What would convince you of God's existence?

[LuisDantas]

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


You said:


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 so. But why would it be a problem? Is there any reason why humanity must be surprised by the supposed existence of God?

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?

That would be a minimum, not necessarily enough.

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.

It would be a heck of a coincidence, now wouldn't it?

Although, truth be told, I'm not sure it is possible to convince me of God's existence at all. It may well be that I understand the concept all too well to actually believe in it.

 

[WanderingSoul]

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).

Okay, I got you, that went right over my head the first time; I'm talking about your line I colorized above.

Right, that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? In theory, one can be totally convinced that they have had a true revelation of God, but they could still be wrong. This really does place the problem in a larger philosophical context of, how can we be sure of anything?

I can say to myself, I know, that I know, that I know....

But logically, I can make a list of reasons to dismiss the experience as something other than God. I know, but darned if I can prove it!

There needs to be something in our cognition that connects the experience with the true God that caused it, and with the same certainty that 2+2=4. You know what I think it is?

Intuition.:yes:

Currently I accept intuition as the cognitive act that connects our finite brain with the transcendent God. More specifically, I like to call it a concrete intuition. That intuition, derived from the experience divinely caused, is no less certain than than all certainties the mind can conjure. That is the heart of the experience as it occurs in our brain; though in truth, the event is a miracle, divinely caused, and so defies rational explanation, as all miracles do.

I'll be bold and add, I think this divinely caused, intuitive experience is the only way that God could ever be consciously known, now and forever. There can be only ONE "proof": Personally experiencing God, and intuitively knowing, without doubt, that it truly was God.

That's it; that's my theory.

How long do you think it will be until the other kids beat me to death?

 

[waitasec]

I'm short on time today, but I still want to start a new thread with these 2 questions:

What would you consider proof of God's existence?

And...

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

Thanks!

objective empirical evidence...since the ideal of god goes beyond our natural senses we would need to have a new sense developed...

yes.

 

[WanderingSoul]

Maybe so. But why would it be a problem? Is there any reason why humanity must be surprised by the supposed existence of God?

That would be a minimum, not necessarily enough.

It would be a heck of a coincidence, now wouldn't it?

An indeterminate number of "coincidences" occur every day, do they prove God? How big does a coincidence have to be before one can say," That's just too big a coincidence to be...a COINCIDENCE!":drool:

News flash: Really big coincidence proves God's existence!

Since god is not known to be detectable via our senses, scientists have no idea yet of the true essence of God, or where it is, or where it came from, or how old it is, or even if God had intended for us to know of its existence, or if it was all just one big...um...coincidence.

Please stay tuned for further details!:drool:

 

[WanderingSoul]

objective empirical evidence...since the ideal of god goes beyond our natural senses we would need to have a new sense developed...

yes.

"Objective empirical evidence."

Could you elaborate with an example or two?

And why do we need to develop a new "sense?"

Are you saying that the god of the universe can not do the work of a child and convey its existence to me if it wants to?

 

[WanderingSoul]

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)

Okay, fine, I'm with you.

Now to the problem. In which of those three will proof of God be found, and can you give me an idea what that proof would "look" like?

For example, if you witnessed an apparent answer to prayer, has God been proven? If a famous group of scientists came to you and said, we have scientific proof of God, then how would you verify their testimony? If you were presented with a "true" history that included claimed miracles of God, then how do you prove those miracles to be true, when by definition, miracles can't be proven?

 

[ninerbuff]

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.

I don't understand how you think. If I heard that a guy could take a spear and lay his neck with his full weight on it and not get pierced I would disbelieve it unless I saw it. I did actually see it happen live (in Chinatown San Francisco) and was even the one to examine the spear. So in this case common logic indicated it's possible. But again had it just been something that someone told me, I would have thought that it would have been a trick. At the very least I saw proof.
I hear the stories of christ and god, and have seen NO PROOF. If I ask that god prove to me his "power" by healing an amputee (since apparently this isn't a hard feat to an all powerful being) then why can't I use that as a reason? To make someone believe something, you show them proof it can be done or is doable.

 

[WanderingSoul]

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.

I thought that only worked if you could witness God, much like that cat...um...what's its name? oh, you know.

Not long ago I pretended to read a book about time. I think it was called, "From Eternity to Here." In it, the author tried to elucidate that quantum stuff using a cat (you know the one); anyway, he said that if I spy on that cat's routine, I can affect its wave pattern, and ultimately its existence, or my perception of its existence. (I'm not sure which) Anyway, I don't like cats, so I didn't learn much.

I'm still grappling with the baby-butt rocket scenario, where if two travellers rocket off at the same moment, and then cruise spacetime at different speeds, their same "arrival" event will end with clocks of different times. My brain is having a hard time with that concept.

It seems to me that time is really little more than a self-imposed illusion, peculiar to the timeline one happens to be travelling. I know there is supposed to be something called the "arrow of time," and entropy supports that, but only if one is constrained to one particular timeline. For God, there would be no past, present, or future; only one ever-present "NOW," because God is not restricted to any one timeline.

Seriously, I don't know, I'm just practicing my typing.

Quantum mechanics. Good grief. If you guys know that crap, I'm in the wrong class.

 

[LuisDantas]

An indeterminate number of "coincidences" occur every day, do they prove God?

No. In fact, they fall way short.

How big does a coincidence have to be before one can say," That's just too big a coincidence to be...a COINCIDENCE!":drool:

News flash: Really big coincidence proves God's existence!

Since god is not known to be detectable via our senses, scientists have no idea yet of the true essence of God, or where it is, or where it came from, or how old it is, or even if God had intended for us to know of its existence, or if it was all just one big...um...coincidence.

Please stay tuned for further details!:drool:

I'm not sure what your point would be. People are free to believe in God and even to ascribe coincidences and supposed miracles to his will.

It is still true that no true evidence of his existence does exist.

 

[WanderingSoul]

I don't understand how you think. If I heard that a guy could take a spear and lay his neck with his full weight on it and not get pierced I would disbelieve it unless I saw it. I did actually see it happen live (in Chinatown San Francisco) and was even the one to examine the spear. So in this case common logic indicated it's possible. But again had it just been something that someone told me, I would have thought that it would have been a trick. At the very least I saw proof.
I hear the stories of christ and god, and have seen NO PROOF. If I ask that god prove to me his "power" by healing an amputee (since apparently this isn't a hard feat to an all powerful being) then why can't I use that as a reason? To make someone believe something, you show them proof it can be done or is doable.

A clip: If I ask that god prove to me his "power" by healing an amputee (since apparently this isn't a hard feat to an all powerful being) then why can't I use that as a reason? To make someone believe something, you show them proof it can be done or is doable.

Well, I have to say first that, God as the supreme power, would not have to bend its will to suit your expectations, as nice as that would be for all of us. There's nothing to say that God has to do anything to satisfy your curiosity, or anyone else's. Can you imagine God having to check in with you before it acted? I think I'd feel a little nervous about such a God.

Look, if you want to pronounce God non-existent due to lack of evidence, then why not just go all the way and point out all the evil and suffering in the world? I can think of so many more reasons to NOT believe in God than amputees, can't you? A person can get by without a knowledge of God or a limb, as so many atheists and amputees will attest; but we must have food, shelter, and water, and some measure of love to be as healthy as a truly healthy person can be. Yet so many in the world lack those things, right?

Why have you made this your one big test for God's existence? Do you have a loved one with a missing limb?

And that spear story: Well, if that guy told you that the spear "miracle" was in the name of God, would you believe in God? or would you have asked him to grow a limb first?

Your spear story was to show the importance of "proof," and I agree, there should be good evidence for the things we believe. But even if you saw an amputee grow limbs in response to Godly prayer, how do you logically deduce from that event a supreme being? Please give me a line-by-line argument, and show me the power of your inference.

 

[WanderingSoul]

[/b]
I'm not sure what your point would be. People are free to believe in God and even to ascribe coincidences and supposed miracles to his will.

It is still true that no true evidence of his existence does exist.

True, I can believe in God because it rained on my birthday; what a coincidence!

The question I have for you is, would you consider that proof of God? Or do you have another coincidence that you prefer? If yes, then please show me the argument with that coincidence as the premise from which you succesfully argue God.

And I'm not saying that I DO have evidence for God, I'm asking what you believe WOULD be "proof" of God, and would your proof convince others?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm short on time today, but I still want to start a new thread with these 2 questions:

What would you consider proof of God's existence?

I'm not sure, but I figure any god worth his salt could come up with something that I'd find convincing.

And...

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

Maybe not the same thing (it's hard for me to say, not knowing what it could be), but I'm sure that this same god could come up with things that would convince anyone else.

 

[LuisDantas]

The question I have for you is, would you consider that proof of God?

No.

Or do you have another coincidence that you prefer? If yes, then please show me the argument with that coincidence as the premise from which you succesfully argue God.

I don't really see myself arguing for the existence of God. Maybe if he manifested himself as an ethereal giant with humanlike personality that everyone could see and hear, I guess. But there wouldn't be much of a point in arguing that he is real in such a circunstance, now would there?

And I'm not saying that I DO have evidence for God, I'm asking what you believe WOULD be "proof" of God, and would your proof convince others?

Why on Earth would I ever want to convince others that God does exist - even if I did believe in him in the first place? :sarcastic

 

[WanderingSoul]

Penumbra certainly doesn't need me to defend her statements. Truth for truth, she can obviously do a much better job at that particular task than I can, anyway. But since this is an open forum and since I was passing by, so to speak, reading the posts, I thought I'd point out there doesn't appear to be any basis for some of your conclusions.

Now, perhaps you are basing your thoughts, quoted above, on some previous posts or a previous discussion/debate. But, to an outside observer, we don't really see what you're talking about, since you are responding directly to the following:



Nowhere in that post do I read that she supports her opinion regarding God's existence, or lack thereof, due to the "poor state of things". She said quite directly and quite clearly, I thought, that her lack of belief in God derives from a lack of evidence for Him, a lack of communication on His part--communication he could appropriately taylor for each individual given God's supposed omnipotence. She clearly states that if a god wanted people to believe in its existence, then it is doing a horrible job at making itself known. She didn't say anything about 'evil and suffering'. It very well might be true that those things are a basis for her 'non-belief', but she didn't state that in the post to which you responded.

I certainly mean no offense to either of you. I just thought you might want to know how your reply appears to an outside observer. It seems that you are missing the point.

I too believe it would be weak reasoning to hold that God can't exist simply because there is evil and cruelty in the world. But beliefs formed from lack of evidence, from an overwhelming silence from God, from a starkly noticable refusal on His part to state definitively beyond question, "Here I am. This is what you must do to please me. Do it, if you will." --nonbelief based on the lack of that assurance from God seems obligatory, in that we should be obliged to refuse anything that a supposedly good God demands on blind faith. Because, let's face it, we have no idea whether it truly comes from God or some powerful devil just trying to make us think he is God.


Ehh, just my humble opinion.

Actually, there's merit in what you have here. Still let me explain.

She had said that God was doing a bad job of making itself known and was weak, which is, frankly, just her opinion. Many millions may very well disagree with her, right? Her worldview is, God hasn't revealed itself to me, so God is doing a bad job and is weak.

Now, If I'm convinced I've had a true revelation of God, then I might be inclined to disagree. Or if I simply am a spiritual individual, who sees God in every act of love, beautiful vista, act of kindness, etc, I may also disagree with her opinion.

Her deprecating opinion of God's performance presumes god is acting contrary to what so many others will certainly disagree. I just wanted to make the point, opinions mean little, 'cause everyone has one, yet they never seem to bring us closer to proving God.

 

[WanderingSoul]

No.
I don't really see myself arguing for the existence of God. Maybe if he manifested himself as an ethereal giant with humanlike personality that everyone could see and hear, I guess. But there wouldn't be much of a point in arguing that he is real in such a circunstance, now would there?

Why on Earth would I ever want to convince others that God does exist - even if I did believe in him in the first place? :sarcastic

But if God manifested as "an ethereal giant with humanlike personality," then how does that God prove it created the universe? is omnipotent? omniscient? eternal? or anything you want to define God as needing to be as creator or the universe?

If your giant had a human-like personality, then does that not seem even less like a God of the universe?

How does that god prove its supreme attributes to our satisfaction?

Let me ask, if you simply prayed to God, "Please God, come into my life, and reveal yourself to me," and as a result, you experienced your own metaphorical "ethereal giant," then would that not be sufficient? Why must it be a literal giant?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But if God manifested as "an ethereal giant with humanlike personality," then how does that God prove it created the universe? is omnipotent? omniscient? eternal? or anything you want to define God as needing to be as creator or the universe?

If your giant had a human-like personality, then does that not seem even less like a God of the universe?

How does that god prove its supreme attributes to our satisfaction?

You may be pointing to an inherent problem with trying to prove God: how does a finite, limited being appreciate the infinite? Isn't there an inherent contradiction?

Let me ask, if you simply prayed to God, "Please God, come into my life, and reveal yourself to me," and as a result, you experienced your own metaphorical "ethereal giant," then would that not be sufficient? Why must it be a literal giant?

We're pattern-seeking animals. Even when there aren't real patterns to be found, our brains will try to find some anyhow. If I look at the world expecting to find a "metaphorical ethereal giant", I'll find something that I can decide fits that bill whether it's caused by God or not.

 

[WanderingSoul]

You may be pointing to an inherent problem with trying to prove God: how does a finite, limited being appreciate the infinite? Isn't there an inherent contradiction?

Well, that's the question I'm trying to answer, really. How do we prove God? and convey that proof to others?

I've already slipped in that I believe the only proof possible is via a personal experience of God; though I'll add here, the experience cannot be proven to another because it is a subjective experience. That' s the answer to my own question. If I want to find a sentient, personal God then I must experience that God--Personally.

Note: I went back shortly after and clipped the rest of my response because I realized I'd misinterpreted your last statements.

 

[LuisDantas]

But if God manifested as "an ethereal giant with humanlike personality," then how does that God prove it created the universe? is omnipotent? omniscient? eternal? or anything you want to define God as needing to be as creator or the universe?

Who me? I have no idea. Those ideas are so very alien to me. I can't think of a reason why I would even care that the Universe was created, much less demand proof of authory.

That said, I assume such an Abrahamic-styled God would simply make me aware that he is He.

If your giant had a human-like personality, then does that not seem even less like a God of the universe?

Sure. But I AM an Atheist.

How does that god prove its supreme attributes to our satisfaction?

Maybe he can't. Maybe he doesn't need to. I certainly don't need him to.

Let me ask, if you simply prayed to God, "Please God, come into my life, and reveal yourself to me," and as a result, you experienced your own metaphorical "ethereal giant," then would that not be sufficient? Why must it be a literal giant?

No, it would not be sufficient. Nor is it really going to happen either. I'm just not that into God. And again, I have no need whatsoever of God, so I don't need proof of his existence or nature either.

 

[Twilight Hue]

To prove that God (or "God") exists, all you have to do is directly experience the obvious and just leave it as being such. [Clipped from Nowhereman]

I did a big clip from your last post; which, by the way, was rather thoughtful and philosophical. Even though I could not grasp all of what you were trying to say, I got the gist of it. It's refreshing to talk with someone who is willing to make an effort greater than a fancy quip, or a funny one-liner.

I clipped this one line above because it goes to the heart of the matter, for me. You said, "...all you have to do is directly experience the obvious and just leave it as being such."

Well, I agree with you. I'll go further, ...........

Well agreement and consensus proves well and good on things that are mutually shared and arrived at of which we all can see and experience. However, when you state that your going to go "further" then what is obvious parts ways through ones own perspective. Mind you, all views retains a degree of validity in their own right, however certain viewpoints remains individualised in scope due to it's subjective nature, to where this is conducive upon what is being experienced by the individual as this channels off from the objective. In other words, whatever is obvious is whatever lies in front of you by way of your own individual interpretation, compared to the obvious as being whatever is in front of me taking note to the one who's interpretation differs from mine.

I used to be a theist, but not now. Therefore this is not to say what you believe in has no merit however. It does in its own right by way of karma (how it affects you), but this view is an approach that only can be acknowledged by the individual and paradoxically is not always something others may share in unison due to the subjective nature of interpretation.

In an earlier post you said that what would convince you of God's existence would be if everyone was instantly converted to theism. (I'm paraphrasing) I'm not happy with my previous response to that post of yours. So let me offer this:

How would everyone know that they know God exists? How could they prove to themselves that they were true in the belief?

You simply need to follow your path even if your theological beliefs happen to remain with you until death, and others in turn will follow their own religious or worldview until death. The "answers" whatever it consists of, God, No God, will manifest irregardless of any need or desire to prove such things. This of course mind you being wholly dependent upon the actual retention of any answer "given" so to speak, once its actually given through the cycle of impermanence.

If not done so already to which we remain forever unaware.

To as such as I see this anyways.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

Okay, fine, I'm with you.

Now to the problem. In which of those three will proof of God be found, and can you give me an idea what that proof would "look" like?

For example, if you witnessed an apparent answer to prayer, has God been proven? If a famous group of scientists came to you and said, we have scientific proof of God, then how would you verify their testimony? If you were presented with a "true" history that included claimed miracles of God, then how do you prove those miracles to be true, when by definition, miracles can't be proven?

please let me illustrate more:

1. using five senses to believe in something:

that something you have experienced by one of your senses is something that you have experienced it (itself), and it's traces(signs).

since science has been developed , five senses has extended through microscope, telescope, sound amplifiers,....etc

so any thing tangible you can experiense it by your five senses is not a controversial, even a donkey stops when it sees a hole while it is walking.

2. using reasoning :

reasoning is used by the intellectual mankind only, you can see the organiser from the organisation by your intellect,you can see the impeller from the impelling by your intellect, you can see the wise from the wisdom by your intellect, you can see the creator from the creation by your intellect.

here we are talking about something that you can experience it's trace and sign but you can't experince it by you five senses.

this universe is a sign that indicate that there is a creator, though we can't see God.

Qura'an CH. 6 verse 103
103. No vision can grasp Him


God has privliged us with minds. our minds can reach God but it can't grasp him,
and there is a big difference between "reach" and "grasp", you can by your car reach the sea , but you can't wade into the sea by your car.

If we have an instrument like "Balance" higly sophisticated with excellent performance, and it has been used in a small shop for weighing objects between 5 gm and 5 kg , it has a memory and sophisticated circuits and it is very accurate.
but this "balance" has a limited function (weighing objects between 5gm and 5kg).

as long as the balance is used within this limit, then it gives a wonderful results.

our minds is determined with a limited function, as long as we use it within that limit, our minds will give us a wonerfull results.

3. true history, (or stories, information)

here, you can't use your mind with something that you can't experience it by your five senes, nor you can see it's signs or traces.

any info or storie that you can't understand it by using your mind, God had told you about it through revelations and messengers
for example, when God told us about the ancient past, the begining of the creation, and about the hereafter, the judgement day, heaven, hell, his atributes(names)..etc.


it is defficult to debate the 3rd point, because when someone try to use his mind to reach the truth, he would face many obstacles.


for example when we talk about "the heaven". has anybody seen it before?
has any body see it's signs or traces to conclude it's existance?

so we shall rather debate
the person who come up with these info, how these information had been transmitted to us.I think it's a chain of people who had transmitted information to us through the past, we have to debate those people and what was there purpose of sending those informations.

so the conclusion is

1. tangible things you can use your five senses.( you can expericnce it (itself and it's signs).

2. reasoning ( you can reach it throgh it's signs without using your five senses).

3. true info/history through true (true messengers/honest people).