What would you accept as PROOF of a God?

[largeprimenumber]

David Hume's already been where you're going.

The closest I can come to answering your question is that if the evidence for God overwhelms the evidence against, then that might function as "proof"--or at least makes the existence of god more likely than not.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

How about one night, the stars line up and spell out " Jesus Lives"! It doesn't matter what time of year or in which hemisphere, professional and amatuer astronomers would capture the event ad nauseum! It would be the biggest news event ever! That would do it for me!

Well you'd have to be very credulous to believe "God" was responsible for such a thing considering the number of alternative explanations just as feasible as "God" including extraterrestrials who have been getting our airwaves for years and have become Christians, Some powerful deity attempting to trick people, Etc.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I'm having trouble thinking of something that you wouldn't dismiss in the same fashion as toddjh and Lisa's examples.

I imagine that if I came into the physical presence of god, it would be pretty darn obvious. So, assuming that god exists, I suppose that if he/she/it physically manifested him/her/itself to me and declared "I am the lord, your god", I would be pretty darn convinced.

But even this could be explained by saying that it was simply E.T. wielding technology sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from magic.

Actually, I would find Lisa's example quite compelling.

Maybe you could answer your own question and let us evaluate your criteria of proof?

I'm the one asking the questions here. It would say something of your credulity if you accepted the scenario that Lisa provided as proof of a God.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If it is transcendant to us, to our senses and logic, then by definition we can't prove it.

Who said God was "Transcendent" to us? The definition I provided doesn't state that.

All we have is theses senses and that logic. Something transcendant will never be proven by those means.

If God is sufficiently powerful then there's nothing stopping him from making us able to understand or comprehend his proof. So that won't work.

 

[D'rok]

I'm the one asking the questions here. It would say something of your credulity if you accepted the scenario that Lisa provided as proof of a God.

You know, even Socrates eventually stopped JAQing off and actually said what he believed. How 'bout it sport?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Any evidence at all.

Which would include...? Specifically?

 

[Complexity]

The concept of proof isn't relevant to your question. It has meaning in logic and mathematics, not in science, philosophy, or religion.

The word you're looking for is 'evidence', and the question is what would be enough evidence to persuade me that there is a god.

I don't think I could be persuaded that there is a god. I would find it much more likely that I was being fooled, tricked, or delusional than that there was a god.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The concept of proof isn't relevant to your question. It has meaning in logic and mathematics, not in science, philosophy, or religion.

1. "Proof" and "Evidence" are often synonymous.

2.'Logic' isn't used in science or philosophy?

The word you're looking for is 'evidence', and the question is what would be enough evidence to persuade me that there is a god.

That would work as well.

I don't think I could be persuaded that there is a god. I would find it much more likely that I was being fooled, tricked, or delusional than that there was a god.

So how are you different from the creationist who says "I don't think I could be persuaded that Evolution occurs"? He is close minded and has no justification for denying Evolution if he can't even make it clear what would convince him of Evolution.

 

[Beleth]

I asked this question in another thread and didn't get any real answers. Here's the question: What would you accept as PROOF of a God?

Asked and answered.

 

[bignickel]

I am an agnostic: as a finite being in the universe, I am unable to recognize a being that exists outside it; I do not have the ability to accurately identify a such a being outside my sphere(creator of the universe, and ruler, would necessitate it existing outside of it, at least. otherwise, he is subject to it's laws, such as entropy).

Therefore, no evidence could convince me of god/'s existence. There would always be a better in-universe explanation. Coincidence, pranks, aliens... all would be better explanations. Ultimately, 'insanity' would be the last explanation that any such evidence would have to counter, and due to Occam's Razor, 'god/s existence' would lose everytime.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Asked and answered.

I have thought about this a lot.

There is an event that could happen which I would consider proof of the existence of a personal God. But it is personal, so telling anyone what it is would invalidate it as evidence. And no, I'm not being flippant; this is my actual answer. All I will say is that setting it up would cost nothing and be doable in 10-15 minutes.

I have told God what this event is. I am telling Him now, even as I type this. Only He and I know, and so the ball is in His court.

This isn't an answer to the question. I asked what would convince you of a "God" and you say "I won't answer" and claim this is an answer?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I am an agnostic: as a finite being in the universe, I am unable to recognize a being that exists outside it; I do not have the ability to accurately identify a such a being outside my sphere(creator of the universe, and ruler, would necessitate it existing outside of it, at least. otherwise, he is subject to it's laws, such as entropy).

Being a sufficiently powerful being, "God" could enter this universe and temporarily bend the laws to his will, considering he created them.

Otherwise this seems like an argument from incredulity.

Therefore, no evidence could convince me of god/'s existence. There would always be a better in-universe explanation. Coincidence, pranks, aliens... all would be better explanations. Ultimately, 'insanity' would be the last explanation that any such evidence would have to counter, and due to Occam's Razor, 'god/s existence' would lose everytime.

So how are you different from the creationist who says "no evidence could convince me of evolutions existence"? No amount of evidence you give him will convince him. He is close minded and has no justification for denying Evolution if he can't even make it clear what would convince him of Evolution.

 

[D'rok]

Is this thread going anywhere?

 

[Beleth]

This isn't an answer to the question. I asked what would convince you of a "God" and you say "I won't answer" and claim this is an answer?

The answer to the question "What would convince me of a God?" is "the event I have told Him would convince me". It is not "I won't answer".

It is an unfortunate side effect of my answer that I can't tell you the details of it, but that doesn't mean I don't have an answer.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Is this thread going anywhere?

It's the buildup.

 

[Beleth]

Of course, another obvious proof of an "originator and ruler of the universe" is to have Him originate and rule a universe. I'm free tomorrow at lunchtime to observe this, if that works for Him.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The answer to the question "What would convince me of a God?" is "the event I have told Him would convince me". It is not "I won't answer".

It is an unfortunate side effect of my answer that I can't tell you the details of it, but that doesn't mean I don't have an answer.

"The event I have told Him would convince me" doesn't answer the question since the 'event' is undefined. If the 'event' is undefined then the answer is undefined thus isn't an answer at all. Unless you can explain WHAT this event is, I see no reason why I shouldn't dismiss it.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Of course, another obvious proof of an "originator and ruler of the universe" is to have Him originate and rule a universe. I'm free tomorrow at lunchtime to observe this, if that works for Him.

How would you prove such an observation wasn't a hallucination? I'm some LSD trippers have 'observed universes being created'.

 

[Beleth]

"The event I have told Him would convince me" doesn't answer the question since the 'event' is undefined.

Believe me, the event is extremely well-defined. If it weren't well-defined, it would not be as compelling a proof to me when it happened.

If the 'event' is undefined then the answer is undefined thus isn't an answer at all.

The event, as I said, is not undefined.

Unless you can explain WHAT this event is, I see no reason why I shouldn't dismiss it.

I see that statement as neither a rational stance for you to take nor a compelling reason for me to divulge the nature of the event.

 

[Ginarley]

As with anything, I would need something that was positive evidence for the existence of whatever it is (your definition is pretty vague after all). All the evidence to date attempts to disprove alternative theories rather than to prove that a god exists directly. What specific form such evidence would take is entirely dependent on whatever this god actually is.