Atheists, what evidence would have to be shown to you in order to convince you that God is real?

What would convince me the mug of tea on my desk exists?  That the tea inside is warmer than the air outside?  It isn't all that different.  Simple testable, repeatable, independently verifiable data.  Now, im sure the specifics might change with whatever you claim that God is.  But, if there is a God, that God should know what it would take to convince me and should be capable of doing it, should he want me to know he exists, and yet for some reason hasn't done so. 

Now, a lot of apologists retreat to some excuse that such evidence would preclude faith.  But, there's a big equivocation fallacy they're using.  What definition of 'faith' is actually important to your God?  Is it being convinced that it exists?  Or is it something more important, a sense of relationship, trust, and fidelity.  These are VERY different concepts.  If God can reveal himself to Saul, it isn't this game of hide and seek that's the important part, it's the actual relationship.  If God can have clear and open discussion with Satan, it isn't being unconvinced that is the actual problem. Being convinced He exists isn't the faith He desires.

I can understand the utility for an ancient tribal leader acting as the avatar of god for people to have faith that one actually existed, but I see no reason for an actual God to perpetuate some cruel game of hide and seek.

If someone came up with a way

to measure the presence and properties

of any deity,

and everyone got about the same results

from those measurements,

regardless of what they believe,

then I would add

whatever had become measurable

to my mental model of reality.

But we both know

that the particular hypothetical God,

that you happen to be imagining,

will not become measurable,

in any way.

--

Regards,

John Popelish

Let him figure it out. Years ago, two men convinced a group of scientist they had super human powers. at the press conference that followed the relieved that they were fakes, working with the Amazing Randy. They had ignored all the control measures and as a result were completely fooled during a two year study .

If god is real, he'll know what it takes to convince us.

Im not sure what I need to see. But I am sure that a being that is all knowing, all seeing, all powerful etc... would know and would take steps to show me. That has not happened in nearly 66 years. I do know that telling me to read an old book (which I have several times) and to have faith have not gotten me anywhere. Faith is not a path to truth and to be honest any god that says 'I dont need to provide evidence that I am existent, you just have to pretend I do' isnt worth my time. Your god could end this argument once and for all and chooses not to. It chooses (apparently) to tell us that we should believe in it just because it says so in one old book. You dont use that method of thinking for determining the truth about anything else, so why should anyone else use it at all?

Something that had no other possible explanation.  Being repeatable would be helpful so that experts more savvy than myself could review it.

Surely God is powerful enough to provide such a thing.  And since he created me, and is omniscient (allegedly), he knows that he made me in such a way that I am not given to blind devotion.  I need facts and reason.  So if he wants me to believe - and all the major religions say their gods want our worship - then surely a little demonstration that can't be explained any other way is not asking much.  I would still have the free will to choose whether to worship or not.  In fact, because I would be able to make an INFORMED choice, I would have MORE free will if he demonstrated his existence.

But instead, we get nothing.  Not just weak evidence, but none whatsoever.  No talking bushes (except in stories that no one alive witnessed), no walking on water (except in stories), no resurrections 3 days later (except in stories) and so on.  Stories of stuff a cult says happened 2000 years ago or more, but oh by the way, even the people who wrote the book weren't there to see it firsthand, and are extremely biased and therefore untrustworthy.

Or AT LEAST, some kind of quality LOGICAL PROOF that showed that God MUST EXIST and that certain claims about him are logically provably true.  Instead, every religion has these giant logical contradictions and holes in them that show that whether an abstract God exists or doesn't, we can at least be 100% sure that none of these religions have it right.

Pick a place you've never been. Or seen. Or know anyone from. Let's cal it... Estonia. Maybe you actually have some interaction with Estonia, so pretend I picked somewhere else. How can you conclude that place is real? I'm sure you can think of at least a few methods, right?

Notice, "How do you know Estonia's real?" seems like kind of a dumb question because it's so easy to verify? If God's not as easy to verify, why's that? And is it really our problem?

I can't think of anything that would convince me.  

But even if you could prove it, I still wouldn't 'worship' him or obey him.

The God of the Bible is cruel, conceited, an ego-maniac, selfish, insecure, irrational and thoroughly despicable. He creates a world and populates it with the sole purpose of the humans worshipping him, obeying him and constantly telling him how wonderful he is. And if they don’t, he’ll have them suffer in everlasting torment. I mean – what a jerk!

I would accept evidence that the claims of the Bible itself are true.  For example:

1.  The Bible says prayer done for the right reasons will be granted.  Yet all studies show that prayer has no effect.

2.    The gospels make claims of fulfilled messianic prophecy. If they were genuine then I would accept them as evidence.  However, every single prophecy was not prophetic to begin with (Psalms) or already fulfilled and taken out of context (virgin birth).  When the author of Matthew tried to make the Zechariah 9 scripture about riding on a donkey fit Jesus, he even misunderstood the original text and wrote about 2 donkeys instead of 1.  Clearly the gospel writers did not record events; they made them up.

3.  If ANY extra-Biblical historical evidence supported the claims about Jesus then I would accept it as evidence.  The historical evidence ONLY supports the existence of Christians, but not Jesus himself.

4.  If ANY event occurred that could not be explained without God, then I would accept it as evidence of God.

5.  Hell, I would even accept a personal experience like everyone else does.  Alas after years of seeking I have no experiences.

My criteria are extremely low and SHOULD be easy for an omnipotent God to fulfill.  Yet he consistently FAILS

Real, tangible evidence that could only have one possible explanation, that being the existence of one particular god.  No religion has anything like that.  Want examples?  How about every single sick person in the world being healed in an instant?  Every amputated limb growing back in the next instant?  Nothing like that ever happens. All we get is vague faces in toast and people recovering from illness with good medical treatment.

It would be impossible to prove your god fairy is real for the same reason it would be impossible to prove the Easter Bunny is real.