheriff who brought McVeigh in said, "I always said that it was divine intervention that put all those things in place."
Can you imagine that level of religious conviction? First of all, it was FBI intervention. Second, he imagines that God, who knows all, sees all, judges all, watched McVeigh pull off the murder of 168 people, including kids at day care, but it warms his heart to think that God set up the arrest. It makes it into a 'faith story.' Sheesh. I guess it's not dumber than the typical faith story in Guideposts, but I laughed loud enough to wake up my dog.

Which demonstrates to me quite convincingly that the only evidence any person has for a god is their emotions. All god claims reduce to personal emotional attachment.

 

[Atheos]

Strain out a gnat, smoke a camel. Or something like that.

 

[Gun Nut]

the only evidence any person has for a god is their emotions.

Emotions are evidence of a Mind... like Pee is evidence of Urination.

 

[bilby]

the only evidence any person has for a god is their emotions.

Emotions are evidence of a Mind... like Pee is evidence of Urination.

Emotions are evidence of an endocrine system. There's no particular reason to consider a 'mind' to be a non-fictional entity.

We have a nervous system, and an endocrine system. Mind appears to be an entirely imaginary construct of these two systems.

 

[skepticalbip]

"Mind" should be used as a verb, not as a noun. It is a process, not a physical 'thing'. Mind ends with death but brain, nerves, glands, etc. are still there.

 

[Keith&Co.]

"Mind" should be used as a verb, not as a noun. It is a process, not a physical 'thing'. Mind ends with death but brain, nerves, glands, etc. are still there.

That would depend on how they deathed.

 

[Copernicus]

"Mind" should be used as a verb, not as a noun. It is a process, not a physical 'thing'. Mind ends with death but brain, nerves, glands, etc. are still there.

It is perfectly fine as a noun. Nouns are used as names for lots of nonphysical things. But your main point is correct that "mind" is not a physical thing anymore than words like "society" or "election" denote physical things. We may think of an election as a series or collection of physical events, but it would make no sense to try to describe its meaning as just that. It plays a functional role in human society.