What scientific discovery would it take to make you believe in God?

>What scientific discovery would it take to make you believe in God?
The clouds parting and a huge figure appearing, thundering "yeah it's all true", would do a fine job.

>why does God not exist?
>because there is no evidence that God exists
>what evidence would it take to prove that God exists?
>none
>why?
>because God doesn't exist
>...

Master logician here, folks.

If that happened to me, my first assumption would be that I went insane. At least you have to confirm that several other peolple saw the same thing, somebody captured it on camera, and there's absolutely no way that this was faked by some agency.

Interestingly, this is part of the apocalyptic prophecy in Christianity. If this happened amidst the worst war, famine, and terror you've ever seen or heard of, would you then believe? Even if it meant that you'd be the victim of said terror?

Let's say that all of the above happened (other people saw it, it was captured on camera, and that it was proved beyond doubt that no agency had faked it). Would you believe?

Now let's say that God, following this event, guaranteed that he would not do anything this public for another ~5000 years. How would you preserve this evidence such that nobody in the future begins to doubt it? In other words, how do you prevent this now-settled question from being asked again due to the doubts of people born generations after the event?

>If this happened amidst the worst war, famine, and terror you've ever seen or heard of, would you then believe?
Sure. It would be a prediction by the bible, coming true, that would be hopelessly improbable if god did NOT exist. That's what evidence is.

>Even if it meant that you'd be the victim of said terror?
That would mean I would not be HAPPY about it, but that does not change the judgment that it's true. Belief is about judgments of fact, not about whether or not the believer condones the result.

Hmmmm really makes you think

I suppose the question here is not whether or not you'd be a believer in the sense that you acknowledge that God exists but rather a believer in the sense that you become a Christian. Another obvious course of action would be to accept the existence of God but be against him for one reason or another.

I remember reading a book with this premise. It was some kind of Dan Brown lite type thriller where some corporation pull a stunt like that to market their soft drink or some shit

>If that happened to me, my first assumption would be that I went insane.
Insanity is a hypothesis of maximum entropy: it predicts all possible experiences equally strongly. You should be VERY wary to suspect insanity, when in fact there is a readily available hypothesis that strongly predicts the specific experience you just had.

>Without that, there is no reaon to belive in a god.

Pascal's wager?

Literally bringing people back from the death. And I mean already decomposed people.

Every person in the world, gets a letter, which materialises before their own eyes, from thin air. It explains in their language that this is god and stuff and predicts what happens in future at certain hour that day in their life (a lamp breaks or something) or it mentions something from that persons past, that only he knows. Now, of course some kids and people who can't read would be left out, but if 6 billion people received the letters, I think there would be no doubters.
But who are we kidding here? There is no god.

I mean, I'd say that the Bible and the current state of the world reflects the same premise.

Witnesses claim and documented that God revealed himself 2000 years ago (and then a few thousand years before that) in the best way that they could. We are now discussing whether or not the experiences of these people reflect reality.

>I suppose the question here is not whether or not you'd be a believer in the sense that you acknowledge that God exists but rather a believer in the sense that you become a Christian.
Hm... I suppose that would depend on what exactly God were to say to me from the clouds.

Two complications apply here. First, there are a lot of proposed deities that could match my description above, as well as a bunch of non-divine characters (like the stereotypical alien teenagers trying to mess with people). God would have to say a bunch of details that would make me recognize him as the character from Christianity, specifically. (How do I distinguish that god from the Jewish one? I'm sure there is an answer, but I don't know the details, not having studied much religion myself.) But if God were to say things like "yeah specifically the first and second testament histories are true, everything else is bullshit" then that would be quite unambiguous.

Second, God as the character in Christianity is kind of a dick, and it would take some convincing for me to become a *follower* of the character rather than just someone acknowledging that he exists. But if, for example, God were to present an excellent case why various biblical atrocities were in fact entirely sensible all things considered, that would be a different matter. (Note that I don't expect any such justification to exist -- which is exactly why God convincing me *anyway* would be good evidence. Me hearing a good justification is something I expect to be extremely unlikely in a world without God, and much more feasible in a world with one.)

The god could just plant the belief into everyone. I mean, one day everyone becomes a believer with a strong internal knowledge, that god exists.
???
Profit

The discovery that raping children is good for you would make me muslim.

*tips*

I recall doing some philosophy lectures on that and it doesn't actually logically add up. But then again i cant remember a word of that and most unis are keen to attack christians at every turn so who knows.

It's hilarious how many christian threads there are on sci. Science really threatens their shit-tier brains.

If the old testament god was true, he would not give a single fuck about proving he is god. He would just be like "lol fuck you fedorino" and send you to hell

Gender, if accept pseudoscietific observations, is much more like a vector space.

Although there is some hardcore religious shitposting, this is a good mental exercise.

which god ?

I think a common issue people cite with that is that it's still near impossible for you to predict the correct God anyway, there are too many belief systems that already exist for this to be in your favor. Besides this there's the case of "What if there is a divine being or group of beings that created us and it none of our world belief systems actually follow them?"

The numbers don't really work out in your favor no matter what you follow.

Which God?

Frost giants returning along with Fenrir eating the sun and moon would convince me.

An infinitely burning bush that speaks would also be convincing if it occurred under sterile conditions.

>nothing in OP's post mentions christianity in particular
>REEE CHRISTFAGS!
Show on a doll where the pastor touched you

god helmet

There can only be one God per Universe. We just don't know anything more.

Goddidit is a fallacy

I think the rapture would suffice nicely, or if we're not going judeo christian, then any avatar that has no problem getting into things here on earth, coming "once again"

Christianity is toxic and I can't believe it's still somehow managing to survive preying on gullible idiots around the world.

I bet many of these "idiot" are smarter than you.

I always found fascinating how narrow minded people are to be able to say things like this. They are CONVINCED that people believing in a good are automatically idiots.

In a god*

>Typo implying god is good

God exists confirmed.

God: Human from the future/ alternate universe that arrives at the beginning with the sum of human discoveries that are then used to recreate/create/emulate the universe said god came from.

Angels:Homunculi with wings

>A scientific discovery with that property does not exist.

A lot of shit didn't exist before the necessary scientific discoveries were made to attain said possibility.

No it's not. It's complete bullshit. If you think this is "a good mental exercise" you don't belong on sci. The only necessary response is: Russel's Teapot. Anything else just encourages the relfags.

Low-IQ shill.

Yet another shit-tier adolescent. Why are there so many low-IQ shills on sci?

It would be like any other historical fact, except it would be the most important one. There would be textbook chapters written about it, research papers, museum exhibits, and the evidence would be collected and made widely available.

How can numbers be real if our eyes aren't real

How do we know the concept of death truly exists though? How do you know it isn't a form of conscious sleep, in which your consciousness remains in a sleep like state while your body rots? The bible does say that when you die, your simply sleeping, and no one can really validate what death truly is because of decomposition.

Except that you have that story from every religion. If god wasn't a meme perhaps people would pay attention to the "evidence" a bit more.

>hundreds of wars happen, libraries are burned, ethnics are cleansed, publications hidden and censored, speech stifled and facts perverted
>only one book survives

>MUH BIG EXPENSIVE CHRISTIAN ART
Yup, you're dumb.

Global war will never occur again.

Such a stupid question. I don't even know where to begin. Go take some science courses and some philosophy courses and leave sci the fuck alone till you graduate from high school.

Seems like World War 3 is on the horizon to me. There's already cyber warfare and escalating tensions.

What truly is death? Do we actually have a solid grasp on what it is?

Tell that to the "prayer works" memers.

A repeatable method to interact with this God.

I don't see how that would be a problem for someone who is infinitely powerful.

If we actually discover a theory of everything then that would be "God".

War costs too much money and almost all countries share too much economic interests with others countries to start a war.

China is the first creditor of the USA, meaning that if China start a war against the US they lose all the debt that they have accumulated and that if America starts a war against China, they lose their first financial resource, and all the factories they have over there.

It is literally a lose-lose situation, no country has enough military power to take down and dominate another country. The US couldn't even do it for Irak, imagine what it would cost for China or Russia. It is also true for the other way around.

>Anything else just encourages the relfags.

What's wrong in encouraging religious fags?

The fuck are you talking about, war is very profitable, the united states runs on it.

Some companies in the US run on it, mostly by picking on small countries that can barely retaliate. WW3 would be very different from that.

Isn't North Korea the perfect catalyst for this whole thing. China props north korea up to piss of the US. US eventually is forced to act but can't pin it on China because china didn't support the NK from a public eye. China then would have a justified reason for attacking the US since the US messed with it's ally. Couldn't things play out like that?

>sci fags avoiding the question

truthfully the answers lie in the black hole

Actually, if we could understand what death truly is, that yield sufficient proof. The bible claims that death is simply a form of sleep. If you could verify that, then indeed it would be +1 for the Bible.

Shitty god desu

China doesn't want nukes near its borders, whether they are US or NK. If NK goes berserk, China will be the first to strike it down.

But yeah, NK is the free electron of the equation, mostly because they cut most of their economic connections with the rest of the world, so they have very little to lose.

They are on the verge of famine if I'm not mistaken, not sure how this will play out.

any kind of rock solid proof of god is proof of a god that isn't what i'd call "god"
the point of faith is belief in the total absence of evidence, and having a little doubt in there is healthy
any god which can be proved to exist is just a very powerful being but not god

now everyone go back to posting bill nye

>tfw dumbfucks try to decipher pascals wager

you'd be retarded NOT to live a virtuous life with a belief that a god exists and that you're misguided.

why?

you win? eternal joy
you lose? nothing
you lose bc god sucks? lower chance than living like a sinner with no belief in a god

that doesn't really work because it assumes there is a "correct" religion. what if the correct religion is the Egyptian pantheon? If you go abrahamic you don't get nothing when you "lose", you get the Egyptian equivalent of eternal damnation

>you lose bc god sucks? lower chance than living like a sinner with no belief in a god
done

other religions also have + for living a virtuous life

The true God may only punish people for being religious, and there is NO argument for why this God is less likely to exist than any other God.

>what is risk management
am I on Veeky Forums or IGN forums?

>you'd be retarded NOT to live a virtuous life with a belief that a god exists and that you're misguided.

>missing the point
It could be the case that God only punishes those who do what you propose, in which case it's better to NOT live a virtuous life and NOT believe a god exists. There is no formal argument as to why this is likely to occur than the type of God you are alluding to.

>you win? eternal joy
If you follow ethical principles only for the promise of eternal joy you aren't following ethical principles.

>you lose? nothing
>Implying that I lose nothing from slaving my life away with religious principles

>tfw dumbfucks try to decipher pascals wager

you'd be retarded NOT to live a virtuous life with a belief that a FSM exists and that you're misguided.

why?

you win? eternal joy and delight in eating delicious meatballs
you lose? nothing
you lose bc FSM sucks? lower chance than living like a sinner with no belief in FSM

>don't be a cunt to others and pray once in a while
>"slaving my life away"

God might specifically condemn only people who do that. There is nothing preventing that from being the case, so God cannot be used to justify acting like that.

Tell me what abstaining from sex before marriage has to do with not being a cunt.

Tell me what denying without any thought scientific theories like evolution has to do with not being a cunt.

Tell me what suppressing my passions has to do with not being a cunt (The 7 deadly sins of gluttony, lust, greed, etc.)

There are ways of not being a cunt without being religious or believing in God, and there is no basis for what you see as objective ethical principles.

I feel like "God" is just a personification of the universe itself.

Jesus is just a guy who made a few simple observations, leading him to the conclusion that everything is made out of the same stuff, the universe is essentially indivisible, and this means what's best for any one person truly is what's best for everyone.

He then communicated this to the people around him in a way they could understand- by creating the notion of God to explain how the universe is basically just one thing

Jesus was smart af

I shouldn't have said that Jesus "created" the notion of God, but you guys know what I mean. People like Jesus, Muhammad, Abraham, etc. were just regular dudes who made some simple observations and decided to communicate the great truths about nature through religion.

maybe verifying some type of M-theory

God is more likely to be rational than not, because the Universe seems to be quite rational. Worship seems like a good bet.

A virtuous life can be justified on its merits. Choosing to believe any given god or pantheon of gods (and assuming that the aforementioned cannot distinguish between your insincere, opportunistic belief and that of true believers) is just as likely to damn you as it is to save you, considering there is no reliable way of determining which of them is genuine.

what book? sounds cool

Hey Veeky Forums, God here.

Just wanted to say I appreciate the shitposting. Top zoz. Anyway, tripfagging is now a mortal sin.

If sone autist could screenshot this and put it into the next bible, I'd appreciate it.

Shit, phone's at 1%, but I also wanted to clarify that I hate fa

This is why God doesn't bother (very often)

if God fully revealed himself beyond a shadow of a doubt I doubt there would ever be war again because everyone would just convert to Christianity (or whatever) and we'd all follow the same ideology

> everyone would just convert to Christianity
You assume it will be the Christian God.

Plus, in the Book of Revelation, the anti-Christ appears and claims to be the False Prophet. Sort of a safety valve against anyone trying a repeat of the Christ thing.

Why was God retarded enough to make an anti-God? Literally what was the point

Maybe finding out some element of reality trough which God would balance things out or let reality play according to his "plan" and if we would have the possibility to temper with it and see intelligent responses from it..

or simply said finding self-correcting stuff inside the fabric of universe would be enough, it would prove the intelligent designer - not necessarily a personal God - I think that's already an answered question, there's no such thing as a personal God.

Majority of humans throughout humanity existence were illiterate, ever after Torah was written... so If the supreme being intended that channel to prove his existence so that people follow his guide book - it wasn't a good move.

He could've put something in our brains to hallucinate an angel or something that trough our life asks us if we want to follow God - but otherwise we're totally free to do w/e we want - that would make the religions God seem real.

And then 3 minutes later nuclear explosions everywhere - game over, well played humanity.

Prove it.

Nice assumption, friendo. I assume you're 12.