Conclusive proof of God

[Esquilax]

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.

Bolding mine. First of all, faith isn't proof, and faith isn't evidence. Faith is believing in the absence of either of those things, so don't devalue the idea of evidence by lumping it in with faith. If faith is the reason you believe, then you don't have a good reason to believe.

Additionally, I said your justification should match my standards, not that it does match them. I fully accept, based on the above quote, that your evidence is not commensurate with my requirements. Which, I mean, uh oh; that doesn't bode well for your claim, there.

[Michael B]

Hi Satsujin. For me that example (of the sun approaching Earth) would fall short of proof of anything as soon as I wondered 'could I be in a dream here?'

[satsujin]

Aoi Magi, science may be very flexible even coming up with things like contradictory studies and such but I dont think it would simply be accepted on the testimony of a few skeptics that my scenario had taken place. Especially since it would seem that they had suddenly got religion, they would immediately be dismissed by the majority of unbelievers on Earth.
Let us not also forget that we need a manifested being to ascribe this event to. Not just some random chance event.

In the end, I suppose as Michael B said, it would all come down to what we can accept as reality if what we experience does not fit our perspective of what SHOULD be. And the existence of a supernatural event is what we expect should NOT be.

---

Esquilax why should my justification match your standards? I believe based on what think is enough for me. It should only match yours when I am trying to prove to you. And what evidence do you have that God doesn't exist. I realize that you can't present any for this negative proof but that doesn't change the fact that you dont have any evidence. So, in a way, you ARE taking something on faith.

Btw, what claim are you referring to? I am asking a question in this thread.

[Esquilax]

Esquilax why should my justification match your standards? I believe based on what think is enough for me. It should only match yours when I am trying to prove to you.

Why should you match my standards? Because they aren't that high, and should probably be the minimum for any claim. Like I said, you can prove god exists to me in the same manner as you would prove that a pack of playing cards exist; I doubt that you'd think that is anything other than trivial. God is a much larger claim, why should we expect less evidence than that which would demonstrate the existence of a deck of cards?

Additionally, given the question you started this thread with... aren't you trying to determine what would prove it to me?

Btw, what claim are you referring to? I am asking a question in this thread.

Yes, a question about god. That, and your religious views and comments about faith kinda make me think there's a belief behind that question that I, as an atheist, do not share. That claim, right there, is what I'm referring to.

[Aoi Magi]

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/

A claim loses all validity if we can't verify it. Also as I said, to accept something as true, we should be able to verify it is we choose to do so. In case of god, we don't get that choice.

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.....

You seem to have missed what I wrote:

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 NOT been proven, only accepted by some people.

Also as I keep saying, before searching for proof of god, try to prove the plausibility of the idea and his attributes like timelessness, spacelessness e.t.c.

[satsujin]

Also as I keep saying, before searching for proof of god, try to prove the plausibility of the idea and his attributes like timelessness, spacelessness e.t.c.

I am not searching FOR proof of god. I am trying to see if there is anything that CAN constitute proof of god for everyone. Those attributes you mentioned refer to infinite abilities which while conceivable theoretically can not be manifest in a finite world.

My only reason for this thought experiment is seeing(on my google searches) a lot of skeptics saying God just needs to appear to prove himself on this Earth but as I suspected doing so to prove himself will not be such a simple task. Or even logically possible.

[LastPoet]

Is there any way to know if santa exists or way to prove he doesn't? Apply that to gods. To all that I care, god is irrelevant. Since I care if the things I believe are real, I can't believe such a thing exists untill those that do precisely define a god, then provide us with an effective method of finding that thing. Pseudo philosophical reasonings and faith doesn't cut it for me. Taking into consideration the amount of gods humanity has invented, what makes these gods of today any more believable than all the other concoctions of human imagination?

[satsujin]

Why should you match my standards? Because they aren't that high, and should probably be the minimum for any claim. Like I said, you can prove god exists to me in the same manner as you would prove that a pack of playing cards exist; I doubt that you'd think that is anything other than trivial. God is a much larger claim, why should we expect less evidence than that which would demonstrate the existence of a deck of cards?

Additionally, given the question you started this thread with... aren't you trying to determine what would prove it to me?

Esquilax, you seem to be mistaken about my intentions here. I am not trying to prove God to you. I have my reasons based on a spiritual experience which you didnt share so I can understand you wont accept. And thats fine by me. People should be free to believe what they choose. But I doubt the same criteria as a pack of cards would match your criteria for God. I could prove cards by showing them to you and saying these are cards. I doubt you'd fall for the same if I showed you a person and said this is god. The being would have to present some supernatural ability.

What I am trying to determine is what this would be and if it would match for all beings on Earth because there would be no point in proving to a few individuals....god must prove himself universally.

---

Seems to me, the key thing here is proving the supernatural. Be it Santa Claus or God. If it lies in the realm of the supernatural won't it lie in a realm untestable by science and therefore never proven? What would breaking some natural law prove? and to how many? What form would this proof(s) take? Maybe there is one, maybe there isn't. I don't know but would like to find out. So far, no one has stated what would match for them. Only gone on to say that God has not been proven. Fine. Agreed. What would change your mind?

[Aoi Magi]

My only reason for this thought experiment is seeing(on my google searches) a lot of skeptics saying God just needs to appear to prove himself on this Earth but as I suspected doing so to prove himself will not be such a simple task. Or even logically possible.

God appearing on Earth will be a start at least. If he fits your definition of God is a different issue, but he can provide proof that he can defy natural laws, modify everything on a whim, e.t.c.

If you read the bible or the guide-books of any other major religion, you'd find that god was willing to prove his existence whenever needed as per those texts. If he can at least provide those signs under verifiable conditions, then at least we will be able to entertain the idea of some form of god.

[satsujin]

I think it would be easier for God to prove himself to skeptics than believers because skeptics don't have a preconceived notion of God. Ofcourse, even then they would all want to go see this being. And I dont think simple miracles like Jesus did would count since that could be seen on the same level as an illusionist. There are claims of miracles taking place today but since they have not been tested by science, are not repeatable and only put forth by believers no skeptic believes in them. Also regarding breaking natural laws, would all skeptics accept the testimony of the few who had verified it? Maybe he just needs to claim that million from Randi although even that may be impossible for anyone.......