Conclusive proof of God

[FatAndFaithless]

Again, another person that doesn't understand the difference between agnosticism and atheism/theism. How many freaking threads have we had on this.

[satsujin]

LemonVariable, I don't believe in Christianity personally even though I think the NT has some good spiritual concepts. Like I said, it would be harder to prove a god to all believers instead of skeptics since skeptics don't have a preconceived notion. My OP was meant to find a universal proof of god that would be timeless. But maybe now I can just see what skeptics have to say.

[Surgenator]

I don't know there isn't a god, but I dont believe in one, not until some evidence is produced.
To me, this sentence seems to be saying you believe there is no god since there is no evidence. You don't know it but you believe this based on no knowledge of proof of one. And I say when you take a stance on something without actual knowledge, it is faith. I do not use it in its religious sense but only defined as believing something without knowledge.

But somehow our definition of Belief differs.

We don't believe because that is the default position. For example, you don't know if fairies exist, do you believe in fairies? You don't know if vampires exist, do you believe in vampires? You don't know if your great great grandma is living on jupiter right now, do you believe it?

[satsujin]

For example, you don't know if fairies exist, do you believe in fairies? You don't know if vampires exist, do you believe in vampires? You don't know if your great great grandma is living on jupiter right now, do you believe it?

Please dont bring up completely implausible statements as part of your argument. I've already covered fairies in an earlier post.

But perhaps my mistake is in assuming that most atheists are strong atheists instead of agnostic atheists. This was based on them wording "I don't believe" instead of "I don't know". After all, I used to be an agnostic atheist.

But most of you you seem to shut the book on my question. Just saying that God will know the answer though that will be manifested differently for everyone and there would be no universal proof. On something you all so vehemently opposed to even considering, I doubt you would accept the testimony of fellow atheists who believed and converted. You all would just assume they got religion and would want to experience it personally before you passed judgement. And then there's the question of how long this proof would be accepted as fact until it needed to be retested in the future. I covered some the issues that would occur with a universal proof of God in this world and the response I've received here has only made me feel more sure of my position that there never could be one.

[FatAndFaithless]

No...sorry, agnostic atheists (which most of us are) say "i don't believe in god, but I don't claim to know either way". You have a flawed understanding of gnosticism/agnosticism.

[Aoi Magi]

For example, you don't know if fairies exist, do you believe in fairies? You don't know if vampires exist, do you believe in vampires? You don't know if your great great grandma is living on jupiter right now, do you believe it?

Please dont bring up completely implausible statements as part of your argument. I've already covered fairies in an earlier post.

Are you incapable of understanding english?

Plausibility of god = plausibility of fairies/vampires = plausibility of shoe making dinosaurs = none. no plausibility.

Prove the plausibility of god, then we can talk about the proof of his actual existence.

[satsujin]

If you think the plausibility of God matches that of vampires and faeries which are are always presented as fantasy then you have obviously closed your mind to the concept of God. And from other responses here so have most others. So much so that you were not willing to put that aside to entertain a thought experiment. And that's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. It just proves to me how nearly impossible it would be for God to prove himself in this world even just among skeptics who should have no preconceived notion of what God should be. Maybe I wrong. Maybe believers would accept this God being quicker. In any case, I am unsubscribing from this thread. I have learnt what I needed to know.

[Surgenator]

If you think the plausibility of God matches that of vampires and faeries which are are always presented as fantasy then you have obviously closed your mind to the concept of God. And from other responses here so have most others. So much so that you were not willing to put that aside to entertain a thought experiment. And that's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. It just proves to me how nearly impossible it would be for God to prove himself in this world even just among skeptics who should have no preconceived notion of what God should be. Maybe I wrong. Maybe believers would accept this God being quicker. In any case, I am unsubscribing from this thread. I have learnt what I needed to know.

I'm not against something existing. I haven't seen you, touch you, or used any of other senses on you. Yet, I believe you exist.

If you think I have closed my mind, you are mistaken. I'm still waiting for God to prove her existence. So far, she has failed.

Plus, you don't want to have a so open mind that it falls out. Specticism is healthy.

[Mudhammam]

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.

What happened in 33 A.D.?

---

If you think the plausibility of God matches that of vampires and faeries which are are always presented as fantasy then you have obviously closed your mind to the concept of God. And from other responses here so have most others. So much so that you were not willing to put that aside to entertain a thought experiment. And that's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. It just proves to me how nearly impossible it would be for God to prove himself in this world even just among skeptics who should have no preconceived notion of what God should be. Maybe I wrong. Maybe believers would accept this God being quicker. In any case, I am unsubscribing from this thread. I have learnt what I needed to know.

Understandably, it would be impossible for a non-existent God to prove himself to skeptics...or anyone for that matter. For an actual deity, with powers that include the creation of Universes from nothing, however, it would be quite easy. How about formulating a constellation of stars that spell out in human language, "Greetings my beloved skeptics!"

[Aoi Magi]

If you think the plausibility of God matches that of vampires and faeries which are are always presented as fantasy then you have obviously closed your mind to the concept of God.

Plausibility of god = plausibility of vampire, because:
1) Both are supernatural
2) Both are scary (as per most major religions)
3) Both demand blood/sacrifice (as per most major religions)
4) Both has many people believing in them (many believe vampires are demons).
5) Both has the same amount of proof. zip, nada, none whatsoever.

So if you don't entertain the idea of vampires on the same level as the idea of god ("disbelief" or "unsure" or "spiritually proven" or whatever), then you are being closed minded.

Now as a "thought experiment", how would a vampire prove itself to mankind? and should it bother proving itself to mankind?