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

[Whaleboy]

Just had this thought while reading the ID nonsense thread, and it occured that this question makes far more sense than the seemingly ancient "Does God exist?". So I'm more interested here in definitions... differences between atheist and theist camps should lead naturally to their arguments, and it should be easy to see who has the flawed assumptions.

By God, we should probably start with the monotheistic concept we all know and love, the omniponent, omniscient creator who loves us and has interest in our lives and supposedly our actions. There are other ways you can approach an idea of God of course, pantheism being a good example.

So what would it require in terms of arguments and evidence to prove this God? What would it take to disprove? Any thoughts before I add my two cents tomorrow?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You can't. It's a matter of faith, so any arguments and evidence would fall flat, unless you can actually, physically show God.

[Pekka]

"By God, we should probably start with the monotheistic concept we all know and love, the omniponent, omniscient creator who loves us and has interest in our lives and supposedly our actions."

Why?

[Whaleboy]

Imran that raises a point we need to think about.... is it possible to prove / disprove God exists in the same sense that my table exists, or prove / disprove God exists as a matter of faith, in which case the answer would depend on whether you were a rationalist or an empiricist.

In that case, anyone got any useful tips for undermining the faith of the annoying?

[Sava]

Performing miracles at will would suffice.

Although I'd have to know for sure that it would be God and not some other supernatural entity capable of performing such acts.

It's clear that we aren't going to know the answer until we die. That much is certain. If there is a God, it's obvious that God has chosen to not reveal his existence to us. So then he doesn't want our worship. Therefore, we shouldn't worry about wasting our time trying to prove his existence or not. If he's out there, he's perfectly capable of revealing himself to us if he wants to.

What is clear though, is that we have the ability (whether it be God-given or not) to study our environment and the universe around us and learn for ourselves the secrets of existence for ourselves. It's clear that if there is a God, he doesn't want us just simply relying on "faith"... but rather, he wants us to use our abilities to figure out things for ourselves.

However... if there isn't a God, then clearly we ought to figure out things for ourselves and abandon this silly notion of faith. Because if there really isn't anything out there... if there really is no grand CREATOR of the universe... then we are really going to look pretty ****ing stupid praying to something and believing in something that isn't there.

[Ben Kenobi]

Whaleboy asks the right question.

Empirically, it is impossible, since God will not always respond to a particular action. If he did, he would not be God. We cannot order him around.

It's possible to infer his existence through observation of the natural world.

It is also possible, logically to show that if God existed, what characteristics would he have, as a loving God, who cares about his creation.

Then you have the actual instances where God acts on the world and performs miracles that cannot be explained through natural means.

For me, I was always interested in science, but as I delved more deeply into these, I could not account for the myriad of things that seemed to fit too perfectly.

[Ben Kenobi]

I wish I could stay and debate, but I must leave now.

[Whaleboy]

Why?

Because it makes sense to start with the de-facto idea of God that most people are familiar with, and around which most discussion has occured. If someone were to mention "God", we'd all know what's being talked about. Later, we can move to more esoteric definitions which are probably more useful. It was just an arbitrary, but sensible place to start.

[Pekka]

more people? In here, then yes.

[Mercator]

It's impossible, like Imran said. I predict that this thread will turn into another pointless discussion about the existence of God, where, at the end of it, no-one will have become any wiser, let alone changed views... Regular OT fare then. Good luck.

Let's start with a simpler question: What would it take to prove/disprove the existence of my invisible friend?

[Whaleboy]

Performing miracles at will would suffice.

Although I'd have to know for sure that it would be God and not some other supernatural entity capable of performing such acts.

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. Or miracles in this case. It implies that a God in this case needn't be omnipotent or omniscient, which almost begs the question, could he be omni-etc and still perform these things? It seems there's a contradiction involved in saying yes.

Empirically, it is impossible, since God will not always respond to a particular action. If he did, he would not be God. We cannot order him around.

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

It's possible to infer his existence through observation of the natural world.

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?

It is also possible, logically to show that if God existed, what characteristics would he have, as a loving God, who cares about his creation.

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?

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.

Then you have the actual instances where God acts on the world and performs miracles that cannot be explained through natural means.

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.

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.

I could not account for the myriad of things that seemed to fit too perfectly.

How do you mean?

What would it take to prove/disprove the existence of my invisible friend?

Well, that's an important question, and one the theist must answer to make his position of "God" more weighty than someone claiming to be in converation with the Giant Pixie or Thorn's boyfriend.

[Verto]

All it would take is a couple lightning bolts

[Whaleboy]

[BlackCat]

It is strange that people are always asked to disprove the existence of god - what about for a seldom instance prove the existance of god by good old scientific methods ?

When that is done we can start to discuss if the scientific reasons for gods existence is true or not.

[Whaleboy]

BlackCat, I'm up for that

Thus far, it's been the response of the religious to the atheists; "Disprove the existence of God", and of course, they can't. But can it be done? I believe it is possible to disprove the existence of God. If we are to do so, we must first answer BlackCat's question, in order to satisfy Occams Razor.... the proposition of God must defend itself to be accepted before responses.