What would count as proof of God

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

Look at how we use the word "system." Semantics are fascinating. For lots of folks I'm certain their god equates to a system.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

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.

Look at how we use the word "system." Semantics are fascinating. For lots of folks I'm certain their god equates to a system.

Folks sure did rush to create a hierarchical structure around religion.

 

[remez]

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 concur. But the conversation always heads in this direction…………….

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.

Some supernatural event. But then………….

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,

But supernatural events aren't allowed. We philosophically limit our explanations to nature only explanations. There can be nothing beyond nature. You won’t allow yourselves to follow the evidence where it leads. You are stuck in the cave of nature only by philosophical choice. Reminds me of the movie….The Croods.

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

The evidence is there you just philosophically choose to suppress the implications. You can’t even step out of the cave far enough to see where the evidence leads. Because it can’t lead outside the cave. The cave is all there is. I feel safe in the cave. There might be a Santa Claus riding a unicorn out there chasing a bad fairy.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I concur. But the conversation always heads in this direction…………….


Some supernatural event. But then………….

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,

But supernatural events aren't allowed. We philosophically limit our explanations to nature only explanations. There can be nothing beyond nature. You won’t allow yourselves to follow the evidence where it leads. You are stuck in the cave of nature only by philosophical choice. Reminds me of the movie….The Croods.

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

The evidence is there you just philosophically choose to suppress the implications. You can’t even step out of the cave far enough to see where the evidence leads. Because it can’t lead outside the cave. The cave is all there is. I feel safe in the cave. There might be a Santa Claus riding a unicorn out there chasing a bad fairy.

What is the evidence? Very exciting to hear that evidence may be coming!

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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?

Well, I argue that the probability that God exists conditioned to the hypothesis that there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator is close to zero. Combining that with the difficulty in making omniscience and omnipotence more likely than vast knowledge and power (which seems like an insurmountable difficulty), I don't know that humans are in a epistemic position in which any amount of evidence would suffice to make it probable that God exists. I would say probably we are not. Still, if he existed, God would know whether humans are in such a position, and if so, how to provide that evidence.

 

[Elixir]

... the probability that God exists conditioned to the hypothesis that there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator is close to zero. Combining that with the difficulty in making omniscience and omnipotence more likely than vast knowledge and power (which seems like an insurmountable difficulty), I don't know that humans are in a epistemic position in which any amount of evidence would suffice to make it probable that God exists. I would say probably we are not. Still, if he existed, God would know whether humans are in such a position, and if so, how to provide that evidence.

I can hear him now; "I could, but I don't wanna "

 

[Keith&Co.]

... the probability that God exists conditioned to the hypothesis that there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator is close to zero. Combining that with the difficulty in making omniscience and omnipotence more likely than vast knowledge and power (which seems like an insurmountable difficulty), I don't know that humans are in a epistemic position in which any amount of evidence would suffice to make it probable that God exists. I would say probably we are not. Still, if he existed, God would know whether humans are in such a position, and if so, how to provide that evidence.

I can hear him now; "I could, but I don't wanna "

Or, 'I could, but you're better off if i do not. Plus, you don't deserve it.'

 

[Learner]

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?

Well, I argue that the probability that God exists conditioned to the hypothesis that there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator is close to zero. Combining that with the difficulty in making omniscience and omnipotence more likely than vast knowledge and power (which seems like an insurmountable difficulty), I don't know that humans are in a epistemic position in which any amount of evidence would suffice to make it probable that God exists. I would say probably we are not. Still, if he existed, God would know whether humans are in such a position, and if so, how to provide that evidence.

I would wonder with the above set conditions ...

Why couldn't GOD create NEW THINGS that HE hasn't thought of before (when in HIS creative mood)? The act of spontaneous creativeness.

In a manner of speaking .... once done ... HE knows ALL about HIS own personal designs ...fixes them too!

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why couldn't GOD create NEW things HE hasn't thought of before,

by 'god' you generally mean an omniscient deity with the power of prophecy, right?

Exactly what would you mean by 'something he (all knowing, all foreseeing) hasn't thought of'?

 

[Learner]

Why couldn't GOD create NEW things HE hasn't thought of before,

by 'god' you generally mean an omniscient deity with the power of prophecy, right?

Exactly what would you mean by 'something he (all knowing, all foreseeing) hasn't thought of'?

Why can't GOD do both? Create NEW things without needing to look into the future. Why spoil the enjoyment and thrill of creating? "And God saw that it was good"

 

[abaddon]

Well, I argue that the probability that God exists conditioned to the hypothesis that there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator is close to zero. Combining that with the difficulty in making omniscience and omnipotence more likely than vast knowledge and power (which seems like an insurmountable difficulty), I don't know that humans are in a epistemic position in which any amount of evidence would suffice to make it probable that God exists. I would say probably we are not. Still, if he existed, God would know whether humans are in such a position, and if so, how to provide that evidence.

I would wonder with the above set conditions ...

Why couldn't GOD create NEW THINGS that HE hasn't thought of before (when in HIS creative mood)? The act of spontaneous creativeness.

In a manner of speaking .... once done ... HE knows ALL about HIS own personal designs ...fixes them too!

Why can't GOD do both? Create NEW things without needing to look into the future. Why spoil the enjoyment and thrill of creating? "And God saw that it was good"

These kinds of posts display the insurmountable difficulty of God's omni traits that Angra Mainyu pointed out.

Omniscience means "knows everything". If you have to invent caveats to answer the criticisms of why omniscience doesn't work, then you've demoted God from omniscient to vastly knowledgable.

This is not an "atheistic viewpoint", Learner. The word means what it means. So any 'why can't we ignore the definition but still use the word?' scenarios you come up with are concessions to the insurmountability.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why couldn't GOD create NEW things HE hasn't thought of before,

by 'god' you generally mean an omniscient deity with the power of prophecy, right?

Exactly what would you mean by 'something he (all knowing, all foreseeing) hasn't thought of'?

Why can't GOD do both? Create NEW things without needing to look into the future. Why spoil the enjoyment and thrill of creating? "And God saw that it was good"

under what definition of omniscience is there an off switch?

 

[Learner]

Why can't GOD do both? Create NEW things without needing to look into the future. Why spoil the enjoyment and thrill of creating? "And God saw that it was good"

These kinds of posts display the insurmountable difficulty of God's omni traits that Angra Mainyu pointed out.

Omniscience means "knows everything". If you have to invent caveats to answer the criticisms of why omniscience doesn't work, then you've demoted God from omniscient to vastly knowledgable.

This is not an "atheistic viewpoint", Learner. The word means what it means. So any 'why can't we ignore the definition but still use the word?' scenarios you come up with are concessions to the insurmountability.

There's no real difficulty...really, I mean...even if we are to strike out omniscience from Gods traits it leaves us with an Almighty creator. Personally it is beyond fathomable Why, What or HOW God does things..plain and simple. Theist imo needn't worry about it as problematic ... or a debunker so to speak, when there are many things that is within grasp of fathomable to discuss with. We are but mere mortals.

 

[Atheos]

Any god who is not omniscient is not omnipotent. Omniscience is a subset of omnipotence. Strike two....

 

[Learner]

Any god who is not omniscient is not omnipotent. Omniscience is a subset of omnipotence. Strike two....

Not sure about that myself ... I see it as:

IF God is the one and only CREATOR and HE is ultimately more powerful than all HIS creations then GOD...IS the Gold-Bar-Standard for Omnipotent. If God knows more than HIS most intelligent creations about everything in the universe then God IS the Gold-Bar-Standard for Ominscience verses the mere words that wise-professing men as mere mortals create, to define how God should be.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Any god who is not omniscient is not omnipotent. Omniscience is a subset of omnipotence. Strike two....

Not sure about that myself ... I see it as:

IF God is the one and only CREATOR and HE is ultimately more powerful than all HIS creations then GOD, IS the Gold-Bar Standard for Omnipotent.

but omnipotent, as a word, does not merely mean the most powerful being in the room.
It means all-powerful. Limiting infinite power when it's inconvenient is cheating.

 

[Learner]

Any god who is not omniscient is not omnipotent. Omniscience is a subset of omnipotence. Strike two....

Not sure about that myself ... I see it as:

IF God is the one and only CREATOR and HE is ultimately more powerful than all HIS creations then GOD, IS the Gold-Bar Standard for Omnipotent.

but omnipotent, as a word, does not merely mean the most powerful being in the room.
It means all-powerful. Limiting infinite power when it's inconvenient is cheating.

Why is it not unlimited and all-powerful? Wouldn't God be able to do everything and anything, anywhich how even beyond our understanding?

(It is beyond me at the moment goodnight)

 

[skepticalbip]

I won't buy the omnipotent hype until I see him defeat Odin in a cage match.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Any god who is not omniscient is not omnipotent. Omniscience is a subset of omnipotence. Strike two....

Not sure about that myself ... I see it as:

IF God is the one and only CREATOR and HE is ultimately more powerful than all HIS creations then GOD...IS the Gold-Bar-Standard for Omnipotent. If God knows more than HIS most intelligent creations about everything in the universe then God IS the Gold-Bar-Standard for Ominscience verses the mere words that wise-professing men as mere mortals create, to define how God should be.

That would mean that to a beetle I'm God. So your god is just like you and me only we're the beetles.

And of course beetles become gods too when discussing lesser evolved beasties.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I won't buy the omnipotent hype until I see him defeat Odin in a cage match.

But God couldn't even defeat the Cannanites with their chariots of iron. He would have zero chance against Odin!