What specific evidence would people require to believe in God's existence?

The best example i could think of is Cthulhu and friends, i mean they were as old if not older than our universe able to bend time and space
and do things we would consider gods able to do, but they had little use for us other than snacks
how would mankind differ between a god and something close to a god? its kind of a fine line, mind reading? ability to reserect the dead?, creation?

thats what it comes down to, is what we think of god really god? thats pretty much how people pre-science saw it, hell as many people have written, a person from our time might be taken for a god with all the stuff we have i've gone through that a number of times now divine might be conisidered prespective based

I agree with you omni, god doesn't need to be omnipotent to be god, there is no reason for it other than we just came to that point.i think the reason comes down to mystery religions and zoraninder effecting the concepts of god back in time as well as many greek philosophers
the idea is, why complicate things with multipul gods? why not just one really powerful one? its kind of the ocham's razor of theology i've trying to remember this but i read/or heard something interesting about this
"god isn't omnipotent, he's just been around so long he just knows everything"i find hp lovecrafts version of how life came to earth fun, being that a race of alien beings classifed as half-animal half-plant decided to live on earth and needed servents so geneticly designed a living chamber to create carbon life - after many millions of years it produced what would be life-forms that would become our ancesterswell if we didn't get eatten by the shoggoths firstEdited by ReverendDG, : Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!

it is a club, a club of people who deal with and study the things indeph compared to the adverage person. its not a hard club to get into, theres no super requirements other than a willingness to go through what the club expects of you, namely knowlege of the subject and a willingness to learn and think the problem is the books by scientists require so much more than just the bites people expect - we expect filtered bites these days i tihnk it comes down to two problems, science is built on the belief that accepting something on someones word without evidence at hand is wrong and almost taboo, since it breaks down the whole point of science - evidence stabilizes thoery
the problem pertaining to evolution is, people take that belief that if we don't have evidence that i can man-handle, its wrong or unsuported - but classes teach the ToE without showing everything that would suport it, mainly due too how much stuff there is verses time, so we end up telling students "this is the theory, this is some of the evidence , you arn't sure about it, but you have to accept it since it is the pervailing theory"
people end up having to accept it, but yes they don't really know why, its due to the ammount of stuff they would have to learn to fully understand it - which is really impossible for the adverage person, unless you have lots of spare time or you go into the fieldthe reason creationism and religion works is its easy to digest and learn about, if science was that easy i think people would be more willing but science is a lot more complex than "goddit"

Hmm, no i think part of it may have sorta been that way, but i said the reasons why is the conflict between accepting a concept but being told to question it all, if it seems that way it, oh well - you didn't have to read it

---

"The Bible says, seek and you shall find. The problem is most people aren't interested in knowing the truth because it's much easier to believe (and tell) lies especially when it's been passed down from your parent's parents." - ChristIsTHEKing, Christian Forums