How Would You Prove Your God?

[stephyjh]

Hey! All Turquoises are definitely the same Turquoise, just different SHADES. If you start to separate them out to such a granular degree, how do we REALLY know that two people are even USING THE SAME COLORS?

 
Shade is defined as the amount of black added to make the color. To get from Turquoise to Blue Turquoise, one adds blue. That's a variation in hue, not shade. So they're actually not using the same colors. THAT'S THE POINT. Gods, why don't you GET it?!

[mlr52]

This got me wondering, how would neo-pagans frame the evidence for their gods' existences? If someone asked you what evidence convinced you of your god's existence, what would you say? Hopefully it will make more sense.

I did not create or give life to myself.

[mlr52]

This got me wondering, how would neo-pagans frame the evidence for their gods' existences? If someone asked you what evidence convinced you of your god's existence, what would you say? Hopefully it will make more sense.

 
Second response first I could not edit.

I did not create myself, I did not give life to myself.
It is not my job to convince anyone that any God exists.  I am quite sure that any God can convince any mortal they exist should they want to.

[stephyjh]

Shade is defined as the amount of black added to make the color. To get from Turquoise to Blue Turquoise, one adds blue. That's a variation in hue, not shade. So they're actually not using the same colors. THAT'S THE POINT. Gods, why don't you GET it?!

 
I know that several of us seem to be on the same wavelength here, but I think it might be useful to point out for observers *why* the color threadjack happened. The thing is that the arguments we're making for and against the colors being the same are the exact same ones that are made for and against soft polytheism. And after trying to explain to the same poster enough times that most of us don't care about proving the validity of our religions, eventually people fail their save against the snark.

[MadZealot]

I know that several of us seem to be on the same wavelength here, but I think it might be useful to point out for observers *why* the color threadjack happened.

 

Because y'all are crazy.  A good crazy.  I was able to laugh at the absurdity and still get exactly what you were doing.  
Also, +1 for the RPG-mechanics bit.

[mlr52]

I know that several of us seem to be on the same wavelength here, but I think it might be useful to point out for observers *why* the color threadjack happened. The thing is that the arguments we're making for and against the colors being the same are the exact same ones that are made for and against soft polytheism. And after trying to explain to the same poster enough times that most of us don't care about proving the validity of our religions, eventually people fail their save against the snark.

 
Bummer man.  In the 60's I did not take the double barrow sunshine pills, so I did not see THE COLORS, and here this thread was doing so well describing what I missed.

[stephyjh]

Bummer man.  In the 60's I did not take the double barrow sunshine pills, so I did not see THE COLORS, and here this thread was doing so well describing what I missed.

 
I can provide links to demonstrate my points if you'd like, but I'm pretty sure you don't need my help to find the Pantone catalog.

[stephyjh]

Because y'all are crazy.  A good crazy.  I was able to laugh at the absurdity and still get exactly what you were doing.  
Also, +1 for the RPG-mechanics bit.

 
One of these days I'll make up my mind as to whether this shirt is Too Much for a DDD cup. :p

[mlr52]

I can provide links to demonstrate my points if you'd like, but I'm pretty sure you don't need my help to find the Pantone catalog.

 
But TC brings them to life.

[MadZealot]

One of these days I'll make up my mind as to whether this shirt is Too Much for a DDD cup. :p

 
That's.  Fucking. Awesome.

[EclecticWheel]

Well, just got the summer issue of Skeptic magazine (volume 19, number 2). In it is contained a three-page article entitled "In Defense of Soft Theism," by Miklos Jako, a retired teacher who has been trying to reconcile theists and atheists for the past 45 years. This article is meant to be his solution to the problem, in which he tries to convince atheists of the certainty of his god's probable existence. I guess his view could be called "hard agnosticism."

After reading it I seriously considered vomiting (might still), or returning the magazine, asking how this little nugget of bilge got passed the editor. Anyway, this is the god that Mr. Jako does not worship:

1. is equally semi-benevolent and semi-malevolent
2. cares for, and is cruel to, humans in an intangible way for it does not intervene with our lives
3. is utterly devoid of physical matter and is completely disconnected from the universe and thus exists out of the bounds of the laws of nature, physics, and anything resembling logic
4. for these reasons, the supreme being cannot be communicated with in any way, thereby proving that religion is pointless

How does he prove his god exists? In three simple ways that should win over anyone with half a rational brain:

1. the existence of the universe requires it to have been created by a creator. (One wonders, though, how a being that is devoid of, and disconnected from, matter can do this.)
2. life cannot evolve from pre-biotic cells, it must come from a living being. (Again, one wonders how a non-physical being can be "alive," let alone produce life.)
3. the indefinable life and death forces exist. Without god energizing all our biological functions, degenerations, and evolutionary processes they would not happen. (Once again, how a non-intervening being that is disconnected from the universe can do this is subject to question.)

He's convinced-is anyone else?

This got me wondering, how would neo-pagans frame the evidence for their gods' existences? If someone asked you what evidence convinced you of your god's existence, what would you say? Hopefully it will make more sense.

I approach all gods as though they exist, although not the same way as a hard polytheist and with at least some differences from *some* versions of soft polytheism I have read about - I don't think different fertility goddesses are interchangeable in a ritual, not necessarily.  I believe purely modern deities exist as well, though I don't think deities exist in the same way as a rock or something else physical.  But I am a naturalist/materialist, philosophically speaking.

Regardless of my personal beliefs or lack thereof, I don't think it is possible to prove the existence or non-existence of deities, though the non-existence of a particular deity may be inferred.  If one proposes the existence of a deity that created everything and the earth only 10,000 years ago (creationist fundies) I could infer that deity doesn't exist, but it may be that he does exist, and those characteristics are falsely attributed to him.

The closest to proof I could give for my god belief is that since I ultimately interpret God as the universe (though I am loosely a heteradox Episcopalian but rarely attend the Eucharist anymore) I could say the universe exists.  Even then someone may dispute that the universe really exists.

So basically I don't think it can be proven either way - agnosticism.

[RandallS]

I would never feel the need to prove to someone that my Gods exist, same as i would never feel the need to prove my partner loves me or turquoise is my favorite colour, or my genderqueerness. If other people don't believe these things that's not my problem.

This is pretty much how I feel. I've never seen a convincing proof that any deity exists and I don't feel the need to prove to others that the Gods I believe in exist. BTW, the "proof" in the article referred to by the OP is one of the less convincing proofs for a JCI-like deity I've seen. I can't imagine why space was wasted printing it in a publication like Skeptic unless they were just looking to stir people up.

[RandallS]

I've never seen a convincing proof that any deity exists...

Clarification: By "convincing proof" I mean a "proof" presented to prove to skeptics that the god the author of the proof is proofing actually exists.

[Sophia C]

If someone asked you what evidence convinced you of your god's existence, what would you say?

My gods are proven all the time. Scientific research regularly confirms the existence of land, sea and sky. I'm done.

[Sage]

My gods are proven all the time. Scientific research regularly confirms the existence of land, sea and sky. I'm done.

 
I don't know, I'm awfully skeptical about the ocean.