Athiests Only: What would suffice as proof of God?

[sonofskeptish]

I suppose a good start would be for him to appear to a group of us, a mix of varoius religous and non-religious people, and communicat with us all together and directly. If we all saw him, heard him, and saw and heard the same thing, I'd be willing to re-visit my atheism. I gotta say, the pricks claiming to be speaking on his behalf currently are not doing much for his credibility or reputation. The reason I'd want him to appear to a group of us is simple... if he appeared to just me, mental illness would be my explanation.

 

[Tiberius]

A passage in the Bible that says:

"On january 1, in the year 2009 AD, I God will move the mountain which is called Mount Everest at that time from its location in the Himalayas to the Australian outback. I will leave it there for precisely one day and then return it to the place that I took it from. I will do this to show that I exist."

And then, if this actually happened, I would view it as very strong evidence that God exists.

Not proof, because there could be aliens using advanced technology to do it. But advanced aliens doing that particular thing at that particular time is highly unlikely.

Still haven't found anything that would do as good a job as this...

 

[Thought Criminal]

After reading everybody's responses in Katzpurs thread. I thought this would be a natural follow up.

1. So how about it, what would suffice as proof of God?

2. Would any of the bilbical miracles convince you if you witnessed them?

Ever see the Monty Python cheese shop sketch? The clerk asks the customer what sort of cheese they'd like, but it turns out they're out of stock. So the customer names one sort of cheese after another, only to hear that they're out of that sort as well. In the end, he demands to know whether the shop has any cheese at all. And, of course, they don't.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about evidence for God. Really, it's not my job to suggest what evidence you should offer. Rather, you need to start by clearly defining a logically possible entity whose existence has some sort of consequence. You can work backwards from there to come up with testable claims; things that would be true if that type of God existed, but not otherwise. Then you need to test those claims, and if they fail, you must reject that form of theism. If it survives all tests, has significant explanatory and predictive power, and is parsimonious, only then is it worth my time to ask you about evidence.

As for the Bible stories, no. Why should I?

 

[Thought Criminal]

your sig is interesting.

can you mathematically measure love?

do graphs and numbers help?

Is love a supernatural being or an emotion? Apples and oranges.

TC

 

[Meow Mix]

After reading everybody's responses in Katzpurs thread. I thought this would be a natural follow up.

1. So how about it, what would suffice as proof of God?

2. Would any of the bilbical miracles convince you if you witnessed them?

If God* could be shown to be logically self-evident and incorrigible (ontologically necessary) that would work just fine. In fact, that's one of the only cases in which having a god at all would make sense in any fashion.

After all, what sense would it make if God were ontologically contingent?

However, there do arise issues with God being ontologically necessary and the fact that God must then possess independently incorrigible characteristics; i.e. identity. (God = God, after all).

(* - this is assuming that we're talking about an omnipotent and omniscient being that created the material universe, with "omnipotence" being defined as the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs and "omniscience" being defined as possessing infinite absolute knowledge)

 

[The_Evelyonian]

After reading everybody's responses in Katzpurs thread. I thought this would be a natural follow up.

1. So how about it, what would suffice as proof of God?

Which god?

As far as what evidence I'd accept for the existence of a creator. Well, if his/her/its existence were scientifically proven to such a degree that the only logical conclusion would be to accept him/her/it, then I would.

Or maybe just a string of asteroids or stars that spell out:

"I DID IT -GOD (XOXO)"

2. Would any of the bilbical miracles convince you if you witnessed them?

I don't know. The parting of the Red Sea might do the job, assuming it was really as impressive as the movies have made it seem. Seeing someone rise from the dead after three days might also work.

 

[Joe Bloe]

After reading everybody's responses in Katzpurs thread. I thought this would be a natural follow up.

1. So how about it, what would suffice as proof of God?

2. Would any of the bilbical miracles convince you if you witnessed them?

No matter what evidence was provided for god's existence, I would assume it was some sort of hoax and remain doubtful - just as any sensible person would doubt any evidence that supposedly proved the existence of the Tooth Fairy or the Boogyman.

 

[DarkSun]

Unless of course you have some strange definition of the term: Miracle?

It is a violation of natural laws. Which basically means, that, snakes don't talk, virgins do not give birth and corpses do not come back to life.

They only happen in ancient books based on fables and fiction.

Nothing is impossible, there are just varying degrees of improbability.

But I agree that it would be extremely unlikely for those things to happen.

 

[Tiapan]

Attention all gods.
God, are you out there?
Prove it.
Submit to a full interview with the Australian Skeptics Association.
You can bring props, arks, angels, loaves, fish, walking on water sandals etc. to support your case.

Cheers

 

[ShakeZula]

This pretty much sums up how I feel about evidence for God. Really, it's not my job to suggest what evidence you should offer. Rather, you need to start by clearly defining a logically possible entity whose existence has some sort of consequence. You can work backwards from there to come up with testable claims; things that would be true if that type of God existed, but not otherwise. Then you need to test those claims, and if they fail, you must reject that form of theism. If it survives all tests, has significant explanatory and predictive power, and is parsimonious, only then is it worth my time to ask you about evidence.

Wonder why this guy was banned. I like this answer and would second it. But, all seriousness aside, if Monica Bellucci and Kate Beckinsale magically appeared right now wearing nothing but their birthday suits and a smile and swear to be my eternal love slaves, I suppose that might convince me there was a god.

:shout

-S-

 

[filthy tugboat]

To be honest if God is what the Bible claims, he shouldn't need to do anything, he should simply be able to make his existence known. It should be that simple and it can still allow for free will and such. I am not quite as familiar with God's of other religions but if they are similar to the Abrahamic one then I'm sure they would be equally capable.

 

[Oneatatime]

1. So how about it, what would suffice as proof of God?

I would need to know what a God was before I could recognise it.

2. Would any of the bilbical miracles convince you if you witnessed them?

They wouldn't convince me of Gods existance because there is no reason to assume that God caused them. I would seek a naturalistic explanation rather than assuming a priori that a supernatural cause was involved. Prusumably if the miracles recorded in the Bible actually happened the those who witnessed it where either incapable of or just didn't bother to seek a naturalist explanation.

 

[AfterGlow]

1. So how about it, what would suffice as proof of God?

Observable evidence.

2. Would any of the bilbical miracles convince you if you witnessed them?

Yes. Suffice to say there wasn't an obvious alternative explanation.

 

[linwood]

1. So how about it, what would suffice as proof of God?

The creation of life from inorganic matter before my eyes and the creation and manipulation of matter from nothing before my eyes.

While a being who could do these two things may not be "god" as the concept is exactly defined it would be enough for me to consider the being "close enough"

2. Would any of the bilbical miracles convince you if you witnessed them?

No, I`ve seen too many excellent illusionists to buy into dime store magic.

 

[The Ardent Atheist]

1. So how about it, what would suffice as proof of God?

What would you consider proof for the existence of any of the deities you don't believe in? There's your answer.

2. Would any of the bilbical miracles convince you if you witnessed them?

No. I would be more inclined to think it was aliens or time travelers with advanced technology!

 

[Altfish]

1. So how about it, what would suffice as proof of God?

Evidence. An appearance on TV, a world tour (since your omnipresent that could happen on one night!), book signings. You get the idea. None are particularly onerous, but this 'faith' rubbish doesn't wash with me.
Even more convincing would be to stop world conflicts and eradicate dying children.

2. Would any of the biblical miracles convince you if you witnessed them?

Not really. I'd be looking for a scientific explanation (after having my eyes tested). The biblical miracles were not exactly great things, I refer you to my previous comment about "...stop world conflicts and eradicate dying children."

Believers claim many things for their god, the evidence has got to be damn good for buy in by atheists.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Mind as well.

1. So how about it, what would suffice as proof of God?

A face slowly coming from a wall of air. What once embedded as a thin veil of the hole in a universe now, you can see his nose and mouth form into ours.

Would any of the bilbical miracles convince you if you witnessed them?

No. There are thousands of gods that by it being biblical makes it no different than reading the gods in the Lotus. I just have more respect for gods in the Lotus. There is no heirarchy and all of us listening to the teachings of rebirth.

I experience and see miracles from life daily. I dont attribute them to the biblical god; so, any miracle I experience wouldnt naturally direct me to the biblical deity.

 

[Ignorant Philosopher]

After reading everybody's responses in Katzpurs thread. I thought this would be a natural follow up.

1. So how about it, what would suffice as proof of God?

2. Would any of the bilbical miracles convince you if you witnessed them?

1) The deity would have to show himself to a large group of people and allow itself to be documented as well as do something that only a deity could do.

2) No, because whose to say it was not for example a wizard you did that?

 

[turbopro]

1. Before I essay to answer, perhaps you may let me know to which god(s) you refer. As you may be aware, there are thousands.

2. Here too, perhaps you may let me know also what is a miracle?

Catweazle to Carrot (Edward): "Teach me thy electrickery."
For Catweazle, "sun in a bottle" was a miracle.

 

[TheSecretAntitheist]

Any deity should know what 'miracle' would be enough to have me believe. The fact that any deity has yet to produce such a miracle is evidence that they either don't want me to believe and are happy with that, or that no such deities exist.