What would it take for you to believe in a god or gods?

[Alenthony]

Two part answer:

1. I would believe in one or more "god-like" beings if there was sufficient evidence for them, evidence that could not be more easily explained by some other, simpler construct, evidence that survived a peer-review process, etc. Such beings may have certain attributes that one tends to associate with a god-being, but could not have all of them traditionally ascribed to capital-G God, as those are inconsistent with each other.

2. I've come to the conclusion that there is no way that a god-like being that had a few of the god-like traits could ever demonstrate that he/she/it had somehow created everything and was in fact the capital G God. Therefore I would never believe in such a being.

[Karras]

I find this one very difficult to answer effectively.

The only being I could say is unambiguously a god is a supernatural being that is in fact omnipotent. As this very concept is self-contradictory, I cannot see me ever coming to accept the existence of such a being.

Considering any non-omnipotent being, their deification becomes very subjective.

Assuming the existence of supernatural beings, how powerful does one have to become, in order to be considered a god? I doubt anyone would claim the common or garden variety poltergeist would qualify. What then of angels and demons? The stories concerning these entities often suggest they have powers beyond the comprehension of any human, yet we still do not typically call them gods in themselves.

The bare minimum I would expect would be a supernatural being that could do things no natural being ever could. Simply doing the same but faster or more efficiently is not enough to convince me of divinity. Even then, this would just be a starting point.

The short answer I guess is that I can envisage belief in the supernatural, if compelling enough evidence were repsented to me, but I would remain sceptical as to whether any such being could be considered a god.

[Dragon_Of_Heavon]

Under the proposed examples and constraints I would either be killed by said *outsider* or killed by the locals for defying their brand new God. The reason is because I would keep asking questions on how a thing was done as well as observe it until i found out how it was accomplished. If the scientists would not tell me (and as this is set back in the middle ages) I would most likely whack them over the head take any thing I did not recognize. Then I would tie them up and *encourage* them to tell me how things worked. Now a days my action would be similar but less barbaric. I would keep questioning them until it became annoying to them and they left. I don't believe in Gods but I am always open to people being smarter than me.

[Karras]

I don't believe in Gods but I am always open to people being smarter than me.

I think this highlights a flaw in my answer tbh.

I might believe in the supernatural if given enough evidence, but in all likelyhood this would simply be a case of me not being smart enough to understand how things actually do work.

Ghost/spirit/angel/demon/leprechaun/tooth fairy/etc of the gaps, if you will.

[michael]

What would it take for you to believe in a god or gods?

Proof.
 

[maestroanth]

F

[JillSwift]

I get what you mean,

but Dr Pepper (lawl a cool diet pop) does have a point.

I never liked this forum for one thing, b/c they can't philosophically destinguish their nuturing effects of God (AKA being raised by a doctrine to emotion) to a philosophical  (independant from emotion) one.  They fake happiness, w/o understanding it.

Dawkins himself has a few key fallacies. Even the forum over the dawkins site is more objective than ppl recovering over how religion sucks.

Likewise, I grew balls and I'm agnostic.

Being happy and atheist makes not sense emotionally.  Being happy in acceptance of continuous mystery makes sense emotionally.

This is why we have the space program, this is why we picture love, this is why we picture a HP.

I hope the moon is the first step.

Pardon me, sir, but: No.

You are misusing the term "agnostic". It is not a middle ground between belief and non-belief, instead - as it's root word "gnosis" would suggest - it is a description of knowledge. You can believe or not believe and still not claim knowledge.

It makes perfect sense - emotionally and otherwise - to not believe in a god or gods and be happy.

Also, your rather insulting suggestion that anyone gnostic about their belief is "without balls" makes little sense. It's not about courage or testicular fortitude, it's about having a well constructed argument to base your claim of knowledge on. You can not make sweeping judgments about such things while not addressing the arguments at hand. To do so is to be intellectually dishonest.

Finally, you've made an assertion without citing any facts to back it - in your first full paragraph on the above post. It reeks of fallacious thinking, but can not be argued with because it has no context to argue. It even contains a term of uncertain meaning - "fake happiness".

[curiosityandthecat]

Pardon me, sir, but: No.

You are misusing the term "agnostic". It is not a middle ground between belief and non-belief, instead - as it's root word "gnosis" would suggest - it is a description of knowledge. You can believe or not believe and still not claim knowledge.

It makes perfect sense - emotionally and otherwise - to not believe in a god or gods and be happy.

Also, your rather insulting suggestion that anyone gnostic about their belief is "without balls" makes little sense. It's not about courage or testicular fortitude, it's about having a well constructed argument to base your claim of knowledge on. You can not make sweeping judgments about such things while not addressing the arguments at hand. To do so is to be intellectually dishonest.

Finally, you've made an assertion without citing any facts to back it - in your first full paragraph on the above post. It reeks of fallacious thinking, but can not be argued with because it has no context to argue. It even contains a term of uncertain meaning - "fake happiness".

Don't bother. Seriously.  

[JillSwift]

Don't bother. Seriously.  

Ah. Bummer.
Thanks for the heads-up. Appreciated.

[skeptic griggsy]

Ignostic that I am,I cannot accept a being whose attributes are incoherent and contradict each other, whether an omni-being or a limited being, anthropomorphic or metaphysical [contrary to Dr, Paul Edwards, who thought the former different:]. Each of the arguments fails, affirming thereby igmosticsm. The notions of First Cause and Grand Designer themselves are incoherent: how can the First Cause make sense when cause is eternal, thereby eliminating a first cause, and patterns aren't designs, thereby eliminating a designer.  :eek2:  :brick:
  As a free being, why should I worship anyway? No God owns me! lol

[Renegnicat]

There's so many definitions of "god", that it seems I could claim a rock was a god if the definition of god was, "rock". The fact that god is supernatural really just means that we can give god any definition we want. But if someone from the future came to the past and told me to worship him, I'd tell him to suck my plums.

[skeptic griggsy]

 God is the ground of nothing. it is equilateral to the collateral for the lateral side of being. So much for theology, that silly nonsense!

[Ellainix]

Kill the Buddha.

 

[AlP]

Wouldn't Buddha just reincarnate and kick his ass?

Been thinking about this... If someone told me there was a book with the following criteria, I would believe in God:
1) Must describe an awesome guy.
2) Awesome guy must have magical powers and work in mysterious ways.
3) Awesome guy inspired the author by means of aforementioned magical powers.
4) Must be non-fiction.
5) Must be very old and very popular and thus true and yet internally inconsistent so I need faith.

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Aip,indeed! :bananacolor
:  As we have our level of consciousness, we grant ourselves liberty so that thereby we acquire it  neither from any God nor the state, and thus have no shepherd or potter to be our totalitarian leader. No God has the right to condemn us or demand worship from us! So, God  would just have the one-way rapport with us- that of putting us in a far better  place in the first place as noted @ the problem of Heaven.
 So,and as I have illustrated, how can He even exist being incoherent and no argument can instantiate Him. So, the matter results in a psychological factor of human life. Since most theists never know our atheology it is a problem of ignorance as well.
  So, nothing can ever convince me that a square circle is possible! That is a matter of conceptual analysis rather than one of dogmmtism or a close mind just as one does not even try to see if a perpetual motion machine realizes itself. :brick: