What Kind of Evidence Would Prove God?

What kind of evidence would prove the existence of God; an eternal omnipotent and omniscient being who ultimately created everything and who exists apart from His creations?

Just wondering.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by ChickenPie]

The world. Look at the very, very large universe, and the extremely, very small universe and tell me that it was not designed. The order in the universe is proof, because it is not chaotic.

God is not far from us. He loves us and is very near to us. Not some old sky man idea of God.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Starbug3MY]

Originally posted by Starbug3MY
The world. Look at the very, very large universe, and the extremely, very small universe and tell me that it was not designed. The order in the universe is proof, because it is not chaotic.

God is not far from us. He loves us and is very near to us. Not some old sky man idea of God.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Starbug3MY]

The universe did not come to be for our own existence rather we evolved to survive in it. As for the the OP's question, well any evidence would convince me.

Originally posted by Sasky

Originally posted by Starbug3MY
The world. Look at the very, very large universe, and the extremely, very small universe and tell me that it was not designed. The order in the universe is proof, because it is not chaotic.

God is not far from us. He loves us and is very near to us. Not some old sky man idea of God.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Starbug3MY]

The universe did not come to be for our own existence rather we evolved to survive in it. As for the the OP's question, well any evidence would convince me.

If a being came to earth and claimed to be God, and then demonstrated that he could bend scientific laws... Would that be adequate proof of God?

Originally posted by ChickenPie

Originally posted by Sasky

Originally posted by Starbug3MY
The world. Look at the very, very large universe, and the extremely, very small universe and tell me that it was not designed. The order in the universe is proof, because it is not chaotic.

God is not far from us. He loves us and is very near to us. Not some old sky man idea of God.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Starbug3MY]

The universe did not come to be for our own existence rather we evolved to survive in it. As for the the OP's question, well any evidence would convince me.

If a being came to earth and claimed to be God, and then demonstrated that he could bend scientific laws... Would that be adequate proof of God?

That is a very good question and it makes a very important point. We should be very wary of any visitors from beyond our sphere.

Originally posted by ChickenPie

If a being came to earth and claimed to be God, and then demonstrated that he could bend scientific laws... Would that be adequate proof of God?

No. It would prove that there are beings that are more advanced, or that have evolved to a greater extent than the Human Race, but it does not prove God. There is nothing that will prove God, unless someone already wants to believe. God is Faith. The belief and the proof comes from within.

So, the next time an atheist asks you to produce empirical evidence for the existence of God... tell them they're stupid. kthx.

Juvenile OP.
End of conversation, for me.



[edit on 31-7-2010 by LadySkadi]

Originally posted by jacktherer

Originally posted by ChickenPie

Originally posted by Sasky

Originally posted by Starbug3MY
The world. Look at the very, very large universe, and the extremely, very small universe and tell me that it was not designed. The order in the universe is proof, because it is not chaotic.

God is not far from us. He loves us and is very near to us. Not some old sky man idea of God.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Starbug3MY]

The universe did not come to be for our own existence rather we evolved to survive in it. As for the the OP's question, well any evidence would convince me.

If a being came to earth and claimed to be God, and then demonstrated that he could bend scientific laws... Would that be adequate proof of God?

That is a very good question and it makes a very important point. We should be very wary of any visitors from beyond our sphere.

I know it's a good question because I'm awesome...

And we indeed should be weary of visitors from other planets.

My main point is that a being with the attributes I've listed in my OP would not be able to demonstrate that He is God. There would always be doubt. After all, he may just be using advanced technology, or his nature may be a little less limited than our own--which would mean he's not actually God. If God does exist, then this is precisely why He would not try to demonstrate His existence to us.

Here's another example: let's say the true God did come down to earth, and then tried demonstrating His omnipotence. How the heck would we even begin to understand such a display with our limited intellect, perception, and technology? We couldn't. And if we cannot even comprehend a fraction of what it means to be omnipotent, then how do we know that He was even attempting to demonstrate omnipotence in the first place?

So, the next time an atheist asks you to produce empirical evidence for the existence of God... tell them they're stupid. kthx.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by ChickenPie]

There is no way , it is absolutely impossible to "prove" that "God" exists. Because there will always be a barrier between the objective world around us, and the subjective world inside us.

The concept of God is synonymous with the nature of reality. Consciousness is an inherently subjective quality and even if it were the same between two people, there would be no way to effectively prove it. If it is impossible to have a common definition of reality, then it is impossible to have a common definition of God. If you can't define something, you can't prove it's existence.

That applies to the world itself, as well =)

Proof is in His Words. When you see His word in action you know he is real.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
Juvenile OP.
End of conversation, for me.

I agree that was juvenile... but it's also true.

What kind of evidence would prove the existence of God; an eternal omnipotent and omniscient being who ultimately created everything and who exists apart from His creations?

Just wondering.

Beats me. I always wonder how God would know that he was "eternal."

That word has two distinct meanings, I assume you mean "perpetually existing." If I guessed wrong, no offence meant.

He can know how long he's lasted, and that may encourage him to believe he's still got a long run ahead of him, but who told him he was perpetual? (Not a rhetorical question; I think it is his creatures who told him that, then they said that they were inspired by him to say that. This seems shakily circular to me.)

Omnipotent, same deal. So far, anything he's wanted to do, he's managed to do. Not always gracefully. But he chooses the tasks. Has he ever investigated the limits of his strength? Not that he's told us.

Also, all the omni's come with an asterisk. The task or knowing must be logically coherent (no making stones he cannot lift, no square circles, ...). So, isn't that an out? He tries to do something, falls on his keester and concludes "Well, there must be a logical contradicition somewhere in the task specification, right?" Yes, boss.

Omniscient, then, is very difficult to test. There is no proof that will decide whether number theory is unsound, or incomplete, or maybe both. Number theory is, however, at least one of those two things. Has been since before the Universe came into being All that's a corollary of Goedel's Theorem.

However, there's no contradiction in knowing which is which (so far as I know...), it is an accomplished fact. But you couldn't prove that you were right, nor could anybody else prove you were wrong.

So, how do you test for omniscience then? Does God know which is which for Number Theory? How could I verify that he really knows? How could he verify it? A proof either way is as much of a logical constradiction as a square circle. There can be no such thing.

So, how could God know he was omniscient?

As to creating everything, he, at least, would know that he created almost everything he knows about. Of course, he didn't create himself. So, what if there was something else that he didn't create, and he was unaware of it? What if the something else is a good match for him, and thinks it's funny that this guy hasn't found the something yet?

How does God know that that isn't true?

Finally, I am not sure what you mean by "exists apart from His creations." Last I heard, he was omnipresent. I believe there's an Islamic expression that goes "as close to you as your jugular vein."

So, of the attributes I understood and assuming I guessed right on "eternal," I am much too worried about what evidence God would need to conclude he has these attributes, to waste any time wondering what evidence would convince little old me.


[edit on 31-7-2010 by eight bits]

Originally posted by eight bits
Finally, I am not sure what you mean by "exists apart from His creations." Last I heard, he was omnipresent. I believe there's an Islamic expression that goes "as close to you as your jugular vein."

An omnipresent God would not be everything. Omnipresent means being present everywhere, which is a little different.

I specified that God exists outside of His creations to avoid confusion that God may be the universe itself. If that were true, then He'd be limited by the nature of the universe.

So, of the attributes I understood and assuming I guessed right on "eternal," I am much too worried about what evidence God would need to conclude he has these attributes, to waste any time wondering what evidence would convince little old me.

As long as you understand that asking for empirical evidence for God's existence is unwise.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by ChickenPie]

Originally posted by ChickenPie
If a being came to earth and claimed to be God, and then demonstrated that he could bend scientific laws... Would that be adequate proof of God?

That, my friend, would be the day humans everywhere either stop believing in god, refuse to accept the "visitor" for who they claim or were said to be, or deny them as the antichrist.

Human nature is a funny thing and I think most believers beliefs only work if god remains unseen....that was the/their plan all along wasn't it?

reply to post by ChickenPie


one of the best scientific concepts ive heard that gives credence to the idea of a designer/god is the fact that our universe is expertly geared to give rise to life.
I cant find the resource right now i would like to share with you. but basically it goes like this. There is close to 100 factors that are necessary for the universe/and or life to exist. For example, the mass of electrons and such things as this. These variables are so finely tuned that a +/- change of these variables, to the millionth degree, would be catastrophic to the ability of the universe to exist this way, and allow for life to form.

and of course science has a theory for this, and that is, the multiverse theory. it states that universes bubble up continuously from the quantum foam, each with random variables, and if the variables are right, then the universe doesnt collapse. and if the variables are even more perfect, life can arise.

Does it ever come to the point when scientific theories get more ridiculous than the idea of a god?

reply to post by ChickenPie


or would the universes existance be limited by god?

The premise of the OP is faulty.

Prove the existence of God to WHOM, precisely? Those who insist on physical proof STILL won't believe in God. Those who already believe in God don't need proof.

— Doc Velocity

Whats funny about the post a couple up. The Gospels detail God comming to earth and describe him bendng scientific laws. What did the people do? They killed him. Sort of goes to show know proof will satisfy those who do not believe. And those who do believe have no need for any proof.

Science Wants Better Understanding of…
1. Ghosts (both photos, multiple independent sightings, and poltergeist events). We know the temperature drops and that its often physical, we know infrared bounces around our environment all the time, because on a day when its 26C its near exactly 300C above absolute zero. If you put you hands in a 326C oven without touching the sides, you would only feel a doubling of the infrared around us. We know that according to the (now almost universally accepted) Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics en.wikipedia.org...
that the act of measurment itself (of all extremely small particles) (like e.g. infrared photons) causes 2 uncertainities (i.e. what is the particles location, and what is its velocity-state of motion) that existed simultanously, to become one or the other at the moment of observation. Because of this we have the Schroders Cat thought experiment en.wikipedia.org...'s_cat Somehow I think costs observe infrared particles, and this observation can be used to malnipulate the infrareds photons, beahaviour, somehow to a point where you get e.g. Colour light, for a ghost photo on old fashioned film (i.e. the negative).
2. Electronic Voice Phenomena en.wikipedia.org...
3. Telepathic communication (in animals or people), Could help us wonder how we might be able to communicate with other spirits, perhaps even Gods directly, or at least sporadically.

None, because the Creator is beyond the comprehension of man.

A vortex opening up in the sky, where a large hand, and large eye appeared, offering us a sign of life, for example, a baby fawn. And It calmly saying, "don't be affraid my children."