• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What evidence would convince you that god exists?

Malerin said:
You're assuming we know all the different kinds of possible evidence. How do you know this? If God exists, and chooses to prove its existence to us, I would not be surprised at all to learn of some different category of evidence that we have never experienced.
Click to expand...

And how would you prove to yourself that you were not deluded?
 
Unlike a Bull said:
I could actually be convinced relatively easily that god exists. All I would need is testable phenomenon where the existence of god is the most logical explanation. This acceptance would, of course, be tentative and further testing would be required.

For example, if all innocent people who were jailed would gain the ability to walk through prison bars, I would be convinced. Not that I claim to know who is innocent and who is guilty, but I imagine if maybe one to ten percent of the inmates couldn't be jailed due to supernatural abilities and claimed it was because of their innocence, i would believe them.

Or, if all the trees of the world (regardless of species) started producing fruit that had all the nutrients required to support life thus curing world hunger, I would be convinced.

That's not to say that I would be convinced that any specific god exists, or that my conviction wouldn't be quickly shattered if a natural explanation were to be found. Though, I think it would be hard to find a natural explanation for people being able to walk through metal bars ... which is probably why it hasn't happened yet.
Click to expand...

There is just, like with all the other cases, the tiny little problem that you failed to explain what you'd believe in. Assume that people really would walk through all the prison bars, just what is this thing that you'd now be convinced of?
 
Malerin said:
Everyone's thinking in terms of conventional evidence (messages built into Pi, moons being rearranged to spell out words, etc.). The kind of evidence God may give may be nothing like we've ever experienced before- some kind of direct knowledge that is immune from doubt.
Click to expand...

Now you not only have an undefined God, but undefined evidence as well. *Something, like so totally wow* to convince of *something, like so totally wow* else. ;)
 
Last edited:
Re OP:
Any evidence that is compelling and unambiguous.

ETA: I would not set the bar for believing in God higher than I set it for believing in anything else, such as the Planet Neptune or Dinosaurs.
 
Last edited:
Re the OP, I have a pathetically low standard of evidence. I don't go with this "extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims". I would just be happy with some ordinary evidence.

For example , if faith healing could be taken out of it's current vaudeville setting and demonstrated to be efficacious according to accepted standards for clinical testing then I would very likely be swayed towards belief.

But the fact is the the G hypothesis doesn't even meet pathetically low standards of evidence.
 
To have the sun 'dance' about in the sky without any gravitational/orbital consequences on earth and then a booming voice shouts 'I am god, stfu atheists'
 
Lord Emsworth said:
There is just, like with all the other cases, the tiny little problem that you failed to explain what you'd believe in. Assume that people really would walk through all the prison bars, just what is this thing that you'd now be convinced of?
Click to expand...

god, as per the op. I would simply be convinced that something exists which can make the impossible possible, to paraphrase pulp fiction. I realize that once something is done it can no longer be considered impossible, but I think you understand the notion.

This god could be vengeful or not, person or impersonal, omni-omni-omni or not, it doesn't really matter. In fact, this god could be a one-trick-pony and only capable of performing the one miracle. It would simply be something capable of performing the supernatural.
 
Malerin said:
Maybe in the same way we're not deluded about our own existence? Except instead of "I exist", the statement "God exists" would somehow have Cartesian certainty.
Click to expand...
Of course Descartes was mistaken - he simply made a circular argument - he made "I" part of the premise so how can it be the conclusion?

I think the physicist Lichtenberg pointed this out in the 18th century that at most we could conclude "thinking happens". (In fact I am not even sure that could be concluded with absolute certainly).

So if we knew God existed with "Cartesian certainty" it would only entail that the fallacy in the argument had not yet been identified.

Clearly something better than Cartesian certainty is required.
 
Last edited:
Malerin said:
Maybe in the same way we're not deluded about our own existence? Except instead of "I exist", the statement "God exists" would somehow have Cartesian certainty.
Click to expand...

There are lots of people who are deluded about all sorts of things. Vacationers go to Jerusalem and become convinced they are Christ. I would guess that you and I would say they are not -- no matter how convinced they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom