What would you consider proof of God or the supernaturual?

[Nikia]

Many atheists here say that they do not believe in God because there is no proof. Often the same people and others don't believe in various supernaturual phenomenon citing the same reason.
My grandfather was an atheist leaning agnostic. He believed that there probably wasn't a God and if there was somewhere out there, that God wasn't anything like the God of organized religion and was generally irrelevent to our lives. He believed that organized religion was generally harmful.
He believed in UFOs however. He had countless books on it and came to conclusions about the nature of the aliens and UFOs from the material that made most scientific sense to him. He believe that UFOs and aliens existed because a close friend told him about his observation of UFOs and aliens that others had also in a way that is usually considered a real observation (There are more details, but I don't know if they should be divulged on a public message board).
His own cousin told him of a personal visit from Jesus when she was in bed praying. My grandfather thought that she was dreaming or hallucinating.
He also had a number of family members including his mother and wife feel the prescence of God and being strong believers. He never became a believer because he saw no proof of God.
I am not saying that he should have necessarily became a believer, I am just interested in what proof of God's existence would be to a non believer.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. a burning bush

Your grandfather sounds like someone I would have like to meet.

[leftstreet]

2. If Abramoff and Bush turn up NAKED in those photos

[WritingIsMyReligion]

3. A man comes down from the clouds and strikes me dead for my heresy.

Proof enough for me.

:silly:

Seriously, though, I don't see a need for a god. Everyone and everything is a god. Sure, there's SOME spiritual-type force somewhere, but it isn't "out there"--it's in here. *pounds chest*

[Warpy]

4. Gee, gods or little green men?

Neither have offered proof of their existence to me.

I certainly did enough drugs in the 60s that if either had existed, I'd have seen them.

As far as I can tell, both live in the believer's limbic system, dependent upon "feeling a presence" and "belief" to exist.

That's perfectly all right with me. Have a ball. Just don't expect it to apply to me. I don't share your limbic system.

[rateyes]

5. No proof...

only evidence. Organized religion can be a good thing or a bad thing. Kimball's book "When Religion Becomes Evil" is a good example of "good religion gone very bad."

Greatest evidence for a deity or deities, IMO, is the unbelievable way nature works, and how long it has survived despite "entropy," etc. IMO, for example, the human body is way too "organized" for there not to have been--somewhere--an "organizer" or "organizers."

Just my two cents.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

18. The more I learn, the more I am convinced of how little I know. BUT

the more experiences I have, the more firmly convinced that all religions are bad. They are evil, and they cause nothing but damage to humanity.

Every organized faith bases its strength and power over its flock by instilling fear in its members. They fear the unknown, yet their religion requires them to maintain their ignorance. They fear non-believers, for a nonbeliever is most likely to point out the fallacies and lies upon which every religion is based. Because of that fear, they are compelled to attack nonbelievers for their lack of faith and to change them into believers. They fear science, yet never hesitate to use its fruits (selectively) to promote their fear-based beliefs.

Religions are the most dangerous entity humanity must face and conquer before we can truly become civilized creatures.

[rateyes]

22. I would agree with you that every religion...

TENDS in the direction that you describe, and many within those religions go that far. I am a member of an organized religion, and practice my faith regularly---but, I am one who, in my church points out the "fear tactics" that are used by folk and condemn those tactics. I do not fear non-believers, and neither do I fear criticism of my beliefs--neither do I condemn a non-believer to "hell," nor do I "attack" them for their non-belief.

I agree that religions are "dangerous" when they become evil. But, they can be good, if they are practiced in a good way----one that compels "love" and not "fear."

[ChairmanAgnostic]

24. then, you are a rational member (in a ever smaller minority) who

use the best ideas of a religion as a guide, not a cudgel.

[rateyes]

35. I would agree with that, too....

which is why I am working tirelessly inside the church to try and help people see and understand the truth of what you said. The church can be a force for good, but it needs to be purged of the idiots like Falwell, Robertson, and fundamentalists who buy into their asanine rhetoric.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

36. I admire you for that. It is not easy to push against such vile hatred

and spewing of lies. Too many religions rely on fear and loathing to maintain power and control. To few brave souls stand up to their excesses and abusive policies. Wasn't it Gandhi who said, " I like your Christ. I don't care much for your Christians. They have so little in common with your Christ."

[rateyes]

42. Yeah, Gandhi said something to that effect....

I could tell you some horror stories, but I'll save that for later. Let's just say that the religious left isn't dead yet.

[robbibaba]

6. A man said "God, if you are real, manifest before me now!"

and god said 'I am manifesting before you now'.

[treegiver]

25. Is that legal?

If it is I'm not sure it should be.

[Gormy Cuss]

7. It sounds like if the aliens scooped up your grandfather,

and brought him to a prayer service on the mother ship, MAYBE he would need to reconsider his beliefs.;)

Faith is believing in something that can not be proven. I think your example shows that quite nicely.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

17. Here is a quote I happened upon this morning, sourced from another site:

HL Mencken (1920)

"Belief is faith in something that is known; Faith is belief in something that is not known."

Much later, he amended it to say "Faith is the unwarranted belief in something that is not known, and almost certainly false."

[saltpoint]

8. UFOs and God don't seem analogous to me.

I imagine the Seminoles hadn't seen any white folks until the first ship sailed west from Europe, but that didn't make the Spaniards on board 'God.'

I've seen plenty of stuff I can't readily explain, but I don't subscribe to them a divine origin or god-like status.

[Mz Pip]

9. I'd know it when I saw it

It would have to be an occurance that was experienced by other people at the same time. I would probably write off any supernatural experience as some kind of hallucination unless someone with me experienced it as well.

I believe there are beings on other planets out there somewhere. I do not believe they are visiting us. Like your grandfather I believe God could exist but probably isn't anything like we imagine.

If there is a God, I don't think it cares if I believe it in or not.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[tularetom]

10. * to be raptured at his SOTU speech

leaving only his empty suit, his tiny cowboy boots and the sock he stuffed in his tighty whities there on the podium.

[stepnw1f]

11. Proof is not a Requirement of Belief

Spirituality has a positive effect on one's life, and that is all that matters to me. You don't need to believe in a white-bearded-man-in-the-sky to believe in UFOs. But the result of that belief is what people are after.

I steer away from religiosity for the most part. I believe there is good in every religion but spirituality must be individual, and should always be priority of that religion. The American Taliban has no such thing, therefore they are all frauds.

[C_U_L8R]

12. When Jesus descends in his UFO

...opens a firey chasm in the earth
and tosses fundie/freep/fascists
into the inferno one by one
just to see em pop.. while the
rest of the world applauds.

Who says Jesus doesn't enjoy a good BBQ?

[rock]

13. Dead easy

For me to believe in God, all He would have to do is make it so.

[Broadslidin]

14. When We Return to the Common Burial Pits of the 1665 Great Plague....?

BBC World News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4869224.stm

[elehhhhna]

15. I have had such peak experiences. Once on the beach on Grand Cayman &

once on the "L" in Chicago during rush hour. Trouble is no guy/madonna/etc. shows up and blabners at me, so it's not easy to descibe.

My expectation is that if Jeezus H Christ shows at our doorstep he'll have a LOT to say but it won't be about solving history's mysteries. It'll probably be more urgent, immediate, action-type instructions.

[treegiver]

28. Urgent, immediate, action-type instructions.

Will it have to do with duct tape? If so, I'm OK.

What bothers me is when they blabner at me, I actually think they might be furry. I suspect they're not but, you know...

[treegiver]

33. About furry...

I should expand upon that a bit. I don't have anything against the furry ones per se. But there sure are a lot of them, and you can't always tell. Basically, it's the hair I'm worried about, not those who bear it. Hope that clears things up.

[trotsky]

16. A consistent definition would be a great place to start.

Before we have one of those, discussing "proof" is impossible.

I will say that between the two concepts, UFOs or gods, there is a lot more proof of the former.

[Karmakaze]

19. Sounds a little hypocritical

Belief in UFO's without proof is much the same as belief in God without proof. I believe in neither, while still accept the possibility of both.

Having said that, there is a qualitve difference between belief in God and belief in UFO's. That difference is objective evidence. There are claimed to be photos of things called UFO's that can not be explained in any other way (although I personally doubt them, many are compelling). I have yet to see even ONE photo of God.

That is what it would take for me to believe in either - clear OBJECTIVE evidence of existence that can NOT be explained by any other means. Witness sightings are SUBJECTIVE, and thus are not trustworthy. Some claim to have felt God's presence, yet we know we can induce such feelings using EM fields. In other words such feelings are generated in the brain, and are not objective. Maybe the person who felt it has a mental illness, maybe they entered a strong EM field, or maybe a neuron misfired randomly, but there is no way to tell from external evidence what actually happened.

So proof of God would need to be subjective.

Secondly, it would have to prove that God not only exists, but is sentient. A "miracle" is not proof of a sentient being. It could just as easily be a random occurence that resulted in supernatural effects. Unless a "miracle" is accompanied by a clear indication of a sentient being having made it happen, then even a "miracle" is not proof of "God".

Finally, God would have to prove to not only exist and be sentient, but to be all powerful. This would be hard to prove, because for example a supernatural being may be powerful and able to make all sorts of "miracles" happen, without being ALL powerful. To me, the only way to prove such power would be for God to destroy the creation he claims to have made.

So in essence, proving God exists, may in fact be the LAST thing we want :)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

20. that prayer thing bothers me most.

If god requires prayer, that means he/she/it has a major league ego problem, ergo, he/she/it is not all powerful, ergo there is no god.
If god answers prayer, why did he/she/it bother allowing the event to develop in the first place? being omnipotent, all seeing and all knowing, there is no need for prayer, just as there is no need for the events being prayed for to take place.
If god ignores prayers, yet demands that they continue, then he is some funny rascal with a mean streak as wide as the milky way galaxy. So much for a loving, forgiving and all powerful god. personality flaws simply should not exist with the perfect omnipotent being.

[Karmakaze]

26. I actually consider that good evidence against God...

The fact that bad things happen to good Christians/Muslims/Whatever is the best evidence against God. If he was all knowing, he would already KNOW who the good ones were, and whether he would answer their prayers if soemthing bad happened, so why actually DO it to them in the first place?

Why would God NEED to "test our faith" if he already knows the answer? So strike "all knowing"!

Secondly, if God is all powerful, why does he/she/it need us to fight his wars for him? If he wants the unbelievers punished, why have believers suffer to carry out that punishment? Why not just will bad things to happen to them on a Biblical scale, while the believers sit back in safety?

"Believers" say that God has a plan, and that is why sometimes bad things happen to good people. If that is the case, then when bad people do bad things, who are we to go against God's plan to try and stop them?

What about this one: Believers say that God is the creator of everything, and point to the amazing things that exist as proof that natural processes could not have created such a universe. The problem there is, God itself is obviously the most amazing thing in existence, and therefore, by their argument, must have been created by a supreme being, who in turn must have been created by an supreme being, and so on. God couldn't have created himself, so another God must have created God, or a natural process must have created God.

If another God created God, then there is more than one God, and the God the believers worship isn't even the Supreme, Supreme Being! If a natural process created God, then why can't a natural process have created everything?

There is one other option and that is "God always existed", meaning that there was no moment of creation for God. Of course if that could be true for God, why could it not be true for the universe in general?

Still these are "logical proofs" rather than "factual proofs". I can't factually prove there is no such thing as God any more than I can factually prove there is no such things as aliens.

[arwalden]

27. The Starving Hungry Sick Abused Beaten Molested Raped Children Thing...

... is also pretty convincing that "God" does not exist. Or if such a deity did exist, then it doesn't care about hungry, sick, abused, beaten, molested, raped, tortured and diseased children. Hardly a deity worth worshiping, eh?

[JerseygirlCT]

30. That's if you think of prayer as soley intercessionary

(that is, asking for something).

If you think of prayer as a conversation with God, as an openess to God, then I think you might find it an easier concept to understand?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

31. so, ahhh, you talk to god, do you? does he/she/it talk back?

and other than providing you with temporary self-absorbed peace and comfort, soon to be removed by your preacher, that makes you happy?
well, good for you. just realize that your priest, pastor, preacher or religious brainwasher relies on fear, and little else, to get what HE wants.
and it has nothing to do with JC or his preachings.

[JerseygirlCT]

43. Wow, thanks for the nasty-gram

That was lovely.

You know, I don't respond to people with differing beliefs with ridicule and disgust. You might try a little respect.

And thanks for the religious education, but I'm quite capable of making up my own mind about who I trust -- and the list includes my priest, even when she and I don't always agree.

Does it make you feel all happy to respond to a politely worded post like this? Perhaps make you feel better about yourself?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

44. I feel fine about myself. My membership in American Athiests came in

today's mail. seriously.

No matter how nicely worded, your own point suggested that you think you have this openess, a personal relationship with your god. Good for you. My question is not ridicule, but serious. You talk to him (it?) and he (it?) talks back? That is not meant as a joke. If you have a relationship, either it is bilateral or it is not a relationship. If it is a relationship, it must have communication. in both directions. If not, then again, it is not a relationship. I am very happy that you find solace, comfort and more in your prayers. And I am even happier that you don't seem to push your beliefs on others. I thank you for that. And yes, your polite response is pleasant. Too many religious folks feel compelled to demand that only their perception of truth can be true. Much like their book is inerrant.
As I posted elsewhere today, wasn't it Gandhi who said, I like your christ. I don't care much for your christians. They are so unlike your christ.

[JerseygirlCT]

46. And I'd agree with Gandhi to an extent --

I'd differ in that I do believe those who push, who are often those who cling to inerrancy, are a very loud and obnoxious minority. They get the attention, but they truly do not represent the majority. I don't enjoy being lumped in their company, believe me.

Does God speak to me directly? As if you and I were talking? No. Is there a sense of "communion" sometimes? A sense of sharing or peacefulness that I associate with connecting to God? Sure. Sometimes -- not always.

For me prayer isn't a rote thing, or even a structured or scheduled thing. More like an ongoing internal conversation. Is God listening? I'd think so, because I think God is present in everyone and everything. But of course, there is no "proof" of that.

Could be it's simply what I choose to believe. Could be that it simply creates for me a better, fuller life. I'll take that, even if that's all it is.

And no, I feel no need to insist that anyone else share my beliefs. What works for you, if it's working for you, is just fine by me. It's a very personal thing to me.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

48. What you say makes a lot of sense.

a serious question. Does your faith suggest to you that only religious people can be ethical or moral? Or do you believe that a rational person can think and act appropriately even if she/he has no faith in some organized religious god?

The reason for my asking has its roots in the election of 2004, and what I see as a similar push for this upcoming election.

[JerseygirlCT]

51. I absolutely do not think that religious people are the only

people who can be ethical or moral. Or that religious people always behave ethically or morally. Religious might play into the WHY of it, but not the WHAT, if that makes sense.

Many non-religious people do the right thing simply because it's the right thing -- how could anyone argue with that?

I fall on the side of works being far, far more important than any particular declaration of faith (or non-faith, if you will).

I agree with you, that it's all been sadly twisted and now wearing your RELIGIOUS sign is somehow connected to both one's moral quality and one's patriotism. It's perverse and hurts both religion and our country.

IMHO.

[raccoon]

50. Usually when people speak of God "answering Prayer"

they mean that what THEY wanted to happen, happened.

When they say God ignores prayer, they mean it didn't happen.

I think prayer is like meditation: it helps ME get in a better place. It doesn't change outward circumstances.

[chaumont58]

21. As an atheist, I'm not sure anything can do the trick, but...

something that has bothered me, is the lack of conference calls God places. I can't remember ever hearing some group say that God spoke to all of us, at the same time. Maybe there have been instances and I've missed them.

[varkam]

23. Tough question. I'd like to ask a believer...

what evidence they would need to consider proof that God does not exist?

Answer - there is no such proof. Proof is an epistemic certainty, which relates to knowledge. Knowledge is very much different from belief. If there is a God, he exists outside of the universe (as he created it, and according to the infinity principle in Greek philosophy, if anything created the universe it cannot exist inside of it or else it's subject to infinite regress). If God, then, exists outside the universe, he is completely and totally beyond our epistemic powers. We have no way of *knowing* one way or the other. I do not believe there is a God, but that's different from saying I know there is not a God.

Beliefs are informed by either a) what are parents told us was true and/or b)our experiences and observations. Based on what my parents told me (which was nothing), and my experiences and observations, the most likely conclusion is that there is no God. It's a completely different line of cognition, however, from absolute epistemic certainty (e.g. proof).

[silverweb]

29. Silly question.

For those who believe, no proof is needed.
For those who do not believe, no proof is enough.

I'm happy enough just believing in possibilities.

[Orrex]

32. Pretty simple, actually

1. Proof that God exists: A clear and irrefutable demonstration of a logical impossibility, such as a round square, two people each being simultaneously taller than one another, an object that both exists and does not exist, or an odd prime number evenly divisible by two. For these purposes a mathematical trick or a linguistic sleight-of-hand would not be sufficient; each thing would have to be literally impossible and yet actually demonstrated to me. Surely this is within the power of an omnipotent entity. And if the omnipotent entity can't do this, then it's not very omnipotent, now is it?

Theists, particularly Christian theists, like to pretend that God would violate my freewill if he were to give me proof of his existence, to which I cry bullshit! Adam and Eve were on a speaking basis with God, so they clearly knew that he existed, yet they had sufficiently free will to defy him. Heck, even if God proved himself to me, that wouldn't guarantee that I'd worship him. I'm pretty sure that whole bunches of people exist, but I don't worship any of them, so proof of existence, in itself, is clearly insufficient to violate free will.

2. Proof of the supernatural: A clear and irrefutable demonstration of something that cannot, even in principle, be explained through natural means. That means that we must exclude any nominally supernatural sights and sounds that might more credibly be explained through my own hallucination than through some spectral manifestation or whatever. Additionally, a natural explanation that follows precedent is logically preferable to an unprecedented supernatural explanation, so this must be taken into account during any demonstration. More to the point, even if I think that there's no way the fortune teller could have known about my dearly departed Aunt Agnes, it is more consistent with precedent to conclude that fraud has occurred than to conclude that the fortune teller is actually in contact with dear Agnes' "soul" or "spirit."

[Evoman]

34. Like rock said

If god wanted us to believe, we would believe. On the other hand, making 4/2 = 3 would be a start. Hell, even a big hand coming from heaven with some lights would help a little. Or a glowing Roma Downey appearing in my room might help me go that way. The truth is, if God does exist, he isn't going to convince me with a 2000 year book with logical inconsistencies and factually incorrect information. Why doesn't he talk to people today like he used to? Why don't REAL miracles happen besides jesus face on t a taco and Virgin Mary salt stains? Duh, maybe because he doesn't exist, and people in the past were uneducated superstitious primitives? I honestly can't fathom why modern people, with all we have learned, still believe people were made from clay, women were made from ribs, and evil snakes talk. Honestly.

Oh, and if he did exist, I would fight the motherfucker with every dying breath. Shit, I would make a better god. At least I wouldn't allow rape and starvation to happen.

Evoman

[ChairmanAgnostic]

37. wait. you mean . . . .

women weren't made from ribs? Oh, dear. All that education down the drain.

And that salt stain in a chicago underpass ain't JC? Or Mary (depending on the lighting, your perspective, and the amount of artificial intoxicants imbibed?)

[Strong Atheist]

38. When:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=44370#44780

[BurtWorm]

39. I had "mystical" experiences of "God" in my twenties.

Nothing could convince me of the "reality" of the supernatural.

[Deep13]

40. A repeatable and observeable test result that could not be explained...

..any other way. Somehow, it would have to show a suspention of what are considered the laws of nature. The problem is, we do not know the laws of nature so well that we could be sure that such a result was not simply the manifestation of some previously unknown law of nature. We do know that the human mind is not especially reliable when it comes to matters observed by one person. Even direct observation of an objective fact by several witnesses can produce varying results. We cannot be faulted, therefore, for having no confidence in a 'vision' or some other uniquely personal experience. In fact, this is such a problem that the person observing the test result must be observing a number or purported test results and not know which are the real tests and which are the 'control' groups. Further, the data taker cannot have participated in devising the test.

[sakabatou]

41. Ony if the stuff for the haftorah for Sukkot turns out correct

[moobu2]

45. I guess nothing

Nothing could prove something I already know doesn’t exist. In other words, If I were looking for proof, or thought there could be some incident involving some invisible power, then, I would kind of believe it’s possible, and I just don’t.

If a bush caught fire and started talking to me (or anything similar), for instance, I guess I would make an appointment with a doctor. I still wouldn’t think it was some invisible character/s attempting to influence me, or whatever. I'd think it was some brain disorder or something.

[simonm]

47. UFO tech is very real

Your grandfather was very smart. Here is something that may interest you,..

There is plenty of evidence that supports UFO technology as viable. Electrogravitics is a good example. With the right combination of alloys and electrical current, anyone can build a craft capable of imitating the UFO "flying saucer".

http://members.fortunecity.com/jlnaudin/html/lifters.htm

The biggest obstacle towards building a life sized model is the enormous amounts of power required for propulsion. There have been reports of UFOs under the ocean traveling at great speeds. If true, one can only imagine how advanced their power source is.

Unfortunately, we do not have the technology to build a power supply for an unwired version. If we did have this capability, it would most likely fall under nuclear and national security laws.

Can you imagine having some kind of “fusion reactor” to power your whole home? No more electric bills! Some say that would mean the end of our global economy.




As for God, I have yet to see proof but I'll keep an open mind. ;)

[Marie26]

49. Arriving at the pearly gates

Till then, the jury's out.

[hunter]

52. Uh, oh... My grandfather appears to have had a secret family.

:silly:

Well maybe not. My UFO grandfather believed in some sort of God, he simply figured we weren't quite bright enough to understand Him.

[YankeyMCC]

53. Can't be done

Proof and 'supernatural' are mutually exclusive to my mind.

It might be possible (though I'm highly skeptical) to prove to me that there is/was/will be some super intelligence or directed force in the universe but if you can prove its existence then that means it's part of the Natural world and although it might represent a great power that does not make it a god. Any strong force properly directed can coerce submission that doesn't make it supernatural or a god in the sense I think is ment in the OP.

[Silent3]

54. Proof of the supernatural is an oxymoron

If something demonstrably exists, it is therefore a part of nature, something natural. Something can certainly exist which goes beyond our understanding of nature, but that only makes it seemingly supernatural, not actually so.