What evidence would convince you that god exists?

[drkitten]

So what you are saying is that we can only observe phenomena? Isn't "god" as a label to what caused that phenomenon therefore unnecessary?

Not at all. I'm saying that testing is inherently one-sided. Statisticians call this the problem of confirming or accepting the null hypothesis -- basically, no amount of testing can demonstrate something NOT to exist; it can only provide extremely low bounds on its likelihood and/or effectiveness.

In the case of a test for omnipotence, the "null hypothesis" would be that no limitations exist on the entity's power. Any failure on the entity's part would therefore be evidence against the null hypothesis and give us grounds to reject the idea that it is omnipotent. If it passes that test, then it may or may not be omnipotent; we simply know that it had the power to accomplish THAT task.

How would you know what it is, and how to communicate with it?

You're the one who's producing an entity for me to test. That's your problem, not mine.

 

[Pardalis]

Not at all. I'm saying that testing is inherently one-sided. Statisticians call this the problem of confirming or accepting the null hypothesis -- basically, no amount of testing can demonstrate something NOT to exist; it can only provide extremely low bounds on its likelihood and/or effectiveness.

So we agree, it's an unknowable. I find it's an unnecessary assumption, so therefore I choose not to believe. You do, for some reason.

In the case of a test for omnipotence, the "null hypothesis" would be that no limitations exist on the entity's power. Any failure on the entity's part would therefore be evidence against the null hypothesis and give us grounds to reject the idea that it is omnipotent. If it passes that test, then it may or may not be omnipotent; we simply know that it had the power to accomplish THAT task.

What kind of test do you have in mind?

You're the one who's producing an entity for me to test. That's your problem, not mine.

No, you're the believer in that entity, not me. It is your problem.

 

[Cainkane1]

I'd be satisfied if a prayer was answered. I've come to know that prayer is a waste of time. God ought to at least send an angel fluttering down once in awhile. If there are six billion angels why don't they come and visit us for sometimes. If God had personally written some holy book in the various languages and occassionally came down and told us the best way to interpret his book I'd have to believe in him I guess.

 

[drkitten]

So we agree, it's an unknowable. I find it's an unnecessary assumption, so therefore I choose not to believe. You do, for some reason.

Are your reading skills as poor in French as they are in English? I have told you, repeatedly, in many different threads, that I am not a Christian and do not believe in God.

However, unlike you, I am capable of envisoning a counterfactual hypothesis. For example, "IF every amputee who prayed for regeneration got it and every amputee who didn't, didn't" does not describe the actual world in which we live. In point of fact, this is one of the strongest arguments against the Christian God, because it is explicitly promised to us (Book of Matthew, among other places) that amputees should be able simply to ask for regeneration and have it given to them.

But in a world where we actually saw such behavior as a matter of course, belief in the Christian God would be quite rational.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Sigh.

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

I would worry about my sanity however.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Well take prayer. Suppose that we discovered that praying to a particular deity gave clear, measurable results - as promised by the religion's holy book. And I am talking about curing cancer, not slightly more often than remission happens anyway but 90 or 100% of the time. I'm talking about missing limbs regrowing.

Let's further suppose that this effect ONLY worked if a particular deity was prayed to, by those who believe. Praying to some other deity did nothing, and non believers praying did nothing.

And as a capper, such studies were repeatable, by anybody, anywhere in the world, and consistently gave the same results. Doesn't matter if the researchers believe or not, doesn't matter if the patients believe it or not.

If that happened, I would become a believer. Yes, such evidence could conceivably be faked by satan or whatever, but at that point I personally would consider that "god exists" was the best explanation of the facts and anybody who wanted to suggest that kind of thing had the burden to prove it.

So I'd be a believer. Not, however, a worshipper.

 

[JetLeg]

DrKitten:

Your observation is limbs regrown after prayer. Your hypothesis is god answering those prayers.

What are the predictions your hypothesis makes?

 

[JetLeg]

Well take prayer. Suppose that we discovered that praying to a particular deity gave clear, measurable results - as promised by the religion's holy book. And I am talking about curing cancer, not slightly more often than remission happens anyway but 90 or 100% of the time. I'm talking about missing limbs regrowing.

Let's further suppose that this effect ONLY worked if a particular deity was prayed to, by those who believe. Praying to some other deity did nothing, and non believers praying did nothing.

And as a capper, such studies were repeatable, by anybody, anywhere in the world, and consistently gave the same results. Doesn't matter if the researchers believe or not, doesn't matter if the patients believe it or not.

If that happened, I would become a believer. Yes, such evidence could conceivably be faked by satan or whatever, but at that point I personally would consider that "god exists" was the best explanation of the facts and anybody who wanted to suggest that kind of thing had the burden to prove it.

So I'd be a believer. Not, however, a worshipper.

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

 

[Pardalis]

Are your reading skills as poor in French as they are in English? I have told you, repeatedly, in many different threads, that I am not a Christian and do not believe in God.

Oh, I had the impression you were, in the other thread you seemed pretty adamant to make excuses for Christians.

My bad.

For example, "IF every amputee who prayed for regeneration got it and every amputee who didn't, didn't" does not describe the actual world in which we live. In point of fact, this is one of the strongest arguments against the Christian God, because it is explicitly promised to us (Book of Matthew, among other places) that amputees should be able simply to ask for regeneration and have it given to them.

But in a world where we actually saw such behavior as a matter of course, belief in the Christian God would be quite rational.

So the Christian god would be defined as "something which answers wishes expressed in thoughts"?

Even if the prayer was fulfilled, one wouldn't know that god exists, because there is no way to tell what happened between when the person made the thought in its head, and when the limb grew back: how the thought made its way to another entity, and how that entity made the limb regenerate... those would still be unanswered questions, and to put a label "god" or "God" to it is not necessary. The only thing that was proved is that a thought can lead to biological regeneration.

 

[TraneWreck]

He's God. If he indeed has all the powers Christians and other religious folks think he does, I don't think he'd have much trouble convincing us.

Folks have said he could perform a miracle with a lot of witness, why does he even need to do that? He's omnipotent. He could pop into everyone's head simultaneously, in a godly manner that would distinguish it from a hallucination, and announce his presence. He could simply reconstruct our DNA such that knowledge of his existence was as necessary to our lives as our hearts' beat.

Any miracle, no matter how bold, always carries with it the chance that someone or some extra-terrestrial has simply fooled us with previously unheard of technology.

And as far as some future discovery revealing god, I don't like making never/impossible claims with the progress of science, but if we haven't even remotely bumped into anything that necessitates a god, I can't imagine we're going to. Then again, the history of science is littered with similar claims that were embarrassingly ruined.

 

[drkitten]

DrKitten:

Your observation is limbs regrown after prayer. Your hypothesis is god answering those prayers.

I can accept that.

What are the predictions your hypothesis makes?

The primary prediction is that whatever I ask for in prayer will be granted. (Or as Matthew put it, "Ask and you shall receive.")

 

[drkitten]

So the Christian god would be defined as "something which answers wishes expressed in thoughts"?

Not at all. The Christian God already has a definition of long standing.

But one of His attributes is that He answers wishes expressed in prayer.

Even if the prayer was fulfilled, one wouldn't know that god exists,

True. But even if every person who takes aspirin is cured of a headache, one wouldn't know that aspirin is effective against headaches, because you've set the bar for knowledge extremely (unreasonably) high.

While one wouldn't know that God exists, one would certainly have rational grounds for belief that He does.

 

[JetLeg]

The primary prediction is that whatever I ask for in prayer will be granted.

No, that wasn't my point. Lets say that it is a _fact_ that everything you ask praying to FSM is granted.

Observation : Everything you ask praying to FSM is granted.
Hypothesis : FSM exists AND he is answering those prayers.

What are the predictions your hypothesis makes? That everything you ask is granted is the observation, which can be explained in many ways (Prankster aliens, for example. Or prankster gods. Or a cosmic field of energy that is activated using the word "FSM". Or something that I didn't think about). What prediction does your hypothesis make that can be used to select this hypothesis amongst the ones that I suggested?

======

By the way,


Observation : Everything you ask praying to FSM is granted.
Hypothesis : FSM exists AND he is answering those prayers.

doesn't look too reasonable, does it? So why should it be different with an omni-omni-omni god?

 

[Pardalis]

True. But even if every person who takes aspirin is cured of a headache, one wouldn't know that aspirin is effective against headaches, because you've set the bar for knowledge extremely (unreasonably) high.

We can actually see aspirin at work, we know what happens chemically when it dissolves in the blood stream.

Would you know with that test how god received the prayer, and how he made the limb grow back? Does the test prove that that there was an entity there at all?

No.

 

[JetLeg]

We can actually see aspirin at work, we know what happens chemically when it dissolves in the blood stream.

Would you know with that test how god received the prayer, and how he made the limb grow back? Does the test prove that that there was an entity there at all?

No.

Yes, I also think that's a good point. Aspirin suggests a mechanism of work, goddidit, doesn't suggest a mechanism.

It is true that a hypothesis can be a good one, even if the mechanism is unknown. But the mechanism should be possible to find out at least... How can find out the mechanism using which god answers prayers?

 

[alfaniner]

Giving me those Phenomenal Cosmic Powers, if only for five minutes.

 

[drkitten]

We can actually see aspirin at work, we know what happens chemically when it dissolves in the blood stream.

No, we don't. We've never even seen an aspirin molecule in in vivo. We've certainly never seen "pain" under a microscope. We have theories about what happens chemically, but we've never been able to actually observe the process of aspirin relieving pain.

And we also knew that aspirin relieved headaches long before we had any theories of how it worked.

If you accept the evidence for aspirin as a causal agent in headache relieve, you must be willing to accept hypothetical evidence for God as a causal agent in limb regeneration.

 

[JetLeg]

No, we don't. We've never even seen an aspirin molecule in in vivo. We've certainly never seen "pain" under a microscope. We have theories about what happens chemically, but we've never been able to actually observe the process of aspirin relieving pain.

And we also knew that aspirin relieved headaches long before we had any theories of how it worked.

If you accept the evidence for aspirin as a causal agent in headache relieve, you must be willing to accept hypothetical evidence for God as a causal agent in limb regeneration.

Now, now. We have theories about what happens chemically, and they make predictions that are testable.

What is your theory -> how does god act as a causal agent in limb regeneration, and what are its predictions?

 

[drkitten]

How can find out the mechanism using which god answers prayers?

Ask him. Remember, by hypothesis, anything you ask you will receive -- which will include knowledge.

If you don't trust this for epistemological reasons, ask him some other things as well. Once he's told you who will win next year's Super Bowl and the exact closing price for IBM on June 23, 2009, perhaps you will change your mind.

 

[Pardalis]

No, we don't. We've never even seen an aspirin molecule in in vivo. We've certainly never seen "pain" under a microscope. We have theories about what happens chemically, but we've never been able to actually observe the process of aspirin relieving pain.

We have good workable hypothesis that explains it. As Jetleg said, we understand the mechanism, and it works.

And we also knew that aspirin relieved headaches long before we had any theories of how it worked.

So?

If you accept the evidence for aspirin as a causal agent in headache relieve, you must be willing to accept hypothetical evidence for God as a causal agent in limb regeneration.

No.