Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 147

Thread: What would count as proof of God

  1. Top | #11
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    6,364
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    19,340
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Kharakov View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post
    So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?
    Physical constants of the universe have a definitive mathematical message built into them. It would have to be built into the structure of the universe in such a way that any observer would get the same value.

    Something like the FST, which is the same no matter what units we use for G, kg, mass, energy, time, etc. would have to have a message encoded into it, that anyone could see indicated intelligence.
    Interesting assumption but you didn't explain why "there would have to have a message encoded into it".
    So... that's about it. If the FST, or related constants, have no meaning hidden in them? Well... then... I don't know.
    That is a quite old argument for a god... "I don't know, therefore god". However it evokes an extremely limited and ever-shrinking kind of god.
    Last edited by skepticalbip; 05-12-2019 at 08:10 PM.

  2. Top | #12
    Quantum Hot Dog Kharakov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    OCCaUSA
    Posts
    4,371
    Archived
    3,383
    Total Posts
    7,754
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kharakov View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post
    So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?
    Physical constants of the universe have a definitive mathematical message built into them. It would have to be built into the structure of the universe in such a way that any observer would get the same value.

    Something like the FST, which is the same no matter what units we use for G, kg, mass, energy, time, etc. would have to have a message encoded into it, that anyone could see indicated intelligence.
    Interesting assumption but you didn't explain why "there would have to have a message encoded into it".
    There doesn't have to be- if the universe arises naturally, why would there be a message encoded in the FSC or something like quark mass ratios? They would be simple consequences of natural law- they couldn't be anything other than what they are.

    However, if there is an intelligent creator, that knows that it can't micromanage every event, but can refine natural interactions to the point that it can put a message in some of these ratios that will be the same to all observers, it can reveal itself to intelligent life by setting up messages in these ratios. Maybe even encode certain ways of behaving into those ratios that allow intelligent life to perfect itself, and its interaction with God.

    If physicists and mathematicians find certain messages in these unalterable ratios? Messages which show how things should be? I'd think they'd believe. They'd act. And they'd make life right. At least for them. I'd still be screwed. Fucked over. On the bottom. Suffering, but every once in a while feeling good. Escaping from the hell of my life with some drugs that let me escape life... and enjoy my brain.

    No message? We're alone. We still have to do what we can. We're still screwed. I can still hope, despite knowledge of the corrupt, that I can get a gun and a bullet to get out of this life of service to the corrupt.


    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kharakov View Post
    So... that's about it. If the FST, or related constants, have no meaning hidden in them? Well... then... I don't know.
    That is a quite old argument for a god... "I don't know, therefore god". However it evokes an extremely limited and ever-shrinking kind of god.
    It wasn't an argument for God. It was me saying I don't know how else a God would prove itself to skeptics who believe in scientific results.

  3. Top | #13
    Veteran Member Brian63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,408
    Archived
    8,911
    Total Posts
    10,319
    Rep Power
    76
    I do not know evidence would be sufficient to warrant belief in an omnipotent and omniscient being. No hypothetical scenario that we could hypothesize seems to justify such an idea.

    Regardless, if such an all-knowing and all-powerful did exist, it would know what it would take to convince me, and it has so far withheld itself from undergoing that task of convincing me. So what is stopping god? It cannot be because it would violate free will. Plenty of religious believers have been convinced of god through (what they perceive to be) direct communication with god. God apparently communicates regularly with people without violating their free will. Why wouldn't god do the same with everyone?

  4. Top | #14
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,170
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian63 View Post
    I do not know evidence would be sufficient to warrant belief in an omnipotent and omniscient being.
    Ah, the frank admission. I like it.

  5. Top | #15
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Layton, UT
    Posts
    2,520
    Rep Power
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian63 View Post
    I do not know evidence would be sufficient to warrant belief in an omnipotent and omniscient being.
    Ah, the frank admission. I like it.
    It happens more often with skeptics than with believers.

    Let me propose a scenario:

    Q (from Star Trek) shows up and claims to be the god that all our myths are based on. He (it) obviously has most of the powers attributed to most gods. What is the functional difference?

    Let's say he wants to be worshipped, would the believers fall in line? What about the skeptics?

  6. Top | #16
    Veteran Member Sarpedon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    MN, US
    Posts
    2,976
    Archived
    8,446
    Total Posts
    11,422
    Rep Power
    72
    If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he can prove his divinity to me in a way I find convincing, and knows how to do it.

    Since I am not god, I don't have to say what method he should use, because I don't know it.

    But the fact I can't think of anything is no barrier to God's omnipotence. Any being who can't convince me is, by definition, not omnipotent, and therefore not god.

    It would be quite easy for a being to convince me that it has god-like powers, simply by doing things.

  7. Top | #17
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Port Clinton, Ohio
    Posts
    4,281
    Archived
    591
    Total Posts
    4,872
    Rep Power
    71
    If, in the middle of a Trump rally, a giant hand (which would be translucent but fully articulated) would suddenly appear as our President was calling someone "low IQ" or "son of a bitch" or "little shit" or some other Presidential phrase, and close around Trump's bulky midsection, pick him up, swing him back and forth over the audience, then flip him upside down, hold him by the ankles, and shake him until his orange weave and clothes fluttered off, then gently lower him to the stage clad in socks and shoes (causing the Secret Service extra commotion because none of the agents could offer him a piece of clothing that would fit, forcing them to grab an overweight female Trumpie and confiscate her house dress)......THEN I'd probably believe. (BTW, Trump would start screaming about 'Cheatin' God' being on a witch hunt.)
    All that, or a message in ten or twelve languages to be engraved on the surface of the moon. God has the moon as a perfect screen for any message. Let him use the moon. But I'd still like him to shake the bejesus out of Trump, because at least that would bolster the Christian message about ultimate justice in the cosmos. Trump wouldn't care much, because he wouldn't lose more than a half percent of his base.

  8. Top | #18
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    20,533
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    45,033
    Rep Power
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarpedon View Post
    Since I am not god, I don't have to say what method he should use, because I don't know it.
    Well, it also depends on which god, right? some gods offer immortality, some are more concerned with a 'balance of nature' and wouldn't bend it so far as immortality.
    A volcano god might offer to prove his divinity by destroying something, while a creator god might whip out an entirely new form of life. A sapient plant or a talking virus...

  9. Top | #19
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Port Clinton, Ohio
    Posts
    4,281
    Archived
    591
    Total Posts
    4,872
    Rep Power
    71
    My God, yes. Think of what bounty the Cinnabon God could provide. I suggest (humbly)... the 6-pack of Cinnabon Classic for $2 (money to go to the Cinnabon priesthood or charities.)

  10. Top | #20
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,170
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian63 View Post
    I do not know evidence would be sufficient to warrant belief in an omnipotent and omniscient being.
    Ah, the frank admission. I like it.
    It happens more often with skeptics than with believers.

    Let me propose a scenario:

    Q (from Star Trek) shows up and claims to be the god that all our myths are based on. He (it) obviously has most of the powers attributed to most gods. What is the functional difference?

    Let's say he wants to be worshipped, would the believers fall in line? What about the skeptics?
    I imagine most would. Humans are practical-minded and survival-oriented, and Q would simply erase the exceptions. While the TV Q was a fan of the sciences, I suspect a real one wouldn't give hald a crap about Picard's lofty speeches, and would see religious and skeptical objections to his rule in a similar light. When empires invade with clear superiority of numbers and biotoxins, do they care whether indigenous resistance is fueled by spiritual or rational arguments?

Similar Threads

  1. Count Dankula: Guilty!
    By repoman in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-23-2018, 03:32 PM
  2. Animals Can Count
    By Cheerful Charlie in forum Natural Science
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-09-2018, 07:32 PM
  3. I've lost count - how many ISIS attacks in the last two weeks?
    By RavenSky in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-05-2016, 07:09 AM
  4. Super Saturday Delegate Count
    By Don2 (Don1 Revised) in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 03-08-2016, 03:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •