What Would Evidence For God Be Like?

[Tinker Grey]

Are you saying that the fact that you don't believe is evidence that a God like the Christian God could not exist?

I see your line of argument going something like this:

1. If He existed, He would know how to get me to believe in Him.
2. I do not believe in Him.
3. Therefore, he likely does not exist.

Is that it?

No. I said if he was good, omnipotent and omniscient he could convince me. There are several possibilities for a god existing where this is not true. That god is not good. That god is not powerful enough. It doesn't know how.

There is one more possibility: the time is not yet. But the fact that any die with out your god suggests that your god is not omni-anything.

 

[Tinker Grey]

That's right.

Well if you're going to go against the plain text ...

 

[Tree of Life]

No. I said if he was good, omnipotent and omniscient he could convince me. There are several possibilities for a god existing where this is not true. That god is not good. That god is not powerful enough. It doesn't know how.

There is one more possibility: the time is not yet. But the fact that any die with out your god suggests that your god is not omni-anything.

So you assume that a good, all powerful, and all knowing God must or would save all people? Is it possible that this assumption is wrong?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Would a good god consign someone to hell if it could do something to prevent it? What definition of good entails that?

I'd reject a definition of good that would allow that.

Oh, I'm not assuming anything. To me, it's what good means -- it's by definition.

 

[Tree of Life]

Would a good god consign someone to hell if it could do something to prevent it? What definition of good entails that?

I'd reject a definition of good that would allow that.

Oh, I'm not assuming anything. To me, it's what good means -- it's by definition.

Good means that you must save all sinners from all the consequences of sin? On what do you base this definition? Is it possible that your definition is inadequate?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Good means that you must save all sinners from all the consequences of sin?

Didn't your god do just that? Remember Jesus. If you believe, you are freed from the eternal consequence (if not temporal ones) of sin.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If you, are perchance, one of those who believe that your god died for only the elect. Then I will go with your god being evil.

 

[Tree of Life]

Didn't your god do just that? Remember Jesus. If you believe, you are freed from the eternal consequence (if not temporal ones) of sin.

Jesus did indeed die to save sinners. But God would still be good even if he saved no sinners from their sins. His goodness does not require him to mercifully save sinners. God's mercy is totally free.

 

[Tree of Life]

If you, are perchance, one of those who believe that your god died for only the elect. Then I will go with your god being evil.

I do personally believe this, but this conception of God is not strictly necessary for the discussion in the OP.

 

[Tinker Grey]

But God would still be good even if he saved no sinners from their sins. His goodness does not require him to mercifully save sinners.

Yeah. No. A god that allows anyone to go to hell when he could prevent it is evil.

 

[Tree of Life]

Yeah. No. A god that allows anyone to go to hell when he could prevent it is evil.

Hah!

Ok so God mercifully creates when he does not have to. His creation rebels against him. God is well within his rights to dispatch all of the rebels. And you say that God is morally obliged to save his rebellious creation? On what do you base this moral obligation?

 

[cloudyday2]

The reality of Jesus suggests that God would be willing to do this, but you seem to suggest that God has some responsibility to do this.

Didn't Jesus say that we should give to those in need? Isn't is reasonable to assume that this is how God behaves too? If believing in Christianity is a matter of eternal life or eternal damnation/death then is it criminal for God to hide himself under a basket. Jesus said "let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your father who is heaven." Shouldn't God do the same?

You really think so? Allegedly God did part the Red Sea and it was recorded according to the recording capabilities of the time. But this did not result in massive persuasion for even the immediate descendants of Israel.

The recording capabilities of today are much better, therefore a modern Red Sea miracle would succeed in persuading billions and billions of skeptics.

Jesus taught that if one does not listen to Moses and the Prophets then they will not be convinced even if someone should rise from the dead. What do you think of that?

Well if that statement was true then we wouldn't have any Christians today would we? What Jesus probably meant is that those Jewish authorities who refused to believe he was the Messiah (prophesied by Moses and later prophets) would also refuse to believe that he had been resurrected. That's my guess anyway.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

People ask for evidence for God's existence, but what would evidence for God's existence be like? Join me on this thought experiment...

Suppose that an all powerful, wise, invisible, eternal, all-knowing, and righteous God created a cosmos like the one we inhabit.

Suppose further that this God created creatures like us who are capable of knowing and worshipping Him.

Suppose a bit further that these creatures decided to rebel against their creator, refusing to give Him the worship due to Him and seeking to build a world without Him (although within the world that He created).

What would evidence for the existence of this God be like?

You'ld first have to define this god in a falsifiable manner, so that the claim becomes testable.
As it stands, just about every definition of the abrahamic god I ever got, was an unfalsifiable claim.

Unfalsifiable claims can't have evidence by definition, and are infinite in number. They are utterly useless.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ah. So one would expect miracles as evidence for God's existence?

According to the story, the first christians DID get such demonstrations to justify their beliefs.
So why not all humans?

Christians claim that God has been the author of several miracles in history, the Red Sea event being an important example. These miracles have been recorded and preserved for all to learn about. Why aren't these miracles enough to persuade you that He exists?

For the same reason that Marvel Comics is not enough to persuade me that Spiderman exists.
For the same reason that the Bagavad Ghita is not enough to persuade me that Shiva exists.
For the same reason that the Koran is not enough to persuade me that Allah exists.
For the same reason that the Codex Troana is not enough to persuade me that Quetzalcoatl exists.
For the same reason that dianetics is not enough to persuade me that Lord Xenu exists.
For the same reason that Lord Of The Rings is not enough to persuade me that there is "one ring to rule them all".

None of the above are enough for you either to persuade you of those specific claims.
So, for what reason are those things not enough for you?

When you answer that question, you'll also know why your bible isn't enough to persuade me of your god.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ah. You need God to do a special little miracle just for you in order to believe in Him? Why should God condescend to do a special little miracle every time a skeptic demands it in order to believe?

Well.... apparantly this god "loves us" and wants us to believe.
He should give us reasons to believe.

Only con-men and bad salesmen require "faith".
If this god truelly cares, then he should make himself known instead of staying hidden and punishing people for using their rational brains when evaluating claims that have no evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you assume that a good, all powerful, and all knowing God must or would save all people? Is it possible that this assumption is wrong?

A god that is good (moral; ethical), would NOT require people to hold unjustified beliefs (ie: beliefs that are not grounded in rational verifiable evidence). He most certainly would NOT punish people for not holding such beliefs, nore would he reward people that do.

The very practice of demanding unjustified blind beliefs, is immoral to begin with.
Because it would reward gullibility and punish rational thinking.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good means that you must save all sinners from all the consequences of sin? On what do you base this definition? Is it possible that your definition is inadequate?

According to your own theology, one is only "saved" if one repents and becomes a follower of Jesus.

The point being made, is NOT about your god making us repent and become followers with god magic, breaking our free will. No, it JUST amounts to providing rational evidence so as to make it rational to believe he exists. You are still free to reject said god and not become a follower regardless. It's perfectly possible and we even have a precedent of that in the mythology: Satan. Satan is a fallen angel. Someone who does not worship / follow god, yet knows for a fact that he exists by first hand contact.

So clearly, providing a rational basis for accepting the claim that this god exists, does not in any way ensure saving or force people to become followers.

But at least it provides a rational basis for the beliefs.



Any person, god or otherwise, who demands blind faith, has something to hide and is being unethical.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Jesus did indeed die to save sinners. But God would still be good even if he saved no sinners from their sins. His goodness does not require him to mercifully save sinners. God's mercy is totally free.

Just for clarity... could you define the word "good" please?
When you use that word, what exactly do you mean by it?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

If Yahweh exists and wants me to know of his existence, he has apparently found it sufficient to send people who purport to speak on his behalf, armed only with crappy apologetic arguments that fall apart under the slightest scrutiny, to convince me. So he's abysmally incompetent.

If Yahweh exists and doesn't want me to know of his existence, then there is literally nothing to talk about. He can play his one way version of cosmic hide-and-seek by himself, and I will continue to live a life of my own devices, just as I always have.

Incompetent, or irrelevant - which horn would you care to impale yourself on?

 

[Tree of Life]

No, it JUST amounts to providing rational evidence so as to make it rational to believe he exists.

Let's start with the question in the OP. What would evidence for God's existence be like?