• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What evidence would convince you that god exists?

drkitten said:
Actually, if every amputee who prayed for regeneration got it and every amputee who didn't, didn't,... yes, "God" is quite a reasonable hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Can't you think of better ones?

I think that it would prove _prayer_ works, not that there is a god that answers it.


Hm...

How is your hypothesis testable? What predictions does it yield?
 
drkitten said:
Something is omnipotent if and only if it can do anything.
Click to expand...

One would have to define "anything". I don't see how we can experiment and observe it doing "anything".

Testing it is simplicity itself. Ask it to do something. If it can't, it's not omnipotent.
Click to expand...

You mean prayer? How do you control the prayer, how do you know it gets to god?
 
paximperium said:
Are we talking about god or God?
Click to expand...

"God" as a proper noun refers (in English) to the Judeo-Christian God of Abraham.

"A god" as a common noun can refer to any divine being. If you're asking the question "does god exist" and you didn't put an article in there, then you're using it as a proper noun.

Yes, words do have meanings. Thank you for asking.
 
Pardalis said:
One would have to define "anything".
Click to expand...

"Anything" is self-defining.

I don't see how we can experiment and observe it doing "anything".
Click to expand...

We don't have to. As Dijkstra put it, "testing can show the presence of bugs, but never the absence."

We only have to observe it doing -- or more accurately, failing to do -- one thing.

You mean prayer?
Click to expand...

Any way you want to communicate with it.
 
paximperium said:
Are we talking about god or God?
Click to expand...

I think we must be talking about God because of the way the OP is phrased. It wasn't "what evidence would convince you that a divine being of some kind existed?", but "what evidence would convince you that god exists?" i.e. singular, omnipotent and almost certainly judeo-christian. :)
 
Well, for starters, he'd have to teach the Orioles' current rotation how to pitch.
 
When Satan shows up to purchase my soul in exchange for earthly riches and a few super powers, I'll totally believe in gods.
 
JetLeg said:
god.

A supernatural being that has supernatural powers. Not neccessarily omnipotent.
Click to expand...
drkitten said:
"God" as a proper noun refers (in English) to the Judeo-Christian God of Abraham.

"A god" as a common noun can refer to any divine being. If you're asking the question "does god exist" and you didn't put an article in there, then you're using it as a proper noun.

Yes, words do have meanings. Thank you for asking.
Click to expand...
CriticalSock said:
I think we must be talking about God because of the way the OP is phrased. It wasn't "what evidence would convince you that a divine being of some kind existed?", but "what evidence would convince you that god exists?" i.e. singular, omnipotent and almost certainly judeo-christian. :)
Click to expand...
:confused:
 
drkitten said:
We don't have to. As Dijkstra put it, "testing can show the presence of bugs, but never the absence."

We only have to observe it doing -- or more accurately, failing to do -- one thing.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that we can only observe phenomena? Isn't "god" as a label to what caused that phenomenon therefore unnecessary?

It's just something we don't know, or can't know. You just choose to call it god.

Any way you want to communicate with it.
Click to expand...
How would you know what it is, and how to communicate with it? Again, one would have to define what "it" is.
 
Last edited:
is Wolverine a god then? Or Dr Manhatten?

If I could meet someone like that and they did the things they're depicted as doing in their comicbooks then I'd be convinced.

In fact if I saw them on the BBC news being presented as actually existing and then I read an article about them in Scientific American but didn't actually meet them in person then I'd still be convinced. I'm a pretty easily convinced guy really. :)
 
I'm reminded of Arthur Clarke's dictum about sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic...
I would be leery of any miracle, I think.

The only by-golly "proof" I can think of is transcendence of death.
 
Bikewer said:
I'm reminded of Arthur Clarke's dictum about sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic...
I would be leery of any miracle, I think.

The only by-golly "proof" I can think of is transcendence of death.
Click to expand...

You mean resurrection?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom