What extraordinary evidence for God's existence would be acceptable?

[Mars Horizon]

What extraordinary evidence for God's existence would be acceptable?

I have been thinking of this question for the last few weeks. I once believed in a God - specifically the Christian one. In discussion with theists, I've admitted that if convincing evidence could be shown for this God's existence, I would believe again. I have seen many nontheists post something to this effect here before - in one thread which I think was entitled "Could you believe?" a poster said something to the effect of "heck yeah, if I saw the son of man coming in power and glory in the clouds, I'd convert!". And that makes me think.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
- Carl Sagan (restating something that goes back to Aristotle)What evidence for the existence of the Christian God would make us nontheists convert? What evidence would be convincing enough? For that matter, let's not limit this to the J\C God - what evidence would be convincing for the existence of any gods?

A big miracle, videotaped for later review? One that is not reproducible by human efforts?
Solid statistical evidence that followers of said God display extraordinary changes in behavior (for the better)? (in my experience, modern Christians taken as a whole do not)
A certain, impending disaster that is clearly and unmistakably prevented by said God? Like an earth bound asteroid broken up into a million pieces by a massive disembodied hand?

Any of these would go a long way towards convincing me that some kind of God exists.

What extraordinary evidence for God's existence would be acceptable to others?

[Coil]

Originally posted by Mars Horizon
[B]

Solid statistical evidence that followers of said God display extraordinary changes in behavior (for the better)? (in my experience, modern Christians taken as a whole do not)


Solid statistical evidence that followers of God X are more likely to floss, give to charity or something like that is not evidence of the existence of said God. The same effect can be reached without the existence of a divine being.


A certain, impending disaster that is clearly and unmistakably prevented by said God? Like an earth bound asteroid broken up into a million pieces by a massive disembodied hand?


Okay, let´s assume something big and hard to refute like this comes up. While this may lead me to admit that "Hey maybe there is a big hand in the sky", it does not neccessarily make me want to suck up to (worship) the big hand in the sky.

[clairobscur]

Well...If God appeared in front of me in all his glory, I would likely make an appointment with a psychiatrist, so that wouldn't work.


God appearing to many people and videotaped would be fine if there's enough people, the case was thoroughly investigated, leaving few room for doubt.


Miracles could be better, actually. Evidences that people praying the god X get extraordinary results for their petitions, miracles medically/scientifically verifiables happening very frequently in some sacred place, etc...


Something obvious to many (and if at all possible including me) , consistent, which could be investigated and verified could do the trick. An odd miracle in Lourdes or some milk pouring from a statue of Ganesh wouldn't.

[Mars Horizon]

Coil - good points. What extraordinary evidence for God's existence would be acceptable to you, assuming you are a nontheist?

Does anyone out there take the position that there is no evidence that could conceivably be proferred that would be convincing of the existence of a God or gods?

[Liberal]

Clairobscur wrote:

Something obvious to many (and if at all possible including me) , consistent, which could be investigated and verified could do the trick.But what would that BE exactly?

I think one thing that Mars is getting at is that, while saying you demand evidence is fine, giving an example is tough. Almost anything you can name, other than God convincing you personally and subjectively, is interpretable as something natural. At worst, it would be something unknown, and no one wants to believe in any god of the gaps.

Examples from Mars's listing:

A big miracle, videotaped for later review? One that is not reproducible by human efforts? — That's sort of the opposite of what Randi, et al, are asking for. They want something reproducible. I mean, you could say that the creation of the universe qualifies for this one, but it wasn't videotaped, and you can always speculate about infinite universes and such.

Solid statistical evidence that followers of said God display extraordinary changes in behavior (for the better)? — Brain farts. Epilepsy. Something along those lines.

A certain, impending disaster that is clearly and unmistakably prevented by said God? Like an earth bound asteroid broken up into a million pieces by a massive disembodied hand? — A renegade planetoid shaped like a hand. People would be accused of "Face on Mars" hallucinations.

-----

Mars wrote:

Does anyone out there take the position that there is no evidence that could conceivably be proferred that would be convincing of the existence of a God or gods?That's the position I take, if you mean objective type evidence. At least, that was always true for me. It was a subjective experience (followed by ongoing experiences) that convinced me.

[ElJeffe]

I think the responses here kinda sum up standard, non-theistic rationale: There is no god, and any evidence that proves there is a god must be explainable by some other means, because like I said, there is no god. If God took every non-theist in the world, stuck them in a giant room, came over and performed a dozen miracles, and gave them a comemorative videotape to remember it by, they would counter with, "Wow, musta been mass hypnosis."

Reminds me of a Calvin and Hobbes strip... Calvin sees a cloud spontaneously take the form of his head, and stick its tongue out at him. He tells Hobbes, who asks, "Wow, what do you think it means?" Calvin replies with something like, "I dunno, strange upper atmospheric winds, or something."

Similarly, a devout Christian could see Vishnu come down and carefully explain how Christianity is incorrect, you should be Hindu, and here's a bunch of evidence to support my claims, and he would explain it away as, "Musta been the devil trying to trick me." These things are pretty much beyond the realm of reason and logic for most people. You believe because it feels right.

Now that's not to say that people never change religions, or that atheists don't become believers, or whatnot, but I don't think these changes are based on reason. They're based on emotion. It feels right, so they do it.


Jeff

[Engywook]

Therein lies the problem, doesn't it?

Anything that can be empirically observed can be claimed to be something less than God. A big hand in the sky need not be the hand of God - you observed a big hand in the sky, that's all you can report with certainty. The rest is speculation. Further study required. Perhaps, with an embarrassed cough in the report, suggestions of what evidence might support the hypothesis that this was the hand of God.

Or perhaps not. The hypothesis that "This is God," it seems, is not empirically falsifiable. You want to do a test of the power of prayer? That's fine, you can do so. But a confirmation that "prayer works," should one ever turn up, does not demonstrate any more than that.

I doubt if science, which deals in observable phenomena, is equipped with the tools to find God. It can, however, make enough observations that we can describe a universe where God is not necessary - and by parsimony, either irrelevant or assumed not to exist. This hasn't happened yet... and if God does in fact exist, I have faith that science never will.

[Gaudere]

The evidence that I would require would be evidence that makes the God-Hypothesis more likely than the Natural-Events-Hypothesis. For example, were the event of the Rapture to actually happen and a whole bunch of Christians disappear and the dead start rising from their graves and the Christian God appears in all His Glory, well, I'm going to think that the Rapture-believing Christains may have gotten something right. Of course, I would require independent coroboration by other people, video, newspapers, etc.

Subjective experience...mmm, that's risky. If I believed what my feelings told me were true I'd believe there was a boogeyman under my bed and and ax murderer outside my shower. If feelings shouldn't be valid proof that ax murderers are outside my shower, why should they be valid evidence that an omniscient omnipotent being with a abiding interest in my sex life exists and wants me to worship Him? (And I must note that I have never had a subjective experience that managed to convey this impression to me, and find it rather odd to contemplate getting an emotion that can provide evidence all by itself of the existence of a being with certain attributes.) When are "feelings" alone valid evidence that a being exists?

I think it is unfair to both theists and non-theists to say "oh, your mind will never be changed, even if you saw the dead rise or Vishnu appear, you would still not believe." Though it is perhaps slightly more accurate for certain theists, given the emphasis in many religions on "having faith" even in the face of reasons to doubt, and the avowed assurance from some that they will *never* lose their faith; but many have formed their opinions based on evidence, and further evidence could likely sway them. I don't really have faith in the lack of a God; I don't beleive there *is* a God, but if evidence comes up that there is one, I don't think I'm going to go through any traumatic crisis of faith on a par with what some theists losing their faith might go through. I don't think I'll be trying to cling to my atheism because "I must have faith", though there may very well be some resistance since few really like accomodating fundamental shifts in their worldview right off.

[Apos]

If there is a problem, it is a problem that lies in the purported nature of this God, and the limits of our power to observe and know.

[Patty O'Furniture]

Being a mere human, it is beyond my abilities to define God. The best I could hope for would be to witness some event, or series of events, that could be described as "god-like". I.e., turning the rains on & off with the wave of the hand, raising my dead grandmother, etc. Even then, I'd need mass corroboration from trusted friends & other sources because, well, people do go insane from time to time, and I could be one of those people.

Even then, we have to deal with the fact that we still have a number explanations that are equally as fantastic. For example, somebody being able to make it rain with a wave of his hand migth just be a being from the future with a weather control machine in his pocket.

Confronted with a being capable of performing god-like acts that current science is unable to explain, many of us will simply elect to fall back onto cherrished (read: preferred) beliefs & superstitions, finally able to claim vindication.

[The Hat's Rabbit]

I contend if God existed and was going to perform a miracle, then he/she/it wouldn't blow something up on TV and then record on VHS and give everyone a VCR so they could watch it over and over again in slow-motion.

If there was a God and he really wanted to prove to me he was real, he would come to me as a logical being as he supposedly created us to be. I would ask questions and he would answer. He would ask questions and I couldn't answer. That is how God could convince me and if God can be every where at once, then this should be no inconvenience for him.

The only contact I've received from the alleged God are from his followers. If God was reasonable he would understand that I can't base my beliefs on another mans word about his word.

[The Hat's Rabbit]

:eek: OMG, I got my signature to work, I'm converting tomorrow. j/k :D

[TVAA]

Let's see here.

I think that any evidence sufficient to suggest that some divine power is altering the natural workings of the world would have to be sufficiently improbable that the probability that we simply misperceived the evidence would swamp it.

After all, I misinterpret things all the time: it's a fairly parsimonious explanation. It's more rational to believe that a mistake has been made by us.

So, what *would* work? It would have to be something where the probability of error was very small: communicated over a length of time through sensory modalities that can verify each other. It would help if many people were exposed to it as well. It would have to be something that is so difficult to replicate or simulate that human error or devious trickstery is actually less likely than divine intervention... so it needs to be fairly major.

Finally, any one form of revelation *might* be open to fakery. However, several different forms occurring at once (or very close together temporally) would be extraordinarily hard to pull of.

If many stars, all across the sky, suddenly began having luminousity shifts that spelled out a message in binary, I would consider that as incontravertible evidence that something utterly beyond our current understanding was taking place. It might be a universe-spanning alien entity... but that's fairly close to a god in any case.

[AHunter3]

Not Sufficient: "God" shows up in person, 1 mile high and weilding lightning bolts and roaring at me as I leave work this afternoon, "AHunter3, behold, I am God and you are up shit creek!". (Big deal. Any hypothetical mile-high supernatural entity with the ability to read minds and hurl lightning bolts could do that. Doesn't make it "God". I could still be up shit creek though.)

Sufficient: It is laid out for me how the denizens of the world can live in peace with each other, without oppression or coercion, without loser and winners or victors and victims, efficiently and comfortably, as free and equal partners, and neither war nor deprivation nor categorical hate need be with us ever again. It is laid out for me how, once having this knowledge in my possession, I am to proceed to make it happen without disturbing people who have a stake in the present system, or think they do. It is laid out for me how to convey all of this information to the species at large, attracting the necessary amount of attention in the most convenient manner. And all of this gives a final answer to the human hunger for justice and peace, and to the inner voice that says things are supposed to make sense and that people should be able to be nice to each other and trust each other without getting betrayed and hurt in the process.

[Mars Horizon]

Originally posted by The Hat's Rabbit
If there was a God and he really wanted to prove to me he was real, he would come to me as a logical being as he supposedly created us to be. I would ask questions and he would answer. He would ask questions and I couldn't answer. That is how God could convince me and if God can be every where at once, then this should be no inconvenience for him.Nicely put, Rabbit. A simultaneous diety interrogation would fit the bill for meThe only contact I've received from the alleged God are from his followers. If God was reasonable he would understand that I can't base my beliefs on another mans word about his word. Yes. This is another problem I have with the currently accepted notions of God, that there is supposedly a Truth that is out there, and yet no two groups out of the thousands that exist can completely agree on what this Truth is. At least if all the theists agreed on God and His Message, it would be easier. :confused:

[MrThompson]

Aren't we all missing the obvious here? It's God - (for a Christian God, at least) he should know the perfect way to convince everybody. If he wants, he could just click his fingers and everybody would 'know.'

[dreamer]

If you asked God for a $5 bill to appear before you and it did, would you believe? What if you were sitting outside on a bench in a park, the leaves whistling with the wind, and seconds after you asked God, a slow falling $5 landed in your lap. Would you give credit to the wind, to the guy chasing the flying $5 bill, or to God?

I think it's really about if you want to believe. I really do. Now don't jump all over my case for saying that because it does work both ways. If I wanted to change my mind and become an atheist (as some of you have) then that would be because I wanted too.

I see prayers answered all the time. I choose to believe they are answered by God. I choose to believe that the reason rainbows appear after it rains is because God said he would do that. I choose to believe everything I can physically see, smell, hear, taste, and touch, are created by God.

So it's really all about you personally and what you want to believe. IMHO there's nothing that's going to convince anyone in such a way that there could be no other explanation. He's already done so much and still so many don't believe.

Guess we'll have to wait for the rapture to see though ;).

[HippyDippy]

Right now to me, the idea of a Christian God would require extraordinary proof. I don't think it would be hard for such a God to convince me he exists.

If the rapture happened, where many Christians disappeared overnight much like how the rapture is said will be done, then the idea of a Christian God existing would become the most plausible explanation and any other theory (like aliens) would require proof in order for me to change my mind.

[The Hat's Rabbit]

Originally posted by Dreamer
So it's really all about you personally and what you want to believe. IMHO there's nothing that's going to convince anyone in such a way that there could be no other explanation. He's already done so much and still so many don't believe.


"He's already done so much and still so many don't believe." I'm really intrigued by this, all my Christian friends tell me this too. I ask you, has he really? Please explain to me exactly what he has done, or is this one of those things that I won't believe because I'm too stuburn?

Then again, remember that you're too stuburn too. How you may ask? Well, my Muslim friend says there is plenty of evidence to convince you to convert, so why aren't you going to convert you wicked heathen, you? The same reason I'm not, because it seems illogical. Now take how you feel about converting to Islam and apply it to my position about Christianity. Has he still done so much? And I say this with all sincerity, please enlighten me of what he has done that no other religion can't take credit for.

[Esprix]

OK, the dead rising from their graves would be a fairly good trick...

Esprix

[Liberal]

That would prove only that zombies exist.

[Apos]

That's already been proven! The Voodoo ritual for creating zombies is already well known (it involves several coma inducing toxins, including one from everyone's good friend, bufo marinus, and then heavy doses of a certain hallucinogenic that basically gives the "zombie" a chemical lombotomy).

[reprise]

The Rapture would convince me of the existence of a Biblical God.

The sting in the tail is that as long as I don't personally believe in the existence of a deity (Christian or otherwise), I don't feel obliged to do anything in respect of that diety or convince others to do so.

Were I to become convinced of the existence of a Biblical God, far from worshipping him, I'd be spending a lot of time and energy thwarting his will and attempting to convince others to do likewise.

{I've just finished reading a novel called The Last Day by Glenn Kleer, which posits some very interesting possibilities about how humanity - and the established churches in particular - might react to the Second Coming}

[musteion]

Originally posted by ElJeffe
I think the responses here kinda sum up standard, non-theistic rationale: There is no god, and any evidence that proves there is a god must be explainable by some other means, because like I said, there is no god.

That assessment doesn't seem at all fair. I doubt anyone here would contest their non-belief in unicorns, but the presence of a unicorn in the room would certainly send most of us either laughing, doubting, or running for the psych ward. How much more so for a vulgar display of power from a formless, shapeless, all-everything deity? Since belief on the part of theists is based on faith and not empirical evidence, the question of evidence is moot, but it is a valid and interesting one for non-theists.

A better question for theists would be why there are any converts to one religion from any other at all?

[BlackKnight]

I cannot describe specific evidence that would induce a belief in so nebulous an idea.

[blowero]

Well, Hat's Rabbit sort of beat me to the punch, but I'm still going to put in my 2 cents:
Originally posted by dreamer
If you asked God for a $5 bill to appear before you and it did, would you believe?

You know, if it was something like that that was so unlikely that it couldn't be chalked up to coincidence, I suppose I would. I thought the "spelling out something with the stars" was a good one. Or what about if He appeared simultaneously on every TV, billboard, and website on the planet? That would be hard to ignore.

He's already done so much and still so many don't believe.

I disagree - In my life so far, I haven't seen any evidence that's even remotely convincing. You make it sound like God is bombarding us with miracles every day and we are stubbornly refusing to believe. I hate to rain on your parade, but THAT'S NOT HAPPENING. The 5-dollar bill didn't appear, the stars are still in the same place, and I'm still getting re-runs of "Cheers" on my TV (And no, Sam Mallone isn't looking any more like Jesus tonight). If some miracles did happen, then we'd have something to talk about - but I'm afraid they just aren't happening. And no, rainbows, puppies and flowers are not miracles. Don't get me wrong - they're wonderful, but they're not miracles.

[Oh, and since there always seems to be some joker in every thread who takes every post 100% literally, let me just add that those 3 things are not the ONLY miracles that I would consider to be convincing. They are not my litmus test for God; they are just EXAMPLES.]

[grimpixie]

Originally posted by Mars Horizon
This is another problem I have with the currently accepted notions of God, that there is supposedly a Truth that is out there, and yet no two groups out of the thousands that exist can completely agree on what this Truth is. At least if all the theists agreed on God and His Message, it would be easier. :confused: [/B]And if we did, I have no doubt that you would be convinced that we were all brain-washed and programmed to believe without questioning. The concept of a personal God requires an individual relationship with that God. Since we are all individuals, each of us will have a different relationship with the person of God. That we disagree over trivial issues should come as no surprise - that we kill each other over our disagreements simply shows our fallen, sinful state and says nothing about God.

Grim

[Pábitel]

I think a cricket match between the Tutonic gods lead by Oden and the Grecco-Roman Gods lead by Zeus played on the lawn of the White house would do it.

The silly thing about all of these "What would it take . . . " threads is that everybody assumes Yahweh when they see the word god. There are thousands of gods in humanity's mythologies. What would it take for you to accept their legitimacy?

You Chrisitans posting these things are every bit as big an unbeliver as any atheist. They just disbelieve in one more god than you do.

[CalMeacham]

I seem to recall hearing that Bertrand Russell once said that convincing proof of God's exiastence would be the Voice of God telling him exactly what he would be doing tomorrow -- presumably person things that wouldn't be known to anyone else.


If you asked God for a $5 bill to appear before you and it did, would you believe?



Stupid question -- there are too many ways for a $5 bill to appear.

If, on the other hand, I asked for a $17.50 bill to appear before me and it actually did, then I'd have to give the idea of God very serious consideration.

[Mars Horizon]

If at all possible, I'd like to keep this civil, and not digress into theist bashing. Note that I am not directing this comment to any one poster, it's just that I have been in my fair share of those types of threads and what I am really looking for is an open discussion of what those of us who do not self identify as theists consider acceptable evidence, and perhaps a theistic reaction to that.

Anyway, on to the topic...

Originally posted by dreamer
If you asked God for a $5 bill to appear before you and it did, would you believe? What if you were sitting outside on a bench in a park, the leaves whistling with the wind, and seconds after you asked God, a slow falling $5 landed in your lap. Would you give credit to the wind, to the guy chasing the flying $5 bill, or to God?So here I would probably stick with parsimony and chalk it up to improbable coincidence. But along the lines of Gideon and his fleece, if I could then request a crumpled $100 bill with a torn top right edge to fall from the sky and it did, you betcha I'd rethink my position. :) He's already done so much and still so many don't believe. Yeah... I know where you're coming from on this dreamer, but like I said earlier, parsimony explains things so well without requiring the invocation of divine intervention. I used to thank God for that closeup parking spot, but have since noticed that I still sometimes get closeup spots and I still sometimes have to walk.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by Degrance
I think a cricket match between the Tutonic gods lead by Oden and the Grecco-Roman Gods lead by Zeus played on the lawn of the White house would do it.
[/B]

I think a Grecco-Roman wrestling match between Vishnu and Zeus would be cool.


How about if I cut someone of my own choosing in half. If someone can put them back together with a snap of his fingers, I would consider calling him God.

[Mars Horizon]

Originally posted by Degrance
The silly thing about all of these "What would it take . . . " threads is that everybody assumes Yahweh when they see the word god. There are thousands of gods in humanity's mythologies. What would it take for you to accept their legitimacy?
And this ties into my OP when I said "let's not limit this to the J\C God - what evidence would be convincing for the existence of any gods?" I would be interested in hearing from our largest group of theists here - the Christians - what their answer to this question would be. I'd like to specifically ask dreamer, Lib, Poly, Mangetout, or any other thoughtful Christian out there, could you please give us your take on this?

Your humble servant

Mars

[Beastal]

What about the miracle at Fatima?

From here: http://www.astrodatabank.com/NM/FatimaMiracle.htm
Portuguese phenomena known as the Miracle of Fatima. For five months, three peasant children had been meeting with the Holy Mother once a month. The Lady promised that God would work a great miracle in October "so that all may believe." The event was reported in newspapers around the world, and by 10/13/1917, there were more than 70,000 people gathered in the Cova da Iria, come to witness the miracle.

As the Lady was about to leave, she pointed to the sun. Lucy excitedly repeated the gesture, and the people looked into the sky. The rain had ceased, the clouds parted, and the sun shone forth, but not in its usual brilliance. Instead, it appeared like a silver disc, pale as the moon, at which all could gaze without straining their eyes. Suddenly, impelled by some mysterious force, the disc began to whirl in the sky, casting off great shafts of multicolored light. Red, green, blue, yellow, violet – the enormous rays shot across the sky at all angles, lighting up the entire countryside for many miles around, but particularly the upturned faces of those 70,000 spellbound people.

[Beastal]

A more detailed explanation of what happenned at Fatima can be found here:

http://www.fatima.org/story1.html

[Fear Itself]

I think a high profile ressurrection would do it for me. It would have to be someone well known, who was verifiably and unquestionably dead (perhaps a traumatic death), with a recorded autopsy and many witnesses. Autopsy scars on the resurrected body would be a nice touch.

Oh, and before His4Ever chimes in; no, Jesus does not meet these criteria. I'm thinking John Lennon, JFK or Yitzak Rabin (No, I don't want to debate whether these people are worthy of resurrection; I'm just saying they would be believable candidates to prove resurrection).

[Binarydrone]

Ok, this is God we are talking about here right? I would accept nothing less than God appearing to every single human being on the face of the Earth at the same time, saying “hey dudes, I’m God” and then using deity like powers to make us all believe it.

[Liberal]

Why should He "make" you believe? Won't you be pissed when He robs you of your free will? Sounds to me more like you're looking for a genie.

[Binarydrone]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Why should He "make" you believe? Won't you be pissed when He robs you of your free will? Sounds to me more like you're looking for a genie.
There’s a difference?

The question was what would prove that there is a god. My scenario fits that bill.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

You know, if the sun began whirling with colors, illuminating the sky, visible for miles around Fatima, and not visible over the half of the earth in daylight, then we gotta conclude that God is a nasty trickster, don't we? It seems like it'd take more power to create an astronomical event that was visible only within certain townships than to create one that was visible everywhere.

The shining-stars example is one that I like, although I see no reason for God to go halfway with it. Why not make the stars very clearly spell out a message in every single written language on earth? The message could be a short sentence: "The Bible is literally true," or, "Look, don't take yourselves so seriously," or, "Listen to Rev. Fred Phelps: he's where it's at."

Seeing that would convince me that there was a phenomenally powerful being out there that wanted me to believe whatever the message said. All things being equal, I'd believe the being was telling the truth.

More convincing would be a being that said, "from now on, pi will equal 3.0 exactly," and when I tested it out on a perfect circle, it was true. Such a being would be as close to omnipotent as I can imagine, and I'd have a hard time imagining why such a being would bother to lie to me: if it can change the basic geometry of the universe, it could probably change whatever else it likes, too.

If someone could predict everything that would happen to me the next day, it'd convince me that there was a being that could see the future. For all I know, this is a facet of time-travel.

If a five-dollar-bill floated into my hand when I asked Jesus for one , that'd provide better evidence that Coyote exists than that Jesus does. I could totally see Coyote playing a practical joke on a dumb greedy human who thinks he can boss around the gods, but I can't see Jesus whoring himself out for five bucks.

Daniel

[boo1377]

it doesn't matter if he convinced everyone tomarrow. the next generation didn't live it and therefore wouldn't believe it. and athesit would exist again. so what is the point.
if i were God i would have given up too.

[blowero]

Originally posted by boo1377
it doesn't matter if he convinced everyone tomarrow. the next generation didn't live it and therefore wouldn't believe it. and athesit would exist again. so what is the point.
if i were God i would have given up too.
Something about an omnipotent being "giving up" doesn't strike me as being quite right.

[dal_timgar]

how can people figure out what God should do to prove his/her existence. what if God doesn't care. where did you get your ideas about God? what if those people didn't know what they were talking about?

what about the code that supposedly exists in the torah?

there is a computer program available so you can play with it yourself. you can research "bible code" on the internet and draw your own conclusions. i got the program myself, talk ain't good enough.

Dal Timgar

[Liberal]

Why? Being omnipotent doesn't mean He has to be a bully, does it?

[Apos]

---Why should He "make" you believe? Won't you be pissed when He robs you of your free will?---

I don't consider having empirical knowledge a bad thing, or a restriction of anything. If I am a bad person, knowing that god exists or not is not going to change that. Personally, I'd like to better informed about the world around me. Not to mention, in my understanding, withholding knowledge is IMMORAL (since our ability to make moral choices is only possible when we know more and more about the potential effects of our actions).

Besides: this idea, especially when applied to an omniscient being who already knows what I would be under any circumstance, seems empty (but then, so does the very concept of "Free Will")

---what about the code that supposedly exists in the torah?---

The one that predicts the Roswell landings at area 51 (not kidding).
In any text of sufficient length you can find tons of ELS sequences which you can interpret in a multitude of ways. Using vowelless Hebrew, where you can simply infer the vowels, makes it even easier.

[Measure for Measure]

There was reportedly a newspaper photographer at hand who declined to take a picture of the alleged solar event, because he didn't see it. He did, however, see a lot of people kneeling and carrying on, so he photographed that.

Source: http://www.geocities.com/fatimaforagnostics/FAT.12.NEWSPAPER.2.htm

I believe there have been threads which have addressed the events in Fatima. Cecil once wrote a column on the 3rd message.

[BlackKnight]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Why should He "make" you believe?
I don't think anybody is saying he should make us believe. The question is what would make one believe. People are answering that question.

Won't you be pissed when He robs you of your free will?
1) I doubt free will exists.
2) He would not necessarily be robbing me of free will.
3) Even if he was, it would only be robbing me of free will in a very restricted way. I see nothing horrid about that.
4) He's supposed to be God. He can make me unpissed.

[Urban Ranger]

Suppose this is Yahweh we are talking about.

So what he needs to show is something that cannot be explained by any natural causes.

For example, creating a second moon in the sky will be a good one. It will be better still if this moon is made of green cheese.

[Liberal]

BlackKnight wrote:

I don't think anybody is saying he should make us believe.BinaryDome had written: "I would accept nothing less than God appearing to every single human being on the face of the Earth at the same time, saying “hey dudes, I’m God” and then using deity like powers to make us all believe it."

He's supposed to be God. He can make me unpissed.Are you supposed to be a robot?

-----

Urban Ranger wrote:

For example, creating a second moon in the sky will be a good one. It will be better still if this moon is made of green cheese.Saw it on Discovery Science. The new moon is an asteroid slowed by Jupiter, and by coincidence forced into a trajectory such that it orbits the earth. Scientists have marvelled at its composition, but have attributed it to random chance.

[BlackKnight]

Libertarian wrote:
BinaryDome had written: "I would accept nothing less than God appearing to every single human being on the face of the Earth at the same time, saying “hey dudes, I’m God” and then using deity like powers to make us all believe it."
What I mean was that this was an explanation of what it would take for the evidence to be convincing. It wasn't claiming that God had a moral obligation to do so.

Are you supposed to be a robot?
Am I supposed to be? Are you asking if I have a moral obligation to be a robot? I don't understand what you're trying to get at here.

You implied that it would be a bad thing for God to make us all believe, as it would rob us of free will. Not only is it unclear whether humans even have free will, it is not obvious why having free will thwarted in that particular way would be a bad thing. Moreover, being God, he could make it a good thing, right? It's not even clear that God would be in any way interfering with free will by making us believe in him.

[Liberal]

BlackKnight wrote:

What I mean was that this was an explanation of what it would take for the evidence to be convincing. It wasn't claiming that God had a moral obligation to do so.I don't get it. Would it take being convinced, or would it take being programmed?

Are you asking if I have a moral obligation to be a robot? I don't understand what you're trying to get at here.Well, morally, I think that the belief of a free moral agent is superior to the "belief" of someone who has no choice.

[Apos]

---Are you supposed to be a robot?---

Want to play it safe, eh?

In what way is that anything like a robot? Do robots have feelings? Personalities? Internal experiences? What about the changing of someone's character makes a person less of a person? People for various reasons have massive changes of personality and taste all the time naturally that they did not in any meaningful sense "choose."

Regardless, no matter what God later makes me, if he created the universe, then he already made me the way I am.

[Liberal]

Apos wrote:

People for various reasons have massive changes of personality and taste all the time naturally that they did not in any meaningful sense "choose."My point exactly. What is meaningful about having no choice but to "believe".

Regardless, no matter what God later makes me, if he created the universe, then he already made me the way I am.But if He made you like Him, then you are a free moral agent.

[Apos]

---My point exactly. What is meaningful about having no choice but to "believe".---

So you would demean the humanity such people then? Say, if a person has an anuerism, and suddenly inexplicably starts hating brocolli, they are then a robot?

---What is meaningful about having no choice but to "believe".---

Generally, I think of choices as being things on which I make a decision on what acts to take GIVEN certain information. I don't see the harm in having the information of god's existence be a given any more than the information that falling off a cliff is deadly is a given (I don't have a "choice" whether to think that or not: it's just there).

Frankly, I see this as a very slippery objection, especially in light of the serious problems I've already outlined with the concepts that underlies it.

---But if He made you like Him, then you are a free moral agent.---

Nice try. If you won't explain one thing... you can't solve the problem by foisting it off as a quality of something you also can't concieve. "Free" doesn't work like a modifier in the same way as "big." Free from WHAT concerning the making choices (even adding "moral" seriously undermines and garbles your arguement)? Its own influence (it's own will?)?

Does he have a choice whether or not to believe in himself? An actual choice to do good? From whence does that particular nature come? Was it chosen? What compelled that choice and not another one?

Define "free moral agent" in such a way that the particular nature of the agent is irrelevant to the choice that gets made, yet it is still in some manner "its" choice, and not just "a" choice that belongs to no one in particular.

[dal_timgar]

the specious argument that junk can be found in any large document can be found on the web by searching on "bible code"

however if you use the program yourself, you can do your own searches.

an all knowing god would have to know that priesthoods would violate the 2nd commandment and talk whatever trash they want. how could god get a message thru without being obvious. a code which couldn't be cracked without computers which wouldn't be invented for 5000 years is quite impressive. of course BELIEVERS can't let go of BELIEFS.

BELIEVE NOTHING, check stuff yourself.

Dal Timgar

[BlackKnight]

Originally posted by Libertarian
I don't get it. Would it take being convinced, or would it take being programmed?
Why do you seem to think they are mutually exclusive?

Perhaps it would help if you clarified what you mean by "convinced" and "programmed", and and explained the precise differences between them.

Well, morally, I think that the belief of a free moral agent is superior to the "belief" of someone who has no choice.
Which has what to do with what?

(And I second Apos request for an explanation of what a "free moral agent" is.)

[Apos]

---the specious argument that junk can be found in any large document can be found on the web by searching on "bible code"---

Funny, most of the resources I pull up seem to treat this as anything but a specious arguement. Especially this statement on ELS from mathematicians all over the country:
http://www.math.caltech.edu/code/petition.html

---how could god get a message thru without being obvious.---

Sure: and what is more important for the Judeo-Christian god to get through than the message that "Allah is lord" "Jesus is not the Christ" and, most importantly: "Koresh is Lord," all of which are also found using ELS on the texts?

[Liberal]

BlackKnight wrote:

Perhaps it would help if you clarified what you mean by "convinced" and "programmed", and and explained the precise differences between them.Oh, lordy, here we go. Round and round the definition Maypole in a dizzying dance of semantic masturbation.

In the spirit of attempting to rescue the discussion from that sort of spiraling mayhem, I won't demand that you define "precise differences". I'll just do my best to answer you, which is a courtesy that I would appreciate in return.

By "convinced", I mean that you have weighed issues and evidence in your own mind, free from the coercion of any outside agency, and that you have reached a conclusion that is amenable to your unique thought processes.

By "programmed", I mean that you were made to believe, despite whatever consideration you might yourself have given to the issues and evidence.

I'll even give you examples:

Convince — God states His case and asks, "What say you?"

Program — God alters your mind without your consent.

Which [Well, morally, I think that the belief of a free moral agent is superior to the "belief" of someone who has no choice] has what to do with what?It has to do with the point that programmed "belief" is not belief at all. If you have been "made" to believe against your will, simply because an agent has used its power on you, then the sincerity of volition is missing.

An example given to me a couple of years back by Gaudere, who was drawing a similar difference, is that saying "I love you" to a man with a gun to your head, forcing you to love him, is not love at all.

And I second Apos request for an explanation of what a "free moral agent" is.That would be an agent who is free to make moral choices. And no, I won't ask you to explain "explanation".

[Polycarp]

Probably the best answer I've seen to the OP's question was one that DSeid made in answer to my Why God Mooned Moses (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=136566) thread (which was more or less a question along the same lines as Mars Horizon's OP here:

Just as the story of the binding of Issac showed that the rules had now changed, that unlike religions before it, this God does not want human sacrifice, especially not of our own, this story clarifies that this God concept is different from those before. This is a complex God. This a God beyond us and our perceptual/cognitive capacities. Grow up and worship this God without the need for percieving some palpable form, some body, cow or man, without the need for direct "proof". See this God in the Glory of what is.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Saw it on Discovery Science. The new moon is an asteroid slowed by Jupiter, and by coincidence forced into a trajectory such that it orbits the earth. Scientists have marvelled at its composition, but have attributed it to random chance.

When you can't attack the argument, attack the person. :rolleyes:

[Urban Ranger]

This is a complex God. This a God beyond us and our perceptual/cognitive capacities.

If said god is incomprehensible, why is that some of you insist on knowing anything about he/she/it?

[BlackKnight]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Oh, lordy, here we go. Round and round the definition Maypole in a dizzying dance of semantic masturbation.
:rolleyes: Right. Asking you to clarify a couple of important terms is "semantic masturbation".

By "convinced", I mean that you have weighed issues and evidence in your own mind, free from the coercion of any outside agency, and that you have reached a conclusion that is amenable to your unique thought processes.

By "programmed", I mean that you were made to believe, despite whatever consideration you might yourself have given to the issues and evidence.
Using these explanations, I can sincerely state that nobody is, has ever been, or ever will be "convinced" of anything. Everybody is always under some coercion of some outside force.

[Justhink]

If God is the absolute 'everything', what exactly is it about his truth that is so 'bad'? It seems you already have your own answer as to what the point of life is... why bother with the God part?

-Justhink

[Justhink]

Apologies.. I wasn't meaning to run both sides with that.
If I ask God to prove himself to me by imbuing me with all of his truth right now, what prevents it?

It ultimately reduces to negating my value or Gods value. If I considered Gods judgement absolute, I may as well take a hike right now (he doesn't give a rats ass about me). If I assert my own value, I have to conclude that God does not possess absolute truth and that the concept itself is corrupt; which disproves the rationality I'm using to make the conclusion (If I believe god exists). The God concept can only be solved in death. It's really that simple.

-Justhink

[Polycarp]

If I ask God to prove himself to me by imbuing me with all of his truth right now, what prevents it?

One one hypothesis, the fact of his nonexistence. On another, the fact that He isn't subject to your orders.

I do not see why His existence and the idea that He imbued all humans with intrinsic value are mutually contradictory in your mind, justhink. Or do you require an absoluteness of your own existence in order to have value. I'll give you a clue -- no phenomenally-based metaphysic considers you to have any value whatsoever. You're a contingent coincidence on a minor planet in a suburban solar system in one fairly typical spiral galaxy, and when you cease to exist, the universe as a whole will not notice.

On the other hand, IMHO, God will, and will grieve that you didn't accept His offer of life everlasting.

[Apos]

Way to avoid the challenges posed to the idea...

---Or do you require an absoluteness of your own existence in order to have value.---

The answer is: no. Value does not require "absolute" value (whatever THAT is).

---I'll give you a clue -- no phenomenally-based metaphysic considers you to have any value whatsoever.---

Yet I, and others can consider Justthink and you to have value: is that not enough? Is that too pathetic for you? Not good enough?

[Kirkland1244]

Just as an aside, I already believe in God. But I'd become much more religious if he were to publicly do something to prove his existence beyond a doubt. One giant lightning bolt into John Ashcroft's forehead, for instance, would go a long way for fortifying my faith.

You listening, God? Taking notes? Good. :)

[Justhink]

""""""I do not see why His existence and the idea that He imbued all humans with intrinsic value are mutually contradictory in your mind, justhink."""""

It's a matter of the value of truth itself, rather than what you wrote here. My value is irrelevant if truth has no inherent value. Any system in which someone spends eternal time in damnation (I understand that's a biblical context); renders truth itself as absolutely superficial to 'might makes right'. Truth cannot be weaker than will, in order for any of this to have meaning. Many of the monotheistic rationalizations argue that a person's refusal to see truth is somehow stronger than truth - or that it's actually possible for truth to be unredemptive of everyone, over an infinite course of time. I see this type of rationalization as instantly invoking the rationality of non-existence over existence as the only possible act that is rational, the rest just falls right off the axiomic grid.

To even comprehend that a lack of truth is a 'persons fault' is to deny the absolute power that truth has when one is exposed to it, and to that degree is to deny the intent behind the abstraction of truth. To imagine some being possessing absolute truth denying anyones request for the truth, smells _really_ funny.
What it shows is that the power of this truth is a vacuum in a vacuum - just empty space that pressurized form moves to. It's smoke and mirrors. The truth becomes the carrot and not a sense of meaning of the entire dynamic of everything occurring within the stadium. It's using silence and applying pressure to manufacture uninherent power; which proves that seperation (with one of the objects in control of the other) is ultimately truth.
It proves that purpose of action ("That's meaningful because I did that") is more valuable than the action of purpose ("I do that because it's meaningful"). The first one requires no work, the second one requires work -- you actually have to think about what is meaningful before you act or engage yourself. In the first one... "if the sun shines, God exists and it's meaningful" is great for survival in this one shot here, but I shudder to think of how much greater my 'might' in life would be were I to engage in what is most obvious and simple - that belief is more important than truth and that action is more important than purpose. It's so close and so easy and 'everybody' does it, yet without the luxury of my understanding of how to apply these negations to extract/ trap energy from others to create a hunger and need for reclaiming what they believe was already and rightfully theirs (system dynamics as people too)
It's all just misdirection - I rarely see moral transfer. The thing that saddens me the most is that I know I can do it so well. Everything that makes me cry about existence is the one thing I know will work for me; all I have to do is build the structure, cross the line and let habit take care of the rest - complete retirement.

One thing I feel certain about the nature of truth is that everybody will recieve it regardless of the path they choose here.
To take comfort in a God that punishes people for something greater than this life, is to deny everything I know about truth that keeps me here, aware of myself. Yet triumph in this life finds those who apply truth as misdirection, happiness from not knowing it. There is no system 'out there' to keep truth from people who have exploited it for gain here; there is no system 'out there' which requires experiential suffering to know, understand and embody truth - truth here is earned through suffering; truth 'out there' is free. If it's not free 'out there'; uncoersive, absolute undeniability and universal redmption of all knowledge of folly - then the struggle to embody truth here is irrational, as material aquisition is the only absolute; primacy and proof of itself regardless of the direction used to get there. It proves that truth is irrational and that those who observe truth from untruth are delusional in the context of aquisition methodology.

Truth infused with technology does not require suffering to experience. The work of communicating the symbols is reduced to instantaneous levels; to the extent that even a 'dog' can use it; absolute truth possesses absolute efficiency of understanding; which means that those who live the high life here, and then die will awaken to truth without having ever endured suffering; it's the seething smugness of someone who broke every moral code in the book, and in the end adapts all the lessons learned through personal sufferring from a book. "Yeah, what I did was pretty bad; hmm.. get over it, we all have the same things now... it's a good thing you 'truth' people did all that work; an asshole like me would have never found this stuff out."

In spite of the fury of this dynamic; truth does not evade or discriminate - over here where it is not contained in one mind; it is a resource to be exploited. To make living life rational in here, truth must be unhidden all-permeating and undiscriminating 'out there' (or _somewhere_). If it is out there and undescriminating; then abusing it for glory 'in here' doesn't matter. Life urges people to exploit each-other in order to possess both happiness and attractiveness to and from others. I can't come to terms with that truth; the easy road is to make others suffer and apply misdirection. The biblical God displays this dynamic, which to me is detestful even though absolute reason will redeem every combination of act, including those who thrived on the misery of everybody and never once suffered before or after redemption.

That's the exciting vision if there is a truth which exists to make living life a rational act.

If that truth doesn't exist; then living life cannot be a rational act.

-Justhink

[Justhink]

""""""One thing I feel certain about the nature of truth is that everybody will recieve it regardless of the path they choose here.
To take comfort in a God that punishes people for something greater than this life, is to deny everything I know about truth that keeps me here, aware of myself.

absolute reason will redeem every combination of act, including those who thrived on the misery of everybody and never once suffered before or after redemption.

To make living life rational in here, truth must be unhidden all-permeating and undiscriminating 'out there' (or _somewhere_).""""""


The other system which attempts a happy-feely on this observation is the concept of karma. For absolute truth to make sense; karma is not a necessity, suffering is not a necessity.
The bhuddist philosphy attempts to rationalize living life with the idea that all paths must be the same - this just isn't true, all one needs is to have truth shown upon them, or to be bathed in it; regardless of what they've done or where they stand. To picture someone or some system in nature which decides whether to shine it here or there, or whether to move the river when someone comes to bathe in it, or is pushed in it.. is just silly.
It denies the existence of truth.

-Justhink

[Justhink]

This is the most severe thought virus I know^^^^
Not well written =)

Umm.. there is still a path where the trend continues though.
I've been trying to decide whether to explore it for three years now.

-Justhink

[Liberal]

BlackKnight wrote:

Right. Asking you to clarify a couple of important terms is "semantic masturbation".I suppose that depends on what you mean by "clarify".

Using these explanations, I can sincerely state that nobody is, has ever been, or ever will be "convinced" of anything. Everybody is always under some coercion of some outside force.Then is it fair to say that, in your view, you are morally helpless?

[Justhink]

"""""""Yet I, and others can consider Justthink and you to have value: is that not enough? Is that too pathetic for you? Not good enough?""""""""

Says the slavemaster to their complaining slaves......

-Justhink

[Apos]

---I suppose that depends on what you mean by "clarify". ---

I think the beef is: if you allow people to get away with couching their arguements in circular or non-cognitive (or otherwise unintelligible definitions), anything goes. You can tell us that we're free moral agents and vaguely try to ascribe some sort of good connotation to that concept. But it matters not a whit if you can't even explain what a free moral agent actually is and how it is different from what you call a "robot" (which again has the same sorts of vague negative connotations without any real justification of why).

That's not even getting into the important line of questioning about whether knowing knowledge is really akin to violating anyone's agency: forcing them to act or think a certain way, especially when the particular agent would very much LIKE to have that knowledge.
At least arguements to the effect of: you wouldn't want god to force you to be a good person... (really? Why not? And how could a omnipotent creator possibly avoid completely controlling what sort of person you end up being? Why would that even matter to god, who already must know our nature no matter what context its placed in) make some sort of surface sense, even if they fall apart on inspection.
But it seems quite happless to argue that mere knowledge of god's existence violates anyone's agency. Does knowledge of evolution violate my agency? Knowledge of quantum mechanics? Both of those things, especially in their impersonality, are far more complex, suprising, and shocking than the existence of an omni-everything-is-easily-explained by ultimate reference to god, and somehow they ENHANCE our agency, not detract from it.

So, if there is a god, why does god need leave open the truth of his existence? Why is that even a viable question? Why are there atheists at all? Why not just good people/bad people, making choices? What is the point of deluding people?

[Liberal]

Apos wrote:

But it matters not a whit if you can't even explain what a free moral agent actually is and how it is different from what you call a "robot" (which again has the same sorts of vague negative connotations without any real justification of why).But the gall of it is that you like having it both ways! :D

You don't mind demanding perfect clarity for "free moral agent" or "robot", but you proceed yourself with your own reckless qualifiers, leaving "vague negative connotations" and "real justification" completely undefined. The implied set of rules is that I must be perfect and you may be wishy-washy.

But it seems quite happless to argue that mere knowledge of [God's] existence violates anyone's agency.It is not a matter of knowing, but of being forced to know. It is like the difference between voluntary charity and socialism. You cannot be, in any real sense, charitable when you've freely offered nothing to anyone. You cannot be morally free when your morality is acted out on your behalf.

There is much being made about signs in the sky and so forth, but unless God's essence is magic, then those signs are moot. If instead God is a free moral agent, then what matters are freedom and volition.

So, if there is a god, why does god need leave open the truth of his existence? Why is that even a viable question? Why are there atheists at all? Why not just good people/bad people, making choices? What is the point of deluding people?There is no reason that an atheist cannot be morally upright and closer to Godliness than a self-righteous "believer". Why conflate intellectual knowledge with moral imperative?

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" — Jesus

Depending on the context given to God, the intellect can be irrelevant. An autistic child can be more Godly than an accomplished genius. What do you suppose Jesus meant when He said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."?

And please, answer honestly. Leave any snideness aside.

[Bongmaster]

It would have to be something that was experienced by everyone, everywhere. In essence, something that was not possible any other way than coming directly from God.

[Liberal]

And that would be what, exactly?

[Apos]

---You don't mind demanding perfect clarity for "free moral agent" or "robot", but you proceed yourself with your own reckless qualifiers, leaving "vague negative connotations" and "real justification" completely undefined.---

Give me a break, I am rubber you are glue? If you need those to be defined (and we both know that you don't), I'd be happy to. People put positive associations on "freedom" and negative ones on "robots" despite the fact that both uses of the words are almost completely prejorative and unestablished in this case (since their potentially justied use rely on a fuller account of what you might be talking about).

So, no, you can't start complaining that no one can define what "is" is just to get out of having to explain a concept that you've been swing around as an all-purpose answer to everything.

If all you have to come back with is "what does "an" mean?" "What does "everything" mean?" "What does "having to" mean?" then don't waste your time: crashing wit like that should be saved for the Apollo theater.

--- You cannot be morally free when your morality is acted out on your behalf.---

Again, you are using a bait and switch. You can't make an arguement about knowing and then justify it in terms of not wanting to forced people's choice. They are not the same things. It's like arguing that if I tell a child that feeding posion to a dog will kill them, I have somehow FORCED the child not to feed poison to dogs. No: whether or not it chooses to is a factor of ITS sense of values and whether the outcome (killing the dog) is right or wrong.

---There is no reason that an atheist cannot be morally upright and closer to Godliness than a self-righteous "believer". Why conflate intellectual knowledge with moral imperative?---

This is just sloppy. I didn't make any arguements to effect of WHO would make better or worse choices (whose character was better), but rather noted that people always have more potential to make BETTER choices when they are informed. When I am trying to make a choice, I'd like to know about it's context and consequences, and to the degree with which you restrict my knowledge, or even mislead me, you do me and my will to act morally a disservice.

---"I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."?---

Jesus was anti-intellectual (which makes quite a lot of sense if his major opponents were educated people who believed, GASP, that stoning unruly children to death went a little too far)? It's an unfortunate theme that runs throughout the bible.

I sincerely think that the subtext was that its easier to get children to believe something is true, irregardless of whether or not it is. So of course people with new philosophies will always think highly of children as pupils, just as Socrates loved his unchallenging yes-men, whether they realize this or not.

---And please, answer honestly. Leave any snideness aside.---

I find it hard to do since it seems from my perspective that you've already broken that faith in this case.

[dalovindj]

It seems that Lib is trying to say that if Yaweh came down and spoke to us, and then directly and obviously affected things around us to the point that we were convinced of his existence it somehow robs us of free will. This is not so. Heck, according to the text "The Bible", this god spoke to the first people all of the time. He'd come down and talk to Adam and Eve and Cain and Able regularly:In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD . But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.
Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." To the woman he said,

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'

"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life. If this account is to be believed. it looks like this god is perfectly able to do something obvious (cause pain for example), explain why he is doing it (i.e. speak), and leave no doubt of his existence. After Adam and Eve and Cain and Able all knew about him were they robbed of free will?

If a god came to everyone at the same time for a nice sit down, a tour of space and time, an explanation of the need for death and pain, a clarification on his ideas on proper punishments (i.e. is there a hell where people suffer for relative infinitie periods of time) for those whose actions he is against, and a clear statement of which religion (if any) is the proper one, I would take that as proof of his existence. This would in no way rob me of free will any more then finding out if I murder someone in a police station they will arrest me.

Even once I was convinced of his existence I could still decide whether or not to worship him. This god seems to fear people with knowledge. He was planning on letting humans live for ever in Eden, but once they gained some knowledge that he was privy too, he decided that they should experience pain and death.

If free will exists then new and conclusive information does not destroy it. Prove to me you exist and then I will believe you exist. Then explain what you have done and I'll decide whether you are worthy of worship, respect, or didain. If this god really wanted us to choose to love him then no hell would be required at all. Punishing us if we don't believe is more like the gun to the head analogy, regardless of whether we know for sure if it's going to happen or not.

If a guy decides he's going to shoot me if I don't behave a certain way, I'd much prefer I know for sure that I'm going to get shot as opposed to not knowing if the gunman even exists, nor having any credible information about how he wanted me to behave. Or suppose I got 50 different phone calls telling me to do 50 different things or I'll get shot. Now assume I know that there can only be one gunmen. I now have to pick which phone call was the REAL blackmail call or suffer pain. Somehow not knowing if the bullet even exists doesn't seem like all that great of a benefit. Similarly, if I'm going to burn for not behaving in a certain manner, and 50 different people tell me 50 different ways are the "right" (result in not burning) way but only one is correct, then not knowing does not seem to be any great prize even if you call it free will.

DaLovin'Dj

[Bongmaster]

Originally posted by Libertarian
And that would be what, exactly?

Well, it could manifest in a number of ways I suppose. For instance, if God could inject imagery and sound into everyones consciousness explaining the origin and nature of the universe complete with a total history of existence that would probably convince almost everyone. Basically only something the true God could accomplish.

[Bongmaster]

Additionally, being God and all, he could simply will it to happen and it would.

[Tiltowait]

Originally posted by Libertarian

It is not a matter of knowing, but of being forced to know. It is like the difference between voluntary charity and socialism. You cannot be, in any real sense, charitable when you've freely offered nothing to anyone. You cannot be morally free when your morality is acted out on your behalf.


I also would like to know why your god used to show up all the time (forcing people to know), but stopped doing so. Your god (who would torture us eternally for non-belief) feels comfortable sending to hell people whom (by your dogma) he created with the ability to point out that no evidence exists for said god.

Sorry, if your god made us with reason and would give us eternal punishment for using it, I have no use for the monster.

There is no reason that an atheist cannot be morally upright and closer to Godliness than a self-righteous "believer".

Sorry, but Godliness is not a compliment considering the attrocities this god commited according to the christian bible.

Examples of god's cruelty from the bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty.html)

"Truth in matters of religion is simply the opinion that has survived."

-Oscar Wilde

[Liberal]

Bongmaster wrote:

Well, it could manifest in a number of ways I suppose. For instance, if God could inject imagery and sound into everyones consciousness explaining the origin and nature of the universe complete with a total history of existence that would probably convince almost everyone. Basically only something the true God could accomplish. [...later addended...] Additionally, being God and all, he could simply will it to happen and it would.It seems to me that the more people (think they) know, the less they are prone to believe in Him. I find it interesting that you suggested that He program intellectual knowledge, rather than moral goodness, into people. Maybe you and I mean two different things by "God".

-----

Tiltowait wrote:

Your god (who would torture us eternally for non-belief) feels comfortable sending to hell people whom (by your dogma) he created with the ability to point out that no evidence exists for said god.I'm afraid you have me confused with someone else. Welcome to Straight Dope Great Debates.

[Tiltowait]

I'm afraid you have me confused with someone else. Welcome to Straight Dope Great Debates. [/B]

Thanks for the welcome :)

Have I mistaken a deist for a fundamentalist? I AM sorry, I should not have assumed.

Well, if you don't accept the bible as being literally true, what do you base your belief in a god on? 'cause without any evidence I have no way of telling an imaginary being from a real one.

[blowero]

Originally posted by dalovindj
It seems that Lib is trying to say that if Yaweh came down and spoke to us, and then directly and obviously affected things around us to the point that we were convinced of his existence it somehow robs us of free will. This is not so. Heck, according to the text "The Bible", this god spoke to the first people all of the time. He'd come down and talk to Adam and Eve and Cain and Able regularly:If this account is to be believed. it looks like this god is perfectly able to do something obvious (cause pain for example), explain why he is doing it (i.e. speak), and leave no doubt of his existence.

Nah, that was the O.T. God. We apparently have a kinder, gentler God now - one who doesn't meddle, although noone has ever explained why that is the case, or at what point in history it happened.:D

[Tiltowait]

Oh, here is what I would like to convince me that a god exists:

-an explanation of the purpose of evil, that will convince me there is some use for it. And it should be a lot better than those explanations offered by human apologists.

-an explanation why a god who desires worship goes to such enormous lengths to hide any evidence for his own existence. And then reveals himself to a couple unreliable sources thousands of years ago. An omnipotent being is by definition capable of revealing himself to everyone without violating anyone's ideas about free will. Irrational belief (faith) is defiantly NOT a good trait in humans, look at how many people have been tortured and killed over misplaced faith (if you are a believer, look at the misplaced faith of people who believe in the wrong god and the atrocities they commit in the name of that faith). Faith without reason is neutral at best, evil at worst. Why would a god seek to cultivate this trait in men?

-a reason why the 'true religion' (whichever one it is) is indistinguishable to a non-believer from the myriad other false religions which are mutually exclusive.

-an explanation why an omnipotent being is concerned with being worshiped.

-evidence that an all-powerful being exits (I am easy, that re-arranging the stars thing should do the trick.)

---------

Things that won't work:

-Stuff that we don't understand. People don't understand lots of things, this is not evidence for anything other than ignorance.

-word games like Pascal's wager

-personal stories of conversion

[Liberal]

Tiltowait wrote:

Thanks for the welcomeYou've come to the premier venue on the Internet for debate. These people are the best and the brightest. The intellectual strength here is staggering.

You will at times be frustrated, but if you love a challenge, you've come to the right place. I will pass on the excellent advice that I was given by DavidB shortly after my arrival here nearly three years ago: develop a thick skin.

Have I mistaken a deist for a fundamentalist? I AM sorry, I should not have assumed.You're right that you shouldn't have assumed, but I'm not a deist. I'm a renegade.

Well, if you don't accept the bible as being literally true, what do you base your belief in a god on?My personal, subjective experience.

'cause without any evidence I have no way of telling an imaginary being from a real one.We each have our own unique moral journey. I would never presume upon yours.

[Polycarp]

Many of us, Tiltowait, claim to have had an experience* that convinced us of the reality of God, do not believe that He is the vengeful tyrant whom fundamentalists fear but preach, and are quite capable of looking critically at the melange of writings about Him without assuming that it is somehow all literally true.

* Yes, we're aware of the problems with self-deception and subjective evidence generally. We still believe, for a variety of reasons.

[Apos]

It should in addition be added that some people believe, period. Not because of anything they can point to in their lives in the way of experience. Not because of rational arguement or evidence. Not necessarily even because of deliberate faith. It's a part of their character, it's just there. So no one necessarily needs justification for their own belief: justification is something necessary to convince others of the truth of their belief. This thread may be about justification, but it's important not to lose sight of that.

[Tiltowait]

It certainly is a conversation stopper. Identical to my claim 'the moon is made of green cheese and nothing you can say will make me believe differently, and I have no reason to believe it is true.' Silly.

[dalovindj]

It certainly is a conversation stopper. Not to mention a conversion stopper. Someone tells you to believe something they can't prove, shows a complete and utter disregard for reason, and then tells you you'll be burned for eternity if you disagree with them. This is supposed to sound appealing?

It's a very good point you make, Apos. Believe what ever you want, just keep it to yourself if you're just going to plug your ears when people respond with anything except agreement. If you want to convince people other then yourself, then know that "I believe no matter what you say!" is a pretty poor tactic. It makes you look stubborn and closed minded if you dismiss what people say before they even get the words out of their mouths.

If your goal is to convert others you must listen to what they say and address their concerns. If you are not trying to convert others then do us a favor and keep such sentiments to yourself. They accomplish nothing other then making your own worldview look pigheaded and ignorant. IMO, anyhow.

DaLovin' Dj

[Apos]

---Believe what ever you want, just keep it to yourself if you're just going to plug your ears when people respond with anything except agreement.---

I don't think people should keep it to themselves. I LIKE hearing about the beliefs that make other people's lives meaningful. They should just understand that if they are going to treat them as truth claims to be asserted, sharing time is over, and justification time has begun.

---Identical to my claim 'the moon is made of green cheese and nothing you can say will make me believe differently, and I have no reason to believe it is true.' Silly.---

Maybe. I believe that I have a coherent individual consciousness, even though just about everything in medical science and even some delving into my own mind, suggest otherwise, even though I find the idea itself to be unintelligible: despite the fact that I think it's probably wrong! However, I really don't seem to be able to stop believing it: it's just there. Silly? Maybe: but then I'm not trying to convince anyone of it. It's just something to know about me.

[Polycarp]

A short quote from a quite orthodox Christian source that might provide a lot of perspective on the point of view I've been expressing:

[This particular aspect of the Franciscan lifestyle] may be seen as reverence for the integrity of creation. God himself has this attitude towards the work of his hands. He does not manipulate the universe from outside to accomplish his will but works from within it, obeying his own laws, allowing life to reproduce itself into all possible forms. Yet through this process he brings forth man in his image. (from The Way of St. Francis, written and published by the Society of St. Francis, Mt. Sinai, NY)

In short, if you want a miracle, take me.

I was born ten months after my mother's last-ever menstrual cycle.

The day she went into labor for me, the Chicago Tribune announced the election of President Dewey in a headline they'd much rather everybody forgot.

I've already noted Jay being sent to save my life when I had my heart attack.

Then he and his best friend became the sons I had resigned myself to never being able to have. And in doing so they unlocked the recesses of my heart, and made me an integral, whole human being for the first time.

He's not going to "r'ar back and pass a miracle" -- the people He's made and called to be His witnesses are the miracles you're looking for.

Because that's how He operates.

If you want to know how a main sequence star functions, no amount of studying supernovas or neutron stars -- fascinating as these unusual objects are -- will tell you.

[Tiltowait]

In short, if you want a miracle, take me.

If human experiences are admissible as evidence, how about all the millions of people who die horribly with prayers on their lips? Ever been inside a children's hospital? Why is your god playing games with menstrual cycles when people are burning to death right now?

Happy stories and rainbows are not proof of a gods existence, they are happy stories and rainbows.

[thewiz]

I think the movie "Contact" displayed this problem very well. Jodie Foster's character has a life-changing experience but cannot convince anyone else that it actually happened. I would think there's really 2 questions:

1. What experience/evidence might be provided to make me personally believe in a higher being? Does the fact that this experience/evidence mean something only to me change the fact that I now have convincing personal evidence in a god (whatever form it takes)?

2. Is there any experience/evidence that would convince everybody in the entire world that there is a god? Since there are still people who believe in a flat earth and that the moon landing is a hoax, I think the answer to this is a definite no. I don't believe there will ever be an experience/evidence that will convince everybody.

[blowero]

Originally posted by thewiz
1. What experience/evidence might be provided to make me personally believe in a higher being? Does the fact that this experience/evidence mean something only to me change the fact that I now have convincing personal evidence in a god (whatever form it takes)?

You have every right to believe whatever you want, but as far as YOUR personal evidence convincing ME, I would have to evalute it on my own. And the vast majority of this "personal evidence" that I have heard takes one of 3 forms:
a.) Some sort of coincidence that the believer interprets as a sign from God. These events may or may not be unlikely, but are always within the realm of possibility. For example (not to pick on Polycarp, but just to illustrate): Being born on the same day that Dewey was elected is not meaningful in any objective way. On the contrary, it would have been quite astounding if NO babies had been born that day. These experiences may have great meaning for the believer, but are seen by the skeptic as being coincidence at best.

b.) This generally occurs with members of "charismatic" churches: Some type of unusual behavior on the part of the believer that is seen as being caused by God, like speaking in tongues, etc. This isn't really convincing in any objective way either, since a person's behavior can just as easily be attributed to the religious fervor of that person. And in my opinion, this type of evidence is further weakened by the fact that its validity is questioned even within other denominations of Christianity.

c.) Flashes of "insight", where a believer suddenly has an inner revelation, ostensibly coming from God. These revelations almost always happen to people who already believe. If God were really zapping insight into people's brains, wouldn't He be doing it to non-believers, since they would arguably be the ones who need it the most? Objectively, this type of evidence is the least convincing, since the experience is wholly inside the mind of the believer.

To be honest, I'm a little bothered by the term "personal evidence" itself. It almost seems like an oxymoron. What you have is belief, plain and simple.

2. Is there any experience/evidence that would convince everybody in the entire world that there is a god? Since there are still people who believe in a flat earth and that the moon landing is a hoax, I think the answer to this is a definite no. I don't believe there will ever be an experience/evidence that will convince everybody.
I think you're probably right in that even something really extraordinary wouldn't convince EVERY SINGLE person on the planet. But in this thread, we've come up with some possibilities that would convince A LOT of people, so it's still unfair to say "You wouldn't believe no matter what".

[Apos]

---Flashes of "insight", where a believer suddenly has an inner revelation, ostensibly coming from God. These revelations almost always happen to people who already believe.---

Not necessarily. I would guess that they happen _most significantly_ to people who have been considering the idea of god, but aren't really sure or interested: and especially if they have some strong emotional situation that drives home the feeling of importance to an experience. All that has to happen is that something odd be attributed to god. The mind is a funny thing, but its very hard for most people to admit that to themselves: so anything truly odd is treated as inexplicable and requiring outside explanation.

[blowero]

Originally posted by Apos
---Flashes of "insight", where a believer suddenly has an inner revelation, ostensibly coming from God. These revelations almost always happen to people who already believe.---

Not necessarily. I would guess that they happen _most significantly_ to people who have been considering the idea of god, but aren't really sure or interested:
Except I would argue that if a person is "considering the idea of god", then they ARE interested.

[Apos]

Well, not necessarily "interested" in the sense that you seem to be using it as in "interested in there being a god." Someone might be indifferent or even set against the idea: what probably matters is how deeply ingrained the idea is to begin with, how much of a psychological fallback it is for the inexplicable inside one's own consciousness.

[Bongmaster]

Originally posted by Libertarian
[B]Bongmaster wrote:

It seems to me that the more people (think they) know, the less they are prone to believe in Him. I find it interesting that you suggested that He program intellectual knowledge, rather than moral goodness, into people. Maybe you and I mean two different things by "God".


Well, I have to disagree here. Many great scientists, Einstein included, have a firm belief in God. Also, I only suggested that God inject imagery and knowledge into people's minds in order to prove his existence, it wasn't a good vs. evil thing. I'm pretty sure we are both talking about the same "god," (ie creator of existence).

[Mars Horizon]

Originally posted by Bongmaster
Many great scientists, Einstein included, have a firm belief in Godnot quite. Einstein on "God" :The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task ...And he went on to say:It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Sorry for the nitpick but it seemed relevant.