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

quote:

---

What I would like to know is what specific evidence or at least what types of evidence would people require to believe in the existence of God...

---

For me, personally, stuff like God did to convince Gideon that he was speaking with God would be good.Although it would be better and even more convincing if there were lots of prophets speaking directly with God, given unambiguous prophecies, healing the sick, calling down lightning, water from rocks, booming voices coming from heaven, and so forth. You know, people like Moses, Elijah, and the like, all in front of everyone.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

John Smith as opposed to Hank, eh?

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

quote:

---

How come the academic communities have always had trouble tapping into this vast ocean of resources?

---

Most academic research is done in a manner that precludes the systematic exploitation of the gullible. Academic research consists of the acquisition of data and facts, the interpretation of those facts within accepted theoretical frameworks, and the logical inferences that can be made from these facts and interpretations. The results are communicated to the academic discipline and the world at large, where people then critique the methodologies of the data acquisition, the interpretations, and the logic in the arguments. As a result, in most cases weakly supported conclusions are usually discovered and rejected.That said, I have no doubt that a lot of academic research, valid as it may be, is accepted by the gullible who do not really understand the science behind it. In other words, academic communities do (unwittingly) tap into the vast ocean of the gullible -- it is generally not recognized, however, since in these cases the gullible are often accepting results that just happen to be valid. It is usually when the results are clearly bogus, like those propounded by religious zealots, politicians, and scam artists, that the gullibility of those accepting the ideas are obvious.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

quote:

---

I wasn't talking about looking into the research.

---

Neither was I. You were asking why academic communities don't use the same propaganda techniques that other groups use. I attempted to answer the question: it is not the purpose of the academic communities to engage in propaganda, at least not as an academic community. The purpose of the academic communities is to gather evidence and facts and to present the possible logical inferences of those facts.Of course, the work of the academic communities can, and should, inform the political and social debates; the professional bodies of any academic community should publically announce where their findings indicate that a given political or social tenet is bullshit; and there should be nothing to prevent the members of some academic community to use their knowledge in their own political activities. But the role of the academic communities, in my opinion, should be divorced from conscious propaganda.-

quote:

---

What I was thinking was more along the line of "the gospel of cellular mitosis..."

---

This is exactly the sort of thing that I feel the academic community should not engage in.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

Someone who feels that the "unwashed masses" need to be told what to think probably has a mind set that is so different from mine that I doubt that there is going to be much we can agree on in this issue.I don't believe that the "masses" need to be told what to believe, what to think, and what to feel; history, I think, shows quite well that this type of Leninist vanguardism will ultimately fail. Once you have an elite that decides that it knows best what the ultimate good of the masses, whether it is the Russian Bolsheviks or the American Business class, you have set the foundation of an elite that will ultimately use their position to further their own narrow class interests.The only people who can know what is good for the people are the people themselves. Not the Bolsheviks, not the Dept. of State, and, sadly, not you, either.It is an interesting coincidence, though; I have been reading a comic book series recently that has gotten me into thinking about this very thing.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

quote:

---

...a recognition of the Perfection of the systems that God has set in place for us to live in.

---

So a recognition that the systems aren't perfect should lead us to what conclusion? That God doesn't exist, or that she wishes to hide her existence?

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

quote:

---

I challenge you to name one imperfect system in our greater reality.

---

The human immune system. Obviously meant to keep people from getting sick, but people still get sick and even die.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely