No that just means that the person whom you think did this has the ability to make you believe the water is now beer. The question is what beer is it, Heinekin, Pabst, Hamms, if this is the case there was no dog involved, just a person with good sleight of hand skills.

@dalefvictor There's no sleight of hand involved in my example. Stipulate that the demonstrator at no time does anything other than speak, which I thought was clear. I'm prepared to accept the evidence of my senses, but the purported beer could also be subjected to any chemical analysis you cared to name if required.

My point is, anyone who could turn water instantly into another substance merely by their word has something going on there.

David Copperfield, Uri Geller nor any other human is capable of proving god's existence. Only god is capable of doing that, at least for me.

@jlynn37 Yes but Uri & David never claimed to be god. The so called miracles cited by the poster were performed by Jesus in the bible, he did claim divinity. If he came back again and repeated the same, it wouldn’t convince us, as we have seen conjurers and magicians do much the same and know they are a form of deception. The poster is asking what would it take if not miracles like those in the bible. The answer to his question must be, we don’t know what proof we’d need until we see it!

@TheMiddleWay The thing is: I don't expect to ever see it. And, my criteria for evidence is much higher than a theist. It has to be because I can see the same "evidence" that they do and I don't see it as evidence.

@TheMiddleWay

I don't accept holy book stories and so called fulfilled prophesies as evidence.

I don't accept so-called miracles, that defy the laws of science, even if people claim they saw them or it happened to them as evidence. If I were to have some sort of experience, how would I know that I wasn't having a psychotic episode? And, what we tend to call "miracles" (someone somehow surviving a horrid car crash, for example) is simply the lesser, or least likely, of multiple possibilities playing out.

I don't accept "personal feelings of peace and joy or of god(s) or Jesus in my heart etc." as evidence.

I don't accept made-up science that supposedly supports intelligent design/creationism as evidence.

I don't accept the "everything is so orderly there has to be some sort of god/consciousness" argument as evidence.

I suppose if I, along with a whole bunch of other people/doctors, witnessed, first-hand, the regrowth of an arm or a leg on a person while praying for that to happen, that would make me think that some sort of being, that we would likely call a god, was involved.

Now, would that make it a creator being? Not necessarily. It could be that it was caused by some cloaked alien with super alien technology. But, to us it would certainly seem "godlike."

As I said. I don't base my atheism on the lack of evidence for a god--but on the lack of the need for one to explain things.

When it comes to debunking specific gods, that is a different story. I think evidence can be presented that they do not, or cannot, exist.

@TheMiddleWay In science you have can have either a controlled laboratory environment, which others can attempt to replicate. Or you can analyze multiple longitudinal studies in which the environment is less controlled. In both instances, you TRY to control for as many variables as possible. But one can NEVER be certain they are all accounted for. Conclusions are working theories in progress, and only continue to be held so long as exceptions don't continually appear which you can't explain. So if by "change" ones mind, you mean move from a hard atheist position to an agnostic position, then I feel I could conceivably come up with various scenarios which might do that. And I feel others, too, might be better able to do so as well if "change of mind" is clarified to be defined in this way.

One such example might be some personal experience that was confirmed independently worldwide, which then would still require consultation with expert opinion on the matter, and then a significant consensus was achieved. Again, it is an extremely laborious task to try to detail all the the factors such a phenomenon might entail , but, in all intellectual honesty, I think that would weaken my resolve in an atheist as opposed to agnostic position.

Of course science is very rigorous about definitions, and this is something which is notoriously poorly achieved by religion, thereby further confounding the issue. And also, a single incident which positively argued for a divinity, would leave one still to contend with the mountains of evidence which has accumulated which runs counter to such a belief. A if that isn't enough, the contradictory nature of various supernatural claims makes the argument even more difficult to swallow. The standards of evidence put forward to date don''t even come close to achieving a claim of the supernatural. So I don't feel it's necessarily vacuous to say one will change with evidence. Evidence is the key thing. It just would require so much of it that it's ALMOST impossible to conceive, especially if it's not clear you're talking atheist to agnostic, not atheist to theist.

@TheMiddleWay You surely can't be suggesting that science has never been in need of revising itself. Of course it has. Why? Either all known variables were not adequately accounted for, or there were variables that were unknown, or, some other error was involved. Medications are recalled, dietary recommendations change. It's a mark of good science if a discipline has a growing list of superseded theories. That's basic knowledge.

LOL, I thought I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on the "change of mind" question. If you mean from atheist to theist, that would almost require me to write a book to detail all that. That's why an answer is so hard to come by. How about religion be in line with science, religion not vary by geography, and there be evidence of a worldwide revelation instead of a local event which takes thousands of years to reach all parts of world, just for starters? Something like that could have made me a believer, but it's a bit late now! The cat's out of the bag.

And then we're back to clarity and definitions again. If you're not speaking of pantheism or deism, then I gather you mean some hypothetical religion which hasn't been invented. Take ALL the false claims, contradictions, corruptions of any religion, and overturn them. That's what it would take. Sound virtually impossible. Not my fault.

@TheMiddleWay I'll have to read through the comments, which I've yet to do. But I'll admit that I don't yet understand those who claim 100% certainty of belief or knowledge there is no "supreme being". I wonder if it's just semantics, or whether they mean literally, and HOW they arrive at that conclusion.

But I still must take you up on a point or two. Though I'm not a scientist by profession, I know enough to know that the most accurate body fat calculation methods are expensive. So I know you aren't doing those for free. But even more to the point, deciding whether there is a "god" is a lot less like taking measurements and building things, and much more like determining the effects of a medication or food. Do calcium channel blocking BP meds increase or decrease cardiac events? Does the consumption of soy products reduce or increase the increase the incidence of breast cancer. Despite trying, the scientific consensus is on each is inconclusive.

Thank you for hitting this topic square on the head. Even if it were proven that an immensely superior entity had set in motion the circumstances for our being, would that require kowtowing? Were such an entity to reveal itself, the inclination I would have is to demand, "WTF?!" And, "Where the hell have you been, asshole?!!" And "Hath not the potter power over the clay" my ass, you son of a bitch!

But to worship? That word should be eliminated from the lexicon. No human being should ever degrade themselves by the act of worship, whether it be toward another person or an idealized deity. We should all remember that it is an unnatural act to kneel or bow, so let's keep our heads raised, and our knees free of dust! Let's determine to worship nothing, and no-one.

Exactly the reason why I have always been anti-religion, even before I stopped believing in the idea of a supreme being. Religions all claim to uplift a person's spirit when in actuality they are focused only upon making you bow down to them and to subjugate your freedom to them. Religions are about establishing control over people, never about empowering them.

As always , when u type , I clap ♥️

@Pralina 1 - since you are on the front lines in this epidemic, please be very careful.

@TheMiddleWay I don't just take people's opinions as true. I've got to have evidence and proof. I was raised by my parents to be a Moron (oops, Mormon). In my late 20's I decided to prove that the church was true, so I could convince my friends, who wanted evidence. To my shock and dismay, the more I studied Moronism scientifically, the more convinced I became that Joseph Smith (the founding prophet of the Moron church) was a false prophet. He made predictions that, when compared to historical facts, did NOT come true. Based on that evidence, I left Moronism, and was excommunicated for apostasy, the best thing the church ever did for me. Later, I studied the Bible in the same way I studied Moron scriptures. I discovered that all the major prophets were false prophets, that there are many contradictions, and that many stories are very unscientific. Now, whenever a missionary of any church tries to convert me, I demand facts and evidence to back up their claims. So far, nobody has been able to do so. Until I see such facts and evidence, I am convinced that religion is nothing but mythology.

@TheMiddleWay The planet not the little, 2 legged, self-absorbed, creatures living on it.

@TheMiddleWay I would say the center of ones own universe. Besides, what does being in the 'center' mean??

... Your last paragraph - "The overarching observation is that religion has just too many unreconciled conflicting beliefs and cognitive dissonance involved to be believable".

...and new religions (businesses) ride on the backs of the old one's and so it continues. ...because the old one's got away for that long (and govt backed) to hold control of the vulnerable and brainwashed. GIVING YOU A NEW PRODUCT YOU STILL CANNOT SEE, RAKING IN THE MONEY!

@TimeOutForMe I think I see your point. Money is the new religion.

@dare2dream and was the case for the older one's too. Control and Money.

@TheMiddleWay You two are talking about the"God of the Gaps". We can always explain the unknown as magic.

TheMiddleWay, the reason an atheist would view a grand mysterious event as something we don't yet understand and science has not yet explained is because that is the reality. The god of the gaps is bad logic.

@TheMiddleWay So what would it take to sway you, in either direction?

@TheMiddleWay I certainly admire your intellectual curiosity. And I find myself oddly reassured that we're in the same boat, at least when it comes to the requirements of evidence.

@TheMiddleWay Sorry, I assumed you a christian on the basis of your logic. You side step the real issues. The miracles you sight are insignificant compared to the proof I would require because its the whole point of the new testament.

@TheMiddleWay Ok. Since its the whole point of the bible show me how the sacrifice of one man atones for the transgressions of all mankind.

@Novelty How about "not yet known" science?

@Novelty 100 years ago, nuclear energy was "not yet known" science, but a New Zealander, Rutherford, had split the nucleus of a nitrogen atom in 1917. It wasn't until 1937 that atomic energy, from splitting the atom, became "known" science.
More recently, the "unlnown science' of bio chemistry has most decidedly become useful. It's merely a matter of degree.

@Novelty Hey! Ease up! I was merely pointing out that "not yet known" science has a habit of suddenly becoming useful. Hence, belief in a god is never a factor.

@TheMiddleWay Credible and verifiable is pretty self-explanatory.
I'm not going to engage in semantics.

Trust, but verify.

Besides, if god were real, why all the stupid mystery?
Why can't god just be upfront with it's existence?
Why must I believe without proof?
Yeah, I'd have questions.
As well I should.

@TheMiddleWay Agreed, you did correct that in the edit.

The default is always negative. That's why, if someone told you there was a leprechaun in his back yard, living under a toadstool, and that he would grant wishes if you asked him just right but he was invisible and you couldn't see him, YOU WOULD DEMAND EVIDENCE. It's not much of leap.

"And as a follow up, as an atheist how do you combat scientism? The belief that science can and will explain everything makes any evidence of godhood just science not yet understood and thus there can never be any evidence to change your mind away from atheism." Implicit "We don't understand therefore God" argument in the very concept of 'scientism'.

Yes, I lack your level of education, but I also lack your obvious bias toward the existence of something you cannot prove in any meaningful way. Your constant assertion that somehow science has replaced god demonstrates that bias. You're obviously able to compartmentalize that baseless belief from the scientific rigor your training and education require. That does NOT instantly make you right.

So, here's My challenge. First, Define God with all the parameters of existence that you would demand of any claim such as the invisible leprechaun I posited earlier. Second, present your evidence that the being you have defined exists. Third, design an experiment that would tend to support your assertion, if it is valid. The experiment must be something that is possible in the realm of our current understanding of the nature of the universe. I'll be most interested to see your response.

Oh, would you be so kind as to specify the awards you have won and the titles of the papers you have written? I'd like to look at them as well, if you don't mind.

@TheMiddleWay
"The default is always negative. That's why, if someone told you there was a leprechaun in his back yard, living under a toadstool, and that he would grant wishes if you asked him just right but he was invisible and you couldn't see him, YOU WOULD DEMAND EVIDENCE. It's not much of leap."
Who set's this default? Why can't the default be positive or null?
With reference to the existence of some agency that can affect the world in some real way, the default must be negative since the choice is binary, it is or is not. You did not refute your need for evidence to prove the contrary.

"Your constant assertion that somehow science has replaced god demonstrates that bias"
Never said that so how can it be a constant assertion or a bias?

I reiterate. "And as a follow up, as an atheist how do you combat scientism? The belief that science can and will explain everything makes any evidence of godhood just science not yet understood and thus there can never be any evidence to change your mind away from atheism." These are your words, implyng that somehow God is a valid explanation for things we do not understand. That is a bias, whether you wish to call it one or not.

"That does NOT instantly make you right."
Never claimed to be right. Merely sharing my opinion as everyone else is.

If you defend your opinion, you assume is right. If you did not, you would not defend it. QED.

"With all my knowledge, I'm unable to design said experiment regardless of definition. This is a foundation of my agnosticism for like in physics, if I can't design an experiment to test the existence of a particle, I don't DEFAULT to that particle not existing (which is why I'm harping so much on this notion that there is a default given that we don't use said default in physics.)"

In physics, you observe the universe then try to determine the why behind the actions and interactions you observer. The Higgs boson was hypothesized for a long time before it was experimentally demonstrated. The existence of Helium was hypothesized and it's properties extrapolated from its appearance as a line in a spectrograph of the sun. There were REASONS that it was believed these things existed and what they would look like when we could find a way to view them. You don't just assume an element exists or that a particle exists or a god exists without a reason to hypothesize it and you certainly don't make a claim until it's been well tested, documented, and peer reviewed. This is how I define the default as negative until evidence is presented. No hypothesis is valid without some support and no theory will be accepted until it fits all the known facts after rigorous testing.

You are challenging the open mindedness of atheists without providing any reason for them to be skeptical of their standpoint. Can you offer ANY valid reason for this challenge? Do you have ANY convincing evidence to the contrary? If not, please don't cast aspersions on people you don't know.

@TheMiddleWay To the standpoint that god does not exist.

@TheMiddleWay I am an atheist 'of that cloth' and I take offense. There has been literally millennia that have passed with zero evidence of the existence of any god or gods. I feel quite justified in saying there is no such thing but, should one suddenly appear I'd obviously be convinced. I would not automatically reject any valid, demonstrable, testable evidence you can provide but it would have to meet that criteria before I would accept it, just as any serious skeptic would. I cannot appreciate the idea of agnosticism in this regard considering that not a single scintilla of actual evidence has been presented at this time.

@TheMiddleWay Question: Are you also agnostic about the assertions of the existence of ghosts, Bigfoot, the Chupacabra, Yeti?

@TheMiddleWay
You apply your own prejudices to me. I am quite capable of holding a position rather firmly but not being 'wedded to it.

"But no evidence has been presented that their god doesn't exist, hence the atheist cannot be right."

How do you prove non-existence? How you prove a negative? That in itself makes your stance, in My view, untenable. You've set an impossible bar to meet while the bar for existence is quite reasonable.

As a scientist, I'd expect you to reject a hypothesis that is not supported by any observation, any measurements, or any kind of physical evidence. This is particularly true if that assertion violates the rules and laws of the universe that you use to support your own view and demonstrate the validity of your work.

Why are you not agnostic about unicorns? They have EXACTLY the same level of evidentiary standing as God. How do you dismiss their existence out of hand but not god or gods?

@TheMiddleWay The Higgs is NOT an analog for God. There is NO model by which God, or gods, must exist or something else that does that job. There is no model for anything supernatural so you're talking apples and oranges.

@TheMiddleWay But the model needed SOMETHING to account for gravity and the way it functions, no? Else there would have been no search at all. Please tell me how any supernatural agency, since that is what god is, is necessary?

@TheMiddleWay First, theists do NOT use the same process. They are told what to believe and must take it on faith without question. That alone should invalidate any model they propose. I see we will not have a meeting of the minds so I will bid you good day,.

@TheMiddleWay "But by now it was midday and a darkness fell over the whole land which lasted until three in the afternoon; The sun's light failed" From the new English bible at the time of the crucifiction.
I'm sure more than one biblical scholar has tried to tie this great event in with a total eclipse in the area but for three hours ?. That's stretching it a bit.
I have watched a young English illusionist who calls himself Dynamo and two young guys from Aberdeen who's names I forget re enact all those so called miracles including bringing the dead back to life. Very entertaining but not exactly novel.
The bible is entertaining reading but to put any credence on it being factual or truthfull beggars belief.

@TheMiddleWay I saw a DeLorean for sale recently " Just been used from time to time "

Do you recognize that that's not what you asked in the original post?
In the original post, you talked about non-falsifiable evidence.