If God proved that God existed , then what?

[Learjeff]

@cosmosdan

The Bible says God will be revealed to those who seek God with a sincere heart.

As it turns out, the Bible is just plain wrong in that regard.

But, let’s say God as a matter of policy and practice did appear in a vision to those who prayed “Here I am God sincerely wanting to know if you really exist” God appears and says , “here I am I really exist, I created everything, Try to treat each other and the planet you share with some respect and consideration. Love, would be great.” How long would it be before people , in pursuit of their own interests, just blew off that vision and called it a bad potato hallucination?
[/quote]
If it was universal, they’d be either a small minority of skeptics, or they’d one of the bunch with no moral compass – we always have those, regardless of religious norms.

If God provided us all with direct evidence that he existed (rather than providing some sort of writings to a minority of the people in the world – a rather sloppy way to spread the Truth), the vast majority of people would believe Him and try to follow His word.

There would still be various kinds of skeptics. For one, the “strong” agnostic, who claims (with good arguments) that we can never tell a true God from a very advanced impostor. But, if this being routinely provided us with miracles such as healing our illnesses and providing us with necessities when we can’t get them through our own means, most people would be content to follow along in any case.

There would also be those who feel that even if God exists, created the universe, and gives us a clear description of right versus wrong, that we still have to decide for ourselves. If we disagree, we can either assume God is smarter and follow along anyway, or we can decide that we have to be true to our own conclusions. If this God not only provides miracles but also smites those who disagree, this would be a noble but hazardous (and arguably foolish) course. Some would take it in any case, of course.

The question raised here is one I like to raise for any seriously contentious topic: what evidence, if any, is there that would convince you that you’re wrong?

As mentioned above, there are cases where no evidence is possible. Personally, I’d be pretty impressed, and even if I harbored doubts about the authority of this being, I’d be likely to take His word for it, considering my own fallibility. I’ve gotten a lot of things wrong in my life, and I’m sure I haven’t found them all yet. I don’t consider myself absolutely certain of much, other than the Descartian “Shit happens!”

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE]

@QuickSilver

I’m sorry but this is my stop.

The range of questions starting with ‘why’ is too long and too important to dismiss with a casual “You just haven’t earned it yet, baby!” (curtesy of The Smiths).

Not what I said at all. How about , you’re not ready or capable to understand it all. As in Voyager’s example , you don’t explain detailed biology to a 3 year old that asks where babies come from and expect them to grasp it all. Even later as teenagers, when they understand the mechanics of it, they still have to decide what to do with that knowledge. Responsible or irresponsible. Do you give a shit if an unplanned pregnancy occurs or does it not matter as long as you get laid in the now.

To be convincing, this new found god would have to be much more forthcoming with the answers. And if he’s everything we’ve imagined him to be so far, I’m sure he would have no trouble finding a way of revealing these answers in pretty short order. To my mind, it’s the most convincing path to acceptance of such a being.

Sure. As has been suggested over and over, God could just implant the knowledge in our minds , or maybe our hearts. and while he’s at it he can make me a better guitar player since I neglected to use my available time practicing.

It seems to me that much of the argument against God is #1 there is no verifiable evidence. admittedly that’s true and a biggie. The other is more emotional #2 there’s too much suffering for any benevolent God to exist. Then comes the process of 2nd guessing what such an entity ought to be doing. This seems logically flawed to me. We feel what we feel but such an entity, creator and sustainer of the universe is beyond our 2nd guessing. We can never have that perspective, so can’t realisitically or logically judge.

[QUOTE]

Also, revealing himself to only those who make the right sort of effort to believe is not substantially different than what happens now.

Which was kinda my point. Posters in the other thread were saying “a God who proves he existed” and I added the implied “to me” But proof to them in some event or miricle still wouldn’t cut it IMO, because of human nature. Even a world wide miricle would eventually be dismissed and rationalized away IMO.

So no, he does not get the benefit of the doubt in revealing himself though suspended disbelief.

again, part of my point.

[Learjeff]

@cosmosdan

Not at all. Quite the opposite. I think even if people recieved something that convinced them God existed that it wouldn’t be enough for most people and in time, in pursuit of thier own interests, they would rationalize it away.

There would certainly be rationalizers. There would also be sincere and careful thinkers who reject the obvious conclusion, with good reasons.

The bottom line is, that’s not this world, because God can remain mute through a sincere attempt to find Him.

I do not call liars those who say they’ve found them. They could be deceived, just as I could be deceived. Anyone is capable of being incorrect. We do our best and live with the results; what else can we do? The only alternative is to shrug it off and not try to figure it out – no doubt a common option!

[Human_Action]

@LonesomePolecat

This would prove that an extremely powerful entity of some kind existed, but it would not prove that said entity was the divine creator of the universe.

Which is just one possible interpretation of what God is; the OP wasn’t specific on this point.

@LonesomePolecat

Suppose astronomers observed that the stars in the sky had been re-arranged to spell out “I am the Lord they god” in every human language. We would know the being that did this was immensely powerful. But would we know that it was omnipotent and eternal? How would we know that there were no limitations whatsoever to its power? It might be all powerful so far as we were concerned, but there might well be thousands or millions of other such beings with equal or greater power. How do we know that this being is benevolent? For all we know, it may be a juvenile delinquent from the Q dimension playing pranks on the yokels.

If such a being revealed itself to us, I think the human consensus would be “good enough for me, that’s God.” This is just speculation, of course. If there were millions of such beings, the first one to show up on Earth becomes Earth God. Clearly, humans want there to be a God, so the first credibly God-like being we get would suffice.

@LonesomePolecat

We can possibly know that a super-powerful being of some kind exists. We could never know, based solely on observable evidence, that this being was the divine, all-powerful, all-knowing and all-benevolent creator of the universe.

True, because the omni-everything type of God is so far removed from human capabilities that it would defy any true understanding.

@LonesomePolecat

Any belief in God necessarily depends on some degree of faith.

Some degree, sure, but some kind of supernatural being existing lessens the degree of faith required appreciably.

@cosmosdan

sure. I’m saying if God proved he existed and then said “try to do better, carry on” little would change or any change would be temporary.

What you’re describing isn’t really God proving his existence, though, it’s more like God hinting at it to some people in some ways at some times. Of course that would produce less of an effect than an actual proof of existence.

@cosmosdan

of course it is. Because even that event , the appearence , the miricle, would be subject to questioning and ultimately faith.

Again, depends on your interpretation of faith. If you go with the Hebrews 11:1 idea that faith is “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”, then God revealing himself to you personally makes that faith impossible: you now have conviction in something you have seen, not something you haven’t.

The Roman Catholic “faith is a supernatural act of divine grace” idea would be unaffected; it depends on what faith means.

@cosmosdan

It seems unreasonable to judge God in the same catagory as the physical universe he created.

Well, I can use an example from outside the universe, now can I? Point is, in matters of proof that is accepted by human beings, God is no different than gravity or snow leopards.

@cosmosdan

How do you know that? You mean beliefs hold without repeatable, demonstrable, hard evidence right?

Right. We already know that evidence, let alone proof, is not a necessary precondition for people to believe in things. The level and intensity of belief we observe now exists despite the lack of such evidence, so the appearance of any actual evidence would alter things dramatically.

@cosmosdan

If you don’t believe in God then you don’t believe anyone’s experience is real correct?

Correct.

@cosmosdan

Belief in God is already incredibly dominant in mankind.

Not really; belief in Gods, perhaps. The Protestant God differs substantially from the Catholic one, and the Seventh Day Adventist God differs from the Lutheran God, and so on. The incredible degree of splintering of religions over time, and the incredible individual variability of conceptions and visions of God or gods, is evidence that there is not one, consistent God that answers all sincere prayers. Were that to be the case, belief would rapidly become much more uniform than it is.

The current variability of beliefs can best be explained by the notion that people answer their own prayers with whatever they want to hear, based on what they imagine God to be.

[Malacandra]

@Learjeff

There would still be various kinds of skeptics. For one, the “strong” agnostic, who claims (with good arguments) that we can never tell a true God from a very advanced impostor. But, if this being routinely provided us with miracles such as healing our illnesses and providing us with necessities when we can’t get them through our own means, most people would be content to follow along in any case.

1. “Remarkably, we have now evolved to the point where illness is only temporary and of minor consequence. Scientists are still searching for the mechanism by which this change occurred, but only the credulous who still believe in leprechauns would connect this with the ‘mysterious voice’ that ‘everyone’ heard last year.”

2. {left as an exercise for the student}

[Learjeff]

@cosmosdan

The other is more emotional #2 there’s too much suffering for any benevolent God to exist.

Yeah, that’s a hard one to explain away, even though it’s been attemtped by some of humanity’s greatest minds.

[quote]
Then comes the process of 2nd guessing what such an entity ought to be doing. This seems logically flawed to me. We feel what we feel but such an entity, creator and sustainer of the universe is beyond our 2nd guessing. We can never have that perspective, so can’t realisitically or logically judge.

[QUOTE]
Good point, but pretty small in comparison to the first two.

Which was kinda my point. Posters in the other thread were saying “a God who proves he existed” and I added the implied “to me” But proof to them in some event or miricle still wouldn’t cut it IMO, because of human nature. Even a world wide miricle would eventually be dismissed and rationalized away IMO.

I agree with you here, except for a quibble about the term “rationalized”. As above, I do agree that lots of people who aren’t sincere thinkers would rationalize anything away if it suited them. That’s beside the point of a philosophical discussion or a debate, where we answer the opposing side’s arguments (or learn from them), and arguments either stand or fall on their own merits.

In a sincere discussion, the very nature of what godhood means is fair game. Someone could argue that just because some being created us, that doesn’t mean he’s the sole arbiter of Right and Wrong. (This is Sartre’s position, for example.) This is not Satrtre rationalizing anything away, it’s a very carefully argued conclusion.

In any case, you’re right that no matter what, there will be contrarians, and on this issue, there will be contrarians with good arguments. You can consider them “wrong”, but that’s your opinion (and it might also be God’s opinion). You’d be in the vast majority. I’d probably be in that majority with you, but I’d still have to acknowledge the power of the arguments.

[QuickSilver]

In the OP you state:

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Several people there posted " one that proved it existed" which got me wondering both "how, and the follow up, then what?
[/QUOTE]

To which I replied that the “how” would have to be more substantial than simply revealing himself to the believers. The “then what?” would be an involved Q&A period with god doing much of the explaining.

To which you replied:

@cosmosdan

Not what I said at all. How about , you’re not ready or capable to understand it all. As in Voyager’s example , you don’t explain detailed biology to a 3 year old that asks where babies come from and expect them to grasp it all. Even later as teenagers, when they understand the mechanics of it, they still have to decide what to do with that knowledge. Responsible or irresponsible. Do you give a shit if an unplanned pregnancy occurs or does it not matter as long as you get laid in the now.
Sure. As has been suggested over and over, God could just implant the knowledge in our minds , or maybe our hearts. and while he’s at it he can make me a better guitar player since I neglected to use my available time practicing.

Perhaps I’m being thick and being whooshed by this entire conversation. But I don’t see how your revelations is substantially different from how god reveals himself to the believers now. So either he steps up his game and comes out of hiding for all to evaluate through their own means, or he remains a mystical and mythical entity. If you suggest the latter then I do not see that there is any way that he can truly reveal himself. Which is what you are saying, I guess. In which case, we should not be planning any revelation parties any time soon, right?

[cosmosdan]

@QuickSilver

What you seem to be saying is, and correct me if I’m wrong:

God has revealed himself to those who believe.
God withholds revelation from those who do not.
Revelation is not subject to testing and yields no evidence for the existance of god.

How is that different from what we have now?

To be clear, I’m only supposing here. I am an agnostic who used to be a believer. I’ve put some time and thought into “if God is, then what makes sense about God, creation, and our role as part of it.” It’s that thought process that eventually made me reject much of Chrisitianity.
So
"

God has revealed himself to those who believe.

maybe , maybe not. I’ve had some pretty powerful experiences but I accept the fact that it’s not proof of God’s exisitence. I’m saying that for those who posted in the other thread “God would have to prove he existed” that it wouldn’t really change anything and perhaps it’s already happened to others.

God withholds revelation from those who do not.

Not really in the way you seem to mean. I think whatever insight and knowledge that is available is available to anyone who seeks it. Then we get to choose what to do with it, or what it means to us personally. There is no ego invvloved, no need to be worshipped.

Revelation is not subject to testing and yields no evidence for the existance of god.

How would it be if it’s essentially communication? My thpery is that the proof of existence that posters suggested in that other thread would eventually lead to abolishing free will and destroying the purpose of creation. If God revealed himself an a vision or miricle to individuals that might be adequate proof for them but their experience wouldn’t convionce others, and , in time, they themselves might abandon belief and rationalize the experience away. And, perhaps that what is happeneing now as well as people distorting the revelation they’ve recieved or just making some up for personal gain.
Even if God revealed himself to the entire world it would only be an event that changed things temporarily IMO.

How is that different from what we have now?

It really isn’t, which is part of the point.

[cosmosdan]

@Learjeff

If God provided us all with direct evidence that he existed (rather than providing some sort of writings to a minority of the people in the world – a rather sloppy way to spread the Truth), the vast majority of people would believe Him and try to follow His word.

"

This appears to be your personal belief that can’t be substantiaited. I respectfully disagree. I think in short order we’d be in exactlyy the same condition we find ourselves in now.

[cosmosdan]

@Learjeff

The bottom line is, that’s not this world, because God can remain mute through a sincere attempt to find Him.

again, your personal belief.

[colonial]

@cosmosdan

Well they’re already his stars to do with as he pleases so , not really.

OP’s first question was “how” a God might prove His existence, and I was giving an
example of how, namely, by a miracle so big that no one could miss it.

The structure and behavior of all substance would be an omnipotent God’s to do with
as He pleased, it is a defining aspect of omnipotence itself. So if your premise is that
God’s omnipotence is a bar to proof, then logically there is no such thing as proof.
However, the premise is not obviously correct (some might think it silly) and it requires
more explanation than, say, the premise that Socrates was a man.

@cosmosdan

What I mean is God proving his existence and then saying, “do what you will with that knowledge”, wouldn’t change anything.

I have a feeling it would change a lot of things, including me. I might start going to
church again. I would certainly start praying again!

@cosmosdan

Unless God stepped in to say, “we’re doing things my way from now on” proof of his existence wouldn’t matter all that much.

Numerous miracles attested only by ancient scripture are considered proof to hundreds
of millions of people, sustaining their faith and justifying their compliance with
scriptural law. If a 2,000 year old miracle can “matter” so much then it is unreasonable
to stipulate as you do that a new, modern miracle could matter less.

@cosmosdan

If he did step in such a manner , that would IMO defeat the purpose of creation , if creation and creator exist.

Again, you need to do more than just throw out a premise.

@cosmosdan

I’ve seen a couple of threads on the concept that free will doesn’t really exist and it’s very intriquing. Cewrtainly in this world the concept, or the illusion of free will exists.

If free will is an illusion then merit and guilt are illusions, except when applied to an
omnipotent God who would be the only character enjoying true freedom of any kind.

@cosmosdan

Choice and conequence. IMO , if creation and creator exists, {not nessecarily being separate} then this world of apparent duality, good, evil, pleasure and pain, choice and cinsequence is part of the point. The exoerience of choice, and discovery.

The logical sequence:

(premise): creator and creation exist
(conclusion): then this world of apparent duality, good, evil, pleasure and pain, choice and cinsequence is part of the point. The exoerience of choice, and discovery.

Is unsound because the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premise; it is
a non sequitur.

Furthermore, an omnipotent God ought to be able to create a world without evil and pain.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Lots of the responses in this thread seem limited to th idea of an omnipotent God who created the Univers and all things in it. I agree with Human Action that no the conceptions of God in human experience are larger than that. If you want to insist only upon that definition then no proof of God will ever be possible, It isnt possible from within this Universe to demonstrate incontrovertably that a specific being from beyond its bounds created it all.

[Voyager]

@cosmosdan

I’m not sure why you think so.

Because even the most basic class on communicating says so, and if a god wants to have us hear he would be way smart enough not to hide his answers in a tree or under a rock.

Sure, and then later on, when the kid is more mature they can handle more information. If there is a force or entity that guides and sustains the universe it is obviously more complex than we can grasp at the moment. IMO, the simplified answers are available. everthing is connected, We are one, Be here Now, etc. but it’s up to the individual to decide what that means to them and what actions they will take.

Sorry, we being connected (which is trivially true) does not answer anything. Certainly not why children drown. It explains why we care, true. There is an obvious secular answer - geologic forces don’t care about the little things that live on the earth, but I can’t imagine any answer from a powerful deity - or any answer that wouldn’t make me start plotting his end.

[you_with_the_face]

The OP seems to be saying that human psychology is stronger than God’s will. That it is impossible for him to reveal himself in a way that would effectively overcome our mental resistances.

How positively puny this God must be then. On the whole, people are a pretty gullible species and are conned by charlatans, thieves, and charasmatic cult leaders on a continuous basis. Even on this board, you can find people who think third-rate magicians have supernatural powers. Huge pockets of the population actually think the Pope is infallible. But God somehow isn’t able to put on a convincing enough show to prove his existence to us?

If God wanted us to believe in him, he would know exactly what stunts to pull that would disable disbelief. That is a perk that comes with omnipotence. It is impossible for God to fail at anything, if he’s truly all-powerful being. So the OP’s argument is logically flawed.

[GuanoLad]

I’d demand an explanation.

[usedtobe]

My immediate response was: OP nailed it. We now know, with absolute certainty, that some varient of the oft-hypothesized God does, in fact, exist.

Now what?

Unless this god (i’ll use the lower case until I know how this omnipotent entity wishes to be addressed) starts issuing specific demands, backed by specific threats, what difference will its existence make in day-to-day?
So this god wants us to build a solid gold tower the size of Noah’s boat (if one turns out to be true, why not another?), do we divert the labor and fortune to build it? Why? Global destruction?

I’d vote to use the manpower and fortune to house and feed and train the population this god did or didn’t cause to be created.

[Zoe]

Human Action: The Protestant God differs substantially from the Catholic one, and the Seventh Day Adventist God differs from the Lutheran God, and so on. The incredible degree of splintering of religions over time, and the incredible individual variability of conceptions and visions of God or gods, is evidence that there is not one, consistent God that answers all sincere prayers. Were that to be the case, belief would rapidly become much more uniform than it is.

It’s not that God differs at all. Perceptions about the Deity vary and cause the splintering. Sometimes people are able to see a little past the difference in perceptions.

I’ve attended a lot of different churches (including Catholic and Protestant) and haven’t seen that much difference in their overall understandings of God. The greatest differences that I have seen are among the Protestant churches themselves. Some see God as an angry and vengeful God and others believe in a loving and sustaining God. But it’s not that they are worshipping different Gods. They have differing perceptions of the true nature of God.

[Zoe]

Cosmosdan, I do believe there will always be skeptics. It’s not that I believe that God couldn’t convince everyone, but for some reason God the Father seems to prefer faith as the source of belief.

I also don’t think that a person has to be a believer before she can experience a more personal revelation or understanding. Saul, a non-believer, had a life changing experience on the road to Damascus before becoming known as Paul or St. Paul.

One of my favorite quotes is from him: “I believe, Lord. Help Thou my unbelief.”

[Learjeff]

@cosmosdan

again, your personal belief.

What other belief matters in a question like this? We’re talking about personal revelation. The Bible essentially says “open your mind to God and you’ll find him.” (Pardon my lack of citations, but I’ll find them if you want.) I have not found this to be true, despite a concerted, protracted, and earnest attempt. I was not testing God, I was looking to find Him. In my heart of hearts, I found nothing. After a while, I came to terms with that.

This whole thread is about what we believe and our opinions. It’s not a serious philosophical debate or a question of fact. The serious philosophical debate is best answered by the agnostic position that no matter what, we could be fooled, and the existential position that even if there is a God, we still have the duty to choose right from wrong. While those serious philosophical questions have been answered in my mind, from a practical perspective they’re about as important as the truth that there is very little we can truly know with certainty about the world. I don’t need certainty; I go with a preponderance of the evidence, and I could easily be convinced that there is a God worth following.

In any case, about the Bible claim, one data point proves it inaccurate. If you say “for all s, f(x) = y” but for one x it does not, then the statement has been thoroughly proven incorrect. Of course, you’d have to take my word for it, and I admit that’s not sufficient, so I don’t expect to convince anyone. I just know it to be true (unless, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, there’s some weasel clause allowing God to reveal himself at any time before my death. Seems like a sloppy way to run a universe, but whatever.)

[Learjeff]

@cosmosdan

@Learjeff

… the vast majority of people would believe Him and try to follow His word

This appears to be your personal belief that can’t be substantiaited. I respectfully disagree. I think in short order we’d be in exactlyy the same condition we find ourselves in now.

Of course, it’s just a wild ass guess on my part, just as on yours. Pure speculation.

However, we do have historical regional cases where the vast majority believed, despite concrete evidence. Instead, belief was based on authority, much as we as children believe what our parents tell us, until we reach a certain age where we can think for ourselves (and then usually disbelieve everything they say until we gain a little wisdom through experience.)

Also, it’s how I would respond. Given a clear signal, I’d be very likely to believe it.