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

Rob was suspended for, among other things, not being able to stay on topic. Do not reply to the posts that earned him the suspension.(That's once - if you've heard about the farmer and his donkey)Edited by AdminNosy, : correct author

Before we even get to that point, I woudl like to have a clear definition about what God is.There seems to be a big disagreement about what God is/did/does.For the 'personal' type of god that is prevelant amoung the christians, I would hve to see a mechanism by which God intervenes.FOr the deist god , where the concept is god 'wound up the universe' and then let it on it's merry way, I would need to see evidence on the existance of an intelligence OUTSIDE the universe that can manipulate quantum flucuations...

You're right, sorry for the wanderings.

Sounds like a piece of cake for a diety with unlimited powers. LOL Maybe raise the bar a bit higher just to be sure?

nahh...I'm easy to convince.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

The Vorlons could probably do all that (if you ever saw Babylon 5) With the stuff you listed I would definitely still be wondering about the 'any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic' thing.

---

Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after

quote:

---

With the stuff you listed I would definitely still be wondering about the 'any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic' thing.

---

so what? the same can be said of the God of the Bible.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

as there is no agreement as to who and what god is , any such evidence would be called false by those with a differing vision of god .evidence can only work on a personal level , as that is how we are able to relate to god , it matters not how many seas are parted , how much water is turned to wine , it what happens inside our heads that make something real.to me the evidence would be for each person to have their own questions answered .. there is no universal evidence .. we each see god from our own vantage point ....i also really do think that god , by gods nature , does not need proof , but needs faith , only the mundane things need proof ....
god is of other stuff...

Yeah, I think you'd have to start by telling me what this "God" thing's supposed to be.Until that's settled, there doesn't seem to be much point in dithering about whether or not whatever-it-is exists.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

I think that it's whatever evidence the subjective disbeliever prefers to be present.For some, it will be God's signature and proof of ID. For others, a completely kill-free zone. For others, a paradise. For others, their favourite football team winning the cup.What can we infer from this? We can infer that there is no genuine qualifier that could be established from looking at people's preferences.For a certain type of God, you have to look at what the deity is like, and then what you would expect to be evidence of him. a posteriori knowledge about what would be expected is a problem. For example, as a Christian, with my theology, I would expect that this universe evidences God for me.One cannot arrive at any objective criteria for determining the existence of deities and so we must conclude that our present knowledge gives us a lack of knowledge, and so we forego the rule of bivalence.

Legend writes

quote:

---

so what? the same can be said of the God of the Bible.

---

You know, you just admitted that the god of the bible could have been aliens.

I'm sorry I haven't responded earlier to clarify what I mean by who God is when considering proof of him...Although I haven't responded primarily because i've been out of town, the question has given me pause as I consider what in fact meant...So let me say that I would like this thread to consider proof of God according to either of the two definitions:A. What proof would you require of the existence of a deity whose characteristics included at least omnipotence and omniscience among others?B. What proof would you require of the existence of any deity whose existence has already been specifically postulated via any specific religious text or creed?

A clearer definition. What sort of deity are we talking about here? (Heck, when you get down to it, what's a deity?) Would a sentient cluster of stars count? Maybe a really tall Greek guy with an enormous wang?If we're just talking about a creator of the universe, then I guess the first thing I'd need is a description of what, exactly, the thing we're supposed to be looking for is, and how, exactly, it went about the process of creation. Depends on the religion. Although as far as I know, none of them have gotten very specific in their postulating.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

yes I did, didn't I ?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

quote:

---

A. What proof would you require of the existence of a deity whose characteristics included at least omnipotence and omniscience among others?

---

Omniscience and omnipotence can't be proven, so those characteristics are not directly useful in framing the question. We really need something that is testable.

quote:

---

B. What proof would you require of the existence of any deity whose existence has already been specifically postulated via any specific religious text or creed?

---

The obvious requirement would be to show that something matching the description did exist. Of course it isn't possible to get specific without the description.p