What would it take to convince you that God exists? Sir Roger Penrose and William Lane Craig

Sir Roger Penrose respond to the question of what evidence could persuade him that there is a God behind the Universe in his conversation with William Lane Craig.

This is an extract of celebrated mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose talking to renowned Christian philosopher William Lane Craig about God and the Universe.

The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human. 

The Big Conversation Season 2:

The Big Conversation Season 1:


The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust
 

[robchristopher]

What an absolute legend, brilliant man . What's important is to keep the debate polite and civil because that way WE can all learn something ; we humankind are a fundamental part of nature and are just a piece of this universe that is " conscious " .. Discussion about science and religion should never be an " us versus them " affair.

[tomgreene]

Great to hear civil discussion...roger Penrose and John the Evangelist would have had a great discussion.

[MikeJunior]

"I don't know what would convince me, but an omniscient God would"


- Matt Dillahunty (paraphrased)

[gordontubbs]

Most atheists/skeptics seem to think that if God exists, then God is the sort of person that would explicitly reveal himself to each person in some special way in order to cultivate a personal and loving relationship with that person. However there are some reasons why this premise (which is common of divine hiddenness arguments) might be wrong--

1. It's possible that God isn't merely interested in a person accepting the proposition of his existence, but rather wants a two-way relationship.

2. It's possible God cannot reveal himself in the way a skeptic wants without violating their free will.

3. If God exists, then we should expect that he is the sort of person who would set the terms for a relationship, not us. The fact that God isn't apparently doing what we would like him to do isn't evidence of his absence, it's evidence of our arrogance; specifically, that we know what's best for ourselves and what's best for God to do.

4. It's possible that everyone (including theists) resist God to some degree, and that this resistance manifests itself in biases that prevent the acceptance of all of the current arguments in favor of God's existence. If a skeptic came to believe in God, but didn't then follow-up by going to church or reading scriptures or praying or doing any other sort of devotional activity, then mere belief would be meaningless. Some skeptics probably don't want to do any of those follow-up activities, which in turn biases them against accepting the proposition that God exists. To rephrase in an analogy: if you are unwilling to bend the knee and serve the crown, don't expect a royal visit from the king.

5. It's possible that God revealing himself to everyone in some special way would have an extremely detrimental outcome to human society. Given the numerous religions we all espouse, each religious tradition could then claim that because God has revealed himself, that their religion is true. This in turn might lead to a religious conflict or a war of some kind in order to establish which religion is God's religion. In response, I suspect God would have to do more than just reveal himself... he would have to provide even more evidence in order to settle our human disputes. My contention is that if God were to take these additional actions, he would most certainly violate our free will, which brings us back to (2). He would be compelling not only propositional belief, but religious devotion at that point.

6. It's possible that theism is properly basic belief in some capacity, and that every rational person has a sense that God or some God-like state of affairs probably exists even though they cannot scientifically prove God's existence in a way that is objectively verifiable to others. Cosmological arguments are extremely intuitive and can lead us to a Source from which all things come. If as a skeptic you think material causation is best described as a result of prior transformations, then you'll either have to accept or reject an infinite regress of transformations. The laws of thermodynamics give us good reason to reject an infinite regress of material transformations, and so from there it follows that there must have been a First Transformation that got all subsequent transformations going. It's not incoherent to claim that this First Transformation might have been an act of God, which in turn gives us a reason to investigate this First Transformation further and explore the possible implications it might have. We might come to discover God in the midst of these explorations, which might be the whole point!

7. It's possible that the person of Jesus Christ is the ultimate piece of evidence that we need from God (even though it may not be what we want). If Jesus really was who he said he was, then the miracle of the Resurrection is not only evidence of God's existence, it is evidence of a particular kind of God, and it is also a divine certification of the sort of religious beliefs that God desires us to have.

[daithiocinnsealach]

Good evidence would convince me. But on the metaphysical claims we simply don't know. And on the specific claims of each religion, we'll isn't it interesting that theists will often use the same scientific and rationalistic methods for discrediting every religion except their own?

[ptgannon]

One has to assume that if an all-powerful being wanted to demonstrate his existence, he would be able to do it in a way that everyone in the world would find convincing. I think the question - "what would convince you" is silly.

[cnault]

"What would it take to convince you that God exists?"

1) define god clearly. if the definition employs logical fallacies or unproven claims the definition is invalid & will be dismissed
2) having defined god clearly, present evidence --that can be examined and verified -- for the clearly defined god

[Mike_Jones]

I would need the Dragon Ball Z model to be convinced that a god(s) exists. In DBZ you can clearly see the gods interacting with and affecting change in the objective reality that the DBZ characters inhabit; Lord Beruss blows stuff up and interacts with both mortals and other gods while the angels serve the gods every whim and fancy. More, there is evidence that these gods actually exist as the circumstances around the god's various effects upon the universe can be repeated and demonstrated. In short, the gods convince mortals that they exist as opposed to mortals convincing themselves that gods exist. And this should be the standard for everyone when it comes to the god claim.

[diegog]

If someone presents a claim that is unverifiable, something that cannot be proven true or false. Then I really don't see many reasons to believe in it, there is really no discussion to be had. It is as true to me as any other unverifiable claim.
Of course verifiable doesn't mean that it needs to be verified for me to believe in it. I could just say that the evidence seems to point in one direction while also knowing that we could have evidence at some point verifying that the truth goes in fact in the other direction.

If you want me to believe in some God and you think you have some evidence for it. You also should be able to tell me what kind of evidence would show that this particular God doesn't exist. In order for me to believe that your God does exist and its existence can theoretically be verified in some future.

[AlDunbar]

Why don't they ask WLC what it would take to make him doubt God's existence?

What would it take to convince me of gods existence? That's easy just something that would convince me.

[Charlie-xplq]

If you have to convince someone that God exists then it's clear they weren't called by Him .

[peterroberts]

If only churches could say that: really, we don't have the foggiest idea.

[LOwens-xfyo]

I would believe in God if I met him. If God appeared before me, spoke to me, and disappeared. That’s all it would take. But then, I’m pretty gullible.

[tedgrant]

If Willy gave me all his money, then i would believe him.

[Charlie-xplq]

It's not a Christians job to convince people God exists .

[travellerhhhffd]

It supports the existence of God in science and knowledge. Every day, the space, universe and solar system are examined and an endless order, beauty and perfection emerges. This cannot be a coincidence, but it was created by a person with great power. compassionate towards his servants, he is praiseworthy. He is a worthy creator. Islam values ​​science and knowledge.

[pathfinder_strider]

What is really true doesn't need to be believe. If God existed, there wouldn't be a need to believe.

[Elvengem]

God usually stays behind the visible view in the mortal realm so that it encourages faith. faith in Him creates more strength in a human because as they choose to believe in Him and His love, they are enduring uncertainty amid the mystery of life, but it takes more strength of mind and spirit to do this sometimes. Also when you love a friend that is not physically around you, you have them in your thoughts and that takes more strength to visualize and it proves more love too.

[colonelradec]

O really. And if you know the perfect state of a system? Would that not allow you as a god to re create anything perfectly lol?

[pierre-rose]

Do tell me, what if, what if every living person on earth suddenly obeyed the " Ten Commandments" WHAT IF ?