Assuming the god we’re talking about is the omiscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Judeo-Christian god, I’m gonna need a damn good explanation of all the miracles he hasn’t been performing.
Matthew 12:38-39
Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”
He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
Also, if the OP ever returns:
Why do you ask?
Do you think that there’s a graph with X+Y axis where X is the magnitude of miracle and Y s the frequency. And at some certain point, a non -believer will say: “By Jove, tis truly a miracle. It must be the finger of God. I must repent at once!”
I don’t think that’s the way faith works. Although, being free from religion, I’m probably not the best arbiter on faith.
IME the question usually comes up in the context of dismissing some miracle.
That is, the believer will normally cite some anecdote of a friend of a friend who prayed and got well. Or cite one of the stories from the Bible. When the nonbeliever remains unconvinced, the question becomes “Well, what would convince you?”
Which I guess is a fair question. And my answer is in two parts (I know I’ve already answered in this thread, but I’m speaking more broadly now):
Firstly, it does have to be something pretty spectacular on its face. “Extraordinary claims…” and all that.
But secondly, it needs to be some kind of “interactive truth”. Just a one-off event leaves all kinds of questions. It needs to be some set of circumstances that we can probe, and form an understanding. I’m not saying understand everything God understands, but understand something, on our terms. I wouldn’t be satisfied with “Magic trick – can’t explain – therefore God”.
I’m not pkbites but I’m also a deist. The answer is that the mere existence of the universe is sufficient evidence to prove that it was created. We know that the universe has not always been there. Anything that happened before, or if there even was a before as we understand the word, isn’t amenable to scientific inquiry. As such “I don’t know” is a perfectly reasonable answer to where the universe came from.
Any further debate on what caused or happened before the Big Bang is merely semantics, whether one uses the term creator, quantum fluctuation, spontaneous creation of a (slightly unbalanced) matter / anti-matter pair, unknown actor, god, or any other word or phrase. We’ve had similar debates in the past on this board. If I recall correctly, some of the atheists took issue with using the word god in such a context, but I personally don’t see the problem.
The problem arises when someone goes from believing in a creative god to a personal god who intervenes in individual lives, listens to prayers, and dispenses judgement and eternal punishments.
If someone wants to call math and physics “god” i guess we can agree that god created the the universe. The rest is hogwash, though.
It’s sufficient evidence that it came into existence, yes.
Why do you think that makes it evidence that there was a conscious creator?
Why do you think (yes, it’s a different question) that that makes it evidence of having been created by something outside/not part of the universe?
Or do you not mean either of the options in my questions above, and you’re considering “quantum fluctuation” or “spontaneous creation of a (slightly unbalanced) matter / anti-matter pair” to qualify as a “creator”? Because if so, I don’t think that’s what most people mean by the word.
As for the OP, I think there are some interesting answers. Take the annual death pool thread. I’d be convinced that something supernatural happened if someone went a perfect 13 of 13, won all the prizes for unique picks, first and last death of the year, and so on, as well as making an addendum that included a list of every other celebrity to die in a given year, including date of death and cause and circumstances surrounding their death. Making a leap from supernatural to deity would be a different task, but at that point I’d certainly be willing to listen to additional claims.
It may be the case that meeting an entity which is ‘close enough’ to being God is the best we can hope for.
If we were to encounter an entity which could produce an illusion of paradise which is arbitrarily extended, and which includes accurate facsimiles of all the people we have ever known, while altering us in any way necessary to make this new existence agreeable, then all but the most dyed-in-the-wool skeptics would be convinced.
But I suspect that such an entity need not be omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent.
If there were a god-like being which was limited to the Milky Way galaxy, or just to the local galactic arm (or even the closest thousand stars), it could have a complexity far beyond our comprehension and fulfil all our hopes and dreams, while having dominion over a mere infinitesimal fraction of the visible universe. Such an entity may be worthy of worship in almost every respect, but it need not be the creator of the universe.
Why would we even want to be in contact with the creator of the universe, or of the far larger multiverse - she probably has much more important fish to fry.
So if we decided it must be ‘God’, the next question is, “Which one?” I’d he frantically trying to figure out if I should throw my kid into a volcano, worship trees, or join a big battle so I can die gloriously and make it into Valhalla.
If the oceans parted, the most likely God would be Poseiden. What do we have to do to get into his good graces?
I was going to ask Blaise Pascal, but he’s busy losing his shirt in a poker game.
-
The laws of thermodynamics make me think that wherever our universe came from, it isn’t just from a different part of the same universe. So far as we know, the creation of even one quark or electron without a corresponding anti-particle has never happened in our universe, much less an entire universe worth of such particles. The best our universe is seemingly capable of is a pseudo-creation where one particle is sucked into a black hole while the anti-particle escapes.
-
I think the term god with a small g just sounds cool to use in the context of describing the creation of the universe. I personally have no problems separating the belief in such a creator from some sort of deity that has a personal interest in humans, the latter of which I’m certain doesn’t exist.
Maybe, but the anticipation’s terrible.
Only in some sects.
Pope Francis has reconfirmed that Jews go to heaven also.
Some sects think that Good people of any religion can go to their faith’s heaven.
And there is the concept of the Virtuous Pagans.
Good idea.
I don’t ask for much- as someone between a “doubting christian” and a “skeptical agnostic” I will settle for this- trump tells another pants-on-fire lie, and immediately gets hit by lighting. Yes, that could be explained by natural phenomena, but good enough for me. 
Yes, I think that something like Jesus showing up, saying and doing the same kinds of things that Jesus said and did in the Bible, would have a better chance of convincing people than a one-off miraculous spectacle.
Given how little Jesus actual did on the miracle front he’d be dismissed as a petty charlatan, and given what he actually said and preached he’d be renounced by the religious right as a communist hippie. (And he’d probably look far too Jewish to be believed as the King of the Jews, too.)
You want miracles that impress, go straight to the top. Though you’re right for people to buy that God is God he’d have to keep it up rather than being one-and-done.
I’m still waiting for @velocity to come up with a coherent, testable definition of god. Because that’s essentially what this thread is about: a personal test for god. Except as an atheist I have, almost by definition, no personal god to test for.
I daresay I’m at risk of becoming an igtheist.
I assure you, Iggy is real. Read, hear his sermons, believe
Want me to help you down the path? I once decided a styrofoam cup that I had on my desk was a god. (Not the God, a god. The God, of course, doesn’t exist.) I decided that it was omniscient and omnibenevolent, but not omnipotent. In fact it was barely ‘potent’ at all - it had all the powers and abilities of an ordinary styrofoam cup. (Though it did exist in actual reality, giving it a leg up on some gods I could name.) After coming to this diverting and very arbitrary conclusion about the cup’s nature, I realized two rather startling things.
- I was completely incapable of proving that my theories about the cup were false. It really could have been a god incarnate. I had no way to prove otherwise.
- I was technically no longer an atheist, since I definitely believed in the existence of that cup.
There really are no defining qualities of a god that that cup lacked. Not all gods are immortal or unkillable. Not all gods are powerful. Not all gods speak to mortals. There really are no qualifications to be a god at all, besides somebody, anybody, declaring it so.
I forget which Dungeons & Dragons book the spell Solopsism is from. The text ends with an explanation that scholars think there is a god of solopsism. He doesn’t talk to or grant spells to his followers, as he doesn’t believe they really exist.
And that makes me ask the question, is the creator the one who designed and wrote the simulator that we live in, or just a consumer who installed a very advanced version of The Sims on their computer?
The first word of Genesis is (roughly transliterated) “b’raisheet”. It is most commonly translated as “In the beginning” suggestion a creation ex nilho ( I think that’s the correct term). But some translate it as “When G-d began” which can be read to mean a pre existing cosmos, other deities, or a deity higher than the G-d of the Bible.