What would constitute proof of God's existence?

238 posts / 0 new
Last post
LogicFTW's picture
For me, it would require

For me, it would require evidence that supersedes the "atheist side" of the evidence.

Be warned, the amount of evidence that goes against the possibility of any god existing far FAR! exceeds the evidence that a god exist.

It gets even more hopelessly extreme amount of evidence towards no god when we talk about a particular major religions god, the christian god, the islamic god, etc. The bible, the quran, etc just buries these god concepts under a mountain of counter evidence towards those god ideas existing.

Obviously if an all powerful all knowing god did exist, that god could simply "touch my mind" and change my opinion. Even grand gestures like spontaneous limb regrowth, I would feel like that I hallucinated it would be more likely then that actually occurring. The evidence against a major religion god existing is that great.

jonthecatholic's picture
Damn. "Touching your mind" to

Damn. "Touching your mind" to change your mind sounds like a tyrannical god. Imagine if you couldn't do things you actually wanted to do.

LogicFTW's picture
Yeah, it would be awful.

Yeah, it would be awful.

Seems to be close to the only way that I would instantly believe in a god though. Beyond a huge pile of new evidence that surpassed the evidence against a particular god existing.

Harry33Truman's picture
Provide the God

Provide the God

jonthecatholic's picture
Like on a platter? A photo?

Like on a platter? A photo? You have to be more specific, sir

Alan Travis's picture
JonTheCatholic: "their

JonTheCatholic: "their reason is, THEY haven't found evidence for a God to exist."

No, they HAVE found abundant evidence. They simply choose to deny it.

MCDennis's picture
GID is a troll. We have

GID is a troll. We have asked GID for proof numerous times and of course GID cannot provide anything even approaching proof. Bring on the "abundant evidence"

Kataclismic's picture
You are confused about the

You are confused about the definition of "evidence". There is a difference between evidence and confirmation bias and you are well versed in the latter.

dresmith's picture
I suppose if a supernatural

I suppose if a supernatural being appeared and said, "I'm God and I'm going to impart knowledge on the world" and all of a sudden, everyone was a thousand years forward in their thinking, with regards to technology/science etc". That still wouldn't prove the being was God and not some benevolent Alien, but it would definitely be close.

jonthecatholic's picture
That's interesting. Why

That's interesting. Why wouldn't that be considered a certain evidence for a god? It seems to me nothing would convince you even if strong evidence fell from the sky right on your head.

Kataclismic's picture
We are ALL WAITING for strong

We are ALL WAITING for strong evidence to fall from the sky right on our heads. Aren't you?

If not, then I have some ocean-front property in Colorado I've been trying to get rid of for really cheap. Are you interested? It has some amazing views through the picture window.

curious's picture
The essence of religion is

The essence of religion is for the betterment of the human themself, but many people misunderstood it.

When the lymen and women were / are living in the state of fear God's command was "Fear me alone, they are just human like you"

There are people who were / are hungry and destitute and the well off were urged to be kind and charitable.

When the weak ones were praying for God's help from the oppressors, God's command to the strong one was "Pick up your sword and defend them"

We are commanded to be good to parent regardless of what we think of them, especially to our mothers.

We are told that our children are trust from God himself for us to mind, don't think that they are our property, they are God's.

That is how I see religion, I could see the meat behind the shell, and I access it without breaking the shell. I don't expect nor do I demand God to dance stupid dance to fulfill our unrealistic desire.

mykcob4's picture
BULLSHIT zwalja.

BULLSHIT zwalja.
Religion is a tool to control the masses and nothing more. That is all it has ever been in every culture of every time and era.

jonthecatholic's picture
Sadly, this is true for many

Sadly, this is true for many religions. This isn't true though for all. That's a sweeping statement you're making.

mykcob4's picture
Wrong jon it is true of all

Wrong jon it is true of all religions. It has been true of every religion conceived of.

jonthecatholic's picture
That's your opinion and I

That's your opinion and I respectfully disagree

algebe's picture
Well it's certainly true for

Well it's certainly true for Christianity. It's been the religion of tyrants from Constantine the Great down to Tsar Nicholas and General Franco.

bigbill's picture
I suppose that Saint Francis

I suppose that Saint Francis of Assisi was a tyrant or saint Teresa of Liseux Do you want me to name other Christian humble greats? How about Edith Stein Or John Paul The second who eradicated Communism almost by himself. John Paul the2nd Was a great leader he was called the traveling pope because he spread peace throughout the world, he was a leader of a state called the Vatican.

Nyarlathotep's picture
simply agnostic - John Paul

simply agnostic - John Paul The second who eradicated Communism almost by himself

Communism was eradicated?

algebe's picture
@simply agnostic: "Do you

@simply agnostic: "Do you want me to name other Christian humble greats?"

Not unless you're claiming that these "humble greats" somehow compensate for the horrors caused by tyrants working hand-in-glove with religions. Which "humble greats" spoke up against the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II when he triggered the 30 Years War, or the Queen Catherine de' Medici when she triggered the Huguenot massacre?

Did anyone tell the Chinese, Vietnamese, and North Koreans that Pope John Paul II had eradicated communism?

curious's picture
Well mykcob4, when I was

Well mykcob4, when I was little the only party that have ever controlled me were my parent, my teachers, and the school bullys. That changed once I was physically out sized the bully. And my parent did not fated me to enter the high school, it was my wanting to go to school. But I am still under control of this so called government which has robbed me for decades with their terror tool called tax, and speeding fines which forced me to slow down, considering God said in the Qur'an to venture his wide expanse earth.

Nuh, religion is good, I met people in the mosque to chat with strangers, and fight later, it's fun.

mykcob4's picture

Your government may be oppressive. If you live in an islamic nation the oppression comes from religion. Taxes are a necessary part of every government. The roads that you want to speed on are paid for with taxes. The school you got to attend was paid for with taxes.
Abuse of power is oppression not necessarily taxes.
And no god ever said anything. Humans say things then claim a god said it. Prove a god said anything.

curious's picture
Err, Iran is the only country

Err, Iran is the only country that proudly called itself Islamic, after dislodging the heathen tyrant called the shah. Soon after that the people were given chance to elect their candidates, the first ever election in Iran till now. And the turban clerics constantly watching those politicians to make sure they do their job or got fired.

You seem have not read much about other people. Indonesia is country with the largest Muslim population, there is no oppression there now. The Christians, the Hindus, the Buddhis seem not leaving the country, it must be a good place somehow no?

I think your knowledge is base on assumption. You should go out and meet people, they are not that bad you know.

Nyarlathotep's picture
zwalja - Iran is the only

zwalja - Iran is the only country that proudly called itself Islamic

Off the top of my head, you missed:

  • Egypt
  • Iraq
  • Pakistan
  • Bangladesh

And probably a lot more.

curious's picture
In 2010 there was a commotion

In 2010 there was a commotion in the ME known as "Arab spring" and Egypt experienced one. With that, the long time dictator by the name Hosni mubarak was dislodged. Election followed after and the Muslim brotherhood won lead by Muhammad Mursi (Remember him?). A year later he was deposed by the military and today who sit as president is the same general who gunned down between 817 to 1000 demonstrators just a week after the coup. And in one sit in protest in Rabaa al-Adawiya Mosque they were 2600 gunned down to death.

Iraq. If you still can remember Saddam Hussein gassing to death of 5000 of the population which was known as Halabja Massacre that would be suffice to know if it Islamic country or not.

Pakistan and Bangladesh have secular laws left by the British, as they are Commonwealth members. Some of Islam laws probably in it but I can assure you they are secular. Those who want to apply their Islamic style laws they do it in the street, like the gunning down of the teen girl by the name Malala.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Pakistan Constitution,

zwalja - Iran is the only country that proudly called itself Islamic

Pakistan Constitution, Section 1, Subsection 2: "Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan"

Egypt Constituion, Part 1, Article 2: "Islam is the religion of the State and Arabic is its official language. The principles of Islamic Sharia are the main source of legislation."

Iraq Constitution, Section 1, Article 2: "Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation...No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established".

Oops, turns out the courts in Bangladesh struck down the part of their constitution which said that it was an Islamic state in 2010, so I guess I have to withdraw that one.

mykcob4's picture
@jon the catholic

@jon the catholic
We have had this topic here forever. The thing is that believers never really want to prove their god because they can't. They think that there is some atheist standard but that is not the case. Basic logic is the standard.
If you were to convict a person of murder, you would have a burden of proof to meet. If you were to prove a scientific theory, you would have a burden of proof to meet.
In an attempt to prove a god, you have a burden of proof to meet.
This would include:
1) Empirical evidence
2) Evidence independently tested that gave the same result everytime
3) Peer reviewed
4) Conclusive, no ambiguity
Proofs not accepted.
1) Hearsay
2) Circumstantial
3) Eye witness testimony
4) Biblical references

Most if not all believers embark on an illogical train of thought and claim it as proof that there is a god. They propose
1) Intelligent design
2) Prime mover or cause
They introduce items not verified or substantiated and claim them as facts. At one point they all leave a gap and jump to a conclusion.
An example would be.
" All things are in motion (this is a factual statement). Something had to start those things in motion (This is an assumption). Therefore a god must have started things in motion (This is jumping to a conclusion)."
They make statements that just are not true, like, "something cannot come from nothing" and the universe is too organized to come from randomness" Both statements are falsehoods, but they still don't prove a god. You have to jump to a conclusion that there is a god.
Also, personal experience is not proof.
"God talks to me" is not proof. It cannot be duplicated nor tested independently. We just have to take your word for it and that isn't proof.
References from the bible are not proof because:
1) It depends on which bible you use.
2) The oldest bible was compiled in 324 ADE and therefore isn't "best evidence" .
3) All versions of the bible have been highly and politically edited.
4) No bible has ever been substantiated or corroborated by any other means than the bible itself and therefore is not admissible as evidence.
I don't hold with a voice emanating from the clouds or visual miracles or any parlor tricks. They can be and will be faked.
I hope that answers your question jon the catholic.

jonthecatholic's picture
Actually, no you haven't

Actually, no you haven't really. You gave a bunch of good answers but not the kind I'm looking for. Empirical, sure. Evidence that gave the same thing repeatedly, fine (though I'd simply say this was science we haven't learned yet). Imagine a world where chanting "Ooga booga boo, Lord" would miraculously heal an amputees limb. I wouldn't say that's a god. I'd say that's just how our world works and would just be a page in a medical textbook.

Anyway, my question is how would this proof look/sound/taste/feel like? What would have to happen?

You mention that "something cannot come from nothing" isn't true. But isn't that just the law of conservation of matter?

mykcob4's picture
@jon the catholic

@jon the catholic
As for what you want. Who knows what the evidence would be? The thing is that any evidence has to be good evidence and that is what I am telling you. I cannot predict what evidence will be put forth that would be absurd. I can only tell you how it can be acceptable.
As for the conservation of matter, no it's much more complicated than that. You can't expect everything to be simplistic.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jon the Catholic - But isn't

Jon the Catholic - But isn't that just the law of conservation of matter

Not really sure that this is important for the current conversation, but FYI:

Matter is only approximately conserved in low energy physics. In higher energy applications, matter is definitely not conserved.


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.