Author Topic: What Would Be True Proof of God?  (Read 1434 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
What Would Be True Proof of God?
« on: July 11, 2012, 10:47:59 PM »
There have been several threads recently predicated on the notion that god has been proven to exist, with many folks expressing how they might react or behave in certain circumstances given that fact. That got me to wondering exactly how a god might prove its own existence, and I would love to have everyone's input.

Oddly enough, it was watching the recent Thor movie that really got me thinking about this. In it, the Asgardians are not presented as "gods" so much as they are shown simply as a highly advanced society, technologically. After giving it a lot of thought, I am not sure there is any way I could be fully convinced that a being was a god (or the god) based upon any impressive displays of magic. As Arthur C. Clarke has rightly stated, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, so what would you consider true and legitimate proof of god?
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2935
  • Darwins +237/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2012, 10:59:40 PM »
After giving it a lot of thought, I am not sure there is any way I could be fully convinced that a being was a god (or the god) based upon any impressive displays of magic.

That's the problem I keep crashing into, too, which is why I'm a strong agnostic.  I think it's entirely possible for a god not to know what it really is, and I think it highly unlikely that anyone else could tell the difference between a god and something pretending to be a god.

There's also the problem of what a god is supposed to be.  What powers need it possess in order to be considered more than an advanced natural life form?  Time travel?  Ability to violate natural laws?  Non-corporeal energy-being with the ability to hide its tracks?

Right now I'm prepared to settle for "god-like" beings, but I do ask for a physical manifestation rather than a voice in My head[1].
 1. Been there, done that:  The voice in My head (05/28/2000 at 6:35 p.m. CDT, to be exact) was Raistlin Majere (or My imagining thereof) telling Me to GTFO of a bad relationship, STAT. 
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline boobatuba

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2012, 11:03:27 PM »
Proving the existence of an afterlife by showing me that plane of existence and letting me talk with dead relatives would pretty much do it.

Almost anything else...yeah, magic (or sufficiently advanced technology).

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2012, 11:10:30 PM »
Proving the existence of an afterlife by showing me that plane of existence and letting me talk with dead relatives would pretty much do it.

Almost anything else...yeah, magic (or sufficiently advanced technology).

Have you considered that there may exist technology that could read your thoughts and fabricate your conversations with the dead?
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Offline boobatuba

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #4 on: July 11, 2012, 11:13:09 PM »
Have you considered that there may exist technology that could read your thoughts and fabricate your conversations with the dead?

Of course. I'd want the event to be repeatable and not just happen to me but to others who could share their experiences.

Still not absolute PROOF, of course, but that would be some pretty compelling evidence.

Offline natlegend

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1568
  • Darwins +63/-0
  • I shall smite thee, in HIS honor
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #5 on: July 11, 2012, 11:13:53 PM »
After giving it a lot of thought, I am not sure there is any way I could be fully convinced that a being was a god (or the god) based upon any impressive displays of magic.

That's the problem I keep crashing into, too, which is why I'm a strong agnostic.  I think it's entirely possible for a god not to know what it really is, and I think it highly unlikely that anyone else could tell the difference between a god and something pretending to be a god.

There's also the problem of what a god is supposed to be.  What powers need it possess in order to be considered more than an advanced natural life form?  Time travel?  Ability to violate natural laws?  Non-corporeal energy-being with the ability to hide its tracks?

Right now I'm prepared to settle for "god-like" beings, but I do ask for a physical manifestation rather than a voice in My head[1].
 1. Been there, done that:  The voice in My head (05/28/2000 at 6:35 p.m. CDT, to be exact) was Raistlin Majere (or My imagining thereof) telling Me to GTFO of a bad relationship, STAT. 

And even if we were contacted by extremely advanced aliens, would that automatically make them gods? Does a god have to be benevolant too? If some god were show to exist alongside with an alien race that could do all the same things, what would make the 'god' more 'desirable'?

Interesting question. I've never thought about it myself...
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where God should have come up and said hello. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you fucking turn up and say well done." - Eddie Izzard

You keep using that word. I do not think it means

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2629
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #6 on: July 11, 2012, 11:28:44 PM »
As Arthur C. Clarke has rightly stated, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, so what would you consider true and legitimate proof of god?

Precisely why I couldn't even accept the premise of those threads and maintained that I would choose hell. Why would a sufficiently advanced being claim to be the God of the Bible anyway?


Unless it was?    :o

I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2136
  • Darwins +70/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #7 on: July 11, 2012, 11:36:09 PM »
Umm..Who cares? It's never gonna happen. We're never going to have a reason to ask ourselves that question, and to engage this discussion is tantamount to wishful thinking. It's silliness best left to children.

IMHO, of course. But I am feeling quite cynical tonite. Probably the fault of all the political propoganda. Ugh.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #8 on: July 11, 2012, 11:58:34 PM »
Umm..Who cares? It's never gonna happen. We're never going to have a reason to ask ourselves that question, and to engage this discussion is tantamount to wishful thinking. It's silliness best left to children.

There have been quite a few members here that have said they would worship god if he were proven to exist. Agnostics, by definition, would be compelled to believe if given knowledge of god. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask what their criteria for proof might be. And I don't know about you, but I would not/did not ever even think about having a discussion like this when I was a kid.
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Offline boobatuba

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2012, 12:14:35 AM »
There have been quite a few members here that have said they would worship god if he were proven to exist. Agnostics, by definition, would be compelled to believe if given knowledge of god. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask what their criteria for proof might be. And I don't know about you, but I would not/did not ever even think about having a discussion like this when I was a kid.

Worship him? Not a fucking chance. If he were to reveal proof positive of his existence, I'd curse him for the rest of my life for allowing all the needless suffering he's allowed for...well, forever.

Offline The Wannabe

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 272
  • Darwins +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Agnostic atheist...until further notice.
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2012, 01:43:15 AM »
If christians could cast out demons, speak elvish, pick up snakes, drink poison without taking a dirt nap, and cure people with cancer by touching them[1], then maybe i would consider that true proof of "God".  Just maybe though, there might of course be a perfectly rational explanation for all that.  &)
 1. Mark 16:17-18
"I would believe only in a God that knows how to Dance."  -Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1251
  • Darwins +369/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #11 on: July 12, 2012, 03:45:22 AM »
The question of "god or advanced alien" has been the premise of quite a few Star Trek episodes.  When it comes down to it, it's just a question of labeling, which is not terribly important.  In the original series episode "Who Mourns for Adonis," the Enterprise encounters a being representing himself as the Greek god Apollo.  The entity uses impressive powers to try to convince Kirk and the others to worship him and return to a primitive, pastoral existence.  Kirk never spends too much time with arguments about whether he really is "the" Apollo the ancient Greeks worshiped or not, and whether he's a "god" or an "alien."  His response is basically, "We've outgrown you.  Oh, and we have phasers."

So, if a believer wants to prove their god or goddess exists, they do it the same way we prove anything else (e.g. a "Higgs Boson") exists: get it to show up.  Or to be more precise, devise some kind of test, specifying anticipated consequences that would result if the entity exists, vs. anticipated consequences that would result if it does not, so that both sides can agree which results reflect which outcome, and no fudging afterward.  If an entity shows up claiming to be the Christian deity, speaking through pillars of cloud and fire in a thunderous voice, conferring powers upon its followers per The Wannabe's post, and causing effects ("miracles") like those found in the Bible, then we might as well go ahead and call it "Yahweh" or "Jesus" while lining it up in our targeting reticules.  We would still have good reason to doubt that it is "the actual god of the Bible" because of the absence of physical and historical evidence for the divine feats described therein (e.g., the Exodus, the darkness and earthquake and zombie invasion at the time of Jesus' death, etc.).  But, if it has the power to rain fire and brimstone down on our cities and somehow cage us in a realm of endless maximal torment, it doesn't really matter for practical intents and purposes whether it's doing so by "miraculous power" or "proton-beams and uploading of human consciousnesses into a Hellish computer simulation."  Our array of available responses (fight, surrender, negotiate, try to buy time, etc.) would be the same.

Let's consider a "miracle," say, Jesus feeding the 5,000 with three loaves and two fishes.  Question for the believer: assuming this happened, was there some way in which it actually worked?  It may be beyond our comprehension, sure, but what about Jesus'?  Does he know how the process worked?  Would he be able to explain it as, say, a transformation of theon particle/wave/23-dimensional hypertoroid spacetime manifold loops/whatever into ordinary matter configured into the form of bread and fish by means of [insert 10,000 pages of super-scary equations here]?  If there was any sort of "actual way it worked," no matter how far beyond human ken it might be...

Congratulations!  It's a natural event!  Why?  Because the process, whatever it was, occurred in accordance with the natures of the entities and forces involved (Jesus, theon particles, fish and bread, and any other relevant entities or forces).  All kinds of things that were once considered "supernatural" (storms, disease, fertility, infertility, probability aka "luck," the Sun, etc., etc.) are now considered "natural" because we figured out how they work.  Since "humans know how it works" is not an ontological property of things in themselves (so that the Sun actually changed from a supernatural to a natural entity once we discovered that it works by means of nuclear fusion), the term "supernatural" is basically emptied of content. 

The best counter I've seen so far to this argument is Richard Carrier's attempt to define "supernatural" as a reference to ontologically mental things.  That is, "supernatural" refers to things like cognition, emotion, thoughts, will, minds, etc. existing wholly independent of any brain or comparable mass-energy substrate (like a computer, interference pattern of standing waves, configuration of warped spacetime, whatever).  I doubt that this is a coherent concept.  If you have a deity that is "ontologically mental" in this way, then the question arises: is there a "way it actually works" (no matter how complex or beyond human comprehension it might be), or not?  If there is, then "ontologically mental things" still have an explanation, even if human minds are too feeble to understand it.  The "ontologically mental" becomes explicable/reducible in terms of "spirit energy" or some such, which we can then add to our inventory of known natural forces/entities.  If there is no "way it actually works," then we're talking about something that works without a way to work, which is (I think) a logical contradiction.  How could a deity be "Yahweh" (and not "Odin" or "Isis") without having a nature that makes him work in a particular way so as to constitute "Yahweh?"

So, it seems rather difficult for a deity or other supposedly "supernatural" entity that actually exists to avoid turning out to be a natural entity after all; in which case the distinction between "god" and "alien" is just a matter of preference in labeling.

The one remaining escape route from this conundrum is the claim by the Abrahamic monotheisms that a "true" God must, by definition, be an omnimax (e.g. Anselm's Ontological Argument).  In this case, the difficulty in proving that a given god is "omnipotent" rather than just really, really, really powerful is a problem caused by the incoherence of the term "omnipotent" rather than a flaw in the epistemology of critical thinking, testing, and validation (or "proof") of ideas.  Since the concept of "omnipotence" is incoherent, incompatible with the Biblical narratives about Yahweh (e.g. Judges 1:19, etc.), and logically contradictory to the other omni-attributes[1] we have full logical warrant to reject it (and the other omni-attributes) as potential properties of a deity.

So that leaves us, again, with natural deities/aliens.  Proof of their existence requires only that they show up, just like any other real thing or force.
 1. If Yahweh is omniscient, he would know all of his own actions in advance.  If he was omnipotent, he could change his mind and do something else.  If he was omnipotent he could hide in an asteroid orbiting Arcturus, but this would contradict his omnipresence.  And so on.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline changeling

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 663
  • Darwins +15/-0
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2012, 06:42:56 AM »
According to the bible God has many needs. He needs our devotion, he needs our worship, he needs our companionship.
He needs for us to know that he is God.

Captain Kirk said it best, "Why would God need our starship?"
The level of dumb they have to sell, is only made remotely possible by the level of flocking their sheep are willing to do in the name of rewards for no thought. quote: Kin Hell

"Faith is the enemy of evidence, for when we know the truth, no faith is required." Graybeard

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #13 on: July 12, 2012, 10:38:52 AM »
According to the bible God has many needs. He needs our devotion, he needs our worship, he needs our companionship.


According to the bible thumpers he needs our money as well.
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #14 on: July 12, 2012, 11:22:06 AM »
There's an article by Greta Christina where she suggests the kind of evidence she would find convincing (and the kind of evidence which she doesn't). For example:

Quote
1.If I saw an unambiguous message from God, I would be persuaded of his existence. If I saw writing suddenly appear in the sky, in letters a hundred feet high, saying "I Am God, I Exist, Here Is What I Want You To Do" -- and if that writing were seen by every human being, written in whatever language they understand, comprehended in the same way by everyone who saw it -- I would be persuaded that God existed.

2.  If any sacred text in any religion made clear, unambiguous, accurate prophecies about the future -- and did so consistently -- I would be persuaded that this religion was divinely inspired. If there were a passage in Isaiah or Revelation, the Pyramid Texts or the Bhagavad Gita, that read, "And verily I say unto you, that 1,987 years after the death of Augustus Caesar, on the date of September 11, some followers of an Abrahamic religion that has not yet been founded will attack a city called New York that does not yet exist, by steering flying machines that have not yet been invented into two skyscrapers, whatever the hell those are" -- and if that same sacred text made several other clear, accurate prophecies -- I'd be convinced that God or some other divine being existed, and had inspired the text in question.

3. If any sacred text in any religion were consistently accurate in its writings about science -- including scientific knowledge that was not known at the time the text was written -- I would be persuaded that this religion was divinely inspired.

4. If the believers in one particular religion had noticeably better lives than the believers in any other religion -- in ways that couldn't be accounted for by social or economic or other natural factors -- I would be convinced that this religion was true.

That kind of thing might suffice...

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #15 on: July 12, 2012, 12:36:44 PM »
1.If I saw an unambiguous message from God, I would be persuaded of his existence. If I saw writing suddenly appear in the sky, in letters a hundred feet high, saying "I Am God, I Exist, Here Is What I Want You To Do" -- and if that writing were seen by every human being, written in whatever language they understand, comprehended in the same way by everyone who saw it -- I would be persuaded that God existed.

2.  If any sacred text in any religion made clear, unambiguous, accurate prophecies about the future -- and did so consistently -- I would be persuaded that this religion was divinely inspired. If there were a passage in Isaiah or Revelation, the Pyramid Texts or the Bhagavad Gita, that read, "And verily I say unto you, that 1,987 years after the death of Augustus Caesar, on the date of September 11, some followers of an Abrahamic religion that has not yet been founded will attack a city called New York that does not yet exist, by steering flying machines that have not yet been invented into two skyscrapers, whatever the hell those are" -- and if that same sacred text made several other clear, accurate prophecies -- I'd be convinced that God or some other divine being existed, and had inspired the text in question.

3. If any sacred text in any religion were consistently accurate in its writings about science -- including scientific knowledge that was not known at the time the text was written -- I would be persuaded that this religion was divinely inspired.

4. If the believers in one particular religion had noticeably better lives than the believers in any other religion -- in ways that couldn't be accounted for by social or economic or other natural factors -- I would be convinced that this religion was true.



1. Some form of technology that uses mass hypnosis/airborn drug could do that.

2. A race that has mastered time travel could do that.

3. Again time travel. Put a few science passages into religious books to sucker us into believing.

4. Again how would we know these "believers" who had better lives were not actually aliens themselves planted to make the rest of us believe as also?

For all I know there may be aliens out there that have the technology to move stars. There is nothing that a being could do to convince me that they were a god that couldn't be reproduced through the use of advanced technology.
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5007
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #16 on: July 12, 2012, 12:56:21 PM »
... so what would you consider true and legitimate proof of god?

The problem arises when you consider this quote -

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

Arthur C. Clarke

If you equate what a god could do to "magic", then how could I distinguish whatever proof was being offered by said deity from something an advanced alien race could also do?

I can't. So the answer to your question is, I don't know.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #17 on: July 12, 2012, 02:36:49 PM »
Oddly enough, it was watching the recent Thor movie that really got me thinking about this. In it, the Asgardians are not presented as "gods" so much as they are shown simply as a highly advanced society, technologically. After giving it a lot of thought, I am not sure there is any way I could be fully convinced that a being was a god (or the god) based upon any impressive displays of magic. As Arthur C. Clarke has rightly stated, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, so what would you consider true and legitimate proof of god?

If said being were to be the God, I would need it to take me and allow me to "commune" with it outside of space and time. I would then need it to illustrate to me its ability to create a universe ex-nilo. Or it could simply make 2+2= any number but 4.

Offline rev45

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1203
  • Darwins +37/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Did your parents raise you to be an idiot?
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #18 on: July 12, 2012, 03:43:08 PM »
My two ideas on what would convince me.

1.  A Skittles tornado.  I'm not talking about a tornado ripping through the local Skittles factory.  I'm thinking that one day I'm driving down a sunny back road and then Bam! Skittles tornado drops out of the sky.  Just appears and pelts my car with tasty Skittles.  Then a voice can say "I am (whatever god), here I am."  Then I'd be like "Cool, I'm now a believer in that god."  It has to be Skittles, no other candies allowed.

2.  An Elijah like one on one battle of the gods.  Two representatives of different gods stand at a podium.  One can pray, call, do a dance, whatever it takes to get the attention of their god and ask him to smite his opponent.  This will continue on until one religion remains.  But wait.  Say if Christianity is the one left standing, we now have over 30,000 denominations to contend with.  We again will have representatives of the different denominations stand at a podium to pray, call, do a dance, whatever to god and ask him to smite his opponent.  This way we have one religion and no thousands of denominations of said religion.  I'd be mighty impressed though if we were to make it past the first round.
Here read a book.  It's free.
http://www.literatureproject.com/

Could a being create the fifty billion galaxies, each with two hundred billion stars, then rejoice in the smell of burning goat flesh?   Ron Patterson

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12031
  • Darwins +622/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #19 on: July 12, 2012, 03:48:21 PM »
Nothing.  kcrady pretty well explained many problems associated with omnimax. 

I would just add that if a god were omnipotent or omniscient, I would have no way of differentiating it from being merely "extremely powerful" or "extremely knowing".  Being hardly powerful and just smart enough to be dangerous, it would be easy for a being that can do lots of things I cannot to fool me into thinking it can do anything.  Similarly, a being much smarter than me could fool me into thinking it knows everything, since I would have no way to verify.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline TherealityofGod

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Darwins +0/-1
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #20 on: July 13, 2012, 01:36:06 AM »
Every person here discussing god as it was interpreted by another man for the sole purpose of controlling other men is just as ignorant as the author. God is every where and rather simple to understand, but the problem lies in the need to personalize god into an understandable manner. Lets start by asking yourselves what is life? The general or scientific answer would be any thing that breaths, so the next question is which life has conscience?

Thats where the answers begin to get vastly different when asking person to person. The major problem of that last question is its nearly impossible to observe the conscience of anything that you are unable to communicate with. So what if, a bacteria or single celled organism had some form of conscience? impossible to prove right? well does it follow the basic rules of life for self continuation? and does it strive to survive even in conditions which arnt satisfactory? Yes it does both, so one could say that even the cells of your own body have their own consciousness.

But that cant be true because they dont think right? well what about people as a whole, do we make desicions as a whole and process that information between each other through words( for you science geeks, one organism emits a radio frequency which is given meaning by other organism through an algorithm that was in turn taught by other organisms of the same species)

yes we do, so what is the difference between us, and the cells of our body. Does a cell control its own fate, or is it subject to the systematic rule of the body which it belongs to? Are you your own master or subject to the laws of the government that controls the area where you preside?

The truth is humans cannot see beyond themselves, and are openly willing to say there is no god for the sake of glorifying their own existence. If humanity as a whole is a super organism, and amputees, deformed humans, ignorant and downright stupid people are apart of this organism, then why should "God" (the super organism) consider them any more important then other humans? when you get a cut or bruise do you take care to heal each individual cell, comforting each of their individual needs? or you dont really care unless the cut heals itself?

Think about that for a while, and then slowly, but surely even some of the more stupid humans reading this will realize we are apart of god. Its the super existence that is...well existence.

The universe as a whole and each as individual parts. If you think about it in that manner, or a scientific answer. All information within the universe is contained within the universe, so god is all knowing. Everything possible can be accomplished by the possibly infinite power that exist within the universe, so god is all powerful. This is just common sense, and the instintive human need to personalize god is no more then to try to give yourself meaning in this universe, but by all standards we are each our own god, in every sense of the word.

paragraphs added.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2012, 10:24:50 AM by screwtape »

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #21 on: July 13, 2012, 05:22:20 AM »
Welcome to the forum TROG, and thank you for your contribution to this thread.

The "god is everywhere/everything" theory you espouse is not nearly as simple to understand as you seem to think, the most obvious problem with it being that a universe where god is everything would be indistinguishable from a universe with no god. So how is one to tell?

It seems contradictory to criticize nonbelievers for "glorifying their own existence" while later proclaiming "we are each our own god, in every sense of the word." My disbelief in any gods (including the universal god you propose) has everything to do with the illogical nature of such a concept and literally nothing to do with glorifying myself. I must admit that your description of how such a god would be all-knowing and all-powerful is quite clever though, and I've never heard it expressed in such a way before.

But getting back to the point of the thread, how could your god prove its existence to someone like me?  Because I can assure you that it is no way as self-evident as you seem to think.
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1251
  • Darwins +369/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #22 on: July 13, 2012, 06:20:12 AM »
Every person here discussing god as it was interpreted by another man for the sole purpose of controlling other men is just as ignorant as the author. God is every where and rather simple to understand, but the problem lies in the need to personalize god into an understandable manner.

So which is it?  Is "god" simple to understand, or do we need to anthropomorphize it to make it understandable?  Your model sounds like pantheism, or perhaps something akin to Buckminster Fuller's concept of god ("The synergetic integrity of all known and unknown generalized operating principles of Universe").  Or perhaps you're with evolution evangelist Michael Dowd, who simply treats "God" as a metaphorical personification or synonym for "Reality."

In line with DumpsterFire's post above, why do you think it is necessary or valuable to apply the label "God" to this rather than using terms like "Reality" or "Universe" which do not carry the weight of anthropomorphic and theological baggage "God" does?  These sorts of views seem to be arguing for something more like a "Cosmic Principle" than the sort of god people would pray to or worship, so a better label might be something like "the Tao" or "Ma'at" (the ancient Egyptian concept of cosmological order and "rightness-of-things").  So, from a "truth-in-labeling" perspective, "God" doesn't seem to really fit what you appear to be arguing for here.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12031
  • Darwins +622/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #23 on: July 13, 2012, 10:26:16 AM »
Therealityofgod

I've added line breaks to your post.  That will be the only time I do that.  Please be considerate of your audience and use a format that is more readable in the future.  Thanks. 

Regards
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline stuffin

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #24 on: July 13, 2012, 11:07:20 AM »

The universe as a whole and each as individual parts. If you think about it in that manner, or a scientific answer. All information within the universe is contained within the universe, so god is all knowing. Everything possible can be accomplished by the possibly infinite power that exist within the universe, so god is all powerful. This is just common sense, and the instintive human need to personalize god is no more then to try to give yourself meaning in this universe, but by all standards we are each our own god, in every sense of the word.


I think I grok.
I'd cut him if he stands, and I'd shoot him if he'd run
 Yes I'd kill him with my Bible and my razor and my gun

Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime.
Aristotle

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #25 on: July 13, 2012, 02:20:18 PM »
Proof of God? Were God to exist, the being would be omnicient enough to know what would be proof for me and omnipotent enough to do it.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Avatar Of Belial

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • Darwins +30/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm not an Evil person; I just act like one!
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #26 on: July 13, 2012, 07:54:20 PM »
Ultimately - I don't think any single thing could convince me, because after all - most proofs people come up with could be replicated with Star Trek technology. How did Jesus turn water into wine? His starship in orbit replicated the wine and then used the transporter to switch it with the water in the glass. There ya go.

So in order to believe in a god of any level, I would need a similar accumulation of proof equivalent to what has caused me to believe there is no supernatural. Time and some level of consistency. Through the history of humanity we have found events that we do not initially understand. These events, like lightning, the sun, wind, etc - were all caused by supernatural gods and pixies. Over time we come to understand these phenomena. We know how lightning works, Zeus is dead. We understand the sun, Ra is slain. We learn about the wind, and the big bad wolf needn't huff and puff to blow your house down when he can just get a high-powered turbine.

Point is, we understand it under the rules of the natural world, as we do so much else. What we don't understand should no longer make us wonder if it's supernatural. Consistency is God's worst enemy.  In order to believe in a god, the rules of the natural world would need to break consistently, and in a way that cannot be replicated. That's just the first step, but until it's met there really is no need to go further.
"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."
I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Offline TherealityofGod

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Darwins +0/-1
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #27 on: July 14, 2012, 08:57:31 AM »
I think the main problem with my description is too many have the word "god" connected to the meaning of master rather then creator, and if the universe is a creation of itself, then every piece of the universe is god. Alot of people wish to believe in a heaven or hell, but conceptually no such thing exist other then the existence which you are currently experiencing which could be considered by you to be heaven or hell.

 I believe in universalism, in that we are all one but seemingly separated by the mechanics which give us memory and personal experience. A cruel or logical god is rather easy to disprove because of the concepts which people want to attach to god such as omniscience. But people also want to glorify themselves by claiming to have free will which will shortly be dis-proven through the advancements of technology and a complete understanding of the brain. i was raised up in a christian world so basically my argument against the monotheistic god they believe in is that free will cannot exist while god being omniscient and benevolent. If that were the case then since he is omniscient then during our creation he knew exactly who would go to heaven or hell, and if he already knew then he can't truly be benevolent for creating people for the sole purpose of going to hell.

I am not here to give argument about the existence of god, but rather show people a universal way to believe in something greater then themselves. Something that is as personal as it could possibly be, but also as non-personal as a spec of sand on the beach. That's hard for alot of people to conceive since abstract logic is extremely hard to understand unless you think abstractly. That is all.

-edit, what i meant in the first paragraph is that if the whole universe had a conscience in itself, why would it feel the need to prove or disprove itself to you? Do you feel the need to prove to your skin cells and intestinal bacteria you are their god? you can rain fire down upon them, or give them nourishment and life for seemingly no reason. If you were somehow shrunken down to their size you would be earth, and a colony of bacteria or cells would be no different then a small city.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2012, 09:01:31 AM by TherealityofGod »

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #28 on: July 14, 2012, 09:09:09 AM »
@TROG

then the question stands as to why call what you believe 'god'? And how do you come to the conclusion that everything is part of one universal consciousness. We're still running up against the problem of evidense for your belief.