Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How can a deity prove to you that it exists?

Comments Filter:
  • by Em Emalb (452530)
    Well, it seems like to me that an all powerful deity would have no need to prove to little ole me that it existed.

    However, if it had the desire to, said deity could manifest itself in a variety of ways.

    in taking a few lines from the bible, stigmata is one way.

    Sending down it's child to teach is another

    Miracles, miracles, miracles.

    Now, back to more conventional means. I realize you are not religious in the least (from what you responded in my journal) so here goes.

    Could manifest itself in a flesh incarnation. Bam, sitting in front of me, tells me what's up.

    Takes me away from the earth, let's me peak through the clouds to see the earth, with the weird zoom feature that movies seem to like.

    By word of mouth.

    Curious as to why you picked this topic?
      • Well, it seems like to me that an all powerful deity would have no need to prove to little ole me that it existed.


      • However, if it had the desire to, said deity could manifest itself in a variety of ways.

        in taking a few lines from the bible, stigmata is one way.


      Psychosomatic


      • Sending down it's child to teach is another


      Prove that it is His/Hers, almost as complicated (if not more so)


      • Miracles, miracles, miracles.


      Group hallucinations


      • Now, back to more conventional means. I realize you are not religious in the least (from what you responded in my journal) so here goes.

        Could manifest itself in a flesh incarnation. Bam, sitting in front of me, tells me what's up.


      Individual hallucination.


      • Takes me away from the earth, let's me peak through the clouds to see the earth, with the weird zoom feature that movies seem to like.


      Ditto. This could work though if the Deity took you to see something that you would otherwise not be able to find out but you where later able to verify.

      Of course then you would have to contend with Lucky Guess. ^_^
      • you think miracles are group hallucinations?

        really?

        the more I get to know you, the odder I think you are. Definitely one of the more interesting characters here in cyber land.
          • you think miracles are group hallucinations?


          • really?


          LOL! I was pointing out that it was not a valid proof and that it could be explained by something other then a Deity. :-D

          Never having been witness to a miracle I cannot attest to the state of mind of other witnesses at the time of the miracle.

          But I do believe that "group hallucination" is the most popular write off for miracles, that and general "group think"

          "Hey, it is a picture of the Virgin Mary!"

          "Err, oh hey yah, if I squint I can see it to, cool!"

          And so forth. ^_^

          (notice that The Virgin Mary never seems to pop up and convert, say, oh, Jewish or Muslim communities, heh)
          • by Chacham (981)
            LOL! I was pointing out that it was not a valid proof and that it could be explained by something other then a Deity. :-D

            So then, is there a way that a deity could prove itself to you? Or does your thinking exclude even the possibility of deity existence?
            • So then, is there a way that a deity could prove itself to you? Or does your thinking exclude even the possibility of deity existence?

              Now who in the world says I do not believe in the Christian God?

              I just refuse to buy into any sort of psuedo-logical explanations of how things work until good proofs can be given. Since the Bible is a little bit thin on the entire Meta-Physics thing (and does not mention things like brain chemistry at all. ^_^ ) there is no reason for me to just follow along on mass believed Dogma just because it is a nice handy dandy explanation. ^_^

              Convenient explanations are nice, correct explanations are better. :-D

              Until the latter comes along, I will continue to debate both sides of the various topics. :)
              • by Chacham (981)
                Now who in the world says I do not believe in the Christian God?

                I am not talking about belief as much as I am talking about a way of ascertaining the truth. The question is if there exists a method for proof, that your personal methodology of attaing truth allows for, that could prove the existence of a deity, or does your methodology reject it from the outset, not even allowing for a _method_ of proof.

                I just refuse to buy into any sort of psuedo-logical explanations of how things work until good proofs can be given.

                There are good proofs, per se. It just matters in what realm one wants the proofs.

                Since the Bible is a little bit thin on the entire Meta-Physics thing (and does not mention things like brain chemistry at all. ^_^ )

                Silly boy.

                there is no reason for me to just follow along on mass believed Dogma just because it is a nice handy dandy explanation. ^_^

                Yes there is. But since they don't really burn heretics at the stake anymore, you ought to be fine. :-)

                Convenient explanations are nice, correct explanations are better. :-D

                True, Yet who defines that which is "correct"?

                Until the latter comes along, I will continue to debate both sides of the various topics. :)

                Debating is nice, but it also seems as if you are evading the question.

    • by Chacham (981)
      Well, it seems like to me that an all powerful deity would have no need to prove to little ole me that it existed.

      That's not the point. The point is more, what it could do to prove itself to you, if anything at all.

      Miracles, miracles, miracles.

      So, just point out a specific miracle that would make you believe in its existence, and not try to explain in some other method.

      Now, back to more conventional means. I realize you are not religious in the least (from what you responded in my journal) so here goes.

      *Laughs.* (You obviously don't know me very well. :-) )

      Could manifest itself in a flesh incarnation. Bam, sitting in front of me, tells me what's up.

      So, if a voiced talked to you, and then a body appeared in front of you and started talking to you you'd believe it to be a deity? You wouldn't even think of star trek style teleportation devices?

      Takes me away from the earth, let's me peak through the clouds to see the earth, with the weird zoom feature that movies seem to like.

      And you wouldn't just assume that a "friend" was messing with you eyes somehow?

      Curious as to why you picked this topic?

      People have often told me that they do not believe in a deity since it has never proven itself. I am wondering if (people similar to) these people have a method of proof at all, or if it's just some cop out answer for something that they'd rather not think about (for whatever the reason). After I was thinking about that, I found it to be an entertaining question. I'd love to hear a variety of well thought out answers.
  • I would ask them to be a O(1) time code inspector to tell me if code that I give it will halt (run to completion) or not (infinite loop, crash, deadlock, etc...).

    Then, I'd feed them toSelf(toSelf) based on this definition:

    toSelf(char* program) {
    if (deity(program) returns "Will Halt") {
    while(1) { // do nothing }
    return false;
    } // if
    else { // here the deity says it doesn't halt
    return true;
    } //else
    }

    I'd love to hear their interpretation of this, since if they said that that program halts, then that means that it didn't halt, and if they said it halted, then that would imply that it didn't halt. Thus, they would be contradicting themselves... maybe their hair would catch on fire, or the universe would end, or they might just give me a bag of sweedish fish!
    • I'd love to hear their interpretation of this, since if they said that that program halts,...

      OK, so the deity is smart enough to separate a logical statement (one that is true or false) from from an illogical statement (one that is neither true nor false), and tells you that in the current scenario, the program is illogical, and therefore a logical answer cannot be given.

      Either that, or the deity asks you what you expected it to say, and predicates its response with, "Had I said ${ANSWER} it would be ..."

      If you're going to get into tricky situations, at least ask a *good* one such as infinite super machine that do things in half the amount of time as the earlier action. (Though, those are all easily answerable as well.)
  • This isn't meant as a snide reply, but just a simple observation.

    If some entity attempts to communicate with me, and said communication attempt is effective enough that I am trying to formulate a reply, then it may behoove my sanity to accept that entity's existence simply as a pragmatic fact, regardless of any sort of proof. I mean, I can't prove my PhD advisor isn't just a figment of my imagination, but experientially, I suspect disbelieving his existence would dramatically decrease my chances of successfully completing my degree.

The flow chart is a most thoroughly oversold piece of program documentation. -- Frederick Brooks, "The Mythical Man Month"

Working...