What would it take to prove the existence of a God?

[harmoniouschaos]

First off, I understand that different people stand at different ends of the spectrum - some blindly need no proof of an existence, they believe no matter what (even if their beliefs appear to be chained down by dogmas). Or, they simply refuse to believe in such an existence, as they believe everything relevant, to existence can eventually be explained without a divine intervention.

 

Secondly by God, I mean as understood by most, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.

 

(Also, although religous debates are most probably inevitable, try not to 'shift the burden' as a means to answer questions.)

 

So, what would it take?

[sanctus]

A really objective proof!

 

Everybody knows and accepts that gravity exists, becuase everybody can see how the apple falls to the ground!

All the things that are supposed to prove the existence of god are subjective interpretations of an experience or a book.

 

The question is where is the limit between subjective and objective?

This is exactly the problem, believers use the proofs at the limit to prove the existence and non-believers find there always the subjective side.

 

So, to prove his existence there would be a clearly objective proof.

[IrishEyes]

That's a good point, sanctus.

 

I can't think of a single person that rejects gravity, but there are many that reject God.

 

And the difference between objective and subjective proof is only too true. What may be enough proof for me is not enough, or definitive, or the right type, of proof for you. I agree with 'chaos'... what type of 'proof' would it take? i mean, handwriting on the wall? a voice from nowhere? your computer going nuts and then the blue screen of death appearing with the words "I AM" hovering in red (of course, that would only happen if you were running MS, not LINUX, right?)?

 

Also, for some, disproving science will lead to God. For others, disproving God will lead to science. Where is the middle ground?

 

I know of people that totally believe in God/creation, and people that believe totally in evolution/science, and people that believe in a mix of God/Creation AND evolution/science. I think all of those three types are represented here in this forum.

 

However, i don't think I've ever run into a person that believes neither in evolution nor creation. Most think it has to be one or the other, right? That just fosters the right/wrong attitude. Someone is right, anoher is wrong.

 

My 'proof' isn't good enough for you, but yours isn't good enough for me either. It's all in the mind/heart of the individual.

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

 

Also, for some, disproving science will lead to God. For others, disproving God will lead to science. Where is the middle ground?

 

 

The middle ground is where these people that believe a bit in GOD/CREATION and SCIENCE/EVOLUTION are. They don't think one excludes the other.

 

 

By the way, I am sure you have already encontered people that don't believe neither in evolution nor in creationism, I would say a good proprotion of mankind just does not care therefore they don't have this right/wrong attitude in this case.

[IrishEyes]

The middle ground is where these people that believe a bit in GOD/CREATION and SCIENCE/EVOLUTION are. They don't think one excludes the other.

 

Yes, but to read their arguments in this forum, they really can't reconcile their beliefs in their own minds, much less communicate them effectively to others. I guess I see them as 'compromisers'. They try to make everyone happy by believing a little bit of both, but never actually take a stand for what THEY think is 'true'. Little bit of this, little bit of that... and it all just falls into place, right?

 

By the way, I am sure you have already encontered people that don't believe neither in evolution nor in creationism, I would say a good proprotion of mankind just does not care therefore they don't have this right/wrong attitude in this case.

 

You are right, of course. Apathy may be the best path after all, huh? (That was a joke, by the way!) I honestly can say that i respect people like you and geko and Freethnker much more for HAVING beliefs, than i do others that refuse to take a stand. Wishy-washy bugs me. I'd rather have a person with an opposing view try to show me where my logic/belief is flawed, than I would someone that just agrees to avoid the uncomfortable discussion!!

 

Still though, what about the definitive proof? What would it take to convinve you of God, sanctus?

[Freethinker]

Primary to this discussion is the word/ concept of "proof". I see it thrown around here quite a lot, such as:

 

A really objective proof!

or

What may be enough proof for me is not enough, or definitive, or the right type, of proof for you. ...My 'proof' isn't good enough for you,

 

But we have to evaluate what IS and what IS NOT proof. And that is where it falls apart. What I typically find when a believer is asked for "proof", is that they think their REASONS are PROOF. Basically showing that the very concept of PROOF is something they lack a factual understanding of. You mention:

 

try not to 'shift the burden' as a means to answer questions.

 

As everyone here knows, I spend a good deal of time trying to educate beleivers on this very problem. This along with every other agument fallacy. They do not comprehend that how many people with what titles over how long really is not in any form PROOF of something. As most people in the US for thousands of years, including Newton... ... Nor is their inability to comprehend, proof that something does not happen the way it does. Such as "It seems impossible that the eye..." Or the fear of big numbers as in "the chances of such and such are ten billion to one..."

 

As to my approach, the first issue is simple Logic.

 

Does the defintion/ requirements of the specific god violate simple logic. The major tools in this regard are evaluation of claims using the well established rules for constructing a logical argument (such as the fallacies) and Ockham's Razor. If it can't pass this simple initial evaluation, I see no reason to prusue it further.

 

If the presentation does not violate simple basic rules of logic, then it is a matter of internal consistancy. Does the concept/ defintion contradict itself? e.g. the Christian god is claimed to have Omnipotence/ Omniscience, yet we are claimed to have free will. The two are mutually exclusive. The defintion is internally self contradictory. Thus can not be valid.

 

Then does it contradict other knowledge. Does it require the rejection of scientific finds that are well established, highly provable. e.g. that QM destroys the possiblity of an intellegent first cause

 

Finally (perhaps, I am still working on the details as I go) there is actual PROOF. Can we actually find anything that would show a need for a god as the best answer. This gets tricky as any sufficiently advanced society could perform feats that would seem impossible to a lower civilization. e.g. there are many fireplaces today that would seem to have logs burning, yet never consumed by the flame. Of voices that come out of little boxes with no person obviously able to fit in them.

 

Although I propose a very extensive set of requirments, I actually think it would be extremely easy for a god to prove it exists. Obviously anything that would be a god would have no trouble proving it. Otherwise that entity would have a limitation and thus would not be a god.

 

But we come back to "proof".

 

It seems like the beleiver always starts for the concept of beleiving they CAN "prove' their god exists. Obviously, they have decided to accept, so it should be obvious to anyone else. But they find that what THEY think is "proof" is far from it. So at some point they want to claim that we non-believer just refuse to accept their "proof". Later this turns into "I have no proof YOU would accept." As if there still actually IS "proof". They are not willing to admit to themselves that what they THOUGHT was "proof" in fact is NOT "proof", but is actually REASONS. Finally it usually turns into my being told I am the devil or will burn in his hell. Or better stated as the complete rejection of rational thought when they come to understand they were not using rational thought in the first place.

 

So if you want to PROVE your god exists, it really is quite simple.

<B

[sanctus]

Freethinker,

that what you define proof (and I guess you are right in your definition) I called objective proof, it may not be like in a dictionnary, but consistent. Let's say I would believe, then I could show you my reasons and tell you these are my proofs. It would then be a subjective proof!

That's what I meant.

 

In physics for example I call proof what you call proof, that is an objective proof.

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

 

 

 

Still though, what about the definitive proof? What would it take to convinve you of God, sanctus?

 

Sorry I saw the question just the third time I read it, so my answer comes cronologically the wrong way around.

It depends already on which god! The god of the bible, I think nothing would convnce me (I can't just believe in something like adam and eva and the snake and the apple and the universal flood and the existence of Jesus as a son of god-- as a philosopher yes-- for me this isn't serious (i.e. with the feet on the ground) it's like beliving in santa). This isn't supposed to be a judgement, it is just my reason not to believe in this god.

If you tell me god is that what created everything? Then if you say the anti-symmetrie at the creation of the universe between matter and anti-matter (which made that not all matter and anti-matter was transformed into energy again) is god, then you could convince me. I would never have called it god, even if it satisfies all the criterias of god, it has been since ever, will be forever, it's omnipresent and therefore omniscent.

 

So you see a definitive proof would be an objective proof (in my own definition) or a proof (in freethinkers definition).

[IrishEyes]

The god of the bible, I think nothing would convnce me

 

i LOVE your honesty!!

 

Adam, eve, snake, Jesus as the son of God... yeah, I can see how those things would be almost impossible to believe from a 'proof' and 'logic' standpoint. I mean, noone was there in the Garden of Eden, and the story wasn't even recorded until Moses and the Exodus. And thee is a LOT of convoluted controversy surrounding Jesus.

 

The flood is a little different for me though, as there does seem to be scientific evidence that indicates a flood, and most cultures have a flood story in thier history, which makes sense if it actually happened and we are all descended from Noah's family, right?

 

But your arguments are well presented without being argumentative, and I can fully accept your POV as valid, even though I don't share it. thanks for sharing your opinion!

[IrishEyes]

Freethinker, I love your passion! And I agree with you, it should be about proof. But again, as with what sanctus said, I think that most 'proof' is subjective.

 

You once were challenged to 'prove' you loved your mother. Your 'proof' was the testimony of your actions at her deathbed. While I am NOT disputing your love for your mother, I don't think you offered objective 'proof'. Yes, you were a good son. Yes, you did what most would. Yes, that is a way to demonstrate love. But that doesn't 'prove' love. Maybe you were putting on a show for the people watching, in case her will was in question and you could point to these people and say "Wasnt I a loving son? Don't I deserve her assets?" Do you see what I mean?

 

There is really now way to objectively 'prove' love, just as there is no way for me to objectively 'prove' God. I can disprove some aspects of scientific theory, or at least justify my opinion of them with what constitutes 'proof' to me, but that still does not offer 'proof' of God.

[lindagarrette]

Proof is not a condition of belief. Proof is an objective of science. The main difference between the two systems (religion and science) is that the latter is intersubjectively verifyable. That means that an educated person can demostrate validity of a given scientific theory regardless of that person's other cultural or environmental situations. Gravity and the speed of light apply equally to everyone in the world, in the universe, for that matter. There is no point in further haggling over this issue.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: sanctus

Freethinker,

 

that what you define proof (and I guess you are right in your definition) I called objective proof, it may not be like in a dictionnary, but consistent. Let's say I would believe, then I could show you my reasons and tell you these are my proofs. It would then be a subjective proof!

 

That's what I meant.

 

a "REASON" is NEVER "PROOF". It is was and always will be ONLY A REASON.

 

Objective proof woould be "I had it tested and it is made of metal.

 

Subjective would be "It feels like it is made of metal to me."

 

A REASON would be, "I wanted it to be a piece of metal."

[IrishEyes]

Gravity and the speed of light apply equally to everyone in the world, in the universe, for that matter.

 

The laws of gravity that are identifiable on this planet are not as easily identifiable on others. Our gravity is not identical to that of the moon. Gravity still exists on the moon, right? But how can it if the apple doesn't fall off the tree there? see, while the theory of gravity may not be subjective, it's verifiability can be questioned, depending on your place in the universe.

 

And the speed of light is a constant, and that is accepted all throughout the universe? What of the scientific data that points to the speed of light actually getting slower? Is that all faked by Christians?

 

Yes, some things can be proven objectively. The earth rotates around the sun. That is not subjective, is it? There is proof for that, correct? But prove that you love your family. It just can't be done, as love is an emotion. And while there may be ways to measure emotions biochemically, couldn't what might be measured as 'love' actually just be a good Snickers bar before the test was hooked up? ;>)

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

The flood is a little different for me though, as there does seem to be scientific evidence that indicates a flood, and most cultures have a flood story in thier history, which makes sense if it actually happened and we are all descended from Noah's family, right?

 

And see, here we get into a discussion of what IS "Proof".

 

Irisheyes CLAIMS (yes we know she loves her CLAIMS) that there is "scientific evidence that indicates a flood". OK, I have scientific evidence that my basement was flooded a few years back. But how does that PROVE the world wide flood/ Ark myth?

most cultures have a flood story in thier history, which makes sense if it actually happened

"most cultures" were naturally started along water, as water is one of the major requirement for humans. So most civilizations will ahve some flood story from the past.

 

That these stories occupy different periods of time is totally ignored. As is the FACT that many other civilizations DO NOT have flood myths at all. Or that we have a continuous history of some civilizations existing thru the time the biblical flood supposedly happened and these people failed to notice that they were all killed in the flood. (Guess the memo did not go out?) Thus the "proof" turns into an "explanation" or REASON. You WANT to believe so are willing to take NON-proofs and pretend they ARE proofs. You are looking for and found an explanation or REASON, NOT a PROOF.

 

Now if in fact thee was a universal flood story which had consistant timing and did not conflict with other historical facts, then we might have a PROOF.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Freethinker, I love your passion! And I agree with you, it should be about proof. But again, as with what sanctus said, I think that most 'proof' is subjective.

 

Yes many "proofs" that people use are subjective. But that does not mean that PROOF can not or is not OBJECTIVE. Observable, repeatable, predictable, measurable.

 

You once were challenged to 'prove' you loved your mother. Your 'proof' was the testimony of your actions at her deathbed.

 

That was but one MINOR example. I stated that it would be possible to be hooked up to monitoring equip that would detect activities in specific regions of the brain associated with "love" emotions. This would make it OBJECTIVELY provable.

 

While I am NOT disputing your love for your mother, I don't think you offered objective 'proof'.

 

Not with the specific example you included. But that again does not mean it could not/ does not exist.

 

There is really now way to objectively 'prove' love,

Yes there is, you just reject accepting it.

just as there is no way for me to objectively 'prove' God.

Only because you can not prove what does not exist.

I can disprove some aspects of scientific theory, or at least justify my opinion of them with what constitutes 'proof' to me,

Once more showing that you do not understand the difference between PROOF and REASONS.

 

e.g. if someone did give a scientifically valid reason to question Evolution, that would NOT be proof that Creationism is correct. It would give a REASON for someone that wishes Creationism to be correct to accept Creationism. But it would not PROVE Creationism in any way.

 

but that still does not offer 'proof' of God.

 

All you can do so far is state that you have no proof. I accept the truth of that. But that does not mean that proof could not be given if a god actually did exist. In fact I would think it would be virtually impossible to disprove a god if one DID exist.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

The laws of gravity that are identifiable on this planet are not as easily identifiable on others. Our gravity is not identical to that of the moon. Gravity still exists on the moon, right? But how can it if the apple doesn't fall off the tree there? see, while the theory of gravity may not be subjective, it's verifiability can be questioned, depending on your place in the universe.

 

Whoa! Boy this explains a lot!

The laws of gravity that are identifiable on this planet are not as easily identifiable on others. Our gravity is not identical to that of the moon.

Move over Einstein! Irisheyes is going to rewrite General Relativity! I am humble in your presence. I would be pleased to set up a conference call between you and Steven Hawkings so you can set him straight on this!

 

Yes, some things can be proven objectively. The earth rotates around the sun. That is not subjective, is it? There is proof for that, correct?

Leave it to Christian Fundies. There is a group of Christians that offer a reward to anyone that can PROVE the Earth is NOT the center of the Universe. I can not find that site right now, but here is some Crazy Christians Convinced of earth Centricity!

 

The Earth is the Center of the Universe

"How could this be ? Welll, it's simply because because the Lord created the Earth and our Sun and all the stars (other suns) using the Earth as the Center of Creation. From this central hub, the galaxies are moving away causing a red-light shift, there is no other explanation."

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/Theearthisthecenter.html

 

"Who Cares About Geocentrism? An Interview with Robert Sungenis

 

Most people believe that heliocentrism is an established fact of science, when in reality, it remains an unproven theory that has merely been touted as fact, much like the theory of Evolution. ..

 

Jacob: I see. So in your view, the planets revolve around the sun, but the sun revolves around the earth?

 

Robert: Correct, but it is not my view alone. It is the generally accepted view among all geocentrists. I don't know anyone who does not hold to it.... Since Scripture says the earth is immobile, this would discount any diurnal motion (rotation on axis and revolution around the sun). "Diurnal motion" was also condemned as a "heresy" and "opposed to Scripture" by the Sacred Congregation of St. Robert Bellarmine, and confirmed by three popes.

 

Jacob: You've mentioned both Sacred Scripture and the Ordinary Magisterium - I take it that this is more than just a scientific hobby-horse with no theological ramifications?

 

Robert: To say the least. "

http://www.lumengentleman.com/index.asp?f=geocentrism

 

I have more at home.

 

Oh how fragile the Christian myth is. And how flexible the line's position is. Some of these sites "laugh" at young earthers. One said it was a person's attempt at their Andy Warhol 15 mins of fame by claiming it. And note they use the exact same fallacy approach to it as they use against Evolution.

 

So irisheyes, you are a Anti-Evolution, (assumed?) helio-centristic, old or young earther? Where do you draw the line between accepting factual Science and Christian Crazies?

 

But prove that you love your family. It just can't be done, as love is an emotion. And while there may be ways to measure emotions biochemically, couldn't what might be measured as 'love' actually just be a good Snickers bar before the test was hooked up? ;>)

 

No, a Snickers bar would have a very different signature. Besides the chocolate smear on the probes!

[IrishEyes]

Now if in fact thee was a universal flood story which had consistant timing and did not conflict with other historical facts, then we might have a PROOF.

 

Ok, my problem with this reasoning is that it goes against reality. I know, that doedn't make much sense, right? Bear wuth me, as I just had a great example of this when my brother was visiting this past weekend.

 

We were talking about different pet dogs that we have had. He remembered having one dog at a certain time, while I remembered having that dog at a different time. Now we both remember the dog, that is not in dispute. But which of us is correct with the time? Unfortunately, our mother is dead, and we have no real 'proof' as to who is right. Does that mean the dog was part of my imagination? Or his? Or was the dog a reality for both of us at different times? Or did one of us remember it wrong? The dog existed, we have pics of him (a historical proof). But my cousin has no recollection of this dog, so does that mean the dog wasn't in our home, even though the cousin didn't live with us?

 

Couldn't the Flood be the same? Different cultures have different timelines for the Flood. Some have no flood story. Does that prove that it didn't happen?

 

My 'proof' is studying different scientific opinions and research, and seeing how they fit with other theories. there ARE scientists that believe in the Flood, and they aren't all associated with Christian research groups. Many are, but not every single one of them. One of the following sites is by a Creationist, but it has scientific information included. Do I agree with every thing that every Christian scientist says? NO WAY. But I refuse to dismiss them as a group based on their religious beliefs.

 

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-238.htm

http://custance.org/Library/Volume9/Part_I/Appendices.html