What would convince you of God's existence?

[PolyHedral]

Couldn't "spontaneity" be an indicator of a cause that has not yet been identified?

No. Well, "no" if you want to hold on to the idea that no signal can travel faster than light. (If you, for the sake of argument, abandon this idea, General Relativity says you can end up with effects preceding their causes, so it doesn't help much.) Bell's theorem is a mathematical proof that any theory must either be uncertain, so we end up with totally random effects with no causes, or involve signals traveling faster than light, so we end up with no causality. There are totally random effects that are not caused by anything before them.

 

[Eliot Wild]

I don't know about that. I thought his conclusion that nothing should be inferred about "God" from aesthetic judgements a sound one.

Okay, now you're just wanting to argue because I disagreed with your conclusions in quantum physics. You drive me craaaaaazy!! But I like ya.

I'll give you one. Okay, so maybe he did have a point when he said, "Truth is, we can project onto the universe any opinion we want, but in the end, it will have no effect on God's existence in actuality."

That he's probably right about. But, I am currently trying to disprove that seemingly sound axiom as we speak by affecting God's existence with my opinions. I am trying to opinion Him into existence. I'll let you know if it works.

 

[LuisDantas]

What would you consider proof of God's existence?

Either a world where suffering isn't often pointless or some sort of very convincing personal revelation, I guess. That might be enough, I'm not sure.

Do you believe that your "proof" would convince the majority of rational thinking people?

The first kind of proof probably would. The second, by definition, can't.

 

[Willamena]

No. Well, "no" if you want to hold on to the idea that no signal can travel faster than light. (If you, for the sake of argument, abandon this idea, General Relativity says you can end up with effects preceding their causes, so it doesn't help much.) Bell's theorem is a mathematical proof that any theory must either be uncertain, so we end up with totally random effects with no causes, or involve signals traveling faster than light, so we end up with no causality. There are totally random effects that are not caused by anything before them.

Interesting, thanks. Is an effect that precedes a cause not still a description of "cause and effect"?

 

[WanderingSoul]

Either a world where suffering isn't often pointless or some sort of very convincing personal revelation, I guess. That might be enough, I'm not sure.

The first kind of proof probably would. The second, by definition, can't.

In regard to the suffering, let me ask a question. Why would such a world convince you of the existence of God? If it were a merely a fact of nature (no indiscriminate suffering) then how does one deduce God from that?

And you say that "The first kind of proof" could be proven by you. Heck, I'd settle for how you would convince yourself, and forget the rest.

I'm more interested in the revelation "proof." Let me ask, how would you know for certain that your revelatory experience was truly of God, and not, let's say, merely a powerful spiritual entity playing a funny trick, in a universe in which God does not exist?

 

[PolyHedral]

Interesting, thanks. Is an effect that precedes a cause not still a description of "cause and effect"?

It is, but it leads to "paradoxes." For instance, A can cause B can cause C, which then takes advantage of General Relativity, and causes A. Now we've still got a chain of effects with no original cause, but it's a lot harder to notice.

 

[LuisDantas]

In regard to the suffering, let me ask a question. Why would such a world convince you of the existence of God?

As I said, I'm not sure it would. In fact, there is a good chance that such a world wouldn't even have the concept of a God.

If it were a merely a fact of nature (no indiscriminate suffering) then how does one deduce God from that?

That would be the most significant of all conceivable evidences of His existence, now wouldn't it?

And you say that "The first kind of proof" could be proven by you. Heck, I'd settle for how you would convince yourself, and forget the rest.

I did not say that I could prove it. It would prove itself.

As for convincing myself, what would the point be? Why would I even attempt to?

Remember, I see no need for anyone to believe in God.

I'm more interested in the revelation "proof." Let me ask, how would you know for certain that your revelatory experience was truly of God, and not, let's say, merely a powerful spiritual entity playing a funny trick, in a universe in which God does not exist?

I wouldn't. It is strictly a matter of aesthetics, remember?

Ultimately, it is only of personal importance if I believe in God or not. And it is of even less importance if it is a true God or something else.

 

[ninerbuff]

[/b]

Gosh, you're sooo demanding.

But let me ask a serious question:

Why do you perceive that event as proof of God? It seems to be an argument from ignorance, to me. You saw people pray, and then an event that seems to defy logical explanation occurs. Great! But how does that prove the existence of a supreme being?

Some might argue that the real healing event was caused by the good-will of the prayers. Or that the person healed theirself.

My feeling is this: You seem to be trying to solve the mystery of one miracle by introducing another miracle: The miracle of God's existence.

But really, you haven't solved anything, you only made the problem more difficult.

It's NEVER happened. Countless people have attributed "healing" to god from prayers, except amputees or people born without limbs.
So how could it be a more difficult problem if it's NEVER happened? Feel the way you want about it, but I would think that would at the very least show positive proof that some entity heard and responded. But I ain't holding my breath.

 

[WanderingSoul]

It's NEVER happened. Countless people have attributed "healing" to god from prayers, except amputees or people born without limbs.
So how could it be a more difficult problem if it's NEVER happened? Feel the way you want about it, but I would think that would at the very least show positive proof that some entity heard and responded. But I ain't holding my breath.

It's just that I feel the same way about your desired miracle as I do about all miracles. Miracles by definition defy logical explanation. If I remember, C.S. Lewis defined a miracle as a divinely caused event. For me, that's like putting the cart before the horse. A miracle to me is an event for which there is no rational explanation.

If amputees start growing limbs as a result of prayer, then I feel we are no closer to sure knowledge of God than in the absence of such miracles. It's an argument from ignorance.

Maybe if you could present an argument with the premise that such a miracle occurred in truth, then maybe you can help me understand. I'm curious to know how your argument will overcome reasoned skepticism and lead us to God.

And finally, is this a backhanded way of saying that God cannot be "proven" unless he starts healing amputees? or were you simply trying to set your parameters of belief with just one example?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

It's NEVER happened. Countless people have attributed "healing" to god from prayers, except amputees or people born without limbs.
So how could it be a more difficult problem if it's NEVER happened? Feel the way you want about it, but I would think that would at the very least show positive proof that some entity heard and responded. But I ain't holding my breath.

It seems strange to me that you ask for a response, when a response has already been given. Just because it is not the way you want it, or think it should be, doesn't mean it's not there.

Instead of asking for God to do things that you want, perhaps you should ask to see whatever it is you're not seeing right now. Then you might realize what is missing isn't from God's end.

 

[PolyHedral]

It seems strange to me that you ask for a response, when a response has already been given. Just because it is not the way you want it, or think it should be, doesn't mean it's not there.

Instead of asking for God to do things that you want, perhaps you should ask to see whatever it is you're not seeing right now. Then you might realize what is missing isn't from God's end.

Remember, the mind is capable of amazing things.

 

[1AOA1]

It seems strange to me that you ask for a response, when a response has already been given. Just because it is not the way you want it, or think it should be, doesn't mean it's not there.

Instead of asking for God to do things that you want, perhaps you should ask to see whatever it is you're not seeing right now. Then you might realize what is missing isn't from God's end.

Why doesn't the ocean flood my house while wearing a tutu? :canoe:

 

[Thief]

And god does not need a cause why exactly?

The word...'why'.... implies reasoning...an intellectual motivation.

Perhaps He did have something to think about.
But without a description of the 'void'....in words a human can understand...
it's not likely we can.

I suspect that's where most people falter on the idea that God ......
caused all things.

Everyone here at the forum...both sides of the fence lay on God....
their own necessities and assume the same of Him.

But that would make Him something less than God...would it not?

What science cannot do...is return to the singularity and be sure of it.

All motion is relative.
But a singularity has nothing to be relative to.

Equations don't work in such a void....no light....no form....

Still, we have the effect...all around us.

There is a Cause for it.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Remember, the mind is capable of amazing things.

That it is.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Why doesn't the ocean flood my house while wearing a tutu? :canoe:

Why are you asking this?

 

[ninerbuff]

It's just that I feel the same way about your desired miracle as I do about all miracles. Miracles by definition defy logical explanation. If I remember, C.S. Lewis defined a miracle as a divinely caused event. For me, that's like putting the cart before the horse. A miracle to me is an event for which there is no rational explanation.

If amputees start growing limbs as a result of prayer, then I feel we are no closer to sure knowledge of God than in the absence of such miracles. It's an argument from ignorance.

Maybe if you could present an argument with the premise that such a miracle occurred in truth, then maybe you can help me understand. I'm curious to know how your argument will overcome reasoned skepticism and lead us to God.

And finally, is this a backhanded way of saying that God cannot be "proven" unless he starts healing amputees? or were you simply trying to set your parameters of belief with just one example?

Apparently jesus raised the dead with the help of god. And the many stories of blind able to see, lame able to walk, food to feed thousands from little, etc. are "miracolous" stories of god's power. So why not have an amputee grow limbs? This ought to be an easy feat from an all powerful entity.

 

[cottage]

Yes, it must be the case the God could communicate its existence if it chose to do so; I agree.

I'll say here, that many people claim to have had a God "experience"; most while living, others during an NDE. Incidentally, I ask, are you convinced by their testimonies of God's existence? I doubt it; neither would I be.

It seems then, what you are saying is, that God is capable of proving its existence, but then you end with, "But even if the proof is entirely sufficient for me to belief in God, it doesn’t follow from my belief that ‘God exists’ is true."

Interesting, because you are declaring your own ability to "doubt" greater than God's ability to "convince." This seems to contradict the expressed conviction that God CAN convey its existence. You did say God "...must have that ability..." to prove itself, remember? Further, it seems to contradict commonsense, in thinking your doubtful nature to be superior to God's alleged omnipotence.

Which is it? Can God convince you of its existence, or can't it?

Yes, yes, yes! Of course he can, as I've already made abundantly plain.

Remember the question: 'What would convince you of God's existence.'

What I'm saying is if God is God then it is contradictory to say he hasn't the ablility to convince me he exists. So if I'm convinced, I'm convinced. Okay so far?
But:

"But even if the proof is entirely sufficient for me to belief in God, it doesn’t follow from my belief that ‘God exists’ is true."

So I'm entirely convinced, but no matter how intense my experience, or my belief, it is only my experience. But how I am to claim that my personal experience informs of the truth? One who says God told him to go out and kill is considered mentally ill because it conflicts with society’s mores, i.e. it isn’t what we consider normal and the nature of that belief is harmful or threatening to humanity at large. Yet the person who speaks of God killing uses the same apparatus as one who speaks of God loving. We have no way of verifying the supposed truth source of the perceptions. So from my utter conviction that God exists it is not the case that 'God exists' is true. If 'God exists' were a demonstrable truth, or if every single person believed 'God exists' is true just as they believe they exist, then the proposition would be self affirming - but it is not! Therefore 'God exists' is only true for me (or it would be if God had convinced me).

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

I think there are three way tomake them belive something
1. by thier five senses.
2. by reasoning.
3. by true hisitory(something happened in the past and it had been witnessed by others and transmitted to us in correct way)

 

[WanderingSoul]

Apparently jesus raised the dead with the help of god. And the many stories of blind able to see, lame able to walk, food to feed thousands from little, etc. are "miracolous" stories of god's power. So why not have an amputee grow limbs? This ought to be an easy feat from an all powerful entity.

I never made Christianity a condition of belief for God; that's something you are introducing on your own. But as long as you brought it up, do you believe in God because of the alleged miracles of Christ? Apparently not, because you are hoping for an amputee miracle to convince you. You do, however, feel free to use the Bible miracles as a reason to expect that God should do more of the same today, only of a different flavor, perhaps. In-other-words, you don't accept the bible trash as proof of God, but still use it as a reason to expect that God should be perfectly willing to do more of the same. You reject the miracles, but expect God to perform more of the miracles you reject before you will believe.

First, in theory, even if the Jesus miracles are true, there's nothing to say that God has to heal amputees. So God could still exist in the absence of such a healing.

More importantly, I never said that one should have to consider any alleged Bible miracles in any "proof" of God. If you want to accept those Jesus miracles as true, then that's your prerogative, and you already have your proof. However, if you reject them as false, then they make a poor foundation for argument, for or against God. (Unless you are talking about the Christian God, I suppose)

Really, I finish that thought with, I don't know why you think raising the dead and healing the blind to be any less amazing than growing limbs. Further, a person can find any number of "miracles" that God has yet to perform, and say, "See, we can't prove God yet, because that miracle as not yet occurred in the name of God." Had it been the case that, in the NT, an amputee had grown limbs, you would have asked for a liver or a spleen.

Which is it? Do you believe in the Christ miracles as your proof of God? and if not, then I would ask, don't use them as a reason to expect God to provide you with more of the same, to satisfy your penchant for limbs.

 

[WanderingSoul]

I said: If it were merely a fact of nature (No indiscriminate suffering) then how does one deduce God from that?


You said:

That would be the most significant of all conceivable evidences of His existence, now wouldn't it?

Reply: No, I don't think so. If that's all humanity had ever known, then they would have no reason to be surprised by it all, anymore than we should be surprised by what we see in our current reality.

Maybe I misunderstood you. Did you mean that if humanity prayed to God for no suffering and bam! there was no more suffering, then god has been proven for you?

If so, then could you please show me the argument that proves the God that effected that world-wide change? You may be able to do it, I have no idea. I just want to see what that argument looks like.