There is no acceptable proof of God for atheists

Turtwig

monosharp wrote: »

Nothing suggests it. The same way nothing suggests that there is a god.

There is no evidence for or against a god or gods.

Unfortunately, the above post for some reason has to be counted as our evidence as not believing. Such is the times...

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

You completely misunderstood what I wrote, thinking that I said that all the qualities of the Christian God are proof of a god existing. You were totally off. I replied:

You replied I was misunderstanding you with actually explain what you meant.

Perhaps you want to try again...?

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

You replied I was misunderstanding you with actually explain what you meant.

Perhaps you want to try again...?

This will be the third time I'm posting this...

I said:
And as far as the evidence for any god goes, unless every god you're considering is omnipotent, omnipresent, loving, forgiving, created all life, has personal relationships with man, died for the sins of mankind, promises an eternity with Him if we believe in Him, doesn't say we'll evolve into gods, doesn't say we reincarnate, then they simply will not share the same evidence as the Christian God.

Quote:Originally Posted by Wicknight

Are you seriously claiming that the Christian God has to be the true god because god would only fit the criteria of the Christian God?

Just look at the list you just gave me of what a god has to be in order for it to exist. Does it sound familiar?

The list I gave was of attributes of the Christian God. It was NOT a list of what a god has to be in order for it to exist. This demonstrates your bias against Christianity. I simply said that unless the other gods have these same attributes, it means that the other gods will not require/make use of all the same evidence as the Christian God for their proof.

The Mad Hatter

chozometroid wrote: »

The list I gave was of attributes of the Christian God. It was NOT a list of what a god has to be in order for it to exist. This demonstrates your bias against Christianity. I simply said that unless the other gods have these same attributes, it means that the other gods will not require/make use of all the same evidence as the Christian God for their proof.

Which leads us back to, how do you know whose "evidence" to believe?

rccaulfield

monosharp wrote: »

Nothing suggests it. The same way nothing suggests that there is a god.

There is no evidence for or against a god or gods.

Respectfully-
1. There is no evidence for god-Fair enough.
2.-There is no evidence against god.........well there is no evidence that any religion has any basis in reality whatsoever believe me i have looked. There is clear evidence that evolution is a series of facts and therefore all major religions claims of creation are false.
As for a God who has no relation to any religion?- well- he would have to be a very intelligent being to create this universe indeed! However that leads to the important question, what intelligent designer could have created Him?and him and him and so on and so on! So there goes that argument unless i can be proven wrong.

Fanny Cradock

rccaulfield wrote: »

Respectfully-
1. There is no evidence for god-Fair enough.
2.-There is no evidence against god.........well there is no evidence that any religion has any basis in reality whatsoever believe me i have looked. There is clear evidence that evolution is a series of facts and therefore all major religions claims of creation are false.
As for a God who has no relation to any religion?- well- he would have to be a very intelligent being to create this universe indeed! However that leads to the important question, what intelligent designer could have created Him?and him and him and so on and so on! So there goes that argument unless i can be proven wrong.

Haven't we been over this many times before? OK, in bullet points.

• There is evidence for God. There is also evidence against God.

• Unless you are talking to a creationist - something you seem to assume - then you ignore (or are ignorant) that many Christians don't take Genesis as a literal account. Indeed, this interpretation of Genesis goes back centuries before Darwin.

• First Cause? I believe there is a thread on it already. The whole point about God is that there can be nothing greater than him. Take it to the other thread if you want to debate this further.

monosharp

rccaulfield wrote: »

Respectfully-
1. There is no evidence for god-Fair enough.
2.-There is no evidence against god.........well there is no evidence that any religion has any basis in reality whatsoever believe me i have looked. There is clear evidence that evolution is a series of facts and therefore all major religions claims of creation are false.

In fairness there is nothing in evolution thats incompatible with most religions unless of course your a creationist etc. The Catholic Church for example have no real problem with evolution and in fact some of evolutions greatest proponents are christians.

The vast majority of religious people including christians have no problem with evolution and if creationists actually understood it they probably wouldn't either, unless they are part of the "young earth" gang.

Evolution says nothing about the origin of life, it only talks about the diversity of life. Which is another fact most creationists can't seem to understand.

They think evolution = abiogenesis which would be incompatible with most religions.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Haven't we been over this many times before? OK, in bullet points.

• There is evidence for God. There is also evidence against God.

Could you please explain what evidence there is for and against God ? Are we talking about the Christian God or a deity in general ?

bSlick

• There is evidence for God. There is also evidence against God.

What evidence is there for God? I'm talking cold hard evidence, not two thousand year old hearsay and books. I thought the whole point of God is that you supposed to have faith and just 'believe', if there was actual evidence why there would be need for faith or belief.

Kevo

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Which leads us back to, how do you know whose "evidence" to believe?

Seconded. I'm interested to see how chozometroid responds to this.

MrBill

Soul Winner wrote: »

...that Other is at least worthy of being given the courtesy of a simple thanks from time to time, no?

Thats a good question. What does a human "thanks" mean to god?

Thanks man. Does it make His heart glow?

PDN

bSlick wrote: »

I thought the whole point of God is that you supposed to have faith and just 'believe', if there was actual evidence why there would be need for faith or belief.

This misunderstanding (always on the part of atheists rather than Christians) crops up fairly regularly round here.

Faith, in its biblical sense, means to place your trust in Jesus Christ. It is based on evidence, but not on 100% actual proof. For example, 'doubting' Thomas was supposed to have faith in the resurrection based on the fact that he had lived alongside Jesus for three years, heard Him predict His own death and resurrection, had seen Jesus raise other people from the dead, had heaed his friends describe how they had already seen the Risen Lord etc. Therefore it would not have been 'blind faith' that would have caused him to believe in the resurrection - but rather trusting Jesus to fulfill His Word based on the evidence that Thomas had already witnessed.

'Blind faith' is not a Christian concept, but only exists among the strawmen of atheists' imaginations.

So, I place my faith in Jesus Christ on evidence that Leads me to that conclusion, but which falls short of 100% proof. Evidence, which is very different from proof, may exist both for and against a proposition.

What one person considers to be good evidence may also be rejected by someone else. This is why juries in criminal trials don't reach a unanimous verdict instantly in every case. People are subjective and so weigh evidence, both for and against a proposition, differently.

The following are types of evidence that lead me to place my faith in Christ. I find sufficient for me to reach a verdict. You may not. That's part ofwhat makes us human instead of being computers or robots that always come to the same conclusion:

1. I find the testimonies of the eyewitnesses of Jesus in the New Testament to be credible. The details of this have been discussed in many threads before but, like many historians throughout history, I find it more likely than not that these testimonies have the ring of truth about them.

2. I was an atheist and found that faith position's answers for many things in life to be unconvincing and unsatisfying. My atheism was a result of my upbringing, being brainwashed as a child, but I found myself in the end having to force myself to believe its worldview.

3. I find the existence of the universe to be evidence for a creator. The explanation that it always existed, or that it created itself, are less believable to me.

4. I find the design of the universe to be evidence for a creator. I've heard those who claim it has developed solely through naturalistic processes, but their arguments are unconvincing. Their frequent resort to nastiness and insults reminds me of others I have encountered in life who are pushing a weak case and use such tactics to deflect attention from the deficencies of their logic. (Incidentally the tactics of the Young Earth Creationists have the same effect on me).

5. I have seen the lives of many people who were deeply in the grip of addictions etc who have been instantly and totally transformed through faith in Christ. I find it more likely that this is caused by genuine divine intervention than by some psychological trick.

6. My own life has been similarly transformed as a result of placing my faith in Christ.

7. As I have studied and applied the teachings of the Bible in my life I have discovered it to be a reliable guide to how to behave, how to understand other human beings, and how to understand myself. This has led me, by an inductive process, to conclude that if the Bible has turned out to be reliable in the areas where I can test it, then I find it more likely than not that it will be similarly reliable in its other claims.

8. I have seen my prayers answered on numerous occasions and in very specific ways - sometimes down to receiving an amount of money I prayed for to the exact euro (922 on one occasion) or something unexpected happening when, to the very minute, I was praying for that situation. Of course those with a vested interest in arguing against God will say these are coincidences - but my experience over 29 years has been that the more I pray, the more such coincidences happen.

9. I have seen miracles of physical healing take place. On one occasion I saw a man being diagnosed by three doctors as suffering an incurable and inoperable injury which prevented him earning a living (I have interviewed all three doctors, including a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, and found them to be credible). Then they explained to him that there was no medical solution to his problem so would it be OK if they prayed for him? After prayer he claimed he was healed and, being examined by the three doctors, it was indeed so. I saw him doing physical acts which all his family and neighbours testified that he had been unable to do for years, and which the doctors confirmed would have been impossible for someone with his injury.

10. I have also experienced miracles of healings myself. While less dramatic than the above, these nevertheless were convincing enough as evidence to me. On one occasion, while visiting Africa, I was healed of cholera instantly through prayer.

Now, you could, no doubt, start arguing with each of the above ten pieces of evidence and trying to suggest alternative explanations. Of course you would be doing this without having any real knowledge of me or of what you were arguing about in many cases, but your ideological position would compel you to do so because you have a vested interest in interpreting the evidence differently.

That would not be dissimilar to a defence attorney who takes each piece of prosecution evidence and tries to refute it one by one. (The DNA could have got contaminated in the lab, the eye witness could have been mistaken in identifying my client, the incriminating emails might have been written by someone else who hacked into his computer, his fingerprint could have found its way onto the murder victims throat through accidental contact earlier in the day on the subway etc.).

All such argumentation proves is that the evidence does not constitute 100% proof. Each piece of evidence can, in theory, be interpreted another way. But it is still evidence! And the job of the jury is to decide whether the evidence points in one way more than another. And juries disagree over how to interpret the evidence, because jury members also have their biases and presuppositions.

So, to be honest, I'm not interested in arguing every piece of my evidence for placing my faith in Christ with you. Most of it has been done to death in previous threads and most atheists, like a defence attorney, have a vested interest in interpreting it in a way that suits their presuppositions and ideology, no matter how far fetched those interpretations may be.

The point I am making, in a very long-winded way, is that evidence does exist as the basis for people to place their faith in God and in His Son Jesus Christ.

You could, if you wished, post a long-winded list of evidence that argues against God. I would not dispute that. I've already said that evidence can exist for and against a proposition.

I am not interested in persuading you to interpret my evidence the same way I do. You're free to make your own choices, and you accept the consequences of your choices. That's called being an adult. My only purpose in posting this is to refute the false notion that Christians operate in blind faith and have no evidence on which to base their faith.

rccaulfield

Almost all of your statements are statements of incredulity. If you don't understand something then it must be god.
Thing is, if you really apply yourself and devote yourself to getting an education in these matters, you will see theres no argument as you put it theres no faith needed, there's no belief with lack of evidence- There's the beauty of nature and its processes plain although not simple.
The rest of your statements e.g. no.8 - I invite you to do double blind trials to see the effectiveness of your prayer and what part you play in the outcome of your prayer coming true.

Turtwig

PDN, just curious, did you try any other ideas first e.g Buddhism,Islam etc??

PDN

rccaulfield wrote: »

Thing is, if you really apply yourself and devote yourself to getting an education in these matters,

Yes, I really must get myself an education in these matters. :rolleyes:

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

PDN, just curious, did you try any other ideas first e.g Buddhism,Islam etc??

I looked into a few other religions. I would have much preferred to have found answers in another religion since I had a real aversion to Christianity (all due to an incident when a politician who was also an elder in the Presbyterian Church tried to get the UDA to shoot my kneecaps). I've had a real bee in my bonnet about religious hypocrites in churches ever since.

However, in the end I made my choices based on what looked the most ikely to be true, rather than wishful thinking. The evidence trumped both my atheist upbringing and my quite understandable reluctance to touch Christianity with a bargepole.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

I looked into a few other religions. I would have much preferred to have found answers in another religion since I had a real aversion to Christianity (all due to an incident when a politician who was also an elder in the Presbyterian Church tried to get the UDA to shoot my kneecaps). I've had a real bee in my bonnet about religious hypocrites in churches ever since.

However, in the end I made my choices based on what looked the most ikely to be true, rather than wishful thinking. The evidence trumped both my atheist upbringing and my quite understandable reluctance to touch Christianity with a bargepole.

Thanks,

Sorry that you had to go through that whole scarey kneecap thing.

I'm the opposite : Grew up Devout Catholic, slowly turned away (has nothing to do with the whole abuse ordeals recognised from early age that they were just hypocrits).
I guess what Bacon said is true:
[Start with doubt end in certainty. Start with certainty end in doubt]
I currently just know, this, : nothing.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

I simply said that unless the other gods have these same attributes, it means that the other gods will not require/make use of all the same evidence as the Christian God for their proof.

And what does that have to do with anything? What point do you think you were making about the possibility that other gods exist, which is the bit you were replying to

I said the evidence for God (us, the universe, life) can be used as evidence for any god existing.

You then said that not every god will have these properties.

If you point wasn't that these properties are essential for a god to exist I fail to see what point you think you making.

Again how does the evidence for God that you have already presented apply only to your god and not to all others?

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

And what does that have to do with anything? What point do you think you were making about the possibility that other gods exist, which is the bit you were replying to

I said the evidence for God (us, the universe, life) can be used as evidence for any god existing.

You then said that not every god will have these properties.

If you point wasn't that these properties are essential for a god to exist I fail to see what point you think you making.

Again how does the evidence for God that you have already presented apply only to your god and not to all others?

If I was to stop with those basic things (universe, our nature, etc) then yes, other gods which are claimed to have a part in those would be supported by them.
Now, the Christian God makes much more specific claims. God claims to have cast Satan and a third of the angels to the earth, flood the world, diversify human language, lead Israel out of bondage, raise the Messiah out of Bethlehem, have Jesus die for the sins of mankind and rise again. These are unique claims of the Christian God. Any evidences of these would support the Christian God, and not Krishna or whatever else. As for the evidence (for any claim where this is even possible), nothing new can be said that has not been discussed in far better detail elsewhere.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

If I was to stop with those basic things (universe, our nature, etc) then yes, other gods which are claimed to have a part in those would be supported by them.
Now, the Christian God makes much more specific claims. God claims to have cast Satan and a third of the angels to the earth, flood the world, diversify human language, lead Israel out of bondage, raise the Messiah out of Bethlehem, have Jesus die for the sins of mankind and rise again. These are unique claims of the Christian God. Any evidences of these would support the Christian God, and not Krishna or whatever else. As for the evidence (for any claim where this is even possible), nothing new can be said that has not been discussed in far better detail elsewhere.

You are saying that there is specific evidence that only explains the Christian God. Ok that is fair enough. As you say you hadn't presented that evidence at all, even after being asked, so I hope you can see where the misunderstand would be.

Now I don't see this evidence that you guys think exits.

But there is also the original point that any God could pretend or take credit for evidence if his purpose was to deceive.

So again we are back to the start. You still haven't presented any reason why it is arrogant for atheists to reject that you guys know the truth about God.

The Mad Hatter

chozometroid wrote: »

Now, the Christian God makes much more specific claims.

Yes, but the gods of other religions make different, but also specific, claims.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

You are saying that there is specific evidence that only explains the Christian God. Ok that is fair enough. As you say you hadn't presented that evidence at all, even after being asked, so I hope you can see where the misunderstand would be.

Now I don't see this evidence that you guys think exits.

But there is also the original point that any God could pretend or take credit for evidence if his purpose was to deceive.

So again we are back to the start. You still haven't presented any reason why it is arrogant for atheists to reject that you guys know the truth about God.

That was never my point:

To be honest, I don't think that about atheists at all. They may be arrogant, but I don't think they are by definition. I don't think you are being unreasonable, either. I just believe you are wrong, and are missing something. I don't think atheists have good reasons for denying the existence of God. You seem to believe, or at least consider, some very imaginative things, but not God......The problem(IMO, no offence) is not in the evidence, but the observer.

Obviously I think it's a problem with the observer, since I hold these things to be true. This doesn't mean I think you're arrogant to reject that we know the truth about God, just that I think you're wrong and out of place. You don't believe in Him yet you attack the believers with claims that we don't know Who we believe in. We believe in the Christian God as revealed in the Bible and through personal revelation. For an atheist to say we don't know the truth about the Christian God is just pointless to me. You're either saying the Christian God isn't the real God, or that we have the wrong idea about the Christian God, in which case you are not qualified to say this, as you don't believe in Him nor have a relationship wth Him. If you're right (by accident), and we do happen to have the wrong idea, then that's our own fault; it says nothing about the truth of God Himself. We do however, as a Christian faith, happen to share a common belief in the basics of Christianity and the attributes of the Christian God. If He is real, then His people are believing in Him, because the God we believe in is one who has revealed Himself to us. To say that God could be tricking is just tacking an unsupported theory to a list of endless possibile theories. There is nothing to be gained by doing this.

MrBill

PDN wrote: »

This misunderstanding (always on the part of atheists rather than Christians) crops up fairly regularly round here.

'doubting' Thomas was supposed to have faith in the resurrection based on the fact that he had lived alongside Jesus for three years, heard Him predict His own death and resurrection, had seen Jesus raise other people from the dead, had heaed his friends describe how they had already seen the Risen Lord etc.

Don't you think it's unfair how the tale of old Doubtin' Tom is supposed to be a lesson for us all, yet he got to live with J-man for three years and see him do loads of tricks? Not only do I not have 100% proof, I don't even have 0% evidence. I went over to Rome when I was a lad to see one of those stigmatist dudes, but he had his hands all covered up and would only let me kiss them . Bloody hard upping my evidence percentage.

chozometroid

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Yes, but the gods of other religions make different, but also specific, claims.

I never said they didn't. :rolleyes:
Now we both agree they will have their own evidence for their specific claims.

MrBill

I've heard those who claim it has developed solely through naturalistic processes, but their arguments are unconvincing.

Can you be a little bit more specific about what you find unconvincing? To be fair, you don't seem to have a problem with stuff like god parting the Red Sea with his hand so some Jews could run through it.

chozometroid

MrBill wrote: »

Can you be a little bit more specific about what you find unconvincing? To be fair, you don't seem to have a problem with stuff like god parting the Red Sea with his hand so some Jews could run through it.

Not to speak for PDN, but I think Christians believe that God is capable of a lot more than naturalistic processes are.

MrBill

PDN wrote: »

I have seen the lives of many people who were deeply in the grip of addictions etc who have been instantly and totally transformed through faith in Christ. I find it more likely that this is caused by genuine divine intervention than by some psychological trick.

I don't think people are suggesting that its a psychological trick. Do you not think that there's a link between being in a vulnerable state and conversion?

Religious groups are notorious for seeking out desperate folk. I suppose you would say its because they feel a strong desire and duty to help. But what about nouveau religions like scientology? They engage in similar behaviour. What do you reckon their motives are? Here's an interesting read:

The Heart of a Heartless World

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

That was never my point:

I think the line

I don't think atheists have a good reason for denying the existence of God

means basically the same thing

chozometroid wrote: »

Obviously I think it's a problem with the observer, since I hold these things to be true. This doesn't mean I think you're arrogant to reject that we know the truth about God, just that I think you're wrong and out of place. You don't believe in Him yet you attack the believers with claims that we don't know Who we believe in.

No, I attack believers that they cannot, by definition, know who you believe in.

I do this because believers base so much of ideas on the authority of their god and a number of axioms, such as that he always knows best and always acts in our best interests.

Given you can't actually determine that, you can only believe it is true, it to me seems not a particularly good thing to hold, particularly when it is shaping your ideas of law and morality, which because we live in a democracy effects the rest of us.

It is not that you believe it and I don't. It is that we can't determine if it accurate or not, either of us.

chozometroid wrote: »

We believe in the Christian God as revealed in the Bible and through personal revelation. For an atheist to say we don't know the truth about the Christian God is just pointless to me.

It shouldn't be, though possibly that is the problem. If you accept what you believe has been personally revealed to you then you will obviously think is true. But the problem is that you cannot determine, independently to your own opinion, that what you believe is true is actually true.

Since you can't even demonstrate that to yourself it shouldn't be that surprising that the rest of us aren't convince.

With any personal revelation their is the possibility that it is true, and the possibility that it is imagined by the believer. This holds whether it is someone believing God has revealed himself to them or a person believing they went to a UFO and met aliens.

That should be the start, not the end. You need to determine, independently, if what you think happened actually did happen.

Given that so many people believe they have experienced something they haven't actually experienced it stands to reason that the human mind is easily tricked into believing something true when it isn't. We need to demonstrate things independently of that.

chozometroid wrote: »

You're either saying the Christian God isn't the real God, or that we have the wrong idea about the Christian God, in which case you are not qualified to say this, as you don't believe in Him nor have a relationship wth Him.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying you can't demonstrate the Christian God is real, nor can you demonstrate that the Christian God is who he says he is.

What I personally believe on the matter is as irrelevant as what you personally believe.

I can demonstrate that people believe in things that aren't real, that people can be tricked into thinking something is different to how it is, that people are prone to viewing agency in nature when none exists, and in placing random events together to form what they believe are significant patterns, particularly when under stress.

My bit, the proposal that people make up or imagine this type of stuff can be demonstrated.

So I'm contrasting that with the claims of your religion. And all I have is the claims that it is based on personal revelation, something we already know is very tenuous and prone to being wrong, often significantly.

So at the moment the scales, in my opinion, are very firmly tilted in the direction of believing that what is happening to you is the same that is happening to everyone else who is imagining this stuff.

I'm open to being corrected but you have to demonstrate that this assertion is wrong and your assertion is correct.

chozometroid wrote: »

To say that God could be tricking is just tacking an unsupported theory to a list of endless possibile theories. There is nothing to be gained by doing this.

But since when it is about gaining anything? Is it not supposed to be about truth?

The idea that a tricking God doesn't provide us with anything so therefore why bother believing in it just demonstrates the motivation of believers, they are in it for what they get out of it, not because they want to know what is true or not.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm open to being corrected but you have to demonstrate that this assertion is wrong and your assertion is correct.

I'm sure you are open to continue arguing your point, but not to being corrected.

But since when it is about gaining anything? Is it not supposed to be about truth?

The idea that a tricking God doesn't provide us with anything so therefore why bother believing in it just demonstrates the motivation of believers, they are in it for what they get out of it, not because they want to know what is true or not.

I want the truth, but coming up with a theory of a the Christian God being a liar for the sake of saying "you could be wrong," and which has no support, is not searching for truth. Just making random things up to propose alternatives is not exactly scientific, either. The Christian God does have support. The teachings of Christianity are good. We can't keep going over and over what Christianity is all about and why we believe just to keep you entertained.
If the Christian God is real, then we have to choose to believe Him or not. There is no possible proof that He is telling the truth about our future (same goes for all of us). We either trust Him or not. You trust someone based on what you have observed about them, what they have demonstrated, and their proven track record for doing what they say they'll do. Based on these reasons, I fully put my trust in God. I wouldn't be where I am today without Him.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

I'm sure you are open to continue arguing your point, but not to being corrected.

Try me.

chozometroid wrote: »

I want the truth, but coming up with a theory of a the Christian God being a liar for the sake of saying "you could be wrong," and which has no support, is not searching for truth.

No, searching the truth is understanding that you can't know the Christian God is not lying.

Closing yourself off to that possibility simply because the outcome of it doesn't offer you anything is not searching for truth, it is searching for comfort.

chozometroid wrote: »

Just making random things up to propose alternatives is not exactly scientific, either.

None of this is scientific Chozometroid. If we were being scientific we wouldn't even think your god exists in the first place since that has never been demonstrated to scientific standards

You have already taken the massive leap into believing that your god exists based on personal revelation (quite unscientific), and then you take another leap into believing he is was he claims to be.

We left science behind a long time ago.

chozometroid wrote: »

The Christian God does have support. The teachings of Christianity are good. We can't keep going over and over what Christianity is all about and why we believe just to keep you entertained.

You can stop pretending that your belief is well supported and atheists have no good reason for not believing you are imagining it all. That would be nice.