• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

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

Gulliver Foyle said:
The same level of evidence that science demands for e.g. speciation. The putative god can come to us with demonstable and repeatable evidence of their powers that cannot be explained by any other means.

A good example would be turning peg legs into actual flesh and blood legs properly attached to their owners, over and over again in lab conditions so that the process can be studied.
Click to expand...
In 1972, a book, "The Day the Sun Stood Still" was published.

This book contained three novels by three prominent Science Fiction authors: Poul Anderson, Robert Silverberg, and Gordon R. Dickson. Each author worked separately.

Each novel was based on the following premise:

An international movement asked everyone on Earth to pray for a sign from God. There was a large response. Then:
  • At exactly midnight Greenwich Mean Time, the Earth, without the slightest tremor, stops rotating.
  • After exactly 24 hours, again without a tremor, the Earth resumes rotating.
So what happens next?

In the story by Poul Anderson, the human race stagnates. Most people were only concerned with their life in the next world, not with unimportant things such as science, discovery, or any other unrelated activity.

In the story by Robert Silverberg, every religion insists that this is proof that THEIR religion is the true one. And the holy wars begin.

In my opinion, Gordon R. Dickson missed the mark. IIRC, his novel is about what happens during the day the Earth stands still. That day is filled with signs and portents, including one character who remarks, "It's just like the last time!"

Here is a Google link to the book.
 
A book, "The Day the Sun Stood Still" was published in 1972. Here is a link to a description.

This book consists of three novels by three major Science Fiction authors: Poul Anderson, Robert Silverberg, and Gordon R. Dickson.

Each novel was based on the following premise:

A worldwide movement asks all of humanity to pray for a sign that God existed. There is a huge response.

Then, at exactly midnight GMT, the Earth stops rotating, without a single tremor.

For 24 hours, the Earth is still.

Then, again without a tremor, the Earth begins rotating again.

How does humanity respond? Each author gives a different answer.

Poul Anderson writes that humanity becomes obsessed with preparing for the next life. Nothing else is important. Humanity stagnates.

Robert Silverberg writes that each religion insists that this is a proof that THEIR religion is the right one. And the holy wars start.

In my opinion, Gordon R. Dickson misses the point. IIRC, his novel covers the 24 hour period that the Earth is still. This time is filled with signs and portents, including one character who says "It's just like the last time!"

This suggests to me that if something like a "God" existed, the LAST thing it would do would be to reveal itself as it actually was. Humanity simply couldn't handle it.
 
Sorry, my computer restarted in the middle and I thought my reply had been lost.
 
Ziggurat said:
I believe this is sort of the premise to the His Dark Materials fantasy series. It was kind of stupid, I read the whole thing over a decade ago but didn't like it and have largely forgotten the details.
Click to expand...
yep, would have been a decent story if the author didn't feel the need to bash organized religion every second page - we get it.
 
Paul2 said:
How do we know that? I'm not saying we know that they exist; we don't know one way or the other, so they might, for all we know.
Click to expand...
Because 'aliens' are an anthropomorphism, and any argument that induces them is self-invalidating because anthropomorphism is by definition the attribution of human characteristics to things that don't possess them.

Does extraterrestrial life exist? Almost certainly. Is some of if 'intelligent'? Again almost certainly. Does it build spaceships and travel across the galaxy looking for other 'intelligent' lifeforms to impose its moral values onto (which by pure coincidence precisely align with our own). Of course not. We don't even do that to other intelligent life on our own planet, only to other humans. So these supposed 'aliens' are in practice merely imagined other races of humans - thus anthropomorphic.

A lot a science fiction acknowledges this anthropomorphism. Unfortunately many so-called rational thinkers don't recognize that they are doing it too. Even more unfortunately, some of them are scientists.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Because 'aliens' are an anthropomorphism, and any argument that induces them is self-invalidating because anthropomorphism is by definition the attribution of human characteristics to things that don't possess them.

Does extraterrestrial life exist? Almost certainly. Is some of if 'intelligent'? Again almost certainly. Does it build spaceships and travel across the galaxy looking for other 'intelligent' lifeforms to impose its moral values onto (which by pure coincidence precisely align with our own). Of course not. We don't even do that to other intelligent life on our own planet, only to other humans. So these supposed 'aliens' are in practice merely imagined other races of humans - thus anthropomorphic.

A lot a science fiction acknowledges this anthropomorphism. Unfortunately many so-called rational thinkers don't recognize that they are doing it too. Even more unfortunately, some of them are scientists.
Click to expand...
Do you include me as one of those rational thinkers who don’t recognize that?
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Because 'aliens' are an anthropomorphism, and any argument that induces them is self-invalidating because anthropomorphism is by definition the attribution of human characteristics to things that don't possess them.

Does extraterrestrial life exist? Almost certainly. Is some of if 'intelligent'? Again almost certainly. Does it build spaceships and travel across the galaxy looking for other 'intelligent' lifeforms to impose its moral values onto (which by pure coincidence precisely align with our own). Of course not. We don't even do that to other intelligent life on our own planet, only to other humans. So these supposed 'aliens' are in practice merely imagined other races of humans - thus anthropomorphic.

A lot a science fiction acknowledges this anthropomorphism. Unfortunately many so-called rational thinkers don't recognize that they are doing it too. Even more unfortunately, some of them are scientists.
Click to expand...

Enjoyed that insight! ...That is, not sure I agree. And nor that I disagree! Just, I hadn't really thought of it that way, and it's food for thought.

----------

Even if that were true --- and, like I said, I'm undecided whether it is --- even so, surely the "to impose its moral values" part is something of a strawman, at least when looking not at specific ideas of specific people, but at the idea of spacefaring aliens in general? Here, where you say: "Again almost certainly. Does it build spaceships and travel across the galaxy looking for other 'intelligent' lifeforms to impose its moral values onto (which by pure coincidence precisely align with our own). Of course not."


eta: Wait, let me make sure I understand you correctly. I may have missed the mark, maybe. What is it you describe as anthropomorphism?

The part about (some people's idea of) aliens swarming around the galaxy specifically in order to impose their moral values onto other intelligent creatures they find? Is that the anthropomorphism part? If it's specifically that, then I guess I misunderstood you! I think this makes sense, in general --- even though it might well turn out to be true in some cases.

Or do you mean that it is anthropomorphism to imagine that aliens might want to do the spaceships thing and the exploring thing and the colonizing thing at all? If it is that latter, then, thinking about this just a little bit now, I don't think that works, at all, not as a generalization.
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
(...) Which religion would everyone be forced to believe in, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or maybe something as simple as just following the Golden Rule, or Golden Ruleism? (...)


-
Click to expand...

Which brings me back to what I'd asked you, well indirectly asked you, way back in the thread. What's your definition of God, basis which this thread? If you mean the Christian God specifically ---- or some narrower version of it, like the RCC version, or some wider version of it, like the Abrahamic conception of God ---- then you need to clearly define that in order for this discussion, overall, to be coherent.

Else, there's a great many ideas and definitions of God, almost as many as there are cultures. And many times more, if you bring in individual idiosyncrasies. No reason really to favor any one of these, or any one set from within these, over the others. Not unless you choose to explicitly define your God in those terms.


eta: Incidentally, what's with the white space and the hyphen thing? (Just curious, is all. By all means do that if you like. I've got a deeply mystical comma myself, after all.)
 
Chanakya said:
Which brings me back to what I'd asked you, well indirectly asked you, way back in the thread. What's your definition of God, basis which this thread? If you mean the Christian God specifically ---- or some narrower version of it, like the RCC version, or some wider version of it, like the Abrahamic conception of God ---- then you need to clearly define that in order for this discussion, overall, to be coherent.

Else, there's a great many ideas and definitions of God, almost as many as there are cultures. And many times more, if you bring in individual idiosyncrasies. No reason really to favor any one of these, or any one set from within these, over the others. Not unless you choose to explicitly define your God in those terms.


eta: Incidentally, what's with the white space and the hyphen thing? (Just curious, is all. By all means do that if you like. I've got a deeply mystical comma myself, after all.)
Click to expand...


I've answered this question many times throughout this thread, but I know how hard it is to actually read a long one before posting, so once again:

I'm mostly talking about ALL gods and not any specific one, IOW, what would (any god) need to do to prove (to you personally) that she was the real deal?

My definition of god is that she doesn't give a rat's a*** what bible or religion you follow as long as you follow the Golden Rule.

I've also answered multiple times why I don't think god is a male (or even a female really)., and the answer to why I think god is a she is, "Why not?"

I actually think if she exist, it's like what Julian of Norwich felt in her Revelations of Divine Love, and that god has both the spirit of a man and women in them.


AmyStrange

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

Darat said:
Again it would work for absolutely everyone - god needs to do no more than rearrange a few synapses in your brain and you will believe it exists, that works for everyone.
Click to expand...


Sorry, Darat, but a better answer (that wouldn't require anyone to lose their free will) would be to kill everyone and put them in front of the gates of heaven and then begin judging them.


ETA: That would also bring up another posit brought up earlier. Which religion would everyone be forced to believe in, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or maybe something as simple as just...


-
 
Last edited:
I had practically forgotten the possibility that a For Real God showing up (ie an interested, communicative force that is/was a significant factor in the current state of the universe) would mean any of our religions were significantly true. Maybe some of the vague ones via guessing right.

All of our religions are so comfortably explained as the result of the ways we like to mythologise and organise, that I have a hard time discarding occam's razor there.

"Well who was right? Who gets into heaven?"
"I'm afraid it was the Mormons. Yes, the Mormons were the correct answer."
"Aw!!"
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
I had practically forgotten the possibility that a For Real God showing up (ie an interested, communicative force that is/was a significant factor in the current state of the universe) would mean any of our religions were significantly true. Maybe some of the vague ones via guessing right.

All of our religions are so comfortably explained as the result of the ways we like to mythologise and organise, that I have a hard time discarding occam's razor there.

"Well who was right? Who gets into heaven?"
"I'm afraid it was the Mormons. Yes, the Mormons were the correct answer."
"Aw!!"
Click to expand...
 
junkshop said:
But if you were God, you would be omnipotent. Nothing would be impossible for you.

If God made you God you could make God cease to have ever existed.

If God made you God you could make God have been someone else, which would mean that they couldn't have made you God, which would mean that you couldn't have made them someone else, which would mean that could make you God...

But this raises another question: if
we are working with a model wherein 'God' is omnipotent, omniscientand omnipresesent, then when the type of shenanigans I poked at above happen, even if they are undone (be that through logic, magic, semantics, spaceships or whatever) I would have to assume that these/this omniscient being knows and remembers every reality that happened, even if they unhappened in the end.

This may explain why so many religions claim that God demands weird and contradictory things of their adherents: God is mad. There is no way to be omniscient and remain sane. Add in omnipotent and omnipresent, and whoever this God freak is, they are out there, brothers and sisters, they are out there for us. Maybe.

That said, all this is assuming that God has a mind that works kinda like ours, just a bit cleverer. If God's mind works different from peoples', then OK, I guess.


A bunch of arse, when push comes to shove
Click to expand...
Don't worry, we can't, omnipotence and omniscience are two mutually exclusive traits.
 
arthwollipot said:
Yeah free will goes completely out the window in that case.
Click to expand...
When it comes to the abrahamic religions, free will is a massive problem. Given the descriptions of god/yhwh/allah, it is clear that he is working to a "perfect" and inescapable plan of his own devising. Humans having free will immediately defeats that plan.

But looking deeper, free will is only there as a thought stopper to avoid questions the theologians and apologists can't answer, like the problem of evil.
 
arthwollipot said:
It's not the first English translation, though it did draw substantially on Tyndale's earlier works. It was, however, translated deliberately in the most poetic language that would not have been spoken by common people at the time.

It would be a bit like like translating La Sombra del Viento into Shakespearean English.
Click to expand...
The translation into cod-Shakesperean was a deliberate choice. By going with an archaic form of modern-English (even by that time) allowed the KJV to be both understandable (Chaucerian English by then was almost a different language) and to cover itself in a veneer of authoritative antiquity.

The writers knew that they were taking significant licence to the stories in their bible when translating it, largely because they were translating it for the purpose of justifying the notion of divine right as per the wishes of their patron James VI & I.
 
Myriad said:
I do have a quibble with this. That would constitute persuasion but the thread title demands proof. Persuasion isn't proof unless it's assumed a priori that only an actual god would be capable of changing your mind about that particular thing. I've seen enough 60s and 70s psychological thriller movies to know that the right combination of flashing colored lights, strange noises, and repeated phrases can change anyone's mind about almost anything in a few hours or days. (The exception being Number 6's invincible defiance.) While those particular methods might not work so well in real life, there's also drugs and brain surgery, and I don't think it would require godlike abilities to develop methods to use them effectively on a specific individual.
Click to expand...
The proof would be that yesterday billions of people believed in a myriad of gods as evidenced by all of human recorded history and this morning we all believe in the same god.
 
Lithrael said:
sooooo... Neutrinos are not dark matter but have some of the properties that the theoretical dark matter would have?
Click to expand...
It would be better to say that they are not the dark matter you are looking for. ;)

We know the dark matter that certain models require is not neutrinos, but neutrinos are a form of dark matter.
 
Darat said:
The proof would be that yesterday billions of people believed in a myriad of gods as evidenced by all of human recorded history and this morning we all believe in the same god.
Click to expand...


I wonder if that would include the devil, but of course, that would depend on which god or religion everyone believed in the next day.


ETA: What am I thinking, of course the devil already believes in god, but that would also mean that believing in her wouldn't force you to like god or other people either. Trump would probably end up being the same sleazy SOB he is now.


-
 
Last edited:
It could also be a (another star trek style) problem for us if what shows up is the Whale God: it resets the ocean's temperatures, hides the fossil fuels, vanishes drag nets (fresh and trash) and starts smiting the occasional whaling vessel.

Probably less likely to upend the social order; our religious guys would all be wondering why they can't get a showing from THEIR god and might start a fight about whatever they think is displeasing their deity. Particularly crunchy granola types would be very happy. Nuclear would probably get fast-tracked.
 
Darat said:
The proof would be that yesterday billions of people believed in a myriad of gods as evidenced by all of human recorded history and this morning we all believe in the same god.
Click to expand...

Okay, that would suffice, but in that case the real proof is in the show of power, not the specific persuasion. Everyone all suddenly having the same favorite color would be comparable proof. Maybe it wouldn't matter in your scenario since everyone would be persuaded anyhow. At least for the present, depending on whether the deity has performed a genetically transmissible miracle, or hangs around to similarly persuade future generations.
 
Myriad said:
Okay, that would suffice, but in that case the real proof is in the show of power, not the specific persuasion.
Everyone all suddenly having the same favorite color would be comparable proof. Maybe it wouldn't matter in your scenario since everyone would be persuaded anyhow. At least for the present, depending on whether the deity has performed a genetically transmissible miracle, or hangs around to similarly persuade future generations.
Click to expand...
No, that would only make us all believe there was some entity that could change some people's favourite colour. The change I'm talking about is that we would all believe that the entity messing with our minds is god.
 
Darat said:
No, that would only make us all believe there was some entity that could change some people's favourite colour. The change I'm talking about is that we would all believe that the entity messing with our minds is god.
Click to expand...

I agree the change you're talking about would certainly engender more belief, but my point is that it would not provide any higher level of evidence or proof.
 
Myriad said:
I agree the change you're talking about would certainly engender more belief, but my point is that it would not provide any higher level of evidence or proof.
Click to expand...
Is providing a higher level of evidence or proof part of the assignment, though?

Or maybe we just need to acknowledge Darat's clever end-run around the spirit of the question, give him credit for a really good answer, and move on to other answers that are more in keeping with the spirit of evidence or proof of god.
 
theprestige said:
Is providing a higher level of evidence or proof part of the assignment, though?

Or maybe we just need to acknowledge Darat's clever end-run around the spirit of the question, give him credit for a really good answer, and move on to other answers that are more in keeping with the spirit of evidence or proof of god.
Click to expand...


Although I admit, Darat's answer was clever, the question wasn't what would convince everyone that god existed, the question was, "What would PERSONNALLY CONVINCE YOU that god existed.

After all, this thread is NOT a contest for the best answer.

There are many other ways I could be convinced and most of them aren't as high level as Darat's... hell, there are many people out there who believe in god just by reading the bible.

The biggest problem I have with Darat's answer is how would Darat know that EVERYONE believed in the same god or would all of Darat's friends and family believing be enough?

IMO, the answer to that would be the BETTER answer. For example: if god made Darat BELIEVE that everyone believed in the same god would be a better answer, but like I said, this isn't a contest for the best answer, no matter how much Darat believes it is.


-
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
Although I admit, Darat's answer was clever, the question wasn't what would convince everyone that god existed, the question was, "What would PERSONNALLY CONVINCE YOU that god existed.
Click to expand...
And that's the question Darat answered. Beyond that, he (correctly, in my opinion) noted that God could apply the same approach to everyone else.

ETA: The biggest problem you have with Darat's answer is that you don't understand what he's saying. He's saying that God making him personally believe would make him personally believe. He's NOT saying that God making everyone else personally believe would make him believe.

He IS saying that God could make each of us personally believe, and that would make us each personally believe.
 
theprestige said:
And that's the question Darat answered. Beyond that, he (correctly, in my opinion) noted that God could apply the same approach to everyone else.

ETA: The biggest problem you have with Darat's answer is that you don't understand what he's saying. He's saying that God making him personally believe would make him personally believe. He's NOT saying that God making everyone else personally believe would make him believe.

He IS saying that God could make each of us personally believe, and that would make us each personally believe.
Click to expand...


Nope, I understand what Darat is saying, and I agree with Darat. It would convince me too, but other ways would convince me also.

After all, this not a contest for the BEST answer, even though (IMO) Darat seems to think it is.


-
 
AmyStrange said:
Nope, I understand what Darat is saying, and I agree with Darat. It would convince me too, but other ways would convince me also.

After all, this not a contest for the BEST answer, even though (IMO) Darat seems to think it is.


-
Click to expand...
If you understand what Darat is saying, why do you keep misrepresenting it?
 
theprestige said:
If you understand what Darat is saying, why do you keep misrepresenting it?
Click to expand...


I stand corrected, and obviously, I didn't explain myself very well.

How Darat would believe isn't my issue. I just don't believe that Darat's way is the best way or the only way.

After all (like I keep posting), THIS IS NOT A CONTEST to find the BEST ANSWER.


-
 
I don't have time to read the whole thread, but as per the question, off the top of my head since Lazarus was probably the best 'miracle' of the NT, I'd say bring my deceased mother into the room (along with a psychiatrist to verify that I was sane) in the flesh and let me have a discussion with her. Presumably others here have made excuses like 'but that would not prove god or it could be aliens yadda yadda, but for me that would be good enough.
Or maybe she could just convert Trump into an actual Christian, and he would immediately divest his entire wealth to the poor, and sentence himself to life without parole for his many crimes against humanity. That would be sufficient as well...
 
stanfr said:
I don't have time to read the whole thread, but as per the question, off the top of my head since Lazarus was probably the best 'miracle' of the NT, I'd say bring my deceased mother into the room (along with a psychiatrist to verify that I was sane) in the flesh and let me have a discussion with her. Presumably others here have made excuses like 'but that would not prove god or it could be aliens yadda yadda, but for me that would be good enough. Or maybe she could just convert Trump into an actual Christian, and he would immediately divest his entire wealth to the poor, and sentence himself to life without parole for his many crimes against humanity. That would be sufficient as well...
Click to expand...


Exactly and thank you.

That's a legitimate answer, and not just because I also wrote the exact same kind of thing in an earlier post.

Any answer to the question, "What would prove to you PERSONALLY that she existed," would be legitimate in my mind, even if it was that Bigfoot would run for president and win.

In my OP, I also didn't include any requirement that others would have to be convinced too.

All it would have to convince is just you.

So, once again, thank you.


-
 
junkshop said:
You asked how god could "prove (to you personally) that she was the one and only"
Darat answered your question. Whether you think that is the best or only way is neither here nor there. It was not submitted as the best or only way, it was Darat's answer to your question.
Click to expand...


Sigh, I agree with Darat's answer, but I don't think it's the best or only answer.

If you consider that criticism, then I don't know what I can do to debunk your criticism of me personally.

As a matter of fact, here is a better answer if you want to go that route:

A better answer (that wouldn't require anyone to lose their free will) would be to kill everyone and put them in front of the gates of heaven and then begin judging them.

Without free will, Darat, you, I, or anyone would be no better than brainwashed, mindless sheep that the maga weirdoes are right now.


AmyStrange

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

Darat said:
Again it would work for absolutely everyone - god needs to do no more than rearrange a few synapses in your brain and you will believe it exists, that works for everyone.
Click to expand...


Sorry, Darat, but a better answer (that wouldn't require anyone to lose their free will) would be to kill everyone and put them in front of the gates of heaven and then begin judging them.


ETA: That would also bring up another posit brought up earlier. Which religion would everyone be forced to believe in, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or maybe something as simple as just...


-
 
In part, my answer would be simple: the same thing anyone would have to do to convince me that they exist: come and talk to me. If some dude appears to me in person, shakes my hand, and talks to me, I am of course going to think that said dude exists.

Want me to believe that you can do weird and wonderful things, like raise the dead or wreathe the moon in green flame? Show me.

Want me to believe that you are wise and knowledgeable? Establish the appropriate resume.

As to the claim that you are *God*? That's a bit trickier, because some aspects of that probably aren't verifiable. How would you go about proving that you created the universe? Or that you rule heaven and hell? You might show me that stuff in a vision, but that would only prove your ability to instill visions.

But: baby steps. First, let's establish that there even is a *person* who wants me to think that they're God (which is typically an element of the claim, after all), and is even a remotely plausible candidate for that title. Then we can move on to the other stuff.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
In part, my answer would be simple: the same thing anyone would have to do to convince me that they exist: come and talk to me. If some dude appears to me in person, shakes my hand, and talks to me, I am of course going to think that said dude exists.

Want me to believe that you can do weird and wonderful things, like raise the dead or wreathe the moon in green flame? Show me.

Want me to believe that you are wise and knowledgeable? Establish the appropriate resume.

As to the claim that you are *God*? That's a bit trickier, because some aspects of that probably aren't verifiable. How would you go about proving that you created the universe? Or that you rule heaven and hell? You might show me that stuff in a vision, but that would only prove your ability to instill visions.

But: baby steps. First, let's establish that there even is a *person* who wants me to think that they're God (which is typically an element of the claim, after all), and is even a remotely plausible candidate for that title. Then we can move on to the other stuff.
Click to expand...
I'd have thought in your case the massive crocodile head would be important?
 
AmyStrange said:
I've answered this question many times throughout this thread, but I know how hard it is to actually read a long one before posting, so once again:

I'm mostly talking about ALL gods and
not any specific one, IOW, what would (
any god) need to do to prove (to you personally) that she was the real deal?

My definition of god is that she doesn't give a rat's a*** what bible or religion you follow as long as you follow the Golden Rule.

I've also answered multiple times why I don't think god is a male (or even a female really)., and the answer to why I think god is a she is, "Why not?"

I actually think if she exist, it's like what Julian of Norwich felt in her Revelations of Divine Love, and that god has both the spirit of a man and women in them.


AmyStrange

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

Darat said:
Again it would work for absolutely everyone - god needs to do no more than rearrange a few synapses in your brain and you will believe it exists, that works for everyone.
Click to expand...


Sorry, Darat, but a better answer (that wouldn't require anyone to lose their free will) would be to kill everyone and put them in front of the gates of heaven and then begin judging them.


ETA: That would also bring up another posit brought up earlier. Which religion would everyone be forced to believe in, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or maybe something as simple as just...


-
Click to expand...


Well then, in that case it's like I said, in my post back when.

If you're not going to define God yourself, and leave people to define God as they like: well then, there's folks there who actually think God is all of nature, or that God is all of the universe.

(For instance, there's this guy: https://steve-patterson.com/understanding-god-as-nature-or-the-universe/
...And I've seen this sort of thing in New Age books as well, I mean specifically where God is defined as the Universe, or as nature.)

So, if you're working with that kind of a definition of God personally, when then God doesn't have to do anything at all. It already exists, evidently so. You already believe. Everybody already believes, given that definition.

So that, like I was saying, way back upthread: The simplest way to do what you're looking for is what Darat's suggested. Provided you don't insist on the not fiddling with free will caveat. ...And an equally straightforward way to do what you're asking for, is to simply define God in such a way that its existence becomes an incontestable thing. And this doesn't even require any diddling with people's free will*.



*Well, working with the religious idea of free will. I personally don't think free will exists, but that's completely irrelevant to this exchange and off-topic for this thread.


-----

eta:
What I've suggested ties in with the idea of igtheism or ignosticism. Essentially, God is a meaningless word, because it's such an open idea. Not just in terms of philosophical wanking, but actually --- provided one is able to move one's reference point beyond one's narrow tribe. If you look around the world, at different cultures, different God-ideas, then you'll see a huge diversity in what the term "God" even means. So that, to even ask the question, "Do you believe in God?", or, as you do, "What can God do to make you believe in Him", is a completely meaningless exercise, unless you first clearly define what exactly you mean by God. When you don't explicitly define God, then nine times out of ten, you're working with some implicit definition of God --- just as, in this thread, most people are implicitly working with the Judeo-Christian idea of God. Bring in pagan gods, and you'll need different parameters to make people believe in that pagan god. And bring in God-as-existence, or God-as-nature, or God-as-the-Universe, and you'll need to do nothing at all to make people believe in God.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom