Does anyone have a strong argument against God?

[Bloodshadow]

However, assuming a god exists and does not want to disable your rational thought process, what would be sufficient to convince you?

I dunno. He's supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient. He can figure it out if he exist and if he wants me to believe.

[OldTrees]

However, assuming a god exists and does not want to disable your rational thought process, what would be sufficient to convince you?

I dunno. He's supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient. He can figure it out if he exist and if he wants me to believe.

If your perspective is such that the only evidence that would convince you is logically impossible would you fault a logically constrained God (the typically meaning of omnipotence) for not convincing you? The only way to know if you do not have this kind of a perspective is to identify at least 1 possible evidence that would convince you.

[Belthus]

If the person trying to convert me jumped off a tall building, splattered on the ground, and then became whole and uninjured again right there on the spot, then I would become much more receptive to that person's faith. Being of a scientific bent, I would want to see it repeated with others who share the same faith. Any takers?

That is gruesome, and I wouldn't want people to kill themselves. If someone wants to open a discussion on performing a miracle, I would be happy to brainstorm some safe ones. Given that miracles have an important place in sacred narratives, I think that asking to see some new ones is a reasonable request.

[Artois]

If the person trying to convert me jumped off a tall building, splattered on the ground, and then became whole and uninjured again right there on the spot, then I would become much more receptive to that person's faith. Being of a scientific bent, I would want to see it repeated with others who share the same faith. Any takers?

I think you'll find that 'Christian' God stopped doing major miracles around 1500-2000 years ago... and minor miracles ceased around the time of the enlightenment, or whatever it was called when people started to get scientific.  However, if a person can jump of a building, get splattered, and then reconstitute their body into an uninjured state, I'd sure like to know the science behind that!

[Neopergoss]

I think you'll find that 'Christian' God stopped doing major miracles around 1500-2000 years ago... and minor miracles ceased around the time of the enlightenment, or whatever it was called when people started to get scientific.

Convenient. Incidentally, I used to be able to make cold fusion by snapping my fingers, but I stopped doing that like 10 years ago 

[Belthus]

Fraud is the default explanation for miracles of the past. It's much easier to say that you raised the dead and have your friends say it than it is to do it. If we look at the miracle workers of today, they are frauds. "Mind readers" use assistants to gather information. "Faith healers" use audience plants. It is completely reasonable for people to extrapolate the fraud to "miracles" of the past. They didn't have trained skeptics who could spot the tricks in real time and expose fraud.

[OldTrees]

I am a bit confused why we are now on miracles. Miracles, even real miracles, would not be sufficient to convince most skeptics because it would merely point out that the current understanding of the laws of the universe are incomplete. Miracles, at least in the general sense, would not be conclusive evidence of a deity.

I am wondering if the atheists and agnostics in this thread can give an example bit of evidence that would be evidence of a god.

[Belthus]

First, I would say that a "conclusive" result is one that has been examined and replicated repeatedly by the scientific community. A one-off demonstration could never be conclusive.

Second, I would say you need two things: (1) a being that is present for inspection and (2) the being demonstrates powers and properties that fit the definition of god, whatever definition that may be. Miracles would address criterion 2, though the presumed being would remain hidden if a disciple did the miracles. Criterion 1 was no problem according to all the sacred stories of gods interacting with humans in ways that were observable - i.e., not just quiet whispering inside one's head.

[RagingAlien]

Evidence of a god? hmm... That would (At leats to Douglas Adams) be impossible. "Proof denies Faith, and without Faith, I am nothing" - God

However, proof of the existance of God, for me, would be the world ending WITHOUT any nearby stars going supernova. There is an obvious problem there, though.

[OldTrees]

First, I would say that a "conclusive" result is one that has been examined and replicated repeatedly by the scientific community. A one-off demonstration could never be conclusive.

Second, I would say you need two things: (1) a being that is present for inspection and (2) the being demonstrates powers and properties that fit the definition of god, whatever definition that may be. Miracles would address criterion 2, though the presumed being would remain hidden if a disciple did the miracles. Criterion 1 was no problem according to all the sacred stories of gods interacting with humans in ways that were observable - i.e., not just quiet whispering inside one's head.

2 is insufficient. A God can raise his hand. I can raise my hand. My raising my hand is demonstrating a power that fits the definition of a god but also fits the definition of a human.
Fixed 2: 'the being demonstrates powers or properties that are a sufficient condition of being a deity.'
What sufficient conditions would be demonstrable? Are they truly sufficient conditions?
I submit for disproving the claim that skepticism is powerful enough in the modern atheist that  no sufficient conditions for the existence of a deity are demonstrable.

[Belthus]

2 is insufficient. A God can raise his hand. I can raise my hand. My raising my hand is demonstrating a power that fits the definition of a god but also fits the definition of a human.
Fixed 2: 'the being demonstrates powers or properties that are a sufficient condition of being a deity.'

So now you have to define "deity," and there is no consensus on that score. You just kicked the can down the road.

If you want to define "god" or "deity" in a trivial way ("The word 'god' is a synomyn for my big toe."), then you can demonstrate its existence. I assume that believers will be more ambitious.

What sufficient conditions would be demonstrable? Are they truly sufficient conditions?

I submit for disproving the claim that skepticism is powerful enough in the modern atheist that  no sufficient conditions for the existence of a deity are demonstrable.

I submit that god talk is nothing but talk, with no substance behind it. Your faith is insufficient for you to move into the realm of demonstrative action. Start shitting gold bricks on TV or bring Pat Tillman back from the dead. Stop worrying about the "conclusive" part. Miracles will give me pause that my world view is insufficient. You can dot the i's and cross the t's later. Get the ball rolling by doing something that cannot be explained by natural science. If you have enough faith, that is.

[Neopergoss]

First, I would say that a "conclusive" result is one that has been examined and replicated repeatedly by the scientific community. A one-off demonstration could never be conclusive.

Second, I would say you need two things: (1) a being that is present for inspection and (2) the being demonstrates powers and properties that fit the definition of god, whatever definition that may be. Miracles would address criterion 2, though the presumed being would remain hidden if a disciple did the miracles. Criterion 1 was no problem according to all the sacred stories of gods interacting with humans in ways that were observable - i.e., not just quiet whispering inside one's head.

2 is insufficient. A God can raise his hand. I can raise my hand. My raising my hand is demonstrating a power that fits the definition of a god but also fits the definition of a human.
Fixed 2: 'the being demonstrates powers or properties that are a sufficient condition of being a deity.'
What sufficient conditions would be demonstrable? Are they truly sufficient conditions?
I submit for disproving the claim that skepticism is powerful enough in the modern atheist that  no sufficient conditions for the existence of a deity are demonstrable.

Numerous examples have been given here and in other threads of things that would if not convince atheists, would at least make them stop to reconsider. Surely if they were repeated they would be believed. I've mentioned keyboards turning into cheese as I type responses, Belthus mentioned a person reforming after splattering on concrete. Anything "miraculous" fits this description.

In fact, there is a related challenge for someone to prove that they have supernatural powers. There is a $1,000,000 reward. One well-known test was performed on people claiming to be able to see auras floating around people. Auras supposedly could pass through matter unaffected, and someone was sure enough of this ability to try to collect the prize. The test was simple: place the "psychic" in front of a wall. Have them say whether there is a person on the other side. Repeat, adding and removing people randomly. The psychic could not do better than random guessing. So it's not as though skeptics and atheists can't be convinced because they're closed-minded; it's because they're right! Or at least, they haven't been presented with evidence that there is a God, which, as is the point of this post, could exist.