What evidence would convince you that god exists?

[drkitten]

Any evidence? It seems foolish to ask what evidence would convince you when there is no evidence or reason at all to believe in a fairy Godfather.

Not at all. Scientists do this all the time. "If this theory were true, what evidence would we find to support it?" Only once you've identified what type of evidence would be relevant and compelling is it practical to look for it.

I may not believe in Bigfoot, but I can certainly imagine the sort of evidence that would change my mind, and I can figure out what kind of expedition is and is not likely to produce it. A mountain trek through the Pacific NorthWest? Seems sensible. A scuba-diving expedition in the Turks and Caicos? Maybe not....

Heck, that's what I have to do on a fairly routine basis, when I evaluate research proposals. People tell me what they believe to be true, what they expect to find in support of that belief, and how that expectation supports their belief, and a research method that is likely to find that support if it exists.

If protons decayed (as some physicists believe, entirely without physical evidence, that they do), how would we know that? What evidence would they leave? What sort of equipment would we need to capture that evidence?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

A non-ambiguous message embedded in the expanded sequence of a transcendental number. Carl Sagan's Contact finds a rasterized depiction of a circle in 0's and 1's embedded in the base 11 expansion of pi far down in its expansion sequence. A being with that power would certainly earn my respect, if not my worship.

Surely, like the million typing monkeys, both of those are true? It's just a question of expanding the number far enough.

No cookie.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Not at all. Scientists do this all the time. "If this theory were true, what evidence would we find to support it?" Only once you've identified what type of evidence would be relevant and compelling is it practical to look for it.

I may not believe in Bigfoot, but I can certainly imagine the sort of evidence that would change my mind, and I can figure out what kind of expedition is and is not likely to produce it. A mountain trek through the Pacific NorthWest? Seems sensible. A scuba-diving expedition in the Turks and Caicos? Maybe not....

Heck, that's what I have to do on a fairly routine basis, when I evaluate research proposals. People tell me what they believe to be true, what they expect to find in support of that belief, and how that expectation supports their belief, and a research method that is likely to find that support if it exists.

If protons decayed (as some physicists believe, entirely without physical evidence, that they do), how would we know that? What evidence would they leave? What sort of equipment would we need to capture that evidence?

Ok. Let's ask the question, "If there were a God, what evidence would there be in Reality (however defined) that would unambiguously prove the existence of God?"

IMHO the hangup is the word "unambiguously". I don't see that there can be any. Prove me wrong.

 

[drkitten]

Surely, like the million typing monkeys, both of those are true? It's just a question of expanding the number far enough.

If I remember right, the point of the Contact scenario is that the message appeared WAY earlier than would have been expected by chance.

Sure, if you have a billion monkeys flipping coins, then one of them, by chance, will flip thirty heads in a row.

But if I flip thirty heads in a row, you would more rationally believe I was cheating than I was lucky.

 

[drkitten]

Ok. Let's ask the question, "If there were a God, what evidence would there be in Reality (however defined) that would unambiguously prove the existence of God?"

IMHO the hangup is the word "unambiguously". I don't see that there can be any. Prove me wrong.

The question itself fails. Nothing in reality can be unambiguously proven. If you won't take Popper's word for it, or Quine's, then simply watch the Matrix a few times.

 

[billydkid]

Not at all. Scientists do this all the time. "If this theory were true, what evidence would we find to support it?" Only once you've identified what type of evidence would be relevant and compelling is it practical to look for it.

I may not believe in Bigfoot, but I can certainly imagine the sort of evidence that would change my mind, and I can figure out what kind of expedition is and is not likely to produce it. A mountain trek through the Pacific NorthWest? Seems sensible. A scuba-diving expedition in the Turks and Caicos? Maybe not....

Heck, that's what I have to do on a fairly routine basis, when I evaluate research proposals. People tell me what they believe to be true, what they expect to find in support of that belief, and how that expectation supports their belief, and a research method that is likely to find that support if it exists.

If protons decayed (as some physicists believe, entirely without physical evidence, that they do), how would we know that? What evidence would they leave? What sort of equipment would we need to capture that evidence?

Scientist only consider what kind of evidence might be needed confirm a proposition if there were some reason - any reason at all - to suppose the proposition might have some basis in reality.

 

[drkitten]

Scientist only consider what kind of evidence might be needed confirm a proposition if there were some reason - any reason at all - to suppose the proposition might have some basis in reality.

Believe me, I've sat on enough grant review panels to be able to share counterexamples from personal experience.

A fairly high-profile example are the various research projects involved in testing the inverse square law for gravity. We've got not a shred of evidence to suggest that gravity might not drop off at exactly 1/d^2 instead of, say 1/d^(2.0001), or that it might break down at macroscopic scales. Indeed, as the article cited says, "It is amazing that, until a few years ago, gravity had not even been shown to exist for objects separated by less than about 1 mm."

Does this mean scientists shouldn't see how matter behaves at such small disances? No, it doesn't.

So, basically,

 

[wuschel]

A non-ambiguous message embedded in the expanded sequence of a transcendental number. Carl Sagan's Contact finds a rasterized depiction of a circle in 0's and 1's embedded in the base 11 expansion of pi far down in its expansion sequence. A being with that power would certainly earn my respect, if not my worship.

I can top that: If - perchance - the very first digit of the decimal expansion of PI would match my lucky number "3" - exactly - only _then_ I would be convinced that there was a higher power of sorts.

 

[The Nimble Pianist]

Even if I were given some of the most compelling, first hand evidence of God (i.e. his popping into existence right in front of me, his physically speaking to me, my hearing his voice, etc) I would, however reluctantly, assume that I was in dire need of a psychiatrist.

I don't think there would be any evidence that would compel me to believe, save for my continuing to "live" after death.

One other option does come to mind:

If I were to see/hear/feel or in any other way experience God, I would require there to be a couple other observers with me. I think it would be too unlikely for multiple people to experience the exact same supernatural entity at the exact same time.

 

[Kaizen]

What the hell, I've posted this twice before but I'll throw it out once more to see if someone can find a flaw in it. Regardless of how god would show itself, the only way to approach it is the same way we would approach anything to determine if it's 'real'. It would go through extensive testing and even after exhausting all of the methods, the best we could reasonbly conclude is a provisional conclusion. There would never be a point in the future where it (the conclusion that it is "god") would not be subject to re-examination should considerable counter evidence present itself. God would only have itself to blame considering the reason we could never know anything absolutely is because of the limits of our mental capacity- what it design for us. The only ways to "know" (gotta use quotes because I'm using 'know' in 2 different ways) it is what it claims to be: 1) Throw reason out the window- have faith. In this case no evidence is necessary in the first place. 2) Give us god-knowledge, that is knowledge of absolutely everything, so that we may be able to identify its limitlessness from a position of reason.

 

[Bill Thompson]

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.

So you mean like the Santa Claus / Merlin character with arms and legs and feet and all?

Sheeesh.

Does ANYONE believe in that?

(well, I guess some Mormons do who think that He had sex with Mary to make Jesus... oh well, how depressing)

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

If I remember right, the point of the Contact scenario is that the message appeared WAY earlier than would have been expected by chance.

That's still by chance. Given an infinite number of transcendental numbers (I think this is true) then the works of the Bard are there somewhere in one or more of them. In one they will be the first few million or so.

Sure, if you have a billion monkeys flipping coins, then one of them, by chance, will flip thirty heads in a row.

And this could happen on the first day with the first monkey.

But if I flip thirty heads in a row, you would more rationally believe I was cheating than I was lucky.

I would also allow the possibility that you were not. Every day someone wins a lottery. People are sometimes dealt a straight flush.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The question itself fails. Nothing in reality can be unambiguously proven. If you won't take Popper's word for it, or Quine's, then simply watch the Matrix a few times.

Well exactly! Nothing can be unambiguously proven. Thus whatever proof of the existence of God is presented, it cannot, ultimately, prove His existence.

 

[drkitten]

Well exactly! Nothing can be unambiguously proven. Thus whatever proof of the existence of God is presented, it cannot, ultimately, prove His existence.

The problem with this is that gravity is proven beyond what any rational observer would demand in terms of evidence.

If you demand more evidence for belief in God than belief in gravity, you are at best maintaining a double standard. At worst, you're simply not a rational observer.

 

[Malerin]

The problem with this is that gravity is proven beyond what any rational observer would demand in terms of evidence.

If you demand more evidence for belief in God than belief in gravity, you are at best maintaining a double standard. At worst, you're simply not a rational observer.

Everyone's thinking in terms of conventional evidence (messages built into Pi, moons being rearranged to spell out words, etc.). The kind of evidence God may give may be nothing like we've ever experienced before- some kind of direct knowledge that is immune from doubt.

 

[phantomb]

The kind of evidence God may give may be nothing like we've ever experienced before- some kind of direct knowledge that is immune from doubt.

Nothing in reality can be unambiguously proven. If you won't take Popper's word for it, or Quine's, then simply watch the Matrix a few times.

drkitten has it right. There is no possible evidence you could ever come across that would prove absolutely that you experience objective reality and are not in some sort of 'Matrix' world.

 

[Malerin]

drkitten has it right. There is no possible evidence you could ever come across that would prove absolutely that you experience objective reality and are not in some sort of 'Matrix' world.

You're assuming we know all the different kinds of possible evidence. How do you know this? If God exists, and chooses to prove its existence to us, I would not be surprised at all to learn of some different category of evidence that we have never experienced.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The problem with this is that gravity is proven beyond what any rational observer would demand in terms of evidence.

If you demand more evidence for belief in God than belief in gravity, you are at best maintaining a double standard. At worst, you're simply not a rational observer.

And how does anyone know if the "Laws of the Universe" don't get re-set every 18.2-billion years? And at that time gravity ceases to work for masses less than 1000 kilograms?

In any case, I would only demand the same level of evidence for a belief in God as I do for gravity. In the today's Universe, in my experience of it.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Everyone's thinking in terms of conventional evidence (messages built into Pi, moons being rearranged to spell out words, etc.). The kind of evidence God may give may be nothing like we've ever experienced before- some kind of direct knowledge that is immune from doubt.

Nothing is immune from doubt. Even doubting itself.

 

[Unlike a Bull]

I think the problem here is with the definition of the word "convince". From dictionary[dot]com:
1. to move by argument or evidence to belief, agreement, consent, or a course of action: to convince a jury of his guilt; A test drive will convince you that this car handles well.
2. to persuade; cajole: We finally convinced them to have dinner with us.

Convincing someone of something doesn't require that every other possible explanation be falsified. Otherwise, nobody could ever be convinced of anything.

Convincing isn't nearly as hard as proving. There are people who can be convinced without a shred of evidence. There are people who can be convinced when there's mountains of evidence to the contrary.

I could actually be convinced relatively easily that god exists. All I would need is testable phenomenon where the existence of god is the most logical explanation. This acceptance would, of course, be tentative and further testing would be required.

For example, if all innocent people who were jailed would gain the ability to walk through prison bars, I would be convinced. Not that I claim to know who is innocent and who is guilty, but I imagine if maybe one to ten percent of the inmates couldn't be jailed due to supernatural abilities and claimed it was because of their innocence, i would believe them.

Or, if all the trees of the world (regardless of species) started producing fruit that had all the nutrients required to support life thus curing world hunger, I would be convinced.

That's not to say that I would be convinced that any specific god exists, or that my conviction wouldn't be quickly shattered if a natural explanation were to be found. Though, I think it would be hard to find a natural explanation for people being able to walk through metal bars ... which is probably why it hasn't happened yet.