What would make me accept the existence of a deity?

[Norfolk And Chance]

Seeing as though god is all knowing, then he already knows how to prove to each and every one of us that he is real.

The fact that he has not just gone ahead and done this, is not going in his favour. You could be forgiven for thinking that he's fucking made up.

[Ryantology]

How does one judge whether something is a god if not by the effects? What criteria would "rule in" a god? It sounds like you would rule out any and all potential gods.

I would. In an effort to move the goalposts too far for skeptics to disprove, believers themselves established criteria for gods which are absolutely impossible to positively prove.

It is too easy to think of methods by which any sufficiently advanced, powerful and motivated being can replicate, or provide a convincing substitute, of any event or power attributed to God. And, there are plenty of motives for doing it.

That seems to make your disbelief as irrational as the belief of those who accept a god based on too little evidence.

If I refuse to accept something that can never be conclusively proven to be true and can be faked by any number of possible methods and there are numerous obvious motives for some being to fake them, how does that make me irrational?

[popeyespappy]

The powerball turning my $2 into a $110 million tonight would go a long way.

[ThomM]

If I refuse to accept something that can never be conclusively proven to be true and can be faked by any number of possible methods and there are numerous obvious motives for some being to fake them, how does that make me irrational?
[/quote]

______


YOU left out one obvious thing - that not only can they be faked - but HAVE been on the scale of tens of thousands of claimed gods over the years.

[Celi]

How does one judge whether something is a god if not by the effects? What criteria would "rule in" a god? It sounds like you would rule out any and all potential gods. If they have a method, their godhood is technological and not real; if they have no method, you eliminate the hypothesis as being an argument from ignorance. It sounds like you've rigged the game so that no god can possibly win. That seems to make your disbelief as irrational as the belief of those who accept a god based on too little evidence.

Keep in mind that the very thing that qualifies one as God rather than a sufficiently advanced being is the ability to literally do the impossible. So to prove that you're God, you'd have to 1) do something impossible, and 2) prove that what you just did is impossible. That doesn't make sense, which is appropriate, because doing something impossible requires you to do something that, on some level, just doesn't make sense.

So I don't think there's any way that first-hand evidence could rule in God's existence. I might go up to 3 at highest on the Dawkins scale, but no more.

[Angrboda]

How does one judge whether something is a god if not by the effects? What criteria would "rule in" a god? It sounds like you would rule out any and all potential gods. If they have a method, their godhood is technological and not real; if they have no method, you eliminate the hypothesis as being an argument from ignorance. It sounds like you've rigged the game so that no god can possibly win. That seems to make your disbelief as irrational as the belief of those who accept a god based on too little evidence.

Keep in mind that the very thing that qualifies one as God rather than a sufficiently advanced being is the ability to literally do the impossible. So to prove that you're God, you'd have to 1) do something impossible, and 2) prove that what you just did is impossible. That doesn't make sense, which is appropriate, because doing something impossible requires you to do something that, on some level, just doesn't make sense.

So I don't think there's any way that first-hand evidence could rule in God's existence. I might go up to 3 at highest on the Dawkins scale, but no more.

Well, I thank you for your candor, but I find the answer troubling. For one, you conclude that whatever evidence a putative god might provide, it's always possible that theses effects were brought about technologically. This seems to imply that, at least in your scheme of things, "anything" is possible (except the impossible, which is defined by what is possible). If you accept that "anything is possible" as a premise for ruling out a god (the actual is possible by definition), then I would have to ask why you don't apply the same "anything is possible" standard in hypothesizing the existence of a god? It seems the maxim provides irrefutable evidence both for the non-existence of a god and irrefutable evidence against the exclusion of a god. And the reason is because you've abandoned evidence as a means of deciding whether there is or isn't a god. This sounds like classical agnosticism: not that god does or doesn't exist, but holding that knowledge of god's existence or non-existence is impossible. If we take the proposition G being "God exists" and conclude that no evidence of any kind could demonstrate that it is true, that seems every bit as faith based as the position that no evidence could prove it false. It seems like you've simply defined god or gods so that they can't exist; if you're going to simply use definitions to rule out gods a priori, why not simply say that you rule out gods because circles aren't squares or blue isn't green; ruling out something by simply defining it out of existence is not any more reasonable than ruling that god exists regardless of what the evidence does or doesn't show. Both are arbitrary and unfalsifiable.

[Ryantology]

If we take the proposition G being "God exists" and conclude that no evidence of any kind could demonstrate that it is true, that seems every bit as faith based as the position that no evidence could prove it false.

Not so, because the likelihood that it is actually God is still vastly smaller than almost any imaginable mundane explanation. They are not equal leaps of faith. And, since theists have framed the debate to make positive proof completely impossible, then there is only the possibility that it can be proved to be mundane trickery.

This is precisely how most people treat most unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable claims.

[Celi]

Well, I thank you for your candor, but I find the answer troubling. For one, you conclude that whatever evidence a putative god might provide, it's always possible that theses effects were brought about technologically. This seems to imply that, at least in your scheme of things, "anything" is possible (except the impossible, which is defined by what is possible). If you accept that "anything is possible" as a premise for ruling out a god (the actual is possible by definition), then I would have to ask why you don't apply the same "anything is possible" standard in hypothesizing the existence of a god? It seems the maxim provides irrefutable evidence both for the non-existence of a god and irrefutable evidence against the exclusion of a god. And the reason is because you've abandoned evidence as a means of deciding whether there is or isn't a god. This sounds like classical agnosticism: not that god does or doesn't exist, but holding that knowledge of god's existence or non-existence is impossible. If we take the proposition G being "God exists" and conclude that no evidence of any kind could demonstrate that it is true, that seems every bit as faith based as the position that no evidence could prove it false. It seems like you've simply defined god or gods so that they can't exist; if you're going to simply use definitions to rule out gods a priori, why not simply say that you rule out gods because circles aren't squares or blue isn't green; ruling out something by simply defining it out of existence is not any more reasonable than ruling that god exists regardless of what the evidence does or doesn't show. Both are arbitrary and unfalsifiable.

I'm not necessarily using this as an argument against the existence of God, just as why, even if a deity existed and it wanted us to know about it, it would be impossible to prove itself to us or even provide any convincing evidence for its godhood. Not anything is possible, but the possibility of anything is possible, because we don't know everything that's possible, so anything apparently supernatural could really be technological. If I were Scully, I wouldn't deny all the crazy stuff I saw, but I would assume that there was a rational explanation for everything that current science might not be capable of figuring out. That's not something I could prove--hey, maybe that guy can shoot fire from his hands just because--but it's certainly far, far more likely.

I realize that, practically speaking, a sufficiently advanced being that came to our planet and swiftly took it over, invulnerable to all our weapons and capable of defeating human armies with a mere thought, could certainly be considered a god in the lesser lowercase G sense--but that's still something very different from an actual deity. It's not supernatural.

(Of course, this is all hypothetical--in reality, we're not dealing with a higher being claiming to be God, we're dealing with humans who claim that God exists.)

[CapnAwesome]

Absolutely I would. I can think of too many ways one might duplicate many of God's supposed powers with sufficiently advanced technology. And I am not going to worship anybody just because he has better toys than I do. Someone from the Middle Ages might think I am God, or something close to it, because of the things I could do with access to modern technology.

Why shouldn't we be skeptical?

I think you guys are being silly to be so dogmatically entrenched in your position that even the appearance of god(s) would not make you accept them to be true. Imagine the following scenario:

God: "Hello and good morning people of earth, get ready for your daily God broadcast. The weather looks pretty good accept for Las Vegas, which I will be smiting with a 30% chance of rain. Once again I'm going to have to apologize for leaving no evidence of my existence for all those thousands of years, I'm just kind of a dick like that"

Ryantology: "I know that these God broadcasts have been going on for a while, but I think there are more reasonable explanations!"

God: "Now it's come to my attention that since my appearance, virtually all the Atheists have become believers because, ya know, I'm here. However I understand two stubborn fucks, Ryantology and Celi are still holding out"

Ryantology: "Damn straight, you could be Alien technology or something."

*Poof* Ryantology turns into a chicken.

God: "Damn straight, I am the almighty! Now in sports, I'd like to announce to all the Athletes that I just don't give a shit, so stop praying and kneeling every time you make a touchdown.

Ryantology: "Cluck cluck"

God: "Oh yeah sorry about that"

*Ryantology turns back into a man*

Ryantology: "Well I am still skeptical."


I think there is a point that skepticism is just stupid. Obviously this is a little tongue in cheek, but I don't think God appearing is actually that high of a burden of proof. I mean we are talking about an omnipotent being and the best he seems to be able to do is provide vague feelings towards people who already believe.

[Celi]

That's just long-distance telepathy and transfiguration. I wouldn't find it at all surprising that an alien civilization could develop both of those things.

I'm not being that stubborn; I'd start identifying as agnostic and I'd be way more receptive to the idea if there was such strong evidence as that. But actually proving it is simply impossible.