What evidence would convince you that god exists?

[Lord Emsworth]

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.

Our hypothesis? It isn't our hypothesis at all if that is to include me. It may be yours, but not mine.

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

Are we? I don't think so.

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

Enter flowery language. And yes, that which is described might be utterly boring after all the exiting metaphor would be stripped away.

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.

Nothing is easier than that. I just call it roeroitue. Prove me wrong.

What you don't seem to factor in sufficiently is that a word does not necessarily imparts any kind of meaning. We can call stuff names, that is not the problem. We can call that what makes such-and-such by the name so-and-so. Fair enough. But what is so-and-so exactly?

To the point, you can of course call that which makes limbs regrow after prayer by the name of "God." But what is it? I wouldn't know. At best you could tie the two together and talk of "God" whenever after prayer a limb regrows. Fine you can do it.

However in a like fashion it is conceivalbe that somebody that which makes the sun come up in the morning by the name of Ra. Now fast forward scienftific inquiry a little and it turns out that was once referred to as "the sun coming up" is a perception that is generated by the earth's rotation and a whole lot of other arcane sciency stuff. Is that now Ra? I wouldn't know. Sure we could maintain the name, but would it ring right?

Back to the God of the limbs. Imagine that it were true. It were so that if you uttered several more or less specific words, your chopped off arm, legs, etc would regrow. Now further imagine that scientific inquiry had shown that - completely unexpectedly - there is something in the frequency of the sound waves generated by certain words that stimulates stuff in your body (and a whole lot of other arcane sciency stuff) as to cause the limbs to regrow. In other words, imgine that prayer worked, and that this phenomenon was scientifically explained. Now the prize question is, would that stipulated scientific explantion, be "God." Why or why not?

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.

Are we? I don't think so. And by whose literal reading?

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.

There is no point in denying the existence of "gravity." It is inextricably tied to observations, and refers to whatever exactly the explanation for those observations is.

"Aspirin" is a bit different. It refers to a specific mix of chemicals(?), or at least to something specific, and not something general as does gravity. The "efficacy of Aspirin" on the other hand, would again refer to something general as it is not tied to a specific way in which those chemicals would have to interact with you.

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

What does "Aspirin" have to do with biochemistry? The "efficacy of Aspirin" does have something to do with biochemistry. But ... we would still talk about "efficacy of Aspirin", even if it involved not so much biochemistry, but rather something like nano-pixies to make your head-aches go away.

How about "God?" Would we still talk about "God" if that which made your limbs regrow had something to do with frequencies of sound waves? Why, or why not?


My feeling says that no, if there were some concrete explanation given, it would cease to be God. Probably just because there is a requirement that we only call things God if they are essentially unexplainable, beyond understanding and the like, and that now all that'd be gone.

 

[the PC apeman]

What evidence would convince you that god exists?

Experiencing, even if only temporarily, what it is like to be God's peer, what it is like to be the creator, and what it is like to be beyond having a nature (supernatural).

NB. This does not mean that I yearn to be a god. It is only in answer to the OP.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Apparently you've never tried acid.

 

[the PC apeman]

True. It seems to have convinced a few folks that have.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I thought that the question raised was " What evidence would convince you that god exists?"?

As I replied earlier:

Sigh.

I know I am asking for trouble in saying this, but . . . "Nothing".

I would worry about my sanity however.

Not a single response has addressed this point.
How would you know that the evidence presented to convince you was "real" and not just in your imagination?

How would you know that your conviction was "real" and not just an illusion?

 

[the PC apeman]

How would you know that your conviction was "real" and not just an illusion?

Hey. Let's stick to the OP's easier question.

 

[JFrankA]

What evidence would convince you that god exists?

Okay, I'll answer this, but I'm sure you guys will poke holes in the way I think. (As you should! )

Quite a few things. First off, I want to go to several places in the universe, far far away from the Earth, take some samples of things to bring back to be studied.

Then come back before I left so I can talk to myself. When I do, I'll have some codes and responses that only I would know. I would give these codes to myself and I would give the responses.

That's the only thing I can thing of. I would assume that travelling faster than light and actually meeting myself and not screwing up the timeline and giving myself code words would be the only way as proof to me.

 

[TraneWreck]

Not a single response has addressed this point.
How would you know that the evidence presented to convince you was "real" and not just in your imagination?

How would you know that your conviction was "real" and not just an illusion?

I agree with the basis of your post, which is why I would say the only acceptible answer is something awfully damn godly. Presumably an omnipotent diety could give me an experience that would reveal his existence beyond doubt.

I agree with you that it couldn't be a "miracle," you could never rule out insanity, that you observed an unknown technology, or that you were just flat out tricked.

But god, being the stupendous dude all these religious folks say he is, could do something beyond our mortal imaginations that would make it obvious. As an omnipotent being this is clearly within his power, so the fact that I haven't had said experience lets me know that either there is no god (most likely) or if he's around, he could care less about my sorry ass.

 

[Kaizen]

Because we are fallible, I don't see how we could reasonably accept an Omni-everything-cool god as such without thoroughly testing it in the same way we would approach our best scientific theories. After some cool light shows, we could tentatively take the position that it can do cool things that are currently unexplainable and we'd have to take it from there.

But because our our mental limitations, we would be reasonable in always holding the conclusion that this thing = "god" tentatively and it would always be subject to future revelations of new, potentially conflicting information. The only way to "absolutely know" something is to have the mind of an omniscient god ourselves. This includes knowing that the being in question is really god.

So you either hold the conclusion tentatively and continually test it, have faith (ie bypass reason), or request that it gives you omniscience so you see for yourself that it is what it says it is. BTW, if the being makes you think that you're omniscient, but it really just brainwashed you, the OP is then irrelevant.

 

[JetLeg]

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.

Irrelevant to what??? Definitely not irrelevant to the OP, since I didn't ask in the OP about worship. The OP is just what it says - what would convince you what god exists, _not_ what would cause you to become a member of organised religion. I agree that these are two different questions. There was no hidden intention behind the OP.

 

[JetLeg]

Nothing is easier than that. I just call it roeroitue. Prove me wrong.

I definetely agree. Suppose I pray to roeroitue and ask roeroitue to regrow my limbs. It works every time. Does it prove that there is something like a roeritou exists ?

Perhaps the question that needs to be ask is "What would convince you of the existance of a supernatural being with supernatural powers", omitting the label "god".

 

[CriticalSock]

I definetely agree. Suppose I pray to roeroitue and ask roeroitue to regrow my limbs. It works every time. Does it prove that there is something like a roeritou exists ?

Perhaps the question that needs to be ask is "What would convince you of the existance of a supernatural being with supernatural powers", omitting the label "god".

Jetlag, have you seen that quick change routine that couple do? I think they've been on America's got Talent. The woman changes outfits in 2 seconds flat. That's what any exhibition of supernatural power would look like to any of us. It would be amazing, we would have no idea how it was done, but we would also know that there was a rational explanation for how it was done, even if we never found out what.

 

[Distracted1]

Something is omnipotent if and only if it can do anything.

Testing it is simplicity itself. Ask it to do something. If it can't, it's not omnipotent.

Is'nt there a well known paradox regarding omnipotence? If I remember correctly it asks a question like: " Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy, that he cannot pick it up?"
If "yes"then it is not omnipotent, if "no"- also not.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Hm... I would start looking for neurological influences of the area in the brain that is activated during prayer on the immune system.

No, you are praying for other people, not yourself. And I am assuming proper controls in place where the recipients have no idea if they are being prayed for.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

The problem here is that people are appealing to different meanings of the word "prove." From an empirical scientific perspective, nothing is proved absolutely, such that no possible future discovery could overturn the weight of that proof.

Absolutely, just what I was thinking in my slightly more muddled way as I read the thread.

I'd also like to point out that the question is phrased 'what evidence would convince you' not 'what would provide absolute proof' and DrKitten's suggestion of unmistakable benefits exclusive to the worship of a specific 'god' which are unobtainable to atheists or believers in other gods would be pretty persuasive to me. After all, the lack of such evidence in the real world is a very strong argument in favour of atheism.

 

[drkitten]

Our hypothesis? It isn't our hypothesis at all if that is to include me. It may be yours, but not mine.

Then you're in the wrong thread.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

If only God would give me a clear sign, like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss bank.

That would do it for me.

 

[LisaLynn]

As for proof of Gods existence.. how about spontaneous regeneration of an amputees limbs.

Something like this. Someone with no legs or arms is prayed over and *poof* their limbs are regenerated. Or at least, a situation like this would cause me to strongly reconsider my belief that there most likely is no god.

It couldn't be something like 'I prayed that so-and-so would get better and suddenly, after much medical intervention, they did!' or 'I prayed I'd find my car keys and I did!'

 

[Beerina]

God popping into existence, showing off some super magic powers and doing it consistently with multiple witnesses would be a start. There is much more testing after.

Then he says to go invade Iran, kill off all the men and priests and married women, but the young ones who are still virgins you can keep for yourselves.


Gonna do it?







No, seriously. Sycophant to Daddy Godbucks? Lacky avoiding slaps in the face?

 

[drkitten]

Then he says to go invade Iran, kill off all the men and priests and married women, but the young ones who are still virgins you can keep for yourselves.

Still irrelevant. The question was about evidence for existence, not whether you would obey him.

Stalin existed, and lots of people didn't obey him. Many were shot for that. I assume you would happily be one of them.

Doesn't make Stalin imaginary, I'm afraid.