What would get me to believe?
First I would need a coherent, testable definition of God.
The Christian god fails in this regard. If reason and logic are not required, then no argumentation can be used to prove anything because anything can be considered true: e.g. God simultaneously is and is not. If logic is required the the Christian omniscient god is incoherent.
Commonly that god is supposed to know anything which can be known. But God cannot know unknown unknowns. If he knows them, then they are not unknowns. If he doesn't know them, then he is not omniscient. Unknown unknowns are unknown even to gods and Donald Rumsfeld.
I also could not be convinced by evidence except under one very special condition. With my limited mental powers, I cannot know, and therefor not trust, that I am not being deceived by Descartes' malicious demon. The only way that evidence of the divine would be impossible for me to deny would be if I were elevated in power to parity with the god in question and could no longer be so deceived. I'd settle for that.
The argument by Sye Ten what's-his-name that his knowledge of the divine has been imposed on him by his supposed all-knowing, all-powerful being fails for the incompleteness argument above. Either the being could be lying and Sye couldn't tell or that being cannot know that it is all knowing and could be inadvertently be misinforming him.
First I would need a coherent, testable definition of God.
The Christian god fails in this regard. If reason and logic are not required, then no argumentation can be used to prove anything because anything can be considered true: e.g. God simultaneously is and is not. If logic is required the the Christian omniscient god is incoherent.
Commonly that god is supposed to know anything which can be known. But God cannot know unknown unknowns. If he knows them, then they are not unknowns. If he doesn't know them, then he is not omniscient. Unknown unknowns are unknown even to gods and Donald Rumsfeld.
I also could not be convinced by evidence except under one very special condition. With my limited mental powers, I cannot know, and therefor not trust, that I am not being deceived by Descartes' malicious demon. The only way that evidence of the divine would be impossible for me to deny would be if I were elevated in power to parity with the god in question and could no longer be so deceived. I'd settle for that.
The argument by Sye Ten what's-his-name that his knowledge of the divine has been imposed on him by his supposed all-knowing, all-powerful being fails for the incompleteness argument above. Either the being could be lying and Sye couldn't tell or that being cannot know that it is all knowing and could be inadvertently be misinforming him.
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat? 
