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

[Robert]

Jon: I'm not trying to say that I know how the prophecies are going to be fullfilled or something. (eventhuogh I have my ideas, I know it's all just a human thought) (I wish more atheists would concider their own thought to be just only human thoughts though)

It's just that I try to say that things are happening with Israel and the Middle East.
The prophecy of Zechariah is quiet clear IMHO though.

Elok: that's true, though I think everybody agrees that the ME problems are in a totally different league then the balkan problem. And that the problem with the jews is of a totally different signature. The persecutions during the middle ages, the holocaust. The intended genocide in Stalin Russia.

It's not that I say: "This is the ultimate proof"
It's just: "This is as much proof sa you will get"

[Flip McWho]

Man you miss out on a lot when you get to one of these threads a few pages along.

Just thinking,

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.

Here it seems to mention a God who is changing through time. Thus its possible to infer that God is improving, for example the peace and love thy neighbour of Christ compared to the intervening smiting God of the OT. If God is improving it would seem to work against the all-knowing and perfectly good attributes. In the example of the Christ God to the OT God you can infer a improvement in Gods attribute of being perfectly good, which doesn't work. Yes?

[Ted Striker]

There is no god, only PAULINA PORIZKOVA!!!!

Launch that **** Jon!

[Flip McWho]

On the topic at hand:

There are about three sources of proof for Gods existence.
1) from the holy book
2) through peoples communication with God
3) miracles, or things that contravene the laws of physics; as they are complete, not what we know now; also if you wanna be nice you could use events that fit within the laws but are spontaneous (sp?), for example an instant hurricane.

The first starts with the assumption that God exists and is circular argumentation. However given the fact that we cannot know everything about the history of this world we cannot falsify the books account in its entireity. However we can bring enough doubt upon enough sections of the book that it brings the first assumption back into consideration, the onus removed from us to disprove and moved onto the those who have to now prove rather than assume.

Secondly, who, heap of issues surrounding this one. Soo many different types of conflicting gods with which people talk to. Are the actually in communication with God? Communication with God has to be people who actively talk or got talked too by God, not your everyday church goer who believes God is with them.

The last one is where the only real proof for Gods existence can lie. Its the only one that is objective enough to be convincing enough for everyone. Interesting to note is that it is you cannot infer any attributes to a God through just a miracle test. Attributes require the other two to describe. A miracle just proves that there exists a being that is either able to contravene the laws of physics (completed laws) or provide a spontaneous event that is sufficiently awe inspiring, not a being that has specific attributes outside of omnipotent and omniscient.

However given no evidence of the last one you cannot still entirely disprove the notion of a God that does not intervene with the universe in anyway. This would be an omnipotent and omniscient creator so to speak.

[Robert]

Can you name such a miracle that would really make everyone a believer?
I doubt if such a thing can be done. Believing in God is not a result of what you see or what you experience or whatever proof one gets. Believing in God depends on the question if you want any god to be available.

If people don't want God to be, they'll never believe he's there anyway. Like I said, not even if God is standing on their toes.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Thinking a bit more, believing that there is no God is basically ignorant, and a cop out from the "difficult" questions, mostly

"Why are people who claim to believe in God mostly tyrants and liars" a total antithesis to what they proclaim they/their God should be.
or "If God is this and that or if he exists, why doesn't he do something", as in no action - no reason for belief.

Most people are one of the two categories. The second one certainly looks rock solid, but from my POV it is just a different action and not action that either religous fundies or plain unbelievers would expect.

But my main reason why I think that, there indeed is God or an entity that could proclaim that "claim" and that we would be satisfied if he revealed himself in the physical sense, is the very miracle that we exist at all.

To be more precise, the very facts that we accept about the universe to be true. It's age, the process of evolution and our existance added together = God on a longer time scale. Since the universe as we know about it already existed for many billion years, God is inevitable.

So the main quesition is "Who is he" or "What does he want" - given the abundance of "God speak" during human history, it is quite clear as to "What does he want" - which would be pretty nicely summarized in "Love your neighbour" which is prevalent accross all religions in one form of another.

Now what do we people do is quite a different story, but believing that there is no God is merely a cop out.

[Flip McWho]

Can you name such a miracle that would really make everyone a believer?
I doubt if such a thing can be done. Believing in God is not a result of what you see or what you experience or whatever proof one gets. Believing in God depends on the question if you want any god to be available.

If people don't want God to be, they'll never believe he's there anyway. Like I said, not even if God is standing on their toes.

Yes I can.

The spontaneous hurricane i mentioned in the post would classify as one. Of course you'd have to have the majority of weather people and scientists in agreeance that this hurricane was indeed spontaneous and uncaused by all normal things that cause hurricanes. Any natural even would occur, as long as it was proveably spontaneous.

As far as contravening the laws of physics there are a few. As UR suggested, making water boil without any source of heat. Allowing somebody to fly without aid. Resurrecting somebody, though jesus doesn't count given the automatic bias. As long as this miracle was done on a large enough scale (read large enough audience, preferably something world wide (how about God taking control of all tvs in the world and at the exact same moment of time make them all show "I AM GOD AND I AM REAL") Many people will believe given sufficient evidence. Only the fanatical will continue not believing. That's on a societal level.

As for myself personally, I'd have to have a conversation with God, when I'm not on anything or just had anything and after a shrink has given me a clean mental health, where God revels itself to me, then I'd personally believe in a God.

[Flip McWho]

Now what do we people do is quite a different story, but believing that there is no God is merely a cop out.

My ass. Beleiving in God is a cop out. Those difficult questions aren't even difficult and pose no relevance to the subject at hand.

[Robert]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
So the main quesition is "Who is he" or "What does he want" - given the abundance of "God speak" during human history, it is quite clear as to "What does he want" - which would be pretty nicely summarized in "Love your neighbour" which is prevalent accross all religions in one form of another.

So, what if this is indeed what he wants from us.
And since every human more or less feels obligated to do this as well, and value their morals.

Let's make the simple step and conclude that God wants us to love each other and live in peace.

What if we are not able to do that?
Maybe we do agree with God, but we, humans, are not capable to live in love to the other and live in peace.
What do we do in that case?

[Flip McWho]

My question is why do we need God to make us love each other anyways? Is it only through the fear of reprisal after our death that makes us obey? If it is God threatens us to love each other.

In that case we make laws of the society based on an equal application to all and towards a maxim that we can be free to do anything as long as we aren't in the process coerceing anyone else. God is an unnecessary waste.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by CyberShy


So, what if this is indeed what he wants from us.
And since every human more or less feels obligated to do this as well, and value their morals.

Let's make the simple step and conclude that God wants us to love each other and live in peace.

What if we are not able to do that?
Maybe we do agree with God, but we, humans, are not capable to live in love to the other and live in peace.
What do we do in that case?

There you go... now we get into "mystical" realm that religions are here to fill... hmmm I'd say everyone to his own, if God exists, search and you will find

However I wouldn't go that far to advocate a particular religion, I would advocate a lifestyle, but any atheist could do the same if he wanted, and most "stable" people regardless of religous/atheist background will agree that "moral" actions are better regardles of underlying belief system etc...

IMO the "search" part is important and than if there is a God and you can indeed communicate with him (whatever it might be, prayer, thoughts, meditation, whatever works for you) you will get directions. I'd say that different things work best for different people, and there indeed is a lot of choice nowdays in that regard.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Flip McWho




As far as contravening the laws of physics there are a few. As UR suggested, making water boil without any source of heat. Allowing somebody to fly without aid. Resurrecting somebody, though jesus doesn't count given the automatic bias. As long as this miracle was done on a large enough scale (read large enough audience, preferably something world wide (how about God taking control of all tvs in the world and at the exact same moment of time make them all show "I AM GOD AND I AM REAL") Many people will believe given sufficient evidence. Only the fanatical will continue not believing. That's on a societal level.

God will do that at the 2nd coming.

JM

[Elok]

Re: God "proving" himself, I'm not sure He wants to. Thinking specifically of the God of the J-C tradition, the original story of the Fall did not have disbelief in God as the problem. Adam spoke with God every evening; he'd have to be pretty dense to think God didn't exist. Rather, the problem was disobedience and rejection: "I know you exist, but you're just an old jerk. Screw you, I don't have to be your slave."

So at least some number of us want to reject the deity. We weren't the first. Lucifer rejected God too. Lucifer, being eternally aware of God, regards Him as an eternal enemy and has been fighting, just for spite, for all of human history, knowing full well that he can't and won't win.

Humans have been shown to be not much different. Given an enemy, we will fight that enemy relentlessly, even if we have little to gain by it. Witness the current war between the red and blue in the USA. It's ripping the country apart and ruining us, but nobody seems to care, we have to stop "them."

So, plan B: give us some space. Let the Prodigal Son go his own way, but give him the conscience and Gospel to show him the way home. Those of us who look for God tend to find Him. For those who don't want to...given no solid enemy to fight, we will be forced to examine ourselves in the end.

I'm not offering this as "proof" of God, just the reason I believe He's not bothering with proof.

[Robert]

Elok is very right. The christian God doesn't want you to believe in his existance.
The question is: are you your own god and will you create your own morals and decide yourself over good and evil, or do you accept a higher power in your life who's your God.

So, if love is the most important message in life, then the question to you is: are you able to truly love? Or do you hate others oftenly and fail to live up to the most important thing of life?

If you think you're doing a good job: then you can continue to be your own God. Just don't blame God for not being your God anymore. (which is in fact what 'hell' is, being outside the presense of God, all by yourself)

[Ben Kenobi]

Here it seems to mention a God who is changing through time. Thus its possible to infer that God is improving, for example the peace and love thy neighbour of Christ compared to the intervening smiting God of the OT. If God is improving it would seem to work against the all-knowing and perfectly good attributes. In the example of the Christ God to the OT God you can infer a improvement in Gods attribute of being perfectly good, which doesn't work. Yes?

You are right that in the OT God does much more smiting, and less forgiving, but the real question is why? What is the fundamental change in the relationship between God and man that seperates the old testament from the new? I would say that Christ coming to earth incarnate, and dying on the cross profoundly changes the situation.