Absolute undeniable evidence for existence of God?

[genkaus]

Ok, what sufficient evidence would be required to prove the existence of, say, God as defined by Christianity?

I already told you - his capacity for whimsically changing all the natural laws.

[Cyberman]

Ok, what sufficient evidence would be required to prove the existence of, say, God as defined by Christianity?

Well, what are the claims made for this character? Creation ex nihilo? Full-grown adults made from a bone? Impossible flood events? We could start with those.

The nature of evidence isn't that it's presented and "Boom! Headshot!". It's put onto the table and then assessed along with all the other presented evidence. If it can't stand up to scrutiny, it wasn't worth presenting in the first place.

Incidentally, asking atheists what evidence they need for the existence of gods - let alone God - is a shifting of the burden of proof. It's not up to me, for instance, to prove the theists' case for them.

[Kim]

I already told you - his capacity for whimsically changing all the natural laws.

Can't we have someone like Q do that? It doesn't necessary mean he's the God of Christianity, or creator of the universe.

Incidentally, asking atheists what evidence they need for the existence of gods - let alone God - is a shifting of the burden of proof. It's not up to me, for instance, to prove the theists' case for them.

This is not the case here. If you followed this thread, it seems whatever evidence provided wouldn't prove the existence of any sort of supernatural being. Thus, in principle, no amount of evidence is sufficient enough, there is always some loophole that can be exploited to point out that this evidence does not necessarily prove a singular supernatural being that created the universe. It could be an advanced civilization, or even maybe someone like Q (who is not a God), or it could be an illusion altogether.

[genkaus]

Can't we have someone like Q do that? It doesn't necessary mean he's the God of Christianity, or creator of the universe.

Who the fuck is Q?

[Tonus]

Who the fuck is Q?

[genkaus]

Who the fuck is Q?

You telling me this guy can break the laws of reality? He can't even make himself look pretty.

[Tonus]

That's Q, the guy who gives James Bond all of those awesome gadgets in the movies. He's probably as close to god as most people will ever see.

[Kim]

No, Q is a well known character in Startrek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_%28Star_Trek%29

[genkaus]

No, Q is a well known character in Startrek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_%28Star_Trek%29

Does he actually break the laws of nature or simply works according to some unknown ones? The article doesn't specify.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's suggested that he understands things that we do not, but precisely what that is is left unsaid. Pretty much anything to do with a god is on the "Q continuum"..lol. He's omnipotent (or a liar, or both)...lol - being my favorite bit of what may be unintentional parody. A sort of distilled Q'ish exchange. They or he even comes from a place that we "lesser beings" could not comprehend, and so it is shown to us in a way that we might (very limited). Hell, the fucker even spawns a son - and does battle against a malevolent entity that pretends to be/desires to be a god.

I think the gist of the Q bit (if I may be so bold Kim) is that what we might accept as evidence for christopagan god would fit a character imagined within a sci-fi universe just as well.