God identification?

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Supposing that God of the proportions (though not necesarily specific qualities, (mis)interpretations, and personal quirks) of Christianity existed and chose to irrefutably make at least his existence known, what, if anything, would constitute adequate evidence? What would at least breach reasonable doubts? Anyone have any ideas on standards for appraising claims to divinity (as absurd as that sounds)?

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Specifically, what would you as individuals consider convincing, if anything? If this is dealt with elsewhere, please inform me and forgive the intrusion.

[Darth Wong]

Supposing that God of the proportions (though not necesarily specific qualities, (mis)interpretations, and personal quirks) of Christianity existed and chose to irrefutably make at least his existence known, what, if anything, would constitute adequate evidence? What would at least breach reasonable doubts? Anyone have any ideas on standards for appraising claims to divinity (as absurd as that sounds)?

God performed miracles in the Old Testament in order to prove his divinity. Of course, mankind was easily impressed back then. A modern Apache gunship could have easily convinced those people that you were a god. So for the modern, harder-to-impress technologically sophisticated man, I would expect him to do what he is most famed for doing: creating life in a day. For example, he could cover Mars with lush vegetation in one day, just as he supposedly did here.

[slebetman]

For God, world peace wouldn't be too much to ask (though that may mean ending His free-will experiment).

[Darth Wong]

For God, world peace wouldn't be too much to ask (though that may mean ending His free-will experiment).

There is considerable question whether the God of the Bible is capable of causing such a thing, without employing the Nazi solution (kill all of your enemies, so there will be peace). However, one of the indisputable planks of the Bible is that God supposedly created all life on this planet, and in fact did so rather easily (so easily that he wiped out all life with the Flood and then must have re-created most of it immediately afterwards, otherwise Noah would have stepped off his boat onto a barren moonscape).

[slebetman]

One of the demonstrations in the Quran God did (I forgot via which messenger) was to bring a man back to life from his ashes - IIRC literally before a crowd forming the ashes back to bone, wrapping the bones in muscle and muscle in skin. That would be impressive even by our standards.

[Darth Wong]

One of the demonstrations in the Quran God did (I forgot via which messenger) was to bring a man back to life from his ashes - IIRC literally before a crowd forming the ashes back to bone, wrapping the bones in muscle and muscle in skin. That would be impressive even by our standards.

David Copperfield has made objects disappear and reappear in front of crowds. Crowds are a lousy demonstration audience. I would prefer that it be done in a laboratory, with numerous scientific instruments monitoring every conceivable physical parameter of the process.

[SirNitram]

The upside to Mike's method is, then, if this guy IS the real deal, we get to fufil his claim in Genesis: We become as him, minus the immortality, because we'll know how to cover a world in life.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

I, for one, would like to see humanity (or at least myself) miraculously given some huge insight, an understanding of why the universe is as it is, or if that is impossible, then a clear understanding of why we cannot understand it. And I mean something that is concrete and logically checkable rather than a profound mystical feeling of union or "understanding." It seems the least an all-powerful being could do is to give us the capacity to appreciate itself, if that is indeed a concern at all.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Of course part of my real concern is what would we consider to be possible evidence of a real transcendent being, say the actual creator of the universe, rather than simply the artifact of a substantially older more powerful civilization. Is it indeed the case that it is not possible for us to distinguish? Of course if such a society or being were capable of modifying us physically, emotionally, or intellectually, then it really is quite a moot point, since we would be powerless to choose objectively.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Well, a comprehensive yet concise proof of the Riemann Hypothesis would be a nice start.

[Darth Wong]

Of course part of my real concern is what would we consider to be possible evidence of a real transcendent being, say the actual creator of the universe, rather than simply the artifact of a substantially older more powerful civilization. Is it indeed the case that it is not possible for us to distinguish? Of course if such a society or being were capable of modifying us physically, emotionally, or intellectually, then it really is quite a moot point, since we would be powerless to choose objectively.

Since the universe is all that exists, and God exists, he must be part of the universe. So he could not have created it.

In any case, it seems reasonable to ask God to do something that he did twice in the Bible, and in a reasonable timeframe. Making up new tasks that he may or may not be capable of is not necessary. If he is indeed capable of covering Mars with lush vegetation in a day, his power is so great that he could very well have created us, even if he didn't create the entire universe.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

I was thinking, we could ask God any question we liked, but how would one check the answer to a question to which only a true God would know the answer? So perhaps he could provide solutions to every NP-complete problem, along with tips on optimizing the algorithm for checking the answers. That would be rather convincing to me.

[slebetman]

Of course part of my real concern is what would we consider to be possible evidence of a real transcendent being, say the actual creator of the universe, rather than simply the artifact of a substantially older more powerful civilization. Is it indeed the case that it is not possible for us to distinguish? Of course if such a society or being were capable of modifying us physically, emotionally, or intellectually, then it really is quite a moot point, since we would be powerless to choose objectively.

Maybe but then this means that such demonstrations of omnipotence does not in fact demonstrate that the God demonstrating it is in fact the Creator. In which case, can any advanced species or individual actually demonstrate "Godship" instead of just highly advanced techology? If Q for example would show up and terraform Mars in a day as Mike asked can we then believe that Q is God or just that Q has sufficiently advanced technology to do insta-terraformation?

[Flagg]

Here's the real question: If it is the same god from the OT, if we have the ability to kill it, do we? For our own protection?

[Darth Wong]

Maybe but then this means that such demonstrations of omnipotence does not in fact demonstrate that the God demonstrating it is in fact the Creator. In which case, can any advanced species or individual actually demonstrate "Godship" instead of just highly advanced techology?

That's a serious problem with the idea of asking God to perform specific feats dissimilar to the one which is most important to us, ie- creating us.

If Q for example would show up and terraform Mars in a day as Mike asked can we then believe that Q is God or just that Q has sufficiently advanced technology to do insta-terraformation?

I would argue that the question becomes irrelevant, insofar as we would now know that someone out there is capable of creating our entire biosystem literally overnight as per the stories of the Bible, so the hypothesis of our biosystem having arisen in such a fashion would gain credence.

In other words, if Q showed up and demonstrated that he could have performed every feat in the Bible, he might very well have been God, at least for the purposes of being the guy described in the Bible. The question of whether he is the only God is kind of irrelevant at that point.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Perhaps evidence of a God would be absolutely unified belief by all sentient beings without them being required to overlook logical inconsistencies. Now that I think of it, this is essentially what Christians aim for, but comparing it to reality is at least a disproof of their connection whatever God exists. Though I suppose I didn't really need more confirmation of that.

[PrettyBurn]

My problem, I think, would be that even if he did perform such miracles as creating life on Mars or raising a person from the dead, I'd find it hard to convince myself that he was in fact "God". Powerful, and possesing some unknown technology, yes, but God? I think I'd find it much easier to believe that he came from some far away planet and was part of some alien race with technology that was so beyond that which humanity has reached that I couldn't even comprehend it.

And that's at least as unbelievable as the concept of God, but I still think my brain would do its best to convince itself that this "miracle" was actually scientifically explainable.

So, really, I can't think of what such a God could do to truly get me to believe.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Here's the real question: If it is the same god from the OT, if we have the ability to kill it, do we? For our own protection?

Instantly. The OT God is a homicidal megalomanic.

[Havok]

Ask him the answer to PI

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Ask him the answer to PI

If he were really omniscient he would say "indeterminant."

I'd ask him what he uses his dangly for.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Supposing that God of the proportions (though not necesarily specific qualities, (mis)interpretations, and personal quirks) of Christianity existed and chose to irrefutably make at least his existence known, what, if anything, would constitute adequate evidence? What would at least breach reasonable doubts? Anyone have any ideas on standards for appraising claims to divinity (as absurd as that sounds)?

God performed miracles in the Old Testament in order to prove his divinity. Of course, mankind was easily impressed back then. A modern Apache gunship could have easily convinced those people that you were a god. So for the modern, harder-to-impress technologically sophisticated man, I would expect him to do what he is most famed for doing: creating life in a day. For example, he could cover Mars with lush vegetation in one day, just as he supposedly did here.

Clarke's Law: any sufficiantly advanced technology is magic to those who are less advanced.

[Darth Wong]

Clarke's Law: any sufficiantly advanced technology is magic to those who are less advanced.

Totally irrelevant to the point, which is that a being of such power, regardless of how he attained it, could credibly have been responsible for creating us, hence greatly increasing the possibility that some of those Bible stories were actually based on reality rather than ignorance and stupidity.

[Talanth]

If he was claiming to be the creator of the visable universe (and so must have power outside it) I would ask him to break one of the laws of physics. If he just claims to have created liveing earth I would go by DWs method.

[Darth Wong]

If he was claiming to be the creator of the visable universe (and so must have power outside it) I would ask him to break one of the laws of physics. If he just claims to have created liveing earth I would go by DWs method.

Breaking one of the laws of physics might only mean that we misinterpreted that law of physics in the first place, and he was intelligent enough to know that.