What would you accept as PROOF of a God?

[Caius Textor]

Dustin´s blunders notwithstanding, isn´t the original question interesting at the very least?

If we have a rational, justified skepticism in the existence of a god, isn´t our job as rationalists to provide an instance that would prove us wrong?

We "believe" in science because of the large amount of diverse data it has compiled and because of the very sucessful theories and predictions it made. We could go back on topic here and devise the very same criteria that would make us accept the existence of a god.

Let us set aside any definition that would make its existence materially impossible to attain and stick with the ones that are reachable per hypothesis.

I didn´t read all the 8 pages, so sorry if I´m being redundant.

 

[Loss Leader]

Let us set aside any definition that would make its existence materially impossible to attain and stick with the ones that are reachable per hypothesis.

Go nuts. Let me know what you come up with. I, for one, tend to dislike trying to prove the existence of something that can't even be defined. But I will gladly listen to any ideas that you may have.

 

[Caius Textor]

Nutty definition: God is an almighty being able of interfering with the world (which it created) the way it pleases.

There you have it. What kind of (set of) evidence would we accept as "proof" of such a being?

My answer: repeatedly and objectively (meaning, everybody would notice the same thing and not only those with "faith") violating stablished natural laws in a very basic level.

 

[Caius Textor]

Also, and excuse me for the follow-up post, I´m not trying to prove anything, neither I´m suggesting we do so. I´m putting my rationality to test and stating what would convince me that I´m wrong, instead of assuming a breachless position.

 

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by Bob Klase
I say that rocks can hallucinate. Prove me wrong.

Premise1- To hallucinate you must have a brain by definition.

That is a premise- now prove that it's correct. I can find many dictionaries which do not mention 'brain' in the definition of 'hallucinate'.

Premise2- Rocks do not have brains.

Another premise. Rocks do have brains given to them by your god. But they are invisible hidden brains which you can not find by scientific testing.

Conclusion-Rocks can not hallucinate.

Conclusions based on premises(s) are only correct if the premise are correct.

If jumping from a premise or 2 directly to a conclusion is "proof" then I can prove that the christain god doesn't exist:

Premise 1- A god that condemns people to an eternity in hell no matter what they've done in a 100 year life is a mentally disturbed psychopath.

Premise 2- The christian god is not a psychopath.

Conclusion- Your god does not exist.

I'm attacking them as being insufficient period. I can do that.

Yes- it's much like asking what my favorite food is and when I say pizza you attack that answer because you don't like it. You can do it but it only makes you look ignorant about your own question.

 

[Bob Klase]

You're arguing that "Sufficient evidence" and simply "evidence" aren't the same thing. Who defines what "Sufficient" means?

I thought you decided that- that's exactly what you've been doing.

It's totally relative to who is deciding what is sufficient or not. Hardly any evidence could be sufficient enough for some people.

Incredibly enough, less that three hours before writing that you wrote:

Originally Posted by Bob Klase
But you can't attack it as being insufficient. You asked what would prove something to me. You are not qualified to decide what level of evidence/proof is sufficient for me or anyone other than yourself (and based on this thread I'm not sure you're qualified for that). You're attacking answers as being insufficient for you.[/QUOTE]

I'm attacking them as being insufficient period. I can do that.[/QUOTE]

But I'm sure you fail to see the contradiction.

 

[Bob Klase]

No matter. Hmmm, show of hands: How many would accept Pamela Anderson's bust a proof there is a god?

I might, but only after extensive 'hands-on' investigation of said bust.

 

[pgwenthold]

I'm only on page 6 and getting tired, but I wonder, has anyone pointed out a very important point yet: The question of what I would accept as PROOF of a God is totally irrelevent. It doesn't matter whether I know what I would accept or not. A omniscient god already knows full well what I would accept as proof of his existence regardless of whether I know it or not. The fact that I have not accepted anything as proof of god tells me that either he has not provided it, is not omniscient and doesn't know what it would take to prove his existence to me, or that he is but doesn't care enough about whether I do or don't believe he exists to provide proof.

If he doesn't care, then why should I? And if he isn't omniscient, and doesn't know how what it would take to prove himself to me, then he's not all that much of an all-powerful god (and what else does he not know?)

So it's a waste of time to argue about it. What would I accept as PROOF of God? Don't know, don't care, it doesn't matter what I think. That's God's problem. If he can't provide proof of himself, then why should I worry about it?

 

[Caius Textor]

It is not a matter of caring or not. You can´t set an allegedly rational a priori refusal of a material proof. That way you can block yourself from believing in anything real, such as gravity, Newton´s laws, electromagnetic inductance...

What doesn´t matter is any sort of explanation of why we won´t ever see any proof. It is beyond the scope of this discution, that assumes that IF a god REALLY exists and IF we could have objective knowledge of its "wordly presence" (i.e., actual existence), what kind of such knowledge would be acceptable.

To put it differently: if god exists, it´s no different from radiation, particles, osmosis and Bernoulli´s effect. We should be able to know it the same way we know the particles are there and magnetism is there.
Now, what kind of phenomena could we rightly assume to be god´s manifestation?

Does that makes things more clear?

 

[Loss Leader]

Now, what kind of phenomena could we rightly assume to be god´s manifestation?

Why don't you tell us.

 

[strathmeyer]

Dustin, if you could have a sane, coherent conversation about a god I would accept that as proof that god existed.

 

[Caius Textor]

Why don't you tell us.

Haven´t I already?

repeatedly and objectively (meaning, everybody would notice the same thing and not only those with "faith") violating stablished natural laws in a very basic level.

Am I the only one to throw in ideas just because I admire the problem?

 

[Loss Leader]

Haven´t I already?

No, you haven't. You stated that some type of manifestation of things that break physical laws would prove God. Then you asked us what those manifestations would be.

Am I the only one to throw in ideas just because I admire the problem?

Quite. Your approach assumes the existence of God in order to create a list of testable phenomena. There may not be anything wrong with such an approach in general except nobody here is able to think of anything testable that would be evidence of the existence of God. I don't really understand the point of inventing an assignment and then asking others to do it. We can't. We give up. We are stumped as to how to test for the existence of God. So, you tell us whatever you think up and we'll be glad to consider it.

 

[Caius Textor]

I didn´t invent the assignment (Dustin did) and throw the burden to others. I suggested that WE tried to come up with ideas in order to give better grounds to our rationality.

You misunderstood my explanation to pgwenthold. I didn´t ASK what the manifestations would be (actually I did: rethoricaly), and I said they should be violations of natural laws. Do you want examples?

- A thrown rock´s trajectory describing the equation y=sinx in polar coordinates and not a parabola.
- Two voltimeters connected to the same circuit giving muttually contradictory readings.
- Making 1kg of iron keep the same nuclear proporties but behave macroscopically as if it were Jell-O.

"God´s hand" would be obvious if those were followed by the very presence of a being stating "I created the universe and I will do such and such with these phenomena" or something of the kind.

I would accept something in those lines to be proof of god´s existence.

 

[bignickel]

Originally Posted by bignickel
And to simplify my answer my more: Occam's Razor.

Every instance listed in this thread of 'this proves god exists' has a better explanation: aliens.

We know sentient life exists. In this universe. We know technology exists. We know of past examples of high technology societies meeting low technology societies.

Aliens could reproduce just about all of the above, although "pi's secret message" would be tough. At that point, I'd just go with 'insanity' as the best explanation ("God's sending me secret message through numbers!").

Yes. All of the "evidence" people posted that would convince them of a God can all be explained in other probably more likely scenarios that don't include a "God".

I don't know why you guys are still pursuing this thread. I gave Dustin the answer that he evidently was looking for back on page 4.
I didn't actually win any prize or money. Even a donation in my name to the JREF would have been nice. Oh well.

 

[Caius Textor]

So Dustin´s agenda is no more. Good for him. That doesn´t settle the question.

 

[Loss Leader]

I said they should be violations of natural laws. Do you want examples?

- A thrown rock´s trajectory describing the equation y=sinx in polar coordinates and not a parabola.
- Two voltimeters connected to the same circuit giving muttually contradictory readings.
- Making 1kg of iron keep the same nuclear proporties but behave macroscopically as if it were Jell-O.

"God´s hand" would be obvious if those were followed by the very presence of a being stating "I created the universe and I will do such and such with these phenomena" or something of the kind.

I would accept something in those lines to be proof of god´s existence.

Okay. Good to hear. I wouldn't accept any of those as sufficient evidence as they could be performed with equal ease by a sufficiently advanced alien. In fact, that voltmeter one could be done as a magic trick today. But I'm glad you know what would suffice for you.

 

[Caius Textor]

Sure, quantum effects in equipments could also be due to magic tricks. Rocket lauching could be alien´s job.

Advanced aliens can only work within the boundaries of reality. That means following what is and what isn´t allowed by actual physical law.

It´s kinda obvious that I´m not talking about a single event, or something going on on the beach while I take a bloody stroll.
I´m assuming, it should go without saying, that theses putative phenomena would happen in laboratory condition, we could experiment with them, check for outer sources, check the physical conditions around it etc.

Creating all sorts of ad hoc excuses (such as aliens or collective hallucinations) is the major characteristic of pseudo-science AND irrational beliefs, disguised as reasonable skepticism. I´m glad to know that´s the kind of game you play.

 

[Caius Textor]

What I don´t know is why people who don´t want to debate the issue continue to do so.
It is also weird why this is so controverted. I thought at first that this was a very natural question, which should be adressed and not avoided. We should SEEK the falsifying test, not run away from it with lame excuses.

It could be aliens? Suppose it weren´t.
It could be drugs? Suppose it weren´t.
It could be a kid playing "Earth" in her Outer Universe videogame? Suppose it weren´t.

It´s that difficult?

 

[D'rok]

What I don´t know is why people who don´t want to debate the issue continue to do so.
It is also weird why this is so controverted. I thought at first that this was a very natural question, which should be adressed and not avoided. We should SEEK the falsifying test, not run away from it with lame excuses.

It could be aliens? Suppose it weren´t.
It could be drugs? Suppose it weren´t.
It could be a kid playing "Earth" in her Outer Universe videogame? Suppose it weren´t.

It´s that difficult?

The problem is that several of us really did try to honestly address the question only to discover that Dustin wasn't looking for honest answers. This was all foreplay for the money shot of Dustin's own lame attempt at a logical proof of god. After receiving that messy load, I think most of us are just turned off by this thread altogether.