No offense, but that’s only convincing to someone who already believes, or someone who only knows about the religion of Christianity. Other religions make the claims towards their holy books, and after examining a few of them, I can’t say which of them I would ‘trust’ more then the others. Keep in mind, I’ve only read perhaps a handful out of the thousands.
Again, this is based on the bible. Which isn’t enough reason for someone to believe.
Quite a few religions have man as evil (or possibly evil). I don’t see any reason to believe that Christianity was the first to come out with this ‘prediction’.
I’ve given you several examples of what would constitute strong proof for me. Not absolute proof, but pretty strong proof. If multiple types of proof of this strength existed, I’d be a believer. So your question is answered before you post it.
One definition of proof is “the resolution of reasonable doubt.” That’s the standard I’m holding for “proof of God’s existence.” However, I’d be happy with any strong evidence in favor of God’s existence; I’ve seen none.
Frankly, that’s a shitty bunch of evidence. Is the Koran enough evidence that Jesus wasn’t the son of God, but was rather just another prophet? Is Dianetics enough evidence that L. Ron Hubbard will bring me to enlightenment?
The naturalistic behavior of humans, the writing of a book, is extremely lousy evidence for an omnipotent being.
Let’s hear it!
Oh, please. Hobbes also described the life of man as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Does that mean that the failure of Communism proves everything he said to be gospel?
Saying that people suck isn’t exactly something unique to Christianity; it’s not some marvelous revelation. I defy you to find me a fourteen-year-old who hasn’t declared that people suck at least once. If this is the best evidence you can give me in favor of Christianity–that it shares a central tenet with the complaints of teenagers–then it’s scarcely surprising that I’m not a believer.
There’s a new qualification now? It not only must predict, it must be first to predict? Are you sure you people are looking for God? It sounds to me like you’re looking for either a really good fortune teller or I Dream of Jeannie.
Suppose I don’t believe you. I mean, I’ve given what I believe are pretty good ways in which people might easily rationalize away what they see. Suppose I demanded of you the same thing you demand of God. Before I will believe that you will accept the proof you claim you will accept, prove it to me. And why shouldn’t He be demanding that of you as well?
I cannot fathom why you believe that suspension of natural law, moving galaxies all about, causing God knows what sort of havoc in the lives of every living thing is something that anyone would want to do, especially a benevolent God.
You have yet to describe an omnipotent being. You have described parlor magicians, astrologers, and advanced technologies. Isn’t the best way to test Him to give yourself over to Him and then see whether He is faithful to His word?
Holy cow. Aren’t you the one who has been demanding that God impart knowledge to His creatures? If He gives His knowledge to every fourteen-year-old, isn’t that fulfilling your requirement? As far as I’m concerned, your weebling and wobbling is evidence that you really wouldn’t believe even if He did in lockstep everything you demand.
I have complete faith in gravity.
I am certain that objects will fall towards the earth, and that the Earth will orbit the Sun each day.
Do you agree? Have scientists proved gravity?
It is easy to say that if you want to believe in God, you can always explain away any problems. Why does God permit natural disasters killing thousands of people? Ah, His ways are mysterious / He is testing our faith / they were all Godless unbelievers…
The only evidence for the resurrection is in 4 books written 30 - 100 years after the event, based on eye-witness accounts. Given the likely lifespan of those days, probably second-hand eye-witness accounts.
This is not proof.
I don’t recall the definition of Communism including ‘people are good by nature’!
How about we look at countries ruled by theocracies. Do you think they demonstrate God’s plan on Earth?
As I said, this would be one of the more difficult tasks for God to accomplish; it may be true that with God, not all things are possible. I listed that task up front as a challenge to the most powerful of Gods, the ones that could change the rules of mathematics in a predictable, replicable fashion; if you don’t see your God up to that challenge, then I listed two other ways the God could provide me with satisfactory evidence.
No. I’m not even sure how to explain the differences–it’s like explaining the difference between C++ and a tangerine. Still, I’ll try.
I’m talking about a phenomenon that:
Can be experienced by the overwhelming majority of the earth’s population (i.e., anyone who is capable of seeing the stars. If God gave sight to the blind for this phenomenon, so much the better!)
Can not be arranged by any human technology.
Is repeated many times in everyone’s lifetime.
Displays unambiguous intent.
Communicates a message consistent with features 1-4.
I’m not talking about an event that happens once. I’m not talking about an event limited to one section of the earth’s populace. I’m not talking about an event that we heard about thousands of years after the fact.
Because they’re trying to collect data, and interference will taint the results of their data collection. This is rather a new metaphor for a Christian to use in a discussion with me: are we God’s lab rats?
I thought the preferred metaphor was that we were his sheep, and he our shepherd. A shepherd does interfere if a sheep is going the wrong way; at the very least, a good shepherd will make certain that a sheep knows the lay of the land.
You use other metaphors involving scientists labelling pills and placebos. You’ll note that when a scientist does this, she’s required by her Human Rights Board to obtain fully-informed consent from all human test subjects (with very few exceptions). In other words, the scientist makes absolutely certain that the test subjects are fully aware of the parameters of the experiment.
That’s all I’m asking God to do.
It’s possible that God is an unethical scientist, but I do not see the evidence of that, either.
So what? It’s God, not you, that needs to believe me. I know I’m telling the truth, and presumably an omniscient God would need to know too; what’s it to me if you don’t?
An omnipotent God could prevent this havoc.
Of course that’s not fulfilling my requirement.
You need to learn about post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The Bible said that people suck; teenagers believe that people suck. There are multiple conclusions we can draw from this evidence:
God inspired this thought in both the Bible and in teenagers.
Teenagers wrote the Bible in a fit of pique.
The idea that people suck is a popular idea, inspiring both the Bible’s authors and teenagers.
If you want me to draw conclusion #1, you need to offer some supporting evidence.
Frankly, it appears to me that you really want to show that I don’t believe in God. I have no idea why you’d want to show such a thing: I’d find the idea of an omnipotent (or even powerful) deity to be fascinating, and giving up religion for atheism was a painful process for me. When I was a teenager, I hungrily grabbed at anything I could consider evidence of the intervention of deities; I would still grab at such evidence, if it appeared.
And I don’t much care if you doubt me, because you’re not the one who could provide me the evidence, anyway.
This is true and whilst I respect your point, the statement “we can’t prove anything” is too often used as a way to imply that all assertions are equal, or sometimes that the assertions we don’t happen to like can be waved away as unreasonable because they can’t be proven.
No, we can’t prove anything (except in mathematics, sometimes), but we can attain certain degrees of confidence in any given assertion; for example, the assertion “local gravity is a force that tends to pull things toward the centre of mass of the Earth” cannot be absolutely proven, but it is something in which we can invest a much greater deal of confidence than, say, the assertion “The tomatoes that appear on plants in my greenhouse are sometimes placed there overnight by small orange monkeys”.
We need to be careful that ‘nothing can be proven’ isn’t used as a handwaving argument either to try to dismiss that which is supported by a great weight of evidence, or to try to lend false credence to that which is not. That’s all I’m saying.
[…shrug…] What’s it to Him if you don’t believe. I mean, there are plenty of believers. Why ought He to do your lap dances and gyrations?
The huh…? You are asking that He both create it AND prevent it?
That’s an awfully weird mutilation of PHEPH (which I know you know I know, so why the condescension?). But that aside… Once again, what is to prevent you from the exact same sort of bizarre rationalization when God jumps through your hoops? Whether it’s tricky dice or circles that aren’t circles, it seems to me that what you’re setting up are tests to prove that an entity is NOT God. I don’t want a benevolent being to make me win at craps or cause me to hallucinate.
I think you just nailed it. You’re not looking for God; you’re looking for intervention.
If we all agree that God is eternal, then the question of what came before what is moot. From His frame of reference, all of existence has not yet begun, is ongoing, and is finished — all at once.
I dunno–because he wants me to have a good chance to understand the nature of the universe? If he doesn’t give a shit if I believe in him, that’s his monkey; I won’t believe in him, and we’re happy.
You’re the one who mentioned creating havoc, not me. I pointed out that a competent being wouldn’t create havoc.
Note that I suggested, offhand, several ways God could prove to everyone that he existed. As Czarcasm pointed out, an omniscient being knows exactly what evidence would suffice; presumably an omniscient, omnipotent being would be able to offer such evidence without creating havoc.
No; I’m looking for evidence. “Find him in your heart” isn’t evidence; that’s a hunch.
Well then, He’s given you exactly what you want. Why are you complaining?
Are you saying that it would not create havoc to move whole galaxies and star clusters into formations that, from earth’s place in the space-time cone, they would appear as the letters you can find by just opening a book? The gravity fluctuations alone might rip whole worlds apart. The past must become the future, and the future the past so that the constellation’s stars that are further away than other stars may be properly aligned. The photons enroute would have to be moved. This is all the same sort of chicanery that I’ve heard nonbelievers condemn about Creationists. To fulfill your requirements, God is supposed to make things look like something they’re not.
But you and Czar are presuming your conclusions. It seems reasonable to me that a Being Whose interest is in free agency wants people to determine for themselves whether He exists. I mean, He already had angels — beings with no choice but to believe. Man is supposed to be like Him, choosing freely what to believe and what to discard.
It’s not a hunch. It’s an instruction. You’re like the man who is carefully studying the instructions on how to assemble a bike. His son asks him, “What are you looking for, Dad?” The man scratches his head, “I was hoping that somewhere in here would be information on where the instructions are.”
Not if God didn’t want it to. Unless God’s not omnipotent.
And yet he’s not satisfied to give me free agency in determining whether chimpanzees exist: I’ve seen them with my own two eyes. Why do you suppose God is more interested in my believing in Monkeys than in believing in the nature of the universe?
Bad analogy. if the bike’s instructions don’t tell me where to find the bicycle components, and I look around and see no components, I’m not going to put much stock in those instructions. If the instructions say, “You’ll find the bicycle in your heart,” and if there’s no bicycle in my heart, I’m not going to put much stock in those instructions.
And if you say that you go bicycling in your heart every day, well, bully for you, but that does me no good. Nor does it convince me that the bicycle exists.
We as a individuals and a people make choices and those choices have consequences. Now choices made here effect not just you and me but the whole world. So in the desire to end human suffering what choices can we make to make things better? Why don’t we have the will and determination to make those choices? What is the truth, about those questions and are they more or less importent than questions like “how many miles is it to the sun?”
Well, okay then. But I must say that it is an odd thing to ask for evidence of something when you’re already satisfied.
Actually, the problem is with you, not Him. Even if He were to make a square circle, you could not perceive it.
I hope you understand that it is possible to carry this all the way back to right where you are. I mean, you want him to alter reality. Then you want him to make you perceive the new reality. And voila, you’re back in reality again, demanding more miracles.
The nature of the universe? I thought you were interested in the nature of God. If you believe that the universe is God, then surely you have your evidence. But if His concern is morality, with the universe being nothing more than a setting for its enactment, then He is right to give you free agency. What possible other context is there for the exercise of free moral will than an amoral world?
I think that’s fair. Unless, of course, you’ve skipped the looking part.
Not at all. I’m satisfied that you can’t make grapefruit and toothpaste taste good in a dish together, and I’m not complaining about that; but if someone insists they’ve made a delectable grapefruit-toothpaste souffle, I’ll ask for evidence.
In other words, you don’t believe me when I say I’d be satisfied by the evidence I say would satisfy me. That’s your business.
But wouldn’t the evidence be just, I don’t know, tasting it? I mean, would you ask the person to arrange his Christmas lights to form “Crest”, or to load dice for you?
But what if He feels the same way? I’m just saying what if. What if His demand is for evidence of your faith first? If you can make all these demands, why can’t He?
Nah, not really. Or not necessarily. See, the thing about infinite beings is their inherent ineffability. The idea that we can even contemplate omniscience is ridiculous; to assume vindictiveness from a tiny glimpse of the picture is even more ridiculous IMO, but I guess I understand the desire.
As to point 5 there, I’m not thinking confusing or vindictive at all. I’m just thinking that God might not give a rat’s ass whether you or I or Czar believe in him or not because belief in god really doesn’t matter, Christian assertion to the contrary.
:shrug: What can I say? If I were religious, I’d be a universalist.
Yes, because he’s not claiming omnipotence. If he’s claiming omnipotence, then that’s what I’d ask him to demonstrate. He could mess with dice, or with the stars, or any of a bajillion other things that a normal human could not do.
Because I’m not omniscient, and this supposed God is. An omniscient God already has all the evidence; it’d be silly for such a deity to demand that I provide evidence.
An omniscient being would know (whereas you would not) that a proof display of itself to one of the many I’ve offered here would be sufficient to convince me of its existence.
