What would it take to prove / disprove the existence of God?

[Barnabas]

God should appear in some way in floating in the sky doing miraculous stuff and say, hi wooh I exist, and cnn would show it

[Richelieu]

[Blake]

This may be semantic wrangling but I say it's impossible by definition to prove the existence of god.

How for example do you distinguish the difference between god and aliens who are more advanced than we can comprehend and capable of impersonating a god in every way that we are capable of percieving?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
True, again it would be Arther C Clarke's old example, any technology sufficiently advanced would appear to those who do not understand it, as magic.

Do something that contravenes the laws of physics.

It's not a foolproof approach, because our knowledge of physics is incomplete. However that is probably the best we can ask for at the moment.

For example, cause a pot of water to boil without a heat source is a good start.

[Blake]

Also I say the best (and prehaps only) example of godly power is destroying the universe, as god should be the only thing capable of existing outside of the universe (kind of by definition). And my destroy I mean exactly that, not just turn everything into monoatomic vapor, but destroyed as in completely gone.

Honestly I would prefer that god declines from any such demonstration, altough it would mean that no-one would doubt his existence.

[Ben Kenobi]

mmm again it makes sense to ask whether or not empirical observations could work with the omni-etc. If not then the same question of "existence in reality or imagination" applies. I disagree that "ordering him around" would be "necessary", at least not in the sense that you mean it.

Let me put it this way. When you study an inanimate object, the intiative is entirely yours. The rock cannot resist, it cannot lie or conceal things from you, and it cannot hide. When you study animals, they can resist and hide, you have to gain their trust before you can really start to learn things about their behaviour. And even then, you can't cut up and slice the animal as you can a rock, to really understand the inner workings.

People, the intiative is equal. If the person does not want you to know anything about him, then you are not going to learn much.

God, the initiative is entirely on his side. You can ask him to perform a miracle or to appear before you, but nothing you can do will necessarily produce the response you want. This is why empirical means do not work, since they require, among other things, a replicable experiment.

Instead it would just require some incontravertable, observable evidence, in which the existence of God can be deduced, as opposed to interpreted.

If one scientist recieved that information, his methodology would not be testable, since another scientist doing the exact same thing would not see the same results.

Same point as above, but would that not cause a problem when better explanations are found, for example, when creationism was usurped as a better explanation for life, when evolution was discovered?

First of all, evolution has not entirely supplanted 'creationism', since by your standard of incontrovertiable evidence, only certain segments of the theory has been confirmed.

Secondly, as in physical theories, the concept of a God who exists need not conflict. Remember Whaleboy, all we are debating is the existance of a God, and not necessarily the God of Isaac, of Jacob and of Abraham.

But you said earlier you can't order him around? Surely you would disagree with applying attributes based upon some core assumptions, when you're dealing with something that's supposedly omnipotent?

Deduction, yes is the term I meant. You can deduce certain characteristics. You hit upon a very good question as to why God would have the characteristics he does if he exists, however you seem to assume those characteristics are arbitrary. I would argue that they flow logically from the concept of God.

However, I personally agree with you, that you can deduce attributes to God. Trouble is that some concur with scripture, most dont, which causes a paradox for the theist.

First of all, theists do not necessarily have to be Christians. We are not that far along yet. I am intrigued to ask, which characteristics do you believe are necessary to assume of God?

[Ben Kenobi]

Well the theist, in response to science, tends to attack science by claiming that it assumes complete homogeny of scientific laws... in other words, a yard is 3 feet everywhere in the universe. In order to make "miracles" happen in the biblical sense, there would need to be exceptions to this rule. It's a necessary assumption upon which his argument depends, but the theist would need to provide a lot more evidence to show both examples and explanations that refute natural explanations.

Actually I have received some most unsatisfactory responses from historians who claim that if it does not have a natural explanation, it must not have happened. Hence a circular argument.

Are you willing to acknowledge that it is possible for things to happen without a sufficient natural explanation?

If the theist is able to do so, do we not have a "God in the gaps" that results? For example, abiogenesis, whereby science currently cannot fully explain where RNA/DNA itself came from; it is nonetheless dangerous ground to claim that it is a miracle in the biblical sense.

If you ask a theist, or a Christian in particular as to the most prominent miracle, I sincerely doubt they would cite abiogenesis. They would likely cite the Resurrection and work from there.

How do you mean?

Look at all the qualities of the Earth required to sustain life. What are the chances of a planet forming with all of these characteristics?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Actually I have received some most unsatisfactory responses from historians who claim that if it does not have a natural explanation, it must not have happened. Hence a circular argument.

Why is it circular argumentation to assume that if something cant be explained by currently known natural explanations, then it probably didn't happen ?

Are you willing to acknowledge that it is possible for things to happen without a sufficient natural explanation?

No. If such a thing happend, then it's because we haven't found the explanation yet.

Look at all the qualities of the Earth required to sustain life. What are the chances of a planet forming with all of these characteristics?

Since there are three planets in this solar system that could sustain life and it has happend on at least one of them, then the chances are above zero and therefore not unrealistic.

[Elok]

There's a wide gap between "probably" and "definitely." Occam's Razor is a useful tool, and very practical, but if it is taken as incontrovertible dogma it's basically reduced to "this subject is hard, it must be false." For practical purposes, the simpler explanation can be considered the truth until it is contradicted by new evidence. It's a rule of thumb, not a law of nature.

Also, given that I, at least, do not claim God as a scientifically verifiable concept (see: apophatic theology), Occam's Razor is irrelevant to this discussion for me. Naturalistic systems of reasoning and supernatural beings are by definition incompatible, I've dragged us here before (prediction: Kuci will soon ask me wtf I mean by "supernatural," and deny that said category exists). The apparent inability or refusal of some people to look at things from a non-scientific perspective would appear to fall under the category of "not my problem." If you deny the possibility of the supernatural, you've shut God out from the beginning: "If one eliminates the chance of any other possible worlds, then this is the best possible world." Ben did a pretty good job of explaining why revelation is essential here.

Faith works on a subrational level; it's a gut instinct, an impulse, an intuition, a yearning. It's also, as history demonstrates, pretty thoroughly embedded in the human psyche. People have to believe in something, they have to have values. Denied a God, they will become fanatics for a political system, a conspiracy theory, anything that can turn everything into cohesive sense and a direction to head in. I choose God, and view science as a useful tool for day-to-day life rather than the road to everything.

I believe, though my attempts to argue it here have proven unsuccessful, that values sans deity are ultimately rootless. They're founded on air and wishes, and as such it seems the only distinction between my beliefs and an atheist's are "possibly false, actual probability indeterminate" (with regards to cosmology), and "apparently false, or else cause unknown" (with regards to ideology). Pick your poison.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Elok
Faith works on a subrational level; it's a gut instinct, an impulse, an intuition, a yearning. It's also, as history demonstrates, pretty thoroughly embedded in the human psyche. People have to believe in something, they have to have values. Denied a God, they will become fanatics for a political system, a conspiracy theory, anything that can turn everything into cohesive sense and a direction to head in. I choose God, and view science as a useful tool for day-to-day life rather than the road to everything.

You are right when you say that faith works on a subrational level but you are totally wrong when you call it a gut instinct etc. Faith in gods is a way to explain what is inexplainable such as a lightning setting a tree into fire - when the reasons how and why this happens, then the thunder god is dead and noone will take you seriously if you claim this particular god exists.

Your claim about that it is embedded in human psyche is also wrong. It is the wanting to explain what is happening around humans that is embedded, and when people doesn't have the means to explain them, they, at least in old time, blamed it on gods.

It is pure BS that people that doesn't belive in a god doesn't have values. I, personally don't belive in a god and I certainly haven't become a fanatic that supports a specific political system, conspiracy therory or other far out. I simply has a life and I'm living it.

I believe, though my attempts to argue it here have proven unsuccessful, that values sans deity are ultimately rootless. They're founded on air and wishes, and as such it seems the only distinction between my beliefs and an atheist's are "possibly false, actual probability indeterminate" (with regards to cosmology), and "apparently false, or else cause unknown" (with regards to ideology). Pick your poison.

If it is so that you can't have any values sans deity, then please explain what god I should choose. As you write it, it is irellevant what god it is and what values this god represents - the important thing is that I belive in a god and follow the rules that the inventors of this god has set up.

[Fake Boris]

The same way you can disprove Santa Claus' existence.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Richelieu

werd

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
The same way you can disprove Santa Claus' existence.

Ehrm, some norwegian researchers has actually proven that Santa is for real :

http://www.physorg.com/news2487.html

[Urban Ranger]

Richelieu + C0ckney,

Please don't circumvent the autocensor. Thanks.

[Whaleboy]

How for example do you distinguish the difference between god and aliens who are more advanced than we can comprehend and capable of impersonating a god in every way that we are capable of percieving?

An interesting point indeed, how would a race so technologically & scientifically inferior tell apart the highly advanced from the omnipotent? I would think they should look for something that is necessary to Omnipotence that they and another finite species would not have... for example, God would not be affected by causality whereas anyone subject to the laws of logic is.

Whether or not they're able to reason like that, or are blown away by neat tecnomagic is a different matter.

It's not a foolproof approach, because our knowledge of physics is incomplete. However that is probably the best we can ask for at the moment.

For example, cause a pot of water to boil without a heat source is a good start.

True, but it wouldn't be an incontravertable proof, rather a God in the gaps argument. If you like, a God in the gaps argument has to reside upon an island of scientific ignorance, and the tide of scientific knowledge is ceaselessly encroaching on it. Your example might be on higher ground than, say, Abiogenesis but that's not to say that in a thousand years, the person that proposes this, if it ever happened, to be a proof of God wouldn't look rather stupid.

Also I say the best (and prehaps only) example of godly power is destroying the universe, as god should be the only thing capable of existing outside of the universe (kind of by definition). And my destroy I mean exactly that, not just turn everything into monoatomic vapor, but destroyed as in completely gone.

Honestly I would prefer that god declines from any such demonstration, altough it would mean that no-one would doubt his existence.

I like the way you think

God, the initiative is entirely on his side. You can ask him to perform a miracle or to appear before you, but nothing you can do will necessarily produce the response you want. This is why empirical means do not work, since they require, among other things, a replicable experiment.

It's a very good point, but its a bit of a red herring since it assumes that God exists, which is what we're trying to determine in this instance. There, you are illustrating the problems in analysing God's behaviour, which you might say is somewhat further down the line.

If one scientist recieved that information, his methodology would not be testable, since another scientist doing the exact same thing would not see the same results.

Ah you misunderstand. What I really want here is a scientific theory or philosophical proposition, or at least the framework under which one might be formed. All scientific theories are falsifiable, that's what makes them the "truth" so to speak. You need a slightly more sophisticated idea of "truth" than that which they give you in sunday school / Chedar, but that's just a question of semantics. If one provides an unfalsifiable argument, then by definition it's bollocks, unless contained within it can somehow miraculously debase the entire notion of scientific method for determining the way the universe works. By that statement, I dont mean to say the inner workings of the human "soul" as you might call it, but we've discussed that point before, I dont want to get bogged down for the moment.

First of all, evolution has not entirely supplanted 'creationism', since by your standard of incontrovertiable evidence, only certain segments of the theory has been confirmed.

My standard of incontravertible evidence is basically evidence which points to one conclusion when linked to other available evidence. A scientific theory that emerges from this shouldn't really need to be interpreted or inferred; like evolution it more or less deduced. The method of proving a hypothesis to make a theory, allows us to throw light on this mountain of evidence by working backward along a priori.

Secondly, as in physical theories, the concept of a God who exists need not conflict. Remember Whaleboy, all we are debating is the existance of a God, and not necessarily the God of Isaac, of Jacob and of Abraham.

Fair enough, in which case we have to separate God from scripture and put the latter to the side for a while. Do we agree then that the idea of God we are working on at the moment is according to the OP?

you seem to assume those characteristics are arbitrary. I would argue that they flow logically from the concept of God.

How so?

I am intrigued to ask, which characteristics do you believe are necessary to assume of God?

Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent are primary.

Creator and possibly ultimate destroyer of the universe is secondary. This is not necessary to the primary attributes, as I understand it.

Able / willing to influence us (Problem of Evil argument) is tertiary. This could flow logically from the secondary attributes, I would be intrigued to see how you would argue that. I've got a couple of arguments for and against, but you've got an obviously different perspective I need to hear.

Loves us and wants us to be happy is quartenary. This naturally flows from the tertiary characteristics, again part of the Problem of Evil. One could oppose that and say "Does God hate us?" and turn the problem of evil into the problem of Good? Which perspective you take depends upon the tertiary characteristics.

Actually I have received some most unsatisfactory responses from historians who claim that if it does not have a natural explanation, it must not have happened. Hence a circular argument.

I would also consider that an unsatisfactory response as it demonstrates a closed, dogmatic mind which will be the undoing of every self-respecting scientist... or any person who is learned. Remember, as someone who argues from science, I have to take on my shouders a certain humility that you needn't, since science does not know it all, does not pretend to, and anyone who claims or acts otherwise is a fool. I am even open to the idea of science proving God as it has proven evolution, but I'm working on the evidence I have today. Could something historically have occured that contravenes the laws of physics? The laws of logic by which we all abide, say no. That is a deduction based upon the premise that 2 + 2 has always equalled 4. If you can show historically that this needn't be the case, I'm more than willing to listen, but I do not think that this question is open to the same doubt that a history might have. One does not need an audit trail and certified documentation to prove that logic was punching its clock 6000 years ago.

Are you willing to acknowledge that it is possible for things to happen without a sufficient natural explanation?

Depends. If you're asking me to acknowledge that its possible for things to happen without a sufficient natural explanation today, based on the information available, then yes, because the information available is always to some extent, incomplete. Scientific progress would to provide more light on the matter in the future. If you're asking me to accept that, hypothetically, with all possible available evidence, a natural explanation will fail, then I will not accept that. That is because I work on the premise of scientific method, which in that case, you would have to refute in order to proceed with your proposition.

If you ask a theist, or a Christian in particular as to the most prominent miracle, I sincerely doubt they would cite abiogenesis. They would likely cite the Resurrection and work from there.

I'm not sure about that, I consider the idea of life itself to be a far more beautiful thing than some dude getting nailed to a tree and living; but then, I'm not a Christian and I think it's a minefield to say that something is inherently more "miraculous" than another.

Look at all the qualities of the Earth required to sustain life. What are the chances of a planet forming with all of these characteristics?

The chances are irrelevant since theories such as evolution do not propose that the atoms of the world were chucked together like a kid would throw hundreds&thousands on a birthday cake. That life fits it so perfectly is consequent of cumulative selection in the case of life, not a condition (if it were any different, you and the rest of life wouldn't be in your current form asking the question).

Faith works on a subrational level; it's a gut instinct, an impulse, an intuition, a yearning.

Might you think it rational if someone were to argue that it had more to do with the human urge for society than some primal spirituality?

that values sans deity are ultimately rootless

Then you have a problem

1: We have values
2: Values require deity to have a point
3: values have a point
4: Deity exists

Which begs important questions of the "point", as well as the assumption of point 2. Remember GE Moores system of ethics whereby he proposes a system that does not depend on a God? Now I dont agree with his method or his results but importantly, he shows that it's possible, thus refuting point 2 of my understanding of your argument. Correct me if I am wrong above, I dont want to strawman you.