Will a sign from God will convince us of his existence?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

What's a god? And how would a 'sign' from a 'god' be distinguishable from, say, an alien that could produce the same results?

[Neo-Scholastic]

From all the above it is clear that when an atheist asks for evidence he is lying. They won't even consider it.

[Manowar]

I once saw a sign, it was an image of Jesus on a piece of toast. I looked on it it awe for several minutes. I know it was a sign from God showing me which direction my life should take, but I was so hungry i just ate it. LOL

manowar

[tor]

From all the above it is clear that when an atheist asks for evidence he is lying. They won't even consider it.

Did you receive any evidence yet?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

From all the above it is clear that when an atheist asks for evidence he is lying. They won't even consider it.

Bollocks and you know it.

People are using logic to help inform a deduction as to the difference between an actual 'god' doing something and someone/thing else doing it.

You see a fire spontaneously appear in the desert, do you assume it's just 'god' doing its thing? Or do you investigate to see whether some dry wood has caught fire in the extreme heat of the desert or whether something else is at play (which is as of yet unknown).

Come on man, do us a favour yeah?

[max-greece]

From all the above it is clear that when an atheist asks for evidence he is lying. They won't even consider it.

Usual theist nonsense response of course.

All of the examples given are such mundane items any God should be embarrassed to produce them.

In simple terms, as I have argued before, an omniscient God has to know what is required to convince any of us.

Miracles, for me, are not really what is required unless it is something very dramatic (elimination of AIDS, Malaria or some such, globally and forever).

What it would take would be an appearance with some answers to all the questions I would have of him (assuming).

He'd have a lot of explaining to do, if he manages that then not only might he convince me he exists he might even convince me he's worthy of worship. The 2 are not synonymous as 1/3rd of all the angels show.

[FreeTony]

Dear friends,
We are atheist because there is no proof of god's existence or whatsoever.But what if ask god to send a sign to believe in him.If you pray to him and suddenly a plate of food comes to you from nothing.The food is what was never cooked in your home or you never ate it.Some oil or anything which would leave stain on your clothes falls on your clothes.You get up in the morning and say that it was a dream but really the stain is there on your clothes.Then will you believe.If not what will be your argument.

There are thousands of cases where strange things have been proven to be illusions of the mind. Even if it was proven that a God existed and had shown himself to people a dozen times it is still much more likely to be a delusion.

[LostLocke]

From all the above it is clear that when an atheist asks for evidence he is lying. They won't even consider it.

I am considering a god as a possibility. But why should I consider a god as the only possibility at the exclusion of other possibilities?
There's isn't enough info in that event to eliminate any possibilities.

[Esquilax]

From all the above it is clear that when an atheist asks for evidence he is lying. They won't even consider it.

I see. So, you read us all recommending a thorough examination of the evidence, removed from preconceptions or biases, in our conversations with theists, and our discussions on science, all over this forum. And yet, when we merely wish to apply the exact same standard to any prospective signs we might receive from a god, you call us dishonest for being consistent and not simply applying your preconceptions and biases?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

From all the above it is clear that when an atheist asks for evidence he is lying. They won't even consider it.

I see. So, you read us all recommending a thorough examination of the evidence, removed from preconceptions or biases, in our conversations with theists, and our discussions on science, all over this forum. And yet, when we merely wish to apply the exact same standard to any prospective signs we might receive from a god, you call us dishonest for being consistent and not simply applying your preconceptions and biases?

Yes but consistency is such a fluid and subjective concept.