Speculative: Could an actual god ever convince a skeptic?

[vger]

Before you even think of replying to this, heed this warning. THIS IS NOT ABOUT DEBATING WHETHER OR NOT A GOD EXISTS. If the thread turns ugly, you know what will happen to it, and appropriately so.

After the holiday weekend and watching a lot of online banter between Atheists and Christians, I started really thinking hard about what classifies as proof in such extreme circumstances. Pondering things for a time, I was hit with some interesting realizations. Even though popular culture would say otherwise, proof of 'ghosts' would not prove there is an afterlife. Proof of an afterlife would not prove there is a god. Even proof of a devil wouldn't prove there is a god.

So I wondered what would happen if the actual real god (keep in mind, I'm not referring to any particular god from a certain faith, simply a sentient entity that willed the universe into being) showed up and said, "Here I am." How would it prove to a skeptic that it was indeed a god? I've played out a number of different scenarios in my head, but none of them led to concrete evidence.

For instance, it could say, "Well to show you I'm God, I'll blow up the moon. It points to the moon, the moon explodes. Ignoring the panic about an impending rain of meteors and tidal waves, a skeptic could say, "Well that's not proof. You could have rigged the moon with a massive explosive beforehand." I'm not even sure if that alternative explanation defies Occam's Razor or not (because an actual god brings about a lot of questions), but the point is such a 'miracle' would not be sufficient proof.

Furthermore, other forms of evidence such as clairvoyance, mind reading, prophecy, etc. would also still not prove that the being actually created the Universe. It could still just be some alien visitor who knows the history of our civilization, and is 'playing god' for some other motive. I'm pretty sure Jesus was even accused of such a thing (reading the prophecies and then setting out to try and recreate them), and that was in a VERY superstitious era, where people were not as quick to doubt what was told them. One could conceivably "scooby doo" any bizarre phenomenon that they witnessed.

Atheism and people of Faith butt heads on this all the time, and many say that it isn't possible to prove, or disprove the existence of a god. And now I'm wondering if it would even possible if a god itself were present to partake in the debate.

So, thoughts? What would it take for a god to prove itself to you?

Edited April 23, 2014 by vger

[falofonos]

The trouble with omnipotent entities is that they can make whatever they want happen. Including a universe in which an apparently self aware / sentient entity requests proof of their existence.

There is nothing a "god" could do that would promote faith in me. If an all powerful entity craves validation, it can go proselytize some ants or something. If you can explain to me why a god would want my belief that would be nice.

There's actually nothing that the god could do or say which would convince me it had created the universe, even if it allowed me to witness the entirety of the universe from creation to whenever it could still be a demon playing with my brain in a jar.

Edited April 23, 2014 by falofonos

[RuBisCO]

All a god would need to do come before me and preform just one specific feat. After that wether said being created the universe or not, is turelly all powerful, or if anything it says is true are all irrelvent questions! Said being will have proved it can do what ever it wants with me and that I am nothing but its play thing, I would have no choice but to do as it says and beleive every word it says because for all intensive perposes a 'god' can strip me of my freewill, instantly!. In short a god could make even the most harden skeptic beleive, could make the skeptic beleive 2+2=fish by brute mind control!!! Heck it could make 2+2=fish for REAL if it is truelly omnipotent, of course us mortals could not tell the diffrence between our minds being infallibly manipulated or reality being infallibly manipulated.

So in short: if a skeptic says "I don't beleive!" then god could simply snap his fingers or wiggle her nose and magically neural pathways in the skeptics mind will instantly re-arrange and the skeptic will say "I beleive!"

[Dodgey]

The main problem with this question is that in order to answer it you need to think of something that is outside the natural world. What is something which we could observe which only a deity could cause. That is to say something which could not arise through methods in the natural universe. It would need to be shown to everyone individually as no secondhand testimony would suffice. As I said it would also have only one way of "reading" it. I don't think anything short of personal revelation would be enough.

[ZetaX]

You need to define "god" first. If it is defined by god-like powers indistinguishable from magic (by me), then yeah, it can probably prove that to me. If there is an explicit supernatural requirement that is completely unobservable, then by the very definition I can not observe it and would require "mind-tampering" (micht include worldly ways) to be convinced of that.

[Brethern]

If we're talking about a omnipotent omniscient being then yes. A being that has the ability to know everything will know things about us that we ourselves don't know. Things would happen that there would be no way to deny it.

I think the movie bruce almighty has a few lessons in this regard.

[softweir]

A real god could convince anybody just by performing a miracle that stopped them being a sceptic. A REAL God could wait until the sceptic dies and then resurrects them; very hard to explain away life-after-death!

[Dispatcher]

Of course the question presupposes that a deity is inclined to grant your request ("prove" he or she or it or they exist). Perhaps deity could not care less about such a request (for whatever reasons; do you care if a bacterium believes in you, for example?). Or perhaps life is meant to choose its own way (we have free will and are expected to use it, with no expectation of proof of deity, one way or another). Relating to that, perhaps what we learn and experience in life is intended to help us learn whether or not we can, or should, rely on just our intellect or place "faith" in something which we cannot prove. Perhaps such a deity sees "absolute blind faith" to be as bad a choice as "absolute acceptance of the provable alone". Perhaps what might be required of us is a little of both. As Galileo Galilei wrote, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same (deity) who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use."

Perhaps no deity can prove its own existence; not to the satisfaction of everyone, or any one. Besides, there might be some kind of "prime directive" which would prohibit such a course of action. Either way, I don't think anyone could be convinced by "proof"; whether they think of themselves as skeptic or not.

[ThinkOutsideTheHangar]

If it was an omnipotent being, yes, it could do anything, know everything past and future, make all of the human race think they are cats. But a god who is actually benevolent, and recognizes us as beings who control our own fates, as opposed to an oppressive or a god who think of us as playthings, that's a whole new debate. And that's all for philosophy.

[Sillychris]

I could be mostly convinced of an actual god simply by speaking to the man. The remaining 5% of convincing could be completed via explosion requests by me.

[Stargate525]

I think one of the best ways I'd be convinced (not that it would take a lot, since I'm already Christian) would be to have him tell me about some of my deepest fears and memories, things I've not only not told anyone, but would not tell anyone in an conceivable circumstances.

Doesn't a belief that is held regardless of any conflicting evidence sort of count as a religion? So, those who say they could never accept a god... What does that make your atheism?

[cantab]

A demonstration of power in our Universe only proves the being to have that power. Certainly something capable of destroying the Moon on a whim is worthy of at least not pissing off, but it's no proof they created the Universe in the first place.

What I would find decent evidence of a Creator would be the discovery that certain digits of a mathematical constant, when interpreted according to a straightforward code, yield a meaningful message. The message does need to be long enough and not "far down" enough that the chance of any such message is small, even considering the multitude of mathematical constants and the possibility of different codes. To have put such a message in would have required a being to create mathematics itself, and by reasonable implication have at least had some hand in the creation of the Universe.

Even in that case, the alternative hypothesis that the being simply meddled with the computers that calculated to constant to make it give a false answer has to be refuted. That may be hard to do with adequate confidence. Also, if such meddling is refuted, it shows only that a Creator exists, not that any specific entity claiming to be such is indeed such.

[ZetaX]

Stargate525: atheism is defined by the lack of belief in a deity. It does not exclude to believe in fairies or little green Kerbals. Any reasonable atheist is actually that: reasonable, i.e. can be persuaded with sufficient evidence.

[Red Iron Crown]

A demonstration of power in our Universe only proves the being to have that power. Certainly something capable of destroying the Moon on a whim is worthy of at least not pissing off, but it's no proof they created the Universe in the first place.

What I would find decent evidence of a Creator would be the discovery that certain digits of a mathematical constant, when interpreted according to a straightforward code, yield a meaningful message. The message does need to be long enough and not "far down" enough that the chance of any such message is small, even considering the multitude of mathematical constants and the possibility of different codes. To have put such a message in would have required a being to create mathematics itself, and by reasonable implication have at least had some hand in the creation of the Universe.

Even in that case, the alternative hypothesis that the being simply meddled with the computers that calculated to constant to make it give a false answer has to be refuted. That may be hard to do with adequate confidence. Also, if such meddling is refuted, it shows only that a Creator exists, not that any specific entity claiming to be such is indeed such.

I'm guessing you read Carl Sagan's Contact.

[Superfluous J]

Skeptics are defined by their desire and ability to question things, NOT in their inability to accept answers to their questions.

So yes. Once a skeptic's questions are answered to their satisfaction, that skeptic would accept ANYTHING.

[cantab]

I'm guessing you read Carl Sagan's Contact.

Swing and a miss :-P I did see the film, a long long time ago though, I hardly remember it.

The idea of a meaningful message in irrational numbers in any case I doubt originated with Sagan, though I may be wrong.

[Duxwing]

Proving that one created the Universe would require proving that reality can contain paradoxes because creating the Universe would require existing before everything and therefore, paradoxically, before one's existence. Unless the considered being could prove this pre-requisite fact, I would by Occam's Razor conclude that I was hallucinating.

Obviously, such epistemological arguments as permanent, total hallucinations are useless: whether we or what we think or perceive exist, understanding our circumstances is useful. Tangentially, I might worship a being resolving the Munchausen Trilemma.

-Duxwing

[shynung]

I'd ask such a deity to create something really complicated (say, an otherwise-identical clone of myself of the opposite gender, made out of antimatter) out of nothing. Any being with sufficient power could destroy anything they want at will; given a powerful particle cannon in Earth orbit under my command, I could destroy the Moon with the flick of a finger. Creation, however, is a completely different matter.

[Brotoro]

Tricky.

Especially since OP said this god was just the being that created the universe. He didn't say the god had to be omnipotent or omniscient. Maybe he just has the skill to make universes. It might be hard to demonstrate that (since he might lack the skill to do it again in such a way that I could watch).

But if some dude comes up and claims to be an omnipotent, omniscient god, and offers to provide any proof I want...I would ask to instantly be imbued with a complete understanding of all of science and how the universe works, including its creation. This would, of course, include the knowledge with which I could verify this dude's credentials.

I'd also verify that all the new knowledge of science is valid by running some tests (or more likely getting other scientists to run the experiments). If this works out, then I would happily acknowledge this dude as a god (at least until some other god dude comes along and can prove how I was duped).

[Brethern]

Proving that one created the Universe would require proving that reality can contain paradoxes because creating the Universe would require existing before everything and therefore, paradoxically, before one's existence. Unless the considered being could prove this pre-requisite fact, I would by Occam's Razor conclude that I was hallucinating.

Obviously, such epistemological arguments as permanent, total hallucinations are useless: whether we or what we think or perceive exist, understanding our circumstances is useful. Tangentially, I might worship a being resolving the Munchausen Trilemma.

-Duxwing

Why would there have to be a paradox? Isn't it human arrogance that assumes a god would have to exist in the same way as us? We know so little about everything that assuming that things exist/don't exist is foolish.

[architeuthis]

American atheists often presume a privileged credibility for Christianity that they don't for other religions. This is difficult to justify on philosophical grounds. Could Zeus convince fervent Christans, or Hindus for that matter?

Edited April 23, 2014 by architeuthis

[Stargate525]

American atheists often presume a privileged credibility for Christianity that they don't for other religions. This is difficult to justify on philosophical grounds. Could Zeus convince fervent Christans, or Hindus for that matter?

The argument I'd have against Zeus or any of the other ancient deities is 'if you want worshippers, and you have any influence on us at all, why is your religion extinct?'

[ZetaX]

American atheists often presume a privileged credibility for Christianity that they don't for other religions. This is difficult to justify on philosophical grounds. Could Zeus convince fervent Christans, or Hindus for that matter?

I have yet to meet any atheist who considers Christianity more special than other religions. Any evidence on that claim¿

[Dodgey]

Guys don't start on that debate here, we don't want the thread locked.

[Elthy]

I would like to see some violations of fundamental laws. While ftl may be possible i'm very interested in a circle with pi=3

Or when a god wants us to belive in him and he is omnipotent he could simply make us believe by editing our brains...