What would constitute proof of God's existence?

238 posts / 0 new
Last post
LogicFTW's picture
While my current main point

While my current main point for "what evidence would have me believe in god" is: "more, peer reviewed, repeatable test on evidence that there is a certain god, then the amount of evidence against such a god.

As for amputee's which would be a very powerful piece in the above idea, I would be fine with: every so often a gathering of 100 people pray to, and perhaps lead by a religious leader, perform what ever rite, or ceremony, with scientist and their equipment present. And maybe only 1 of those 100 people, (maybe more) because they were pious enough, or deserving enough or whatever, has their limb begin to regrow, it could even be over a few weeks. That the person is happy to submit to a battery of test by skeptical scientist and so on that would indeed defy any explanation from known science, pointing us towards powerful evidence that the particular god prayed to is indeed real. (Or some sort of god that does not mind people getting his name/ideals wrong and still performs a healing miracle.)

Randomhero1982's picture
Jon - In regards to the

Jon - In regards to the Eucharistic miracle in Italy… this story is from an anonymous source in the 17th century, almost 1,000 years after the alleged event was said to happen!
In other words, it’s yet another fantastical story with no evidence...

Also, I find it suspicious that it was under “various ecclesiastical investigations"... confirmation bias? Where is the independent analysis from numerous independent sources? Peer review? Double blind studies?

This is how we test and confirm things and draw a fair and accurate conclusion.

Essentially the tests claim there is real flesh and blood in a Catholic museum... Well wholly doo! I can do tests and show you something is real flesh and blood, too. Does that mean you’d believe me if I said it came from a phillie cheese steak?

As usual, just speculation and appeals to religion.

nimbledaemon's picture
Sorry for reviving a necro

Sorry for reviving a necro thread.

Here's the thing with the point made by JonC about if a religious ritual reliably regrew amputations, and that being accepted as a part of science. Of course it would be accepted as a part of science, because we were observing it. We'd try to come up with an explanation for it, and if it constituted evidence of a supreme being then that would be part of science.

The scientists conversation might resemble something like this:
"Well it seems that every time we pray specifically to the Christian God, peoples limbs get regrown. This doesn't happen when we pray to Thor or Allah, or any other deity we've named. It doesn't happen when we pray to Fred, or when we pray without specifying who we are praying to. It also doesn't occur when the person praying doesn't understand the content of the words they use to pray, since we gave Spanish speakers phonetic syllables to an English prayer and nothing happened. Also every time this happens a voice is heard by everyone in the vicinity in their native tongue 'your request has been granted by the Cristian God(tm)', so there's that"

Although I'm still a little uncertain as to how the leap between the source being extremely powerful alien tech or supreme creator of the universe could be bridged. Or maybe we're just a part of a simulation and it was programmed in. In both cases I guess we'd just have evidence of an effectively omnipotent entity, and we'd have to deal with that. Just because I might believe God exists, doesn't mean I would choose to follow him. (See James 2:19 Where devils believe in god but don't follow him).

The thing is, the idea of supernatural entities existing is ridiculous in and of itself. If a 'supernatural' entity interacts with reality, they cease to be supernatural, and are just natural, part of what exists. So what you have are things that exist, and things that only exist in your head until proven otherwise.

Sheldon's picture
"What would evidence for God

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

Apologies for the antiquity of the thread:

Do you not see that this is a remarkably stupid question to ask atheists? Let's try this...

>>>"What would evidence for Zeus look like if Zeus did, in fact, exist?"

Now does that sound like a cogent sane question? If you want to claim a deity exists then you offer your best evidence, you don't ask people who can see no evidence to support the claim to conjure it up for you. As with all claims the evidence would need to be objectively verifiable and commensurate to the claim.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

We know Zeus's address, we could send him a registered letter....*grins and ducks*

Tin-Man's picture
@Old Man Re: Zeus

@Old Man Re: Zeus

Nah, that wouldn't work. Zeus always declines or refuses to sign for any registered mail. He is too afraid of getting called into court for a paternity suit.

Sapporo's picture
The only way you could prove

The only way you could prove God is if you were infallible. Strictly, God is unprovable because the properties that make God distinctly God are not phenomenal - i.e. they cannot be observed.

bigbill's picture
In all likelihood god can be

In all likelihood god can be proven to exist from the 2 main arguments that I cited in recent threads; the Kalam first cause argument from being and then the objective moral argument. It goes like this: 1-god exist outside time and space he started and created all things he was the source that started the cause, the first mover according to Thomas Aquinas. God always has existed. 2-Objective morality does exist. subjective and culture mores are just that a person or cultures opinion. but some things are just plain wrong. This comes from outside the culture and the individual person to an all powerful God .I will cite an example. If I subjectively feel to steel your cellular phone why is it wrong if it is just in the eyes of the beholder who claims that it is a moral thing to do to steal your phone .subjectivity gets you in a bind. it`s your preference over mine. You need an objective answer or remedy if you will here.to avoid your cellular phone from being stolen. That person has to know that it is wrong. and that comes from GOD.

Sapporo's picture
1) isn't a proof because

1) isn't a proof because first mover arguments are unprovable. The universe itself more easily qualifies as a potential first mover.
2) isn't a proof as only an infallible being could know if there is objective morality. Ethics are inherently subjective. The fact there are ideologies that contradict each other while claiming to be objectively moral is quite damning to the objective morality argument.

bigbill's picture
Well the universe has a cause

Well the universe has a cause a first mover who is timeless changeless he is eternal he always existed. As for the morality argument since subjectivity doesn`t work that proves of gods morality take the ten commandments and Jesus 2 great commands love god and love your neighbor as yourself. these commands work well in a society, they are objective they don`t come from us with our limited foresight but from GOD.

LogicFTW's picture
Ugh, Kalam cosmological

Ugh, Kalam cosmological argument, and "how can there be objective morality without god" argument.


The same argument over and over again deserves a copy and paste response:

Kalam Cosmology argument response:
Modern cosmology implies that our universe began in total chaos and so possesses no memory of a creation or creator. A number of models, fully worked out mathematically, show that no laws of physics were necessarily broken to produce the universe. Quantum mechanics demonstrates that not everything that begins has a cause.

Objective Morality w/o god response:
Socrates proposed what is called the Euthyphro dilemma: Either (a) God wills us to do what is good because certain acts are good, or (b) an act is good only because God wills it. If (a), then moral values are independent of God. If (b) then there is no morality because God can will whatever he wants. In this case, if he asks you to kill a baby, would you do it? If you answer, “That would be against God’s nature,” then you are adopting (a), admitting that there is an objective morality that does not depend on God. If that is the case, then atheists can be just as objectively moral as theists.

Credit to Victor Stenger for the copy paste material. (He encourages free use of this work.)

Sapporo's picture
@faith in God follower

@faith in God follower
If hell is the worse thing that exists, god is objectively evil, not objectively good. Regardless, whether or not god is objectively good or evil is unprovable and doesn't actually explain how god is a creator of anything.

If 21+21=42 is an objective fact, that must mean I created the universe. Can you disprove my argument?

Sheldon's picture
"Well the universe has a

"Well the universe has a cause a first mover who is timeless changeless he is eternal he always existed."

>>>There is absolutely no evidence for this, and our current scientific models for the origin of the universe don't support this superstitious hokum at all.
"As for the morality argument since subjectivity doesn`t work that proves of gods morality take the ten commandments and Jesus 2 great commands love god and love your neighbor as yourself. "

>>>I've read that 4 times and it's still gibberish Billy?
List two things that are objectively immoral Billy? Then tell us how you know they;re objectively immoral, without simply asserting they because they form part of your superstitious religious beliefs.

Sheldon's picture
Once again for billy then.

Once again for billy then.

1) Arguments don't prove things. The best you can achieve is to produce a logically sound argument.
2) The Kalam cosmological argument is an argument for a first cause, it isn't even an argument for a deity.
3) The KC argument is logically fallacious in both it's premises, and it's conclusions.
4) This all applies equally to Acquinas's arguments from design. Which of course were entirely ignorant of scientific facts like evolution.

Dishonestly trumpeting these as proofs Billy either shows rank dishonesty or woeful stupidity.

Or both of course. Repetition doesn't make arguments more compelling.

Edited for stupid / smart phone's (un)predictive text.

Dave Matson's picture


These are just sterile word games that some philosophers/theologians play. There is no reason an atheist has to accept all of the postulates to either argument. That they are word games should be clear once you realize that they have hardly swept the world of philosophy! A real proof, by its very definition, compels all rational, competent observers to agree. I'm still waiting for William Lane Craig's proof to sweep up the world of philosophers, to appear on the front pages of every major newspaper.

Are you aware that quite a number of competent theologian/philosophers have outright admitted that no proof for God exists?? Ask yourself why a theologian would make such a statement if an easy proof was just sitting there on the shelf? Think about it. Maybe they realize that these "proofs" are just silly word games.

bigbill's picture
God made mathematics he is

God made mathematics he is the reason for all things. Just because you state the mathematical equation above doesn't collate with you creating the universe. You would have to prove that your perfect you are not perfect like mathematics is so you can`t use that equation. just because you derived at a right calculation in math doesn`t prove you as a sinner to be infallible .since it is erroneous to align yourself with a mathematical formula .You used mathematics which comes from god. this is one of his methods to arrive at truth. he discovered it he made it this is his. it is under god since he is supreme. he is everything that was from eternity. Mathematical formulas is part of his handiwork. He uses this tool to derive at truth. he made it originated it. for you an fallible human being to claim equality with a mathematical equation is ridiculous .First off your not perfect like that equation shows .How did you get from a perfect equation to you besides it.

Sapporo's picture
Your proofs that god exists

Your proofs that god exists are no more valid than the proofs I gave that I created the universe. The difference is that neither of us dispute that I exist. Why then do you think your proofs are valid?

Sheldon's picture
More bare assertions. You

More bare assertions. You have offered nothing at all of any value.

Dave Matson's picture


Mathematics is not a thing; it is not something that can be created or destroyed. It has no existence in time and space. God, therefore, cannot create mathematics. That kind of "creating" is a meaningless concept even for God. God cannot do the logically absurd.

A person, such as Euclid, might assemble a collection of postulates (compatible givens that he chose) and show that a useful geometry arises. Other geometries, using other postulates, are possible and there is no logical basis for saying that one is "right." Each is merely consistent with its own postulates.

For a similar reason the game of chess (as a logical structure) does not exist in the real world. Physical pieces and boards do exist, as do patterns of lights for a game of chess on your computer, but creating those does not create chess. An earthling might be the first to imagine and use the rules of chess, but again that is not the creation of chess which is an abstract concept. Perhaps some alien in another galaxy invented it before our earthling, and maybe someone before him. There can be no creation date for an abstract concept; there can be a date when someone puts it into use.

So, forget about God creating mathematics. It's logically impossible!

bigbill's picture
You are only a fallible human

You are only a fallible human being with sin. your not perfect like that equation, so you shouldn`t align yourself to it. if you did equal 42 then you would be perfect. but only god almighty is perfect. So to begin with it is wrong of you to equate yourself with this mathematical formula because I could see your not perfect and I can see that God is.

Sapporo's picture
That is your opinion. It is

That is your opinion. It is not a proof.

Millions of Muslims believe essentially the same thing as you do, for essentially the same reasons. But Christianity and Islam cannot both be true; and can both be false.

Dave Matson's picture


How can you see that God is perfect? What yardstick have you applied to God to get that measurement? You're talking nonsense.

bigbill's picture
Only one is true that is

Only one is true that is Christianity ,Jesus was god and proved it while here on earth. Muhammed on the other hand was a prophet who led people so he claims to God .your correct that only one could be true and correct. so Christianity is the proper way, the proper faith .God raised his son Jesus from the dead and vindicated his presence while Muhammed didn`t pay for humanities sins.

Sapporo's picture
I didn't say only one could

I didn't say only one could be true - I said they cannot both be true.

There is no proof that Jesus was god - there is only those who say he was god.

Bringing someone back from the dead is an oxymoron.

Punishing the innocent is immoral.

The notion of sin is pure dogma.

Sheldon's picture
He never said one could be

He never said one could be correct. He said they can't both be correct, they can however both be wrong. Is your grasp of English really this bad Billy, or are you dishonestly misrepresenting people's posts deliberately again?

Dave Matson's picture


Think of it. 999 apples in a big barrel are known to be rotten. What are the odds that the last apple (Christianity) happens to be fresh? Anyone care to lay their money down? The best answer is that they are all rotten!

bigbill's picture
And who is innocent in the

And who is innocent in the eyes of the lord!!! Where all guilty under heaven for sin .so god isn`t punishing anyone who doesn`t deserve it. Well it may be dogma but god does not lie Jesus claimed to be god read John chapters 10 and 14.what do you call his miracles and his wise sayings and his resurrection then? It may be dogmatic assertions you find in the bible but Jesus said it so I believe it case closed for tonight..

Sapporo's picture
Why is a sin to not worship

Why is a sin to not worship god? Why does not believing in the existence of god deserve damnation?

You say god does not lie and Jesus said he was god, but you do not explain how you know that god does not lie and how you know that Jesus himself was not a liar. It is perfectly possible for god to lie. You say we all have an objective understanding of morality but when others tell you that they find god immoral, you claim they are wrong. If our sense of morality comes from what you say god finds immoral rather than what we find to be immoral, then you cannot claim we have an objective understanding of morality. Your argument essentially comes down to "God says that objectively morality exists, therefore objective morality exists, therefore god exists". But in reality, the truth is that god did not tell you this at all.

bigbill's picture
it is a sin not to worship

it is a sin not to worship God because it means that he then is not responsible for your existence .after he has given you written revelation that he has .he says in the old testament that he is a jealous God so by you saying that God doesn`t exist your making a claim that you don`t need him and that you are denying this God and calling out to another form for your existence .jesus said that the person who does not believe is condemned already. That`s just the way it goes remember the old testament command "you shall have no other Gods before me" .so I cite both the old testament above and the new testament The reason why I know that Jesus did not lie is because he said that he came to give witness to the truth. He was the truth by displays of his wisdom, miracles and resurrection. He said that he would rise again and he did and accomplish that .as for objective morality what I stated that we are not all practicing objective morality We may have heard and read and got it from the culture morality but we don`t for some of us apply it to our lives. I think you can come away that morality is not in the long run subjective since I claim that God exist. Like I have repeatedly say he is outside space and time. He is not part of this culture, he is independent of us so he can be objective and that`s the way that I see him .since we have GOD`s standard of morality we should adhere to it.so again we know deep down in our hearts what is right and wrong and that we should live our lives by that dictum, we don`t .so then where acting immoral .so God is Holy.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Where the fuck is that 10,000

Where the fuck is that 10,000 dislike button?


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.