Hi folks,
I just joined to post my question to all those out there.

What, if any, would constitute an everlasting and conclusive proof of God to all the unbelievers and believers out there?

There seem to be some issues with this goal.
1. An infinite being would have to make a finite manifestation. This alone would cause some people to be unconvinced.

2. Some would say that Jesus already made this manifestation but he is no longer accepted as proof since we only have written records of this. So this being would have to be with us eternally.

3. I'm sure there are even believers who would claim that this being is actually the Devil(or evil spirit) trying to gain believers for himself.

4. What form could this manifestation take since different religions have different concepts of God's form?

5. Would any "miracle" that seemed supernatural be accepted as such or required to to be tested until it fit natural laws when it would no longer be supernatural? Maybe God would be seen as an expert illusionist not explaining his tricks?

6. My guess is that a definite proof such as this would cause the fanatical believer to lash out against the skeptics for their disbelief. Proof of God is like tug-of-war where neither side has definite proof so cannot pull the other over to his side. Would God be willing to be responsible for such activity? Ofcourse, I suppose he could use his omnipotence to protect those at risk.

Other than number 1 or 5, you may note that the majority of problems will happen with believers. I think 5 is critical though re skeptics. However, skeptics out there please feel free to submit any issues you may think will interfere with proving God in this material world. My only requirements for the proof are this:
-It should convince everyone on Earth
-It should be everlasting(so no infinite repetitions)

I personally doubt this could be achieved but am willing to concede I may be wrong.

If there is a God, she would know exactly the proof I need to believe in her.

(October 4, 2014 at 3:01 am)Surgenator Wrote: If there is a God, she would know exactly the proof I need to believe in her.

Maybe she knows there isn't one so she doesn't bother. This should be a proof that works for everyone, not just you. I suppose it could manifest as different proofs that matched each person's criteria, but this would cause difference on opinion on what the actual proof was. I am curious though: What would be proof for YOU?

(October 4, 2014 at 3:14 am)satsujin Wrote:

(October 4, 2014 at 3:01 am)Surgenator Wrote: If there is a God, she would know exactly the proof I need to believe in her.

Maybe she knows there isn't one so she doesn't bother. This should be a proof that works for everyone, not just you. I suppose it could manifest as different proofs that matched each person's criteria, but this would cause difference on opinion on what the actual proof was.

If she can't proof to me she exist, then there is no way she is God. You can prove to me that you exist. You can prove to the world that you exist. Are you saying God is incapable of doing what you can do, a mere mortal?

For me, god claimant would have to show me history being reversed. Otherwise even if it was god, it would have no respect from me.

1. An infinite being would have to make a finite manifestation. This alone would cause some people to be unconvinced.
- Which he supposedly did all the time as per the bible.


2. Some would say that Jesus already made this manifestation but he is no longer accepted as proof since we only have written records of this. So this being would have to be with us eternally.
- He is no longer accepted because of a lack of evidence of his existence. Those "written records" are what lead people to disbelieve him in the first place due to all the inaccuracy, contradictions and errors.


3. I'm sure there are even believers who would claim that this being is actually the Devil(or evil spirit) trying to gain believers for himself.
- Believers already believe in whatever they believe, and are irrelevant in this context.


4. What form could this manifestation take since different religions have different concepts of God's form?
- The one which is the real one. He should be trying to show the truth not validate a particular religion.


5. Would any "miracle" that seemed supernatural be accepted as such or required to to be tested until it fit natural laws when it would no longer be supernatural? Maybe God would be seen as an expert illusionist not explaining his tricks?
- A "miracle" is something which is beyond the possibilities of nature. If there is a natural explanation, then there is no room for a supernatural.

6. My guess is that a definite proof such as this would cause the fanatical believer to lash out against the skeptics for their disbelief. Proof of God is like tug-of-war where neither side has definite proof so cannot pull the other over to his side. Would God be willing to be responsible for such activity? Ofcourse, I suppose he could use his omnipotence to protect those at risk.
- Disbelief is not a "side", it is a neutral position, so think of the skeptics as the audience of your tug-of-war, and the involved parties will be the different groups of religious followers, as it is they who actually hold the belief.

(October 4, 2014 at 3:18 am)Surgenator Wrote: If she can't proof to me she exist, then there is no way she is God. You can prove to me that you exist. You can prove to the world that you exist. Are you saying God is incapable of doing what you can do, a mere mortal?

I can prove I exist. So can God without doubt simply by manifesting. But how to prove she is God? We are defined by our actions so God would have to enact something amazing and supernatural is my guess. But would this mean doing something infinite in a finite world? That's logically impossible.

In retrospect, the main problem with this issue is that everyone has their own concept of God. So, there can be no all-encompassing proof. Maybe asking this question was a bad idea but I'd still like some input.

And Surgenator you still haven't claimed what form that proof would take....

---

(October 4, 2014 at 3:28 am)Aoi Magi Wrote: 6. My guess is that a definite proof such as this would cause the fanatical believer to lash out against the skeptics for their disbelief. Proof of God is like tug-of-war where neither side has definite proof so cannot pull the other over to his side. Would God be willing to be responsible for such activity? Ofcourse, I suppose he could use his omnipotence to protect those at risk.
- Disbelief is not a "side", it is a neutral position, so think of the skeptics as the audience of your tug-of-war, and the involved parties will be the different groups of religious followers, as it is they who actually hold the belief.

Aoi for most of my points you simply reiterated them, not added anything new. I will respond to 6 however.
Disbelief is not necessarily a neutral position. Agnosticism is when they say they dont know but many skeptics claim they KNOW god does not exist because of the demonstrable validity of science. They do not know, they simply believe in non-existence of god which cannot be proved/disproved. This is the group i referred to in tug of war.

---

(October 4, 2014 at 3:24 am)Luckie Wrote: For me, god claimant would have to show me history being reversed. Otherwise even if it was god, it would have no respect from me.

I do not know what you mean by reversal of history. Change in history books? Travel back in time?

(October 4, 2014 at 2:38 am)satsujin Wrote: What, if any, would constitute an everlasting and conclusive proof of God to all the unbelievers and believers out there?

First a provide definition of god that everyone agrees on. No two descriptions are ever the same.

(October 4, 2014 at 3:46 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(October 4, 2014 at 2:38 am)satsujin Wrote: What, if any, would constitute an everlasting and conclusive proof of God to all the unbelievers and believers out there?

First a provide definition of god that everyone agrees on. No two descriptions are ever the same.

That, I believe is one of the key reasons why God cannot be proved on this Earth. Yet many skeptics still ask why God does not prove himself.....

I think this is a non answerable question because the criteria for what god is changes so drastically amongst believers that what is proof of one god is not proof of another. I mean would a christian believe it if Krishna came down and proved he was Krishna? I don't think so, and I think they would carry.on believing in thier god because Krishna doesn't fit their definition of what god is. And this applies to the vast multitude of contradictory gods believed in today.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I would first need a precise definition of what god is before I can know what would be considered evidence.

Edit - you beat me to it downbeatplumb.