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

[Neanderthaland]

Admit that he doesn't exist

So God would convince you that He's real, by telling you He's not real?

What is this, opposite day?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmpP73-SHPQ

[Scomagia]

Admit that he doesn't exist

So God would convince you that He's real, by telling you He's not real?

What is this, opposite day?

It's just a normal day on NSG.

What can I, Humble Atheist Poster, do to show what a big time logic guy I am?
*Sees thread with a hypothetical where God exists and can prove its existence*
"There is no God! Ha!"
That'll show em!

[Vassenor]

Ending all the bigotry and hate purportedly carried out in his name would be a good start.

[Australian rePublic]

I am 100% convinced of the existence and benevolence of God, for you see, Strawberries and Cream M&Ms exist. I am also convinced of the existence of Satan, for I discovered the S&C M&Ms during lent

[The New California Republic]

I am 100% convinced of the existence and benevolence of God, for you see, Strawberries and Cream M&Ms exist.

Counterpoint: wasps, ticks, threadworms and mosquitoes exist.

[Korhal IVV]

Admit that he doesn't exist

Wow, an oxymoron bigger than the entire Milky Way Galaxy has appeared.

[Uan aa Boa]

Sure, things can be tested. But not by you, you rely on other people to do that and trust in the results they provide for you.

Do you understand how peer review works? It isn't flawless by any means, but there's a lot more to publishing a scientific result than saying "I've checked this and you all have to trust me." Scientific knowledge is always provisional and always falsifiable - clear on what specific results would invalidate it. It involves an ongoing process of checking, challenging and refining.

[Mountain Pygmies]

To prove if he is god, he would have to self-destruct.

This actually creates a paradox. If he can't destroy himself(God), then he is not all-powerful(He can't destroy himself)and therefore is not god. If he can destroy himself, then he is also not all-powerful(He can be destroyed), which also means he is not God. Either answer means he is not god, at least in the Abrahamic sense.

[North German Realm]

To prove if he is god, he would have to self-destruct.

This actually creates a paradox. If he can't destroy himself(a god), then he is not all-powerful(He can't destroy himself)and therefore is not god. If he can destroy himself, then he is also not all-powerful(He can be destroyed), which also means he is not a god.

God's abilities are limited by logic. He can't do something that' logically impossible (i.e. a logical paradox such as creating a stone he can't lift and then lifting it, or destroying himself). That's not really an argument against the existence of a Personal Allpowerful etc. god, but more a "gotcha" move, tbh, and I say this as an ardent misotheist.

[Mountain Pygmies]

To prove if he is god, he would have to self-destruct.

This actually creates a paradox. If he can't destroy himself(a god), then he is not all-powerful(He can't destroy himself)and therefore is not god. If he can destroy himself, then he is also not all-powerful(He can be destroyed), which also means he is not a god.

God's abilities are limited by logic. He can't do something that' logically impossible (i.e. a logical paradox such as creating a stone he can't lift and then lifting it, or destroying himself). That's not really an argument against the existence of a Personal Allpowerful etc. god, but more a "gotcha" move, tbh, and I say this as an ardent misotheist.

I guess that's true.

[Salus Maior]

Sure, things can be tested. But not by you, you rely on other people to do that and trust in the results they provide for you.

Do you understand how peer review works? It isn't flawless by any means, but there's a lot more to publishing a scientific result than saying "I've checked this and you all have to trust me." Scientific knowledge is always provisional and always falsifiable - clear on what specific results would invalidate it. It involves an ongoing process of checking, challenging and refining.

I'm well aware of how science works, I'm actually very pro-science and I enjoy studying it myself.

But my point is, you're not the peers, you're not the scientist are you? Therefore, you're trusting in them to provide the facts for you. You're relying on their revelation as it were.

Ultimately, all the knowledge you know you've gotten second-hand (or third-hand, or fourth-hand, etc.) and you put trust in that. So it seems pointless to accuse religion of being bad on that same premise (although, I think people can experience God in their own lives in one way or another by either practicing the faith themselves or by seeing others practice, and people attest both as being their "revelation" of God.).

[New Legland]

Do you understand how peer review works? It isn't flawless by any means, but there's a lot more to publishing a scientific result than saying "I've checked this and you all have to trust me." Scientific knowledge is always provisional and always falsifiable - clear on what specific results would invalidate it. It involves an ongoing process of checking, challenging and refining.

I'm well aware of how science works, I'm actually very pro-science and I enjoy studying it myself.

But my point is, you're not the peers, you're not the scientist are you? Therefore, you're trusting in them to provide the facts for you. You're relying on their revelation as it were.

Ultimately, all the knowledge you know you've gotten second-hand (or third-hand, or fourth-hand, etc.) and you put trust in that. So it seems pointless to accuse religion of being bad on that same premise (although, I think people can experience God in their own lives in one way or another by either practicing the faith themselves or by seeing others practice, and people attest both as being their "revelation" of God.).

Except all corroborated anecdotal evidence can prove is that people had those experiences, not whatever source it had. Unless someone creates an experiment to test whether these experiences are actual revelations, they aren't useful as evidence for a god.

[Salus Maior]

I'm well aware of how science works, I'm actually very pro-science and I enjoy studying it myself.

But my point is, you're not the peers, you're not the scientist are you? Therefore, you're trusting in them to provide the facts for you. You're relying on their revelation as it were.

Ultimately, all the knowledge you know you've gotten second-hand (or third-hand, or fourth-hand, etc.) and you put trust in that. So it seems pointless to accuse religion of being bad on that same premise (although, I think people can experience God in their own lives in one way or another by either practicing the faith themselves or by seeing others practice, and people attest both as being their "revelation" of God.).

Except all corroborated anecdotal evidence can prove is that people had those experiences, not whatever source it had. Unless someone creates an experiment to test whether these experiences are actual revelations, they aren't useful as evidence for a god.

Those experiences which you've read in a book, or watched in a video, right? Again, second-hand knowledge.

I don't think you can prove God's existence using the scientific method.

But then again I don't believe (as useful as it is), that the scientific method can reveal all true things.

[New Legland]

Except all corroborated anecdotal evidence can prove is that people had those experiences, not whatever source it had. Unless someone creates an experiment to test whether these experiences are actual revelations, they aren't useful as evidence for a god.

Those experiences which you've read in a book, or watched in a video, right? Again, second-hand knowledge.

Okay? I wasn't denying that.

I don't think you can prove God's existence using the scientific method.

But then again I don't believe (as useful as it is), that the scientific method can reveal all true things.

Then how do you prove it? Just saying, "God spoke to me" or something along those lines simply isn't going to cut it.

[Salus Maior]

I don't think you can prove God's existence using the scientific method.

But then again I don't believe (as useful as it is), that the scientific method can reveal all true things.

Then how do you prove it? Just saying, "God spoke to me" or something along those lines simply isn't going to cut it.

I don't think you can prove it that way.

I think really the only way to experience God (short of Him revealing Himself to you a-la Paul on Damascus road) is through the sincere practice of faith (although I don't think that's the only way, I've heard plenty of people, even previously hardline atheists/antitheists come to faith in a lot of different ways. This particular way I'm mentioning is only how I've come to have faith). It's something that can only come to you, as it were. It's hard to explain, but then again we are talking about the transcendental.

[Rhine Confederacy]

To actually do something about people cutting down the trees and ruining the enviroment.

[Salus Maior]

To actually do something about people cutting down the trees and ruining the enviroment.

Why would He do that when His creation is perfectly able to do so with the information they have?

[Rhine Confederacy]

To actually do something about people cutting down the trees and ruining the enviroment.

Why would He do that when His creation is perfectly able to do so with the information they have?

Well, they are cutting down trees, and they could just stop and then the wildlife would be fine. They aren't doing that mcuh about global warming, ethier. The technology they already have is not relevant to cutting down the trees.

[Salus Maior]

Why would He do that when His creation is perfectly able to do so with the information they have?

Well, they are cutting down trees, and they could just stop and then the wildlife would be fine. They aren't doing that mcuh about global warming, ethier. The technology they already have is not relevant to cutting down the trees.

Who's "they"?

[Rhine Confederacy]

Well, they are cutting down trees, and they could just stop and then the wildlife would be fine. They aren't doing that mcuh about global warming, ethier. The technology they already have is not relevant to cutting down the trees.

Who's "they"?

They is referring to the people in the first instance, and the goverment in the second. The third is His Creation.

[Frostnia]

I am 100% convinced of the existence and benevolence of God, for you see, Strawberries and Cream M&Ms exist. I am also convinced of the existence of Satan, for I discovered the S&C M&Ms during lent

I’m sorry, but those sound horrible

[Ifreann]

To actually do something about people cutting down the trees and ruining the enviroment.

Why would He do that when His creation is perfectly able to do so with the information they have?

Divine magic would probably be significantly more effective than waiting for us to get our shit together.

[Salus Maior]

Who's "they"?

They is referring to the people in the first instance, and the goverment in the second. The third is His Creation.

All three of those are God's creation.

[Rhine Confederacy]

They is referring to the people in the first instance, and the goverment in the second. The third is His Creation.

All three of those are God's creation.

Maybe so, but what my grammar is like is irrelevant.

[The New California Republic]

All three of those are God's creation.

Maybe so, but what my grammar is like is irrelevant.

...what?