What might make me change my mind about the existence of god(s)?

[Tank]

What might make me change my mind about the existence of god(s)?

1. Unequivocal evidence* of a Supernatural Realm.

2. Repeatable, reliable and robust laws of behaviour for elements of  said Supernatural Realm in the same way that gravity has repeatable, reliable and robust laws of behaviour.

3. That 'part' of the Supernatural Realm is conscious of the Universe as we perceive it to be.

4. That 'part' created the Universe that we perceive.

5. That 'part' interacted with the Universe we perceive in a systematic and structured manner.

6. All of the above is open to free examination from full disclosure of methods and sources that are independently scrutinised and corroborated by impartial people, organisations and systems.

This would get my attention if it were all in place, documented and verifiable. Until then I will disregard the unsupported claims of religions about their god(s).

*That would not be anecdotal arguments from alleged 'personal experience' or a claim in a book, holy or otherwise,

[Icarus]

Rest easy Tank. Your number specification renders the whole deal moot.   

That is not the case for deeply religious people.  They are more than certain that they have evidence of their god and/or savior. Prayers answered and all that sort of thing.  The deeply religious often agree that "God works in mysterious ways", which gives them a way to circumvent anything resembling an intelligent argument.

Your last comment, the one with the star, covers the whole deal. Never the less, we heathens must be careful. There are hordes of people who believe that they are duty bound to kill infidels.   

[Tank]

The asterisk is a footnote to point 1. Which as you say would cover the whole deal.

[zorkan]

What might make me change my mind about the existence of god(s)?

1. Unequivocal evidence* of a Supernatural Realm.

2. Repeatable, reliable and robust laws of behaviour for elements of  said Supernatural Realm in the same way that gravity has repeatable, reliable and robust laws of behaviour.

"God" is only a name tag to describe what we don't know, the gaps in our knowledge which need to be filled in some way.
What we do know or have at least a work-in-progress is called science.
What we don't know is called god.

Example: We know that the universe works primarily off mathematics, but we don't have a complete mathematical bible. If we did we might have a theory of everything that would in turn reveal if a creator must exist or there is no need for one.

3. That 'part' of the Supernatural Realm is conscious of the Universe as we perceive it to be.

4. That 'part' created the Universe that we perceive.

5. That 'part' interacted with the Universe we perceive in a systematic and structured manner.

I partly only understand what you say.

6. All of the above is open to free examination from full disclosure of methods and sources that are independently scrutinised and corroborated by impartial people, organisations and systems.

This would get my attention if it were all in place, documented and verifiable. Until then I will disregard the unsupported claims of religions about their god(s).

Religion can only work off faith. That's because as yet there is no evidence to prove the existence or non-existence of god(s).
I suspect that most people in their life will think of something like Pascal's Wager.
People in their fragility do appear to want a belief that their whole life hasn't all been in vain and an afterlife awaits.
Even science gets in on the act with the idea there could be many copies of you out there. When you die here on earth there will still be a "you" somewhere.

[The Magic Pudding..]

Could this be evidence of reincarnation?

[Tank]

Undoubtedly!

[zorkan]

Egyptians worshipped cats and believed in reincarnation, so is its name Bastet?
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bastet
 

[Old Seer]

God = Any and all the powers that one is under and must submit to.

[Asmodean]

My list would go something like this;

1. A proper, workable and agreed-upon definition. Which god, and what about that entity, if an entity it even is, constitutes its godliness?

From there,

2. Testability. Are the attributes from 1 testable?
3. Predictive capability. Can a model be constructed that reliably predicts the interactions between the attributes in 1 and the Universe? (I'm not talking about religious prophecies that those who profess religion tend to be so compelled by - those are not worth the paper they are written on)
4. The lack of a superior model that does not require and/or have room for gods as defined in 1.

As it stands, I don't even see a good enough reason to contemplate the possibility of gods existing, with the possible exception of having fun with mental gymnastics. I am, however, willing to engage with any idea that satisfies 1. Whether I agree with it or not... So far, the proverbial chips have invariably fallen to the latter.

[Old Seer]

  Start with - the term "God" as generic for power, rule, ruler, law etc. The term does not have to elude to anything supernatural. The term, Supernatural is what blinds one to the answers. Using something that doesn't exist to find the answers to something that does exist leads to no result.

Wrong word-elude
relate

[Tank]

"The term does not have to elude to anything supernatural."

Then it wouldn't be a fucking god then would it?

[Asmodean]

Mmmight be. There is that saying about sufficiently advanced tech and magic.

If power and/or knowledge make a god, there may hypothetically exist creatures that fit the description well enough for government work. Now, whether that *point* particular god is one such creature or just a puff of imaginary smoke... YHWH is certainly the latter. Ra... Is just a ball of mostly-hydrogen-and-some-helium. Cthulhu..? Mmmmore interesting, if you ask me, though unfortunately-fictitious.

[Old Seer]

Universal law/nature rules the universe. No theistic god, superhuman or religion and prayer needed. Universal law covers all sciences, material and psychological. Mommy and daddy nature rule. 

[billy rubin]

if i met a god, and was reasonably convinced i had done so, i would consider it reasonable to believe in them. or that one, anyway.

[Asmodean]

Universal law/nature rules the universe.'

Does it though, rather than itself being an emergent property of the universe it is supposed to govern?

No theistic god, superhuman or religion and prayer needed.

I think if we look at a not-uncommon view of what the Abrahamic god is, that god would by necessity have to be the universe. Thus, when you pray, you kinda' just pray to yourself, and so unless you were to do something about the subject of your prayer yourself, then nothing would be done. "Oh lord, the all-knowing and ever-present, I really wants me a new Audi!" Well, being ever-present, the lord is also you. Every bloody particle that constitutes you, in fact. As such, he also wants that Audi. His bank account, however... Thin enough to have to pray for one, apparently.

Universal law covers all sciences, material and psychological. Mommy and daddy nature rule. 

It emerges from relations and interactions. The Sun and the Earth do not attract each other because it's the law. The law, however, describes, predicts and allows us to model how they do it.