What evidence would convince you that god exists?

[Yoink]

Where does that come from?

We have a good idea of what it is though.

So? There's alot of things we don't know, it doesn't mean we don't have good hypothesis to explain them.

So? We used the chemicals and it worked repeatedly, that was all the proof we needed at the time.


You still haven't defined the mechanism of prayer.

The assumed mechanism I would think is:

thought
transmission of thought to "entity"
reception of thought by "entity"
regeneration of limb by "entity" (which itself would require a few steps and a mechanism of its own).

You see what the problem is with this mechanism?

Surely it would be begging the question to insist that no proof of supernatural powers is acceptable unless it contains within it a clear explanation of the non-supernatural steps by which the act is carried out?

The hypothesis of prayer is extremely simple:

1. I appeal to God.
2. God magically hears my prayer by virtue of his magical omniscience.
3. God answers (fulfills) my prayer by virtue of his magical omnipotence.

To say that I need to break down step 3 into some kind of biochemical process ("God sends aliens in rocket ships to earth armed with special limb-regenerating nanobots...") is to exclude at the outset the very possibility of what the hypothesis seeks to establish. It's like saying "I'll accept arguments about the efficacy of aspirin, as long as you don't claim that brain chemistry is involved; in that case, I'll dismiss the whole argument from the start."

 

[Pardalis]

So the god hypothesis is intrinsically incompatible with scientific experiment and its standards for evidence.

 

[drkitten]

That wasn't my standard, it was the standard I said "at the time". We today have a higher standard for science.

No, we don't. We have exactly the same standard; we simply have a greater body of knowledge of the things we've been studying for two hundred years.

If I found a magic side-effect free pain killer in a flower in my garden today, all I would need to show for the FDA to approve it for use (and for doctors to prescribe it) is that it was safe and effective using clinical trials. I wouldn't need to demonstrate a mechanism by which it worked (although that would certainly be an interesting and popular line of research).

In fact, this process is a substantial industry today. It's called "bioassay" and it involves researchers going to obscure parts of the world, picking up objects (mostly plants), and testing to see what, if anything, they do. Anything that does something interesting is immediately flagged for further testing regardless of whether or not we understand the mechanism.

Example : did you know that morphine (or opiates in general) is not effective as a pain-killer against the sting of a duck-billed playpus? Apparently there is another (unknown) pain pathway that we're not familiar with. Anyone who can find another pain-killer that works on this pathway will be rich beyond the dreams of avarice -- even before we can figure out what that pathway is and how it works. Because if we can find that pain-killer, we can get a basic patent not only on that drug, but on a whole new class of drugs derived from it.

Sure, it would be nice to know the mechanism. Knowing the mechanism might help us find that particular drug. But no one needs it. We can just as easily stumble across a new pain killer as an obscure compound in the saliva of an Australian parrot that needs, for whatever reason, to resist playpus stings.

 

[drkitten]

So the god hypothesis is intrinsically incompatible with scientific experiment and its standards for evidence.

Or science would evolve to accept supernaturalistic experiments (such as asking God for the answer), if those experiments were shown to be epistemologically useful and reliable.

 

[Beerina]

What evidence would convince you that god exists?

By god I mean any supernatural being with supernatural power.

Not neccessarily the omni-omni-omni God.

Irrelevant. If a god existed such as described in Christianity (or Judaism or Islam or anything else, for that matter) I would not worship it as it does not deserve it.

It could force me to, of course, but that wouldn't be real worship. It could coerce me to via threats to me or others, but that would also ring hollow.

But actually worship it because it was somehow proper for me to do so? When it lets babies be raped to death, ummmm, no. God's an asswipe.

 

[Beerina]

Oh, and to build on your question, if it were not necessarily an omnipotent god, then it doesn't deserve worship either, for the same reason, not to mention some ontological apriori reason one should worship it would no longer apply as that depends on omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

At best, its a clumsy god, an incompetent god, or an uncaring god. At worst, it's simply evil.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Evidence has got zip to do with it. "God exists" is simply not a meaningful proposition to me. And neither is supernatural, or natural for that matter.

 

[Finster]

If a supernatural ability or entity was proven to exist wouldn’t it cease to be supernatural, by definition?

 

[Yoink]

So the god hypothesis is intrinsically incompatible with scientific experiment and its standards for evidence.

You're coming dangerously close here to conceding a point to the Intelligent Design nuts when they insist that science starts from the premise of the nonexistence of God.

If it were true that science cannot address forces unless it understands every part of how they operate there would be no valid scientific approach to gravity. As scientific knowledge currently stands, gravity is essentially a miracle.

And yet, scientists are happy to incorporate "gravity" into their explanations and understandings because it operates regularly and predictably. Similarly, they would be happy to incorporate "the power of prayer" into their explanations and understandings of the world if that, too, operated regularly and predictably (or even capriciously but demonstrably).

Where science and faith part ways is that science remains dedicated to pursuing further understanding. Even if scientists determined that "prayer to the great god Ziploc" was an effective cure for amputated limbs, they wouldn't assume that the mechanism by which Ziploc cures amputated limbs could never possibly be further understood. Of course, they could turn out to be wrong about that (just as we may never, in fact, find out what causes gravitational attraction) but the scientist remains dedicated to as complete an explanation as possible.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

If a supernatural ability or entity was proven to exist wouldn’t it cease to be supernatural, by definition?

If "proof" presupposes (and hence includes) some sort of being understood or being explained, then yes I'd think so.

 

[drkitten]

If "proof" presupposes (and hence includes) some sort of being understood or being explained, then yes I'd think so.

Oh, come now. What part of "if you pray to God, He will regenerate your amputated limb" don't you understand?

That's no less understandable than "if you drop that glass, it will break." As a matter of fact, it might well be more understandable, since sometimes glasses don't break when dropped, but we're talking about a hypothetical where prayer always works.

As Yoink pointed out, we don't know why things fall; we just know that gravity exists and acts in a predictable way. As I pointed out, we don't know why we feel pain; we just know that we do -- and we know that certain chemicals will reliably prevent us from having that feeling.

But I feel confident that the statement "glasses often break when dropped" has been proven.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Oh, come now. What part of "if you pray to God, He will regenerate your amputated limb" don't you understand?

I don't understand what the word "God" refers to. [ETA]And "He??" What is that supposed to mean? Are we dealing with chromosomes, or penises, or just a bit of flowery language? (What if it turns out to be a "she" that made the limbs regrow, huh? )[/ETA]

And, on top of that, I have been told that prayer does not work that way. *shrugs* Your requirements just strike me as utterly arbitrary.

That's no less understandable than "if you drop that glass, it will break." As a matter of fact, it might well be more understandable, since sometimes glasses don't break when dropped, but we're talking about a hypothetical where prayer always works.

As Yoink pointed out, we don't know why things fall; we just know that gravity exists and acts in a predictable way.

Well, we just call that what makes stuff fall, whatever it is exactly, "gravity." If it turns out to be a little ... uhmmm ... greener than expected, it'll still be "gravity." No problem.

What about "God?" Would it still be called "God" if it just turns out to be utterely boring. I have my doubts.

As I pointed out, we don't know why we feel pain; we just know that we do -- and we know that certain chemicals will reliably prevent us from having that feeling.

We call whatever it is exactly that we feel by the word "pain." Might have something to do with neurons and/or nerve thingies, or whatever, it'll be "pain" no matter what.

And that is the difference. Are we to call whatever it is exactly that makes limbs regrow after prayer by the word "God?" Does prayer actually work that way? Does "God?"

But I feel confident that the statement "glasses often break when dropped" has been proven.

And I think that we can ditch the truthfulness of the statement that "if you pray to God, He will regenerate your amputated limb." It'd be required that, at least once in a while, after having uttered some borderline arbitrary mumbo-jumbo something obtains that could be called "aputated limb regrowing."


Moreover there is the aforementioned point that many theists deny that prayer actually works in any such petitive way (despite the fact that there are plenty of theists who do petitive prayer nevertheless). Or that "God" works in such a way.

I mean we could devise some test for glass, along the lines that if it is dropped, then limbs regrow. Or that we are dealing with gravity, if after having uttered a prayer glass breaks. In the same fashion you could make the statement that you are dealing with God, if, after having uttered some prayers, limbs regrow. Or that you are dealing with God, if, after having dropped a glass, the glass shatters.

Sure you could do all this. But it'd be arbitrary nevertheless.


And ... I have absolutely have no clue what I would have to mean were I to say "I believe in God." I could raise the mere requirement that if it is "necessary being" then by definition it is also "God" - no matter what it is exactly. Then what? Not magical enough?

 

[drkitten]

I don't understand what the word "God" refers to.

And, on top of that, I have been told that prayer does not work that way. *shrugs* Your requirements just strike me as utterly arbitrary.

Under the hypothesis in question, they're no more arbitrary than any other empirical observation. Is it arbitrary that objects fall at an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2? Okay, it's arbitrary. It's still true. Under our hypothesis, it is equally arbitrary that if you pray to "God" your limb will heal, but if you pray to "Zeus" or "the Invisible Pink Unicorn" it will not.

Well, we just call that what makes stuff fall, whatever it is exactly, "gravity." If it turns out to be a little ... uhmmm ... greener than expected, it'll still be "gravity." No problem.

What about "God?"

We're operating under the assumption that it turns out to be just as described in the Bible.

Under that assumption, it wouldn't be utterly boring at all.

We call whatever it is exactly that we feel by the word "pain." Might have something to do with neurons and/or nerve thingies, or whatever, it'll be "pain" no matter what.

And that is the difference. Are we to call whatever it is exactly that makes limbs regrow after prayer by the word "God?"

Still operating under the assumption that it behaves indistinguishably from what we've been calling "God" on Sunday mornings for several thousand years?

I should think so.

At the very least, the burden of proof would shift to you to show that whatever-it-is that makes limbs regrow after prayer is different than God, despite being identical to all tests devisable by human ingenuity.

Moreover there is the aforementioned point that many theists deny that prayer actually works in any such petitive way (despite the fact that there are plenty of theists who do petitive prayer nevertheless). Or that "God" works in such a way.

Not relevant, I'm afraid. We're operating under the hypothetical assumption, for the sake of argument, that God does work exactly as it says in a literal reading of the Bible.

Of course prayer doesn't work in the real world, which is why real world theologians have been forced to re-invent what "prayer" means and why atheists exist at all. If prayer actually worked as described, there would be no (sane) atheists, any more than there are sane people who deny the existence of gravity or of aspirin.

And sane people didn't deny the existence of aspirin, even before we knew as much biochemistry as we do today.

 

[HeyLeroy]

• The Lions win the Superbowl this season;
• a photo-ID (heck, it's good enough for the beer store!)

 

[drkitten]

The Lions win the Superbowl this season;

Come on. Even omnipotence has its limits. There are some things even God can't fix, and Detroit is one of them.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Would it at least be evidence that Hell has, indeed, frozen over?

 

[Pardalis]

What part of "if you pray to God, He will regenerate your amputated limb" don't you understand?

The God part.

As Yoink pointed out, we don't know why things fall; we just know that gravity exists and acts in a predictable way.

And if prayer is found to work consistently, then we would know that prayer exists, not God, prayer, as a phenomenon. The mechanism that makes prayers come true would still be unknown, and require further research.

 

[slingblade]

If a supernatural ability or entity was proven to exist wouldn’t it cease to be supernatural, by definition?

That's what I keep thinking.

According to Clarke's Third Law:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

So the problem is defining magic. And by its own definition, magic has no definition. Magic is "whatever we can't explain." Because if you could explain it, it wouldn't be magic anymore.

You and I are standing in a nice, clear field. I tell you I can fly, like Superman, like Nathan Petrelli. You don't believe me, so I show you. I fly. Everything which we know of that could have caused this is investigated. I'm wearing no apparatus; there is no machinery at work; there is nothing you can see, measure, detect, observe, etc., except me, flying. And I can't explain it, either. I don't know what I do, apart from willing myself to fly. I think about it, and I can take off, control my speed and direction, and land safely whenever I wish. I can fly for as long as I want, or until I need sleep, because nothing powers my flight; I use no energy.

I just...fly. And nothing can ever explain it.

Is that magic?

 

[drkitten]

The God part.

Then read the Bible, where you will find a lengthy description.

Whether or not the description actually describes something in the real world is another question -- we have an equally lengthy description of Harry Potter or of Batman.

Under the assumptions of this thread, we need to work as though it does -- just as we'd need to assume the existence of both HP and Batman to discuss who would win....

And if prayer is found to work consistently, then we would know that prayer exists, not God, prayer, as a phenomenon.

Yup. And we infer God from the (presumed) effectiveness of prayers, just as we infer stars from the little lights in the sky.

The mechanism that makes prayers come true would still be unknown, and require further research.

Yup.

And if further research continues to indicate that there is no discernable difference between the mechanism by which prayer works and God as described in litt. then it becomes increasingly irrational to maintain the existence of an indetectable difference.

 

[Pardalis]

Then read the Bible

Which one?

where you will find a lengthy description.

What we find are alot of metaphors and stories, not scientific claims.