Proof/falsification of god.

[transferosome]

In a 'discussion' with a Muslim fundamentalist on You Tube, I was actually asked a half-way interesting question. (Actually I'm being quite unfair. If it was all boring I wouldn't have kept coming back. I certainly learned a lot about the Qu'ran over the time I was there...)

'What would you accept as proof of the existence of God'?

Well... I reeled off a few examples, then told him to use his imagination. It was HIS god, after all!

Anyway, it got me thinking. Can that cut both ways?

So, atheists (agnostics, humanists, deists, etc.) - what would you accept as evidence for the existence of a 'personal' religious god such as Allah, or Jehovah? You can go for full on 'proof positive' or evidence that would require further investigation.

Theists and the religious, what would you accept as falsification for the 'god hypothesis'? Again, you can go for something that would completely disprove your religion and thus make your belief invalid, or you can go for things that would make you think twice.

Sound fair? Cool.

 

[Beleth]

I have thought about this a lot.

There is an event that could happen which I would consider proof of the existence of a personal God. But it is personal, so telling anyone what it is would invalidate it as evidence. And no, I'm not being flippant; this is my actual answer. All I will say is that setting it up would cost nothing and be doable in 10-15 minutes.

I have told God what this event is. I am telling Him now, even as I type this. Only He and I know, and so the ball is in His court.

 

[transferosome]

I like it! But what if it happened by accident?

 

[Loss Leader]

I'd like to separate out two questions. First, there is the type of proof that would be required to get me to believe in a personal, interested and involved God. Second, there is the proof that would get me to care what he thinks or obey his commands.

Perhaps there are some series of events that could get me to believe in God as described in the Torah (or in a being so powerful that he might as well be God). However, I doubt that there is anything at all that could convince me to obey him. He wasn't elected; he wasn't vetted; he isn't even human.

 

[Irony]

If there were such a thing as a personal religious God, then he could just make me believe in him. He wouldn't have to perform any miracles, he could just manipulate a few brain cells and *poof* I'm a believer.

If he wanted to make us believe via miracles then all it would take would be a few miracles that weren't obvious hoaxes, like a giant hand coming out of the clouds and crushing Pat Robertson or something.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It would require a definition of what "god" is that included attributes. After that, it would require scientific validation that such a being existed.

 

[Beleth]

I like it! But what if it happened by accident?

I took that into account. It could not happen by accident.

 

[Beleth]

I doubt that there is anything at all that could convince me to obey him. He wasn't elected; he wasn't vetted; he isn't even human.

Neither are traffic signs, but I bet you obey those.

I'm not saying that you should obey God. I'm just saying that "elected, vetted, and human" are not necessary criteria to determine obedience.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

If, out of nowhere, the starving and disease ravaged people in Africa were healed and nourished by that heavenly raining manna that god saw fit to feed his wandering tribe, sure, I'd change my tune in a heartbeat.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Neither are traffic signs, but I bet you obey those.

I'm not saying that you should obey God. I'm just saying that "elected, vetted, and human" are not necessary criteria to determine obedience.

But those are put there by elected humans. So, its like they are communicating with you. Perhaps a better example would be the colors of a coral snake, "Red and black's a friend to Jack, red and yellow can kill a fellow."

 

[ReligionStudent]

If, out of nowhere, the starving and disease ravaged people in Africa were healed and nourished by that heavenly raining manna that god saw fit to feed his wandering tribe, sure, I'd change my tune in a heartbeat.

I think for me it depends on what god you are trying to prove. If we are talking about an all powerful/knowing/good god, that boat sailed a long time ago. Human history is full of illustrations against that.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

If there were such a thing as a personal religious God, then he could just make me believe in him. He wouldn't have to perform any miracles, he could just manipulate a few brain cells and *poof* I'm a believer.

If IT showed you too much, you would lose yourself in the process. You wouldn't be the person YOU made you. If IT showed you an outright miracle, the same thing would happen. You could learn to think that even though you are driving reckless, that God would get you home.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I'd like to separate out two questions. First, there is the type of proof that would be required to get me to believe in a personal, interested and involved God. Second, there is the proof that would get me to care what he thinks or obey his commands.

Perhaps there are some series of events that could get me to believe in God as described in the Torah (or in a being so powerful that he might as well be God). However, I doubt that there is anything at all that could convince me to obey him. He wasn't elected; he wasn't vetted; he isn't even human.

This is the attitude that is most potent. Someone who is waiting for signs to act and do, would require to much guidance.

 

[Loss Leader]

Neither are traffic signs, but I bet you obey those.

Actually, I obey the law that says that the traffic signs have meaning. That law was written by elected officials. And those signs were placed on the road by order of elected officials.

I'm not saying that you should obey God. I'm just saying that "elected, vetted, and human" are not necessary criteria to determine obedience.

They are to me.

 

[Beleth]

Actually, I obey the law that says that the traffic signs have meaning. That law was written by elected officials. And those signs were placed on the road by order of elected officials.

But is that the reason you obey them? Do you obey them because you will go to jail if you don't, or do you obey them because you will get in a horrible accident if you don't?

If you were driving across private property (with the permission of the owner, of course), and you came to a crossroads with four-way stop, and you knew that the stop signs were placed there at the whim of the owner and not because any elected agency mandated them, would you stop?

 

[Bikewer]

I ascribe to the adage proposed by Arthur C. Clarke, "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
So, even truly remarkable "miracles" might be evidence of a supernatural being, or of a vastly advanced technology.

Having thought about this a bit as well, the only thing I can think of is the transcendence of death.
That would be proof of some sort of "supernatural" or spiritual realm, at any rate.

 

[transferosome]

I ascribe to the adage proposed by Arthur C. Clarke, "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
So, even truly remarkable "miracles" might be evidence of a supernatural being, or of a vastly advanced technology.

Having thought about this a bit as well, the only thing I can think of is the transcendence of death.
That would be proof of some sort of "supernatural" or spiritual realm, at any rate.

Hmm. Unless we were 'shown' the spirit realm (which could be done with hyper-tech smoke and mirrors I guess) we'd have to wait until we died to find out. No better than where we are now.

That whole alien technology things gets me, too. I thought about it a lot...

I'd say that a message to His chosen people written in the background radiation of the universe would be a bit of a show-stopper.

Interesting and worthy of further investigation would be controlled experiments showing the effect of prayer - resulting in statistically relevant results, but only for one religious group.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Money. I'll believe anything for enough of it.

 

[transferosome]

Money. I'll believe anything for enough of it.

Hahahaha! Fantastic.

 

[Ginarley]

I don't think any one event would be enough to convince me.

Think about gravity - its not the fact something fell earthwards once that convinced people, but the fact that it did it repeatedly and in fact never hasn't done it. With further exploration we noticed this applied to other planets and so on - it fits with everything we know about the world.

To convince me there is a god I would need to see continual repeatable evidence of its existence - not random glimpses artificially dragged into a false context. This evidence would need to be consistent and meaningful (ie not the gaps argument).

Unfortunately for theists it seems disproving their belief often requires overcoming the programming from birth to believe it at all costs. Its not about evidence but psychology.