What evidence would convince you that god exists?

[Meadmaker]

Off the cuff, this is the kind of thing I would expect to see in the word of god:

"and god put reason into the minds of the Canaanites and they came unto Israel and said 'let us set up trade agreements and stop all this fighting business. you have convinced us that yours is the true god so let's be friends.' and no women or children or men were harmed in the whole of the land of Canaan because they had become true believers."

 

[Meadmaker]

If Randi gives away the million, I will believe in a supernatural entity, or force, or something.

If the hypothetical winner of Randi's million bucks were to insist that he got his powers from God, I would at least consider the possibility.

I would be very disappointed in Randi if someone were to demonstrate super powers, and he would say, "But you don't get the million bucks, because you are obviously, by definition, working in the natural world."

(BTW: I don't expect any of those things to happen, but if they did, I would reconsider my current beliefs with regard to the supernatural.)

 

[Belz...]

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.

Writing "I AM GOD" on the moon in Arial 10,000,000 so that, whenever anybody looks at it, they see it in their own native tongue, would help a bit.

 

[Belz...]

god.

A supernatural being that has supernatural powers. Not neccessarily omnipotent.

By that definition anyone who can demonstrate telepathy is a god.

In that case the first person who gets Randi's million gets my vote.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

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".

I am not the biggest friend of any supernatural/natural dichotomy.

I am never entirely sure when exactly something falls into the former and when something falls into the latter category. For instance, I sometimes see the line being drawn between things that cannot principally be tested etc. by scientific means and those that can. And sometimes it is drawn between what can practically be tested etc. and those that cannot. Unknowable vs unknown. (I think defining supernatural as a "euphemism for ignorance" (post #4) belongs to the latter)

Each of these, in turn bears with it several problems. Amongst them is, that in order to rule something beyond the ken of science in principle, we'd need to have a (pretty much) complete knowledge of the natural world. And then there'd be the problem how exactly we'd conceive of supernatural phenomenon to begin with. On the other hand, defining supernatural over what is (not) known of the world, will just lead to somewhat absurd conclusion. I am for one am fairly ignorant of how my computer works. That doesn't make it supernatural. Once upon a time "we" didn't exactly know how Aspirin works, but it still wasn't supernatural either.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Then you're in the wrong thread.

Oh come on you now. There is nothing about the thread that ties the question asked to anything that heal limbs after being prayed to. I mean, you can do this, but I wouldn't have to follow suit.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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.

<snip>

But all that would prove is that in this particular instance "praying works". It maybe because you have discovered a "back door" code to the programming of the Universe or that some advanced alien is messing with your mind. Not that God exists.

 

[Finster]

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

As I replied earlier:


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?

Everything you experience is ultimately your brain’s interpretation of some stimulus so wouldn’t this apply to everything? It’s possible that I’m imagining sitting at my desk typing this message.

 

[LisaLynn]

But all that would prove is that in this particular instance "praying works". It maybe because you have discovered a "back door" code to the programming of the Universe or that some advanced alien is messing with your mind. Not that God exists.

The question was "What evidence would convince you that god exists?" and for me, that would be said evidence. For you maybe it would be evidence that there was a "back door", etc.

Also, after I thought about it, this would only be some evidence for me. Not absolute proof. I would also have to repeat the prayer several times with several different amputees to give me some evidence of the prayer causing the regenerated limbs.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Everything you experience is ultimately your brain’s interpretation of some stimulus so wouldn’t this apply to everything? It’s possible that I’m imagining sitting at my desk typing this message.

Of course that is true. So what could convince you of anything? It is possible that the World was created Last Tuesday.

The question was "What evidence would convince you that god exists?" and for me, that would be said evidence. For you maybe it would be evidence that there was a "back door", etc.

Also, after I thought about it, this would only be some evidence for me. Not absolute proof. I would also have to repeat the prayer several times with several different amputees to give me some evidence of the prayer causing the regenerated limbs.

You are thinking it through.

But the repetition does not really add too much. How would you know God is involved? Maybe the Rules of the Universe^TM have just changed to make this possible?

 

[Kaizen]

The OP may have well asked "How do you 'know' anything?" I see no difference between stating "god" as a reality as anything else as a "reality." The most prominent and widely accepted scientific theories have had a gradual build up before they took their current status. Those same theories continue to grow through more confirmations found in science and will always remain challengeable.

They must always remain challengeable because of the limitations of the human mind. "God" could never fault us for this type of tentative postion because it would be the origin of that nature. If it would like to us to be 100% confident, then the only way that could occur outside of deluding ourselves through faith is for it to give us god-knowledge so that could know everything. Being able to know absolutely everything would be the ONLY way that we could absolutely know that it knows everything and is "god". If it deludes us through it's magic" to think that we know everything when all it really did was delude us, then the OP is irrelevant.

This is something that I've never really seen pointed out about the religionist knowledge of god as being all-powerful. Outside of having faith (telling yourself something is without justified reason) that god is all powerful, the only way to be 100% knowledgeable about it having those attributions- as with anything else- is to be 100% knowledgeable oneself.

 

[LisaLynn]

Of course that is true. So what could convince you of anything? It is possible that the World was created Last Tuesday.



You are thinking it through.

But the repetition does not really add too much. How would you know God is involved? Maybe the Rules of the Universe^TM have just changed to make this possible?

So in assuming that the regenerated limb was evidence for a god, I would be ruling out that it could be evidence for something else. Uh huh. I get it.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Someone whose powers that exceed Dr Manhattan

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So in assuming that the regenerated limb was evidence for a god, I would be ruling out that it could be evidence for something else. Uh huh. I get it.

I am very impressed!

Some posters here post for years and never ever get an inkling that there are all sorts of possibilities.

PS. Welcome to the Forum.

 

[TaoMacGuy]

Flying pigs.

A second moon suddenly appearing in orbit around Earth.

George W. Bush confessing to war crimes.

Seriously?

Define "god." That would be a good place to start. ;-)

 

[LisaLynn]

I am very impressed!

Some posters here post for years and never ever get an inkling that there are all sorts of possibilities.

PS. Welcome to the Forum.

Thanks for the welcome, Gord!

 

[shadron]

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.

 

[MINISTERofTRUTH]

Well if a "miracle" truly occurred, that would not help at all.
It would only be seen and classified as a miracle, if an event took place, but the cause of this event could not be seen.

Thus the completeness of the event is not exposed, thus the complete truth is not exposed.
Now since God also represents truth, this would not be a good demonstration of his truthfulness, but would a great demo of the work of a deceiver.

The act of being convinced, implies that enough is received to bring about a final belief.
However, one is only dependent upon a belief if one is at a distance from the truth, thus there is still no direct connection with the actual truth if one is practicing a belief.

Also, mankind has grown so used to being dependent upon beliefs, since there are so many truths that are yet to be reached, that mankind places beliefs first in line when making decisions. Thus truth itself is completely bypassed altogether in ones daily explorative thoughts, thus if the truth is presented to a believer, it is violently opposed because it does not share the accepted incompleteness of beliefs.

 

[Trakar]

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.

Haven't been through the entire thread yet, so I'm sure its probably come up already, but if one requires evidence, then it isn't "faith."

 

[billydkid]

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.