Proof/falsification of god.

[transferosome]

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.

Some good points there....

I know it's about psychology, you know it's about psychology... This is more of a thought experiment though.

People didn't 'notice' gravity before it was pinned down by Newton.... Things just fell.

If it turned out that prayer consistently worked for believers of a certain god, I think that it wouldn't have been noticed much until tested. It would just have 'happened.' If enough tests confirmed it, it would require further study - development of new hypotheses, new tests, etc.

Are there any theists on this board?

 

[Ginarley]

People didn't 'notice' gravity before it was pinned down by Newton.... Things just fell.

Yep - i was struggling for an analogous example. The problem with god is that there are no directly observed phenomena of any supernatural deity - and it's simply too big a concept for the evidence to be well hidden lol.

If it turned out that prayer consistently worked for believers of a certain god, I think that it wouldn't have been noticed much until tested. It would just have 'happened.' If enough tests confirmed it, it would require further study - development of new hypotheses, new tests, etc.

This would certainly be interesting but its not very direct in terms of proving the existence of the god itself. And as I said before, if the only way such a big concept can manifest itself is through statistically significant improvements in health then it seems pretty impotent lol.

 

[transferosome]

Yep - i was struggling for an analogous example. The problem with god is that there are no directly observed phenomena of any supernatural deity - and it's simply too big a concept for the evidence to be well hidden lol.



This would certainly be interesting but its not very direct in terms of proving the existence of the god itself. And as I said before, if the only way such a big concept can manifest itself is through statistically significant improvements in health then it seems pretty impotent lol.

I'm with you, hence the 'further research required.' However, it may all just be part of His Ineffable Plan. The real reward would, of course, be after death

 

[Dog Boots]

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.

Aw, c'mon - what is it? Sisters? The neighbor?

Seriously, I think it's a very interesting issue. If we are to be reasonable debaters, we have to be able to provide some criteria for the oppositions arguments to live up to.

What would mine be (for the theists to deliver)? Hard to say - could have so many different forms, but something "positive" instead of just a "lack" of explanation, as we know it from the ever shrinking god of the gaps. Something spectacular, on the scale of what we can read about in the BuyBull, that for some reason has stopped occurring in recent times.

In one of the few debates I've heard where someone could actually handle Kent Hovind's slippery style (a Canadian named Martin, calling in to Hovind's radioshow from Sweden), Hovind was asked what he would consider ample evidence for evolution. Smart move - Hovind would have to comply to seem like a reasonable debater. What did he say? "I would have to see a horse give birth to a non-horse". I don't know what theory would be compatible with that observation, but it surely would not be the Theory of Evolution...

 

[Pope130]

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

"I'll believe anything you want if there's a steady paycheck in it." Winston Zedmore

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

How about a message in the randomness of pi?

That would mean a Universe creator actually left a message in the fabric of the Universe.

(Moment of silence for Carl Sagan)

 

[ReligionStudent]

How about a message in the randomness of pi?

That would mean a Universe creator actually left a message in the fabric of the Universe.

(Moment of silence for Carl Sagan)

No that would mean somewhere in an infinite string of numbers some made readable sence. I believe this is like saying the bible code means that there are messages coded in the bible.

 

[Danhalen]

If there is a deity, it can compell me to believe it exists. Until it does, I cannot believe.

 

[transferosome]

If there is a deity, it can compell me to believe it exists. Until it does, I cannot believe.

Fault!

The idea of 'free will' negates God doing that. Not that He can't, just that He doesn't want to. According to the theists, the whole point is that you have a choice. 'Making' you believe would go against His plan for creation.

Sorry... You're out!

(You can have another try if you like...)

 

[transferosome]

How about a message in the randomness of pi?

That would mean a Universe creator actually left a message in the fabric of the Universe.

(Moment of silence for Carl Sagan)

Yeah, that's why I like the 'message in the background radiation' idea. In both cases it would have to be really obvious though. Like, coded into PI as ASCII (showing temporal omnipresence), or written into the background radiation obviously as ancient Hebrew or Esperanto or something.

 

[transferosome]

Aw, c'mon - what is it? Sisters? The neighbor?

Seriously, I think it's a very interesting issue. If we are to be reasonable debaters, we have to be able to provide some criteria for the oppositions arguments to live up to.

Bingo.

That's why I'd like some theists on here as well, to provide some falsifiability. Sounds like a fair exchange to me. It'd be nice to get some rational cards on the table.

I also think it's interesting to explore the boundaries of your beliefs. It gives you an insight into how strongly you hold them... And how open minded you are.

 

[Sceptic Realist]

Bingo.

That's why I'd like some theists on here as well, to provide some falsifiability. Sounds like a fair exchange to me. It'd be nice to get some rational cards on the table.

I also think it's interesting to explore the boundaries of your beliefs. It gives you an insight into how strongly you hold them... And how open minded you are.

Hear hear!

By the way, welcome to JREF!

 

[Loss Leader]

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?

Your question leads me to clarify my original answer. The ultimate source of all of my obedience/disobelience is reason. I do whatever I do because I have applied my reason to decide whether it is the right course. I am guided by my sense of morality (whatever that may be and however that may have developed).

When I say that I wouldn't obey God because he wasn't elected, I skipped a step. I meant that I have applied reason to decide that obedience of the laws of the US is (almost) always in my interest. So the question of whether God was elected is only a shortcut for the real question which is whether I believe any particular commandment is reasonable.

I obey lots of things that aren't democratically-created laws because they are reasonable. I would do that with any proclamation from God.

---------

P.S. Please don't tell me that my morality arose from circumstances beyond my control during my formative years and, thus, may not be ultimately based on reason. I am aware of this and, frankly, it makes me a little seasick.

 

[Beleth]

Aw, c'mon - what is it? Sisters? The neighbor?

Okay, I'll give a hint. This is the biggest hint I have ever given.

Imagine looking up at the Moon one night and seeing a picture of the first person you ever had a crush on instead of the normal face of the Moon. Then the next night it's the first person you ever kissed. Then the next night it's the person you're most in love with right now. And so on; pictures of people you have had close relationships with throughout your life.

They are people spread out through your entire life, so even though others may know one or two or even three of the people, the entire sequence only applies to you. It's not something that could happen by chance. And it's not something someone who wasn't you, or God, could set up. And since you didn't set it up, God must have. Therefore God exists.

My event is not that. But it's like that.

 

[Beleth]

Your question leads me to clarify my original answer. The ultimate source of all of my obedience/disobelience is reason. I do whatever I do because I have applied my reason to decide whether it is the right course. I am guided by my sense of morality (whatever that may be and however that may have developed).

Okay then. So I was right -- your decision to obey is based on other things besides "elected, vetted, and human".

So is mine, for what it's worth.

P.S. Please don't tell me that my morality arose from circumstances beyond my control during my formative years and, thus, may not be ultimately based on reason. I am aware of this and, frankly, it makes me a little seasick.

Wouldn't dream of it. I just wanted to clarify what you said.

 

[Beleth]

That's why I'd like some theists on here as well, to provide some falsifiability. Sounds like a fair exchange to me. It'd be nice to get some rational cards on the table.

For the record, I consider myself a Deist.

To be honest, I can't think of anything that would falsify my belief. Perhaps if science could explain everything. Hmmm, no, not even then; just because science gave a sufficient answer to everything still doen't mean that's what's really going on.

I will have to think about this some more.
Excellent question!

 

[Jimbo07]

Imagine looking up at the Moon one night and seeing a picture of the first person you ever had a crush on instead of the normal face of the Moon. Then the next night it's the first person you ever kissed.

Just to be clear, other people would see the faces, just not understand the sequence? It would have to be, to eliminate hallucination, I think...

 

[The Great Hairy One]

For this post, we're assuming that that the god-delusion under consideration equals the christian style omni-being. If you want to discuss a different definition of a god-delusion, please say so.

For me, there's a list of criteria:

1) The evidence must be external to myself - in other words, it must be seen/experienced by others. Anything personal would make me doubt my own sanity, and I would consider myself insane if I was the only one affected or interacting with the experience.

2) The evidence must be scientifically verifiable and repeatable - in other words, happens regularly, often or constantly. A single instance could be mass hallucination or something similar. Furthermore, the evidence must be examinable by scientific means, machines and equipment.

3) The evidence must be overwhelming, like Miss Anthrope's example. Every single sick person in the world suddenly being healed - and any injury over the next period of time also being healed. With a voiceover of "By my will be healed!" or something like that. Everyone who had broken the biblical laws being crisped by a pillar of hellfire and a voiceover "be punished by my will sinner!".

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Kopji]

For this post, we're assuming that that the god-delusion under consideration equals the Christian style omni-being. If you want to discuss a different definition of a god-delusion, please say so.

For me, there's a list of criteria:

1) The evidence must be external to myself - in other words, it must be seen/experienced by others. Anything personal would make me doubt my own sanity, and I would consider myself insane if I was the only one affected or interacting with the experience.

The potential flaw in this is that your experience of 'others' is also internal. Suppose your memory were flawed in a way that you hallucinated other people affirming what never happened?

2) The evidence must be scientifically verifiable and repeatable - in other words, happens regularly, often or constantly. A single instance could be mass hallucination or something similar. Furthermore, the evidence must be examinable by scientific means, machines and equipment.

Would this really be convincing? God would need to act within the finite world and so 'falsely' appear as a finite being. This seems a strength of Christianity, where God exists in an infinite sense, yet also finite. How would we tell God from a really advanced civilization or being?

3) The evidence must be overwhelming, like Miss Anthrope's example. Every single sick person in the world suddenly being healed - and any injury over the next period of time also being healed. With a voiceover of "By my will be healed!" or something like that. Everyone who had broken the biblical laws being crisped by a pillar of hellfire and a voiceover "be punished by my will sinner!".

Cheers,
TGHO

Oddly enough, I think that even if this happened there would be a substantial population that believed it was of the devil. The Bible has a weird quality about it where every passage can have multiple meanings, and this also means there is not a single 'miracle' or 'sign' that could appear and satisfy everyone. Just look at all the wacky prophets even in this forum.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

The potential flaw in this is that your experience of 'others' is also internal. Suppose your memory were flawed in a way that you hallucinated other people affirming what never happened?

We're all disembodied brains in jars, plugged into the Matrix. Nothing is real, and it's all an illusion

Your argument is valid irrespective of what someone answers here.

Would this really be convincing? God would need to act within the finite world and so 'falsely' appear as a finite being. This seems a strength of Christianity, where God exists in an infinite sense, yet also finite. How would we tell God from a really advanced civilization or being?

I would assume that the instance of evidence in this case would completely re-write or utterly invalidate what we currently understand of basic physics. Whatever it is occurring would be so fanstatical that everyone would be scratching their heads and asking for grants to study the effects.

Advanced alien technology, even if not understandable, would (I assume) still correlate with the very basics of science even us primitive humans currently know.

Oddly enough, I think that even if this happened there would be a substantial population that believed it was of the devil. The Bible has a weird quality about it where every passage can have multiple meanings, and this also means there is not a single 'miracle' or 'sign' that could appear and satisfy everyone. Just look at all the wacky prophets even in this forum.

One person's god is another's satan. Dunno where the quote comes from, but I am sure I've heard it before.

Cheers,
TGHO