What Proof Would Convince You? (A Hypothetical)

[Eyeron]

Do you require proof of God in order to believe he exists?

What kind of proof would you require?

Hypothetically, if he did come down and gave you all the proof you required that he was the one true God, and did it humanely possible (that is without resorting to threats and scare tactics of absolutely any sort) would you acknowledge him? Would you worship him?

If you don't acknowledge him or worship him even after providing absolute proof, then what is the point of demanding proof? This is something I do not understand. Because if he did all this, and you deny him, then that would mean you are choosing to go to hell. Why choose to go to hell if he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists and is worthy of worship?

[Morrigan]

I would acknowledge him, sure. But why should I worship him? It doesn't follow at all, really.

[arthwollipot]

The idea of God providing absolute proof of his existence is logically inconsistent. Your hypothetical lacks verisimilitude.

That having been said, if I were somehow convinced of his existence, I think I'd have some VERY stern questions to ask.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Do you require proof of God in order to believe he exists?

What kind of proof would you require?
One billion legal dollars deposited in my bank account.

Hypothetically, if he did come down and gave you all the proof you required that he was the one true God, and did it humanely possible (that is without resorting to threats and scare tactics of absolutely any sort) would you acknowledge him? Would you worship him?
Hell, I'd pretty much worship anyone who made the above deposit, even if they claimed to be Hervé Villechaize.

[jimtron]

Do you require proof of God in order to believe he exists?

Yes.


What kind of proof would you require?

An all-powerful god could figure out a way. Something better than a 2,000 year old book written by unknown authors and edited by many others with different agendas.

Hypothetically, if he did come down and gave you all the proof you required that he was the one true God, and did it humanely possible (that is without resorting to threats and scare tactics of absolutely any sort) would you acknowledge him? Would you worship him?

Yes, I'd acknowledge him/she/it/whatever. I'm not sure if I'd worship or not though.

If you don't acknowledge him or worship him even after providing absolute proof, then what is the point of demanding proof? This is something I do not understand. Because if he did all this, and you deny him, then that would mean you are choosing to go to hell. Why choose to go to hell if he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists and is worthy of worship?

"He" hasn't done this. If there was evidence that god exists and disobeying "him" meant suffering eternally in hell, then I probably would choose to avoid hell. But since there is zero evidence of hell and god, I'm not at all worried. If you believe in god and hell, please share the evidence. Or do you take it on faith?

[Eyeron]

I don't believe. I just don't understand the point of demanding absolute proof then denying it and him if it was truly presented. And of course he hasn't done this, it was a hypothetical based on the what if it truly happened.

I am actually an atheist, but, I like to think about all possibilities and what ifs.

[L. Ron Hoover]

I require proof to believe anything exists, not just gods. If something showed up posing as a god, I would be skeptical (Ardra?) but would be open to the possibility. It gets weird when a deity needs worship. A perfect being needs nothing, so anything demanding worship is flawed.

I'm curious, let's assume God appears one day to every person on Earth simultaneously. Of course, because it is God, everyone immediately knows this to be true. It doesn't, however, look anything at all like a human, but more an amalgamation of many different creatures on the earth. God goes on to proclaim (in all languages) that He doesn't interfere in any lives of any living organisms and prayer is a complete waste of time; that He has never before appeared to the people of Earth; that everything in the universe has a beginning, middle and end, including all living creatures; that He neither wants nor needs worship; that there is no heaven or hell, merely non-existence after death; but most of all, He has never appeared in human form (or any form other than the one before you), so all claims by humans to be God, the Son of God, or anything of the sort are simply wrong. Also, the Bible is a collection of stories that have nothing to do with Him, but merely the writings of men. Again, because it's God, you immediately know this to be true. Would you abandon those parts of your religion that conflict with this newly-obtained knowledge? Would you accept that Jesus was never a God, or Allah, or whoever has ever claimed to be one? Would you accept God?

[Ferguson]

I don't believe. I just don't understand the point of demanding absolute proof then denying it and him if it was truly presented. And of course he hasn't done this, it was a hypothetical based on the what if it truly happened.

I am actually an atheist, but, I like to think about all possibilities and what ifs.

Why would anyone deny proof, if it were provided? Obviously if proof was provided that the Christian God, and Hell, existed, the people who were looking proof, would now have it, and would start "repenting" or building statues of Jesus, or whatever else they were told to do. At that point the only people denying god would be doing so against the evidence, (i.e. like theists do currently).

You said "This is something I do not understand. Because if he did all this, and you deny him, then that would mean you are choosing to go to hell." Of course you don't understand that, because it doesn't make sense. If hell was known to exist, no one would choose to go to Hell. Unless evidence arose that Hell was actually quite a nice place. I don't understand who these hypothetical people that know Hell exists but then deny God anyway are coming from. Who would do that? Why?

[Robin]

If you don't acknowledge him or worship him even after providing absolute proof, then what is the point of demanding proof?
What a peculiar question!

Essentially you are saying that if I would not worship God even after I had evidence of his existence, then I should just believe in God without asking for evidence - yes?
This is something I do not understand. Because if he did all this, and you deny him, then that would mean you are choosing to go to hell.
If I say to someone "give me all your money or I will punch you in the face", and he does not give me all his money, does that imply that he is choosing to be punched in the face?
Why choose to go to hell if he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists and is worthy of worship?
Now here is what I don't understand ....

How could an entity that eternally tortures people for failing to worship him be worthy of worship?

That does not make a lick of sense. The very idea is self-refuting.

[dikkedeur]

If you don't acknowledge him or worship him even after providing absolute proof, then what is the point of demanding proof? This is something I do not understand. Because if he did all this, and you deny him, then that would mean you are choosing to go to hell. Why choose to go to hell if he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists and is worthy of worship?

If there was sufficient proof of hell, I'm sure people would adjust their actions. Pointing a gun at somebody's head is usually effective to get them to do what you want.

[Beerina]

The question of whether a creator-god exists is independent of whether it deserves worship. As I look around me, this one isn't even deserving of a thanks.

[I Ratant]

How big are her tits?

[Pure Argent]

Do you require proof of God in order to believe he exists?

Yes.

What kind of proof would you require?

A face-to-face meeting with some demonstration of his miraculous powers, perhaps a repeat of Genesis. And I would have to be accompanied by scientists who would examine everything happening and, after the demonstration ends, sign a written document stating that they believe that he is a god.

Hypothetically, if he did come down and gave you all the proof you required that he was the one true God, and did it humanely possible (that is without resorting to threats and scare tactics of absolutely any sort) would you acknowledge him? Would you worship him?

Acknowledge sure. Worship no. In fact, I would probably become the John Connor to his Skynet, Colonel Fehdman Kassad to his Shrike.

If you don't acknowledge him or worship him even after providing absolute proof, then what is the point of demanding proof? This is something I do not understand.

You don't understand it because it's a nonsense question. People demand proof in the understanding that, if proof is given, they will acknowledge the truth. Worship, however, does not depend on evidence.

Because if he did all this, and you deny him, then that would mean you are choosing to go to hell.

It would mean that I am refusing to bow down to a tyrannical oppressor who wields Hell like a club over our heads to force us to his will.

Why choose to go to hell if he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists and is worthy of worship?

I wouldn't. If he did exist (he doesn't) and if he was worthy of worship (he isn't) I would worship him.

[Z]

No, I would require proof to KNOW that a god exists. Belief does not require positive proof, only a lack of negative proof. I believe in dragons; as long as they're not proven, absolutely, to be completely impossible, I can continue to believe in them. However, to KNOW that dragons exist would require proof.

Now, if the X-ian God were to make a sudden appearance, bearing with it Great Proof for its existence, my first reaction would be to suspect we had a very powerful, deceptive alien on our hands. My second would likely to demand accountability for all the screwed-up things the X-ian God is responsible for.

[ExMinister]

I'm curious, let's assume God appears one day to every person on Earth simultaneously. Of course, because it is God, everyone immediately knows this to be true. It doesn't, however, look anything at all like a human, but more an amalgamation of many different creatures on the earth. God goes on to proclaim (in all languages) that He doesn't interfere in any lives of any living organisms and prayer is a complete waste of time; that He has never before appeared to the people of Earth; that everything in the universe has a beginning, middle and end, including all living creatures; that He neither wants nor needs worship; that there is no heaven or hell, merely non-existence after death; but most of all, He has never appeared in human form (or any form other than the one before you), so all claims by humans to be God, the Son of God, or anything of the sort are simply wrong. Also, the Bible is a collection of stories that have nothing to do with Him, but merely the writings of men. Again, because it's God, you immediately know this to be true. Would you abandon those parts of your religion that conflict with this newly-obtained knowledge? Would you accept that Jesus was never a God, or Allah, or whoever has ever claimed to be one? Would you accept God?


If I were a Ted Haggard type, I would have to say if this creature who claims to be God is contradicting the Bible, it must not really be God.... it must be Satan. :jaw-dropp

At any rate, for me the evidence would have to consist of something that couldn't be explained in any other way except as a genuine experience of God. It would ideally be witnessed, it would be impossible for it to have been a hallucination of any kind, or delusion, and, most importantly, it would happen to ME and not to someone else so that I am somehow supposed to suspend disbelief and accept their story.

Whether such a being was worthy of worship would depend on its nature - does it vastly surpass even the best of humanity in virtue, love, compassion, intelligence, and wisdom? Do I have a sense that my very existence depends on it, that it is perfect and benevolent, the source of all creation, with a plan that is all good? Do I feel like rejoicing just being in its presence, which to me is what worship means? Perhaps the nature of this being is such that meeting up with it would cause one to feel worshipful.

But I have to say that if I came across the being described in the Old Testament, I would not feel much inclined to worship, regardless of the proof. It would make no sense to me to worship a creator God that is meaner and more jealous and violent and even less tolerant than I am. If threatened with eternal Christian hell, well then I might have to reconsider. But that's not worship, that's avoidance of pain.

[Dave Rogers]

If you don't acknowledge him or worship him even after providing absolute proof, then what is the point of demanding proof? This is something I do not understand.

I'm a little confused here. You've stated a hypothetical position, which as far as I can see appears to be your own invention, and claimed that you don't understand that position. Why is this relevant? I've never heard anyone claim that, if presented with irrefutable evidence of God's existence, they would deny God's existence, and if I did I would probably suggest they switch to more legally acceptable recreational substances.

Because if he did all this, and you deny him, then that would mean you are choosing to go to hell. Why choose to go to hell if he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists and is worthy of worship?

The bolded part is, of course, the rub. Worthiness of worship is a different matter. I'd be perfectly willing to offer my thanks - from a purely subjective point of view I'd rather exist than not exist - but it seems to me that a demand for unending worship rather tends to refute the proposition that one is worthy of it.

Dave

[Paulhoff]

Sorry, but I always find it funny that a real god would need worship. Why the hell would a real god be so insecure to need it.

And has for Proof, I haven't seen a need for a so-called god, so I'll let that so-called god come up with something, being a so-called all knowing one, it knows what to do.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Phase Inverter]

Do you require proof of God in order to believe he exists?


By the use of the capital "G," the pronoun "he," the mention of "hell," and the use of the phrase "one true God," I assume you are referring to Yahweh.


No. I would require enough evidence in support of the statement "Yahweh exists" to conclude that it is most likely a true statement.


What kind of proof evidence would you require?


I suppose that it would have to first establish that supernatural entities are possible, that there is a realm that they inhabit that exists and is outside the physical universe, and that they can interact with the physical universe. Then it'd need to establish that there is only one such being. Then it'd have to establish that Yahweh is indeed that being. etc. etc.

It would be no small feat. But if he were indeed Yahweh and had all the traits typically accredited to him like omniscience and omnipotence then he would know what evidence I would require and be able to easily produce said evidence.


...without resorting to threats and scare tactics of absolutely any sort... Would you worship him?

...if he did all this, and you deny him, then that would mean you are choosing to go to hell. Why choose to go to hell if he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists and is worthy of worship?


Worship me or go to Hell for an eternity of torture! No threats or scare tactics there. :rolleyes:


Also: Hypothetical people given absolute proof (to their own standards) and yet denying same said proof sound like hypothetical strawmen to me.

[Piscivore]

If I say to someone "give me all your money or I will punch you in the face", and he does not give me all his money, does that imply that he is choosing to be punched in the face?

If he accepts your assertion those are the only two options available to him, yes.

[Singularitarian]

Do you require proof of God in order to believe he exists?

What kind of proof would you require?

Hypothetically, if he did come down and gave you all the proof you required that he was the one true God, and did it humanely possible (that is without resorting to threats and scare tactics of absolutely any sort) would you acknowledge him? Would you worship him?

If you don't acknowledge him or worship him even after providing absolute proof, then what is the point of demanding proof? This is something I do not understand. Because if he did all this, and you deny him, then that would mean you are choosing to go to hell. Why choose to go to hell if he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists and is worthy of worship?

I would like some scientific proof, but generally i don't need it.

[roger]

Of course I would believe in something that was shown to exist. How could you not?

Worship makes no sense to me. "Dude, you created the universe, and gave me life. Props!" Sure. Take his advice on moral matters? Only if they made sense. Bow down and kiss the ground? Uh, no.

[ExMinister]

but it seems to me that a demand for unending worship rather tends to refute the proposition that one is worthy of it.

Dave

Nicely said, and seconded.

[Dunstan]

Echoing the good points made by others in the thread:

1. I wouldn't require absolute proof. What I would want is evidence whose strength is proportional to what I am expected to do in reliance upon it.

2. The question of a deity's existence is different from the question of whether it deserves worship.

3. Following from (2), I might, if provided sufficient evidence, behave in the way demanded by such a deity, the same way I would turn over my wallet to a mugger with a gun. But I couldn't bring myself to love such a tyrant. (Which means, of course, that if said tyrannical god demands love and has the ability to read minds, then I'm screwed, because the game was rigged from the start.)

[the PC apeman]

Do you require proof of God in order to believe he exists?
No. Evidence might help though.

What kind of proof would you require?
Any proof would be acceptable. Not just any evidence will be convincing though.

Hypothetically, if he did come down and gave you all the proof you required that he was the one true God, and did it humanely possible (that is without resorting to threats and scare tactics of absolutely any sort) would you acknowledge him?
Sure.

Would you worship him?
It depends on which god it was. Even among Christians, there are many different descriptions of God.

If you don't acknowledge him or worship him even after providing absolute proof, then what is the point of demanding proof? This is something I do not understand. Because if he did all this, and you deny him, then that would mean you are choosing to go to hell. Why choose to go to hell if he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists and is worthy of worship?
Existence and worthiness of worship are two different issues. And as I said, the worthiness issue depends on who this God really is.

[Personal Grudge]

If the Christian god appeared, presumably he could present evidence that would conclusively show that he is indeed god. (Unless the omnipotence claim is false, in which case he could probably not prove that he/she is indeed god.)

If this irrefutable evidence also conclusively proved the existence of Heaven and Hell, then it does indeed seem that one would need to take a position. At that point, I would propose a debate between God and Lucifer, as well as hearing testimony from denizens of both Heaven and Hell. After all, I believe we've only been presented with a single side of the argument. I have not heard Lucifer's take on the whole matter. What do I really know of Hell when I've only been fed possible propaganda from this so-called God and his Christian followers?

If I know of two supernatural entities who rule over separate possible domains for my enternal soul... then I'd certainly like to make an informed judgment by hearing both sides of the story. I have no experience with supernatural entities (naturally, since they don't exist)... therefore, I'm not going to immediately wholeheartedly trust the first one I meet, God or not.

[dikkedeur]

What kind of proof would you require?


I would demand that he makes a rock so heavy that he can't lift it.

[Dunstan]

I would demand that he makes a rock so heavy that he can't lift it.

Well, I could probably do that, given a sufficient hot forge and enough raw material. Worship me!

[Mashuna]

Well, I could probably do that, given a sufficient hot forge and enough raw material. Worship me!

Only if you change your name to Hernia Man.

[Seismosaurus]

Do you require proof of God in order to believe he exists?

What kind of proof would you require?

I posted about this a while back. Basically, it was along the lines of those prayer studies people do now and again. If those actually worked, clearly and obviously, but only if one particular god was being prayed to by his own believers, then for me that would be sufficient that I'd accept that god's existence as proven unless and until somebody showed that I was mistaken.

Hypothetically, if he did come down and gave you all the proof you required that he was the one true God, and did it humanely possible (that is without resorting to threats and scare tactics of absolutely any sort) would you acknowledge him?

Certainly.

Would you worship him?

Certainly not.

If you don't acknowledge him or worship him even after providing absolute proof, then what is the point of demanding proof? This is something I do not understand. Because if he did all this, and you deny him, then that would mean you are choosing to go to hell. Why choose to go to hell if he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists and is worthy of worship?

Whoa, nowhere did you establish that god was "worthy of worship".

I don't believe it is possible for anybody or anything to be worthy of worship in the religious sense.

As for what the point would be, from my point of view I would want to know that god existed for the same reason I want to know most things; I have curiosity about the universe and I want to know about it.

As to what the point would be from god's point of view, you would have to ask him.

[Eyeron]

I'm a little confused here. You've stated a hypothetical position, which as far as I can see appears to be your own invention, and claimed that you don't understand that position. Why is this relevant? I've never heard anyone claim that, if presented with irrefutable evidence of God's existence, they would deny God's existence, and if I did I would probably suggest they switch to more legally acceptable recreational substances.

I've asked it before and I truly have gotten that response from some people. I'm sorry, but I don't know any other way to make the question more clear to you and others. But the thing about hypothetical is to respond as if it were true, otherwise it wouldn't be a hypothetical.

Whoa, nowhere did you establish that god was "worthy of worship".

Actually I thought it was clear enough with

Hypothetically, if he did come down and gave you all the proof you required that he was the one true God, and did it humanely possible (that is without resorting to threats and scare tactics of absolutely any sort) would you acknowledge him? Would you worship him?

And being omnipotent he would know how to prove it to you beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[fls]

The question of whether a creator-god exists is independent of whether it deserves worship. As I look around me, this one isn't even deserving of a thanks.

My daughter plays "Pocket God" on my iphone. She spends all her time throwing people into the volcano. I told that behaviour seemed about right for a god.

Linda

[fls]

Do you require proof of God in order to believe he exists?

What kind of proof would you require?

Hypothetically, if he did come down and gave you all the proof you required that he was the one true God, and did it humanely possible (that is without resorting to threats and scare tactics of absolutely any sort) would you acknowledge him? Would you worship him?

If you don't acknowledge him or worship him even after providing absolute proof, then what is the point of demanding proof? This is something I do not understand. Because if he did all this, and you deny him, then that would mean you are choosing to go to hell. Why choose to go to hell if he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists and is worthy of worship?

God has already been proved to exist and to be worthy of worship. We've just given him different names from those given by the religious folk. Gravity. Dark Energy. Lorentz Invariance. Evolution Through Natural Selection.

Linda

[scratchy]

I will demand reasonable evidence before i claim to know something that isnt self evident. Belief on the other hand doesnt need evidence, but at least for me, reason makes it easier. So, untill theres some reason other than my own needs or wishes to belive in god, ill pass.

[dikkedeur]

And being omnipotent he would know how to prove it to you beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Being omnipotent he would know how to make you worship without any proof.

[Ysidro]

I've only skimmed this thread, so if someone already asked this, please forgive me.

Just waht sort of God are we talking about? I'd need different proof for different definitions of "God".

[the PC apeman]

Whoa, nowhere did you establish that god was "worthy of worship".

Actually I thought it was clear enough with
Hypothetically, if he did come down and gave you all the proof you required that he was the one true God, and did it humanely possible (that is without resorting to threats and scare tactics of absolutely any sort) would you acknowledge him? Would you worship him?


It was not. Do you feel there is an objective standard for what makes something or someone worthy of worship? "Worth" is completely subjective as far as I can tell.

[Eyeron]

I don't know. What would be an objective standard for being worthy of worship?

I do know some things that do put me off; threatening to send me or anyone else to hell simply for not believing and no matter how good of a person I was is alone so not worthy of worship. The claim of free will is also a crock because of the threat of being put into hell for choosing to not worship and believe in God as well as the demand of blindly obey his every word and is also not worthy of worship.

But what would be an objective standard should a deity come down out of heaven that would be deserving of worship?

And how could we discern a difference between that kind of worship and hero worship of a human being?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Do you require proof of God in order to believe he exists?

As much proof as you would need to accept that a giant invisible pink unicorn that spits fire, exists

What kind of proof would you require?

Anything that can be verified in a consistent, repeatable, heterophenomenological manner... as opposed to the "phony" types of proof theists have (dreams, apparitions, voices in their heads, hunches, strong feelings about something, false analogies, etc)

[the PC apeman]

I don't know. What would be an objective standard for being worthy of worship?

Exactly. You didn't reference one because one does not exist. So it is strange that you "thought it was clear enough" that the hypothetical God's worship worthiness was established.

[Robin]

But what would be an objective standard should a deity come down out of heaven that would be deserving of worship?

And how could we discern a difference between that kind of worship and hero worship of a human being?
Well there is the problem right away.

Before you can define an objective standard for worship worthiness you have to have an actual definition of worship.

What is worship of a deity? How does one worship a deity?

Presumably a being who eternally weilds every logically possible power in existence does not need to be constantly told how great he/she/it is.

And even if the deity is worthy of worship, why does that imply we should actually worship him/her/it?

Maybe we might just not be that into worship.

I think Morrigan nailed it in the first response post. Acknowledging the existence of a deity and worshipping it are two separate issues.

The fact that we might not choose to worship a deity if it existed is no reason why we should not subject it to the same standard of evidence as we do everything else.

[John_Geeshu]

Do you require proof of God in order to believe he exists?

Not proof, no. I'd just like independently verifiable empirical evidence pointing to his existence that is agreed upon by the majority of non-theistic scientists across a variety of disciplines. Throw in some philosophers too and the deal is sealed.

What kind of proof would you require?

I think I already addressed this above. It'd be God's choice as to the specific evidence he provided.

Hypothetically, if he did come down and gave you all the proof you required that he was the one true God, and did it humanely possible (that is without resorting to threats and scare tactics of absolutely any sort) would you acknowledge him? Would you worship him?

I would acknowledge he exists. For the worship issue, see below.

If you don't acknowledge him or worship him even after providing absolute proof, then what is the point of demanding proof? This is something I do not understand. Because if he did all this, and you deny him, then that would mean you are choosing to go to hell. Why choose to go to hell if he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists and is worthy of worship?

I guess it would depend upon what constituted worship. I mean, if all I had to do was say grace at dinner time or whatever, then I would still resent being forced to do it but I would to keep from Hell (assuming it's a place I don't want to go that is).

But if worshiping meant regular church, gratuitous thanking, praying, bowing and scraping, persecuting others, waging holy war, reading the Bible daily, etc., I think I would rather just go to Hell since theoretically I wouldn't have to do any of that while there.

[Seismosaurus]

Actually I thought it was clear enough with
Hypothetically, if he did come down and gave you all the proof you required that he was the one true God, and did it humanely possible (that is without resorting to threats and scare tactics of absolutely any sort) would you acknowledge him? Would you worship him?

Then you were very much mistaken. There's nothing in what you said that indicates a being worthy of worship.

I can think of no reason why I would worship god, any god. I literally cannot think of anything that would make a being worthy of religious type worship.

[arthwollipot]

I've only skimmed this thread, so if someone already asked this, please forgive me.

Just waht sort of God are we talking about? I'd need different proof for different definitions of "God".The Christian God is implied, although not outright stated.

And quite frankly, if I were to appear before the Christian God, and told "bend knee or spend eternity in that lake of fire just over there - yes, that one, the one from which you can smell the brimstone and hear the tortured screams of everyone else who refused to bend knee" then hell yeah I'd bend knee.

[Robin]

The Christian God is implied, although not outright stated.

And quite frankly, if I were to appear before the Christian God, and told "bend knee or spend eternity in that lake of fire just over there - yes, that one, the one from which you can smell the brimstone and hear the tortured screams of everyone else who refused to bend knee" then hell yeah I'd bend knee.
But don't forget, he is omniscient and knows exactly how you really feel about it.

Could you genuinely and sincerely find him worthy of worship?

[DevilsAdvocate]

What kind of proof would you require?

Hypothetically, if he did come down and gave you all the proof you required that he was the one true God, and did it humanely possible (that is without resorting to threats and scare tactics of absolutely any sort) would you acknowledge him? Would you worship him?

The simplest way would be for God to provide a working Unified Theory of Everything with all the equations and math worked out, which shows exactly how God fits into the Theory. That way, we can check the math, use the equations to compare to our observations, and use the Theory to predict results. If everything checked out, then we would accept the Theory, and God as part of that Theory, as the best-known truth.

As far as worship, the Theory would have to show what the benefits and detriments of God worship are. I would have to consider the deal. If 40 hours per week of God worship earned me much more than what I currently make for 40 hours per week of work, then I would consider it, but I would want a substantial pay increase because I don’t think I would like God worship very much. But, if the benefits were enough, I might well choose to work for God…erm…worship God…erm…whichever. I would weigh the good and the bad, balanced against my own preferences, and make a decision—just like everything else.

God wouldn’t be different from anything else. It is the same scientific process to determine acceptance. It is the same decision making process to choose to worship or not worship. :)

[dikkedeur]

As far as worship, the Theory would have to show what the benefits and detriments of God worship are. I would have to consider the deal. If 40 hours per week of God worship earned me much more than what I currently make for 40 hours per week of work, then I would consider it, but I would want a substantial pay increase because I don’t think I would like God worship very much.

The benefits are apparently that you don't burn in hell for eternity. Not enough ?

[arthwollipot]

But don't forget, he is omniscient and knows exactly how you really feel about it.

Could you genuinely and sincerely find him worthy of worship?Worthy? No. But I probably wouldn't choose to be tortured for all eternity just to make a point.

Anyway, this is all moot, since in my experience most Christians don't even believe the whole "eternity of torture" thing anyway.

[Dogdoctor]

If god exists then I am an atheist because god wants me to be one. Otherwise he would communicate to me in a manner that I could understand and tell me what I should be doing. No communication means I go on doing the best I can which is what makes me an atheist.

[DevilsAdvocate]

The benefits are apparently that you don't burn in hell for eternity. Not enough ?No. The Theory presented by God must show that there is a hell. My general understanding is that the “you” that goes to “hell” is after you have died and is actually the soul of “you” that goes to “hell”. So I would want to see how the “you” of my present body, within the context of the Theory, relates to some “soul” of me and how worship of God somehow mathematically relates to the sum of “me” and the specific conditions of the situation. Once I have that information, then I can make an assessment of the good and bad consequences, judge them against my personal preferences, and make a decision—just like anything else.

If God can show the equations and mathematical proof that worship of God (and the existence of hell), with specifics of what that exactly entails—and mathematical proofs, and that the Theory somehow connects myself and my “soul” in such a way that I would be concerned about the condition of my soul after death, then once I have that information, then I can make an assessment of the good and bad consequences, judge them against my personal preferences, and make a decision—just like anything else.

:)

[dikkedeur]

If God can show the equations and mathematical proof that worship of God (and the existence of hell), with specifics of what that exactly entails—and mathematical proofs, and that the Theory somehow connects myself and my “soul” in such a way that I would be concerned about the condition of my soul after death, then once I have that information, then I can make an assessment of the good and bad consequences, judge them against my personal preferences, and make a decision—just like anything else.

:)

I'm thinking a guided tour would be more convincing than some equations. The tour could include a chance to talk to people who have been there for a while.

:)

[Dave Rogers]

I've asked it before and I truly have gotten that response from some people.

In that case, those people probably aren't worth talking to about this particular subject. Either they're insane or they're deliberately taking the piss an absurd position to stifle the debate. I'd suspect the latter.

Dave

[I Ratant]

I'm thinking a guided tour would be more convincing than some equations. The tour could include a chance to talk to people who have been there for a while.

:)
.
It's been done. :)
Find a good copy of "Inferno" by Dante.
The illustrations are superb!

[stijndeloose]

When I was on the verge of leaving the religious society that I was then part of, I once (in bed, before going to sleep) tried asking god to open my window to prove that he was there.

Nothing happened, so:

- either he doesn't exist
- or he doesn't think I'm worthy of decent evidence of his existence
- or he was in my room and thought it was too cold already.

S.

[Piscivore]

.
It's been done. :)
Find a good copy of "Inferno" by Dante.
The illustrations are superb!

There's a good one in "Jurgen", too:
(note to mods: the following is in the public domain in the US)

How Emperor Jurgen Fared Infernally

Now the tale tells how... Jurgen came through the trapdoor... and how he saw and wondered over the creatures which inhabited this place.

...But the first thing the devils did was to search Jurgen very carefully, in order to make sure he was not bringing any water into Hell.

"Now, who may you be, that come to us alive, in a fine shirt of which we never saw the like before?" asked Dithican. He had the head of a tiger, but otherwise the appearance of a large bird, with shining feathers and four feet: his neck was yellow, his body green, and his feet black.

"It would not be treating honestly with you to deny that I am the Emperor of Noumaria," said Jurgen, somewhat advancing his estate...

"But we are rather overrun with emperors," said Amaimon, doubtfully, "and their crimes are a great trouble to us. Were you a very wicked ruler?"

"Never since I became an emperor," replied Jurgen, "has any of my subjects uttered one word of complaint against me. So it stands to reason I have nothing very serious with which to reproach myself."

"Your conscience, then, does not demand that you be punished?"

"My conscience, gentlemen, is too well-bred to insist on anything."

"You do not even wish to be tortured?"

"Well, I admit I had expected something of the sort. But none the less, I will not make a point of it," said Jurgen, handsomely. "No, I shall be quite satisfied even though you do not torture me at all."

And then the mob of devils made a great to-do over Jurgen.

"For it is exceedingly good to have at least one unpretentious and undictatorial human being in Hell. Nobody as a rule drops in on us save inordinately proud and conscientious ghosts, whose self-conceit is intolerable, and whose demands are outrageous."

"How can that be?"

"Why, we have to punish them. Of course they are not properly punished until they are convinced that what is happening to them is just and adequate. And you have no notion what elaborate tortures they insist their exceeding wickedness has merited, as though that which they did or left undone could possibly matter to anybody. And to contrive these torments quite tires us out."

"But wherefore is this place called the Hell of my fathers?"

"Because your forefathers builded it in dreams," they told him, "out of the pride which led them to believe that what they did was of sufficient importance to merit punishment. Or so at least we have heard: but if you want the truth of the matter you must go to our Grandfather at Barathum."

"I shall go to him, then. And do my own grandfathers, and all the forefathers that I had in the old time, inhabit this gray place?"

"All such as are born with what they call a conscience come hither," the devils said. "Do you think you could persuade them to go elsewhere? For in that event, we would be deeply obliged to you. Their self-conceit is pitiful: but it is also a nuisance, because it prevents our getting any rest."


...Then Jurgen went back to Chorasma, where Coth, the son of Smoit and Steinvor, stood conscientiously in the midst of the largest and hottest flame he had been able to imagine, and rebuked the outworn devils who were tormenting him, because the tortures they inflicted were not adequate to the wickedness of Coth....

"But it is inadequate torment, Jurgen, such as does not salve my conscience. There is no justice in this place, and no way of getting justice. For these shiftless devils do not take seriously that which I did, and they merely pretend to punish me, and so my conscience stays unsatisfied."

"Well, but, father, I have talked with them, and they seem to think your crimes do not amount to much, after all."

Coth flew into one of his familiar rages. "I would have you know that I killed eight men in cold blood, and held five other men while they were being killed. I estimate the sum of such iniquity as ten and a half murders, and for these my conscience demands that I be punished."

"Ah, but, sir, that was fifty years or more ago, and these men would now be dead in any event, so you see it does not matter now."

"I went astray with women, with I do not know how many women."

Jurgen shook his head. "This is very shocking news for a son to receive, and you can imagine my feelings. None the less, sir, that also was fifty years ago, and nobody is bothering over it now."

"You jackanapes, I tell you that I swore and stole and forged and burned four houses and broke the Sabbath and was guilty of mayhem and spoke disrespectfully to my mother and worshipped a stone image in Porutsa. I tell you I shattered the whole Decalogue, time and again. I committed all the crimes that were ever heard of, and invented six new ones."

"Yes, sir," said Jurgen: "but, still, what does it matter if you did?"

"Oh, take away this son of mine!" cried Coth: "for he is his mother all over again; and though I was the vilest sinner that ever lived, I have not deserved to be plagued twice with such silly questions. And I demand that you loitering devils bring more fuel."

[supercorgi]

Acknowledge sure. Worship no. In fact, I would probably become the John Connor to his Skynet, Colonel Fehdman Kassad to his Shrike.

I think I love you. :D

[DevilsAdvocate]

I'm thinking a guided tour would be more convincing than some equations. The tour could include a chance to talk to people who have been there for a while.

:)A tour would be nice, but I'd base my decision on the cold hard facts. I've toured businesses that look impressive, but once you get down to the numbers, they are really nothing more than a dog and pony show. You can’t believe in those companies and would be unwise to place critical business with them. A tour is fine, but if you don't have the numbers, then you have nothing.

I would not accept a business deal from someone that gave me a spectacular tour but couldn’t show me the equations and numbers. I would expect no less proof from God than I would expect from a reasonably qualified business partner.

[Robert Oz]

Hypothetically, if he did come down and gave you all the proof you required that he was the one true God, and did it humanely possible (that is without resorting to threats and scare tactics of absolutely any sort) would you acknowledge him? Would you worship him?


I would certainly acknowledge him (assuming it turned out to be a he) and I would even be suitably impressed with his achievement, but why would he require worship? I can sort of understand admiration, but not worship?

With admiration, I could at least say, well, there are a lot of bad things in this universe, but damn, it couldn't have been easy creating all of this, so well done. Not a bad effort.

With worship, it's the opposite. I would say, well, yes, you created the universe, but there's way too much wrong with it to deserve worship.

But, to be honest, if the choice was worship or infinite torture in hell, I would probably go with worship. Yes, I know I'm spineless, but if the choice was realistically put before me, I would tend to back away from infinite torture.

[Robert Oz]

Acknowledge sure. Worship no. In fact, I would probably become the John Connor to his Skynet, Colonel Fehdman Kassad to his Shrike.


Who's John Conner? I recognise the name Skynet from the Terminator movies, but in those movies the resistance leader was called Chon Khana. ;)

[Robert Oz]

Do you require proof of God in order to believe he exists?

What kind of proof would you require?


Ten plagues, pillar of fire, parting the Red Sea and writing on stone tablets in front of my very eyes would probably do it. But, for some reason, God stopped doing that sort of stuff when Jesus died.

There'd be a hell of a lot less atheists in this world if he just kept doing what he was doing. Why fix something that isn't broken?

[Paulhoff]

This so-called god should know what will convince me, I don't have to even think of what it is, it should know.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Jethro Tull]

There will never be any proof of a man/God up in the sky, simply because God is not a man in the sky. The Bible says that God is omnipresent. That means that God = Life, because life is always new in the present. "Behold, I make all things new."

[shadron]

I was asked this question by Radrook last fall, and I answered him this way:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4233256&postcount=105

[Whirligig]

I nominate Eyeron for the following post:
Do you require proof of God in order to believe he exists?

What kind of proof would you require?

Hypothetically, if he did come down and gave you all the proof you required that he was the one true God, and did it humanely possible (that is without resorting to threats and scare tactics of absolutely any sort) would you acknowledge him? Would you worship him?

If you don't acknowledge him or worship him even after providing absolute proof, then what is the point of demanding proof? This is something I do not understand. Because if he did all this, and you deny him, then that would mean you are choosing to go to hell. Why choose to go to hell if he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists and is worthy of worship?

Thanks, Eyeron, you’ve introduced a really interesting topic which I can see has attracted some very thought-provoking responses.

Yes, I would acknowledge and worship him. Like a man dying in the desert who is greeted by someone who is a source of water and life I would certainly welcome him.

But I can see that your question also provokes another more telling question. A lack of proof of God may not be the only reason why we don't believe in God. It may be because there is simply no room for God or theistic precepts in our lives. If that is the case, my aversion in that to God may not be out of any fear of God judging me, but the issue may be one of me judging God as unworthy of being allowed into my world, with my stubborn pride, infallible sense of my own logic, my rebellious character, anger, blame, and an unwillingness to forgive past and present injustices. If that is my reason, I may be condemning myself to my own self-created Hell where I have inprisoned myself within my own rigid attitudes that would prevent anyone, including God, ever helping me out of it.

So it doesn't matter if God exists or not if there is no room for God in my life. And the concept of worshiping him represents the person letting go of their own limiting self-concept to give themselves over to being part of the greater and infinite self.