I posed this question before, and I'm asking it again.
If there was one absolute truth or event that could prove to you that God exists (yes, this is a hypothetical situation and I know it probably doesn't currently exist), what would it be?
Examples:
- He would have to show himself to you physically
- give you everything you've ever wanted
- stop world hunger and violence
- tell you the meaning of life.
I'm honestly and Sincerely curious. I won't argue anything.
2007-07-27 22:17:59 · 17 answers · asked by Christian #3412 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
How about if he created a complete, all-action human being from dust right in front of my eyes??
2007-07-27 22:31:46 · answer #1 · answered by Grotty Bodkin is not dead!!! 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You are asking a very fair question and I am giving it a star. BTW, any atheist who gives you grief on this must be going on momentum from a previous argument.
One thing God is traditionally famous for is miracles. If I saw something that was a miracle, especially if it was predicted, I would believe. And it has to be a real miracle, like the ones in the bible. Of course, God appearing in the sky and announcing himself would fall into that category.
But I have to admit, even if I saw a bona fide miracle, I would still look for a more prosaic explanation. That is always the right thing to do. Finding none, I would have to accept the existence of God. And I would not just brush it off because it is contradictory to my views. I would not accept an illogical denial from myself.
Then I would like to ask him a few questions that are not likely to get me into heaven.
2007-07-27 22:31:24 · answer #2 · answered by Brant 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If one person wants to prove the existence of something to a second person they need to first of all agree on what, exactly, is the entity they're talking about.
This is the first hurdle. Most of us can agree about what we mean by a "tree", or a "unicorn", or an "orbiting teapot". We can then go on an debate their existence.
For us atheists, the first frustration is trying to pin down what, exactly, you mean by the "God" that you claim exists. In the absence of tangible evidence, theists tend to devolve into metaphors such as "father" "creator" or "redeemer" which are meaningless if you don't already share the assumptions on which those metaphors are based.
2007-07-27 22:55:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The existence, or non-existence of a deity is not a question of proof. It is a question of faith. God exists to many for the simple reason that no other explanation makes any sense within their scope of belief and understanding. The same is true for an atheist. In dealing with the anxiety and unknown question of our mortality, the belief in God gives comfort that something lies beyond mortality, and that life has a definitive meaning. Many need this to feel comfortable with life. Many do not. We place "faith" within our beliefs that what we know is truth. We do this in the attempt to know the unknowable. Every one of us does this. An atheist needs no proof of God -- their "faith" has been placed within the belief that there is no God. No one needs proof of something that they have already placed their "faith" into.
2007-07-27 23:16:55 · answer #4 · answered by hermit 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is a very good question indeed but i sense a trap....but ill take subjectively. For me it would have to infinite. To be shown a certain existence that is unflawable. Not just speaking in a physical sense but in a mental and emotional it it would present itself to people all over the world. For me to believe it would be shown to all around the world and even the very earth would know because it is utterly undeniable. All people of faith would have to claim one religion and one god...So i ask would you think it possible if per say good showed himself what god would it be.?????
2007-07-27 22:47:26 · answer #5 · answered by coopchic 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Your examples sum it up pretty nicely. It's better to have evidence than to blindly believe something written in an ancient book attempting to explain the world around us with the lack of science.
2007-07-27 22:22:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well, for me to believe He would have to show Himself. But for the greater good, I'd Him rather stop hunger and violence and me not be so sure.
2007-07-27 22:20:58 · answer #7 · answered by mathaowny 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It would have to do something that is otherwise physically impossible, like restoring amputated limbs, without medical science. That would convince me to believe in it, but it would not make me like it considering that, if it exists, it's done such a lousy job of things.
2007-07-27 22:25:45 · answer #8 · answered by YY4Me 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Strike down the bad, reward the good
2007-07-27 22:47:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
A picture of God signing a Bible.
2007-07-27 22:22:31 · answer #10 · answered by Always Curious 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋