Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What would it take you to be convinced God existed?

  1. Jul 27, 2003 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 27, 2003 #2
    First, god would have to interrupt all regularly scheduled tv and radio programs and proceed to broadcast the 1812 overture. Then all the volcanoes on earth would have to erupt purple bubbles simultaneously. All religious fundamentalists would then have to grow wings on their asses and serenade the atheists, on harp, with beautiful twinkly ballads of love whilst the atheists all renounced darwin as an extra-terrestrial mole. Light would then have to slow down to 13.2 mph and i'd like to see pelicans surfing these slow waves(for effect). Then George Bush Junior would need to be caught french kissing Osama by a ressurected Jimi Hendrix. Jimi would then proceed to play the star spangled banner backwards with his elbows.

    That would do it for me.
  4. Jul 27, 2003 #3
    An act of god, but it would appear that vedder has beat me to that description of events.
  5. Jul 27, 2003 #4
    Well I think to the degree that we look for God on the outside, and not look for God on the inside, then to that degree we would have missed the point. This is why God is not known to make many cameo appearances, for indeed we might believe in God as the comedian, or God as the clown, but not God as the Creator. :wink:
  6. Jul 27, 2003 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    All it takes is for God to suffuse me with his supernatural faith. Then I will believe and I will also be convinced because I don't believe any soulless force could do that to me.
  7. Jul 27, 2003 #6


    User Avatar

    Before answering that, I would have to see a working definition of God in the first place. It seems believers would have differing opinions on that, but it isn't a problem. Often, God is defined in terms that are purely negatives and the idea relates to nothing we've experienced, so is a non concept.

    So it would be best to define it, since I can't believe/disbelieve in something without knowing what it is in the first place.
  8. Jul 27, 2003 #7
    How about meaning, and a sense of purpose to begin with? And how about the ground of our being?

    From the thread, Think! ...

    I don't know, does this help? Well in terms of what I believe, I know that there's a material world, there's a spirtual world, and there's a Supreme Being who created them.
  9. Jul 27, 2003 #8

    Like he said
  10. Jul 27, 2003 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No matter what he/she did, how would I know if it is God, or the Q?
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2003
  11. Jul 27, 2003 #10
    Sounds more like Q to me! :wink:

    Or Ringling Brothers, Barnum & Bailey! :wink:
  12. Jul 27, 2003 #11
    The greatest gift a so-called god could give the human race is freedom of thought. Religion puts restraints on all freedom of thought, it's designed to control the masses. Once the human race rids itself of those pagan beliefs, then and only then can we move on to a higher intelligence.
  13. Jul 28, 2003 #12


    User Avatar

    Ground of being is rather vague, since that can be interpreted as just about anything. For physicalism, the ground of being could be a unified field. Purpose and meaning are human ideals that don't really add anything to the actual concept of what God is.

    I don't know, does this help? Well in terms of what I believe, I know that there's a material world, there's a spirtual world, and there's a Supreme Being who created them. [/QUOTE]

    It all comes down to defining this "supreme being". Is he personal? What properties does he/she/it have?
  14. Jul 28, 2003 #13
    And yet without purpose and meaning we have no set of values which, I think is the main thing, above all else.

    Would you have me describe why the sky is blue? It's as you said, the answer varies greatly, depending upon the number of differing viewpoints on this planet. And yet rightfully so, because how else would you go about describing that which is all-encompassing except from your own point of view?

    Why couldn't it be approached like any other theory, like the theory of evolution, in terms of its cause and effect? (and in this sense I mean "rationally"). Obviously the Universe will still be here whether we establish God as its origin or not. While I doubt very much that anything will change, except perhaps some people may be required to show a little more compassion towards others. Even so, one doesn't necessarily need to invoke God to even suggest this.

    All I can say is that there is evidence, and it's all a matter of whether one wants to conduct the research for oneself or not.
  15. Jul 28, 2003 #14
    At first one of the main reasons that I felt I believed was because of all the stuff Jesus said which I found very in truth. But as I've read philosophy I've noticed some things i.e. that a philosopher Confusius said his Golden Rule 500 years before he did, and my believes started failing.

    Empirically I've not met any particularly wise christian people compared to non-christians, although maybe more giving.

    And rationally, as above, when reading philosophy I feel that does more for me here.

    To be reconvinced I think both these aspects need to be confronted.
  16. Jul 28, 2003 #15
    In order to restore faith, you must find a happy medium between blind faith and logical disdain
  17. Jul 28, 2003 #16
    Well, first there has to be evidence that can be checked by others who may completely disagree with you. This is certainly the way of science.

    If you wish it investigated as a scientific endeavor, clarify your evidence, develop hypotheses which make falsifiable predictions. If it is not possible to produce falsifiable predictions, then you are likely outside the domain of science.

    Why don't we start here and now - state a couple of pieces of evidence, and come up one or more reason derived predictions based on that evidence. Make sure your conclusions are the simplest that fit the evidence.

    I look forward to your post.
  18. Jul 28, 2003 #17
    And yet the theory of evolution is just that, a theory isn't it? In which case all I have to offer up here, as is the case with evolution, is conjecture.

    However, I have been able to amass enough proof for myself, to answer this question on a personal level which, is more in line with the title of this thread.

    While I'm afraid all I can do is speak from my own experience, and do so to the best of my ability. I don't know if that's good enough to begin a debate or not?

    Another thing, is that once you establish something, you tend to get a little bit lazy, as it no longer requires all this additional evidence -- as it would in a debate -- to back it up. In which case I might seem a little short-handed in some of my replies, as I'm not always dwelling on such things. Nor do I always feel like there's something there to be said.
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2003
  19. Jul 28, 2003 #18
    Well, I think it would be a nice start if he'd at least come over once for dinner.

    I'm sure we could find a way to take it forward from there.
  20. Jul 28, 2003 #19
    Going back to an earlier post, cant be bothered to quote it, but maybe god is the Q, and maybe he/it has created life on this planet just to see how much fun he can have with us by giving us all freedom of thought, maybe he is having bets with all of his Q mates to see how long it takes for us to destroy the world that we live in, maybe it just wants to laugh at all of our petty little arguements about religions that he probably started on his own just to confuse the earths population, maybe i have just got back from the pub after a few drinks and dont know when to stop typing.

    To sum up all of that rubbish maybe Q is just having a laugh with his mates.
  21. Jul 28, 2003 #20
    What does it take one to be convinced that God (the being which is defined as the consciouss omnipotent omniscient infinite eternal being and creator of the universe) actually does not exist?

    But consider this:
    The being defined as above has a fundamental flaw that makes it into an inpossibility.

    The argument is not that eternal infinite being can not exist, since we can conceive of the material world, that it was not created but existed always.
    The argument is however that the eternal infinite material world itself (which is the highest or most broad form of being, since there is nothing outside or beyond it) can not exist in consciouss or subjective form.
    To be consciousness, means to be consciousness of something. but by definition there is not something beyond or outside the eternal infinite material world itself.
    To be subjective can only be defined if there is something that forms an objective basis for that.
    To be selfconsciouss and selfaware can only be meaningfull if there is something that you can distinguishe between that which is you, and that what is not you. You can not reflect on yourself, if there is nothing outside you, to reflect on.

    So consciousness has no meaning and can not be defined in the context of the eternal infinite existing material world, which is all being.

    We are an expression, a development product, of the material world, which can exist in subjective and consciouss form, cause we can reflect on and be aware of the world, which itself exists in objective form. This objective world had to be already there, forming and constituting the reason and cause for our own existence.
    We can distinguish between ourselves, and that what is outside, apart from and independend from us.

    Any form of consciousness requires there to be an objective world in first (primary) instance, that causes consciousness to become existent, and which can be related to in a subjective way.

    The material world in total can only be something objective, and can not have any consciousness of itself. Instead we - our human form - makes that the world exists also in subjective form. We are the way in which the universe, the material world, can reflect on itself and can be consciousss of itself.

    So the existence of something in consciouss form, prior to there being a material world in objective form, is therefore an impossibility.
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2003
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook