What evidence would you accept?

[Unwardil]

Combine personal visitation with some sort of lab test and then do it again at a different lab. Same burden of whatever as in science. There could be any number of ways god could be shown to be, at the very least, powerful-enough-to-take-note-of in a lab. Take your pick really. It would just have to be something that you couldn't con, so like, I dunno, spontaneously generating a couple gigwatts of electricity ought to do the trick. I don't see how a con artist could pull that off.

Of course, even then, this being hasn't proved it's self to be anything more than a highly advanced alien. It hasn't proved the veracity of the bible or any holy book for that matter, it hasn't proved it created the universe, but at least it would have proved that it's got the potency to back up anything it has to say with deed and that we should probably take notice of this dude.

 

[nefariousvirtuoso]

something extraordinary

 

[ProjectTrapdoor]

Combine personal visitation with some sort of lab test and then do it again at a different lab. Same burden of whatever as in science. There could be any number of ways god could be shown to be, at the very least, powerful-enough-to-take-note-of in a lab. Take your pick really. It would just have to be something that you couldn't con, so like, I dunno, spontaneously generating a couple gigwatts of electricity ought to do the trick. I don't see how a con artist could pull that off.

Of course, even then, this being hasn't proved it's self to be anything more than a highly advanced alien. It hasn't proved the veracity of the bible or any holy book for that matter, it hasn't proved it created the universe, but at least it would have proved that it's got the potency to back up anything it has to say with deed and that we should probably take notice of this dude.

According to quantum mechanics we have the capability of creating baby universes with the LHC, so in effect we can be god every time we smash particles together... but we are not god.

Pick any scenario that you believe would prove god's existence and I'll muddy the waters with an alternate explanation.

 

[bodhidharma]

What if God is not all-knowing, all-powerful, etc., but instead is a universal consciousness, that has very real limitations on what it is capable of? There are very good reasons to think that consciousness is at least as primary to the universe as energy or space-time. (See David Chalmers and Peter Russell). Consciousness cannot be explained by the interaction of any forces known to modern science, therefore there must be something basic to the universe about it. Therefore, i would argue, the fact that you are aware at all is evidence of something that could be defined as God.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

What if God is not all-knowing, all-powerful, etc., but instead is a universal consciousness, that has very real limitations on what it is capable of? There are very good reasons to think that consciousness is at least as primary to the universe as energy or space-time. (See David Chalmers and Peter Russell). Consciousness cannot be explained by the interaction of any forces known to modern science, therefore there must be something basic to the universe about it. Therefore, i would argue, the fact that you are aware at all is evidence of something that could be defined as God.

None of that is true, or makes any sense. Further, that's not what anyone generally means by "god" so you're wasting your time and ours. Feel free to try again though.

 

[Prolescum]

What if God is not all-knowing, all-powerful, etc., but instead is a universal consciousness, that has very real limitations on what it is capable of?

What are the limitations according to you?

There are very good reasons to think that consciousness is at least as primary to the universe as energy or space-time.

Which are?

(See David Chalmers and Peter Russell).

Your statement, you tell us

Consciousness cannot be explained by the interaction of any forces known to modern science

How about mutation and selection?

therefore there must be something basic to the universe about it.

Must? That's a bit of a leap... Here is the same argument: I don't know the answer, therefore, Vorlons.

Therefore, i would argue, the fact that you are aware at all is evidence of something that could be defined as God.

What are you waiting for, permission? Argue your case.

 

[Welshidiot]

@ Prole and IJoe

I'd just like to point out that the current fad is to present opinion with no supporting argument or evidence.

One is supposed to read the poster's opinion, feel enriched (somehow), and then go on with one's day.

Any questioning of the poster's opinion will be treated as a form of "attack", and will be characterised variously as sanctimonious, fascistic, obsessive, racist, sexist, extremist, "bleeding-heart" liberal, "ad hominem", etc, etc, depending on the mood and tendencies of the poster.

But I really shouldn't have to explain this to you guys, because this is a discussion and debate forum, so where the hell do you get off with your expectation of discussion and debate!?!??

 

[Prolescum]

If I get "bleeding-heart" liberal, I'll have the full set.





Which is rather odd when you think about it.

 

[impiku]

What if God is not all-knowing, all-powerful, etc., but instead is a universal consciousness, that has very real limitations on what it is capable of? There are very good reasons to think that consciousness is at least as primary to the universe as energy or space-time. (See David Chalmers and Peter Russell). Consciousness cannot be explained by the interaction of any forces known to modern science, therefore there must be something basic to the universe about it. Therefore, i would argue, the fact that you are aware at all is evidence of something that could be defined as God.

God of the gaps again? And based on your own definition, it would be contradictory to consider it "God" to begin with. Appeal to ignorance and non sequitur are not valid arguments. The reason why consciousness is problematic is because of the subjective element to it, but science concerns with deriving knowledge from the view of the "third person", and conscious phenomena are just a different facet of that knowledge, it is nothing mystical like you put it.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

@ Prole and IJoe

I'd just like to point out that the current fad is to present opinion with no supporting argument or evidence.

One is supposed to read the poster's opinion, feel enriched (somehow), and then go on with one's day.

Any questioning of the poster's opinion will be treated as a form of "attack", and will be characterised variously as sanctimonious, fascistic, obsessive, racist, sexist, extremist, "bleeding-heart" liberal, "ad hominem", etc, etc, depending on the mood and tendencies of the poster.

But I really shouldn't have to explain this to you guys, because this is a discussion and debate forum, so where the hell do you get off with your expectation of discussion and debate!?!??

And then I say "Fuck you! Fuck you right in the ear!!"

And based on my mom's reaction to that on the phone an hour ago, I doubt it will go over much better online.

BTW, I love Love LOVE that I get to be a bleeding heart liberal AND a fascist, often by the same (libertarian) morons. It warms my heart, it truly does.

 

[RedYellow]

Regarding consciousness, the fact that the brain even exists and that the complexity of consciousness is directly dependent on the complexity of the brain is pretty much the knockout for that argument. If God can be conscious, intelligent, etc, prior to the evolution of the brain then one must wonder why a brain is needed for our consciousness, and how else but through what a brain does, can one even observe or detect consciousness?

 

[scorpion9]

Another argument against mind existing without brain is the fact that injuries to the brain cause damage to what we would call "US" or the soul.

If you could see/hear/touch/taste/feel/reason/calculate/think without the brain, then the brain would have no purpose. And if you cant do the things mentioned before....then what kind of a life are you gonna have outside your body? without any senses, capability to think etc.

If the brain degrades at old age, so does the mind.

Howerver...a bit more interesting question is...how much can the brain degrade before we could not recognize it as a source for a mind.
Smaller brain...less mind/consciousness/awareness. Does one neuron have a "unit of consciousness" etc etc. something to ponder upon.

 

[Laurens]

Is the existence of God even a hypothesis?

'If God exists then....'

Then what? What would be different?

I've never heard a coherent statement of what we'd expect to find if God did exist (other than things that do not require God as an explanation)

I often have referred to God as a hypothesis in the past, but I think I was giving the idea too much credit.

 

[Deleted member 619]

What would I accept as evidence for the existence of a deity? Nothing.

Really, show me nothing, in a stable state, and I'll believe. Now, by nothing I mean the absence of all things, including fields. It doesn't even have to be a very large bit of nothing. A small bit of persistent nothing would suffice.

 

[Squawk]

What would I accept as evidence for the existence of a deity? Nothing.

Really, show me nothing, in a stable state, and I'll believe. Now, by nothing I mean the absence of all things, including fields. It doesn't even have to be a very large bit of nothing. A small bit of persistent nothing would suffice.

Would it be wrong of me to point to the inside of Hovind's skull?

 

[WarK]

What would I accept as evidence for the existence of a deity? Nothing.

Really, show me nothing, in a stable state, and I'll believe. Now, by nothing I mean the absence of all things, including fields. It doesn't even have to be a very large bit of nothing. A small bit of persistent nothing would suffice.

Well, that's not a terribly good argument, is it?. They'd have to show how a god is responsible for nothing. This seems to me similar to Kalam's cosmological argument, theists want us to believe that because the universe had a beginning god exists, but that doesn't follow.

I'm not good at this but it seems this is approaching the problem from the wrong angle. You should look at the evidence and draw a conclusion, not search for evidence that support your "conclusion".

oh, and by the way...

*shows a bucket of nothing*

how about that, I found that in my cellar while looking for a bicycle pump.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

oh, and by the way...

*shows a bucket of nothing*

how about that, I found that in my cellar while looking for a bicycle pump.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world the bicycle pump didn't exist.
If you found it, you have a proof for the Devil!! ..meaning that God exists too.
Convincing, isn't it? No? Why?!
I guess because it wasn't written in some ancient book full of crap..

What would I accept as evidence for the existence of a deity? Nothing.

Really, show me nothing, in a stable state, and I'll believe. Now, by nothing I mean the absence of all things, including fields. It doesn't even have to be a very large bit of nothing. A small bit of persistent nothing would suffice.

Well, that's not a terribly good argument, is it?. They'd have to show how a god is responsible for nothing. This seems to me similar to Kalam's cosmological argument, theists want us to believe that because the universe had a beginning god exists, but that doesn't follow.

I'm not good at this but it seems this is approaching the problem from the wrong angle. You should look at the evidence and draw a conclusion, not search for evidence that support your "conclusion".

Awesome point! Why would i have to say what would convince me? Whoever wants me to believe something, can give me what they have and then i will think about it. Threats and empty promises won't do the job, their utterly ridiculous books actually do the opposite.
What you said is a huge difference between science and religion.. Scientists find explanations that will fit the facts, religions look for the facts that will fit their explanation, or make some "facts" up :lol:

It is almost saddening when somebody says things like:
"They even summoned a doubting Thomas to stick his fingers into the wound."
Heard that one few days ago.. They did? Well lets say that some Thomas believed it, but why do you? And why should I? I don't see a proof for God there, actually the whole Bible shows me that it is a really bad fairy tale full of incoherent blathering and that if that book is the only reason for belief in God then i am safe to say he definitely doesn't exist.
After i said something similar, the same person said (most atheists should be familiar with this one) "The fool says in his heart there is no God!! See? God wrote in his book that people like you will say that because you are fools."
Oh wow.. really, that is a proof for God's existence? Should I be offended or sad? Or convinced? I am actually amused.
Instead of crying or jumping in their face, I simply laugh my butt off and advise them to use their head to think about such things and not their heart or their butt or whatever.

I don't know how God could prove his existence to me, it is his job, why would I believe he exists if nobody proved it to me? If God is omnipotent that shouldn't be a problem for him or her/it/them.. guess it would have to be something supernatural, maybe a weekend trip with God, 1 day hell and 1 day in heaven? No clue, some drugs could have a similar effect.. but that might be a start. But again, the burden of proof is not on me so i simply say, bring it on whatever you think it is.
I doubt anybody will ever manage to bring some "valid" proof for god, because many people get brain washed as kids and then they take some morbid fiction and tons of lies and simply bullshit (aka holy books) as proof for God and use their imagination to protect the pile of crap on paper and to see God in there. They look at the world with different eyes and see their imaginary friend everywhere instead to rather stick to reality.. even talk to them :roll: They not only expect me to simply believe it, but even say i am delusional and mislead or stupid or whatever if i don't :facepalm:

If one is so easy to satisfy when it comes to such important questions, I doubt they will look deeper and try to find some real evidence that would convince me.. I want your God, not his bestseller!

To shorten it, the problem for me is not that i don't know how somebody should or could prove God(s) to me, the problem is that people obviously take gigantic leaps away from logic and rational thinking by simply taking God as explanation and reason for many or all things in reality, based on wishful thinking and ignorance, they see proof for God when actually there isn't any.

To answer the question of the thread..
Q: What evidence would you accept?
A: When it comes to existential things i only accept hard facts. Surprise me!

 

[Squawk]

I'm inclined to let Hackenslash explain himself, since I know he makes a good point on this issue. I happen to disagree with him, in that I came to the conclusion that there isn't anything capable of convincing me of an infinitely complex and powerful being since I would require infinitely complex evidence in order to get there, but I like his reasoning on this one none the less.

 

[Deleted member 619]

What would I accept as evidence for the existence of a deity? Nothing.

Really, show me nothing, in a stable state, and I'll believe. Now, by nothing I mean the absence of all things, including fields. It doesn't even have to be a very large bit of nothing. A small bit of persistent nothing would suffice.

Would it be wrong of me to point to the inside of Hovind's skull?

Indeed it would, because fields, such as gravity, still permeate it, even if thoughts don't.

 

[Deleted member 619]

What would I accept as evidence for the existence of a deity? Nothing.

Really, show me nothing, in a stable state, and I'll believe. Now, by nothing I mean the absence of all things, including fields. It doesn't even have to be a very large bit of nothing. A small bit of persistent nothing would suffice.

Well, that's not a terribly good argument, is it?. They'd have to show how a god is responsible for nothing. This seems to me similar to Kalam's cosmological argument, theists want us to believe that because the universe had a beginning god exists, but that doesn't follow.

I'm not good at this but it seems this is approaching the problem from the wrong angle. You should look at the evidence and draw a conclusion, not search for evidence that support your "conclusion".

oh, and by the way...

*shows a bucket of nothing*

how about that, I found that in my cellar while looking for a bicycle pump.

It may seem that way on the surface, but the reality is that for 'nothing' to exist, even in a small way, in a persistent, stable state, would require the intervention of a supernatural entity that could only be described as a deity.

As stated above, everything is transparent to gravity, and no barrier can be erected to exclude it. Further, HUP tells us that, even in the absence of everything else, quantum fluctuations ensure that there can never be any such thing as nothing. Only with the intervention of an omnipotent deity, capable of over-riding the basic operating principles of the universe, could such a thing persist. I'd happily accept the existence of 'nothing' as evidence of the existence of such an entity.

It should be noted that I would still be an atheist, but that's a different discussion, and quite a long and involved one.

Additionally, the theist may well point to such idiocy as the Kalam fallacy, but the arguments aren't comparable, because the theist can't actually demonstrate that the universe (or indeed anything else) had a beginning. Indeed, the scientific work they lean heavily on for support here doesn't actually deal in any beginnings, being limited even theoretically to a finite time after the onset of expansion of the cosmos, and observationally limited to a good long time later still.