Theist/Atheist - A double sided question

Theists:

1) What would convince you that God might not exist?

2) What would convince you that God does not exist?

Atheists:

1) What would convince you that the existence of God is a possibility?

2) What would convince you that the existence of God is true?

Define your terms as you wish.

1) What would convince you that God might not exist?

Not existing.

2) What would convince you that God does not exist?

Seeing the aliens.

1. If God is not omniscient and omnipotent.
2. If God declares its mind directly. Not through a prophet or a certain religion.

But, even in this case, it's more sensible not to call it/him/her as God.
The Creator or Architect is a more suitable term.

1) What would convince you that the existence of God is a possibility?

As long as the definition of God is meaningful and explains at least one observation, then it's a possibility.

2) What would convince you that the existence of God is true?

Direct observation or evidence.

Originally Posted by LemonSqueeze

1) What would convince you that the existence of God is a possibility?

I allready believe the existence of god is a possiblity, because I am a weak atheist, aka agnostic atheist.

2) What would convince you that the existence of God is true?

Define your terms as you wish.

Phenomena that violates the laws of nature, aka the supernatural.

1) What would convince you that the existence of God is a possibility?

No convincing needed. As above, I am an agnostic atheist so I think there is a possibility, mainly because human knowledge is so limited it would be pointless to rule out some form of higher consciousness. That said, while philosophically I can operate as an AA, functionally I am an atheist. As in, God or any form of supernatural phenomena is not considered as a variable while making real life decisions.

2) What would convince you that the existence of God is true?

Direct observation would be most likely, repeated a few times. I would have to rule out stress, fatigue, temporary insanity etc. Although it could technically be full-blown psychosis causing the visions it wouldn't matter as by that time God would be the least of my worries.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

1) What would convince you that the existence of God is a possibility?

As long as the definition of God is meaningful and explains at least one observation, then it's a possibility.

2) What would convince you that the existence of God is true?

Direct observation or evidence.

I would like to give my opinion on this. I hope you don't mind.

1. How can you determine if the definition of God is meaningful? and how can you choose which observation that could convince you of this possibility? I'm not saying that it "shouldn't" be meaningful, but you have to clarify what is this meaning? and even if you observe that God explains to you the creation process, how do you believe that this "being" is God?
   
2. About evidence, I don't think we really need direct experience or evidence to really accept God. For example, we could accept that Albert Einstein was a physicist who discovered Relativity Theory. Why do we believe this? Some people never even met him. I never met him. But, the possibility of Einstein to be true is somehow more convincing for me than God.

Because he fulfilled my criteria of existence. What's that criteria? The identity of Einstein is consistent in everyone's mind, because he made the effort to publish the similar thoughts and writings to people in his life. Other than the fact that Einstein's existence creates a positive progress for the human race, and he's not an egomaniac who always need servitude and sacrificial offerings like "God" or "Satan" (if you want to negate the term).

Also, if we interpret "God" as a life stream or cosmos as described by pantheism or paganism, that's not "God". That's the origin of life, spirit, or something similar.

I think that's it for now .

I would like to give my opinion on this. I hope you don't mind.

I appreciate it.

1. Well, the first question isn't easy. The definition would first have to be logically consistent, and apart from that, I guess the concept of God would have to have properties that clearly identify it. In other words, we can't have definitions like, "God is energy" and "God is everything".

As to the second question, that all depends on the concept of God in question. Let's say we see something very unusual, X, and someone says, "Oh! I know! God (a specific concept) did it, and here's how." If his argument makes sense, then the existence of God is a possibility.

The last question depends heavily on the definition of God give, so I don't know.

2. What I mean by evidence is a bit complicated. In short, the God explanation would have to be the best explanation of the observation X.

Okay, that would disqualify pantheism, paganism, or something similar. I agree with that as well.

The problem with your approach is God may not choose to reveal himself with an individual as an audience. He could however try to create a public appearance and declare that he's the architect of the universe. He may try to reveal the secrets of the cosmos and the universe.

Scientists may agree with his approach, and quite impressed. But, still the meaning of "God" as a supreme being diminish, and it becomes just an extraterrestrial being (not necessarily from another planet, just not from earth), the architect, probably with a specific name.

Because the word "God" is full of authoritarian meaning, too simple which is why people use it all the time for expressing things, or full of misinterpretations. It's not enough to identify the characteristics of a creator.

A Non-theist answer:

1.) I don't think that "God" can adequately be defined, let alone the mode of existence of such a thing. I simply tip my hat at this notion and let it do its thing.

2.) It's going to exist or not exist independent of my belief.