What kind of evidence would prove god ?

Hercule Poirot

An extraordinary event/miracle, like raising someone from the dead, creating a new planet etc. etc.

The question is what would it take for you personally to believe in the existence of God. Admittedly it would depend on your opinion of what a God would be, or what it would represent to you. But if a man/woman appears infront of me, can bend scientifically/mathematically proven laws at will and also claims to be God it would definitely pique my interest.

robindch

seamus wrote: »

So far nobody seems to be able to provide any coherent definition of "God".

Antiskeptic believes that "god" is whatever god causes god's creations to believe "god" is.

From the religious perspective at least, that's a believable definition.

bnt

robindch wrote: »

From the religious perspective at least, that's a believable definition.

From a non-religious reality-based perspective, that's a circular argument a.k.a. "up its own hole".

I don't think there's any way I could believe in "god", if that means belief without evidence. But what about "scientific physical evidence validated by scientific experts", from the poll? Well, evidence of (whatever) would be ... evidence of (whatever). I might not understand it, but that wouldn't make it evidence of "god".

So I'm not surprised that this thread has been largely about definitions. If the "god" is to be "ominpotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient creator of the universe. Timeless, spaceless, person-god (as in possesing a discrete mind)" ... what evidence is there for such a being in the world around us? All the avoidable suffering and hardship, all the things people do that are that are flawed, broken, stupid, and flat-out wrong. Hence the particularly Catholic push to blame people for "sins" they did not commit.

robindch

bnt wrote: »

[...] that's a circular argument [...]

Most religious arguments are circular. That's why it's so hard to square any of them with reality.

CerebralCortex

Penn wrote: »

What evidence would prove God?

God.

If God himself appeared in front of a large number of random people (myself included) and did something which would be otherwise impossible to do, that would pretty much prove God for me. In fact, I'm unsure as to why he hasn't done it yet if he does exist. Everyone would follow one religion, world would be more peaceful, everyone would have a greater chance of going to Heaven... God's a bit of a dick for not having done it yet.

Even if that were to happen you still couldn't be sure, I know I wouldn't.

joseph brand

I seem to get into a religious argument with my folks every weekend, when I visit.

One of my mam's main reasons for believing, is the idea of 'miracles', (Knock, Lourdes, Medjugorje etc.) Any mention of a miracle helps her 'know' that this is all 'true'. I haven't read up on any of these supposed miracles, but from what I can tell, some people just get better. If that's the case, then it was a divine miracle that my hangover left me last weekend, just like the weekend before, and before that. . . . (nothing at all to do with the Solpadeine*)

If there was verifiable video footage of an amputee re-growing a limb, and ample evidence of such an event, I might pause to think, "dafuq is goin on here?" Either:
a) There is a god!

b) This person is half lizard or half plant.
or
c) These special effects are wonderful.

But no no, thousands of victims fork out to visit places where they are relieved of any cash they have, and just like what happens regularly round the world, a small few of them get better. Thanks to medicine and/ or genetics.

I'm open to correction here, as I've said, I haven't bothered to read about these pilgrimages. Devil worshipping and researching delicious baby recipes takes up most of my day. Thank Satan.

*Solpadeine is better than god. Works faster. :pac:

Popinjay

robindch wrote: »

Most religious arguments are circular. That's why it's so hard to square any of them with reality.

Ba-dum tsh!

Thank you folks, he's here all week.

Try the fish.

Popinjay

joseph brand wrote: »

a small few of them get better

Many get worse. Thank god for putting hundreds of people, often with already compromised, or otherwise occupied, immune systems into close proximity with one another.

That's like mixing a bit from every bottle in the drinks cabinet so your parents won't notice some missing and hoping it'll taste nice.

It almost never does.

Sarky

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

joseph brand wrote: »

I seem to get into a religious argument with my folks every weekend, when I visit.

One of my mam's main reasons for believing, is the idea of 'miracles', (Knock, Lourdes, Medjugorje etc.) Any mention of a miracle helps her 'know' that this is all 'true'. I haven't read up on any of these supposed miracles, but from what I can tell, some people just get better. If that's the case, then it was a divine miracle that my hangover left me last weekend, just like the weekend before, and before that. . . . (nothing at all to do with the Solpadeine*)

If there was verifiable video footage of an amputee re-growing a limb, and ample evidence of such an event, I might pause to think, "dafuq is goin on here?" Either:
a) There is a god!

b) This person is half lizard or half plant.
or
c) These special effects are wonderful.

But no no, thousands of victims fork out to visit places where they are relieved of any cash they have, and just like what happens regularly round the world, a small few of them get better. Thanks to medicine and/ or genetics.

I'm open to correction here, as I've said, I haven't bothered to read about these pilgrimages. Devil worshipping and researching delicious baby recipes takes up most of my day. Thank Satan.

*Solpadeine is better than god. Works faster. :pac:

Sometimes spontaneous remission just happens. However, oldrnwisr (peace be upon him) pointed out somewhere a good while ago that the rates of "miraculous" remission of diseases like cancer are actually several orders of magnitude lower at places like Lourdes and Knock than the background rate, which really suggests a pilgrimage is one of the worst things you could do with a terminal illness.

Brian Shanahan

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Sertus wrote: »

For the sake of argument, lets say the supposed entity 'God' is something along the lines of the dictionary definition of monotheism and the beliefs of Christianity / Islam / Judaism

So lets say the 'God' finally decided to appear to a group of us here, claimed he was 'God' and to prove to us he was 'God', he raised a few people from the dead, created a special planet for us, juggled some stars, and some other fantastic god like 'miracles'.
?

For my first post here (none of those wishy-washy hello threads for me!), I would have to say that unless physics is missing something huge, the Abrahamic god is pretty much disproven, because he has to exist in contradiction to the known laws of the universe (pretty much everyone of them he breaks), and also exists outside the frame of reference of the universe (which under physics is everything in existence). So I would say in that case god is proven to not exist. As regards the poll, I chose "scientific proof", because frankly it is the only valid proof available. The nature of science is that any findings have to be testable (that we can actually see where they're coming from), replicable (that any person with the knowledge and equipment can repeat the test and results) and falsifiable (that any person subsequent to the original thinker can come along and figure out a way to knock down the original thought if it is possible). No other system gives us that, therefore the best method is through science (of course if there is a better method out there I will substitute that method for science, it's a tool to be used when appropriate not some "be all and end all" one right way). However I think if we ever find any god out there it will be much less comprehensible to us than anything else we've yet encountered, think Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker only many magnitudes weirder.

FISMA

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I would have to say that unless physics is missing something huge, the Abrahamic god is pretty much disproven, because he has to exist in contradiction to the known laws of the universe (pretty much everyone of them he breaks),

Physics is going to prove or disprove God?

Physics comes from the Greek word for natural. Physics is the study of the natural world. Usually, we consider God to be supernatural, hence, my doubt that stop watches or metersticks will ever prove either way.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

because he has to exist in contradiction to the known laws of the universe

Which Laws is God breaking? Conservation: of ang mom, energy, charge, nucleon number? Maybe Newton's or Ohm's?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

and also exists outside the frame of reference of the universe (which under physics is everything in existence).

What frame is that? Is it absolute?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

therefore the best method is through science

The scientific method is one of the greatest tools we have, however, that does not mean that it is applicable to God.

Lastly, science fails to provide a method by which we can demonstrate that our memories are working "properly," for lack of a better word.

If we cannot demonstrate scientifically that our memories are working properly, perhaps, science is inadequate in confirming or denying God.

Welcome to the boards Shanahan.

pauldla

I am amused at the thought of a test for God that involves a metre stick and a stopwatch. Alas, at my age I must make do with a pocket ruler and a calendar. Oh, for a little omnipotence!

robindch

FISMA wrote: »

[...] science is inadequate in confirming or denying God.

That should be expected, since the religious have done everything they can to hide their deity away so its existence can't be confirmed or denied.

Geomy

robindch wrote: »

That should be expected, since the religious have done everything they can to hide their deity away so its existence can't be confirmed or denied.

Can you explain this in layman's terms ?

Brian Shanahan

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

FISMA wrote: »

Physics is going to prove or disprove God?

Physics comes from the Greek word for natural. Physics is the study of the natural world. Usually, we consider God to be supernatural, hence, my doubt that stop watches or metersticks will ever prove either way.

Calling god supernatural in this day and age is just a way of saying "I know that god doesn't exist but don't want to admit it, therefore I create a category in which to place him from which nobody can get proof, because it has no reality."

I'm sorry but supernatural=outside of nature=outside of reallity=imaginary. If we cannot prove it using the frames of reference inside the universe (the sum total of reality) it has no existence.

seamus

Geomy wrote: »

Can you explain this in layman's terms ?

Whenever a measureable attribute has been described in God and science disproves the possibility or existence of this attribute, religious people simply claim that God never had this attribute or that by testing it, he changed it.

Basically they make claims about God which cannot be tested to show that they are either true or false. A good example is the invisible unicorn.

I say that there is a unicorn in the room beside us. You say you can't see it. So I say it's invisible. You say you can't hear it, I say it makes no sound. You say you can't smell it, I say it has no smell. You say that you can't touch it. I say that it exists outside of our reality, so it can't be touched.

So basically I have now made a claim which can neither be proven nor denied, by "hiding" the unicorn away from being discovered.

Sarky

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

That's it in a nutshell. Gods used to live on mountain tops or other hard-to-reach places. Then we climbed the mountains, explored the deep forests and the oceans, and suddenly the gods had moved to the sky. By the time we learned to fly and explore the sky, they'd already left for "our hearts". It would seem modern medicine has been a cruel landlord, and evicted god(s) from there to leave them sleeping rough in "another dimension".

robindch

^^^ To add to those helpful notes -- thanks folks -- I'm reminded of the largest study ever carried out into the question "Does praying for sick people help?", also called the "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients".

The basic idea here was that religious people would be asked to pray for around 600 hospital patients and and not pray for around 600 others, and all were patients recovering from heart-bypass operations. The doctors then tracked whether the people being prayed for fared better than the ones who weren't being prayed for. Short summary -- there was no difference. The full paper, with an interesting sideline, is available here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567

So, when the results came back and somebody asked the mother superior of one of the congregations why praying for people made no difference, this fine lady said:

Some Mother Superior wrote:

Well, I know that god works in mysterious ways and I don't need a scientist to tell me that.

That's a pretty good example of making a grand claim ("prayer works!"), then finding out that it's wrong (the research), then simply ignoring the result ("well, that's just his mysterious ways you silly person!").

Brian Shanahan

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

robindch wrote: »

^^^ To add to those helpful notes -- thanks folks -- I'm reminded of the largest study ever carried out into the question "Does praying for sick people help?", also called the "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients".

The basic idea here was that religious people would be asked to pray for around 600 hospital patients and and not pray for around 600 others, and all were patients recovering from heart-bypass operations. The doctors then tracked whether the people being prayed for fared better than the ones who weren't being prayed for. Short summary -- there was no difference. The full paper, with an interesting sideline, is available here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567

So, when the results came back and somebody asked the mother superior of one of the congregations why praying for people made no difference, this fine lady said:That's a pretty good example of making a grand claim ("prayer works!"), then finding out that it's wrong (the research), then simply ignoring the result ("well, that's just his mysterious ways you silly person!").

Actually that is understating the findings a bit.

There were three categories, 1) prayed for and patient knew, 2) prayed for but patient ignorant of and 3) not prayed for but patient ignorant. In the two "ignorant patient" groups there was only a 1% difference in complications between the two (given the size of the sample, an insignificant difference), but those who knew they were being prayed for had a 7% increase on the next worse group, and 8% worse than the best, in complications.

This difference is significant, and I will quote the authors: "Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications"

seamus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

This difference is significant, and I will quote the authors: "Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications"

And just to square that with religious denial, your traditional believer will say that praying in this instance made no difference because you can't test god.
Your more fire and brimstone believer will say that the complications associated with prayer are a punishment from god for daring to test him (though curiously the scientists who conducted the test remain unscathed).

Of course any experiment which produces results that were unexpected - in this case we expected prayer to have zero effect - has to be done again, to confirm that this is actually a phenomenon and not just a blip. I find it a humourous curio to quote this study, but I would never go as far as claiming that prayer actually makes people sicker, unless someone else does another study and confirms it.

Brian Shanahan

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

seamus wrote: »

Of course any experiment which produces results that were unexpected - in this case we expected prayer to have zero effect - has to be done again, to confirm that this is actually a phenomenon and not just a blip. I find it a humourous curio to quote this study, but I would never go as far as claiming that prayer actually makes people sicker, unless someone else does another study and confirms it.

True that. It is worth reporting it for the STEP case as it was the only significant result differing from the hypothesis, and therefore worthy of extra study and testing.

And while the meta-study of this and other studies does show a slight help from praying, it is no better than placebo, i.e. that any sort of knowledge of others thinking positively of you when in medical trouble is likely to help.