What would God have to do to convince YOU of His existence?

[Alterld Sha]

Anyway, for this kind of debate, I think looking for evidence in the form of a divine action is due to weakness in logical reasoning. We should be seeking to argue by reason alone, or else the attempt is likely to be futile.

[Ard al Islam]

Explain why whales have pelvises.

Biology?

[Ard al Islam]

And to all of you, I wonder why you immediately assumed that I was talking about Muhammad. I was, but he was not the only Messenger. There were others:

Noah
Eber
Salah
Abraham
Lot
Ishmael
Joseph
Jethro
Moses
Elijah
Jonah
Jesus

Unlike Muslims, Judao-Christians don't believe that God wrote the Bible. We believe that the entire thing except the Torah/Pentatuch was written by human. That narrows us down to Moses and Mohammed. And, after that, there are disputes amongst Judao-Christians about whether or not God wrote the Bible Himself. Further, if I'm not mistaking, and I could be, there are some Judao-Christians who doubt the existence of Moses. So that narrows us down to Mohammed

The truth is, God sent ALL of these Messengers with these messages. He Himself made these messages. However, all of them were corrupted eventually. The Torah and the Gospel were both corrupted, with the latter being corrupted immediately after Jesus' "death." Only the Qur'an remains as the Word of God.

[Satterthwaite]

Which is why fewer join the priesthood more recently. If we are to look to motives, we must look at those who have actually joined the priesthood, which would have happened a while ago, rather than those who have not joined.

As for the laity, they may seek social standing because they probably get attention and social interaction from it. Tranquillity is something sought in itself for religion or not.

Yeah, alright, but people are still receiving the sacrament of Holy Orders, so there's evidently something people see in priesthood beyond gains for their social standing.

I'm conceding that some of the laity do it for social standing, but the moment 'sense of tranquility' enters the picture as possible motive rather defeats the whole "worldly gain" motive.

???????

Are you saying bisexuality doesn't exist?

I'm guessing they're saying that bisexuality is something we invented, and that it's a more important invention than religion (in the sense of being something we should focus more on).

How can sexual attraction, a biological process, be an invention?

Anyway, for this kind of debate, I think looking for evidence in the form of a divine action is due to weakness in logical reasoning. We should be seeking to argue by reason alone, or else the attempt is likely to be futile.

I do agree that this debate is rather fruitless. An empirical proof for God's existence would be inherently nonfalsifiable, therefore there's no good way to go about it. I'll do you one even better and say that even an analytic proof for God's existence would be somewhat futile in and of itself, due to the claimed ineffable nature of God.

[Latin Islands]

Call me silly, but an actual supernatural experience like seeing a ghost is enough. Or basically any event that science cannot answer.

Otherwise I'll just have to believe.

The unknown, man! It gives me the willies!

[Satterthwaite]

Call me silly, but an actual supernatural experience like seeing a ghost is enough. Or basically any event that science cannot answer.

Otherwise I'll just have to believe.

The unknown, man! It gives me the willies!

But then why not just believe in the ghosts themselves? Or a religion peddling ancestor worship or something to that effect?

[Latin Islands]

Call me silly, but an actual supernatural experience like seeing a ghost is enough. Or basically any event that science cannot answer.

Otherwise I'll just have to believe.

The unknown, man! It gives me the willies!

But then why not just believe in the ghosts themselves? Or a religion peddling ancestor worship or something to that effect?

Ghosts can't do everything. To me they're a part of a world beyond this earthly realm.

[New Legland]

Call me silly, but an actual supernatural experience like seeing a ghost is enough. Or basically any event that science cannot answer.

Otherwise I'll just have to believe.

The unknown, man! It gives me the willies!

There are quite a lot of things science cannot answer. Just a few hundred years ago, you could be considered God just for popping a pill in someone's mouth and curing them of their illness.

[Satterthwaite]

But then why not just believe in the ghosts themselves? Or a religion peddling ancestor worship or something to that effect?

Ghosts can't do everything. To me they're a part of a world beyond this earthly realm.

How do you know that ghosts can't do everything?

[Alterld Sha]

Which is why fewer join the priesthood more recently. If we are to look to motives, we must look at those who have actually joined the priesthood, which would have happened a while ago, rather than those who have not joined.

As for the laity, they may seek social standing because they probably get attention and social interaction from it. Tranquillity is something sought in itself for religion or not.

Yeah, alright, but people are still receiving the sacrament of Holy Orders, so there's evidently something people see in priesthood beyond gains for their social standing.

I'm conceding that some of the laity do it for social standing, but the moment 'sense of tranquility' enters the picture as possible motive rather defeats the whole "worldly gain" motive.
[...]
even an analytic proof for God's existence would be somewhat futile in and of itself, due to the claimed ineffable nature of God.

For those still joining the priesthood, this may be for security of sustenance and housing, as already mentioned.

As for tranquillity, let's put it this way: would you rather go on a holiday in a noisy polluted overcrowded concrete jungle or go somewhere peaceful? If you were to go on an extended tranquillity holiday of doing no work, you could try to justify it in the eyes of society by claiming to do it for religion.

[Satterthwaite]

Yeah, alright, but people are still receiving the sacrament of Holy Orders, so there's evidently something people see in priesthood beyond gains for their social standing.

I'm conceding that some of the laity do it for social standing, but the moment 'sense of tranquility' enters the picture as possible motive rather defeats the whole "worldly gain" motive.
[...]
even an analytic proof for God's existence would be somewhat futile in and of itself, due to the claimed ineffable nature of God.

For those still joining the priesthood, this may be for security of sustenance and housing, as already mentioned.

As for tranquillity, let's put it this way: would you rather go on a holiday in a noisy polluted overcrowded concrete jungle or go somewhere peaceful? If you were to go on an extended tranquillity holiday of doing no work, you could try to justify it in the eyes of society by claiming to do it for religion.

Except priests get assigned to noisy polluted overcrowded concrete jungles? And, again, there are many who could have chosen to go for more lucrative jobs or even just stayed and bummed around until they came to their inheritance, but instead they chose the rather austere life of the priesthood.

[Xeng He]

"He can reveal it in some way to me" well if that is enough to convince, then you can't dismiss anyone else's experiences of God as false

You still could though. Other people might not subject a supposed revelation to the same amount of scrutiny you might, which is why fake mediums, cult leaders, etc. exist. I do believe in the supernatural, but to believe in it you might have to accept something very different from Christian-style monotheism.

"People half way round the world would know the world would encounter an experience of someone called 'Yeshua', someone that they've never heard of". There would be very few literate people in the world today who haven't heard of Jesus, and of those few, there would be even fewer whose records would be known to the public (for example, you would have no method of reading my journals). And this is all just assuming that someone would write down these experiences in the first place. Considering in my other thread you dismissed the Muslim guy who had a dream about Jesus telling him that Christianity is the correct faith, and you dismissed it based on the assertion that Muslims have heard of Jesus, then this would eliminate every person literate or illeterate, who has heard of Jesus. And this is before we even consider people who are too afraid to reveal their experiences, because of persecution. "'Yoshua' could have appeared to an ancient person from a litterate society who had never heard of Him"- most ancient people were illerate, despite living in literate societies, and even then, many, many ancient records have been lost, once again, assuming that it was written down in the first place.

Agree that this isn't the best criteria, though you could narrow down the type of experience to make it applicable. For instance, plenty of Muslims have heard of Jesus, but would they know specific Bible passages or visions from Revelations? Would they be able to predict something a la prophecy?

Both this and the last one also suffer from the flaw that many people have had many different experiences of revelation, some of which contradict each other. If polytheism is correct, this is fine, but only then.

"'X' culture would believe in a story similar to that of Jesus". Well we already have over 600 flood stories, and they're all dismissed as coincidences, so considering that, why would a, say, South American story of a reserected man born to a virgin not be considered a considence?

It's exactly because there are 600 other flood stories that one particular flood story shouldn't be singled out barring special circumstances. Not to say that there aren't any though--Christianity as the divine story is more believable than Islam as the divine story because at least its accounts of divinity have things in there that were both witnessed by other people and actually miraculous. But in general if you're selling me a monotheistic god then the burden of proof would have to be one not met by other contenders, barring some "all gods are manifestations of the one god" thing.

So, given all that, assuming that He exists, what would God have to do to convince you that He exists. What specific action/which specific words would have to take/say in order to convince you, (insert your name here), that He exists?

I already believe i n the existence of an interventionist God, so this question is moot for me. If you would like to find out my reasoning for believing in God, please check out the OP of the linked thread

This could apply to any God, not just the Christian. Quite francly, 'which' God is irrelevant. Any god. How can any god convince you of its existence?

I'd be pretty easy to convince a supernatural entity exists. Calling it God might require a bit more scrutiny.

Some things that might help:

-Performing a miracle that still holds as a miracle even after being subject to attempts to disprove it.
-Creating life via miraculous means.
-Being the sole being that can do these things, unless polytheism is allowed here.

[Nova Cyberia]

Just speak to me.

That's about it.

[Barboneia]

If He or She or whatever the fuck they are gives me a gf with a fat ass then I’ll be pretty convinced.

[Neanderthaland]

Just speak to me.

That's about it.

In before, "He does speak to you, just in some really subtle unfalsifiable way that is indistinguishable from not speaking to you."

[Jakker]

Why are people talking about how religion is make believe, when half of the signatures say bisexual, which is make believe with a much more important matter.

*** 24-hour ban for Flamebaiting *** Please read our forum rules and use the time away to learn how to post opinions in a way that abides by our rules.

[Twilight Imperium]

If He or She or whatever the fuck they are gives me a gf with a fat ass then I’ll be pretty convinced.

I already put in a vote for big tiddy goth gf. There's no way we can lose.

[Barboneia]

If He or She or whatever the fuck they are gives me a gf with a fat ass then I’ll be pretty convinced.

I already put in a vote for big tiddy goth gf. There's no way we can lose.

FUCK YEAH

[The Rich Port]

Anyway, for this kind of debate, I think looking for evidence in the form of a divine action is due to weakness in logical reasoning. We should be seeking to argue by reason alone, or else the attempt is likely to be futile.

Yeah, that's not now philosophy works.

Using only logic leads to useless axioms that mean nothing by themselves, and using only evidence leads to aimless data that also means nothing.

It's by combining inductive and deductive reasoning that we come to any sort of reasonable conclusions.

[Neanderthaland]

If He or She or whatever the fuck they are gives me a gf with a fat ass then I’ll be pretty convinced.

I already put in a vote for big tiddy goth gf. There's no way we can lose.

You could get a skinny, flat goth gf with an unusually large donkey and bird.

[Blanjiland]

God would have to simultaneously whip and nae nae before I even considered his existence.

[New Legland]

God would have to simultaneously whip and nae nae before I even considered his existence.

but that's just a theory

[CHUCK NORRlS]

I'd be convinced if God can create a stone so heavy that even He can't lift it.

[Mystic Warriors]

Come down from the sky and twerk.

[Latin Islands]

Ghosts can't do everything. To me they're a part of a world beyond this earthly realm.

How do you know that ghosts can't do everything?

Can they eat? Can they make a living being talk to them?
I do not know, but I presume they can't do everything.