What would you accept as PROOF of a God?

[PixyMisa]

How's that?

It's not an operative definition, so it can't be related to empirical evidence.

No. It's based on premises which may be true.

If you make a valid deduction based on premises that may be true, you have a conclusion that may be true. You don't know anything new; you've merely added another proposition to your collection.

A valid deduction based on premises observed to be true generates a new fact.

They're not just 'evidence' they're proof if the premises are true and reasoning valid.

They're not evidence at all, Dustin.

The conclusion may be evidence, if it is valid and sound. The argument is only ever an argument.

Is 'existing' a verb?

It is now.

Existing.

How can you tell? You've just posited that there is no difference between God and the unguided rules of physics. In what sense does God then exist, and how do you know?

Perhaps he can cause something to occur for which we would normally define as "natural" but which was his own doing.

As above.

How?

1. How could we tell if the QM processes are being "manipulated"?

Statistically. So the evidence would be inductive, rather than deductive, but if you're dealing with the real world that will invariably be the case.

2.How can we identify such a being doing the manipulating? Is "God" the only imagined being who can? I can imagine "Being A" who can alter QM processes and produce desirable macro scale events to peoples favor but isn't the creator if the universe.

If Being A can arbitrarily manipulate QM events to its whim, and also claims to be the creator of the universe, what reason do you have for doubt?

As I said, this doesn't constitute proof, merely that if we have something with the observable attributes assigned to God which also claims to be God, it is not unreasonable to assume that it is God.

Except we can't prove such a being (as you described above) made the universe which is the most important aspect of being "God" as I defined in my original post.

Of course not. As I have explained, it is impossible to do so. Our knowledge is bounded by space-time, and the creation of space-time is obviously outside of space-time itself, so we can never prove or even show inductively that something existing inside of space-time (even partly) was the Creator.

That's why your initial definition is useless.

 

[PixyMisa]

Just on the word "existing": The dictionary says that this usage is correct - and is an adjective. Which makes sense, after you think about it for a bit.

 

[Gertrude]

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

What? Are you saying that god cannot be transcendant to us???

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.

What if he doesn't want to?

 

[Complexity]

Proof-
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Proof

Quit relying on inadequate dictionaries for technical terminology.

Proof and evidence are not the same thing. Proof is a different kind than is evidence - it is not a matter of degree.

Explain how science nor philosophy has been well founded, systematized, and formalized sufficiently to enable the use of logic to provide persuasive proofs.

No. Do your own work.

You're making Eliza sound like a brilliant conversationalist.

How can science use logic if as you say "science nor philosophy has been well founded, systematized, and formalized sufficiently to enable the use of logic to provide persuasive proofs."?

Read it again - figure out "suggestive" and "conclusive". That dictionary may be of some use here.

Moreover, Explain what you mean by "suggestive rather than conclusive".

No. Use a dictionary and give it some thought.

Explain how ERV's don't prove evolution.

No. It is impossible for anything to prove evolution or any other scientific theory.


To: There is an extraordinary amount of strong and persuasive evidence for evolution.

Which is proof.

No, strong and persuasive evidence is not proof.


To: There is no strong or persuasive evidence that a god exists.

Persuasive according to whom?

To me, of course.


To: There are things that could persuade me that there is a god, though I have a very high threshold for persuasion these days. I've been religious in the past. I am an atheist now. I have no idea what will happen in the future.

Give an example.

Nah - there's no point.

What sort of mental illness do you have?

I take meds for depression, OCD, and anxiety.

Think of me as the love child of Monk and House.

What sort of mental illness do you have?

1+1=2 isn't a certainty?

Sorry, but its not. There are some good books out there on the loss of certainty in mathematics - read.

Russell and Whitehead spent a great deal of work establishing that 1+2=2, publishing their masterpiece just after Godel pulled the rug out from under them.

Why hold God to such high standards and not everything else? Like let's say...Evolution? The evidence for anything (from your perception) is a phenomenon that you experience, Why isn't it far more likely that your perceptions and thinking are flawed in other cases aside from God?

I hold everything to the same standards.

The evidence for evolution is objective, shared, accessible, and reproducible. The evidence for god is subjective, personal, anecdotal, inaccessible to others, and not reproducible.

If you claim to have interacted with a god, I have no way of verifying what you claim.

If you claim to have evidence that supports or contradicts evolution, that evidence can be examined by others, with the theory of evolution being strengthened, weakened, or unaffected as a result.

 

[bignickel]

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.

Well, yes to the first part, and 'huh?' to the 2nd part. Yes because that was my point about it at least being outside the universe. Entering our universe: I have no problem with. But a part of it would definitely have to be outside our universe. This sets up the next part: my inability to properly recognize something outside our universe.

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.

Well, since you're asking me a question about how I'm different than him, I'd say it's because I recognize my inability to recognize the evidence, evidence of a particular being outside our universe. The evidence that the creationist is denying is all evidence inside our universe. Not only that, evidence all here on earth. Processes that are actually going on right now.

Now, if a creationist admitted that his inability to process such earth-bound evidence, I would respect his honesty. Haven't met any yet that would admit as such though. I myself don't understand everything there is to know about quantum physics, but I don't feel a desire to fight to have my alternate "tiny beach-balls" theory of physics taught in public high schools in the interest of fairness.

 

[skeptigator]

This is all backwards

This whole thread is really a waste of time because it's backwards.

When someone puts forth a claim they must provide proof for its existence.
We are being asked to give a criteria for "proof" of god's existence. It's not my claim, or my theory or belief. I don't have give anything to this argument.

Dustin whatever needs to put forth the following.
1) a definition of god
2) proofs for his existence

We can then set about falsifying his claim. If there is a compelling "proof" then that will go into the "evidence for god" column.

This argument is old and cliche. Any criteria for proof could easily apply to god or the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[toddjh]

This really won't work either. Unless you can prove it's coming from "Outside of the universe" (which I see no way of doing) and unless you can prove the origin of this message is the creator of the universe (which I see no way of doing) then such a message really proves nothing more than someone intelligent is sending a message from far away.

No, a message encoded in a mathematical constant would be a lot more than "a message from far away." It would be a message etched into the fabric of reality itself. The author of the message must be, if not the actual creator of the universe, at least someone who had control over how it came to be -- the architect, you might say, even if he wasn't on the actual construction crew. And the author of any such message would also have to be outside the universe, since the values of mathematical constants are, well, constant from our point of view.

There would be no way you could fake such a message, and there's no way such a message could be written by anyone currently within our universe. At the very least it would be proof of what we might call a "transcendent extradimensional intelligence" -- close enough to God for government work. I can tell you one thing: it would sure get me interested in what the message said.

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

Okay, since you acknowledge that your informal use of the word "proof" is synonynous with "evidence," I'll just go ahead and use the word "evidence" instead. Yes, something like this would indeed be very strong evidence of God -- particularly if the content of the message confirmed that idea.

There's no "I" there. "Cogito" simply means "Thought" not "I think" as commonly translated in English.

Er, I think you need a refresher course for your Latin. Cogito (inf. cogitare) does indeed mean "I think." First conjugation.

 

[D'rok]

This whole thread is really a waste of time because it's backwards.

When someone puts forth a claim they must provide proof for its existence.
We are being asked to give a criteria for "proof" of god's existence. It's not my claim, or my theory or belief. I don't have give anything to this argument.

Dustin whatever needs to put forth the following.
1) a definition of god
2) proofs for his existence

We can then set about falsifying his claim. If there is a compelling "proof" then that will go into the "evidence for god" column.

This argument is old and cliche. Any criteria for proof could easily apply to god or the flying spaghetti monster.

Seconded. We are being led down the garden path.

 

[Loss Leader]

Proof and evidence are not the same thing. Proof is a different kind than is evidence - it is not a matter of degree.

Darn right they're not. But I'd say that proof is a standard of evidence. It's the sum total of all the evidence you need to consider a thing to be true. Dustin even agrees, citing the definition: "Evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth." The trick, if there is one, is that the matter turns on what is sufficient to establish a thing as true.

To some extent, Dustin's goalpost relocation is a trick that he is playing by equivocating on the concept of sufficiency. He initially asked us what proof we would each individually accept of God - in essence asking us what evidence we would subjectively consider sufficient. He then slapped several people down by arguing that their tests were, in fact, insufficient. At that point, he appeared to have switched from subjective sufficiency (the lowest standard of proof in the universe) to logical sufficiency (the highest standard of proof in the universe). If he considers himself intelligent in his analysis, he is wrong. Equivocation is neither honest nor productive.

There are many levels of proof. In law, for example, we sometimes ask for proof by a preponderence of the evidence. We sometimes ask for clear and convincing evidence; we sometimes demand evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. All are "proof," all are different. And none of these standards of evidence approach what would be termed scientific proof. And no scientific proof is sufficient to establish logical proof.

For example, a person may be found liable for damages for a fight even though there is massive amounts of contradictory evidence in the form of his own testimony blaming the other guy for starting it. In his criminal trial, the tolerance for contradictory evidence shrinks so that a jury might discard the fact that the state says the fights started at 10:00 p.m. but three witnesses say it was after 10:15. Scientists generally dislike contradictory evidence and absolutely must explain it away in order for their theories to hold up. And in logic, the existence of contradictory evidence must be impossible.

However, Dustin seems deaf to all of these differences which makes this an utterly maddening and sophomoric thread. Literally. This is like arguments I used to have when I was a sophomore. "Tell me your opinion and I'll tell you why it's wrong." Utter nonsense.

 

[D'rok]

However, Dustin seems deaf to all of these differences which makes this an utterly maddening and sophomoric thread. Literally. This is like arguments I used to have when I was a sophomore. "Tell me your opinion and I'll tell you why it's wrong." Utter nonsense.

Personally, I think Dustin sees himself as Socrates. These threads are his attempt at elenchus, this forum is his agorah, and we are his interlocutors.

Frankly, it's a piss-poor performance.

 

[Piscivore]

An amputee prays to god and gets his/her missing limb regrown. That would be a nice start.

Piffle. Mr. Dark can do as much.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes--"cogito" definitely does translate exactly to "I think". It is in the first person singular form. Since Latin is inflected, personal pronouns aren't needed. Pretty much the only time you'd use "Ego cogito" is in poetry when you need to fit a certain scansion.

It's not an operative definition, so it can't be related to empirical evidence.

Bingo!

All the "proofs" proffered can be nixed (as Dustin has been doing). The right answer is there can be no proof of a concept that is not operationally defined.

I would also add, the concept of God as originator of the universe is logically contradictory--if God originated everything, then God is NOT part of everything. If the "universe" is a subset of everything, then we're just not using the same language.

The concept of God the originator is sort of an empty marker. Ultimately, it's meaningless. For instance, if the need for an originator of the universe is imperative, why isn't there a need for an originator of God?

 

[PixyMisa]

Personally, I think Dustin sees himself as Socrates. These threads are his attempt at elenchus, this forum is his agorah, and we are his interlocutors.

Agreed. And he's about to spring his trap... any... day... now.

Frankly, it's a piss-poor performance.

And look where it got old Socrates, anyway.

 

[Bob Klase]

Hallucinations require thought. Rocks don't hallucinate. Therefore if one is hallucinating one must exist. "Nothing" can't hallucinate after all.

Therefore rocks are nothing, or rocks don't exist?

What I'm doing is what I do often and due to no evidence to the contrary I must assume it is real which would fall within Occam's razor.

Once again we're back to what would prove something to you. That's not the question.

 

[Bob Klase]

No. I'm saying that in "Cogito, Ergo sum" there isn't necessarily an "I"

"Cogito, ergo sum" = Latin for "I think, therefore I am". If you want to throw out phrases in a foreign language without translation than "I" does not exist- period.

(Actually there is necessarily an 'I'. If you try to write "Cognito" without an "I" then you have 'Cogto)

 

[petra10]

basically the only way i'd believe is if he/she/it superior being,god or whatever you want to call it,makes a big show of coming to earth. It could stop the world (cos its all powerful) and tell us all.It could explain what we want to know and show us a glimpse of heaven.Imagine how many new members it would get....this would have to be a gobal show with the whole world watching at the same time

 

[PrincessIneffabelle]

This argument is old and cliche. Any criteria for proof could easily apply to god or the flying spaghetti monster.

"Oh," said God, "I hadn’t thought of that," and promptly disappeared in a puff of logic.*




*The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

If we discover the most elementary particle possible, the particle that makes up everything, and every one of them that we example is signed, "Made by God".

 

[Crossbow]

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?

God being defined as [SIZE=-1]the being conceived originator and ruler of the universe.


[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]What would you accept as absolute proof of a God? Proof that can not be explained in any other way but through "God" as I defined him. Miracles, Magic, Prophecies, Visions can all be explained through other means which exclude a "God". So I'm curious what proof any of you who do not believe in a God would accept as proof of a God.


Or do you simply "not know" what is proof but know what isn't?
[/SIZE]

Wow!

If there were some sort of being who actually claimed to be the creator and ruler of the whole universe, then that being would have to (among other things) provide objective evidence as to:
1) What occurred during the pre-creation period?
2) What happened during the transition from pre-creation to post-creation?
3) What has this being been doing since the universe has come into existence (which is about 13.7 billion years)?

I expect that providing enough objective evidence to adequately answer these three questions would be impossible.

Therefore, the being would have to accept that his claim as creator of the universe as being a matter of faith as opposed to a matter of fact.

 

[Lonewulf]

If we discover the most elementary particle possible, the particle that makes up everything, and every one of them that we example is signed, "Made by God".

...

In what language?