What would you accept as PROOF of a God?

[Michael C]

To have something I could call "proof", or even "near proof", I'd need evidence from repeatable experiences, repeated many, many times.

If all people who prayed to Jesus at least once a day never got ill, and all people who openly denied the Holy Spirit were stricken with unpleasant and embarrassing diseases, it would make a pretty strong case for the vengeful Christian god. It would be even more impressive if, each time someone said "I deny the Holy Spirit", a huge finger appeared in the sky sending a lightning bolt that hit only the person who had blasphemed. But of course this would have to happen every time, not just once.

 

[c4ts]

If the world really turned out the way Kent Hovind said it did, with uniform brackish water being the only naturally occurring water worldwide, fossilized animal tracks leading away from the ark, magnets attracting ice and such, that might prove it to me. Other things would include talking animals, minor supernatural phenomena, a giant flaming sword turning every which way to keep me from setting foot on the banks of the Euphrates, those kind of things.

 

[Hokulele]

I'll take a free energy device. Just a small one would be fine. As long as it can power my car indefinitely, for free, no maintenance. And if he could make my car an Aston Martin while he's at it . . .

* Goes out to check the driveway. *

 

[Tanstaafl]

Well, god knows you don't need that, since you have your bicycle.

 

[Hokulele]

Well, god knows you don't need that, since you have your bicycle.

My goodness, you are right.

Make that an Aston Martin with a bike rack.

 

[jsfisher]

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

Holy mis-translation, Batman!!!

May I use this as proof my Latin teacher did not exist?

 

[Taffer]

Oh look, another Dustinism.

Dustin, you cannot prove anything a posteriori.

 

[ksbluesfan]

God could provide enough evidence for me to believe. That's not necessarily proof, but it would be good enough for me. For example, if God granted me the ability to give the correct answer to any question and understand both the question and answer, that might convince me.

 

[maatorc]

...In what language?

Energy.

 

[stamenflicker]

Well, I'm a Christian and the only proof I'll accept isn't available in the flesh. As soon as someone does prove it, count on me to reject it.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...

In what language?

A language no one has ever seen, spoken, or thought of; but everyone can read.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yes. That I am. Cogito, Ergo Sum.

Cogito ergo bibum.

I think, therefore, I drink.

(If I don't, the head keeps hurting.)

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Oh look, another Dustinism.

Dustin, you cannot prove anything a posteriori.

So, that means he can't prove stuff he has pulled out of his arse?

DR

 

[strathmeyer]

A lot more specific. What would you consider evidence? Give me an example.

Are you claiming that you don't know what evidence is?

If you claimed that your god was a eighty foot tall purple donkey that lived at the bottom of the ocean, we could search the ocean and find him. If you claimed that anyone could pray to your god and your god would answer them, anyone would be able to pray to your god and receive an answer from him. If you claimed that your god was the epitome of goodness, we would be able to judge your god's actions and see if they were good or evil. If you claimed that if we built a shrine to your god and that would cure diseases, we could build a shrine to your god and find someone with a disease and cure him with the shrine. If you claimed that your god created the earth six thousand years ago, we would expect for there not to be any historical evidence of anything happening more than six thousand years ago.

Is that enough examples? Do you still have questions?

 

[Complexity]

A very pleasant silence from one quarter...

 

[Darth Rotor]

Do you still have questions?

I think he wants to know where the Men's room is, due to his twitching, nervous looking about, and his knees banging together.

DR

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

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

"Operative definition"?

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.

Simply observing it doesn't make it true.

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.

That's the point.

It is now.

Since when?

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?

Maybe we can't know (We can but for the sake of this discussion we don't need to). However the difference is there is a conscious creator controlling it when he chooses.

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.

Give me an example of how for instance Quantum fluctuations can be determined not to be coming from a creator.

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?

Well the lack of proof he's presenting that he is indeed the creator of the universe. Simply having great powers doesn't mean you're automatically "God" as I defined in the OP. It doesn't mean you made the universe.

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.

All of the observable attributes except the main one: Creator of the universe. If I have all of the trappings of a policeman does that make me a policeman? I have the suit, the badge, the gun, I'm automatically a policeman? Of course not. This is why I am always cautious if I am pulled over and never put too much trust in the officer pulling me over. I would be dumb and gullible to do so.

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.

You've failed to give an example of what would prove a God so you conclude proof is impossible?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

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

No. I'm saying he doesn't have to be.

What if he doesn't want to?

Then he doesn't want to.

 

[Gertrude]

No. I'm saying he doesn't have to be.

If so, you must admit the possibility that god is unprovable.

Then he doesn't want to.

And we won't be "able to understand or comprehend his proof".

Q.E.D.

 

[Complexity]

Dustin - What are you trying to achieve?

You've started several silly threads and have conducted yourself like an immature junior high kid in each.

If you want to say, "I believe in God", then do so. That is what I'd expect you to say. Instead, you pussyfoot around, use language thoughtlessly, and seem to think you're making a positive impression on... someone.