What would you accept as PROOF of a God?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You asked me how my position was different from a creationist. I explained how it was different. You then asked me if creationists say a particular thing. I have no idea; I suggest you go ask them. I suspect that Creationists say 'evolution didn't happen because it's impossible to go from A to B.' While you or I might see this as an inability, they do not.

If you have a different question about my beliefs, you can ask it.

You stated your differences however let's make up a hypothetical creationist named Stan.

Stan:I don't believe in Evolution.

Person A: Why?

Stan:I can't comprehend how any of the evidence presented in support of Evolution can possibly be correct and no amount of evidence that I can conceive can possibly convince me of Evolution.


How are you different from Stan?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's not really relevant and simply means Descartes should have phrased it better. However the phrase "Thought, Therefore existence." is what we'll use.

Why use that? It's not what Descartes said, and it's not what Descartes meant. So why quote him?

Perhaps "God" exists outside of everything we consider to be the universe or as as far as the observable universe goes. Perhaps he is an inherent aspect of the universe and exists sort of like a flight controller who is an inherent aspect of an airport.

So God is a part of the universe? Then God as originator of the universe also originated himself. So how is saying God originated the universe different than saying that the universe originated itself?


Also, "universe" means everything. Saying what we "consider to be the universe" or "the observable universe" changes the meaning of "universe" to some subset of everything.

For instance, if the need for an originator of the universe is imperative, why isn't there a need for an originator of God?

Who says there isn't?

Again, if God is the originator of everything, then there can't be something (God) that was originated by something else.

[By the way, can we say "create" instead of the very awkward "originate", or do you intend a difference in meaning that is lost on me?]

Now, back to the beginning: what is your definition of God? It sounds like you are now saying that God is some entity that is a subset of the universe (a member of the universe), but that God is also the originator of the universe (but not necessarily of himself?) You don't see any logical problem?

You have not operationally defined God. Please review the meaning of the term "operational definition".

Again, I agree with your overall point: there is nothing that could possibly prove God's existence to me. Growing an amputed leg back, etc. could be the work of benign aliens whose technology is way beyond ours. Something like that might make a strong case for God's existence, but it certainly wouldn't be proof.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I am struck by two thoughtsustin Kesselberg is merely waiting for someone to say, "There is nothing I'd accept as proof of god." Then, he'll bounce.

That's already been said numerous times in this thread.

 

[bignickel]

You stated your differences however let's make up a hypothetical creationist named Stan.

Stan:I don't believe in Evolution.
Person A: Why?

Stan:I can't comprehend how any of the evidence presented in support of Evolution can possibly be correct and no amount of evidence that I can conceive can possibly convince me of Evolution.

How are you different from Stan?

Wow. The first part of Stan's explanation makes no sense, and the second part is very honest. I suspect that the explanation for the second part is "the bible says how things were created, so that's what I believe."

My original answer stands: the evidence in front of me may be evidence that shows that there is god/s. But I can not tell the difference between it and evidence showing that an alien is posing as god/s. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I can not tell the difference between an omnipotent immortal god and an half-omnipotent half-immortal god because I am a finite being within the universe: I can only have a chance of properly recognizing things within this universe.

The creationist is facing things not only within this universe, but on this planet. If he can't recognize what he's dealing with, it isn't because he's a finite being in the universe solving the existence of something outside of it. It's not a question of recognition, it's a question of intelligence (if he is using the argument that I think you're trying to make, that is; other creationist might have completely different reasons). I myself don't understand quantum physics, as I mentioned before. But I won't go around denying it's existence just because I don't understand it.

I have answered this question twice. If you have a different question, you may pose it. I'm probably not going to answer the same question a third time.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Why use that? It's not what Descartes said, and it's not what Descartes meant. So why quote him?

I thought he wrote it. Though he was using it as an argument proving his own existence. He said that if a contention is made (or perceived to be made) that one exists then one necessarily exist otherwise it wouldn't be possible to contend or perceive to contend such a phrase. Though for our use Let's stick with "Thought, Therefore existence." Though it really doesn't make a difference what phrase we use.

So God is a part of the universe? Then God as originator of the universe also originated himself. So how is saying God originated the universe different than saying that the universe originated itself?

Maybe it isn't in that circumstance. Though in the former there's that elephant in the room called "God" who consciously put it all into action.

Though your initial assertion...

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.

Isn't true. Simply originating something doesn't exclude one being part of that something. I can originate a prosthetic limb and make the limb part of myself and I part of the limb.

Also, "universe" means everything. Saying what we "consider to be the universe" or "the observable universe" changes the meaning of "universe" to some subset of everything.

Semantics. The word 'universe' was coined before we had an adequate understanding of cosmology or big-bang physics.

Again, if God is the originator of everything, then there can't be something (God) that was originated by something else.

This is semantics again. If we define "Universe" as "everything in all reality" then obviously God couldn't have a predecessor however if we limit his creation to for instance setting about the big bang then we don't fall into the same problems.

[By the way, can we say "create" instead of the very awkward "originate", or do you intend a difference in meaning that is lost on me?]

Either works fine.

Now, back to the beginning: what is your definition of God? It sounds like you are now saying that God is some entity that is a subset of the universe (a member of the universe), but that God is also the originator of the universe (but not necessarily of himself?) You don't see any logical problem?

If God is a subset of the universe and an intrinsic part of the universe then that doesn't necessarily mean that he can't apart from it, I.E. apart from our perspective existence. An example being if I create something that will become part of me or me become part of it, that doesn't mean that I created myself necessarily. If I make an airplane for instance and I become the pilot, I could said to be part of the airplane. This doesn't mean I don't need parents to create me.

You have not operationally defined God. Please review the meaning of the term "operational definition".

Define it.

Again, I agree with your overall point: there is nothing that could possibly prove God's existence to me. Growing an amputed leg back, etc. could be the work of benign aliens whose technology is way beyond ours. Something like that might make a strong case for God's existence, but it certainly wouldn't be proof.

If you don't know what proof for a God would be how can you POSSIBLY deny the proof that is ever offered to you? Are you actually contending that you know what proof for God isn't but don't know what proof of God is?

 

[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!").

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Maybe there is no tighter definition. You can't discuss it as it's defined?

Nope. It's a far too nebulous definition.

It all depends on the context of the usage of the word. As stated in any reputable dictionary "Proof" can be synonymous with 'evidence' when used in specific contexts.

Not when discussing science, Dustin. Look in a scientific dictionary, not a plain old English one.

Gravity as experienced by humans on earth isn't 100% true for humans as experienced on earth?

Can you tell me the statistical chance that gravity as experienced by humans on earth isn't 100% true for humans as experienced on earth?

That's evidence, Dustin. Not proof.

Two. Different. Things.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[strathmeyer]

I know what 'evidence' is. However I'm asking you for an example of what you would accept as evidence for a God. Specifically as I defined him in my O.P.

Except I made no such claims.

Yes. What would you accept as evidence for God as I defined him in my O.P.?

God being defined as the being conceived originator and ruler of the universe.

How can I explain to you how you would prove to me something that you made up? Doesn't it work the other way around?

I believe in invisible people. Tell me how to prove to you that they're real. "Get them to speak," you say? Well, they can't speak! But they're still real. "Get them to move something", you say? Well, they can't move things! But they're still real.

What would I accept as proof of a god? I, personally, would accept any proof at all.

 

[Apathia]

Are we there yet?
(The part where it's said "no knowledge on this subject is possible without the authority of a divine revelation.")
In a space of one month, I had both a Baptist and a Bahai hand me that. Unfortunately it was just as impossible to tell whose revelation held the authority.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Wow. The first part of Stan's explanation makes no sense, and the second part is very honest. I suspect that the explanation for the second part is "the bible says how things were created, so that's what I believe."

The first part is "I don't believe in Evolution". What doesn't make sense about that exactly? The statement itself. Not the denial of evolution.

My original answer stands: the evidence in front of me may be evidence that shows that there is god/s. But I can not tell the difference between it and evidence showing that an alien is posing as god/s. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I can not tell the difference between an omnipotent immortal god and an half-omnipotent half-immortal god because I am a finite being within the universe: I can only have a chance of properly recognizing things within this universe.

Within the universe. Let's image that God has moved himself into the universe. What evidence then would you accept? We're talking about a thing within the universe now who is no longer transcendent or outside of it.

The creationist is facing things not only within this universe, but on this planet. If he can't recognize what he's dealing with, it isn't because he's a finite being in the universe solving the existence of something outside of it. It's not a question of recognition, it's a question of intelligence (if he is using the argument that I think you're trying to make, that is; other creationist might have completely different reasons). I myself don't understand quantum physics, as I mentioned before. But I won't go around denying it's existence just because I don't understand it.

But you go around denying the validity of the evidence commonly presented for God when you clearly admit no evidence no matter what will suffice? Stan the creationist denies evolution because he can't comprehend it. You claim you can't think of any acceptable hypothetical evidence of a God because you can't comprehend it.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

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".

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Nope. It's a far too nebulous definition.

So how isn't this a copout? Why is it too "nebulous"? Why can't you discuss it as it stands? It defines "God" and explains his abilities.

Not when discussing science, Dustin. Look in a scientific dictionary, not a plain old English one.

How's this?

1.Any effort, process, or operation designed to establish or discover a fact or truth; an act of testing; a test; a trial.

2.That degree of evidence which convinces the mind of any truth or fact, and produces belief; a test by facts or arguments that induce, or tend to induce, certainty of the judgment; conclusive evidence; demonstration.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Proof

That's evidence, Dustin. Not proof.

Two. Different. Things.

Cheers,
TGHO

Explain the difference. How isn't it proof?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

God being defined as the being conceived originator and ruler of the universe.

Yes. That's it.

How can I explain to you how you would prove to me something that you made up? Doesn't it work the other way around?

I didn't make it up.

I believe in invisible people. Tell me how to prove to you that they're real. "Get them to speak," you say? Well, they can't speak! But they're still real. "Get them to move something", you say? Well, they can't move things! But they're still real.

I never said I believed in God. Since you say you believe in them I would ask what convinced you of their existence. What would you say?

What would I accept as proof of a god? I, personally, would accept any proof at all.

What proof? Give me an example. God being defined as the being conceived originator and ruler of the universe, what proof would you accept for such a being? Please provide a single example of the specific proof that you would require. Can you do that?

 

[Complexity]

Dustin - End of my participation in this thread. We have different goals and there has been no meeting of the minds.

I hope you enjoy reading and thinking for the next several years and begin to mellow with age.

 

[Taffer]

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

DR

No, I can do that a priori though.

 

[Taffer]

Did you miss my post, Dustin?

 

[The Great Hairy One]

So how isn't this a copout? Why is it too "nebulous"? Why can't you discuss it as it stands? It defines "God" and explains his abilities.

It defines dozens of deities. Which one do you want to talk about, or are you happy to include all of them?

How's this?

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Proof

That's pretty good. Do you understand it?

Explain the difference. How isn't it proof?

Uh, I think you need to read your link from www.biology-online.org above and have a bit of a think.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Dustin - End of my participation in this thread. We have different goals and there has been no meeting of the minds.

I hope you enjoy reading and thinking for the next several years and begin to mellow with age.

I'm sorry you would prefer to use only one definition of a word when I used it totally differently and my definition (as I have proven) is no less valid in such a context.

Did you miss my post, Dustin?

Must have. Link it.

It defines dozens of deities. Which one do you want to talk about, or are you happy to include all of them?

Yes.

That's pretty good. Do you understand it?

Yes. I quoted it.

1.Any effort, process, or operation designed to establish or discover a fact or truth; an act of testing; a test; a trial.

2.That degree of evidence which convinces the mind of any truth or fact, and produces belief; a test by facts or arguments that induce, or tend to induce, certainty of the judgment; conclusive evidence; demonstration.

It seems to disagree with you that "Proof" and "Evidence" aren't synonymous in science.

Uh, I think you need to read your link from www.biology-online.org above and have a bit of a think.

I have. See above.

 

[Taffer]

I just asked "you do know that you cannot prove anything a posteriori, right?".

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Yes.

Hmmm, interesting.

Yes. I quoted it.

Which does not mean you understood it...

It seems to disagree with you that "Proof" and "Evidence" aren't synonymous in science.

...as we can see here.

I have. See above.

Unfortunately not.

Cheers,
TGHO