What would convince you that a god exists?

[The Reality Salesman01]

It's rather silly that you're making me make this argument because I'm not a theist. But I don't accept your premise because if you're an all-powerful being, you could easily change the laws of physics locally to accommodate you.

I've always felt that mathematical and physical arguments against the existence of god are rather silly, because they can always be trumped by the claim of omni-whatever. It's much easier to attack the character of the god, or the event claims in support of the god, or the deeds of the followers of the god, etc.

The laws of physics aren't even really what makes these suggestions impossible, but they do help us paint a picture of the absurdity, none the less, a God is either energy or matter (physics part) or He is either material or immaterial (metaphysical form of the question). The law non-contradiction dictates that he cannot be both at the same time, right? He cannot be both A and Not-A. Any theist is forced to pick one, or dodge it by describing an abstract entity beyond comprehension, some kind of panetheism crap. It cracks me up when Christians take this stance without even realizing the implications.

If they pick one, they are trapped.

If they dodge it, and describe the abstract latter, they are trapped.

Anything that can be understood rationally is inherently contingent upon certain logical contengencies, if it cannot be understood rationally (the abstract latter of the 2 paths) they concede that a belief in God is irrational and therein unreasonable. Would you like to play devils advocate in this game?

All of this is really just fun to talk about, but keep in mind, at the beginning, in order to entertain it, we had to throw out the laws of physics! It takes a lot to swallow this God-pill.

---

I guess I would only say that it isn't a very convincing argument, even if it is sound. I've planted seeds of doubt in many a theist, but I wouldn't use that argument to do it.

Only because there is no reasoning with insanity, and the insane should be avoided when engaging in such topics, but, In order to nail down a concievable God, worthy of credit for the types of accomplishments akin to it, there are certain properties and contengencies that IT would have to incase. This is where it all ends up eventually. Spit-balling at certain depictions of God will leave you hunting down a moving target. But, if you can nail down the essence of the supposed God in question, then you have a fixed goal post that is much easier to kick a ball through. There's only a few theists on AF that have the capacity for such conversations (#Wooters), a lot of oters choose to resort to this method...