What would it take to believe?

[sleepyhead]

Hello,

This thread is largely a result of my Thread in Christianity and apologetics entitled Edgar Cayce.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 9&start=40
The last post I made was the question of "Since EC was investigated during the time when he gave readings, what is your basis for being on the no train." No one is choosing to respond.

Forgetting about Cayce for a moment, suppose a person claimed that he had a hat that produced bunnies. To prove it he sat you down and he pulled a bunny out of his hat. Most of us would consider it a trick. Now suppose that the hat was transparent, you were free to observe him from any angle, and he did it as many times as you wanted. Now suppose you were allowed to bring in professional exposers to expose him and they couldn't find any trickery involved. Would you now believe he had a had that produced bunnies? If not what other proof would you require?

[ttruscott]

It woud take eyes to see throught the tricks and ears to hear through the lies...

1 Corinthians 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Peace, Ted

[A Troubled Man]

If not what other proof would you require?

I would insist on double-blind experiments. That's it.

[Divine Insight]

I'm technically not an atheist since I believe in the possibility of a spiritual or mystical essence to reality.

Still, I'm at a lost to see the point to your scenario?

Forgetting about Cayce for a moment, suppose a person claimed that he had a hat that produced bunnies. To prove it he sat you down and he pulled a bunny out of his hat. Most of us would consider it a trick. Now suppose that the hat was transparent, you were free to observe him from any angle, and he did it as many times as you wanted. Now suppose you were allowed to bring in professional exposers to expose him and they couldn't find any trickery involved. Would you now believe he had a had that produced bunnies? If not what other proof would you require?

To begin with, nothing like this has ever happened to me, so it's a totally meaningless hypothesis.

Secondly, even if I entertain that this actually happened what would this man have proved other than he can magically pull bunnies out of a hat?

I'd ask him what he's going to do with all his bunnies.

Should I assume that this man is then "God" or even any kind of "supernatural entity"?

I think not. He could simply be a very advanced alien who is posing as a man pulling rabbits out of a hat. In fact, for all I know I could laying on an operating table in an alien spaceship and they are simply causing me to have this extremely vivid dream.

In fact, let's take you scenario a step further. Suppose an entity magically appeared before you out of nothing. And imagine this being claimed to be God.

Could this being prove to you that it is indeed God?

I would think that would be next to impossible. What could this being do to prove that it is "God"?

Anything it did could potentially be done by a sufficiently sophisticated advanced species. You couldn't even be sure whether this entity is actually creating these things that you are experiencing, or as I've mentioned before, they could have your body strapped down to a table and everything you think you are experiencing actually all in your mind. They could potentially know your every thought including everything that you can even remember about yourself. In fact, they could potentially even provide you with false memories of having done things that you never did.

In short, it would be extremely difficult for even a real God to prove to you that he's not just an advanced species playing tricks on you.

So let me turn your own question back onto you,

What could a God do to prove to you that it is indeed a God, and not merely a very advanced species that had actually evolved from this universe just like you did?

I'm a spiritual person myself, yet even I recognize that it would be impossible for a God to actually prove itself to me. If I ever meet up with a being that appears to be God-like and claims to be God, even then I would have to take its word of that as a matter of faith.

The only thing I would know for sure is that it appears to me to be quite powerful with powers that are way beyond my capability. But does that prove that this entity created this universe or me?

No it does not.

If it made that claim, I would just have to take its word for it as a matter of pure faith.

[OnceConvinced]

I can honestly say I don't know. I think I would need to be in the situation for real before I could say what it would take for me to believe.

But at least when it comes to God, if he is real, he would know me better than I know myself and would know exactly what little it would take to prove himself to me. And because he loves me so much he would do whatever it took because he would not want to have to roast me forever on his eternal BBQ.

[sleepyhead]

Hello troubled, DI, and OC,

TM>>>I would insist on double-blind experiments. That's it.<<

Blind and double blind experiments are used effectively in medical research with regards to getting a drug approved. I don't think it is used anywhere else except perhaps taste tests.

DI>>>Secondly, even if I entertain that this actually happened what would this man have proved other than he can magically pull bunnies out of a hat? <<<

Your right. No one owes that person anything. It would be his responsibility to provide humanity with some benefit from his ability. There would also need to be a benefit to the individual investigating the matter. I should have picked something else.

DI>>>So let me turn your own question back onto you,

What could a God do to prove to you that it is indeed a God, and not merely a very advanced species that had actually evolved from this universe just like you did?<<<

My understanding of God is as a Creative Force rather than a Supreme Being. I don't know how I'd answer that except I see all force as part of God whether it's gravity, electricity, etc.

OC>>>But at least when it comes to God, if he is real, he would know me better than I know myself and would know exactly what little it would take to prove himself to me. And because he loves me so much he would do whatever it took because he would not want to have to roast me forever on his eternal BBQ.<<<

Not all faith systems believe in the eternal BBQ. In my faith system we reincarnate.

[Divine Insight]

My understanding of God is as a Creative Force rather than a Supreme Being. I don't know how I'd answer that except I see all force as part of God whether it's gravity, electricity, etc.

In that case you have all the proof you'll ever need that your God exists.

I feel much the same way. I have proof that my concept of God exists as well. It's necessary by simple definition.

I potentially take it a tiny step further than you, but then again maybe not.

In my view, not only is everything you've mentioned a part of God, but so is my conscious awareness. Of course, this necessarily follows from your view too.

But what I'm trying to say is that my very consciousness is every bit as much a part of reality as anything else. And since I am nothing more than a manifestation of this reality, then my consciousness necessarily belongs to the universe, not to me.

In fact, there is no "me" apart from the universe.

So in that sense I am God (or at least a facet of the consciousness of that which is God)

And therefore I don't need any proof that God exists beyond my own conscious awareness. My conscious awareness is proof that God exists, by definition, of how I define God.

I think where the real problem comes into play concerning a proof of the existence of a God is when people demand that God is something "other" than their own conscious awareness. In that case, God necessarily becomes a totally separate egotistical entity. And a totally separate egotistical entity could never prove that it is "God".

At best it can only prove that it has awesome powers.

[A Troubled Man]

Blind and double blind experiments are used effectively in medical research with regards to getting a drug approved. I don't think it is used anywhere else except perhaps taste tests.

That is nonsense, double blind tests are used ALL the time for many experiments. In fact, without it, the experiment could easily be biased. That is the point of it being double blind.

[A Troubled Man]

I'm technically not an atheist since I believe in the possibility of a spiritual or mystical essence to reality.

What evidence do you base your belief, if any?

[sleepyhead]

I'm technically not an atheist since I believe in the possibility of a spiritual or mystical essence to reality.

What evidence do you base your belief, if any?

Hello,

I would prefer the thread to just die than to be taken in some other direction.