What kind of evidence would prove god ?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

"His decision" refers to the conviction quotient God assigns to any means of revealing his existence to a person. Not to his deciding whether to reveal his existence to this or that person. Whether he reveals himself to this or that person does involve the will of the person. Indeed, it's ultimately down to the individuals will whether or not God turns up to them

"Conviction quotient" -- I like that one

The rest of it has a vacuum where a similar string of words might have a meaning.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

robindch wrote: »

"Conviction quotient" -- I like that one

Good. Because that's the core of the argument.

The rest of it has a vacuum where a similar string of words might have a meaning.

An inelegant way of saying you're not willing/able to deal with the core of the argument.

Maybe you could consider standing aside with the coughing and let someone in better health stand up to the plate?

Andrewf20

A visit from one of God's Angels

Here some thoughts brewing in my mind...

I think what Antiskeptic may be getting at (please correct me if im wrong) is that it needs to be viewed as a relationship with God and this means both sides - i.e. you and God need to put work into the relationship, that God will reveal himself to you if you are receptive to acknowledging his existence.

The problem I have here is that I have tried to be receptive to God but nothing comes through. Not only this but I have read / heard of many other people who have spent their whole lives searching but never finding a sign that convinces them to believe. Qualia soup is an example. If God exists why does he remain so elusive for some who genuinely search? Is God rejecting them rather than the other way around?

I get the impression that for some believers their faith is primarily cemented by some spiritual experience or an experience of coming through a painful part of their lives - that these incidents can a bigger reason to believe than reading scripture.

I was watcing Darren Browns Fear and Faith program and his "Athiest has a religious conversion" experiement. It was interesting to see how the human mind can work. Its well worth Youtubing it.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's an argument poised for those who'd suppose themselves convinced by God juggling planets and the like. We can now assume God exists for the purpose of comparing their preferred means of conviction with means which they would tend to ridicule.

Inconvenient though that might be for one who goes off half baked.

So all you are saying is that since god can reveal himself anyway he wants, if he does reveal himself in a big (somehow) objective way, it must have been him who was revealed in every subjective personal revelation.

This is conclusively contradicted by the very simple fact that more than one god has supposedly revealed themselves in personal revelations. If it turns out that one specific god is real, it makes all those personal revelations from other gods objectively false. Despite how much the believers believed in them at the time. But since all personal revelations from any god have the same appearance to those not getting them, this means that until god does reveal himself in some objective way, all personal revelations are equally likely to be false.

Even if a god does objectively show himself, it wouldn't make all (or any of) the personal revelations supposedly from him verified. If you guess an answer and it turns out to be right, its still a guess, you never knew the answer.

Zillah

I think what he is getting at - laboriously and tendentiously - is the fact that if an omnipotent God exists then nothing happens without his implicit approval - including your being convinced or unconvinced of his existence. That is, of course, both entirely redundant; you could bring this up for literally any question, and missing the point; the original question is about our current subjective opinions regarding the falsifiability and verifiability of the God-question and not an invitation to go swimming in the deep dark waters of obtuse theology.

morton

Sertus wrote: »

Still wondering what kind of evidence would prove god, any examples or ideas ?

Passport photo?

oldrnwisr

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's been granted in my conclusion. It could be that revelation provides more conviction to a person. It would only take God to assign a greater conviction quotient to that means of demonstrating his existence.

Hold on a sec, back up. In your first post you said:

antiskeptic wrote: »

Any means which leads to your being satisfied God exists is as good as any other means.

I pointed out that this simply isn't true. Not all means of detection are equally valid or useful. The fact that personal revelation is just that, personal, it cannot be used to convince anyone else and so is worthless.

antiskeptic wrote: »

For the sake of showing you understand what the argument is saying, you should restate the bolded text as "as soon as you have more than one method supplied by God aimed at convicting you of his existence then..." It shows on whose foot the shoe is placed when it comes to deciding the level of conviction to be assigned to each method. God's, in other words.

OK, let's nip this in the bud here shall we? I'm not sure if it's as a result of theological bias or the desire to cloud the issue but the core question in the OP is how a being could prove to a skeptic that it was a god. You have already assumed the conclusion and are looking at the entire question backwards. Congratulations I've never seen anyone try to deliberately turn their argument into a logical fallacy before.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you don't reckon he can demonstrate his existence by any means then this argument isn't addressed at you

Just for the record, I never said that it would by impossible to be convinced of a god's existence. I'm just not as easily convinced as you are. Besides which, it's not for me to go and seek out the existence of god. It's for the religious to present me with evidence and reasoned argument to support their claims, both of which have so far been lacking.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The usual God under discussion here is God of the bible - I didn't think it worth re-mentioning that.

Does the 'omni-problem' have anything to say in this argument?

Well yes, as it happens. Since you're suggesting the christian god as the one of choice in this logical exercise, then the omni-problem definitely becomes an issue. The christian god as described in the bible has a set of defining characteristics which are contradictory. What I intend to do is list a few characteristics of the christian god and show the scriptural support for them and follow by showing how combinations of these attributes are fatally contradictory. (I'm going to stick to one bible quote per attribute for the sake of length, if that's not good enough for you I can supply more.)


1. Omniscience

"Before a word is on my tongue you, Lord, know it completely"

Psalm 139:4


2. Omnipotence

"I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted."

Job 42:2


3. Omnibenevolence

"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."
1 John 4:8


4. Immortality

"who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen."

1 Timothy 6:16


5. Perfect

"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him."

Psalm 18:30


6. Hell

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Matthew 25:46


Now, the first conflict is that between ominpotence and immortality. A lot of the questions surrounding omnipotence tend to logically flawed themselves such as making a square circle etc. so here's an easier one for you to begin with, Can God kill himself? If yes, then no immortality, if no, then no omnipotence. Which is it to be?
The next conflict is that between omniscience and omnipotence. In older versions of the Job quote above we see the phrase: "no thought can be withholden from thee". So can God create a being capable of keeping secrets from him. Again, one of the attributes is going to have to break, which one?
The next conflict is between perfection and well, almost all of your religion. Let's take the creation for example. God who is perfect according to the quote above created a perfect universe and yet sin through Adam and Eve enters the world. So how can a perfect being allow imperfection to enter his creation. It can't. So either sin is true or God is perfect. You can't have both.
The last conflict, for now is that between omnibenevolence and hell. The NT concept of hell involves eternal punishment for finite crimes. Infinite compassion and love does not abide infinite torture. So either god loves everyone or tortures them eternally. Which is it?

And so your god vanishes promptly in a puff of logic.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Huh?

This point is related to the piece above about the perfection of God. If God possessed the ability and the intent to make someone a believer then that action could have been encoded by God from the very moment of creation and thus an actual act of intervention would be entirely unnecessary, inefficient and importantly, imperfect.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The argument is addressed at those who would suppose God to exist on account of his juggling planets before their eyes and such like. To those who shout down all and sundry with "unless there is empirical evidence", in other words. The kind of people who populate this forum in fact.

However, your argument isn't remotely addressing the question in the OP because, for reasons of convenience I suspect, you've already gone and assumed that God does exist and worked backwards. Why don't you give it another go and maybe this thread might lead somewhere interesting?

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So all you are saying is that since god can reveal himself anyway he wants, if he does reveal himself in a big (somehow) objective way, it must have been him who was revealed in every subjective personal revelation.

The inability of the current crop on this forum to get a simple argument (of but a couple of sentences length) straight in their minds is staggering.

It's not that I don't think there couldn't be counters. It's that weak/hasty reading comprehension errors are leading to counters being offered to an argument that hasn't been made.

Upon which 'thanks' are then heaped :rolleyes:

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

The inability of the current crop on this forum to get a simple argument (of but a couple of sentences length) straight in their minds is staggering.

It's not that I don't think there couldn't be counters. It's that weak/hasty reading comprehension errors are leading to counters being offered to an argument that hasn't been made.

Upon which 'thanks' are then heaped :rolleyes:

Not one word of your post actually amounts to an explanation of where you think we have misinterpreted your argument or a defence of any of the points put to you. So what's really staggering, is that you think you can post what essentially amounts to an ego massaging declaration of "I'm so much smarter than everyone else here", in discussion with me as if I was ever going to agree with you.

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

kylith wrote: »

I suppose that creating a completely new species of animal, from scratch, in front of an audience, would be pretty convincing, especially if it was an extremophile the size of a labrador.

I'd be like "Cool creation dude, but how do I know you are 'God' and not just some ordinary super dude/alien claiming to be 'God' ? " - Like a tiny flea probably thinks a whale is 'God' or something, but that don't make a whale God.

We still need evidence.

So what type evidence would prove "God" exists ? I'm still none the wiser. There must be somebody somewhere on this forum with the answer as to what type of evidence would be evidence.

Mark Hamill

Sertus wrote: »

So what type evidence would prove "God" exists ? I'm still none the wiser. There must be somebody somewhere on this forum with the answer as to what type of evidence would be evidence.

Well assuming by "god" you are talking about an omnipowerful and omniscient entity claiming to have created the universe, then it showing us it creating the universe would be a start. Letting us make alterations to the creation and showing us the outcomes would also help.

If you are being more specific, if you are talking about a god who also claims to be omnibenevolent, then in addition to the above, it would need to consistently explain why it created the universe the way it did, knowing all the pain and suffering it brings about.

These would be a beginning.

catallus

Is the actual existence of the universe and existence proof of God?

Dades

catallus wrote: »

Is the actual existence of the universe and existence proof of God?

Which one?

MagicMarker

oldrnwisr wrote: »

As Dickens said:

"You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato. There's more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!"

Off topic but, the first time I read this quote was today in your post and I just this evening started reading a book that had the exact same quote in the first few pages.

Mad how that happens.

catallus

Dades wrote: »

Which one?

both!

Dades

catallus wrote: »

both!

Uh, I mean which god?

Mark Hamill

catallus wrote: »

Is the actual existence of the universe and existence proof of God?

I propose that I created the universe. The existence of the actual universe therefore is proof that I created the universe?

PopePalpatine

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Is antiskeptic really John Waters? :eek:

catallus

Dades wrote: »

Uh, I mean which god?

Uh, ok, let's say the god Jesus called his father.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I propose that I created the universe. The existence of the actual universe therefore is proof that I created the universe?

Hilarious, is this a semantic argument? Because I think we passed deconstructing sentences in senior infants.

Mark Hamill

catallus wrote: »

Hilarious, is this a semantic argument? Because I think we passed deconstructing sentences in senior infants.

What do you mean by semantic argument?

Your argument is that god supposedly created the universe, the universe exists therefore god created it and god exists. Under the exact same logic, I propose that I created the universe, the universe exists, therefore I created it (and I exist). You scoff when I put my name in the argument, but you seem to think putting god in it has merit. The truth is both versions (or any other version with any other name) are false, as they are circular arguments. The premise ("X" exists and the universe was created by "X") presupposes the conclusion (the universe was created by "X" and therefore "X" exists).

catallus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What do you mean by semantic argument?

Your argument is that god supposedly created the universe, the universe exists therefore god created it and god exists. Under the exact same logic, I propose that I created the universe, the universe exists, therefore I created it (and I exist). You scoff when I put my name in the argument, but you seem to think putting god in it has merit. The truth is both versions (or any other version with any other name) are false, as they are circular arguments. The premise ("X" exists and the universe was created by "X") presupposes the conclusion (the universe was created by "X" and therefore "X" exists).

^^^^^^
This is a semantic argument....

When you observe the world and analyse what you see do you not question what brought it about. I'm not being silly with you. I'm asking do you have some sense or idea or suspicion or inkling or doubt or inspiration of........... something more?

MagicMarker

catallus wrote: »

^^^^^^
This is a semantic argument....

When you observe the world and analyse what you see do you not question what brought it about. I'm not being silly with you. I'm asking do you have some sense or idea or suspicion or inkling or doubt or inspiration of........... something more?

You do realise what forum you're in yeah?

catallus

MagicMarker wrote: »

You do realise what forum you're in yeah?

No actually, and I've got the strange feeling that I'm going to get my arse handed to me

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Hold on a sec, back up. In your first post you said:

I pointed out that this simply isn't true. Not all means of detection are equally valid or useful. The fact that personal revelation is just that, personal, it cannot be used to convince anyone else and so is worthless.

a) I did grant in conclusion that it were possible that God could assign greater confidence raising to one method over another. That it is possible doesn't mean it is so. That it could be the revelation method which is granted superiority is merely an attempt to underline the arguments conclusion - underline by way of niggling the empiricist.

b) That makes my opening statement (that one means is as good as another) possibly true - and for a want of knowing which means is best we might as well pick the one as the other. Somewhat sloppy granted, but let's call it a working conclusion drawn in advance of the argument.

c) The argument presented doesn't give a fig about what you, me or anyone else thinks of the merits of the various (three) means listed. The argument claims that: IF God THEN God is the one who decides which method shall raise the most confidence in a person. And in doing so, circumvents all our attempts to evaluate this method as being better than that method.

OK, let's nip this in the bud here shall we? I'm not sure if it's as a result of theological bias or the desire to cloud the issue but the core question in the OP is how a being could prove to a skeptic that it was a god. You have already assumed the conclusion and are looking at the entire question backwards. Congratulations I've never seen anyone try to deliberately turn their argument into a logical fallacy before.

I've merely pointed out the redundancy of the question.

What's the point in asking which kind of proof would satisfy when the power of satisfying you lies in the hands of the being doing the proving?

There's more to nipping that merely stating nipping to be your intent

Just for the record, I never said that it would by impossible to be convinced of a god's existence. I'm just not as easily convinced as you are. Besides which, it's not for me to go and seek out the existence of god. It's for the religious to present me with evidence and reasoned argument to support their claims, both of which have so far been lacking.

The only person who is going to prove God exists to your satisfaction is God.

Given that you're not closed to God being able to demonstrate his existence means the argument I've posited is applicable for your position. It renders the OP's question (and all the demands that God write his name empirically in the sky "only then will I believe") redundant.

Well yes, as it happens. Since you're suggesting the christian god as the one of choice in this logical exercise, then the omni-problem definitely becomes an issue. The christian god as described in the bible has a set of defining characteristics which are contradictory. What I intend to do is list a few characteristics of the christian god and show the scriptural support for them and follow by showing how combinations of these attributes are fatally contradictory. (I'm going to stick to one bible quote per attribute for the sake of length, if that's not good enough for you I can supply more.)


1. Omniscience

"Before a word is on my tongue you, Lord, know it completely"

Psalm 139:4


2. Omnipotence

"I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted."

Job 42:2


3. Omnibenevolence

"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."
1 John 4:8


4. Immortality

"who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen."

1 Timothy 6:16


5. Perfect

"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him."

Psalm 18:30


6. Hell

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Matthew 25:46


Now, the first conflict is that between ominpotence and immortality. A lot of the questions surrounding omnipotence tend to logically flawed themselves such as making a square circle etc. so here's an easier one for you to begin with, Can God kill himself? If yes, then no immortality, if no, then no omnipotence. Which is it to be?

I think you've a circular argument going there. You start by defining omnipotence as the ability to do simply anything at all - say making square circles. Then find that God can't do simply anything at all (such as make square circles). Then declare a paradox. But the paradox arises only because of your definition.

The question arises: from whence the idea that God can do simply anything at all? If citing the verse you cite in this regard you should be aware that reading everything at simple face value isn't how one should approach any piece of writing, let alone bible. Otherwise Jesus really is a gate.

The next conflict is that between omniscience and omnipotence. In older versions of the Job quote above we see the phrase: "no thought can be withholden from thee". So can God create a being capable of keeping secrets from him. Again, one of the attributes is going to have to break, which one?

More square circles.

The next conflict is between perfection and well, almost all of your religion. Let's take the creation for example. God who is perfect according to the quote above created a perfect universe and yet sin through Adam and Eve enters the world. So how can a perfect being allow imperfection to enter his creation. It can't. So either sin is true or God is perfect. You can't have both.

Perfect in what sense? Perfect for his purposes perhaps? As opposed to perfection according to Older&Wiser. If so, then I see no issue with permitting sin in if sin helps achieve his purpose.

The last conflict, for now is that between omnibenevolence and hell. The NT concept of hell involves eternal punishment for finite crimes.

We're eternal creatures (didn't you know you won't cease to exist ever?) operating in a sub-set of an eternal realm governed by an eternal God. Since all the currency is eternal why not the punishment?

Infinite compassion and love does not abide infinite torture. So either god loves everyone or tortures them eternally. Which is it?

And so your god vanishes promptly in a puff of logic.

With respect: the level of theological (read: technical) sophistication utilised throughout this last section isn't far short of abysmal.

And I'm still not sure of the relevance of all this to the argument put forth.

This point is related to the piece above about the perfection of God. If God possessed the ability and the intent to make someone a believer then that action could have been encoded by God from the very moment of creation and thus an actual act of intervention would be entirely unnecessary, inefficient and importantly, imperfect.

What if the situation is open? There is nothing imperfect (that I can see) about letting us be the ones who decide our fate. God deciding to 'turn up' would rest on some or other precursor decision on our part.

However, your argument isn't remotely addressing the question in the OP because, for reasons of convenience I suspect, you've already gone and assumed that God does exist and worked backwards. Why don't you give it another go and maybe this thread might lead somewhere interesting?

I've assumed nothing other than the principle that God could demonstrate himself to a person (which both you and many others have accepted). Once that principle is accepted, the argument presented appears to encircle you.

Your job is to escape that encirclement.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Not one word of your post actually amounts to an explanation of where you think we have misinterpreted your argument or a defence of any of the points put to you. So what's really staggering, is that you think you can post what essentially amounts to an ego massaging declaration of "I'm so much smarter than everyone else here", in discussion with me as if I was ever going to agree with you.

Let's agree to differ.

NEXT!!

Lelantos

catallus wrote: »

No actually, and I've got the strange feeling that I'm going to get my arse handed to me

Why, is there a priest in the house?

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Christopher Hitchens: "Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick, and commanded to be well. And over us, to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine North Korea."

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Is antiskeptic really John Waters? :eek:

I am to John Waters what Christopher Hitchens was to existential depth of field.

swampgas

antiskeptic wrote: »

I am to John Waters what Christopher Hitchens was to existential depth of field.

Sounds to me like you're JohnWaters+

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Here some thoughts brewing in my mind...

I think what Antiskeptic may be getting at (please correct me if im wrong) is that it needs to be viewed as a relationship with God and this means both sides - i.e. you and God need to put work into the relationship, that God will reveal himself to you if you are receptive to acknowledging his existence.

You're wrong . What I'm getting at is purely and simply a means of demolishing the sacred cows of atheism (empiricism and rationalism) insofar as they are exclusively applied to the narrow question of proving God's existence.

That said: you're right that the primary concern of both man (if only he could be brought to realise it) and God is relationship. Proper relationship. Whilst this is often caricatured as boss/slave by the likes of Hitchens (see above) and Dawkins, the bible uses other imagery: Father/Son, Husband/Bride, Kind Master / Obedient Servant.

The core objection (which will no doubt focus on the servitude aspect) fails to recognise that God is ... er.. God. What other role would you expect him to take up.

Once you're over that? Well, the sky is the limit.

The problem I have here is that I have tried to be receptive to God but nothing comes through.

a) In a word: what was the core feature of the attempt at receptiveness?

b) Whose clock counted down the time until the effort was given up on?

Not only this but I have read / heard of many other people who have spent their whole lives searching but never finding a sign that convinces them to believe. Qualia soup is an example. If God exists why does he remain so elusive for some who genuinely search? Is God rejecting them rather than the other way around?

My mother sought her life long and found him eventually. I didn't seek him at all (that anyone, including me, could notice) and I found him.

Perhaps the seeking need be of a specific quality. If so, the all the wrong-motivated seeking can be expected to produce no result.

I get the impression that for some believers their faith is primarily cemented by some spiritual experience or an experience of coming through a painful part of their lives - that these incidents can a bigger reason to believe than reading scripture.

There's a certain "reaching the end of ones tether" that seems to characterise those who can be described as having an encounter with God. Both the OT and the NT are replete with example of those who through some or other means have reached the end of the line. A man like Abraham living in a time where an heir meant all. And he beyond hope of an heir. Or the prostitutes and tax collectors and cripples who lived as dirt on the heel of humanity in their day. And the sick and the lame, and the condemned thief hanging on a cross about to die.

As for a spiritual experience? If it be so that the humility brought about by suffering is that which is required to cause us to bow our heads and allow God to turn up? What else but an experience would you imagine happening. If the Creator of heaven and earth turned up I mean?

The key thing isn't so much the experience (which is God demonstrating his existence. let's suppose) but that which opened the way for him deciding the time was right to do so.

Zillah

This is the most elaborate non sequitur I have ever seen. Therefore aliens.