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

[Christian Confederation]

I already believe in God, but for fun I'll go along with the qwestion.

I would believe if A or B happened.

A. A well known Atheist dies and comes back, afterwards going on a Billy Graham like world wide preaching crusade. Shareing his/ her story whall spreading God's word.

B. I myself have a I died and came back situation.

Because I've heard countless storys of people who died and came back. And whall dead they saw Heven, Hell, or both and talk about it in vivid detail.
There's a good number of storys like that on YouTube.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gHfrWa_J3Hk
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MJZCjLNhpik

This one was really moving to me.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vg8WAv0YT9c

[Australian rePublic]

Actually if you were a dedicated theologian, younwould have to have multiple degrees. You would need to speak Ancient Hebrew, and Ancient Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Not one of these languages, all of these languages. Not just the alphabet, grammar, etc. You'd also have to learn idioms, etc. in order to determin figures of speech. And you can't just travel and speak with the natives, because the dialects that the Bible was written in died out centuries ago. You also have to be an expert in Middle Eastern history, in order to understand the historical context, and you have to make use of other supporting documents, etc.

I've dabbled in English language theology, and it's a very difficult discipline. (And this is from someone who came in the top 5 in my entire grade for my Bachelor's degree, albeit a small class. Most of my marks were credits, distinctions and high distinctions. So I am a goodish academic). And dablong, I've dangled my feet in the kiddie section. With theology, you have to try to determine the answers to questions which are never answered anywhere. And my dabbling was limited to the English language. I could only imagine how much harder it would be in Koine Greek, or Biblical Hebrew, or Ancient Aramaic.

At this point, you would have to either be ignorant or dishonest to accuse a theologian of unintelligence.

The fact they believe that all Bible Stories actually and historically happened alone proves they are either intellectually dishonest or lack intelligence.

You think that you're smarter than a theologian? Fine why don't you try his job? Here's your challange. Assuming that they both existed, why did God ask Abraham to sacrafice Isaac/Ishmael? And why did God stop the sacrafice? (I gave you both options, as you're free to go down either the Judao-Christian path and state that the interupted sacrafice was of Isaac or the Islamic path, which states that God commanded and then prevented the sacrafice Ishmael?

Nobody else answer this, because this is NGR's challange


Here are answers that won't be accepted, and the reason why they won't they be accepted:
God/Abraham didn't exist- That defeats the purpose of this excersize
Abraham was physcotic it would not have been included in the Bible/Quran if it wasn't a direct command from God


Your answer will not be accepted unless you include credible references. Your answer cannot contradict Judao-Christian/Islamic theology (depending on which path you go down).

Too hard for you? Fine, you get one clue. Lucky you, theologists don't. Your clue applies only to the Judao-Christian path

What message did it send to the pagans living in the area?

Too easy for you? Fine, let's move onto the next challange:
Why does the original Hebrew version of the book of Genesis refer to God as 'Elohim'. Considering that Judao-Christianity is a monotheistic faith, and the word 'Elohim' is plural for God. (Elyon is singular).
Your answer cannot contradict Judao-Christian theology, and must include credible references


If you are indeed samrter than a theologian, then these should be easy for you to answer

[Free Arabian Nation]

I already believe in God, but for fun I'll go along with the qwestion.

I would believe if A or B happened.

A. A well known Atheist dies and comes back, afterwards going on a Billy Graham like world wide preaching crusade. Shareing his/ her story whall spreading God's word.

B. I myself have a I died and came back situation.

Because I've heard countless storys of people who died and came back. And whall dead they saw Heven, Hell, or both and talk about it in vivid detail.
There's a good number of storys like that on YouTube.

... That doesn't prove jack daniels

The only source I could find of these people all come from Christian Apologetic sites who say "Oh, this kid totally saw Jesus guys" without any sort of substantial proof outside of faith. And most of these people, fun fact, were only declared dead. Meaning their brain could have still been having activities as it was only their heart had stopped.

Not to mention, there have been plenty of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc that have also claimed to have seen gods. Both while they were dying and claimed that "I saw Allah/Vishnu/Buddha/Some other 4th god while I was dying and he saved me from death!"

This is the reason why I don't like the "X saw god" arguments. Anyone could claim they saw any god and could you prove or disprove it? No, not really. So... try again god. Maybe loom over the streets of a major city for all to see and say "I'm real bitches" instead of whispering in an old lady's ear next time.

[The Free Joy State]

I can't help but wonder what any of this has to do with what act or acts God would have to perform to get people to believe in Him.

Unless this is all just an exercise is proselytism...

And, back to the OP, I have a faith, but even I can't answer to the affirmative that there is an interventionist God.

[Christian Confederation]

I already believe in God, but for fun I'll go along with the qwestion.

I would believe if A or B happened.

A. A well known Atheist dies and comes back, afterwards going on a Billy Graham like world wide preaching crusade. Shareing his/ her story whall spreading God's word.

B. I myself have a I died and came back situation.

Because I've heard countless storys of people who died and came back. And whall dead they saw Heven, Hell, or both and talk about it in vivid detail.
There's a good number of storys like that on YouTube.

... That doesn't prove jack daniels

The only source I could find of these people all come from Christian Apologetic sites who say "Oh, this kid totally saw Jesus guys" without any sort of substantial proof outside of faith. And most of these people, fun fact, were only declared dead. Meaning their brain could have still been having activities as it was only their heart had stopped.

Not to mention, there have been plenty of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc that have also claimed to have seen gods. Both while they were dying and claimed that "I saw Allah/Vishnu/Buddha/Some other 4th god while I was dying and he saved me from death!"

This is the reason why I don't like the "X saw god" arguments. Anyone could claim they saw any god and could you prove or disprove it? No, not really. So... try again god. Maybe loom over the streets of a major city for all to see and say "I'm real bitches" instead of whispering in an old lady's ear next time.

Sorry got examples afterwards.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gHfrWa_J3Hk
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MJZCjLNhpik

This one was really moving to me.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vg8WAv0YT9c

I've had several family members die, when I was younger and all went peacefully without fear.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Come and tell me directly.

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

Reveal himself to the entire world... Literally that easy

But even if God exists, he is most certainly already dead

[Australian rePublic]

I can't help but wonder what any of this has to do with what act or acts God would have to perform to get people to believe in Him.

Unless this is all just an exercise is proselytism...

And, back to the OP, I have a faith, but even I can't answer to the affirmative that there is an interventionist God.

Actually, it's mostly a matter of those who answer the question with "God would have to do XYZ" don't really warrant a reply. If God had to, for example, someone might say that God would light up the sky and use the stars to write out "I'm here, worship me". Well fine, okay cool, um, how do you want me to reply to that?
It's those that deviate from these posts that spark discussion

[The Free Joy State]

I can't help but wonder what any of this has to do with what act or acts God would have to perform to get people to believe in Him.

Unless this is all just an exercise is proselytism...

And, back to the OP, I have a faith, but even I can't answer to the affirmative that there is an interventionist God.

Actually, it's mostly a matter of those who answer the question with "God would have to do XYZ" don't really warrant a reply. If God had to, for example, someone might say that God would light up the sky and use the stars to write out "I'm here, worship me". Well fine, okay cool, um, how do you want me to reply to that?
It's those that deviate from these posts that spark discussion

Discussion, or attempting to pound your opinion into people -- by insisting all debate must start from the point of assuming God existed, thus attempting to constrain the outcome?

Open theological discussion allows itself to question, to ponder, to muse alternate interpretations, and it is possible to study theology from an entirely irreligious perspective.

But, again, as that wasn't the question posed at the start of this thread, I can't help but wonder the relevance to your OP. I believe there's a Christian discussion thread, if you want to discuss your belief in God in general and why God prevented the sacrifice of Isaac.

By the way, Aussie, you never did answer this. Earlier, you insisted ending all world suffering would entail abolishing free will, and I never got an answer to this question:

Which goes against free will

Actually, I would like to know how ending poverty would contradict free will. Let's just start with that.

It's easy to put out blanket statements, but I would like you to explain how ending poverty -- specifically how ensuring food grows plentifully and freely, that the basic things people need to live are widely available -- would contravene free will.

Or take disease... Many diseases are caused by gene mutations, or by biological factors. Why would God intervening so biology related diseases cannot occur interfere with human will -- and don't say "eugenics"; people would be able to reproduce with the partners they chose freely -- still be able to drink, smoke, get in a car, go paragliding, eat junk food, do all those things that increase risk factors -- they just wouldn't fear a random genetic quirk would cause their offspring pain.

So, why would God intervening to remove hunger and remove the possibility for biology-related disease to occur be removing free will?

[Free Arabian Nation]

... That doesn't prove jack daniels

The only source I could find of these people all come from Christian Apologetic sites who say "Oh, this kid totally saw Jesus guys" without any sort of substantial proof outside of faith. And most of these people, fun fact, were only declared dead. Meaning their brain could have still been having activities as it was only their heart had stopped.

Not to mention, there have been plenty of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc that have also claimed to have seen gods. Both while they were dying and claimed that "I saw Allah/Vishnu/Buddha/Some other 4th god while I was dying and he saved me from death!"

This is the reason why I don't like the "X saw god" arguments. Anyone could claim they saw any god and could you prove or disprove it? No, not really. So... try again god. Maybe loom over the streets of a major city for all to see and say "I'm real bitches" instead of whispering in an old lady's ear next time.

Sorry got examples afterwards.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gHfrWa_J3Hk
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MJZCjLNhpik

This one was really moving to me.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vg8WAv0YT9c

I've had several family members die, when I was younger and all went peacefully without fear.

Again; Heart Death. Heart death just means your heart is dead, not your brain.

And, again, that does not provide evidence against other gods

For example, a rockstar who was supposedly saved by Allah and converted to a Muslim afterwards

[Christian Confederation]

I can't help but wonder what any of this has to do with what act or acts God would have to perform to get people to believe in Him.

Unless this is all just an exercise is proselytism...

And, back to the OP, I have a faith, but even I can't answer to the affirmative that there is an interventionist God.

Actually, it's mostly a matter of those who answer the question with "God would have to do XYZ" don't really warrant a reply. If God had to, for example, someone might say that God would light up the sky and use the stars to write out "I'm here, worship me". Well fine, okay cool, um, how do you want me to reply to that?
It's those that deviate from these posts that spark discussion

Yeah but if that did happen there would still be people saying.

"Well, that's just a coincidence. Science will explain this!"

[Free Arabian Nation]

Actually, it's mostly a matter of those who answer the question with "God would have to do XYZ" don't really warrant a reply. If God had to, for example, someone might say that God would light up the sky and use the stars to write out "I'm here, worship me". Well fine, okay cool, um, how do you want me to reply to that?
It's those that deviate from these posts that spark discussion

Yeah but if that did happen there would still be people saying.

"Well, that's just a coincidence. Science will explain this!"

No, humanity isn't that dull. We realize that if God himself were to come down from the sky and say "Hey, I exist" that would be pretty damning evidence. Or if he was to make a giant message made of stars in the sky that clearly says in a human language "Hey, I exist" there would only be a few nutjobs that wouldn't believe.

[Christian Confederation]

Yeah but if that did happen there would still be people saying.

"Well, that's just a coincidence. Science will explain this!"

No, humanity isn't that dull. We realize that if God himself were to come down from the sky and say "Hey, I exist" that would be pretty damning evidence. Or if he was to make a giant message made of stars in the sky that clearly says in a human language "Hey, I exist" there would only be a few nutjobs that wouldn't believe.

True

[Australian rePublic]

Actually, it's mostly a matter of those who answer the question with "God would have to do XYZ" don't really warrant a reply. If God had to, for example, someone might say that God would light up the sky and use the stars to write out "I'm here, worship me". Well fine, okay cool, um, how do you want me to reply to that?
It's those that deviate from these posts that spark discussion

Discussion, or attempting to pound your opinion into people -- by insisting all debate must start from the point of assuming God existed, thus attempting to constrain the outcome?

Open theological discussion allows itself to question, to ponder, to muse alternate interpretations, and it is possible to study theology from an entirely irreligious perspective.

But, again, as that wasn't the question posed at the start of this thread, I can't help but wonder the relevance to your OP. I believe there's a Christian discussion thread, if you want to discuss your belief in God in general and why God prevented the sacrifice of Isaac.

By the way, Aussie, you never did answer this. Earlier, you insisted ending all world suffering would entail abolishing free will, and I never got an answer to this question:

Actually, I would like to know how ending poverty would contradict free will. Let's just start with that.

It's easy to put out blanket statements, but I would like you to explain how ending poverty -- specifically how ensuring food grows plentifully and freely, that the basic things people need to live are widely available -- would contravene free will.

Or take disease... Many diseases are caused by gene mutations, or by biological factors. Why would God intervening so biology related diseases cannot occur interfere with human will -- and don't say "eugenics"; people would be able to reproduce with the partners they chose freely -- still be able to drink, smoke, get in a car, go paragliding, eat junk food, do all those things that increase risk factors -- they just wouldn't fear a random genetic quirk would cause their offspring pain.

So, why would God intervening to remove hunger and remove the possibility for biology-related disease to occur be removing free will?

What you are addressing is the problem of evil, which is a whole other discussion. But once again, existance=/=benevolence. Just because God exists, it doesn't mean that He would want to remove all these things from the world. If He did want to, He would have. Does not wanting to remove these things make Him evil? That's a different discussion

[Australian rePublic]

Yeah but if that did happen there would still be people saying.

"Well, that's just a coincidence. Science will explain this!"

No, humanity isn't that dull. We realize that if God himself were to come down from the sky and say "Hey, I exist" that would be pretty damning evidence. Or if he was to make a giant message made of stars in the sky that clearly says in a human language "Hey, I exist" there would only be a few nutjobs that wouldn't believe.

Nut jobs like Richard Dawkins?

[Australian rePublic]

Perhaps we should have one ultimate God thread. This thread, with the "Why do you/don't you believe in God" thread with a third thread about whether or not God is good...

[The Free Joy State]

Discussion, or attempting to pound your opinion into people -- by insisting all debate must start from the point of assuming God existed, thus attempting to constrain the outcome?

Open theological discussion allows itself to question, to ponder, to muse alternate interpretations, and it is possible to study theology from an entirely irreligious perspective.

But, again, as that wasn't the question posed at the start of this thread, I can't help but wonder the relevance to your OP. I believe there's a Christian discussion thread, if you want to discuss your belief in God in general and why God prevented the sacrifice of Isaac.

By the way, Aussie, you never did answer this. Earlier, you insisted ending all world suffering would entail abolishing free will, and I never got an answer to this question:

What you are addressing is the problem of evil, which is a whole other discussion. But once again, existance=/=benevolence. Just because God exists, it doesn't mean that He would want to remove all these things from the world. If He did want to, He would have. Does not wanting to remove these things make Him evil? That's a different discussion

I'm familiar with the problem of evil. It's one of the things that makes an interventionist God hard to believe in (and the existence of an interventionist God is the premise of the thread)

A God -- possible. A being outside of mortal existence -- potentially. Just not necessarily an interventionist one with the omnipotent nature ascribed to Him.

But the problem of evil was not what I asked. I asked you to explain your flip comment that ending suffering would be against free will, not to make another one (that "existing =/= benevolence").

This was the original exchange:

end poverty, end all world suffering, remove all elements of fascism and alt-right from society, and make the Tories not terrible at everything

...also giving me a million pounds wouldn't go amiss

Which goes against free will

Now, tell me... the question I asked was on free will, not the problem of evil.

Why would ending the suffering of starvation (making food plentiful and freely available so it is impossible for a person to go hungry), ending the suffering of biological disease (by making it impossible to occur -- without intervening in human behaviour) contravene free will?

That doesn't ask for you to solve the problem of evil, merely why it would be against human free will to do so.

[Australian rePublic]

What you are addressing is the problem of evil, which is a whole other discussion. But once again, existance=/=benevolence. Just because God exists, it doesn't mean that He would want to remove all these things from the world. If He did want to, He would have. Does not wanting to remove these things make Him evil? That's a different discussion

I'm familiar with the problem of evil. It's one of the things that makes an interventionist God hard to believe in (and the existence of an interventionist God is the premise of the thread)

A God -- possible. A being outside of mortal existence -- potentially. Just not necessarily an interventionist one with the omnipotent nature ascribed to Him.

But the problem of evil was not what I asked. I asked you to explain your flip comment that ending suffering would be against free will, not to make another one (that "existing =/= benevolence").

This was the original exchange:

Which goes against free will

Now, tell me... the question I asked was on free will, not the problem of evil.

Why would ending the suffering of starvation (making food plentiful so it is impossible for a person to go hungry), ending the suffering of biological disease contravene free will?

That doesn't ask for you to solve the problem of evil, merely why it would be against human free will to do so.

Sorry, my mistake. That was error, I never meant to equate poverty to free will, my mistake

[The Blaatschapen]

Discussion, or attempting to pound your opinion into people -- by insisting all debate must start from the point of assuming God existed, thus attempting to constrain the outcome?

Open theological discussion allows itself to question, to ponder, to muse alternate interpretations, and it is possible to study theology from an entirely irreligious perspective.

But, again, as that wasn't the question posed at the start of this thread, I can't help but wonder the relevance to your OP. I believe there's a Christian discussion thread, if you want to discuss your belief in God in general and why God prevented the sacrifice of Isaac.

By the way, Aussie, you never did answer this. Earlier, you insisted ending all world suffering would entail abolishing free will, and I never got an answer to this question:

What you are addressing is the problem of evil, which is a whole other discussion. But once again, existance=/=benevolence. Just because God exists, it doesn't mean that He would want to remove all these things from the world. If He did want to, He would have. Does not wanting to remove these things make Him evil? That's a different discussion

Yes.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

Actually, it's mostly a matter of those who answer the question with "God would have to do XYZ" don't really warrant a reply. If God had to, for example, someone might say that God would light up the sky and use the stars to write out "I'm here, worship me". Well fine, okay cool, um, how do you want me to reply to that?
It's those that deviate from these posts that spark discussion

Discussion, or attempting to pound your opinion into people -- by insisting all debate must start from the point of assuming God existed, thus attempting to constrain the outcome?

Open theological discussion allows itself to question, to ponder, to muse alternate interpretations, and it is possible to study theology from an entirely irreligious perspective.

But, again, as that wasn't the question posed at the start of this thread, I can't help but wonder the relevance to your OP. I believe there's a Christian discussion thread, if you want to discuss your belief in God in general and why God prevented the sacrifice of Isaac.

Again, the question of "How do you differentiate the divinely influenced from the 100% manmade/ 100% natural? "

[The Grims]

Perhaps we should have one ultimate God thread. This thread, with the "Why do you/don't you believe in God" thread with a third thread about whether or not God is good...

And good from which perspective. Good for the universe may be bad for humanity.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

Perhaps we should have one ultimate God thread. This thread, with the "Why do you/don't you believe in God" thread with a third thread about whether or not God is good...

And good from which perspective. Good for the universe may be bad for humanity.

KFC chickens approved this message—good human progress can also (if not the all the time) bad for the universe.

[Australian rePublic]

Perhaps we should have one ultimate God thread. This thread, with the "Why do you/don't you believe in God" thread with a third thread about whether or not God is good...

And good from which perspective. Good for the universe may be bad for humanity.

After this time criticising God as evil, you throw a curve ball like this

[Free Arabian Nation]

No, humanity isn't that dull. We realize that if God himself were to come down from the sky and say "Hey, I exist" that would be pretty damning evidence. Or if he was to make a giant message made of stars in the sky that clearly says in a human language "Hey, I exist" there would only be a few nutjobs that wouldn't believe.

Nut jobs like Richard Dawkins?

Yeah, exactly.

[Alvecia]

Nut jobs like Richard Dawkins?

Yeah, exactly.

Tbf, I could hire a fleet of drones to do something that looks exactly like that.