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

[Jack by the hedge]

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

there is no effect without a cause!

Have you shown that the universe is an effect?

 

[Myriad]

Again, god simply makes me believe they are god. There is nothing else needed.

I do have a quibble with this. That would constitute persuasion but the thread title demands proof. Persuasion isn't proof unless it's assumed a priori that only an actual god would be capable of changing your mind about that particular thing. I've seen enough 60s and 70s psychological thriller movies to know that the right combination of flashing colored lights, strange noises, and repeated phrases can change anyone's mind about almost anything in a few hours or days. (The exception being Number 6's invincible defiance.) While those particular methods might not work so well in real life, there's also drugs and brain surgery, and I don't think it would require godlike abilities to develop methods to use them effectively on a specific individual.

 

[Thermal]

I do have a quibble with this. That would constitute persuasion but the thread title demands proof. Persuasion isn't proof unless it's assumed a priori that only an actual god would be capable of changing your mind about that particular thing. I've seen enough 60s and 70s psychological thriller movies to know that the right combination of flashing colored lights, strange noises, and repeated phrases can change anyone's mind about almost anything in a few hours or days. (The exception being Number 6's invincible defiance.) While those particular methods might not work so well in real life, there's also drugs and brain surgery, and I don't think it would require godlike abilities to develop methods to use them effectively on a specific individual.

I've been scratching my head along these lines too. Proof might be something like sitting on a celestial throne that fills the sky for all to marvel at, occasionally materializing next to you to point up to it as a reminder. But wouldn't you start questioning your own sanity?

Actual True Believers just say they feel it, usually "in their hearts", and that seems to be good enough for them. But that's actually what got me *not* believing, when I realized there was not much there other than the equivalent of a schizophrenic delusion.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Evidence isn't proof, except colloquially. We're talking about a balance of evidence and a change of conviction rather than a proof. I don't think we're any good at anticipating what evidence would be enough to change our mind about anything.

You might think of some dramatic thing and decide that would change how you feel about it, or some minor thing and assume that wouldn't do it, but you can't really tell how you're going to react. The most natural reaction to some completely confounding event is simply not to trust it really happened at all. Maybe there's an event with an optimal degree of "probably just a coincidence" to apply the maximum nudge to your doubt one way or the other.

 

[AmyStrange]

I do have a quibble with this. That would constitute persuasion but the thread title demands proof. Persuasion isn't proof unless it's assumed a priori that only an actual god would be capable of changing your mind about that particular thing. I've seen enough 60s and 70s psychological thriller movies to know that the right combination of flashing colored lights, strange noises, and repeated phrases can change anyone's mind about almost anything in a few hours or days. (The exception being Number 6's invincible defiance.) While those particular methods might not work so well in real life, there's also drugs and brain surgery, and I don't think it would require godlike abilities to develop methods to use them effectively on a specific individual.

Good point. I didn't even think of that.


-

 

[bluesjnr]

In these times only a global miracle, or two, would suffice. What would be difficult for her is deciding what said miracle might be? Release all new borns, born with a critcal illness from the agony of a slow death with the chance of tasting life on this beautiful planet? No, we know she doesn't like that. What about ensuring that there is plentiful food and water for a large portion of civilazation? Well histroy show's that thats not something she's interesting in helping with. Let's make it easy. What about appearing in the flesh, to me, a commited atheist and giving me the tools to convince the global population that another force was at play that could influence their lives? It's a big ask but I'd be happy to predict the leviatation of every individual at a given time, globally. I'd be happy to present such impossible palour tricks to a global audience until they got the message. It might help if she could look at ways to convince 90+% of our membership of her existence and provide a link in order for us few to usher in in the new world order.

Of course, she'll do nothing of the like because she's a brittle, attention whore desperate for validation.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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

"Back parts", actually:

]And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my
back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

Exodus 33: 22-23, KJV.
I strongly suspect that the wording has been changed since the publication of the KJ Bible, because the original is rather embarrassing. Most of the Bible websites I've looked at have conveniently omitted the word 'parts'.

 

[Ziggurat]

"Back parts", actually:

Exodus 33: 22-23, KJV.

KJV is not exactly the most accurate translation. Quite poetic in places, but one really shouldn’t rely on it above other translations. It isn’t better, and it’s frequently worse.

I strongly suspect that the wording has been changed since the publication of the KJ Bible, because the original is rather embarrassing.

The KJV isn’t the original. It’s the first English translation, but no translation is the original.

Most of the Bible websites I've looked at have conveniently omitted the word 'parts'.

Probably because it’s less accurate, or at least less consistent with modern language.

 

[AmyStrange]

KJV is not exactly the most accurate translation. Quite poetic in places, but one really shouldn’t rely on it above other translations. It isn’t better, and it’s frequently worse.

The KJV isn’t the original. It’s the first English translation, but no translation is the original.

Probably because it’s less accurate, or at least less consistent with modern language.

Especially when you consider the fact that most of the books in the bibles were written second hand and not by the persons being quoted.


-

 

[arthwollipot]

The KJV isn’t the original. It’s the first English translation, but no translation is the original.

It's not the first English translation, though it did draw substantially on Tyndale's earlier works. It was, however, translated deliberately in the most poetic language that would not have been spoken by common people at the time.

It would be a bit like like translating La Sombra del Viento into Shakespearean English.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

KJV is not exactly the most accurate translation. Quite poetic in places, but one really shouldn’t rely on it above other translations. It isn’t better, and it’s frequently worse.

The KJV isn’t the original. It’s the first English translation, but no translation is the original.

Sure, but do we know what the original Greek, Aramaic or whatever actually says?

Probably because it’s less accurate, or at least less consistent with modern language.

Or because it's embarrassing.

 

[Ziggurat]

Or because it's embarrassing.

You’re stretching here. If this was embarrassing, why didn’t the KJV translators change it? They weren’t above edits. The more likely explanation is simple that “back parts” didn’t mean specifically the arse.

 

[AmyStrange]

You’re stretching here. If this was embarrassing, why didn’t the KJV translators change it? They weren’t above edits. The more likely explanation is simple that “back parts” didn’t mean specifically the arse.

What's really embarrassing is the fact that genesis is loaded with incestuous begettings, unless of course god somehow pulled off a secret creation in the next county over (from: Inherit the Wind).

You'd think they'd fix THAT before worrying about using the word arse.


-

-

 

[Lithrael]

• אָחֹר 'achor {aw-khore'} the hind side, back part:—
• 1) the back side, the rear
  1a) backwards
  1b) hereafter (of time)
  1c) behind

Apparantly if you want to say actual butt these days, it's achorayim.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Bwahahahhaha!

No. Dark matter interacts with ordinary matter, that’s one of the primary pieces of evidence for it, its gravitational interactions. It interacts very weakly if at all via electromagnetic forces (hence the dark part), but there is nothing supernatural about that. In case you didn’t know, neutrinos are dark matter. So we know for certainty that dark matter exists

Dark matter

...is a hypothetical form of matter that does not interact with light or other electromagnetic radiation. Dark matter is implied by gravitational effects which cannot be explained by general relativity unless more matter is present than can be observed...

Dark matter is not known to interact with ordinary baryonic matter and radiation except through gravity, making it difficult to detect in the laboratory. The most prevalent explanation is that dark matter is some as-yet-undiscovered subatomic particle, such as either weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) or axions. The other main possibility is that dark matter is composed of primordial black holes...

In principle, "dark matter" means all components of the universe which are not visible but still obey ρ ∝ a−3 . In practice, the term "dark matter" is often used to mean only the non-baryonic component of dark matter, i.e., excluding "missing baryons". Context will usually indicate which meaning is intended.

I was wrong about the proportion of dark matter. According to Wikipedia:-

dark matter constitutes 85% of the total mass, while dark energy and dark matter constitute 95% of the total mass–energy content.

But even 85% is troubling. There was a previous time when we thought something had to exist due to a gravitational anomaly - the planet Vulcan. But then Einstein developed his theory of relativity and Vulcan instantly vanished into thin air - despite several claimed observations. Neutrinos and/or black holes could account for some of the 'dark matter' effect. but some cosmologists argue that our incomplete understanding of gravity leaves the door open for a more fundamental cause. At this point we just don't know either way. It could even be something completely different.

Of course no analogy is perfect, but supernatural entities are also presumed (by believers) to weakly interact with normal matter. It would be funny if 'dark matter' was actually the cause of ghost sightings etc. as it interacted with the human brain. Even funnier would be if it evolved intelligence and took an interest in human affairs. If scientists can presume the existence of 'matter' that pervades the Universe but only interacts with us so 'weakly' that it can't be directly detected by our instruments, so can theists!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

What's really embarrassing is the fact that genesis is loaded with incestuous begettings, unless of course god somehow pulled off a secret creation in the next county over (from: Inherit the Wind).

According to The Bible, yes - that's what He did. Or perhaps other (lesser) gods were involved. We have to remember that monotheism was developed over time.

The Evidence of Israel's Polytheistic Origin in the Hebrew Bible

The Psalm is saying the LORD—this is actually YHWH, the divine name—is a great el (Ancient Canaanite (Ugaritic) word for god). He is not only great but he is king above all elohim (gods). Why not YHWH is great? This is certainly what one might expect if there is only one god (el) in the universe? How could one be kings of gods (elohim) if there is just [one] god?...

The majority of the Old Testament is macho posturing. It is about one deity striving to demonstrate that he is greater than the other gods by bringing about the military defeat of the worshippers of other deities. It is a usurpation of the role of chief god among the pantheon of gods.

The more you dig into The Bible, the more you find that challenges 'modern' interpretation. A few days ago I found out that the story of God making Eve from one of Adam's ribs was very similar to an old 'pagan' myth that did the same. So either it was a common method used by various gods of the time, or the Biblical authors pinched it for their own fictional story - you decide!

 

[Lithrael]

sooooo... Neutrinos are not dark matter but have some of the properties that the theoretical dark matter would have?

 

[Thermal]

sooooo... Neutrinos are not dark matter but have some of the properties that the theoretical dark matter would have?

The Infinity Stones have some of the properties my balls have too.

 

[AmyStrange]

Or perhaps other (lesser) gods were involved. We have to remember that monotheism was developed over time.

Yup, I've heard that before too, but unfortunately since no one put that in the Christian bibles, it's just added proof that the men who wrote those books muddled it all up.

And besides, all those other "bibles" aren't the ones they're going to be using in the Texas and Oklahoma schools. They're going to use the "Christian" bibles with all those incestuous begettings in genesis (not to mention the story of Lot and his two daughters).


-

 

[Ziggurat]

But even 85% is troubling. There was a previous time when we thought something had to exist due to a gravitational anomaly - the planet Vulcan. But then Einstein developed his theory of relativity and Vulcan instantly vanished into thin air - despite several claimed observations. Neutrinos and/or black holes could account for some of the 'dark matter' effect.

I believe I said this before. You're finally catching up.

but some cosmologists argue that our incomplete understanding of gravity leaves the door open for a more fundamental cause. At this point we just don't know either way. It could even be something completely different.

It could be, sure. I never said otherwise. And most astronomers and cosmologists would agree that alternatives are possible. But you basically said the idea was absurd. And it's demonstrably not absurd. If we've got one form of dark matter particle already, it's not such a stretch to hypothesize there could be others.

Of course no analogy is perfect, but supernatural entities are also presumed (by believers) to weakly interact with normal matter. It would be funny if 'dark matter' was actually the cause of ghost sightings etc. as it interacted with the human brain. Even funnier would be if it evolved intelligence and took an interest in human affairs. If scientists can presume the existence of 'matter' that pervades the Universe but only interacts with us so 'weakly' that it can't be directly detected by our instruments, so can theists!

I believe this is sort of the premise to the His Dark Materials fantasy series. It was kind of stupid, I read the whole thing over a decade ago but didn't like it and have largely forgotten the details.