Conclusive proof of God

[satsujin]

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

My idea of belief is this: Something I think is true or not without a basis of personal experience. We only know something is true when we personally experience it. So mcuh of what we learn in school is belief not knowledge because we believe our teachers would not lie to us. Unless you did the experiments in chemistry class, you wouldn't know it was true.

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.

So if some being arrived on Earth claiming to be able to do this, which natural laws would it have to defy? And do you think science would accept this as supernatural or instead inexplicable?

---

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.

But don't you think that the fact that we would be limited to finite proofs limits what this being can prove? Or are there infinite proofs that you think Man could understand would exist?

[jesus_wept]

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

My idea of belief is this: Something I think is true or not without a basis of personal experience. We only know something is true when we personally experience it.

So, if personal experience is all that's needed, hallucinations and delusions are "true"?

[fr0d0]

Limitations are good. What we can be certain of informs what we can't be certain of by exclusion. We can never know everything about an infinite God because we can't narrow down infinity sufficiently.

[satsujin]

My idea of belief is this: Something I think is true or not without a basis of personal experience. We only know something is true when we personally experience it.

So, if personal experience is all that's needed, hallucinations and delusions are "true"?

No, but this is where the bridge between knowledge and belief begins to show. I have had what I believe is a personal experience. However, I have my doubts to whether it was just a psychosis instead since I have a history of that. Unlike what I had as psychosis before though I know this experience was beneficial, long lasting and did not lead to my hospitalization. It took the form of thoughts in my head I didn't think. I don't think you can appreciate the realism until you actually experience it yourself.

In the end though, any skeptic can dismiss what he experiences as unreal if it doesn't match his current belief system.

[Esquilax]

Here's the thing about believers who ask us what evidence we would think of as convincing, in reference to a god: they have the process completely backwards, and it's incredibly worrisome, to me, because it says a lot about both their epistemology and their intentions.

First of all, you shouldn't be asking that question at all, because it implies that A: you're going to go out looking for things that will convince us, rather than what's truthful, and B: that you aren't intending to use the evidence that you already have at your disposal in this process. That last part is the interesting bit: by and large, our evidence requirements for a god are no higher than they are for any other thing. You could convince me personally that a god exists using precisely the same level of evidence as for, say, a pack of cards, or a real person.

It should be easy, I'm not looking for some absurd, impossible standard of proof, and frankly, you should already have that level of evidence if you believe right now. If you have to go out and search for evidence that would satisfy my standards, then it is safe to say that you currently have insufficient justification to believe in god right now.

Additionally, by asking that question you're coming into a discussion on a claim not by asking the proper "how do we get as close to the truth as we can on this issue?" but with the far more biased and intellectually incurious "how can I convince you that I'm right, Mr Wrong Person?"

[Michael B]

Hi Satsujin. It's really hard to find conclusive proof that we ourselves exist, or that anything we perceive as real is really real. I don't think it's possible to have conclusive proof of God's existence, because all our thoughts and perception rest on a subjectivity that can never be certain itself.

As a Christian theist I have had to ask myself whether I have sufficient warrant to believe, but I think that is as far as I can go.

[Aoi Magi]

We only know something is true when we personally experience it. So mcuh of what we learn in school is belief not knowledge because we believe our teachers would not lie to us. Unless you did the experiments in chemistry class, you wouldn't know it was true.

No, that is not a belief, that is knowledge. We can choose to believe in that knowledge or verify it ourselves if we want to. We don't believe everything the teacher says, if you visit even an elementary school you'll see students often have doubts and will question the teachers on various subjects, and if the teacher cannot provide a satisfactory answer they will try to seek out other sources. However even today, in many schools such scientific thinking gets discouraged when it comes to sensitive issues like god, and people have started rising up against that, but that is a different discussion altogether.

Now about establishing the truth from your own experience, it is fairly impossible, because when it's your experience you'd tend to get biased about it from the start. That is why we tend to accept things to be true only when it has been proven and accepted by multiple individuals, and also all attempts at disproving it and any alternate explanations have failed.

[satsujin]

I find it interesting that so far no one has come up with a scenario that would validate proof. And remember im not talking proof of existence but proof of divinity.

Most of the statements in this thread seem to be of the form that "god would know how to prove to me (even though I dont so there may not even be a way)" or like Equilax said "You should already have the evidence". But Equilax says my proof should match his standards which is untrue since my proof is based on faith not knowledge. I want to understand what would be a rational proof of God. Neither side knows any evidence to support their position, they just both believe they do ---- myself included. Admittedly the unbelievers cannot present a proof of God's inexistence.

So I will put forth a scenario:

What if this being moved the Sun from where it is to next to the Earth without affecting temperature, night/day cycle on Earth? Scientists could go out on a shuttle to see and measure the heat of this object without being harmed. This should be crazy enough that they would believe. But would people(prolly skeptical peers) on Earth accept their testimony or require further testing? What would constitute "enough" testing? Would this supernatural act be deemed supernatural eventually or as long as it stayed supernatural and didnt fit the laws of Science would it never be accepted as true?

[Aoi Magi]

So I will put forth a scenario:

What if this being moved the Sun from where it is to next to the Earth without affecting temperature, night/day cycle on Earth? Scientists could go out on a shuttle to see and measure the heat of this object without being harmed. This should be crazy enough that they would believe. But would people(prolly skeptical peers) on Earth accept their testimony or require further testing? What would constitute "enough" testing? Would this supernatural act be deemed supernatural eventually or as long as it stayed supernatural and didnt fit the laws of Science would it never be accepted as true?

You don't seem to understand something about science. Science is always open to new information and change unlike religion. If a phenomenon like what you said occurred and if all naturalistic explanations couldn't explain the phenomenon then it would be accepted as proof of that phenomenon, and if a being caused it then that being can be acknowledged for that phenomenon, however that doesn't mean that this phenomenon cannot be disputed at a later date. If something is true, then it will be deemed true only as long as we can verify and re-verify it.

[satsujin]

No, that is not a belief, that is knowledge. We can choose to believe in that knowledge or verify it ourselves if we want to. We don't believe everything the teacher says, if you visit even an elementary school you'll see students often have doubts and will question the teachers on various subjects, and if the teacher cannot provide a satisfactory answer they will try to seek out other sources. However even today, in many schools such scientific thinking gets discouraged when it comes to sensitive issues like god, and people have started rising up against that, but that is a different discussion altogether.
This is what I'm saying. We can either choose to believe or verify it personally. But we can't verify everything so most of what is accepted as knowledge by the individual is belief/

Now about establishing the truth from your own experience, it is fairly impossible, because when it's your experience you'd tend to get biased about it from the start. That is why we tend to accept things to be true only when it has been proven and accepted by multiple individuals, and also all attempts at disproving it and any alternate explanations have failed.

God has been accepted as true by a large majority(say Christians) and you certainly cant disprove God's existence. Ofcourse the problem here is that you cant prove it either. Like I said, neither side holds a winning card. Currently nobody knows, only believes. My question is if there is any way to know.....