What would convince you that a god exists?

[Praetorian]

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.

[Bad Wolf]

OK, firstly, the deity in question would have to appear before me and many other people at the same time and prove who they are by performing a miracle. Something that no mere stage magician could accomplish through slight of hand and illusions. The deity would also have to stick around and show themselves to everyone proving again and again who they are.

[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?

[Praetorian]

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.

[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...

[Whateverist]

I haven't any idea what it would take because I have no idea what sets a 'god' apart from an advanced alien life form or from a very good Hollywood special effects lab or from anything whatsoever for that matter. What exactly is a god? The question isn't what would it take to convince me. The question should be what the hell are we even talking about?

[Tonus]

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.

Oh, I don't know about that. If you make mathematical and physics arguments against the existence of god and the only response is "well god can do it because he's god," who exactly is the one that is sounding silly?

[Minimalist]

I haven't any idea what it would take because I have no idea what sets a 'god' apart from an advanced alien life form or from a very good Hollywood special effects lab or from anything whatsoever for that matter. What exactly is a god? The question isn't what would it take to convince me. The question should be what the hell are we even talking about?

Here's my test for any fucking god.

He would have to appear before me - preferably in a flash of light - whereupon I would have him accompany me into a nursing home of my choosing. Once there, I would select the most decrepit, 90+ something, wheel-chair bound, Alzheimer's patient with a bad heart, lungs and kidneys, I could find and he would have to regenerate her into a fully functional 20 year old - mind and body - in the blink of an eye while I am holding onto her shoulders. That should not be beyond the capability of any jerk off "god."

I won't be holding my breath.

[Snaghobaa]

Rather simple answer actually... PROOF!