What would be proof that God exists?

  • Thread starter Laser Eyes
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary, The person asking the question wants all atheists to provide unambiguous proof that God exists. Atheists say that most religions promote a god as being all knowing, all powerful, and transcending space and time. If god wants someone to believe in him, then he should provide unambiguous proof that he exists.
  • #1
Laser Eyes
73
0
This question has probably been asked before but its a good question and I'd like a shot at dealing with it. Let's get down to basics. Never mind the Bible at this stage. I would like all those atheists or agnostics out there to state precisely what they would regard as satisfactory proof to them that God exists. If you believe that there is no such thing as God what would it take to change your mind, (assuming it is open to be changed of course)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Originally posted by Laser Eyes
This question has probably been asked before but its a good question and I'd like a shot at dealing with it. Let's get down to basics. Never mind the Bible at this stage. I would like all those atheists or agnostics out there to state precisely what they would regard as satisfactory proof to them that God exists. If you believe that there is no such thing as God what would it take to change your mind, (assuming it is open to be changed of course)?

Strong, unambigious, unequivocal evidence. Unambigious, unequivocal evidence of any kind would be a start.
 
  • #3
Honestly, there can be no absolute proof. I'd be willing to accept any clear-cut evidence of a specific religion's deity, but that still couldn't prove that it was an actual god. It could, after all, be an alien.
 
  • #4
I don't want to speak for Zero, but from my point of view, most things are no where near 'provable', so proving something would be much more than needed. I accept evolution as the origin of the species, but that hardly means I consider it proven.

Simple, unequivocal evidence would be an excellent start.
 
  • #5
I would like all those atheists or agnostics out there to state precisely what they would regard as satisfactory proof to them that God exists.

Something I can see, touch or even hear, so long as more then myself is hearing it. Something that could be recorded, studied, and actually prove beneficial.

For instance, I'd be a bit more likely to believe in the Christian god if we were able to find the Garden of Eden. Seems like the bible says it is still located on earth, with a giant cherebum (spelling) on guard.

Basically, something we can sink our teeth in, and have the bad breath to remind us.

If you believe that there is no such thing as God what would it take to change your mind, (assuming it is open to be changed of course)?

See, that's just it. I don't believe anything. I have no clue what's behind everything. Common sense and reasoning has shown that there seems to be a natural explanation for most things questionable. It is not that I don't believe in a God, more so I am ignorant of such a being, and will not make a judgement based on ignorance.

And seeing as how most every religion promotes there god(s) as being all knowing, all powerfull, and transcending space and time then I cannot understand why such a being would allow me to live in ignorance. Especially when making just a quick appearance would cancel all doubts. Just a simple message, perhaps in modern, digital technology so that the original cannot ever be changed.

Yup, that's it. If god wants me to believe in him/her, then I want him to magically create a cd in my drive that explains in full his plans for humanity.

As almost any religion promotes there god as being all powerfull, this should not be a problem.
 
  • #6
The thing I would like you guys to try and do is to be specific about the evidence that would change your mind. Don't say strong evidence or solid evidence or something along those lines. All of you except Megashawn are leaving it open to yourselves to say that whatever evidence is presented is not strong enough or its too ambiguous. Tell me exactly what evidence you would need that would prove to you that there is a God.
 
  • #7
This question has probably been asked before but its a good question and I'd like a shot at dealing with it.


Well, I provided you with some requirements, you going to take your shot or not?
 
  • #8
Originally posted by Laser Eyes
The thing I would like you guys to try and do is to be specific about the evidence that would change your mind. Don't say strong evidence or solid evidence or something along those lines. All of you except Megashawn are leaving it open to yourselves to say that whatever evidence is presented is not strong enough or its too ambiguous. Tell me exactly what evidence you would need that would prove to you that there is a God.

No, unequivocal and unambiguous is straightforward. I can give examples. If a magical entity appeared before me, and violated a few known laws of physics, then told me that he/she was a diety and that I was to accept 'such and such', assuming that it was logically consistent, I would accept that.

If I had seen the burning bush, I'd be a lot more inclined to believe in and be subservient to god.

I certainly can't accept that there is a loving and just god that would allow someone to suffer for eternity. Justice implies a proportionality between crime and punishment, no finite crime balances against an infinite punishment.

What I can't accept is that an experience of a feeling, which could (and is by different religions) is often interpreted in a specific way and just happens to be something that a small segment of the world accepts as true.

I can't accept that just because it says so in a book, with absolutely, positively no way of determining if it's true (without dying) or just the beliefs of a middle-eastern, bronze age tribe of nomads that's been elaborated on for 2000 years.

I can't accept that a god would require folks to worship him. That's incredibly insulting to a god. That a god, who has given virtually no evidence of his existence - that would classify as the pinnicle of egotistical behaviour, IMO.

Importantly, I would like to be able to apply a test: Assume we have an alien or deep rain forest aboriginal indian, with good intellectual capabilities, but no knowledge of any particular religion. Set the arguments and evidence for god 'X' and his religion. Would he say this was not just something that is possible, but highly probable?

Another test: Give a theistic religious doctrine - can it be shown to be any more probable than the old Greek religion (Zeus and his cohorts).

Does this give you a more concrete idea of what it would take, and why the current state doesn't met my criteria or even probable, much less highly probable?
 
  • #9
I'd be a bit more likely to believe in the Christian god if we were able to find the Garden of Eden. Seems like the bible says it is still located on earth, with a giant cherebum (spelling) on guard.

If god wants me to believe in him/her, then I want him to magically create a cd in my drive that explains in full his plans for humanity.
So you'd like to find the Garden of Eden and for God to create a cd in your drive. You know I'm almost sorry I asked this question now. I should have known better. I should have remembered a scripture that is particularly relevant to this question. After Jesus was arrested and he was taken before the chief preists and scribes they said to him "If you are the Christ, tell us." But he said to them, "Even if I tell you, you will by no means believe." (Luke 22:67) The thing is there is already abundant evidence of the existence of God. The God of our universe is a reasonable God and he respects the intellectual ability that he gave us. He does not expect blind faith. If the evidence that exists already does not convince you then nothing will.

The Garden of Eden has long since withered away. That's what happens to a garden that is not maintained in this world, even a perfectly created garden. Today the site of the garden would look just like anywhere else, you wouldn't even know it had been there. Also, I have no doubt that the cherubs that God posted at the east of the garden left a long time ago. They were only there to prevent Adam from re-entering the garden. After he died there was no point in them remaining there. As for the CD there is only one thing I can say. I have always said that nothing in life is written in concrete but this time I think it is safe to say that I can guarantee you that God is not going to create a CD in your drive (even though he could do it very easily). And even if God did put a CD in your drive and it had these amazing plans for the future of man you wouldn't think it was from God. You would just say someone put it there. Actually you don't need a CD from God by special delivery to find out in full his plans for humanity. He's already stated his plans in full in the Bible for everyone to see.

I cannot understand why such a being would allow me to live in ignorance.
That's why we have the Bible. God inspired men over many centuries to write a collection of books that tell you about God, his plans for humanity, how the world became screwed up, what is going to happen in the future and how you can gain everlasting life. But God will not force this knowledge on you. If you want to know the truth badly enough then you will find it. Or you could just ask me and I could tell you but then what's the point of that, you wouldn't believe me anyway.
 
  • #10
Originally posted by Laser Eyes


That's why we have the Bible. God inspired men over many centuries to write a collection of books that tell you about God, his plans for humanity, how the world became screwed up, what is going to happen in the future and how you can gain everlasting life. But God will not force this knowledge on you. If you want to know the truth badly enough then you will find it. Or you could just ask me and I could tell you but then what's the point of that, you wouldn't believe me anyway.
Every time I read something like that, I just want to laugh and cry. A book written by men, that isn't even internally consistant, which claims to be teh truth, should be taken as such because it claims to be true.

Go on, pull the other one, it has bells on.
 
  • #11
Every time I read something like that, I just want to laugh and cry. A book written by men, that isn't even internally consistant, which claims to be teh truth, should be taken as such because it claims to be true.
No Zero. Not because it claims to be true. Any book could do that. But for many reasons. Let's not continue this here. I will prepare a post that sets out the most cogent reasons for believing that the Bible is indeed God's word and we'll continue this debate there (if you're game). Watch this space, it may take me a week or two.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by Zero
Every time I read something like that, I just want to laugh and cry. A book written by men, that isn't even internally consistant, which claims to be teh truth, should be taken as such because it claims to be true.

Go on, pull the other one, it has bells on.

Zero you just prove that what Laser Eyes says is true. You would not believe if told or shown.

The Bible was written by man and interpreted into different languages many times. It does not have to be consistent nor absolutely word for word True. The truth is there within stories and parables. You have only to look with an open mind and heart.

No one can prove to you or anyone less that God exists and what God is like. Only you can find the God, Buddha or whatever that is within you. Only then can you accept and know the truth and come to know both yourself and God.

God is not in a physics book nor is he in the bible. God is not in a church or your home unless you know God and invite him into your home both objectively and subjectively.

God does not demand that we worship him out of ignorance or subservience. We do not worship God because he needs and wants to be worshiped. That is absurd. We need to worship God for our sake not his. This is the best way to come to know God and ourselves.

God is not hiding in any burnig bush nor anywhere else. It is only when we look outside of ourselves that we cannot find God or Buddha.
There is no mystery, no magic, no miracle or supernatural event needed to find God and all the proof that you or anyone else could possibly want or need.

Just simply look inside your self, at your seat of consciousness and being with an open wondering heart and mind. It is as natural as opening your eyes and seeing for the first time; but, you have to really actually open your eyes and truly want to see the truth and be willing to accept what is real and true. Far to often our egos and mind sets will not let us do that. Thus we are truly blind and cannot and will not see the truth.

It usually is not something that we can do in one attempt or one day. It takes time to train our mind, our hearts and our egos to be quiet and to accept what is instead of what we believe or want to believe.
 
  • #13
*Shrugs*

Whatever, dude...you say that we can believe whatever we want, if we only wish for it hard enough. I think that is a bogus concept, but that's just me.
 
  • #14
Originally posted by radagast
No, unequivocal and unambiguous is straightforward. I can give examples. If a magical entity appeared before me, and violated a few known laws of physics, then told me that he/she was a diety and that I was to accept 'such and such', assuming that it was logically consistent, I would accept that.[B/][QOUTE/]

Would you then accept it or would you kill the buddha walking down the road knowing it was an imposter?

If I had seen the burning bush, I'd be a lot more inclined to believe in and be subservient to god. [QUOTE/]

God nor Buddha is in a burning bush. He burns within you.

I certainly can't accept that there is a loving and just god that would allow someone to suffer for eternity. Justice implies a proportionality between crime and punishment, no finite crime balances against an infinite punishment.
[QUOTE/]

Nor do I. I can find nowhere in the New Testiment that that is what God or Jesus says will happen. As I have not read the entire Bible I have to take others' words for it that it is not in the Bible at all.
As I understand it the idea of heaven and hell and eternal damnation is derived form the works of a persian philosopher by the name or Zoraster (sp?). It is something that the jews and christains picked up to use and the carrot and stick to keep us straight.

What I can't accept is that an experience of a feeling, which could (and is by different religions) is often interpreted in a specific way and just happens to be something that a small segment of the world accepts as true.
[QUOTE/]

It is not an experience of a feeling. It is coming to know. Coming to know yourself, your true self not your self image and comeing to know God/Buddha, the true God/Buddha within not your image of what God/Budedha is. And then coming to know your true relationship with your God/Buddha. This knowing is beyond feeling and/or belief it is or becomes conviction. You may at time doubt that you exist but there is no doubt in ypour true mind or heart that God exists.

I can't accept that just because it says so in a book, with absolutely, positively no way of determining if it's true (without dying) or just the beliefs of a middle-eastern, bronze age tribe of nomads that's been elaborated on for 2000 years.

I can't accept that a god would require folks to worship him. That's incredibly insulting to a god. That a god, who has given virtually no evidence of his existence - that would classify as the pinnicle of egotistical behaviour, IMO.

Importantly, I would like to be able to apply a test: Assume we have an alien or deep rain forest aboriginal indian, with good intellectual capabilities, but no knowledge of any particular religion. Set the arguments and evidence for god 'X' and his religion. Would he say this was not just something that is possible, but highly probable?[B/]
[QUOTE/]

Please read my previous post to Zero. I doubt that anyone could find any aboriginal indian or tribes person with no religion. So far as I know all of the primative stone age tribes found have had a religion of there own.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
by RoyceWould you then accept it or would you kill the buddha walking down the road knowing it was an imposter?

Since 'killing the Buddha, on the road' refers to killing the love of ritual and teaching, in favor of what they are meant to do, I have a hard time seeing how to apply your question.
 
  • #16
----
If I had seen the burning bush, I'd be a lot more inclined to believe in and be subservient to god.
---
God nor Buddha is in a burning bush. He burns within you.

Then I guess neither qualify as evidence to me - it was a question as to what I would accept as evidence. Unless you wish to rewrite what I will accept... :smile:


----
I certainly can't accept that there is a loving and just god that would allow someone to suffer for eternity. Justice implies a proportionality between crime and punishment, no finite crime balances against an infinite punishment.
----
Nor do I. I can find nowhere in the New Testiment that that is what God or Jesus says will happen. As I have not read the entire Bible I have to take others' words for it that it is not in the Bible at all.
As I understand it the idea of heaven and hell and eternal damnation is derived form the works of a persian philosopher by the name or Zoraster (sp?). It is something that the jews and christains picked up to use and the carrot and stick to keep us straight.

Well, though it's been about 35 years, I have read it. A couple of times. I have seen where the passages were, and with more time would find them for you. As with everything they are up for interpretation.

Again, though, given there are many that do accept this, this was an example of something I couldn't accept, not something that was a uniformally accepted interpretation.
 
  • #17
Royce,
I hope I'm misinterpreting what you have been saying, but I get the feeling that you are taking the use of the phrase 'coming to know Buddha' as different from a metaphor of understanding his teachings. He's dead, and has been for close to 2400 years.

When most folks use the term 'coming to know god', they aren't using the term god as a metaphor - perhaps you are, but most aren't.
 
  • #18
Ok. How about we try what we would definately not consider proof.

1) The world around us.

There is enough of an explanation of basic existence to rule out a specific need for a creator.

2) Lines and passages from any religous text that say things such as "this is the truth, because I say its true, and anything that disagrees is obviously false"

3) Other things, such as Lasers earlier example:

That's why we have the Bible. God inspired men over many centuries to write a collection of books that tell you about God, his plans for humanity, how the world became screwed up, what is going to happen in the future and how you can gain everlasting life. But God will not force this knowledge on you. If you want to know the truth badly enough then you will find it. Or you could just ask me and I could tell you but then what's the point of that, you wouldn't believe me anyway.

In order for me to accept this, I must first accept that God exists, without any true knowledge of his existence. But from a perspective of "I don't know if god exists and lack the information to prove one way or the other." then how am I supposed to simply take this as truth, when the backbone of your argument is lacking proof.

More to come, just lacking time.
 
  • #19
Glenn, It does seem that we do have a different understanding of things. I have no idea what sect (if that's the right word) or maybe better branch of Buddhism the you subscribe to or follow. There are Buddhist who think of Buddha as another name for God. There are those who believe that the Buddha is with in every one and can only be found there. There are others that believe Buddhahood is what is found inside and still others who believe that the Buddha they seek inside is their true self and there are still others who follow Buddhism strictly as a philosophic way of life with no religious or inner seeking at all.

There are those non-buddhist who think of Buddha as a saint or world changing enlightened philosopher teacher.
I have said in other post that I read years ago that Buddha had seen God before he, Buddha, died. I, as a Christian Zen Buddhist, think that to follow Buddhism strictly as a living philosophy of life without looking inside oneself and finding ones true self and the Buddha or God is like listening to only the words of a song with no music. But that is me and only my opinion. We all take what we want and can use at the time from any experience, book or religion.

I have run across the saying that the buddha is within every man and can be found only with in that I came to think of it as a basic tenet of Buddhism. Perhaps I'm wrong. Never the less as both metaphor and spiritual reality it is one of my tenets.
 
  • #20
What about a life interview with God broadcasted on every television station on earth...

Interviewer: Let us ask our first question to God. Why did you not reveal yourself earlier to us?

God: Well I did sent my son, it happened just a moment ago!

Interviewer: Well already 2000 years have happened since then

God: Well what is 2000 years on all eternity?

Interviewer: So how can we know that you actually are God?

God: Can you proof to me that you are a journalist who interviews me?

Interviewer: Ehmmm. Right. Next question then. What is your plan for humanity?

God: Well, didn't they tell that in that book of yours, how was it called again?

Interviewer: The Bible?

God: The Bible? What is that?

Interviewer: It is the most holy book that exist, in which you have revealed yourself.

God: Oh, is it? People tell so much nonsense, and believe so many nonsense. I never read it, I don't like fiction.

Interviewer: Well we have been mislead then about that.

God: I guess so, but haven't I given you brains, so you could find the truth yourself?

Interviewer: Oh, you mean we have to actually use that gray mass in our heads?

God: Well what do you think it was intended for then?

Interviewer: Ehm, well perhaps for believing, hallucinating?

God: Well it sure looks like you people have not found a good way for using your brains, except for some people them. Perhaps next time I create a consciouss being, we will ship it with a manual!

Interviewer: Thanks for the interview, your holiness.

God: You're welcome.
 
  • #21
Originally posted by Royce
Glenn, It does seem that we do have a different understanding of things. I have no idea what sect (if that's the right word) or maybe better branch of Buddhism the you subscribe to or follow. There are Buddhist who think of Buddha as another name for God. There are those who believe that the Buddha is with in every one and can only be found there. There are others that believe Buddhahood is what is found inside and still others who believe that the Buddha they seek inside is their true self and there are still others who follow Buddhism strictly as a philosophic way of life with no religious or inner seeking at all.

I am Zen Buddhist, Rinzai sect. But I have read a fair amount about Tibetan, Shin, Theravadan, Pure Land, Nicherin, Chan, and some others that have slipped my mind at the moment.

Of all, I only know of Pure Land that accepts the idea that Buddha is actual.

As we both know, Buddhism has been, primarily, a monastic religion. In such, most lay practitioners (in the east) have goten very little in the way of understanding the religion to which they ascribed. Many, many lay practitioners have an extremely skewed view of what their religion is, compared to the monks they help support. That they would see Buddha as a god isn't something that surprises me, that their priests and monks would believe so would.

I have run across the saying that the buddha is within every man and can be found only with in that I came to think of it as a basic tenet of Buddhism. Perhaps I'm wrong. Never the less as both metaphor and spiritual reality it is one of my tenets.

That you could take this a both a metaphor and reality would be consistent with your practices of Zen and Christianity. But most, I would think, consider the metaphorical to be predominate. As Buddhism doesn't have dogma, each individual arriving at their own interpretation of what Buddhism is and what it's spirituality is, is not only accepted, but inevitable. There are no wrong answers, as there would be in Christianity, where a dogma and doctrine apply, so I use the most commonly accepted views of those who practice it under the direct guidance of a teacher.
 
  • #22
A Personal Revelation

How about if God just revealed Himself to you personally?

This is the same dilemma I was in when the Jehovah's Witnesses came my to door just after I graduated from high school. I had just gotten my first job, had gotten my first apartment, and subsequently had just gotten laid off. Needless to say I was under a lot of stress. So when they came to my door I'm thinking, "What can it hurt? I might as well see what it is that they have to say." So I invited them in and they started talking about God, and the Bible, and their church, and gave me a copy of the Bible to read, and consequently I started opening up about my problems. And yet everytime I would say something, they would open up the Bible and begin to repeat verse and chapter.

And I'm thinking these people aren't even listening to me, least of all addressing what I have say. At which point I determined I wasn't going to have anything to do with them, and did what I could to avoid them until they stopped coming around. I had also determined that if there was a God, He would have to make Himself known to me personally, even if that meant suffering an eternity in hell, because there was no way I was going to accept Him based upon what these people were telling me. And sure enough just a few months later I got my answer. And, although it was through the means of another person, it was as if God had spoken to me personally, honest. This was over 28 years ago and I still believe in God today.

If there's any moral to the story it would be, don't let anybody coerce you into what to believe, and if you really do want to know, leave it as an open question, your answer should be forthcoming. And neither do I think you should expect more than a personal answer such as this, because God tends to deal with us more on an "individual level."
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Well, I think disturbed said it best "Still I'm waiting on"
 
  • #24
Originally posted by megashawn
Well, I think disturbed said it best "Still I'm waiting on"
Are you referring to me here? I would just go about my own business and not worry about it. If it happens it happens. It's not the most popular position to find yourself in anyway, because then you'll find yourself stuck in the position where you're trying to explain yourself to those who won't believe you outright, like on this forum here or, trying to explain yourself to those who say they believe, but have no grounds on which to accept it, like the people who go to church. So as a rule most people won't accept it or understand it, and you're the one stuck between a rock and a hard place.
 
  • #25
You can't prove something that doesn't exist. It's kind of difficult.
It's also kind of difficult to prove the existence of something to someone who has made up their mind that it doesn't exist.
 
  • #26
It is pointless to complain about people having their minds made up.
What I take from Windy’s post is that the first order of course for any ‘proof’ involves god making an appearance of some kind (and no, some hand-me-down story isn’t enough, nor is it enough for my neighbor to claim that he/she knows a person who knows a person who saw god). The three wishes part is to help insure the visitation isn’t just a hallucination. Any reasonable person could still find grounds for skepticism even if these conditions were met (such as what Zero touched on), but hey, I think all would have to admit that something significant took place right before their eyes. But what are the odds of that?
I don’t think it would be too great a feat for a loving god to make his existence known without all the ‘faith’ business needing to be invoked.
 
  • #27
Originally posted by Laser Eyes
It's also kind of difficult to prove the existence of something to someone who has made up their mind that it doesn't exist.

Why is it that you need to believe that atheists have closed their minds to belief in god(s). I, for one, just see no unambiguous evidence to support it.

That does bring up the question that which god should atheists believe in?

What is there that you can show me, that gives Christianity a slight lead in the balance of evidence, over say the ancient Greek theology? Why is the idea of Zeus less credible than Jehovah? Only the fact that more people believe in him - hardly an answer, given most people believed the Earth was flat at one time.

Many here have talked about a personal experience of god. I won't contradict that you had a powerful and spiritual experience, or even that it was with god. I do question the interpretation of that experience. What criteria do you use to determine that it was, in fact, god? What was the criteria used to determine that it was the god is of your religious beliefs (say vs a god that is understanding enough to love you even though he knows you're seriously mistaken)?
I didn't have your experience, I cannot judge it. However, given I didn't have your experience, don't expect me to accept it as evidence.

I do find it somewhat amazing that many, of the Christian faith (and other faiths as well, no reason to narrow the argument), assume all of their experiences support a god as described in the bible (or whatever their exact beliefs), yet dismiss the experiences of the Muslims, Jews, Hindu, and other faiths that have (as described) similar powerful and highly spiritual experiences.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Originally posted by Windy
What makes your Xian idiot god "good" and Isis "bad"?

Why, because it says so in the Bible. [tongue held firmly in cheek]

I would say that proof is perhaps, more than would be needed. I don't know about you, but many things I accept as highly probable, haven't been proven.

Some good, unambiguous evidence would be nice.
 
  • #29
Originally posted by Laser Eyes
It's also kind of difficult to prove the existence of something to someone who has made up their mind that it doesn't exist.

No, it only indicates that the "thing" to be proved does not even exists independend, outside and apart from the mind.

If one does not believe the sun exists, one can provide objective evidence that the sun exists. This holds for every real thing that exists.

But in the case of God, no such evidence has ever been given.

This is an indication that God does not exist in a form which exists objectively.

It has no stance to argue that to belief in something is proof in itself. It is only proof that one can direct one's mind into absurd ways, but provides no proof in any objective sense.

Why does one have to belief in something, if that something can be known objectively? A belief is only necessary, if no such proof exists, because the thing itself does not exist in an objective way.

So the belief in something, just indicates that it might very well be the case that the thing believed in, has no objective existence at all.

If God would exist in an objective way, knowable to everyone, no-one would belief in God, but everybody would know that God exists.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Are you referring to me here? I would just go about my own business and not worry about it. If it happens it happens. It's not the most popular position to find yourself in anyway, because then you'll find yourself stuck in the position where you're trying to explain yourself to those who won't believe you outright, like on this forum here or, trying to explain yourself to those who say they believe, but have no grounds on which to accept it, like the people who go to church. So as a rule most people won't accept it or understand it, and you're the one stuck between a rock and a hard place.


See that's just it. I've nothing to explain. I have a simple answer to any "Do you go to church or Do you believe in god/allah/jesus/buddha/zeus/santa?" I don't know.

People do take such a response odd, especially the ones who've been duped into believing in some form of superior being most there life, when you say I don't know. Responses like "How could you not know, the proof is everywhere" merely make me sick.

I discuss this here, because here one can actually make a point (or atleast attempt it) without being cutoff. I mean, have you ever tried having a debate in person about religous matters? It just does not work. It almost always degrades into a shouting match, and nothing is accomplished. Atleast here we can explain our ideas, or critic others, and hopefully build upon this. I know I've certainly changed my perspective since first coming to PF. I can thank both theists and atheists, simply for being able to get there ideas out there in a clean manner.

Frankly, in real life, if a person wants to know my perspective, and doesn't like it, to damn bad. I don't live to impress others, but more so just to live.
 
  • #31
Originally posted by Laser Eyes
I would like all those atheists or agnostics out there to state precisely what they would regard as satisfactory proof to them that God exists.

I think such a supernatural being, who obviously does not choose to offer absolute evidence to everyone, is beyond absolute proof using the available physical evidence of the world. The workings of the universe are well explained with the laws of physics, etc. and do not change from moment to moment based on divine whims. There are many mysteries left in the universe, but no obvious evidences of the Hand of God.

Certainly, unambigious/unequivocal evidence of a miracle (something that breaks the laws of physics) would make one sit up and take notice, but even that would have uncertainties (e.g., did I see/understand that event correctly?).

So, on that level, I must consider how much faith I can invest. for anyone, "satisfactory" evidence would probably be relative to their degree of faith (the more faith you have, the less evidence you require to substantiate it) and exploration of the evidence (the more you learn, the more you must consider).

For a personal feeling of absolute certainty, I probably would need, as Iacchus32 said, for God to reveal Himself to me. Without that, a leap of faith is required. And that seems to be a real roller coaster ride.

Question: Would God reveal Himself before the leap of faith is made?
 
  • #32
Originally posted by Laser Eyes
I would like all those atheists or agnostics out there to state precisely what they would regard as satisfactory proof to them that God exists.

Laser, I didn't notice this, from your post, at first. Agnostics don't believe that proof of god (or disproof of god) is possible.

Agnostic doesn't mean you haven't made up your mind (although that is how it's generally used). It was coined by a professor by the name T. H. Huxley, who defined it as someone that didn't have a belief in god's existence (theism) or non-existence(strong atheism), and didn't believe that proof or disproof of god(s) was possible.

An atheist is one who has no belief in god(s). An atheist can believe there is no god (strong atheism) or can have no belief in a god (weak atheism). By definition (Huxley's), agnostics are weak atheists, but weak atheists may or may not be agnostics.
 
  • #33
Argument For Intelligent Design 4th Rough Draft

This is an interpretation of Chris Langan's CTMU, www.ctmu.org , and Saint Anslem's ontological argument.


1.] If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.

2.]If the perfect correspondence can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional "limit", then the limit exists, even though a sentient mind within reality can only approach the limit.

3.] If the limit exists, the exact mental correspondence exists in the mind of a super-intelligence.

4.] That is to say, if the limit exists then a description exists.

5.] If the description exists then the "describer" exists, since the description is isomorphic.

6.]The describer is a super-intelligence.

7.] By definition, the super-intelligence is God.


Russell E. Rierson

analog57@peoplepc.com
 
  • #34
Argument against intelligent design

In response to the above post:

Apply the same rules to the super-intelligent entity substituting, referred to as god, substituting 'god' for reality.

Recurse as needed.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
I love this question of proof becuase both sides don't have anything, well "nonbeilvers" have perfect symetry but then "beilvers" parry that with god did it. No one's mind is willing to be open to the other sides opinions because neither side has hard proof.
You can't go on 2000 + year old facts from superstious people who had little understanding of the world compared to what we have to day. The truth is this can be debated and argued for all our lives until we die at which point we will find out who, if anyone, is right (but the atheist can't rub it in your face becuase their non-existent).

Yea so proof for me would be god comeing down from heaven and saying this "Yo dude i exist so go on with your life and perhaps worship me for a while, but don't go crazy like those bible carrying hics".
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
89
Views
14K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
3
Replies
94
Views
3K
Replies
42
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
956
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
55
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
605
Back
Top