What would convince skeptics that a God probably exists?

[Agnostic75]

From time to time I come across various Christians who asks skeptics "What would convince you that a God probably exists?" Reasonable evidence for me would be as follows:

A being shows up on earth, claims that he is the one true God, demonstrates that he has great powers, including the instantaneous creation of a new planet, heals all of the sick people in the world, provides enough food for everyone to eat, does away with natural disasters, and answers some questions to my satisfaction.

I could not be certain that the being was the one true God, but accepting him would be a far better bet than accepting Pascal's Wager. It is quite easy to get people to accept you if you treat them right, especially if you are available in tangible form instead of declaring your existence though the writings of ancient human proxies.

 

[sandandfoam]

I don't get why one would wish to convince a skeptic of the existance of God.

 

[Agnostic75]

I don't get why one would wish to convince a skeptic of the existence of God.

Presumably so they would go to heaven and not to hell.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Maybe pictures of God on vacation in the Jamaica?

 

[jwalker1960]

I think a better question would be " What would convince theists that a God probably doesn't exist?".

 

[LittleNipper]

I think a better question would be " What would convince theists that a God probably doesn't exist?".

None of my prayers being answered ever might convince anyone. I believe nothing happens by chance. Everything happens by design. One would have to prove to me that everything happens by chance.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

All it would take to convince me that god exists, is for god to do something which would convince me of its existence. I see no point in speculating on the specifics of what that might be, or limiting what may or may not convince me. I assume any god would know what it would take to convince me of its existence, would have the ability to do so, and, therefore, if it wanted me to know of its existence, it would have no problem convincing me of it.

 

[Jose Fly]

You could start by defining "god" in such a way that it becomes something amendable to investigation. As long as "god" is invisible, undetectable, and lacking in any tangible substance whatsoever, it is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't get why one would wish to convince a skeptic of the existance of God.

If God really does exist, then my belief that he doesn't exist is a false belief.

It's personally important to me that I believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible. If someone cared about me, they'd probably want to help me acheive that goal.

 

[sandandfoam]

If God really does exist, then my belief that he doesn't exist is a false belief.

It's personally important to me that I believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible. If someone cared about me, they'd probably want to help me acheive that goal.

I've mentioned before that my wife is an atheist. She'd love to have the comfort of God but thinks it's all bull.
I care about her more than myself but I wouldn't try to convince her because (a) I think it would be incredibly arrogant of me to presume my reality is more 'true' than hers, and (b) my way to God was through introspection. Nobody could have found God for me but me. An attempt to convince me would have got up my nose in a big way and I imagine it's the same for others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've mentioned before that my wife is an atheist. She'd love to have the comfort of God but thinks it's all bull.
I care about her more than myself but I wouldn't try to convince her because (a) I think it would be incredibly arrogant of me to presume my reality is more 'true' than hers,

Why?

Opinions don't all have equal merit. God either exists or he doesn't. If you've got really, really good reasons for concluding that God exists and know that someone else doesn't have good reasons for disbelieving in God, why not correct them?

Earlier today, I blasted my horn at a guy as he turned the wrong way down a one-way street. I clearly saw the "no left turn" sign, so I was completely confident in my conclusion that his opinion (i.e. that it was okay to go that way) was incorrect. Was I being arrogant?

Speaking generally (i.e. not just your specific case, or using your ideas of God), if, in a discussion of God, there was a similar imbalance of knowledge, would it be arrogant to correct the other person?

and (b) my way to God was through introspection. Nobody could have found God for me but me. An attempt to convince me would have got up my nose in a big way and I imagine it's the same for others.

Fair enough for you, but there are other god-concepts out there that don't work that way.

 

[sandandfoam]

Why?

Opinions don't all have equal merit. God either exists or he doesn't. If you've got really, really good reasons for concluding that God exists and know that someone else doesn't have good reasons for disbelieving in God, why not correct them?

I believe that for humans reality is relative and subjective. I believe in objective reality but it's merely a belief. From my perspective all opinions don't have equal merit. But I accept that this is also true for others:- from their pov an opinion I might consider as having merit has none from their pov. A 'god's eye view' being unavailable to either of us we go with the best we can muddle out for ourselves

Earlier today, I blasted my horn at a guy as he turned the wrong way down a one-way street. I clearly saw the "no left turn" sign, so I was completely confident in my conclusion that his opinion (i.e. that it was okay to go that way) was incorrect. Was I being arrogant?

He might be 100% sure there was no sign there forbidding his turn. He could be right or he may just think he's right. He might be completely confident too.

Speaking generally (i.e. not just your specific case, or using your ideas of God), if, in a discussion of God, there was a similar imbalance of knowledge, would it be arrogant to correct the other person?

I'd love to see Dawkins and a Jehova's argue the toss.
I don't believe any person knows with certainty that they are on the right side of any imbalance of knowledge


Fair enough for you, but there are other god-concepts out there that don't work that way.[/quote]

 

[MSizer]

...I think it would be incredibly arrogant of me to presume my reality is more 'true' than hers....

I don't understand why people make statements like this one. How can "your reality" be true and "her reality" untrue. Reality simply is, and whether you are correct or incorrect on the matter of the existence of god is what I think you really mean to ask. I don't have a reality, I have a perception of it, as well as certain speculations about it, but I don't have that reality. Reality exists independently of anyone's perceptions, and some perceptions reflect reality more properly than others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe that for humans reality is relative and subjective. I believe in objective reality but it's merely a belief. From my perspective all opinions don't have equal merit. But I accept that this is also true for others:- from their pov an opinion I might consider as having merit has none from their pov. A 'god's eye view' being unavailable to either of us we go with the best we can muddle out for ourselves

Sure, but even so, certain beliefs can be recognized as simply not working with reality.

I mean, if someone told you that he was about to jump off the roof because he knew he could fly, you'd try to stop him, right? I hope you wouldn't tell him "well, that doesn't work from my POV, but I'm not the one to say whether you're right or wrong."

He might be 100% sure there was no sign there forbidding his turn. He could be right or he may just think he's right. He might be completely confident too.

But which is more likely: that he simply failed to notice the sign (somewhat understandably, seeing how it was in a suburban area where drivers don't normally expect one-way streets), or that I had a perfect hallucination of a "no left turn" sign (as well as the two "wrong way" signs on the cross street) with no other noticeable ill effects?

I'd love to see Dawkins and a Jehova's argue the toss.

I don't know what this means.

I don't believe any person knows with certainty that they are on the right side of any imbalance of knowledge

With total certainty? No. With practical certainty? Yes, sometimes we do know.

 

[Mr Cheese]

I don't understand why people make statements like this one. How can "your reality" be true and "her reality" untrue. Reality simply is, and whether you are correct or incorrect on the matter of the existence of god is what I think you really mean to ask. I don't have a reality, I have a perception of it, as well as certain speculations about it, but I don't have that reality. Reality exists independently of anyone's perceptions, and some perceptions reflect reality more properly than others.

…separation of the observer from the phenomenon to be observed is no longer possible.


— Werner Heisenberg


Quoted in Robert J. Scully, The Demon and the Quantum (2007), 3.

 

[IndieVisible]

From time to time I come across various Christians who asks skeptics "What would convince you that a God probably exists?" Reasonable evidence for me would be as follows:

A being shows up on earth, claims that he is the one true God, demonstrates that he has great powers, including the instantaneous creation of a new planet, heals all of the sick people in the world, provides enough food for everyone to eat, does away with natural disasters, and answers some questions to my satisfaction.

I could not be certain that the being was the one true God, but accepting him would be a far better bet than accepting Pascal's Wager. It is quite easy to get people to accept you if you treat them right, especially if you are available in tangible form instead of declaring your existence though the writings of ancient human proxies.

What may be acceptable "proofs" for you may not be for others. Lets not forget that if you accept the Gospels that many witnesses the miracles and yet did not believe. Others believed but abandon their faith during difficult times. Even Jesus' apostles ran away like little girls when he was captured.

There is no rational reason to believe in God.

For some all it takes is a personal experience, for others simply hearing, for others reading. You would think seeing would be a strong influence but it's not. After all if you met a man and he could turn water in to wine and walk on water, how would you know for sure if he was of God? You could also be losing your mind too.

There can never be enough proof or evidence to convince every one. The cards are stacked. It requires faith, not proof. If there was rational reasons to believe in God there would be no faith needed then.

 

[Agnostic75]

What may be acceptable "proofs" for you may not be for others.

Of course, but many Christians have asked particular skeptics what evidence would convince them.

Let's not forget that if you accept the Gospels that many witnesses the miracles and yet did not believe.

I do not accept the Bible claim that the Pharisees claimed that Jesus performed miracles by the power of Beelzebub. Why would the Pharisees have believed that? Why would Beelzebub heal people? As far as I know, that vast majority of theists past and present would attribute healing to God, not to Beelzebub.

After all, if you met a man and he could turn water into wine and walk on water, how would you know for sure if he was of God?

You couldn't, nor could you know for certain that Hillary Clinton is not an alien, but you do not believe that because you know that there is not sufficient evidence that she is an alien. The main issue is not what is absolute proof, but what is the most logical bet to accept, reference Pascal's Wager. I should have titled this thread "What evidence would convince skeptics to become a follower of a supposed God? I would be willing to become a follower of any supposed God who I considered to have good character. Knowing his true identity for certain would not be any more important to me than knowing Hillary Clinton's true identity for certain. I am much more concerned with how beings act than I am with their true identity.