What would "god" need to do in order to prove that she really existed?

[AmyStrange]

That sounds like a wish fulfilment not a proof of a god.

Don't forget my question was, "...what exactly would she need to do to prove (to you personally) that she was the one and only?"

So, does it really matter If it only convinces me (and maybe a few other people) that she's real?

Now, if that wouldn't make you change your mind, then that wouldn't be your answer.


-

 

[Olmstead]

Good answer, but what definition would work though? Would it have to be profound or something simple like, I'm gravity, and then take it away for an hour, and then put it back together, all the while, allowing your mind to still work so you can see, feel, and understand the whole thing?

Or something profound like what happened at the end of the movie, The Thirteenth Floor?

We're all part of a video game, kind of like the Matrix, except human's aren't controlling anything. Maybe a little like the Stephen King novel Under the Dome too.

-

You're still thinking of magic feats, power dynamics, and fancy revelations, none of which proves anything. If you're asking for an example of a definition, I can't give it to you, because the very notion of God doesn't actually make sense, and anything approaching a definition is full of paradoxes and other nonsense. Lesser "deities" sure, but lesser deities are essentially just magic sky wizards, so they don't really meet the criteria for God.

Of course, that doesn't mean God couldn't prove their godhood. In fact, it would be exceedingly simple for them: God is, God explains what They are, God shows that They are what They are. Their existence is a logical impossibility, but that shouldn't be a problem for God.

 

[Darat]

You're still thinking of magic feats, power dynamics, and fancy revelations, none of which proves anything. If you're asking for an example of a definition, I can't give it to you, because the very notion of God doesn't actually make sense, and anything approaching a definition is full of paradoxes and other nonsense. Lesser "deities" sure, but lesser deities are essentially just magic sky wizards, so they don't really meet the criteria for God.

Of course, that doesn't mean God couldn't prove their godhood. In fact, it would be exceedingly simple for them: God is, God explains what They are, God shows that They are what They are. Their existence is a logical impossibility, but that shouldn't be a problem for God.

Which is why I said it would merely have to change my mind. Doesn't need to do anything fancy, doesn't need extravagant miracles (isn't it strange how Jesus thought folk needed to experience miracles to believe in his divinity yet we are meant to simply take in on faith...), one simple act and god has proved they exist.

 

[AmyStrange]

You're still thinking of magic feats, power dynamics, and fancy revelations, none of which proves anything. If you're asking for an example of a definition, I can't give it to you, because the very notion of God doesn't actually make sense, and anything approaching a definition is full of paradoxes and other nonsense. Lesser "deities" sure, but lesser deities are essentially just magic sky wizards, so they don't really meet the criteria for God.

Of course, that doesn't mean God couldn't prove their godhood. In fact, it would be exceedingly simple for them: God is, God explains what They are, God shows that They are what They are. Their existence is a logical impossibility, but that shouldn't be a problem for God.

Nope, I'm talking about something that would convince me personally that she was god.

If you have another answer, then that would be what convinced you personally.

My question is as simple as that.

If you want to make it complicated, then that's fine too.


-

 

[AmyStrange]

Which is why I said it would merely have to change my mind. Doesn't need to do anything fancy, doesn't need extravagant miracles (isn't it strange how Jesus thought folk needed to experience miracles to believe in his divinity yet we are meant to simply take in on faith...), one simple act and god has proved they exist.

That's true, but not everyone is like you, Darat.

What would convince me personally (or anyone else) is my question.

Your answer is she would have to make you believe she's good, and that's fine. It's a good answer.

If you want to make it complicated (like Olmstead) then that's fine too.


-

 

[Olmstead]

Nope, I'm talking about something that would convince me personally that she was god.

If you have another answer, then that would be what convinced you personally.

My question is as simple as that.

If you want to make it complicated, then that's fine too.


-

It's still worth pointing out when someone is convinced for bad reasons. Even the fanciest displays of impossible power aren't a good reason, since they could equally apply to a plethora of other fictional beings that wouldn't be considered God. Maybe even nefarious beings.

 

[AmyStrange]

It's obvious that all some (if not many) folks need is the bible, and they're good to go. They don't need her to come down and do anything to prove she's god, and to them it's as simple as that.

Other folks want to make it complicated and decide for everyone (other than them) what they should need to convince them.


-

 

[AmyStrange]

It's still worth pointing out when someone is convinced for bad reasons. Even the fanciest displays of impossible power aren't a good reason, since they could equally apply to a plethora of other fictional things that wouldn't be considered God. Maybe even nefarious things.

True, but then that would be their answer to the question.

For some strange reason, some folks want to decide what should be the right answer for other people, but that's not the question.

Once again, it's what would convince you personally that she was real.

Not what should convince others.


-

 

[Darat]

That's true, but not everyone is like you, Darat.
What would convince me personally (or anyone else) is my question.

Your answer is she would have to make you believe she's good, and that's fine. It's a good answer.

If you want to make it complicated (like Olmstead) then that's fine too.


-

I think you are missing my point, all god needs to do to make any of us believe in them is to change our minds. They need do nothing else. So it doesn't matter if you and I are different, the same method works with all of us.

 

[Olmstead]

True, but then that would be their answer to the question.

For some strange reason, some folks want to decide what should be the right answer for other people, but that's not the question.

Once again, it's what would convince you personally that she was real.

Not what should convince others.


-

What's the point of this thread if we don't discuss the validity of people's answers?

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Ok. I can definitely buy that one and thank you, although, I'm kind of partial to making me President.

Hell, anyone's better than that fat clown who's gonna sing in January, but I am kinda looking forward to the Trump's Damn Stupid show so I can watch it implode.

I've got popcorn and everything!!!


-

You see making me president is something easy enough that I can conceivably do it myself (caveat I'm an Irish citizen so it's easier for me than a US citizen).

 

[AmyStrange]

What's the point of this thread if we don't discuss the validity of people's answers?

Go ahead, discuss, but it's just odd that you want to use what you believe as the basis for what should convince everyone else.

Like I said, all some folks need is the bible, and they're good to go, and that's a legitimate answer to me.


-

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... it would be even better if she could change everyone's mind all at the same time ...

If she was real, presumably she could do that, but chooses not to (despite the seemingly obvious benefit of eradicating religious conflicts).

So the kinds of evidence we might think would convince us are likely not available, since god thus far declines to reveal herself in any way that couldn't just be people fooling themselves. She doesn't intervene in the universe in any way that would, say, be accepted as a test protocol for the old million dollar challenge.

Whatever ineffable reason she has for being so coy we can only guess at but can't expect to change any time soon.

 

[Olmstead]

Go ahead, discuss, but it's just odd that you want to use what you believe as the basis for what should convince everyone else.

Like I said, all some folks need is the bible, and they're good to go, and that's a legitimate answer to me.


-

I'm not using what I believe as a basis, I'm using logic. Benevolent supernatural feats are very bad evidence for someone being a particular fictional being, because it's easy to imagine other fictional beings doing them as well. If I were to engage with this particular hypothetical seriously, I'd even call it dangerous, as the ready acceptance of seemingly benevolent powerful beings as God could easily allow them to manipulate people for more nefarious purposes.

 

[AmyStrange]

If she was real, presumably she could do that, but chooses not to (despite the seemingly obvious benefit of eradicating religious conflicts).

So the kinds of evidence we might think would convince us are likely not available, since god thus far declines to reveal herself in any way that couldn't just be people fooling themselves. She doesn't intervene in the universe in any way that would, say, be accepted as a test protocol for the old million dollar challenge.

Whatever ineffable reason she has for being so coy we can only guess at but can't expect to change any time soon.

Maybe not to you, but like I said, all some folks need is the bible, and they're good to go, and to me, that's a legitimate answer.

Just because it's not legitimate to you, doesn't make their answer any less legitimate to me or them.

TBH, if you think someone's answer is illogical or illegitimate, that's fine, but all that really tells me is that it wouldn't be your answer. and that's it.


-

 

[AmyStrange]

I'm not using what I believe as a basis, I'm using logic. Benevolent supernatural feats are very bad evidence for someone being a particular fictional being, because it's easy to imagine other fictional beings doing them as well. If I were to engage with this particular hypothetical seriously, I'd even call it dangerous, as the ready acceptance of seemingly benevolent powerful beings as God could easily allow them to manipulate people for more nefarious purposes.

Go ahead, use logic, but that doesn't make any answer illegitimate to me.

I mean, all some folks need (like I keep posting) is the bible, and they're good to go.

That maybe an illogical answer to you, but it's a legitimate answer to me.

It's NOT important what I believe, but what they believe and that's ALL I'm asking.


-

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Well the flipside of that is that proof would obviate faith.

If you have proof, faith has no value. The bible is not evidence, it is (in million dollar challenge terms) the claim. Those folk who only need the bible don't have evidence for god, they have faith. She could give us all faith and yet does not. Again, if everyone has it, it's nothing special, it has no value.

 

[AmyStrange]

Well the flipside of that is that proof would obviate faith.

If you have proof, faith has no value. The bible is not evidence, it is (in million dollar challenge terms) the claim. Those folk who only need the bible don't have evidence for god, they have faith. She could give us all faith and yet does not. Again, if everyone has it, it's nothing special, it has no value.

It doesn't have any value to you, and that's all that means.

It doesn't lessen the value to anyone else or make their answer any less legitimate to me.


-

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I don't mean to denigrate, I only suggest that, say, having faith that 2 + 2 = 4 or other proven thing does not give one a special standing so nobody would look at it in that way.

I suppose what follows from that is that it is, for some reason, important that a proportion of people have faith and a proportion do not (or have the wrong one). Otherwise she'd fix it.

<ETA> So while a person of faith might think that ideally everyone would come to believe, it seems that's not her ideal after all.

 

[AmyStrange]

I don't mean to denigrate, I only suggest that, say, having faith that 2 + 2 = 4 or other proven thing does not give one a special standing so nobody would look at it in that way.

I suppose what follows from that is that it is, for some reason, important that a proportion of people have faith and a proportion do not (or have the wrong one). Otherwise she'd fix it.

I know you didn't mean it that way, but would fixing it be enough to convince you personally that she was god?

That's my question.

Everything else is just superfluous and doesn't really make anyone else's answer any less legitimate, except to you, but not to me.


-