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

[Australian rePublic]

Hey, we're not debating the existence of God! Let's get back on topic.

Uh, I guess I would need something extraordinary that everyone can see to believe in any god is all I'm saying.

And what would that extraordinary thing be?

[Australian rePublic]

In Judaism god is acknowledged to be a bit of a dick and he’s not Omnibenevolent

I understand that, I just realized that most (at least, the ones who will take me seriously anyways) are Christians who believe in an Omnibenevolent god yet take the Bible to be literal.

If you take the Bible literarily, you're doing it wrong. That's not to say that you shouldn't take it seriously, it's too say that you shouldn't take it literally. They're two very different things

[Australian rePublic]

Have my wife conceive and bear a child.

P.S. She has no uterus.

P.P.S. On second thought, at that point that would just be showing off...

P.P.P.S. How do you know God is a He?

God is neither "He" nor "She" God is genderless. Unfortunately, like any binary gendered language (e.g. Spanish, Latin, French) gender-neutrality is 100% totally, utterly and completely impossible in Hebrew. As it is impossible for gender-neutral nouns to exist in Hebrew, male=gender-neutrality. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, which is how we get referring to God as "He"

As to your point about conceiving a baby, you will believe that life can come from nothing, but you require divine intervention for life to come from life?

[Australian rePublic]

Reconcile the problem of evil.
(Image)

Once again, this is not a discussion on God's benevolence. One does not need to be benevolent in order to exist. I will perhaps create a discussion on whether or not God is benevolent in the future, but this ain't it.

[Australian rePublic]

complete 3 wishes in a row

He's God. Not your personal genuine

[Bombadil]

God does not need to convince me of anything. Cosmology, science, and physics are enough to show that there is an order underlying the universe in my opinion. It shows how small we are on a cosmic timescale where a million years is a small amount of time, we can barely understand the concept of deep time, or immense size of the universe we live in, or the possibilities that there are many different universes. We are tiny specks in a maelstrom. There is an arrogance where because of our own perceptions we cannot see our place in the larger scheme of things. There is a reason why many people do not name god, it is an assumption that we can understand even the meaning of the name. Even a remote understanding of these concepts on an experiential level is enough for many people to believe in god.

The arrogance is in thinking we're the special creation of an invisible god, that this entire universe is built for us.

[Australian rePublic]

Create a brand new color.

So you fail to believe in God simply because He doesn't give you freebies?

The question wasn't 'why do you fail to believe in God?", it was "hypothetically, what would a god have to convince you of his existence?". Respect the game.

Yes, and that was a legitimate response. If Inkopolitia will only believe in a God who gives him/her freebies, then fine.

[Australian rePublic]

Actually, using the Bible in and of itself is an utterly stupid thing to do. Thanks for assuming how I'm going to debate

Which once again is stupid, and assuming that I would do so is a false assumption

I wasn't talking about you Sir, I realize you are a much better debater than that. Sorry for the confusion

Wait, seriously? You think that I am at least not a shitty debater? Okay then. Thanks for that

[Australian rePublic]

And as I said those that beielve have all the proof they need.

It doesn't matter if they have all the proof they need. What matters is how valid that proof is. Flat earthers have all the proof they need, yet they have none at all.

Yes, hence the question, what would you consider as valid proof?

If your answer is nothing, then, atheism is logically inconsistent to that, and the best that you can hope for is agnosticism

[The Free Joy State]

complete 3 wishes in a row

He's God. Not your personal genuine

Erm... "genie"

As for me, I would never again have one single moment's doubt the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient higher power if God created a new plant that was ubiquitous in every corner of the globe and was the cure for every cancer.

I don't mean one that may have curative properties, if run through a bunch of processes in a lab, repackaged and sold for thousands per month. I mean one plant that you just had to brew its leaves into a tea and drink them for six to eight weeks and you're cured. Guaranteed!

Just one brand new, ubiquitous healing plant.

EDIT: Incidentally, I'm not an atheist (so possibly not the target audience of this thread). But the question wasn't "Atheists: What Would God Have to Do to Convince You of His Existence"... merely how any doubts could be allayed.

[Australian rePublic]

My beliefs are wired in my brain. God could simply rewire them without much external evidence and I'd have no choice other than believing Him. I think this happens on occasion among epileptic patients.

God will not interfere with free will, so try again

[Australian rePublic]

Cop out

No it's a perfectly reasonable point. An all-knowing God would know. And and all-powerful god would have the ability to fulfill whatever requirements someone might have.

Nobody lacks belief in a God save that God wants them to. Otherwise it knows exactly how it could remedy that.

Alternatively: it may not exist.

Fair enough

[Australian rePublic]

Well considering that everyone has a different answer, there is no one size fits all solution

Then it is not omnipotent.

Yes it is. If everyone has a different answer, then God would need to cater to all those different answers

[Neanderthaland]

It doesn't matter if they have all the proof they need. What matters is how valid that proof is. Flat earthers have all the proof they need, yet they have none at all.

Yes, hence the question, what would you consider as valid proof?

If your answer is nothing, then, atheism is logically inconsistent to that, and the best that you can hope for is agnosticism

We all see what you're trying to do. But the question runs afoul of Clark's Third Law. What you're inadvertently asking is "how do you know an entity claiming to be a god is telling the truth?" Which is a challenging question for atheists and theists.

[Australian rePublic]

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.

See, that's one thing I don't understand about Islam. why, just why would we Judao-Christians corrupt the Torah? For what gain? It makes no sense? Also, why did Allah need to send the message to all of those messengers? Wasn't one of them enough?

[Neanderthaland]

Then it is not omnipotent.

Yes it is. If everyone has a different answer, then God would need to cater to all those different answers

Which it should be able to easily do. Although one would think "all-powerful" would include a one-size fits-all solution.

[Australian rePublic]

I was saying "Thus, Eternal Summer Begins". Apparently, my google translate Latin skills are rusty.

You'll see what I mean in a week or two

Yesterday, this got me thinking about what it would mean for Summer to be eternal. At first I thought about the axis of the Earth pointing always towards the Sun, but this would mean continuous daylight or daytime rather than Summer, which has night. To move to the equator would also not produce eternal Summer although it may seem to be consistently warmer and sunnier than elsewhere, because Summer requires longer daylight than night.

The term "perpetual Summer time" may be consistent with the concept of removing the change to clocks caused by daylight saving hours in such a way that the clocks never return to the correct winter time where the Sun is at the meridian during noon. The Europeans have recently decided to abolish daylight saving hours, with countries having the option to permanently decide what time zone to choose. This has been in the news for a while, so it is hardly a prophecy, and certainly is under human influence so would not be evidence of divine intervention.

Also, when arguing in philosophy, one should avoid using dead languages whose meanings are less known and more easily changed.

A perfect reason for taking the Bible metaphorically, rather than literarly

[Australian rePublic]

He already did, by lifting me out of a massive crisis in my life.

I'm happy for you

[Australian rePublic]

The Mad Lad just destroyed half the people on this forum.

I mean, if being wrong is destroying people, then yeah, I guess they absolutely demolished them.

I think that was supposed to sarcastic...

[Australian rePublic]

God does not need to convince me of anything. Cosmology, science, and physics are enough to show that there is an order underlying the universe in my opinion. It shows how small we are on a cosmic timescale where a million years is a small amount of time, we can barely understand the concept of deep time, or immense size of the universe we live in, or the possibilities that there are many different universes. We are tiny specks in a maelstrom. There is an arrogance where because of our own perceptions we cannot see our place in the larger scheme of things. There is a reason why many people do not name god, it is an assumption that we can understand even the meaning of the name. Even a remote understanding of these concepts on an experiential level is enough for many people to believe in god.

The arrogance is in thinking we're the special creation of an invisible god, that this entire universe is built for us.

And how exactly does the existence of God disprove aliens?

[Australian rePublic]

He's God. Not your personal genuine

Erm... "genie"

As for me, I would never again have one single moment's doubt the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient higher power if God created a new plant that was ubiquitous in every corner of the globe and was the cure for every cancer.

I don't mean one that may have curative properties, if run through a bunch of processes in a lab, repackaged and sold for thousands per month. I mean one plant that you just had to brew its leaves into a tea and drink them for six to eight weeks and you're cured. Guaranteed!

Just one brand new, ubiquitous healing plant.

EDIT: Incidentally, I'm not an atheist (so possibly not the target audience of this thread). But the question wasn't "Atheists: What Would God Have to Do to Convince You of His Existence"... merely how any doubts could be allayed.

Once again, existence=/=benevolence.

[The Alma Mater]

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.

Did he also send the messagers for hinduism, the greek pantheon, the Egyptian pantheon and so on ?
You know, religions of which some had literally existed for millenia before Moses started claiming it had only been a few generations since creation that nobody else remembered that way ?

[Australian rePublic]

Yes, hence the question, what would you consider as valid proof?

If your answer is nothing, then, atheism is logically inconsistent to that, and the best that you can hope for is agnosticism

We all see what you're trying to do. But the question runs afoul of Clark's Third Law. What you're inadvertently asking is "how do you know an entity claiming to be a god is telling the truth?" Which is a challenging question for atheists and theists.

Let's work on Clark's third law. You see something that you thought was previously impossible. Let's see that you see someone levitating, for example. How do you, personally, know that it was caused by technology, rather than magic?

[The Alma Mater]

I find it difficult to believe that anyone actually believes in religion. I think that they are only pretending to believe in order to gain something worldly.

Et sic, Perpetua aestas incipit

Honestly, it is a fair statement. For someone who was not indoctrinated by a religious culture from a very young age religion seems like a childrens story.
Someone talking about Adam and Jesus and Zeus and Vishnu and miracles sounds just like someone claiming that flowers get their pretty colours due to fairies painting them in the middle of the night. You will always wonder if they are truly serious, if it is not some elaborate prank - even if you yourself do not actually know how flower truly get their colours.

[Neanderthaland]

We all see what you're trying to do. But the question runs afoul of Clark's Third Law. What you're inadvertently asking is "how do you know an entity claiming to be a god is telling the truth?" Which is a challenging question for atheists and theists.

Let's work on Clark's third law. You see something that you thought was previously impossible. Let's see that you see someone levitating, for example. How do you, personally, know that it was caused by technology, rather than magic?

I - being a reasonable person - suspend judgement. Which would make me an "atheist" with regard to their claim since it means I don't believe them.

You're trying to do a "gotcha" here, but it doesn't work. Our position, or at least the position I hope most atheists hold, is logically consistent with the acceptance of unknowns.

It's theists who are constantly saying that everything we don't understand somehow proves their very specific denomination's elaborate set of rituals are totally correct.

EDIT: I hasten to add that I hope most theists would also be skeptical of "magical" claims. Just believing someone is God because they blow your mind once is how you wind up in a cult.