Conclusive proof of God

[fr0d0]

Proof would be impossible/ illogical. As a believer the question is clearly flawed.

[satsujin]

Well, first we would have to define if this would be a local manifestation(in one place) or universal where everyone can see(like sky maybe). Say a form for manifestation could be agreed on. This may prove this being exists but not that it is God. How would this being prove that it is God to the world?

[jesus_wept]

First a provide definition of god that everyone agrees on. No two descriptions are ever the same.

That, I believe is one of the key reasons why God cannot be proved on this Earth. Yet many skeptics still ask why God does not prove himself.....

I don't think I've ever asked why God doesn't prove himself, mainly because I don't believe in god and find the idea as silly as asking the tooth fairy to prove herself. I have asked theists to prove their claims on multiple occasions though.

[satsujin]

Proof would be impossible/ illogical. As a believer the question is clearly flawed.

That is my opinion too Frodo yet many skeptics say the simplest thing would be for God to prove himself by coming here. That is only one side though. I wish to see what the rationalist has to say on the matter.

[Aoi Magi]

Disbelief is not necessarily a neutral position. Agnosticism is when they say they dont know but many skeptics claim they KNOW god does not exist because of the demonstrable validity of science. They do not know, they simply believe in non-existence of god which cannot be proved/disproved. This is the group i referred to in tug of war.

Disbelief till proven IS a neutral position. If I claim my shoe is a living breathing shoe-monster which can create living dinosaurs, would you say you believe it when I failed to prove any evidence of me even having a shoe? Agnosticism is essentially being "not sure", "not believing" is the actual scientifically neutral position till the claim gets any form of proof worth considering.

[satsujin]

Disbelief till proven IS a neutral position. If I claim my shoe is a living breathing shoe-monster which can create living dinosaurs, would you say you believe it when I failed to prove any evidence of me even having a shoe? Agnosticism is essentially being "not sure", "not believing" is the actual scientifically neutral position till the claim gets any form of proof worth considering.

If you claimed that about your shoe, then ofcourse I wouldn't believe it until you provided some evidence. But I would not KNOW that I was right, I would BELIEVE it. I would not KNOW i was right until you prove to me that your shoe isnt that which is proving a negative----something you cant do. However, I would be taking a stance without proof so it wouldnt be a neutral position. Only "not sure" is a neutral position.

[Lemonvariable72]

You seem to say that proof of god is impossible and illogical, I disagree but that is beside my point. What I want to ask is believe in anything that can't proof exists? Before you say love, yes you can demonstrate love is real.

[satsujin]

What I want to ask is believe in anything that can't proof exists? Before you say love, yes you can demonstrate love is real.

Did you mean why believe in anything that we can't prove exists? Personal experience is one reason for this and something I can attest to but I realize it is subjective and not demonstrable to someone else. But from what I've read even diehard skeptics have changed their religous views based on personal expereince.

That is not why I'm asking this however. I simply want to show that even if we could all agree on a universal definition of God, there is no way an infinite being could manifest finitely in a finite world and prove its infinite nature. Since the proof would have to be of finite nature, science would require it to be testable and repeatable. Even if this supernatural feat was testable would science eventually accept as supernatural or simply refuse to accept it until it could be proved naturally? Which would be never. I doubt today's skeptic's would accept any claim from any being if science didn't accept it too.

[Aoi Magi]

Disbelief till proven IS a neutral position. If I claim my shoe is a living breathing shoe-monster which can create living dinosaurs, would you say you believe it when I failed to prove any evidence of me even having a shoe? Agnosticism is essentially being "not sure", "not believing" is the actual scientifically neutral position till the claim gets any form of proof worth considering.

If you claimed that about your shoe, then ofcourse I wouldn't believe it until you provided some evidence. But I would not KNOW that I was right, I would BELIEVE it. I would not KNOW i was right until you prove to me that your shoe isnt that which is proving a negative----something you cant do. However, I would be taking a stance without proof so it wouldnt be a neutral position. Only "not sure" is a neutral position.

You and I seem to have different definitions for the word "believe". Also your stance is confusing.

then ofcourse I wouldn't believe it until you provided some evidence. But I would not KNOW that I was right, I would BELIEVE it.

From a scientific standpoint, the idea is not even plausible when there is nothing to support it other than a baseless claim. It is up to the person making the claim to bring forth something worth considering the plausibility of the claim before one can say "this may or may not be valid".



Coming back to the confusion regarding the definitions of god, yes, you're correct about that. But that is not an immediate concern. The basis of the idea of God in every major religion is a supernatural existence which can effect the natural world in a way which defies the natural laws. So before anyone can consider which god did the miracle, one needs to establish that there is a possibility of a supernatural existence which can defy the natural laws.

[fr0d0]

I'm a sceptic and I accept it. I don't think scepticism and materialism are the same thing. Insisting upon finite proof just limits your logical possibilities.