I think it is appropriate that before we conduct a test on anything, we should first design the test first. This is the basic principle that applies from the laboratory, in engineering right to the court room. So...
Taking a bit back from the fast track of debating whether God is there or not, let’s just ponder on what the proof that is required to satisfy this. It does not matter on which side of the fence you sit, I value your comment. If the comment could be brief, it is easier to be understood.
Thank you
A meaningful exercise, but first of all define God.
ReplyDeleteMaybe from your ends when you used such term. What will your expectation be...
ReplyDeleteLet's start with the biblical God, Yahweh.
ReplyDelete1) No inconsistencies or discrepancies in the Bible.
2) All prophesies to eventuate - no misses, no vagueness and no room for ambiguous interpretation.
3) The bible is entirely correct in its writing about science and must include falsifiable scientific knowledge not known at present and at the time of its conception e.g. E=mc²
4) Extraordinary miracles. An amputee growing a new and perfect limb, a person who has been dead for 3 days came to life. Cancer in remission not counted (because it is quite probable).
5) Prayers are proven to be effective and statistically significant (ie not arbitrary).
6) God appeared to every single human being and suspended the law of physics for all to witness e.g. stars re-aligning to spell "I am God" in the sky.
7) God's moral code suddenly came into force e.g. homosexuals and adulterers are killed.
What evidence would convince you that God does not exist?
Since I laid no rules, your comments are valid. I was hoping for an approach even more basic, without any bias to any claims found in any religion. If not we are distracted from the fundermental quest.
ReplyDeleteTo do so God and his attributes must be defined. otherwise we are risking the whole discussion to be rendered meaningless. For example, if I say "The collective consciousness of the human race is God" or "God is a shiny pebble by the lake, it looks ordinary but I can assure you it is an intelligent, self aware being that exists on 12 dimensions", where should one start?
ReplyDeleteA neutral God unattached to any religion would be Spinoza's God (deism/pandeism), who can be loosely equated to Nature. This God is almost irrefutable because it hardly has any supernatural or extraordinary qualities - it is a case of WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). It is certainly not what a Christian would call God.
Do you have something specific in mind?
I think you had been quite perceptive. Let me think about it for a while. Along the way I may have to go back and forth on some presuppositions. I will have to accept that certain of my suggestions may be wrong. Let’s keep this as ‘work in progress’.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you could enlighten me about the Sinoza’s God concept.
Going back and forth is not a bad thing, it is a sign of a fluid and and open mind. Here is a link about Spinoza's God
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism
I find Spinoza's God indistinguishable from Nature, but that's my interpretation of it.
Proof of God?
ReplyDeleteWell believers have been trying to provide proof all along, but non-believers have always said that that doesn't necessarily prove the existence of a God - perhaps just science.
I am familiar with Russell's teapot argument/the burden of proof lies on the believers' shoulders, yet I also believe that it is incredibly easy to doubt any such argument (confirmation bias included).
If I say I am 21 years old, then you might ask me for my drivers licence. I give it to you and it shows I am 21, but maybe you believe it is a fake licence. So you ask me for further proof and you ask for my birth certificate, so I produce it and it says I am 21. But maybe you're convinced I am one of those super-agent-hacker people, and I managed to change all my governmental files, like in such blockbuster films.
If the stars rearranged themselves tomorrow to spell out "I AM GOD", then would you argue that God arranged them that way or would you argue that there is some scientific explanation - it's only a matter of time?
What *would* it take to prove there is a God?
Hence why I'm sort of on the fence when it comes to logical and scientific debates (and why I then turn to questions of morality, meaning etc.)...it never seems as if one side can be completely convincing.
"Well believers have been trying to provide proof all along, but non-believers have always said that that doesn't necessarily prove the existence of a God - perhaps just science."
ReplyDeleteIf you could provide a list of those evidence to be reviewed here, that would be greatly appreciated.