104 replies to this topic

[gobears]

Totally serious question:

What type of "proof" would you require to believe in God?

What type of "proof" would you require to believe that Jesus was "the Son of God" and was actually what the Gospels portrayed him to be?

[copernicus]

Totally serious question:

What type of "proof" would you require to believe in God?

What type of "proof" would you require to believe that Jesus was "the Son of God" and was actually what the Gospels portrayed him to be?

Direct evidence would be sufficient, where by direct evidence I mean his appearing to me and performing some action for which there is no plausible natural explanation.

I cannot think of any indirect evidence that would be sufficient to make me believe, although a prepoderance of indirect evidence might move me from atheist to agnostic.

Regarding Jesus if I first came to believe in god then his telling me that Jesus is his son would be sufficient.

Alternatively, Jesus himself could provide that first direct evidence of his divinity.

[crowTrobot]

Totally serious question:

What type of "proof" would you require to believe in God?

What type of "proof" would you require to believe that Jesus was "the Son of God" and was actually what the Gospels portrayed him to be?

those are different questions. not sure on the first, but god would have to at least appear and prove he was the universal creator and not just a more advanced alien life form

the second would take a lot - god would have to appear and not only validate jesus, but also give a reasonable explanation why the bible is so self-contradictory about god's nature and many other things, why he decided to create the universe to appear that it operates utterly mechanically with no evidence that it was designed, why the apparently nonsensical plan of salvation was necessary at all, etc etc.

obviously no written historical evidence would ever be enough by itself, nor should it be.

[timwakefield]

Direct evidence would be sufficient, where by direct evidence I mean his appearing to me and performing some action for which there is no plausible natural explanation.

I would argue that there is no such thing as an event with no plausible natural explanation. Even if an event seemed this way, it could just as easily be explained by the fact that your senses have misinterpreted it.

[fckthis]

You can't prove God exists, but you cannot disprove his existence either. Belief in God is simply, a leap of faith. Some take it, some don't.

[Canada]

You can't prove God exists, but you cannot disprove his existence either. Belief in God is simply, a leap of faith. Some take it, some don't.

As Mr This pointed out, there is no proof for God, Jesus the son of God or even Jesus the man.

So what you are really asking is, 'What would it take to believe in a sentinent greater power that created the universe and all within it.'

The short answer is: An emotional void that needed filling

Now lets say that void exists.

Why choose the Christian teachings to place your faith in? As stated you can't disprove the existance of God, but similarly you can't disprove the existance of any other religion's deities.

[keith crime]

I'd be convinced if Jesus flew off of the top of the Empire State Building and juggled 7 elephants

I have an open mind

[FullMontyM1]

This is why I never got all the Medieval attempts at proving God's existence. I choose to believe in God, by having faith that God exists.

Faith in something is the antithesis of having proof of something.

To prove God exists, destroy's the necessity for faith.

If God wishes for faith to be the pillar of belief in God's existence, then God would not provide proof of God's existence.

On top of all of that...

What is proof?

Proof of a hypothesis is the amount of information the recipient accepts as sufficient to support the hypothesis against other possibilities.

Proof is clearly subjective. Some people require more proof than others. Some would say, that our existence is proof of God. Others would say that Einstein's theory of general relativity has been "proven."

Neither of these statements is an absolute truth.

God provides a description of the way we came into existence. A scientific theory provides a description of phenomena that are perceived.

The only main difference, is that the scientific theory can be "proven" to be wrong at a later date and supplanted with a more accurate scientific theory.

Someone's belief in God cannot be disproven, therefore it can not be proven, either.

If you can't turn the light off, you can't turn it on either. It's either on or it's not.

Monty

[copernicus]

I'd be convinced if Jesus flew off of the top of the Empire State Building and juggled 7 elephants

I have an open mind

How could you distinguish between Jesus and Superman?



Kryptonite, sorry, this is then an acceptable proof to me also.

[Mattnxtc]

As Mr This pointed out, there is no proof for God, Jesus the son of God or even Jesus the man.
So what you are really asking is, 'What would it take to believe in a sentinent greater power that created the universe and all within it.'

The short answer is: An emotional void that needed filling

Now lets say that void exists.

Why choose the Christian teachings to place your faith in? As stated you can't disprove the existance of God, but similarly you can't disprove the existance of any other religion's deities.

no serious historian in this field will deny that Jesus didnt live. The fact on whether he was God or not is what the question. This is both religious and secular that will agree with it. It is usually the uninformed layperson that will try to say there is no evidence Jesus lived

[SilentSnow]

You can't prove God exists, but you cannot disprove his existence either. Belief in God is simply, a leap of faith. Some take it, some don't.

this statement sounds a little less religion friendly if you frame it in this equivalent way-

You can't prove omniscient flying pink penguins from pluto exist, but you cant disprove their existence either. Belief in pink penguins from pluto is simply a leap of faith. Some take it, some don't.


and how do you know God is a "he" anyway?

[Mattnxtc]

this statement sounds a little less religion friendly if you frame it in this equivalent way-

You can't prove omniscient flying pink penguins from pluto exist, but you cant disprove their existence either. Belief in pink penguins from pluto is simply a leap of faith. Some take it, some don't.
and how do you know God is a "he" anyway?

since Adam was created in God's likeness we tend to think Hes a man thats why

[FullMontyM1]

and how do you know God is a "he" anyway?

I, being male, tend to write with the male personal pronoun. I edited as I wrote to alter "he" or "him" or "his" to "God," but I missed a few apparently ;P

I don't think God has a gender at all, the concept of God having a gender is patent nonsense. The mortal form of Jesus obviously had a gender, but that doesn't seem particularly vital one way or the other.

this statement sounds a little less religion friendly if you frame it in this equivalent way-

You can't prove omniscient flying pink penguins from pluto exist, but you cant disprove their existence either. Belief in pink penguins from pluto is simply a leap of faith. Some take it, some don't.

Belief in flying pink penguins from Pluto is a leap of faith, and it is an EV+ leap of faith. But the difference lies in what that leap provides you.

Belief in FPPFP does not provide a coherent explanation for our existence, belief in God does this and more.

Monty

[crowTrobot]

Belief in FPPFP does not provide a coherent explanation for our existence, belief in God does this and more.

it does? how? belief in the christian god doesn't fit empirical evidence any better than belief in anything else, so i'm not sure what you mean by coherent.

[FullMontyM1]

it does? how? belief in the christian god doesn't fit empirical evidence any better than belief in anything else, so i'm not sure what you mean by coherent.

I was pointing out the difference between BIFPPFP and belief in God.

The difference is:

BIFPPFP does not provide -any- explanation for why we are here; belief in God provides an -unprovable by empirical explanation- explanation for why we are here.

I'm not arguing that God is provable, I claim God is not.

But belief in God does provide a coherent explanation for why we are here.

Coherence is an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts.

Belief in God provides an orderly explanation for our existence (whether it can be proved or not)

Belief in God provides a logical explanation for our existence (first cause, etc. etc. etc., people would argue that belief in something you can't prove is illogical, but that is either a) a good argument against God; or semantics)

Belief in God provides an aesthetically consistent relation of parts.

BIFPPFP does not provide an orderly, logical or aesthetically consistent anything.

Flying penguins from Pluto may be orderly in flight, logical is certainly a stretch and I can see nothing aesthetically consistent about such a thing.

Monty

[crowTrobot]

Coherence is an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts.

eastern religions tend to be much more internally logical and consistent than christianity. and aesthetics are purely in the eye of the beholder. i see no difference between belief in the christian god and any other religion/belief in that sense.

Belief in God provides a logical explanation for our existence (first cause, etc. etc. etc., people would argue that belief in something you can't prove is illogical, but that is either a) a good argument against God; or semantics)

the point (as usual) is those arguments can only be used generically and in no way support the christian god specifically as the "first cause".

BIFPPFP does not provide an orderly, logical or aesthetically consistent anything.

again the way you are using those things is leaving them wide open to personal interpretation.

[FullMontyM1]

eastern religions tend to be much more internally logical and consistent than christianity. and aesthetics are purely in the eye of the beholder. i see no difference between belief in the christian god and any other religion/belief in that sense.

I think you are making assumptions about what I am arguing.

I am a christian, but I love reading on Eastern religions, and I believe that there are multiple roads to God, and that Hinduism and Buddhism are two of those roads (in their manifold permutations).

My point that belief in God provides a coherent structure was simply a response to a statement made regarding how belief in God is different from belief in the purple penguins.

the point (as usual) is those arguments can only be used generically and in no way support the christian god specifically as the "first cause".

I'm not particularly interested in supporting the idea that the christian God is specifically the "first cause." I just believe that there is a first cause, that said first cause can be explained in many ways, I choose to explain it via my christian God, but do not hesistate to agree that there are other ways of looking at the phenomena.

In addition, all of the ways of looking at the first cause can be right. Just like it can be right for you to bet with the best hand and your opponent to call with the worst hand. Two people in different situations have different cards to play with and different decisions to make.

(This is no way is equating christianity or any other religion with the "best hand" or the "worst hand" or with "betting" or "calling", it's just a simple analogy)

again the way you are using those things is leaving them wide open to personal interpretation.

I like things wide open to personal interpretation. The world is a better place for it.

Monty

[gobears]

As Mr This pointed out, there is no proof for God, Jesus the son of God or even Jesus the man.

So what you are really asking is, 'What would it take to believe in a sentinent greater power that created the universe and all within it.'

The short answer is: An emotional void that needed filling

Now lets say that void exists.

Why choose the Christian teachings to place your faith in? As stated you can't disprove the existance of God, but similarly you can't disprove the existance of any other religion's deities.

Why is it more likely that there is no sentinent greater power and that the universe "just is"?

As for your second point, the religion you choose depends greatly on your environment, culture, and what you are exposed to. So here in the U.S., it's more likely that one would pick the Christian faith if one believes in God.

[crowTrobot]

I choose to explain it via my christian God, but do not hesistate to agree that there are other ways of looking at the phenomena.

yes, like purple penguins. there is no difference. as long as we are *choosing* to explain phenomena a certain way, purple penguins provide exactly the same "coherent structure" you say god does.

[timwakefield]

Why is it more likely that there is no sentinent greater power and that the universe "just is"?

Because the universe doesn't NEED a "sentient greater power." It exists and functions on its own. If there is a God, he hasn't done anything at all since the Big Bang.