I often see it stated on this site by many posters that they view and describe themselves as atheists or agnostics because there is no evidence for God.

So what evidence would convince you that God is real? For argument's sake, let's stick with the definition that you believe is most often used in mainstream Christianity; if you wish to use a different definition please state so in your response. Thank you.

If he came up to me and showed me his ID........maybe.
Other than that, I'm happy just to be recovering from that little church.

That's what he hand shakes and passwords are for. He doesn't have to carry an ID if he knows how to properly nail your hand.

I would like a ghawd who practiced birth control and taught in a one-room school house and laughed a lot.

OP has apparently restricted the field to the God described in the Bible. So for me to believe in that god, I too would require him (it has to be a male, per the book) to appear in person and show me a real sign.

And no, people who seek after a sign are not wicked and adulterous. That is the phrase of a con man. People who seek after a sign are demanding proof. That's called smarts.

What would the nature of that sign be such that it couldn't be duplicated or imitated by a being inferior to God.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2019 03:59PM by lurking in.

A God defined by most Christians could certainly figure out what to do to convince everyone. Ask God directly and get back to us.


Anything that uses "faith" is not evidence. Guess why the Christian dogma requires faith.

Some on this thread seem to think I believe in God. I don't.

I'm simply asking if there is any evidence YOU (and any others) can think of that would convince you that there is indeed a God that fits the description that you perceived is embraced by Christianity.

Even if he/she/it appeared in front of me, I could put it down to a hallucination. Even if he/she/it came down and moved a mountain, I might think it was just an alien race trying to fool us.

In today's world, I guess it would take an awful lot. I'm content to just leave the question unanswered.

The greatest scientific effort took history's biggest, most expensive scientific instrument, to see the tiniest particle in the universe, the God Particle.
The greatest achievement of human history. We finally have a picture of what was once before, omnipresent, but nowhere. It meets all the qualifications of a divine creator, omnipresent, yet nearly undetectable, it slows down energy to create all the building blocks of nature, God Particles, ghost particles, gluons, muons, anti particles, everything that matters, the elements, energy, eventually, DNA, life, you, me.
And we can see how its achieved, how we can get life from non life, matter from energy, energy from matter, in one, super symmetrical, eternal round,
singularity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2019 04:04PM by schrodingerscat.

They got the idea from Bill Hicks.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EBl8b3x-EJw

Tell me what god would want you to say to me to convince me.

I don't know what that evidence would look like. I do know that it would have to be repeatable, independently verifiable, testable, etc.

In other words, the evidence would have to be, well, evidence, and not the silly justifications so commonly called "evidence" by the believer community at large.

I think I would be impressed if someone discovered a mathematical formula which led to a god or creator of some sort. That wouldn't necessarily mean that the creator still exists though.

Okay, fine...but wouldn't a good, kind, caring, merciful ghawd/creator have made pi equal to 3?

Actually, it was 3 for the ancient Babylonians. But they also had a highly precise rational arithmetic system. The Plimpton 322 tablet gives some interesting insights on how they thought about geometry. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jyDXAtho-Fg

I'm right here. God can speak to me any time s/he sees fit. S/he doesn't, so I just carry on as I see fit.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm right here. God can speak to me any time s/he
> sees fit. S/he doesn't, so I just carry on as I
> see fit.


Aha! You won't ghawd onto the condo property to solicit! So whose fault is that?!

That is true, EOD. God had better move quickly when the opportunity presents itself. lol

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2019 09:18PM by felix.

As SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart said, “I know it when I see it.”

So far, I haven’t seen any evidence for a god, and I don’t expect I ever will. Asking “what evidence would convince you” is a foolish attempt at twisting a persons words into a “proof”.

Most Christian believers in God claim that God is "perfect." What does "perfect" mean, anyway? The Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible which are usually translated as "perfect" mean complete, faultless, whole, plain, finished, honest.

The same believers usually claim that God has always existed. That is, there was never a time when God did not exist. And, we must assume, there was never a time in God's existence when he was not perfect. Believers insist that God never changes, so he must have always been perfect.

Believers can cite scriptural passages to support all these claims: God is perfect, God has always been perfect, God does not change.

But then believers go on to say things about God that deny his being perfect.

Why would a perfect God create a universe? Imagine God, in the eternities before he created the universe. What was he doing? Remember, he was perfect. He needed nothing, he wanted for nothing. He was perfectly content, since if he was not content with himself, it would imply that he was needing something else. What would a perfect being, perfectly content, need? Nothing. It would be inconsistent with the idea of perfection to use the verb "want" with a perfect being as the subject, as in "God wanted to create mankind..." Merely saying that amounts to an admission that God was not perfect.

Even if God's wanting to create something he did not already have does not make us doubt God's perfection, how about the universe that he created? One would think that a perfect creator would create a perfect creation. But everyone, even believers, admits that the universe is not perfect. It is riddled with problems, not the least of which is the existence of evil. Can a perfect God create evil? (Some Bible passages even admit that God can do evil: Ex 32:14, Job 42:11, Amos 3:6.) Or (just as bad) allow evil to exist and continue to exist? Believers try to excuse God for creating (or allowing) evil by asserting that God gave his creatures "free will" and is therefore not responsible for the evil done by his creations. But would a perfect being deserve to be called perfect (especially "perfectly good") to have created such imperfect creatures that they were not also perfectly good, and thus incapable of doing evil?

Let's look again at the perfect God before he created anything. What was he doing? Since he had not yet created anything, there was nothing for him to be acting upon or even contemplating. He was the only thing that existed. Was he just thinking? About what? He can only have been thinking about himself. (Can you be perfect and narcissistic?) He cannot have gotten bored, since that would imply dissatisfaction and incompleteness. Perhaps time did not yet exist. That would have helped, since nothing - absolutely nothing - would have been happening. There would have been no "moment to moment." Was God simply planning something in his mind? Not possible, since God does not change. What was in his mind cannot have varied - it must have always been there. And change can take place only over time, and time did not yet exist. Or maybe it did.

So why did God decide at some particular moment to create the universe? If he was perfect, and unchanging, he cannot have decided anything of the sort. He would have simply remained the perfect, complete, solitary, timeless being that he was, frozen, immobile, in a single timeless state.

It seems that the existence of the universe, rather than being evidence for the existence of God (as many believers assert) is instead evidence that the perfect God they believe in does not exist, and never did.

But how would such a being even know he was perfect? If the only thing in existence is a perfect entity, how do you recognize the perfection? If imperfection doesn't exist at all, what does "perfect" really mean?

I can't imagine what it would be like to exist as a tree or a mushroom; can a perfect being, with nothing else to use as a frame of reference, imagine anything imperfect?

Aaaahh, maybe he was just perfectly bored.

Thanks, Richard.

I have always appreciated and enjoyed your contributions here.

Why does it have to be "God", that of an idea implanted in our minds with the first primates. Either by a crazed nut job telling a story, or a real space faring civilization.

Why can't "God" be a space faring civilization instead of a religious figure. It makes sense with the amount of scientific fact in the world.

People seem to be suffering a mass delusion with the "God" nonsense.

You may have heard about the speculation that our universe is a "simulation." That super-intelligent alien beings programmed it into a computer of some kind and are having fun just watching and studying us.

When we receive email from HeavenlyFather@CelestialCity.com, the matter will be settled.

If god is all powerful why did it take him six days to create the universe ?

Exactly.

Are you kidding? It took other Gods seven days, even eight sometimes!

Did you use the scientific method to come to that conclusion?

I have cousins in the afterlife. They tell me these things, at considerable volume, as I walk screaming and gesticulating through Costco.

are you the one who wears a robe and has a loud squeeze horn?

That isn't a squeeze horn. It is the spirits.

Clouds. The moon. The eyes of a newborn. Stamina. Resilience. Courage. Sacrifice. Generosity. Honor. Goodness. Love. Music. Sleep. Food. Work. Learning. Improvement. Character. Will. Desire. Legacy. Hope. Dignity. Life.

Here is a more precise framing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeBpsiFQiTI

Well, that’s tough. Even if someone came up to me and told me “I’m God. And I’ll prove it to you by turning this car into a house.” Who says that this is a proof of God? I’d probably think he’s a powerful magician

Exactly. David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear.

God is claimed to be all-powerful. So god should therefore be able to eliminate horrific pain and abuse.

Unless someone can tell me why it is good for little kids to be abused, tortured, raped.

So I don't care if god does exist, if he/it can't act in a decent way with all that power, I want nothing to do with him.

There is no excuse for his neglect.

I think the litmus test for a god proving its divinity is providing customized evidence sufficient to convince each of its creations of said divinity.

The Christina God?

A start to being Omni-evident would be for His Omniscience to stop being Omni-absent and speak to the whole world at the same time as he showed himself to the whole world at the same time which should be a piece of cake for him since the Christian God is supposedly Omnipresent and Omnipotent.

To paraphrase a legal axiom: "When you have the evidence, pound the evidence. When you lack the evidence, pound the Bible."

GregS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To paraphrase a legal axiom: "When you have the
> evidence, pound the evidence. When you lack the
> evidence, pound the Bible."


And when you have neither, pound the table!

I saw a lot of pulpit pounding growing up Catholic, though most of the priests were pretty mellow. Some of the priests, however, were all fire and brimstone, and I remember Father Boschert, in particular.

Whenever he came up in the rotation, you could count on a red-faced, pulpit-pounding sermon about how we are all going to hell if we didn't repent immediately...right now! He was never boring, and it was impossible to sleep through his sermons with all that pounding. Even my devout dad thought Father Boschert was a little over the top...or edge.

The God concept is a faith based belief. If someone chooses to belief it, good for them. If they don't, it's their business and no one has a right to demand evidence or explanations.

Easy Peasy. If three amputees lost limbs are regrown without anything other than intercessionary prayer to that one god. That is it. Nothing else. I would immediately become a believer.

Any takers???

HH =)

>" For argument's sake, let's stick with the definition that you believe is most often used in mainstream Christianity"

The problem is that even that isn't a definition. In Christianity, the definition for "God" varies wildly and are often contradictory.

God is a "person" who looks like us.
God is everything and everywhere and has no shape or form.
God is all powerful.
God must obey the rules of nature.
God is all knowing and has a plan for us.
God listens to our prayers and changes his mind based on them.
God is a "trinity".
God is Jesus.
God is Jesus' father.

And the biggest problems come in when some Christians claim that by their definition, God either can not be defined (because he's so far beyond us we can't understand him) and/or God requires "Faith" and is therefore, by design, unprovable.

What would constitute "proof" of God? First, you define which God, even among the Christian ones, you're talking about and then we'll talk. "Proof" varies wildly between them...

But for argument's sake, let's say some event that irrefutable goes against Natural laws is both predicted by God, and the event happens as described. Note, the communication should done in such a way that either can not be claimed by anyone, nor technologically possible, i.e. the communication couldn't have come from any other source but a supernatural agent. The Event must be something that also could not be faked by any human or natural means. I have no idea what this would be, because who knows what could be faked and or witnessed by people credible enough to validate it.

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >" For argument's sake, let's stick with the
> definition that you believe is most often used in
> mainstream Christianity"

Why use that definition?
What's wrong with using Einstein's definition? Which is the same as Sagan's, Hawking's and Kaku's.

You'll notice I was quoting the OP for the purpose of pointing out the problem of said "definition".

As for your "definition" it isn't a definition at all. As many people have pointed out to you, it's taking another word, nature, and re-defining it by taking quotes (often out of context or ignoring other things they've said on the subject) from random famous people who confirm your bias. Nature, as seen by the very people you describe doesn't need a "god" behind it, it's just nature.

A onetime event is not enough to overcome an entire world's history that clearly demonstrates no consistent application of any god-like influence.

It's interesting, isn't it?

If one is a believer, the question is what piece of evidence would persuade non-believers of God's existence. But once a person has become an unbeliever, it soon becomes apparent that a single piece of evidence is inadequate. What is necessary is a coherent, consistent record.

There must be both evidence of God and an explanation for the lack of evidence of God over time.