How would a god prove its existence?

[+Nuclear Wessel]

First of all I should like to mention that I in no way, shape, or form subscribe to any religion or particular sense of spirituality (this is not exactly relevant); at best I would consider myself a pantheist or, as Richard Dawkins so eloquently defines a "pantheist", a "sexed up atheist"... I prefer the latter, just because.

Before writing this out further I should also like to address that this post makes the following assumption:

1.) it assumes that we live in a universe that is governed by a "god"--an all knowing, all-powerful, all-present being who very much interacts with our daily lives.

2.) it assumes that this "god" possesses the capacity to prove its existence to any individual and is able to perform virtually any required task as science needs in order to prove its existence.

Now, following from the second assumption... what does science NEED, exactly, to prove that a god exists? For example, say that there are a particular set of scientists who are ready and willing to investigate a god. Because god is all of the characteristics as I describe it above, it transforms itself into an anthropic being and offers itself for rigorous testing by scientists.

The scientists then present him with questions. I don't know exactly WHAT questions scientists would ask, but I will give it a shot.

The first question is: if you are really a god, turn yourself into a cat. This god agrees and turns itself into a cat, but is this really evidence that such a being is a god and not just an extremely advanced alien life-form that can turn itself into a cat? What if it is, indeed, a human that is born with some exceptional abilities? That doesn't make it god...

The second question is: if you are a god, teleport all of us (the scientists) into the atmosphere of Venus and ensure that there is no harm that comes to us. The "god" obliges and the act is carried out. They then ask the god to transfer them back to where they all were, and he does this. This, again... does not prove that this being is, indeed, a god... it just suggests that it is a being that has extraordinary abilities.

The third question is posed by each scientist: Can you tell me all of my personal information and all about everybody who I have encountered in my life? Can you tell me all about what I am thinking, what I have done throughout the day? Can you tell me exactly how old I am? Can you tell me all of the prayers I have made (if any) and why you have not answered all of them? The "god" obliges and answers all off the information with complete accuracy and precision. But, again... this doesn't mean that the "god" is truly a god... it just means that this god is a being that obviously has some amazing capabilities.

I guess what I am getting at is whether or not there would ever be sufficient evidence from a god to prove that it does, indeed, exist... assuming it really does exist. How could its existence every truly be proven? There would always be an alternate explanation for its abilities--maybe its abilities enable it to perform actions to satisfy all of the questions posed to it but it is not necessarily a "supreme" creator of the universe. How could one differentiate between an actual god and merely a highly advanced ET civilization with extraordinary abilities, but yet lack the capacity to create everything?

I am quite tired and there may be some flaws here in my writing... but overall I think this topic could spark some very interesting discussion. Let me know if there is anything logically flawed with my questioning/ideas and I will adjust them accordingly.

My big question is... what do YOU think a god would have to do to prove that it is, in fact, a god... in particular in the realm of science? It would be exceptionally difficult (if not impossible) to do.

[Grimmie]

Since you asked, I will point out the flawed logic, not that it entirely hurts the question you are asking.

1. Science does not prove things, it disproves things. This means it needs to be falsifiable. They key trait of science is falsifiability, this is to deal with the problem of demarcation. We would have to come up with a hypothesis and test it to try to disprove it or support the hypothesis. Then more testing is done to try and replicate the same result. If it is not something that we can test and measure, we at least need to make observations.

2. There is no reason we should assume it is an alien life form unless we have evidence of alien life forms actually existing. This is the biggest flaw in Ancient Astronaut Theory, they assume the biggest question that needs to be addressed...does alien life actually exist, using more than just mathematical equations. This would be the same if we assume it has extraordinary abilities.

To answer you question, there may be nothing we can do to conclude it is a god in the sense you are describing. Based on your scenarios, I think the only conclusion we could come up with is that we do not entirely know what this "thing" is. It may be an intelligent being, it may be a god, or maybe it is one in the same. We do not have all the questions of the universe and it appears the more we learn the more we realize we do not know. This would make it very difficult to determine what exactly we would need to be looking for. That actually makes your original premises unfair. Who determines what they are, other than just for the sake of your particular argument? Would we even know what fair characteristics are? If they are that superior, why would we assume they reason like us or have the same goals or desires?

I think they key is that there will always be doubters. There will always be skeptics that will point to any excuse other than a god...it's an alien, ect.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Grimmie

[+Sherapy]

First of all I should like to mention that I in no way, shape, or form subscribe to any religion or particular sense of spirituality (this is not exactly relevant); at best I would consider myself a pantheist or, as Richard Dawkins so eloquently defines a "pantheist", a "sexed up atheist"... I prefer the latter, just because.

Before writing this out further I should also like to address that this post makes the following assumption:

1.) it assumes that we live in a universe that is governed by a "god"--an all knowing, all-powerful, all-present being who very much interacts with our daily lives.

2.) it assumes that this "god" possesses the capacity to prove its existence to any individual and is able to perform virtually any required task as science needs in order to prove its existence.

Now, following from the second assumption... what does science NEED, exactly, to prove that a god exists? For example, say that there are a particular set of scientists who are ready and willing to investigate a god. Because god is all of the characteristics as I describe it above, it transforms itself into an anthropic being and offers itself for rigorous testing by scientists.

The scientists then present him with questions. I don't know exactly WHAT questions scientists would ask, but I will give it a shot.

The first question is: if you are really a god, turn yourself into a cat. This god agrees and turns itself into a cat, but is this really evidence that such a being is a god and not just an extremely advanced alien life-form that can turn itself into a cat? What if it is, indeed, a human that is born with some exceptional abilities? That doesn't make it god...

The second question is: if you are a god, teleport all of us (the scientists) into the atmosphere of Venus and ensure that there is no harm that comes to us. The "god" obliges and the act is carried out. They then ask the god to transfer them back to where they all were, and he does this. This, again... does not prove that this being is, indeed, a god... it just suggests that it is a being that has extraordinary abilities.

The third question is posed by each scientist: Can you tell me all of my personal information and all about everybody who I have encountered in my life? Can you tell me all about what I am thinking, what I have done throughout the day? Can you tell me exactly how old I am? Can you tell me all of the prayers I have made (if any) and why you have not answered all of them? The "god" obliges and answers all off the information with complete accuracy and precision. But, again... this doesn't mean that the "god" is truly a god... it just means that this god is a being that obviously has some amazing capabilities.

I guess what I am getting at is whether or not there would ever be sufficient evidence from a god to prove that it does, indeed, exist... assuming it really does exist. How could its existence every truly be proven? There would always be an alternate explanation for its abilities--maybe its abilities enable it to perform actions to satisfy all of the questions posed to it but it is not necessarily a "supreme" creator of the universe. How could one differentiate between an actual god and merely a highly advanced ET civilization with extraordinary abilities, but yet lack the capacity to create everything?

I am quite tired and there may be some flaws here in my writing... but overall I think this topic could spark some very interesting discussion. Let me know if there is anything logically flawed with my questioning/ideas and I will adjust them accordingly.

My big question is... what do YOU think a god would have to do to prove that it is, in fact, a god... in particular in the realm of science? It would be exceptionally difficult (if not impossible) to do.

Interesting question, what would it take to prove that God is God.

Wow, this is beyond my mental capacities.

I will say at this point since God is a concept there isn't much to work with.

Sorry, I don't have more then this, NW.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Sherapy

[Habitat]

I love the assumption that "scientists" would be the ones to decide, as if the rest of us are not qualified to judge. All I see here is idolatry of science, and an underlying assumption it can answer anything and everything. In truth, scientists are no better placed to "solve" the mystery, some would say less well placed, with their rationalist approach.

[+Sherapy]

I love the assumption that "scientists" would be the ones to decide, as if the rest of us are not qualified to judge. All I see here is idolatry of science, and an underlying assumption it can answer anything and everything. In truth, scientists are no better placed to "solve" the mystery, some would say less well placed, with their rationalist approach.

Geez, Habitat, there must be zillions of different interpretations of what a person might think God is or is not.

How in the hell would you sort through that?

[seeder]

Good question....

our own God wouldnt even let Moses see him..... 'sort of'

Exodus 24:9-11

9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.

Here we see that Moses and others saw God with their own eyes.

But later, Moses was not allowed to see God's face.

Exodus 33:18-23

18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”

19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14081/did-moses-see-the-face-of-god

[Habitat]

Geez, Habitat, there must be zillions of different interpretations of what a person might think God is or is not.

How in the hell would you sort through that?

The question asked by the OP virtually admits it is a hopeless task, not least because there is no definition available that would exclude a wider one. If you define something you allot bounds, and people will just want to invoke what is beyond the bounds you set.

[+Sherapy]

The question asked by the OP virtually admits it is a hopeless task, not least because there is no definition available that would exclude a wider one. If you define something you allot bounds, and people will just want to invoke what is beyond the bounds you set.

Indeed, you have one hell of a time pinning God down, the infinite perfection definition is about as different from humans as you can get. We are not omni anything, or perfect.

Or, Judaism's G-d which encompasses your point more.

Not to mention something that is claimed to be in a supernatural realm of some kind (beyond human understanding) that we don't even know where this realm is.

Thanks for the clarity.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Sherapy

[Habitat]

Indeed, you have one hell of a time pinning God down, the infinite perfection definition is about as different from humans as you can get. We are not omni anything, or perfect.

Judaism's G-d which encompasses your point more.

Thanks for the clarity.

The rational mind cannot process that which is not defined/definable. This probably explains why a lot of people over-subscribed to rationalist thinking, are uncomfortable with "god" talk.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Habitat

[XenoFish]

Nothing will ever prove that god does/doesn't exist. Which is why we will never have an end to the argument from both sides. The trick would be at least to separate "god's" will from the will of man. However religions are saturated with the will of men. In fact I believe that's all religion is, a propaganda machine. Promoting spiritual elitism.

If god does exist, it would be like nothing from any religious text ever written. My biggest problem with god is where did god come from? What created god? If something created god then what created that thing/force/whatever it is that created god?

The questions tend to chase it's tail. Never having a real answer because no one knows.

As I stand right now; god is an idea. One created by our ancestors to explain things that they didn't understand. Which is why there were so many of them. Not only this, the word of god is just the work of men who wrote the text as if they were god.

[+Sherapy]

The rational mind cannot process that which is not defined/definable. This probably explains why a lot of people over-subscribed to rationalist thinking, are uncomfortable with "god" talk.

My question is how would anyone know anyways?

Literally how?

We all perceive using our senses and it's interpreted. So how is it that one interpretation is better then the next or the right one?

Edited April 9, 2016 by Sherapy

[StarMountainKid]

A couple of questions:

How would we get God to show Itself?

What would be the likelihood of the existence of an omnipotent Alien that could fool us into thinking it was God?

Bekenstein bound:

In physics, the Bekenstein bound is an upper limit on the entropy S, or information I, that can be contained within a given finite region of space which has a finite amount of energy—or conversely, the maximum amount of information required to perfectly describe a given physical system down to the quantum level.

https://en.wikipedia...ekenstein_bound

In other words, it seems to me, any finite Alien being would have a finite capacity of mind and therefore could not pretend to be God. The Alien could not pass the God Test because its "tricks" would be limited to its finite capacity of its mind.

Edited April 9, 2016 by StarMountainKid

[+Sherapy]

Nothing will ever prove that god does/doesn't exist. Which is why we will never have an end to the argument from both sides. The trick would be at least to separate "god's" will from the will of man. However religions are saturated with the will of men. In fact I believe that's all religion is, a propaganda machine. Promoting spiritual elitism.

If god does exist, it would be like nothing from any religious text ever written. My biggest problem with god is where did god come from? What created god? If something created god then what created that thing/force/whatever it is that created god?

The questions tend to chase it's tail. Never having a real answer because no one knows.

As I stand right now; god is an idea. One created by our ancestors to explain things that they didn't understand. Which is why there were so many of them. Not only this, the word of god is just the work of men who wrote the text as if they were god.

The thread is fantastic, NW knocked it out of the park on this one for originality.

Yes, God is an idea, one of about billions.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Sherapy

[seeder]

A couple of questions:

How would we get God to show Itself?

What would be the likelihood of the existence of an omnipotent Alien that could fool us into thinking it was God?

Bekenstein bound:

https://en.wikipedia...ekenstein_bound

In other words, it seems to me, any finite Alien being would have a finite capacity of mind and therefore could not pretend to be God. The Alien could not pass the God Test because its "tricks" would be limited to its finite capacity of mind.

Yet the bible tells us mankind will be fooled by a false Messiah...

Jesus warned that in the last days counterfeit christs would arise who would masquerade as the Messiah and claim to be the savior of the world. “Jesus answered and said to them: ‘Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, “I am the Christ,” and will deceive many’ ” (Matthew 24:4, 5, NKJV).

Not exactly making it easy....now is it?

.

Edited April 9, 2016 by seeder

[Habitat]

My question is how would anyone know anyways?

Literally how?

We all perceive using our senses and it's interpreted. So how is it that one interpretation is better then the next or the right one?

Not by rational means. God is accessible by love, not by reason. What manner of love, is this ? The love of truth, principally. the truth that, e.g., I am no more important than some random person across the world, that I have never even met. The ego does not stand for such nonsense, despite the truth of it being all too clear, when you really think about it. Love is about widening your circle of identity, till the stage of the ALL. At which point you are one with God, and become God.

[XenoFish]

We are the embodiment's of our beliefs. For some say that god is real, yet can not prove such. Some say god does not exist, yet can not prove it. In a state of indifference I stand. Caring neither way. Because I know both answers are wrong.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

Not by rational means. God is accessible by love, not by reason.

That is a rather bold claim to make. How do you know that this god is not only accessible by love, but accessible... period? I suppose it depends on what your definition of a god is.

[XenoFish]

Not by rational means. God is accessible by love, not by reason. What manner of love, is this ? The love of truth, principally. the truth that, e.g., I am no more important than some random person across the world, that I have never even met. The ego does not stand for such nonsense, despite the truth of it being all too clear, when you really think about it. Love is about widening your circle of identity, till the stage of the ALL. At which point you are one with God, and become God.

Love is just a chemical, no matter the origin, we give it meaning by choice.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

Love is just a chemical, no matter the origin, we give it meaning by choice.

I am not sure if I can entirely agree that love is merely a "chemical". I can agree that there are chemicals involved in love, but love inherently being simply a "chemical"? That is a curious notion.

[+Sherapy]

Not by rational means. God is accessible by love, not by reason. What manner of love, is this ? The love of truth, principally. the truth that, e.g., I am no more important than some random person across the world, that I have never even met. The ego does not stand for such nonsense, despite the truth of it being all too clear, when you really think about it. Love is about widening your circle of identity, till the stage of the ALL. At which point you are one with God, and become God.

How do you widen your circle of identity? What do you mean by identity?

The love of truth?

Please clarify?

Edited April 9, 2016 by Sherapy

[Habitat]

We are the embodiment's of our beliefs. For some say that god is real, yet can not prove such. Some say god does not exist, yet can not prove it. In a state of indifference I stand. Caring neither way. Because I know both answers are wrong.

That is a rather bold claim to make. How do you know that this god is not only accessible by love, but accessible... period? I suppose it depends on what your definition of a god is.

You must become the vehicle that carries you to this truth. You must go to the mountain top, it will not come to you. If you ditch the baggage of largely egocentric illusions, you will float like a butterfly to the peak.

[Tatetopa]

This is troublesome. Why would this being create the universe and then be constantly interacting in our daily lives? Why would such a being go to any trouble or give a rip whether a few humans believed in him or not?

Moving past that there may be a couple of avenues that this being might take. It could appear to everyone simultaneously and just say "Hey, I made all of this, I control everything, I'm always busy doing something to your lives. If I didn't love you I could destroy you right now." That wouldn't be so difficult for the supreme creator. If it talked to every intelligent being in the universe at once, who would be left to doubt it? From my point of view, the implications are not encouraging. If the creator of the universe needs to feel constantly involved in all beings daily lives; and seek recognition, it would seem that infinity of space and time must be pretty boring and pointless. Does this supreme being search for the meaning of its own existence and justify it by believing it needs to be involved in our lives?

What if our creator was not omnipotent or omniscient? A face could appear out of the tile wall while you are taking a shower and say "Hey, I just wanted you to know I created this simulation. Its running on a computer in our entertainment room. I did it for a school project, but I liked it so much, I kept it running. When I created it, I set boundary conditions, gave you a set of abilities and an open architecture and just let you develop. I did't get an A on the project, but I think this is really cool for the first universe simulation that I have programmed. I'm sure I'll do better on the next one.

Or another alternative, the creator talks to some of those scientists and explains the value of the fundamental constants of the universe; the charge of the electron, gravitation, the mass of the electron, the speed of light etc. He could tell them why it fits together the way it does and maybe explain the quantum graininess of the universe. If he was agreeable, they could ask him to show them what would happen to the universe if one or more of those constants were changed. If he liked us enough, he could open up a window to a parallel universe with different constants. That would be a godlike thing for a being to do. I'm no too satisfied with this, it is not very elegant. Needs more thought, but there have been eleven posts since I started writing. I may already be irrelevant.

[+Sherapy]

I am not sure if I can entirely agree that love is merely a "chemical". I can agree that there are chemicals involved in love, but love inherently being simply a "chemical"? That is a curious notion.

NW, have you experienced the craziness of falling in love? If so describe it to me.

[+Sherapy]

You must become the vehicle that carries you to this truth. You must go to the mountain top, it will not come to you. If you ditch the baggage of largely egocentric illusions, you will float like a butterfly to the peak.

And?

How can what works for you apply to any of us?

We all are coming from different perspectives.

Are you suggesting that this God you speak of has one way to ? and that Is through you? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Edited April 9, 2016 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

This is troublesome. Why would this being create the universe and then be constantly interacting in our daily lives? Why would such a being go to any trouble or give a rip whether a few humans believed in him or not?

Moving past that there may be a couple of avenues that this being might take. It could appear to everyone simultaneously and just say "Hey, I made all of this, I control everything, I'm always busy doing something to your lives. If I didn't love you I could destroy you right now." That wouldn't be so difficult for the supreme creator. If it talked to every intelligent being in the universe at once, who would be left to doubt it? From my point of view, the implications are not encouraging. If the creator of the universe needs to feel constantly involved in all beings daily lives; and seek recognition, it would seem that infinity of space and time must be pretty boring and pointless. Does this supreme being search for the meaning of its own existence and justify it by believing it needs to be involved in our lives?

What if our creator was not omnipotent or omniscient? A face could appear out of the tile wall while you are taking a shower and say "Hey, I just wanted you to know I created this simulation. Its running on a computer in our entertainment room. I did it for a school project, but I liked it so much, I kept it running. When I created it, I set boundary conditions, gave you a set of abilities and an open architecture and just let you develop. I did't get an A on the project, but I think this is really cool for the first universe simulation that I have programmed. I'm sure I'll do better on the next one.

Or another alternative, the creator talks to some of those scientists and explains the value of the fundamental constants of the universe; the charge of the electron, gravitation, the mass of the electron, the speed of light etc. He could tell them why it fits together the way it does and maybe explain the quantum graininess of the universe. If he was agreeable, they could ask him to show them what would happen to the universe if one or more of those constants were changed. If he liked us enough, he could open up a window to a parallel universe with different constants. That would be a godlike thing for a being to do. I'm no too satisfied with this, it is not very elegant. Needs more thought, but there have been eleven posts since I started writing. I may already be irrelevant.

Ha ha ha ha ha great post! I love the I may be late to the party part!