What is Proof of Gods existence to you?

[Parsimony]

I could be reasonably convinced of anything if verifiable evidence could be provided.

 

[idea]

But, no eye witnesses wrote any of the Gospels or any Scriptures for that matter. We don't know who wrote the Gospels, and Paul never even met Jesus. So, the best you could argue would be hearsay, which is, most often, not accepted in court.

Also, you trust the hearsay witnesses in Scripture, but you deny the claims made by cult leaders who claim to speak to God, right?

Not trying to be difficult here. I am just very interested in what you are basing this all on. Why you feel so confident.

The apostles wrote much of the gospels, and Paul met his heavenly being on the road to Damascus.

I told you already, I have had my own witness, as have many others.

 

[Jumi]

For Atheists: How do you define God?What would convince you theists were right? could you be convinced?

I define god as anything that is a supernatural being with capability beyond human technology. If any such a being could be shown to be real in a way that did not involve using authority of books or people. It could potentially convince me that it existed.

I might also be convinced of a natural being with immortality, omniscience etc being a god if they could be shown to exist.

 

[Baladas]

How do you define God?

My only "god" in this sense is Nature. To me, everything is both Natural and Sacred.
Everything is a part of the greater Whole, whilst still maintaining individuality.

I find myself developing more and more animistic tendencies as time goes on...

Anyway, that is how I define "god".

What would convince you theists were right?

Concerning the major monotheistic religions:
I could be convinced that a God like Yahweh existed in some form, if I were given verifiable, unquestionable proof.
This would have to come in a pretty spectacular fashion.
The god in question would probably have to appear and outright tell me that a certain group were "right" in order for me to believe that anyone had all the answers.

Other gods I see as being more plausible, but I have little reason to assume that they exist.
Gods in the sense of "spirits" or "kami" I see as most logical.

Could you be convinced?
I could technically be convinced, but it would have to be directly through a deity, most likely not a human being, and definitely not a book.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Apparently, at this point, I am the only "Strong Agnostic." That's actually because I'm a Skeptic in the original sense, meaning I doubt the ability of humans to answer most major questions in anything other than a provisional manner. I don't think humans are in a position to judge whether or not a universal deity exists--I can't imagine what sort of test we could devise and understand (or other evidence) that would allow us to incontrovertibly conclude that such a being exists.

On the other hand, lesser deities could be evidenced in a number of ways, although whether they are "gods and goddesses" or "merely" advanced sentient aliens, etc., would still be open for debate. Again, I'm not sure how humans could tell the difference between, say, a galactic-scale deity and one that is over a cluster of galaxies.

 

[Bunyip]

Amending this somewhat, as indicated by the brackets, because I do not follow the one-god of the Abrahamic religions (which is, God, in proper case, singular).



I use a culturally-neutral, religiously-inclusive understanding of the word "gods." Devoid of ethnocentric biases, "gods" are that which a person or culture deems worthy of worship.

May I ask where you get that definition from? Because I don't think that there are any atheists under that definition

. What attributes gods have beyond that depends entirely on what is being deified, or what specific type of theism we are talking about. Basically, there are no attributes gods are "supposed to" have or "need" to have – all such designations are specific cultural or personal understandings of that which is deified. To use a specific example, it's commonly assumed in my culture that gods

must be supernatural. This is not the case. Gods are whatever a person or culture deems worthy of worship. It's worth noting that in many cases, the things a person or culture deifies may not be called "gods" but by some other language-specific term.

"Worship" is understood to be worth-ship, or designating something to be of special or significant value. A deified aspect of reality holds a position of great respect, honor, and reverence to that person or that culture. It also typically means that the thing deemed worthy of worth-ship is honored with expressions of gratitude and thankfulness. The specifics of worship take many, many forms.

Absolutely nothing could convince me that atheists are right. Deeming something worthy of worship is an exercise in personal and/or cultural values. It's a matter of preferences and a creation of life-meaningfulness based on your own experiences. Honestly, I don't believe in atheists. I don't believe there is a single human being on the planet who doesn't hold something in high esteem or honor. I only believe in people who choose to not use the word "gods" to describe those things. That is the only distinction I see between theists and atheists: the use of the word "gods" (or some equivalent term like "kami" or "spirits").

Creating a unique definition of atheism that does not even relate to a belief in God in order to separate yourself from other atheists seems rather extraordinary.

 

[Bunyip]

It's not.

That said, in a multicultural society, having a term that means "rejects/lacks/disbelieves in god(s)" without specifying precisely which god-concept one is talking about is extremely problematic. A case in point: I never assume someone is atheistic with respect to my theology, because the result is not just extremely unflattering, but downright inaccurate with respect to what that person likely means to convey to me.

Well atheism relates to whatever God is being proposed. Usually the God in question is Yahweh, unless specified otherwise.
So say you are talking to a person who identifies as atheist, you can assume that they like you are atheist in relation to Yahweh unless they specify otherwise.

 

[Bunyip]

I wouldn't need proof of Gods existence, just some reliable evidence.

 

[jeager106]

I wouldn't need proof of Gods existence, just some reliable evidence.

Curious? What would constitute "reliable evidence"?
An answer to a prayer perhaps?

 

[Bunyip]

Curious? What would constitute "reliable evidence"?
An answer to a prayer perhaps?

Well yes I guess that could work. Some sort of convincing logical argument, physical evidence and so on.

If God exists and has any kind of significance, it would have some sort of effect on the physical universe - and that would be detectable.

 

[Willamena]

For Atheists: How do you define God?

The question is harder than it looks. I rather like Joseph Campbell's idea that god is not something we see with our eyes, but our eyes seeing: the ontological world that our knowledge, imagination and biases interpret. He mentioned a god for everyone, and everyone getting the god that they deserve. As far as I am concerned, being the self-centred person that I've always been, the god that I deserve does not differ from me, nor I from the world that my eyes know and interpret.

What would convince you theists were right?

If "god' were shown to be something other than me.

 

[Willamena]

Apparently, at this point, I am the only "Strong Agnostic." That's actually because I'm a Skeptic in the original sense, meaning I doubt the ability of humans to answer most major questions in anything other than a provisional manner. I don't think humans are in a position to judge whether or not a universal deity exists--I can't imagine what sort of test we could devise and understand (or other evidence) that would allow us to incontrovertibly conclude that such a being exists.

On the other hand, lesser deities could be evidenced in a number of ways, although whether they are "gods and goddesses" or "merely" advanced sentient aliens, etc., would still be open for debate. Again, I'm not sure how humans could tell the difference between, say, a galactic-scale deity and one that is over a cluster of galaxies.

From that, could you extrapolate a definition of god?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

From that, could you extrapolate a definition of god?

Well, the universal omni-max personal creator deity advanced as the Judeo-Christian deity is the kind of thing I doubt humans could know about. Think about it: if some entity came to humanity and said--in some detectable, replicable manner--that it was the creator of the universe (as science currently shows it, hundreds of billions to an infinite number of light-years in extent), how would we be able to test that? What proofs would we be able to ask that would prove to us that the entity was indeed such a deity? Maybe there is some sort of test, but I haven't yet heard anyone explain what evidence would be adequate to demonstrate such a deity.

Any entity that came to us, and performed miracles and did other things to prove that they exist and have powers far beyond us mere humans, could be a universal deity--or a limited sub-universal deity--or a still more limited "regional" or "local" deity--or a very advanced sentient race. There may in fact be no difference. How could we tell? Humans are too limited, in our ability to perceive and conceive, to be able to tell anything for certain about something that can do things that we cannot, unless it is only a little beyond what we are capable of. As scifi writer Arthur Clarke said, any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from magic, and someone else extended that to any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from nature. We might be able to detect and learn some things about such beings, but there would be very little we could do to test most of their claims.

 

[Willamena]

Well, the universal omni-max personal creator deity advanced as the Judeo-Christian deity is the kind of thing I doubt humans could know about. Think about it: if some entity came to humanity and said--in some detectable, replicable manner--that it was the creator of the universe (as science currently shows it, hundreds of billions to an infinite number of light-years in extent), how would we be able to test that? What proofs would we be able to ask that would prove to us that the entity was indeed such a deity? Maybe there is some sort of test, but I haven't yet heard anyone explain what evidence would be adequate to demonstrate such a deity.

Any entity that came to us, and performed miracles and did other things to prove that they exist and have powers far beyond us mere humans, could be a universal deity--or a limited sub-universal deity--or a still more limited "regional" or "local" deity--or a very advanced sentient race. There may in fact be no difference. How could we tell? Humans are too limited, in our ability to perceive and conceive, to be able to tell anything for certain about something that can do things that we cannot, unless it is only a little beyond what we are capable of. As scifi writer Arthur Clarke said, any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from magic, and someone else extended that to any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from nature. We might be able to detect and learn some things about such beings, but there would be very little we could do to test most of their claims.

Let me start again.

Apparently, at this point, I am the only "Strong Agnostic." That's actually because I'm a Skeptic in the original sense, meaning I doubt the ability of humans to answer most major questions in anything other than a provisional manner. I don't think humans are in a position to judge whether or not a universal deity exists--I can't imagine what sort of test we could devise and understand (or other evidence) that would allow us to incontrovertibly conclude that such a being exists.

On the other hand, lesser deities could be evidenced in a number of ways, although whether they are "gods and goddesses" or "merely" advanced sentient aliens, etc., would still be open for debate. Again, I'm not sure how humans could tell the difference between, say, a galactic-scale deity and one that is over a cluster of galaxies.

God is:
- something humans are not in a position to judge
- something for which a test could not be devised
- something for which a test, even if it was devised, could not be understood
- a being, but not "lesser deities"

So I was just wondering, from that, what "god" is to you.

 

[Quintessence]

May I ask where you get that definition from?

[/COLOR][/FONT]

Common sense, personal observation through familiarity with a wide array of god-concepts. There are no agreed upon attributes of gods amongst the world's theologies. The only thing that all god-concepts can be said to have in common seems to be that gods are things deified, or considered worthy of worth-ship. Well, there might be a few other aspects, but I hesitate to add them to the list.

One is that god-concepts world over have some element of the sublime to them. It's something that is awe-inspiring or grand. Phrases such as "higher power" may be used to designate that. My reluctance to insert "sublime" into that definition stem from the fact that it's not strictly necessary to experience awe to deify something... it is simply an extraordinarily common reason why people and cultures deify something.

Two might be that the thing worthy of worth-ship is in some fashion other-than-human. As with the above, while this is extraordinarily common in most forms of theism, it is not the case for various forms of autotheism or things like ancestor worship.

Because I don't think that there are any atheists under that definition

Well, the more I mull things over, the less and less I accept the notion of there being a relevant distinction between "theism" and "atheism" unless one is talking about a very specific god-concept. But that wasn't intentional with the definition. I've been using this definition for quite a long time now. I've yet to find anything better that retains cultural neutrality and lack of ethnocentrism, which tacking crap on like "gods must be supernatural" or "gods must be transcendent" does.

Creating a unique definition of atheism that does not even relate to a belief in God in order to separate yourself from other atheists seems rather extraordinary.

Huh?

 

[Levite]

I do not believe there is such a thing as objective proof of God's existence, or His non-existence. That is why both theism and true atheism (not just skeptical agnosticism) are beliefs.

I have reasons that I believe in God, and I find them persuasive enough that I do not believe that skeptics or atheists or anti-theists could dissuade me from believing as I do. But the reasons I have that constitute "proof" for me are entirely subjective. They would not constitute proof for another, since they are a combination of beliefs I have chosen to embrace and personal spiritual experience. And I believe this is the case with everyone. People who claim to have unassailable objective proof of God's existence are just as full of hot air as those who claim to have unassailable objective proof that God does not exist.

There's a reason that religions are called faiths, not sciences. Sooner or later, either you make a choice to believe, or you don't.

 

[LuisDantas]

I get the impression that Athiests tend to dominate the debates on RF, and that many theists get fed up of the atheist retort..."where's your proof!" I get the feeling that there is a major breakdown in communication between theists and atheists and that we are infact talking about completely different things and have very different ideas of what "proof" is. To test this theory I have provided a poll to see if a majority of atheists and theists would actually change their mind.

It seems to me that it is so nearly exclusively because many theists insist that Believing In God Is Very Necessary.

Most atheists, understandably enough, will indeed demand proof that they must somehow feel in the wrong.

That said, there are indeed wildly mismatched understandings around about what a deity would be, what belief in its existence would entail, and how serious if at all it is not to hold such a belief. However, for the most part the mismatch seems to me to be internal to theists, although not entirely.

For Atheists: How do you define God?

In practice I do not. One of these days I will make my list of a dozen or so constrasting, even conflicting definitions.

I am not personally interested in any of those, none whatsoever. I do want to have the means to identify what others are talking about and defend myself from their claims when need comes.

What would convince you theists were right? could you be convinced?

Shortest answer: Nothing.

Not so short answer: Which theists? It is plain to see that their beliefs are very much at odds with those of other theists. It is all-out impossible for them all to be right, and in matters of actual importance they face more serious internal conflicts than one would guess from their insistence on the importance of belief in God.

More complete answer:

Depending on which group of theists we are talking about, I may even agree with them already, except for not agreeing on the idea that there are actual deities (which does not necessarily mean that I find them wrong; I just disagree on that minor, very personal matter).

Other theists are wrong and will remain so even if it somehow turns out there there is a God that closely matches their beliefs or scriptures.

Depressingly often I am presented with god concepts that I could only despise and make a point of disregarding even if I knew for a fact that they exist as presented and will somehow condemn me or disapprove of... my existence, I guess.

Still, it is just about conceivable that I could meet some group of believers that shows convincing evidence of attaining wisdom and compassion from their theistic beliefs specifically as opposed from other parts of their religious practices and beliefs (although I don't really believe that to be at all likely) .

That, I suppose, would mean that they are right on the matter of the validity of their deity - at least for those specific people - and perhaps even on that of its existence as well (although that is a more difficult matter to settle).

In order to convince me that such a benevolent, effective deity is also literally real as opposed to symbolic or inspirational (which I strongly suspect to be the proper role of deities)... I suppose I would need to see meaningful miracles of some sort. Things that I have literally never heard of and don't expect ever to. Say, people in the Middle East drinking from a holy river while praying and then acquiring unmistakable wisdom, engaging in very meaningful conversations about practical matters with their friends and families, accepting previously difficult decisions and renounces with a smile and an open heart, and deciding to actually change the world for better, Abdul Ghaffar Khan-style.

If I met such people, saw them imbued with the actual wisdom and ability to drive the hatred and misery away from the hearts of those who oppose them out of the sheer honesty of their courage and actions... if I saw that work, so that militarism, nationalism, ethnical conflict and economical cruelty began to truly dissolve for good... and if it happened in such a context that made it clearly a supernatural act or one closely associated to their prayers and theistic beliefs... then I guess I would consider believing in that god myself.

That would surprise the heck out of me and feel at least a bit odd, probably. But in those circunstances it would be entirely worth it.

For Agnostics: How do you define God? Do you feel that agnosticism is because atheists or theists have made inadequate arguements? Or are you agnostic for reasons other than arguments for theism and atheism? (e.g. strong agnostics believing that the question of gods existence is insoluable in principle).

I used to call myself agnostic. I don't really any longer, mainly because it has become too clear to me that there is not a functional, generic conception of God to be used as the basis for a functional understanding of agnosticism.

 

[EshetChayil]

For Theists: How do you define God?

This is a great thread! I'm loving these answers.

I define G!d, first by acknowledging that no human being can define G!d, and that the nature of G!d far transcends man's conception or ability to conceive of it.

I can start by stating what G!d, to me, is not. Hashem is not a man, woman, or material being, but is within men, women, and all material reality. Hashem is also not a cruel dictator, given to bouts of laughter and rage, punishing us for giving into our temptations.

Everything can be used as proof of G!d's existence, and nothing can. There is no proof, and there is every proof. It's a moot argument. But for me, the proof is only in the direct experience of Him, which comes, for some, through meditation and prayer, and is remembered in the experience of love.

I see Hashem as the force of love that created, is creating, and continuously sustains creation. He is what unites all life in interconnectivity, and I suspect that He also is the interconnectivity. I've also taken to calling Him the Divine Mystery, because ultimately that's all that He/She/It can be to us as long as we are on this side of the observable universe.

What would convince you atheists were right?

I guess I would need to have empirical proof that the universe created itself and provides its own life force. But I would also suggest that theism and atheism are more of the dualist black and white attitude that gets us into trouble in the first place; I am not purely a theistic because in order for me to tell you whether I believe in G!d, I would need you to qualify your definition of G!d. I find that a lot of atheists and I agree on many of the 'usual' definitions of G!d, and that that gd does not exist.

Could you be convinced?

In terms of my own definition, there's only one real way I could be convinced not to believe, and that would entail a debunking of each of my personal experiences in such a way that the spiritual nature of those experiences was completely and unequivocally attributed to something else, something psychological, visual, whatever.

Even then, though, I would probably still choose faith, because it is my heart, not my brain, that convinces me of G!d's existence.

 

[arthra]

I am open to the possibility of a "god" which does not have the absolute qualities of an abrahamic one- as a being with physical limitations fits as more plausible in my own beliefs. So, maybe God is an alien race or something?

What would convince you theists were right?

I would recommend you study and consider the social and historic background of religion and from there assess how the teachings of religion have had an effect.... Arnold Toynbee had such an approach to civilizations... Also you might read Caesar and Christ by Will Durant.Being a Baha'i and interested in history and society I'd also recommend "The Dawn-Breakers":

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/365092.The_Dawn_Breakers

 

[Bunyip]

[/COLOR][/FONT]

Common sense, personal observation through familiarity with a wide array of god-concepts. There are no agreed upon attributes of gods amongst the world's theologies. The only thing that all god-concepts can be said to have in common seems to be that gods are things deified, or considered worthy of worth-ship. Well, there might be a few other aspects, but I hesitate to add them to the list.

Why go through such gymnastics? Why not just ask which God is being discussed? When I identify as atheist - I, like most atheists am referring to the Christian God. If you are in a conversation with somebody in relation to atheism and it is not Yahweh being discussed - just ask them to specify.

One is that god-concepts world over have

some element of the sublime to them. It's something that is awe-inspiring or grand. Phrases such as "higher power" may be used to designate that. My reluctance to insert "sublime" into that definition stem from the fact that it's not strictly necessary to experience awe to deify something... it is simply an extraordinarily common reason why people and cultures deify something.

Two might be that the thing worthy of worth-ship is in some fashion other-than-human. As with the above, while this is extraordinarily common in most forms of theism, it is not the case for various forms of autotheism or things like ancestor worship.



Well, the more I mull things over, the less and less I accept the notion of there being a relevant distinction between "theism" and "atheism" unless one is talking about a very specific god-concept.

Of course - that is why you need to specify which god is being discussed, which , akes far more sense than your inventing a definition of atheism that is so broad is loses all meaning.

But that wasn't intentional with the definition. I've been using this definition for quite a long time now. I've yet to find anything better that retains cultural neutrality and lack of ethnocentrism, which tacking crap on like "gods must be supernatural" or "gods must be transcendent" does.

Huh?

But the god atheism rejects (Yahweh) is a supernatural and transcendant God concept.

Atheism refers to an absence of belief in God, not 'whatever a person worships'.