The debate "What evidence would you need to believe God existed" was started by
March 30, 2017, 4:36 pm.
6 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 1 person is on the disagree side.
There needs to be more votes to see what the common perception is.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Ematio posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Ematio, neveralone, Pnbshady, ProfDoke and 2 visitors agree.
1 visitor disagrees.
a supernatural event is any event which defies the rules of nature and thus cannot possibly have had a natural causal chain. So, rain falling upwards, the parting of the sea (as psychdave said), someone with healing powers (can consistently heal deadly or incurable diseases/dysfunctions even in the presence of scrutiny). Essentially, if they can pass "the amazing Randy's" tests for the supernatural, I would accept it.
what I don't accept are claims based on ignorance however. so claims like "we don't know what happened before T=0 (big bang), therefore God" or "we don't know how abiogenesis happened, therefore God". These aren't supernatural events, they are simply events for which we don't have a scientific explanation for yet. however, no natural law precludes them from having a natural causal chain.
If someone told the sea to part and it did, I would consider that a supernatural event. If someone told a mountain to move and it did, I would consider that a supernatural event. If someone went through a hospital and healed everyone, no matter how sick, I would consider that a supernatural event. If someone predicted something with impossible precision (for example, on June 4, 2019, there will be a ln earthquake measuring 3.2 on the Richter scale in LA) and they were correct, I would consider it a supernatural event (unless they made many guesses that were wrong).
Basically, I would need something science says is impossible. Something that is fundamentally against the laws of nature or physics would prove to me that there is a supernatural force at work. Defying statistics to such a ridiculous degree would prove to me that someone has supernatural knowledge. That would convince me.
How do you verify a supernatural event?
I would say, if we can verify his/her/its existence by some means like measuring it's energy, verifying a supernatural event (meaning we can with absolute certainty say that an event didn't have a natural cause), or making direct contact with it; I would have no problem accepting the notion of a God.
I'd maintain that specific religions like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc... wouldn't be verified by the discover of a God and thus I couldn't submit to an entity of which I know nothing but for the fact that it exists.
most likely, but I'll reserve making it official until I see the fine print.
it's hard to say what it would require specifically. vision, voice, physical manifestation. depending on the quality of the experience, it can be dismissed or accepted.
I assume if it was truly god as you describe him, he would know how to reach an individual.
Also, if you had that evidence, would you submit yourself to Him?