Atheists. What would you accept as evidence of a divine creator?

Simple. Do something big and public that absolutely violates the laws of physics and is far beyond anything that we could manage.

I can poke holes in that.

Your argument hinges on the notion that, being able to change his mind, an all-powerful being would ever have a need to do so. Sure, he could change his mind if he wanted, but why would he ever?

Take Noah and the Great Flood. A believer would probably tell you that God was going to destroy the Earth, but he relented and allowed humankind to live. You could also say that, being all-knowing, it was necessary to appear willing to destroy the Earth, then to appear to change his mind, for the best result.

Having read the thread now, I want to add on a bit. I think that any being sufficiently powerful or possessing of technology so advanced as to be perceived as a god, basically is. The origin of the universe is rather immaterial to my day to day life, while propitiating such a being into helping me with my puny concerns seems much more directly beneficial to me.

Just like unicorns. Bring one over to meet me, we’ll have tea.
A sign? No dice.

If he’s so cool, he should walk across my swimming pool. :slight_smile:

I’d go for this. Because even if it’s just a sufficiently advanced alien, I’d probably enjoy the experience.

On the other hand, it could just make me mad and believe I had the power of a god. Which is probably a lot easier and just as convincing to me.

On the third hand, fuck gods. What have they ever done for us?

Thought that was supposed to prove He’s no fool. IIRC proof of divinity required changing water into wine.

But then some hooker with a great voice wouldn’t know how to love Him anyway.

Might as well add that believers have found the exact same amount of evidence for their Abrahamic God as the atheist can show for it: zero. This is why that word faith is stressed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times throughout the Bible. Once there was evidence, there would be no need for faith.

Often what separates the believers and non-believers is what they consider as evidence. Too often the religious person is more apt to be persuaded not by logic, but by how well it appeals to their emotions and also what they are willing to consider as evidence tends to be much lower in standards. Basically the present embodiment of knowledge, we call the sciences, tends to just have to fly out the window and be damned; and in its place, substitute wishful thinking.

Perhaps suggestion, group suggestion too, peer pressure, anecdotal evidence, all pretty much play a role. There is nothing like millions of people believing in an absurd thing, to help one be persuaded that it is so.

If God exists and if a belief in God were something you could rationalize then just about everyone would all be believers in the same God already, regardless of upbringing. Throughout human history people have seen things they couldn’t possibly explain and rationalized it was proof God existed. When those things were were explained naturally, other things took their place. Today people point to the Big Bang and the lack of an understanding how something can come from nothing and use that as proof God must exist.

An omnipotent God wouldn’t need a showy display to make me and everyone else believe. He would instead just make it so. Or, at the very least, I would expect God to have revealed himself in such a way that those who come in contact with it would be undeniably touched by it. No religion today can make that claim. Sure, many people convert to one religion or another, but there isn’t a single religion in existence in which no one ever leaves. I would expect that if there were a “true” religion, it would be self-evident.

The point is: how the hell would you tell the difference?

D’oh! All these years I had it wrong, hehe. 'Scuze me while I kiss this guy!

But he should feed my household with this bread
He can do it on his head

He could buy me a Mercedes Benz. My friends all have Porches .I must make amends.

Occam’s razor. Craziness requires fewer assumptions than a god. And history; historically, claims of gods and such have always turned out to be wrong.

No, I’m only concerned with whether he *can *change his mind; whether or not he’d ever *need *to is irrelevant. And if he “could change his mind if he wanted,” then he’s not omnicient; he doesn’t know his own future decisions.

God did change His mind when he flooded the earth( according to the Old Testemant); He said He regretted creating man, so He destroyed all the animals and humans except Noah and his family and the few animals that fit on the ark, that is if you believe the Noah story. Since God was supposed to know all things ahead of time he sure went through a lot of trouble to destroy even small babies and innocent little children or mentaly incompetent people, He could have just killed off the bad ones.and of course with 29,000 feet of water the plants would have all died as well,but that is another story.

Meh. “Absolutely violating the laws of physics” as they are understood by the observer might well be child’s play to a being from a culture whose technology was sufficiently advanced beyond the observer’s.

We could easily pass this test if we were put before people of only a few hundred years ago.

Every time this question is asked on this(and any other) board, I basically give the same answer.

I don’t know what exactly it would take for me to believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing god.
But an all-powerful, all-knowing god would.

For me it would be overt miracles. Something like a giant face floating in the sky announced that on such and such a date the sun would dance in the sky and then that happened; the dead coming back to life; angels performing miracles all over the planet at the same time; raining jelly beans; stuff like that.

Of course, if there really was a god, then he could just decide that everyone instantly believed in him and that would end the queston.

I still don’t see how that follows. Changing your mind suggests you have analyzed the situation and determined that you have chosen the lesser of two paths, and wish to correct course. In that regard, you’re correct in that no all-powerful all-knowing being would ever need to do so, as he would never be required to make such an error. He would simply make the correct choice from the beginning.

The holes in your theory are thus:

  1. An all-powerful being could choose all decisions at once. There would never be any need to change his mind because the alternative course of action may be playing out in an alternate universe.

  2. An all-powerful and all-knowing being who was intimately linked with humankind would be aware of the PR value of the appearance of changing his mind, at least how humans perceive it. It’s highly unlikely that you’d get a straight answer.

Explain the specific process by which free will would be removed from us by simply waking up one morning with an additional element of (true!) knowledge in our brains. How would this be different than, say, someone telling us a fact (whether true OR false) that we then believe, and then waking up the next morning with that bit of knowledge in our brains?

How would having additional information, especially truthful information, limit our ability to make choices in any way? As far as I can tell, it would enhance our ability to make choices, because we would be better informed as to what those choices might result in or entail.

Bravo, sir! Though of course, an all powerful all knowing God could have just about literally any reason to think that letting you know of its own existence is against it’s purposes or motives, of course. Or it might know of some logical reason why it would be impossible for it to do. But of course, until someone can present any of these reasons, it’s just all whistling in the dark.