[harmoniouschaos]

First off, I understand that different people stand at different ends of the spectrum - some blindly need no proof of an existence, they believe no matter what (even if their beliefs appear to be chained down by dogmas). Or, they simply refuse to believe in such an existence, as they believe everything relevant, to existence can eventually be explained without a divine intervention.

Secondly by God, I mean as understood by most, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.

(Also, although religous debates are most probably inevitable, try not to 'shift the burden' as a means to answer questions.)

So, what would it take?

[sanctus]

A really objective proof!

Everybody knows and accepts that gravity exists, becuase everybody can see how the apple falls to the ground!
All the things that are supposed to prove the existence of god are subjective interpretations of an experience or a book.

The question is where is the limit between subjective and objective?
This is exactly the problem, believers use the proofs at the limit to prove the existence and non-believers find there always the subjective side.

So, to prove his existence there would be a clearly objective proof.

[IrishEyes]

That's a good point, sanctus.

I can't think of a single person that rejects gravity, but there are many that reject God.

And the difference between objective and subjective proof is only too true. What may be enough proof for me is not enough, or definitive, or the right type, of proof for you. I agree with 'chaos'... what type of 'proof' would it take? i mean, handwriting on the wall? a voice from nowhere? your computer going nuts and then the blue screen of death appearing with the words "I AM" hovering in red (of course, that would only happen if you were running MS, not LINUX, right?)?

Also, for some, disproving science will lead to God. For others, disproving God will lead to science. Where is the middle ground?

I know of people that totally believe in God/creation, and people that believe totally in evolution/science, and people that believe in a mix of God/Creation AND evolution/science. I think all of those three types are represented here in this forum.

However, i don't think I've ever run into a person that believes neither in evolution nor creation. Most think it has to be one or the other, right? That just fosters the right/wrong attitude. Someone is right, anoher is wrong.

My 'proof' isn't good enough for you, but yours isn't good enough for me either. It's all in the mind/heart of the individual.

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes


Also, for some, disproving science will lead to God. For others, disproving God will lead to science. Where is the middle ground?

The middle ground is where these people that believe a bit in GOD/CREATION and SCIENCE/EVOLUTION are. They don't think one excludes the other.


By the way, I am sure you have already encontered people that don't believe neither in evolution nor in creationism, I would say a good proprotion of mankind just does not care therefore they don't have this right/wrong attitude in this case.

[IrishEyes]

The middle ground is where these people that believe a bit in GOD/CREATION and SCIENCE/EVOLUTION are. They don't think one excludes the other.

Yes, but to read their arguments in this forum, they really can't reconcile their beliefs in their own minds, much less communicate them effectively to others. I guess I see them as 'compromisers'. They try to make everyone happy by believing a little bit of both, but never actually take a stand for what THEY think is 'true'. Little bit of this, little bit of that... and it all just falls into place, right?

By the way, I am sure you have already encontered people that don't believe neither in evolution nor in creationism, I would say a good proprotion of mankind just does not care therefore they don't have this right/wrong attitude in this case.

You are right, of course. Apathy may be the best path after all, huh? (That was a joke, by the way!) I honestly can say that i respect people like you and geko and Freethnker much more for HAVING beliefs, than i do others that refuse to take a stand. Wishy-washy bugs me. I'd rather have a person with an opposing view try to show me where my logic/belief is flawed, than I would someone that just agrees to avoid the uncomfortable discussion!!

Still though, what about the definitive proof? What would it take to convinve you of God, sanctus?

[Freethinker]

Primary to this discussion is the word/ concept of "proof". I see it thrown around here quite a lot, such as:

A really objective proof!

or

What may be enough proof for me is not enough, or definitive, or the right type, of proof for you. ...My 'proof' isn't good enough for you,

But we have to evaluate what IS and what IS NOT proof. And that is where it falls apart. What I typically find when a believer is asked for "proof", is that they think their REASONS are PROOF. Basically showing that the very concept of PROOF is something they lack a factual understanding of. You mention:

try not to 'shift the burden' as a means to answer questions.

As everyone here knows, I spend a good deal of time trying to educate beleivers on this very problem. This along with every other agument fallacy. They do not comprehend that how many people with what titles over how long really is not in any form PROOF of something. As most people in the US for thousands of years, including Newton... ... Nor is their inability to comprehend, proof that something does not happen the way it does. Such as "It seems impossible that the eye..." Or the fear of big numbers as in "the chances of such and such are ten billion to one..."

As to my approach, the first issue is simple Logic.

Does the defintion/ requirements of the specific god violate simple logic. The major tools in this regard are evaluation of claims using the well established rules for constructing a logical argument (such as the fallacies) and Ockham's Razor. If it can't pass this simple initial evaluation, I see no reason to prusue it further.

If the presentation does not violate simple basic rules of logic, then it is a matter of internal consistancy. Does the concept/ defintion contradict itself? e.g. the Christian god is claimed to have Omnipotence/ Omniscience, yet we are claimed to have free will. The two are mutually exclusive. The defintion is internally self contradictory. Thus can not be valid.

Then does it contradict other knowledge. Does it require the rejection of scientific finds that are well established, highly provable. e.g. that QM destroys the possiblity of an intellegent first cause

Finally (perhaps, I am still working on the details as I go) there is actual PROOF. Can we actually find anything that would show a need for a god as the best answer. This gets tricky as any sufficiently advanced society could perform feats that would seem impossible to a lower civilization. e.g. there are many fireplaces today that would seem to have logs burning, yet never consumed by the flame. Of voices that come out of little boxes with no person obviously able to fit in them.

Although I propose a very extensive set of requirments, I actually think it would be extremely easy for a god to prove it exists. Obviously anything that would be a god would have no trouble proving it. Otherwise that entity would have a limitation and thus would not be a god.

But we come back to "proof".

It seems like the beleiver always starts for the concept of beleiving they CAN "prove' their god exists. Obviously, they have decided to accept, so it should be obvious to anyone else. But they find that what THEY think is "proof" is far from it. So at some point they want to claim that we non-believer just refuse to accept their "proof". Later this turns into "I have no proof YOU would accept." As if there still actually IS "proof". They are not willing to admit to themselves that what they THOUGHT was "proof" in fact is NOT "proof", but is actually REASONS. Finally it usually turns into my being told I am the devil or will burn in his hell. Or better stated as the complete rejection of rational thought when they come to understand they were not using rational thought in the first place.

So if you want to PROVE your god exists, it really is quite simple.
<B

[sanctus]

Freethinker,
that what you define proof (and I guess you are right in your definition) I called objective proof, it may not be like in a dictionnary, but consistent. Let's say I would believe, then I could show you my reasons and tell you these are my proofs. It would then be a subjective proof!
That's what I meant.

In physics for example I call proof what you call proof, that is an objective proof.

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes




Still though, what about the definitive proof? What would it take to convinve you of God, sanctus?

Sorry I saw the question just the third time I read it, so my answer comes cronologically the wrong way around.
It depends already on which god! The god of the bible, I think nothing would convnce me (I can't just believe in something like adam and eva and the snake and the apple and the universal flood and the existence of Jesus as a son of god-- as a philosopher yes-- for me this isn't serious (i.e. with the feet on the ground) it's like beliving in santa). This isn't supposed to be a judgement, it is just my reason not to believe in this god.
If you tell me god is that what created everything? Then if you say the anti-symmetrie at the creation of the universe between matter and anti-matter (which made that not all matter and anti-matter was transformed into energy again) is god, then you could convince me. I would never have called it god, even if it satisfies all the criterias of god, it has been since ever, will be forever, it's omnipresent and therefore omniscent.

So you see a definitive proof would be an objective proof (in my own definition) or a proof (in freethinkers definition).

[IrishEyes]

The god of the bible, I think nothing would convnce me

i LOVE your honesty!!

Adam, eve, snake, Jesus as the son of God... yeah, I can see how those things would be almost impossible to believe from a 'proof' and 'logic' standpoint. I mean, noone was there in the Garden of Eden, and the story wasn't even recorded until Moses and the Exodus. And thee is a LOT of convoluted controversy surrounding Jesus.

The flood is a little different for me though, as there does seem to be scientific evidence that indicates a flood, and most cultures have a flood story in thier history, which makes sense if it actually happened and we are all descended from Noah's family, right?

But your arguments are well presented without being argumentative, and I can fully accept your POV as valid, even though I don't share it. thanks for sharing your opinion!

[IrishEyes]

Freethinker, I love your passion! And I agree with you, it should be about proof. But again, as with what sanctus said, I think that most 'proof' is subjective.

You once were challenged to 'prove' you loved your mother. Your 'proof' was the testimony of your actions at her deathbed. While I am NOT disputing your love for your mother, I don't think you offered objective 'proof'. Yes, you were a good son. Yes, you did what most would. Yes, that is a way to demonstrate love. But that doesn't 'prove' love. Maybe you were putting on a show for the people watching, in case her will was in question and you could point to these people and say "Wasnt I a loving son? Don't I deserve her assets?" Do you see what I mean?

There is really now way to objectively 'prove' love, just as there is no way for me to objectively 'prove' God. I can disprove some aspects of scientific theory, or at least justify my opinion of them with what constitutes 'proof' to me, but that still does not offer 'proof' of God.