What would "god" need to do in order to prove that she really existed?

[Ziggurat]

We know that dark matter exists. Neutrinos interact with other matter via gravity, but are almost entirely undetectable otherwise.

Neutrinos also interact via the weak nuclear force, and that's actually how we detect them, not by their gravitational interactions. In fact, their gravitational interactions are too weak to observe. But nothing about the definition of dark matter prohibits nuclear force interactions. All you need for matter to be dark is little or no electromagnetic interaction, because electromagnetic interactions is how we see matter at a distance.

 

[Darat]

Again, that would work for you, but that's not the only proof that would work for me, and if taking everyone's free will away is the only answer, then becoming like the mindless maga weirdoes would be the result. I don't think that should be the only answer.

Would she take everyone's free will away in order to prove she's god? No, that would be stupid, and if she does exist, I doubt god is stupid

As a matter of fact, why don't you just shut this thread down if that's the ONLY answer that anyone should be allowed to give?


-

Again it would work for absolutely everyone - god needs to do no more than rearrange a few synapses in your brain and you will believe it exists, that works for everyone.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's your presumption,

Sure, but not mine alone.

and off-topic for this thread.

Not at all.

We know for sure that these claims of omnipotence and omniscience are lies. The men who wrote the Bible didn't have any more knowledge of God's true nature than anyone else

We don't know that for sure. You assume that, but if god were omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, he could reveal himself to the men who wrote the Bible. And if he did, then those men would indeed have more knowledge of God's true nature than everyone else, because he gave it to them.

Such a claim is unfalsifiable, and it's not unreasonable if you want to reject belief in it because it's unfalsifiable. But for the exact same reason, you also can't claim (as you do) that it's been falsified. It hasn't been, because it cannot be, because the nature of the claim is inherently untestable.

 

[AmyStrange]

Again it would work for absolutely everyone - god needs to do no more than rearrange a few synapses in your brain and you will believe it exists, that works for everyone.

Sorry, Darat, but a better answer (that wouldn't require anyone to lose their free will) would be to kill everyone and put them in front of the gates of heaven and then begin judging them.


ETA: That would also bring up another posit brought up earlier. Which religion would everyone be forced to believe in, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or maybe something as simple as just following the Golden Rule, or Golden Ruleism?

Also, if everyone were forced to believe in the same god, would that cause a mass suicide, knowing this life was a waste of time if life after death were real? Why bother waiting? God could then put everyone in heaven, because then everyone would believe in the same thing, including the devil. *

Everyone would then become brainwashed, mindless sheep like all the maga weirdoes are now.


* As a matter of fact, this is what the Unification Church (the Moonies) believes will eventually happen.


-

 

[Thermal]

Is this a fish/trout thing? The theorized dark matter out there doing stuff to the universe with gravity is not composed of neutrinos. But don't neutrinos behave that way?

Wrong thread for this, so we should stop, but to answer briefly:

No, it's not a fish/trout thing. It's a fish/mermaid thing. You can't try to support a belief in mermaids by pointing out that fish live in the water (maybe dolphins or amphibians would be a better example but you offered fish so I'm running with it).

Dark matter/energy don't exist. They're a placeholder to provisionally explain why predictions are inconsistent with observations. To keep playing like it's something real, progressively more ludicrous assumptions have to keep piling up, like "it doesn't respond to electromagnetic fields". Well, yeah. If it did, all our long distance inferences from bending light would be wrong. But making the placeholder more absurd with every logical contradiction is not helpful to us lowly laypeople trying to get a handle on what's going on.

But again, this thread's about a god-babe or something.

 

[Ziggurat]

Dark matter/energy don't exist.

Once again, this is demonstrably wrong. Once again, you seem not to understand what dark matter even is. Neutrinos are a kind of dark matter.

Current theories require that there be dark matter other than ordinary neutrinos, and it's conceivable that these theories are wrong, but that doesn't make neutrinos not dark matter. Again, by definition, they are.

To keep playing like it's something real, progressively more ludicrous assumptions have to keep piling up, like "it doesn't respond to electromagnetic fields".

That's not an assumption, that's a definition. That's what "dark matter" means. And what's ludicrous about it? Neutrinos don't respond to electromagnetic fields. Did you not know this? We know such matter exists, because we can detect neutrinos. What would be so strange about more dark matter existing when we have already proven that some of it exists?

But again, this thread's about a god-babe or something.

True, but your errors on dark matter are suggestive of errors on that as well.

 

[Thermal]

Science doesn't say that. Some individual guy said that. And he's wrong.

Literally every credible scientific source I have found ultimately says the same. It's them against you.

I'm a total lay person. Like, I scratch where it itches. But I'm interested in what they are discovering. The bull ◊◊◊◊ double talk is maddening.

But again, wrong thread.

 

[Ziggurat]

Literally every credible scientific source I have found ultimately says the same. It's them against you.

I don't care about your bad google fu, or the fact that you probably don't understand the sources you're reading. You're still wrong.

Dark matter is by definition matter that interacts weakly or not at all with electromagnetism, which is what makes it dark (it will not emit or reflect light). Neutrinos meet that definition. So they are dark matter. Again, there aren't enough neutrinos to constitute a significant fraction of the hypothesized dark matter, and they're also too hot (which means they wouldn't form halos around galaxies). So as I said before, they don't solve the dark matter problem. But none of that makes neutrinos not dark matter.

I'm a total lay person.

I'm not.

 

[Paul2]

Aliens don't exist. . . .

How do we know that? I'm not saying we know that they exist; we don't know one way or the other, so they might, for all we know.

 

[Calderaro]

What would "god" need to do in order to prove that she really existed?​

there is no effect without a cause!

 

[Thermal]

I don't care about your bad google fu, or the fact that you probably don't understand the sources you're reading. You're still wrong.

Insults and condescension are worth less than credible sources.

Dark matter is by definition matter that interacts weakly or not at all with electromagnetism, which is what makes it dark (it will not emit or reflect light). Neutrinos meet that definition. So they are dark matter. Again, there aren't enough neutrinos to constitute a significant fraction of the hypothesized dark matter, and they're also too hot (which means they wouldn't form halos around galaxies). So as I said before, they don't solve the dark matter problem. But none of that makes neutrinos not dark matter.

The Hilited is an important word up there, and is a lot of my objection. It's not real. It has not been detected. Yet many baldy assert that it does and has been.

I get that it has a lot of explanatory power, beyond the prediction/observation problems, and is favored as likely by virtually the entire community. That's great. But it's not a fact yet, and has some difficult logical contortions to get there.

I'm not.

That's true. You're an anonymous internet poster. Surely it doesn't need to be me to explain that your demand to be taken as unassailable truth is weak T?

 

[Ziggurat]

Insults and condescension are worth less than credible sources.

Find your own sources, and try understanding them. What is dark matter? I told you what it is. I told you the basic definition. And I explained how neutrinos fit that definition. What part of that is wrong? None of it.

The Hilited is an important word up there, and is a lot of my objection. It's not real. It has not been detected.

That's a stupid objection. Neutrinos were hypothesized long before they were detected. And we HAVE detected dark matter, just indirectly. Which is actually more than can be said about neutrinos for quite some time.

But it's also not all of your objection. You objected to the idea that there were particles we could not see, that having particles that don't interact electromagnetically was somehow nonsensical. But it's not, and neutrinos prove it's not, because that's exactly what neutrinos are.

Yet many baldy assert that it does and has been.

Does what and has been what? Has been detected makes sense, but does real doesn't.

And the fact that some people overstate our knowledge of dark matter doesn't make the theories bad.

I get that it has a lot of explanatory power, beyond the prediction/observation problems, and is favored as likely by virtually the entire community. That's great. But it's not a fact yet, and has some difficult logical contortions to get there.

Which part isn't fact? It's a fact that dark matter exists, because again, neutrinos are dark matter. There are open questions about dark matter, sure, but there are zero logical contortions involved. I think you may be confusing some of the questions about dark energy with dark matter, but even there, you're confusing speculation with contortion. Again, you objected to massive particles which don't interact via electromagnetism, but we already have proof that such particles exist.

That's true. You're an anonymous internet poster. Surely it doesn't need to be me to explain that your demand to be taken as unassailable truth is weak T?

I'm not asking you to take what I say as unassailable truth. I'm asking that you learn a little bit about the subject. Because right now, it's clear that you don't know enough to even interpret your own sources.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

In the Bible, there's a story about Moses wanting to know God was real, by actually seeing him in person. God says this would be too much, that Moses couldn't handle seeing all of God in all his heavenly glory. Instead, Moses stands in a cleft in some rocks, and God shows him his arse.
I'll go with that. If god is female, let her come down and show me her divine posterior. Then I'll believe.

 

[Lithrael]

I'm completely fine with mistaking very advanced aliens etc for god. Growing real limbs back on amputees would be plenty for me, until we figure out how to do it ourselves.

I'd also accept obnoxious Loki style shenenigans like causing everyone in the world over the age of 60 to wake up gender swapped with a note saying it'll wear off in a month.

Or to be less hilarious, cure all incurable diseases, manage all unmanageble pain, that kind of thing.

Snap the fingers and remove all mining waste spills from everything ever, suddenly no anthropogenic heavy metals in anyone's waterways? Help out with some of that stewardship like a parent actually showing/helping you clean your room instead of just going 'it's your responsibility to clean your room' and bailing with no further interaction

Heck even near-possible things would be fun. Resurrect us some thylacines, dodos, maybe a whole island sanctuary for a solitary T-rex that we could go look at. IDK. All kinds of ◊◊◊◊.

 

[Olmstead]

I'm completely fine with mistaking very advanced aliens etc for god. Growing real limbs back on amputees would be plenty for me, until we figure out how to do it ourselves.

Mistaking can only happen if the aliens go along with it, and very advanced aliens who masquerade as god probably have ulterior motives.

 

[Ziggurat]

In the Bible, there's a story about Moses wanting to know God was real, by actually seeing him in person. God says this would be too much, that Moses couldn't handle seeing all of God in all his heavenly glory. Instead, Moses stands in a cleft in some rocks, and God shows him his arse.

The story is that Moses saw god's back, not specifically his arse.

 

[Ziggurat]

Mistaking can only happen if the aliens go along with it

That assumes effective communication, which isn't a given with aliens.

 

[Lithrael]

Mistaking can only happen if the aliens go along with it, and very advanced aliens who masquerade as god probably have ulterior motives.

Ulterior motives like it's FUNNY. C'mon if they can do impossible ◊◊◊◊ and want to be mean they don't NEED to be sneaky. They did a Star Trek about this, the 'fake god' scheme gets rumbled because they can only actually do possible things. And Star Trek's main 'might as well be an omnipotent being' is just kind of an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ who doesn't really need to do any ulterioring outside of wanting attention.

No, more likely they wouldn't even be trying to masquerade but they know they'll end up sitting there going 'no... no, no really no' while half of humanity builds altars to them, so they roll with it. You never know, in the real universe maybe that's the corolary to the prime directive 'just let them think you're god, turns out it's actually less of a hassle that way'

It could be the baby-civilization version of us feeding the baby condor with a condor hand-puppet. Don't let the humans imprint on you! It'll mess up their lives!

 

[Olmstead]

That assumes effective communication, which isn't a given with aliens.

Maybe. Not enough data. My assumption is that anyone that advanced can figure communication out fairly easily.

Ulterior motives like it's FUNNY. C'mon if they can do impossible ◊◊◊◊ and want to be mean they don't NEED to be sneaky. They did a Star Trek about this, the 'fake god' scheme gets rumbled because they can only actually do possible things. And Star Trek's main 'might as well be an omnipotent being' is just kind of an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ who doesn't really need to do any ulterioring outside of wanting attention.

No, more likely they wouldn't even be trying to masquerade but they know they'll end up sitting there going 'no... no, no really no' while half of humanity builds altars to them, so they roll with it. You never know, in the real universe maybe that's the corolary to the prime directive 'just let them think you're god, turns out it's actually less of a hassle that way'

It could be the baby-civilization version of us feeding the baby condor with a condor hand-puppet. Don't let the humans imprint on you! It'll mess up their lives!

Apparent god-like powers isn't the same as actual god-like powers, and pretending to be god will never make things easier on a planet where people need to believe in god. For one thing, there will be sceptics like myself asking the difficult questions.

I'm not saying the manipulative aliens angle is particularly likely, but I think it's more likely than a benevolent advanced civilization being unable or unwilling to address the misunderstanding.

In other words, if this were to happen, and the "gods" aren't answering my questions satisfactorily, malevolent manipulation is the most likely explanation.

 

[Joe Random]

<...> If god is female, let her come down and show me her divine posterior. Then I'll believe.

Easily done - just watch Underworld : Awakening