What evidence would you accept?

[Desdinova]

We atheists have always argued that we don't believe God exists because there is no proof.  Lately I have been wondering what evidence I would accept to finally admit that God, or "a god" exists.  Most everything I think of results in me thinking something like "Oh well, he could be from an advanced alien civilization with technology I don't understand.  Still not sure if he is a god."   So I really can't think of anything.  What would you accept as irrefutable evidence of god's existence?

[Mr.Obvious]

I've had the same question on my mind about a year or two ago. I saw someone ask it on youtube to Richard Dawkins. And though it wasn't nearly enough to make a decent point in favor of theïsm, it did bug me that I didn't have an answer.
I asked myself that question over and over again. And found no clear or satisfiable answer. At last I sent a mail to 'the atheïst experience' which I watched quite a lot in that time. In the letter I thanked them for their content and such and asked them the question.
Their reply was something along the lines of: "To me it isn't as much the question of what proof would I accept. It's what proof do they bring and what do I think about that proof?" (I might have the original answer in my mailbox somewhere. I could check if you'd like.)
It may still not be an exact answer to that question. I realise that. But maybe there are some questions that don't have answers. Because we're talking about possessing a grade of certainty that might not be validated in any case. It's like asking; what proof would you need to accept that everything, even you and all of your memories, was made 5 minutes ago by an invisible and intangible force?

TL:DR - I can't think of any kind of natural proof that can validate a supernatural claim.

[Desdinova]

Thanks Mr. O, if you could find it without too much trouble, I would be interested in seeing what they had to say.  I was worried that it was going to be viewed as a stupid question and was prepared to don my asbestos suit.  It doesn't bother me too much, that is to say It doesn't make me believe in God or anything, it's just something I can't get me head around.

[stromboli]

That topic has been posted here before, I think more than once. It isn't that odd a question. I think all of us have at some point wondered about it. Personally, because we are continually advancing in science and the new and mystical becoming more commonplace, and with all the incredible fakery possible with CGI and advances in optical imaging, I'm not sure I would view anything short of some sky splitting, earth rendering, major beyond human conceivability to convince me there was a god. Even then I'd view it with suspicion.

[Mr.Obvious]

Thanks Mr. O, if you could find it without too much trouble, I would be interested in seeing what they had to say. 

My question about a year ago:

I have a question that I'd like to ask you because I myself have a
hard time imagining the answer. I'm pretty sure you've heard
some variant of it before. I heard it for the first time being asked
to Richard Dawkins. Namely, as a response to being pointed to
the burden of proof, some theists ask in return; what would you
concider to be evidence?
The whole point of this, to me, seems to point out that we as
atheists are biased against the theist proposition. As if they say:
well, you just don't want to believe and even real proof would be
discarded by you.
And while, I haven't been asked this question personally, I can't
imagine a satisfying answer.
I'm not saying I'm indeed biased, though after hearing the same
inadequate arguments over and over again it gets tough to
listen without some bias, but I can't imagine any proof.
Even Dawkins replied with something like this. He said he used
to imagine that it would be proof if a Jesus Christ as tall as a
skyscraper suddenly appeared in front of him in some city and
told all the inhabitants that he was indeed real. But he was quick
to add that he'd more likely be hallucinating.
And that would be along the lines of my thoughprocess. In my
current mindset I can't imagine rational proof of such an
irrational claim. And if I were to encounter it, in my current
mindset, I'd think it's fake or false or whatever. To accept
anything I can imagine to seem like proof I'd have to think
differently.
I would have to think in a way I don't know how to. I'm not sure of
that makes me biased or not, honestly.
And I was wondering what your takes on this were.

The reply from Tracie Harris:

To me, the question of "what would YOU consider proof" is not really relevant. What I *actually* am interested in discovering is WHAT they considered proof--what convinced THEM a god exists. If I can get that, I can consider what they found compelling and decide for myself what I would find compelling. And if I don't find it compelling, and explain why I do not--how is that a problem for them? Is their goal to convert me to believe what they do? Or to demonstrate to me they adopted their belief for good reasons? If they only want to convert me--and their own reasons for belief are not convincing--then the really interesting question to me is "Why do you believe for such bad reasons?" I don't really care if they can find some method of convincing me. I want to hear from them, how crappy arguments or evidence convinced them.

-th

Hope it helps.

[SGOS]

Here is my take on it.  There is no credible evidence, and "credible" is the lowest standard I would accept.  So we are talking about the impossible.   But it's not about evidence.  It's about believing.  Evidence has nothing to do with it.  It never did have anything to do with evidence, and this has been true throughout time.  Therefore I will believe at such time when and if I am so smitten by belief that I cannot not believe.  This isn't logical of course, but such is the nature of a belief in God.

[stromboli]

Good post, Mr. O.

I have educated myself about religion for the past many years, and have always been interested in science and technology. Between all the fakery and all the potential of new technologies and scientific breakthroughs, I honestly doubt anything I was shown would convince me. I have also lived among the gullible who were so easily convinced by nothing more than word of mouth accounts of miracles, to accept anything short of mind blowing and unbelievably undeniable proof. Too many magicians doing too many "impossible" stunts has jaded me, I'm afraid.

[josephpalazzo]

Yo, the evidence is easy: God has just to show up.

[Mike Cl]

Yeah, I could believe in a God is something like this happened; everybody heard the same voice delivering the same message at the same time--that means it would be delivered to each person in their native language at the exact same time as everybody else was hearing it.   Or a written message (book, or some such) given to each and every one of us at the exact same time with the exact same message in that person's language (and even those who don't know how to read could still understand it).  Something along those lines would be pretty difficult to ignore.  And while it may not be God's doing, the being or beings powerful enough to do that would be worthy of listening to. 

Or a message delivered to the entire world that something like the Earth would be made to stop (both in orbit and spinning on it's axis) without anyone or thing being injured and then started back up again.  Once again, that may not be God, but probably close enough for me.

The evidence would have to be that outlandish for me to consider it being from God.

[aitm]

Just showing up is not enough to be a "GOD". A "GOD" being one worthy of worship. I want fucking answers! WHY? WHY the fuck did you screw up so fucking badly? Give me an answer that can somehow prove to me that "GOD" is indeed a god.

[Eric1958]

Three things come to mind when this question came up.
1) if we all could each have a daily chat with God. An honest two way conversation that wasn't a form of mental illness.

2) virtually every culture we know of has their own version of a creation myth. If they were all the same, with the same name for God and each was given the same holy book.

3) if we are told that prayer is powerful and can achieve virtually anythin, then, by gGod, it better be able to cure sick children when we need it to. None of this "god's ways are mysterious" bullshit at least when it comes to kids.

The whole idea of just having faith and not needing any evidence, comes across to me as a line a con artist would use.

[Minimalist]

I have already come up with a test for any god.

Any being who presented himself to me as a "god" would have to agree to accompany me to a nursing home of my choosing.  Then, I would select at random a wheelchair-bound female Alzheimer's patient.  While I held on to her shoulders this "god" would have to rejuvenate her into a smoking hot 20 year old with big tits.

Anyone who can pass that test deserves the title of "god."

Otherwise, fuck him.

[robbcayman]

Let's see..

1) Fly out of the sky and make all the dead rise from a cemetery. However, bonus stuff listed below:

2) Get rid of skinny jeans for dudes... forever.

3) Make a woman that is smoking hot who isn't bitchy or needy and just makes me "sammiches" when I ask.

4) Get rid of reality tv.

5) Abolish taxes

[AllPurposeAtheist]

If I were unknowingly tripping on some wicked acid I might be convinced by something like this, but it would be kind of iffy.. http://youtu.be/iZhLDo09D68

[josephpalazzo]

Just showing up is not enough to be a "GOD". A "GOD" being one worthy of worship. I want fucking answers! WHY? WHY the fuck did you screw up so fucking badly? Give me an answer that can somehow prove to me that "GOD" is indeed a god.

Assuming we're talking about the dude that created the billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion of billions of galaxies, we also have to assume, IF HE SHOWS UP, that he can prove without any doubt, he is that dude. So what if he screwed up a few details? I mean that kind of accomplishment would have to overshadow a few minor screw-ups. The problem is: he hasn't showed up so far (HINT, HINT, HINT...)