What would constitute proof of God's existence?

238 posts / 0 new
Last post
jonthecatholic's picture
What would constitute proof of God's existence?

I'm a Catholic and believe in God's existence. I have several friends who are agnostic/atheist and their reason is, they haven't found evidence for a God to exist. My question to atheists is this:

What would evidence for God look like if one did, in fact, exist?

Someone proposed a voice coming from the heavens, or a priest levitating during the mass. I find both rather absurd but I'd be open to knowing what your thoughts would be on this question.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Well off the top of my head;

Well off the top of my head; we hear about people being healed through supernatural means all the time. How about a repeatable supernatural ritual that can spontaneously heal amputated limbs?

jonthecatholic's picture
Okay. So I'm assuming you

Okay. So I'm assuming you mean that a limb would grow from out of nowhere, breaking the law of conservation of mass?

Would you say that breaking of the natural laws could constitute proof of God's existence? Or does it have to be a medical wonder?

LogicFTW's picture
I don't want to answer for

I don't want to answer for nylar, but for me, yes. It would have to break the law of conservation of mass, and yes it would have to be repeatable upon demand. I would accept if it pulled the base materials of water and carbon etc from a nearby (non animal) source, but it makes a person "whole" again.

Does not have to be a medical wonder, just regrowth of limbs would be a good place to start, (think of all the folks missing limbs that would so greatly benefit!)

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jon the Catholic - Would you

Jon the Catholic - Would you say that breaking of the natural laws could constitute proof of God's existence?

Not a requirement for me.

Jon the Catholic - Or does it have to be a medical wonder?

Also not a requirement for me.

That was just the first thing that came to mind. The spontaneous regrowth of amputated limbs is a good example (imo) because:

  • Even non-medially trained persons (like myself) can verify the person actually has the condition with just a simple glance at the "nub".
  • We also easily verify the limb was restored with just a glance.
  • We know that human limbs don't regrow spontaneously (there is no way your body is going to put this condition into remission all by itself).
MCDennis's picture
Are you suggestion that a '

Are you suggestion that a ''miracle'' performed by a ''god'' could or would not violate natural laws?

Bovski's picture
Are you saying god can't

Are you saying god can't break the rules of Physics ?

conservation of mass ? God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing surely a limb would be childes play.

Sky Pilot's picture
Jon the Catholic,

Jon the Catholic,

There are thousands of ethnocentric Gods. Which ethnocentric God are you advocating for?
http://www.graveyardofthegods.org/deadgods/listofgods.html

jonthecatholic's picture
Diotrephes

Diotrephes

None of them actually. My understanding of God is like this:

There must only be one.
Not a creature of something higher then him/her
Has no beginning and no end (can't be dead)

If God does truly exist, these three must at the very least be true.

LogicFTW's picture
Commonly accepted definition

Commonly accepted definition of "god"

1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

So, if you do not include those definitions of a greater entity, you are actually an atheist by commonly accepted definitions of god and atheist.

My guess is you have a lot more than what you posted above to define your god. You just did not want to share them trying to win this particular point. The "at the very least" part you wrote is not at the very least.

jonthecatholic's picture
You got that right. I do have

You got that right. I do have a lot more.

MCDennis's picture
Why ''must'' there only be

Why ''must'' there only be one? Why couldn't it creator of the universe be UFUs - Universe Farting Unicorns?

MCDennis's picture
Why ''must'' there only be

Why ''must'' there only be one? Why couldn't it creator of the universe be UFUs - Universe Farting Unicorns?

jonthecatholic's picture
Well, for one, a perfect

Well, for one, a perfect being means he doesn't need a "second god" to cover for his inefficiencies. That would be short answer.

MCDennis's picture
That's not true. Why must

That's not true. Why must there only be one perfect being?? Why not 2 or 22 or any number other than one. The reason you pick the number 1 is that it fits into your theology

daddyhominum's picture
A god must be capable of

A god must be capable of causing change in the universe that has no unintended consequences or it would be completely unobservable. Unobservable gods are the definition of non-believers.

Randomhero1982's picture
For myself it would take

For myself it would take demonstrable evidential proof.. for example something genuinely testable.

Not passages from an ancient book or people's personal expereinces.

jonthecatholic's picture
What would that look like?

What would that look like? Like a scientific experiment that could be repeated and turn out the same result every time? Like if you prayed that a pen would float in front of you every single time and it does as you pray?

MCDennis's picture
A floating pen would be cool.

A floating pen would be cool. Do you have any proof of gods that is in any way as fascinating or as compelling as a pen that floats on demand?

jonthecatholic's picture
I thought that that was cool

I thought that that was cool too. But if you think about it, this wouldn't really be evidence at all.

Since it happens all the time, we'd simply look at it and say, there must be some explanation and give some scientific explanation for it.

MCDennis's picture
You didn't even attempt to

You didn't even attempt to answer my question. I agree that a floating pen is lame unless it floats in controlled conditions and on demand. But Okay, substitute a floating ocean liner. Do you have any proof or even good evidence of your gods' existence that you would care to share?

Randomhero1982's picture
I would imagine someone with

I would imagine someone with a stronger scientific back ground could find a far better experiment for a double blind study.

But perhaps something on the lines of having people who have been dead for 'X' amount of days return to life... perhaps would be something more logical.

For example, if there was an attack on the Vatican (and I truly hope on humanistic grounds this never happens) and all the priests etc were shot violently to death and were left for 3 to 4 days and then they came back to life... Well hey, you'd make a believer out of me.

chimp3's picture
I do not seek proof of gods.

I do not seek proof of gods. I simply do not believe the believers.

xenoview's picture
Jon

Jon
I require testable evidence that get's the same results repeatedly. It has to pass peer review. If a god is real, then it could start by healing all amputees, healing every sick person, ending world hunger and war.

Jon, if a god could be proven real, what makes you think it's your god? Is faith the only way to prove a god is real?

jonthecatholic's picture
As much as I'd want to answer

As much as I'd want to answer your question, I do feel like I'd want to limit this thread to: What would constitute proof that a god exists.

I'm curious you see and just want to break it down. I'm actually going to bed now so we might go into this later.

Anyhow, would you say that you'd believe in a god if he answered all prayers to him... with a yes?

Daniel's picture
I dont actually have an

I dont actually have an answer to this question, because who is to say, if there is a god, that such a god wishes to be known. In this case there could be no proof. If this were true, I would not be required to believe in such a god. Also, who is to say that a creator god has to be benevolent? In this case I would not worship this god. I do not believe in god because I see no logic to it. If god wished to be known, it would be clear to us that god existed. It wouldn't be so questionable. Why require our worship if you're not going to make it clear that you exist? If god does exist, he or she or it does not wish to be known, in which case, I'm safe in not believing.

jonthecatholic's picture
I see. So the fact that he's

I see. So the fact that he's so hard to believe in is proof enough that he doesn't exist.

Would it be safe to say that if he actually did make it easy for us to know him, that he's available 24/7, or he should at the very least make himself known, that you could see that that could be an evidence for a god?

MCDennis's picture
Nice straw man argument here

Nice straw man argument here Jon. ''the fact that he's so hard to believe in is proof enough that he doesn't exist." Atheists don't claim that gods don't exist. We don't accept the claims from others that one or more gods exist.

jonthecatholic's picture
So please explain it to me.

So please explain it to me. It seems to me that freefromgod was saying that if there was a god, why is he making it so hard to make himself known. The fact that he's questioning his existence is enough. As he claimed he didn't have an answer to my question, I tried reversing it, if god did exist, then there should exist an easy way for us to know him.

"Atheists don't claim that gods don't exist"

Not all of them though. Atheist either means the belief that there is no god. Or a claim that there is no evidence for a god (or what you said).

That's why I'm asking what would an atheist consider as proof.

mykcob4's picture
No jon you have it completely

No jon you have it completely wrong. You and most if not all christians just don't understand atheism. You think it is a belief. It's not, not at all.
Look at it this way. You are standing there minding your own business and a stranger comes up to you and says "There is an invisible purple cow hiding behind the sun that created everything and controls everything." Surely you wouldn't believe that on his word alone. You probably simply would not believe him. He might produce a book written long ago by some obscure author that is filled with hearsay, folklore, and allegory but that would be proof either. he might say that most of the world believes in the purple cow, but just because a majority believes something doesn't make it true. He might claim that the purple cow talks to him, but how can you believe that? Just because some says something that cannot be proven doesn't make it true.
Atheists look at christianity like the purple cow. There is no proof whatsoever. never has been any proof. We simply don't believe what has never been proven.
We didn't make up a god. We are like the person standing and minding our own business.
the fact is there is no god. Until a god is proven that is a fact by default.
We as atheists "don't believe that there isn't a god." We don't believe what you are professing.
You treat atheism like it is a religion. It isn't. It is the natural state of mind. You have to be brainwashed, indoctrinated, institutionally programmed, to believe in a god. It takes nothing more than common sense to not believe in a god. All peoples are born atheists.
Common sense tells us that if someone states something that to believe their statement we must have proof to do so.
Christians assume that everyone should just accept the god myth, to not question the idea of a god. That is a stupid assumption.
In this thread, you are seeking a way to prove your god to us atheists when what you should be doing is questioning whether you are right or not and find out if your god really exists. The fact that you don't know how to prove your god is proof that YOU don't know if there is a god. If you did know it should be easy to prove your god. You wouldn't be looking to atheists and asking how you could fool them into believing your myth.

CyberLN's picture
I don't know what it would

I don't know what it would take, but your god, if it encompasses the omni-suite, should know.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.