For atheists - What would satisfy your criterion for undeniable proof of God?

I see it that an atheist will only accept the personal experience of being in God's presence if it is his own experience, discarding the same evidence if it happened to someone else.

Your mother has a religious experience and you won't accept it as true.

Your child nearly dies and tells you he met God in Heaven; it was fantasy.

On and on it goes, everyone's testimony thrown out but your own.

To adhere to this type of strict requirement, it would follow that perhaps the atheist should make some attempt to contact God, to see if one of these religious experiences could happen to him.

But no, they won't go that far. No meditation, no reading of the books that would guide them, no conversations with great souls who have already walked the path.

Just denial, and ridicule for others.

Sometimes they will claim that they "tried that." But obviously their heart wasn't in it, they gave up immediately, they were unwilling to even do the preliminary exercises to still the jumping mind.

You can't become a geologist by standing at the college campus and yelling, "Geologist!"

You have to go into the building and start studying.

Same for God.

I've never asked for any such thing.

And you don't seem to understand that it's evidence that's required to show claims "true" or "false" -- not "proof."

Tell you what: if we found, using powerful microscopes, that every living cell had written on it in teeny-tiny letters, "I made this -- the christian god," that would be valid evidence. If your claimed god or claimed magic jesus would make a simultaneous appearance to every person in the world, and it could be videotaped/recorded, that would be valid evidence.

Lots of other possibilities. The simple version is that it has to be objective, verifiable, testable evidence. Arguments from ignorance and/or incredulity, bare assertions, and other fallacies don't qualify.

By the way, I don't make any claims about magical gods existing or not existing. Other people do. I simply don't accept their claims as valid, because there is no evidence to *show* they're valid, and a great deal of evidence that shows they're NOT valid. I'm not looking for evidence of any god, I see no reason to assume there's any such thing. But other people still make claims that gods exist...if you want rational people to give your claims any merit, you need to provide evidence for them. That's all.

Peace.

Excellent question, of course now the question is will they even accept the proof that they are looking for?

Most would say they would like God to personally visit them and jump through their 'hoops' to prove Himself, but the evidence seems to show that if He does appear to people they say that those people are crazy and need mental help. They are then mocked and shunned.

My guess is if He did appear to them they would seek mental help and serious medication.

You cannot prove nor disprove the concept of a god unless you add properties to it, you basically have to define what god, your version, is, has or can and so forth. There are so many unanswered questions regarding the properties the monotheistic religions add to their god concept. I am reminded of Epicurus in regards to this:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

- Epicurus

It's not enough to just read it, you have to understand it and honestly think about it if you are to come to a reasonable, logical, conclusion.

Any clear, direct message which could not have any possible source but God. And even then, it would be doubtful; possibly some other powerful, unknown entity posing as the Christian God.

"What would you describe as undeniable proof of God?"

Something objective would be nice. Pointing at a leaf and saying "There's your proof!" won't cut it.

The ONLY undeniable and absolute proof or your God would be his absolute physical presence. He would have to actually reveal himself visually for all to see. No personal experience bullsh*t. No he's "already with us" bullsh*t.

if the bible wasnt against so much stuff that i believe in i'd at least be willing to want to believe in God. If he popped down here and cured everyone that was sick, and stopped wars and made laws equal and stopped all this hatred, then sure i could believe in god... until then.... no

I only ask for the same proof that Thomas was given.

(John 20:25-27)

So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But Thomas said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

Instead all I get is:

*Insults

*Anecdotes

*Logical fallacies

*Special pleading

*Confirmation Bias

*Appeal to ignorance

*Quotes from the bible

*Personal experiences

*Argumentum ad populum

*Links to propaganda websites

*Negative proof/burden of proof

*Claims that I already have evidence

*Self-fulfilling or vague prophecies matched against millennia of history

undeniable proof

It is self defining. Something that you can take into court. Something tangible. Something undeniable.