This guy is as full of shit as the rest of them. He is only trying to conceal the stench through pseudo-philosophical argument. I say pseudo-philosophical because he has no problem making excuses for the fallacies that are demonstrated rather than correcting his reasoning. My favorite is when he employed a strict Cartesian skepticism to assert that anything imagined is just as real as knowledge that can be demonstrated.
The OP creating a thread asking what evidence would be required for belief only to then prescribe the A/S/K-"burning bosom" method of ascertaining knowledge of god is fucking hilarious. The OP is to philosophy what Deepak Chopra is to physics.
There's also the matter where ideas for demonstration of god are dismissed because god may not want to participate or we're not worthy. Either way, the OP seems consistent in maintaining that god is not testable which makes me wonder what the purpose of this thread is other than to annoy people. Part of this has to do with the OP's reluctance to define the qualities of the god to be tested; I believe he used words to the effect "that's not the purpose of the thread". See pseudo-philosophical and Chopra comparison above.
To answer the OP, this is what would do it for me:
God could simultaneously hijack all forms of communication to proclaim that at midnight (GMT) tomorrow, he will restore all amputated limbs with full functionality. Of course this doesn't resolve which god is performing what amounts to a simple parlor trick so it would also serve him well to be specific about which book and set of rules we are to live by afterwards. This won't happen because god doesn't exist, but I'm sure as with other attempts to answer the original question it will be passed off due to god's disinterest or some other 'mysterious ways' excuse.
As I eluded to before, same ole shit.
The OP creating a thread asking what evidence would be required for belief only to then prescribe the A/S/K-"burning bosom" method of ascertaining knowledge of god is fucking hilarious. The OP is to philosophy what Deepak Chopra is to physics.
There's also the matter where ideas for demonstration of god are dismissed because god may not want to participate or we're not worthy. Either way, the OP seems consistent in maintaining that god is not testable which makes me wonder what the purpose of this thread is other than to annoy people. Part of this has to do with the OP's reluctance to define the qualities of the god to be tested; I believe he used words to the effect "that's not the purpose of the thread". See pseudo-philosophical and Chopra comparison above.
To answer the OP, this is what would do it for me:
God could simultaneously hijack all forms of communication to proclaim that at midnight (GMT) tomorrow, he will restore all amputated limbs with full functionality. Of course this doesn't resolve which god is performing what amounts to a simple parlor trick so it would also serve him well to be specific about which book and set of rules we are to live by afterwards. This won't happen because god doesn't exist, but I'm sure as with other attempts to answer the original question it will be passed off due to god's disinterest or some other 'mysterious ways' excuse.
As I eluded to before, same ole shit.
