What, if anything, would constitute proof?

axer wrote: »

So what would it take?

Seeing some sort of vision or anything in that line would not do it for me since I would just assume that I have some sort of mental condition or tumor. I don't think I actually know what proof would satisfy me into believing there is a god.

I suppose if there was some logical explanation as to how the god came into existence etc and how the world etc was created then that would be a start.

How about you?

If god came down to earth went on cnn/sky news and parted the Atlantic ocean which was verified scientifically. Even then I would still be a sceptic as a more probable reason would be that he's a time traveller from the future or from an advanced race of aliens.

Thinking about it the only thing that would convince me 100% without a doubt would be if god could scientifically demonstrate how he created the universe.

sink wrote: »

If god came down to earth went on cnn/sky news and parted the Atlantic ocean which was verified scientifically.

I wouldn't believe it until it appeared on BBC.

axer wrote: »

So what would it take?QUOTE]

As much as I dont believe in an almighty, I also dont want there to be one. If all the c*"p that goes on in the world is planned, overseen and ignored by a divine being, then he is one being I would never wish to meet.

It would be impossible to ever be absolutely certain that what we were witnessing was 'god', rather than just some incredibly advanced alien. I'm defining 'god' as a being or entity that created the universe, exists outside of time and is not subject to the laws of physics in the normal way. An alien lifeform which exists within this universe may be highly advanced and capable of feats we can't imagine but would still not be 'god' in the sense of how I've defined it.

A sufficiently advanced alien being or beings would in effect be 'god' to us anyway, that's the way it's always been when advanced meets primitive. A super-advanced alien could pass himself off as god and we wouldn't be able to tell. Maybe if the god being could demonstrate how he engineered the universe and set it's key constants, and this was verified as scientifically coherent by the best theoretical physicists on the planet.

This god, though a fascinating entity would still not warrant our worship though, and certainly wouldn't demand it either. Respect yes, worship no.

In saying all this, a god entity capable of engineering a universe might well be utterly incomprehensible to us anyway, in the same way that advanced mathematics is incomprehensible to a dog.

Edit: just realised robin,zillah etc made similar points anyway

gramlab wrote:

As much as I dont believe in an almighty, I also dont want there to be one. If all the c*"p that goes on in the world is planned, overseen and ignored by a divine being, then he is one being I would never wish to meet.

Agreed. Even if a god did exist he can't be all-powerful and benevolent, though the religiosos will jump through every hoop in existence to get around that thorny bush.

robindch wrote: »

Personally, I'd like to see a god, say, stop a planecrcash in midflight or warn of an upcoming earthquake or tsunami, rather than, say, suspending some of this free-will stuff in order to maneuver neighbors into meeting on opposite sides of a Texas petrol pump.

I'm pretty sure that's Superman, not God.

aidan24326 wrote: »

When much of what you believe is untestable it makes your position a very cosy one, and the smugness is often evident. The things that are somewhat testable, such as the efficacy of prayer, invariably fail the tests but of course these results are dismissed as irrelevant. You can't test god, he moves in mysterious ways you see. It really is remarkable to see someone like PDN, who comes across as an otherwise intelligent guy, often completely abandon all sense of logic and rationality in defence of his faith. As for JC over in the creationism thread, his attempts at talking his away out of a corner are by now legendary. I guess you can believe anything you want if you just make it up as you go.

J C is either actually utterly committed to a set of self contradictory and unsupportable beliefs or is one of the most dedicated trolls I've ever encountered. It's really hard to tell.

A nice easy one for the all-powerful one, 'God Did This' could be encoded into every animals DNA - or, seeing as we Humans are the sole-reason for the creation of the entire universe, only our-own DNA need be encoded, and not some bible-code bull**** either. As a bonus for the masses of bible-literalists, the difference between our DNA and all other life would be absolute proof that we couldn't have evolved from a common ancestor.

I doubt that anything could convince me of the existence of anything remotely resembling the bible nut-job. To paraphrase Woody Allen, just what i would say to such a being would depend on the quality of the apology offered.

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

chances are nothing will constitite proof. if a person wants to believe, he'll believe, nomatter what evidence to the contrary is brought forward. if he, or she, i guess...doesn't want to believe, then they wont, even if an angel apeared and gave him a bitch-slap. there is some other explanation. peoples minds are already set.

Not strictly true. You'll find that most of us in the atheist/non-believer camp would be more than willing to reconsider our position if credible evidence came to light. But to make me seriously rconsider that I might be wrong that evidence is gonna have to be something truly amazing, and it's very difficult to know what a god could do that would count as definitive proof he was indeed the creator. Some of what religious believers claim as evidence of god's existence (their own god, of course) is so far removed from what would normally be classed as evidence, in the proper sense, that it only demonstrates either a complete misunderstanding of the word, or more likely a deliberate shifting* of the goalposts.

*by a long long way!