Discussion by: melaleuca
I was watching Richard Dawkins in discussion with Peter Boghossian (24/10/13) when they were asked “what would it take for them to believe God exists?” I watched as 2 keen intellects lapsed into silent speculation, and the crowd giggled at this “tableaux” (– no heavens opening, nor doves with branches; not a single heavenly note! God missed a fantastic opportunity right there!).Richard and Peter quickly canvassed some “proof of proprietorship” in terms of coded digits in number sequences amongst other possibilities.
For me, proof of God’s existence would be more easily established by a manifestation of the impossible. Like giant billboards appearing over our cities saying: “Sinners, repent!! God Inc. Pty Ltd”.
Means of support? None. Source of light energy? Glows at night, therefore none.
Construction material? Nothing tangible. Able to be masked? No.
Must be God! But wait – didn’t Arthur C Clarke say “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic?”
Damn! Maybe not God after all!!
God can't give proof of his/her existence, because there are grubby little humans who follow the line of "doubting Thomas" and who want to know that their senses are not lying to them; and who then want to know the mechanism by which we are able to perceive "god".