Most people, and things, prove that they exist by virtue of existing.
Yeah - once the dude is standing on your doorstep it’s no longer a question of existence. It’s a question of identity. And proving identity is actually pretty tricky, especially when there’s nothing else to refer to.
Consider this: A dude with a long beard and a pointy hat shows up at your door and insists he’s Gandalf. As in, the dude from the Tolkien books. And he in every way matches the description in the books - everything the books say Gandalf can do, he can do, up to and including being able to do magic. He exactly matches the description in every way.
Would you believe he’s the fictional character? If not, why not? If so, what convinced you?
And if so, what do you do if a second bearded dude identical to the first turns up and says no, he’s Gandalf! (Slapfest ensues.) Which one’s the real Gandalf? Both? Neither? Does the second one’s appearance reduce the credibility of the first one?
The deity on my doorstep has all the same problems, except in the case of God I don’t even have a good description to compare him to. Suppose two deities turned up; what then?
I’ve been thinking about this OP ever since shortly after it was posted. My first thought was, let him (or her, but take that as read) remove me from the universe and replace me with an identical copy who believes. That seems like solution, but kind of wise-ass. That there’s smiting talk. Then I thought, let’s say the car/cash offer* was given simultaneously to everybody on the Earth*. That would sure convince me.
But moreover, this is a silly question. It’s not like God has ever tried anything like that, anything at all. I don’t believe in God because there isn’t any evidence. I haven’t looked at evidence that I found fell short. Any evidence at all would be nice. I blame Jesus. The devil suggested a short flight in the desert, nothing flashy, but Jesus wasn’t having any of it. Not the first child to be embarrassed by his parents, but there you are.
SMBC weighs in on the topic.
I don’t see this.
Let’s say there’s a fish swimming in the Indian Ocean. It exists. But how is its existence proven to me?
Ooh, look- a sighting of Russell’s Teapot.
There is insufficient information to prove this fish exists. Unless you will allow me to pick any fish that is swimming in the Indian Ocean, in which case, I can find one for you if you like.
Photograph, video, a trip to go see it, have it brought to you etc.
Can any of these solutions be applied to the “God” situation? If not, then your analogy doesn’t apply.
A key tenant of most religion is faith. You don’t need it proven to you.
Must the faith be blind, or is a bit of evidence allowed?
You can have as much proof as you desire. But isn’t there an inverse correlation between the level of proof needed, and the amount of faith you have?
Various protestant denominations build in certain levels of proof into their own doctrines and traditions.
- Pentecostals speak in tongues as proof of their salvation
- Church of Christ consider the use of instruments during worship to be apostate and sign of corruption
- Tithing among many denominations is considered a tangible requirement of your faith
- Confessing your sins to a priest is considered an outward tangible sign of your faith in the Roman Catholic Church
- Regular church attendance is considered is considered a tangible requirement of many denominations.
etc.etc.
Yeah, but that’s the whole point of the OP and this thread after all… finding out what proof atheists need, not the faithful flock… “Just have faith” isn’t really any kind of answer, unless you are saying that there’s no way to accept a god without it, and the only thing is a “Road to Damascus” kind of magical conversion?
Proof and evidence are two different things, and I was asking about evidence.
But evidence to some is not to others.
Many people see the universe as evidence while others do not.
Many see their newborn children as evidence, while others do not.
Many see the kindness and compassion of strangers as evidence, while others do not.
Besides, God doesn’t need to prove anything to anyone. However, there are many preachers, religious leaders, ministers, etc. that need to provide some forms of proof or evidence, to get seats in the pews filled, and offering baskets filled.
And many refuse to answer a direct question.
edited to add: The universe is evidence that the universe exists, newborn children are evidence that sex exists, and kindness and compassion of strangers that kindness and compassion exist.
To hammer the point a little, this is the explicit point of the thread. The question is what is evidence to you. And you. And you over there in the corner too.
For me, as I’ve said, the problem is twofold. 1) Proving that the entity has godlike power. This can actually be a little tricky without making massive alterations on a worldwide scale. Smaller things prove less - if he suddenly gives you a car he could either be God or Oprah Winfrey.
- Proving that he’s a specific god. There are actually a lot of theorized entities with godly power; can you prove he’s not one of them instead? This is trickier than one might think. They all have he power of perfectly impersonating one another, after all.
I don’t feel the need to convince anyone else about my belief in God. It is my belief. It is one that I have struggled with and doubted many times throughout my adulthood. But I still believe. It is not important to me that others share my beliefs. I highly doubt that there are many other Christians that share my beliefs 100%. And that’s okay with me.
That’s nice. Not sure what bearing it has on what it takes to convince an atheist that a weirdo going door to door is God.
Do atheist really want to be convinced?