Atheists: Supposing God Appeared Before You...

[epronovost]

Well that's just it I'm still trying to understand what or who God is so that's why I was wondering if you believed in a God or no God at all or if you do believe in a god which God would that be? Some people would say God is whatever you want him to be I don't necessarily hold that position but I'm not sure which God is the true God it seems that there has to be a god of some sort, because I can't rationalize the thought of my existence being based on pure accident especially unproven accident?

I don't believe in gods. The only thing I could consider a god cannot exist in our universe and thus doesn't exist. I see the deities of everybody else as either "false gods", gods I would not consider gods, or just as inexistant as mine. I do believe that my entire personnal existence is the fruit of a long line of coincidences, fortious accident, other people decisions. I do not have a special purpose other then those I choose for myself.

 

[Alone]

Okay I can accept that, there is no reason for me to say what you can or cannot believe after all it is your body and mind so good luck in your endeavors.

 

[Shad]

...What sort of characteristics would God have to have for you not even to believe in him, but say "I may have just met God"? I mean, I have heard a few atheists say "we would believe in God if there was enough evidence" or "I'll believe in God if I ever see him." So what does that entail?

I have issues with the attributes thus characteristics within the concept of God which need resolving before I even start with evidence. Faith in my view is about emotions not evidence.

Or would you not believe no matter what?

There are unresolved philosophical issue beyond the God concept as well.

I guess the point is to figure out if there is a consensus image of what atheists would visually accept.

There is no standard in my view.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Why would we worship aliens, no matter how powerful?

I don't know, they might cure any disease, give each individual a paradise dimension, generate food. If they did all that and wanted a bit of worship from you, what would be the problem. What if it wouldn't even be much worship

 

[PureX]

A creature with such characteristics would be self-evident.

Magic tricks and illusions are based on the manipulation of what is "self-evident".

It would be so ubiquitous that no matter where or how we looked at the universe we would see it.

By what reasoning do you come to this conclusion?

Plus, an omnipotent and omniscient creature would be able to find ways to convince every single human being that it exists and is such a creature and not a fraud.

There is no logical reason that such an entity would do so.

A demand for evidence isn't a request for certitude.

Sure it is. It's the demand that someone not convinced be convinced. That demands a relative degree of certitude.

Absolute certainty isn't something that can be achieved in our lives.

I agree, but this is irrelevant to the subject at hand. The demand for evidence from atheists is a demand that their bias be overturned, and in many instances that would require a very high degree of certitude.

"Certitude" is a misleading term, as it implies something that cannot logically exist. So when we use it, it has to be assumed that it is being used to refer to a relative degree of conviction, and not to a state of absolute certainty, which would be impossible for a human to logically achieve.

The demand for evidence from atheist to prove the existence of any deity is a demand for some robust observation on which a belief can be reasonnably based. That there is "good chances that it's true".

What an atheist considers to be "reasonably based" evidence, however, is usually so exceedingly biased and narrow that it is logically incoherent: that it cannot possibly exist. For example, the demand for "objective evidence" of a non-objective phenomenon.

 

[ChristineM]

Thank you for proving my point, Christine.

........and God doesn't fit in a box. He created the boxes. I believe that, should He ever personally appear to me, I would let HIM tell me how to categorize Him. So far all anyone has done (and that very specifically includes you, as per this post) is describe Who or What they think He is, should be, must be...or can't be.


I figure that if there is a Creator God (and I believe that there is) , then He will do whatever He wants in whatever method He chooses. If He wants to sneeze the universe out of His left nostril, who am I to dictate otherwise? Since when does God need to adhere to my requirements?

The first thing you need to do is provide evidence for a god before you can start giving them attributes such as box maker.

All i have stated is "An omni everything being should have no problems proving his credentials",

This is a hypothetical, what if thread , so why the griping because people give hypothetical answers?

 

[ChristineM]

I don't know, they might cure any disease, give each individual a paradise dimension, generate food. If they did all that and wanted a bit of worship from you, what would be the problem. What if it wouldn't even be much worship

Doctors are pretty good as curing desease and medical science learns more every day. No god needed

Why, whats wrong with 3 dimensions? How many dimensions are there?

Farmers are good at generating food

Maybe if some god could come and cure overpopulation without committing genocide (again) now that would be something.

If a god needs worship then there is a problem right there. Egotistical manifestations are ten a penny, even here on RF.

 

[epronovost]

Magic tricks and illusions are based on the manipulation of what is "self-evident".

Not really no. Magic tricks operate on the weaknesses of our senses and assumptions.

By what reasoning do you come to this conclusion?

Throuh the definition of the words: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and anthropomormiphic (when applied to minds)

There is no logical reason that such an entity would do so.

Actually yes, because that's the nice and polite thing to do when you are anthropomorphic and since you are also omnibenevolent. You pretty much feel obliged to do so.

Sure it is. It's the demand that someone not convinced be convinced. That demands a relative degree of certitude.

Precisely, but not an absolute certainty. I donMt demand absolute certainty either, but at least something as solid as the proof of your existence for example or that of dolphins or particles for example.

I agree, but this is irrelevant to the subject at hand. The demand for evidence from atheists is a demand that their bias be overturned, and in many instances that would require a very high degree of certitude.

Certainly, I would require a high degree of certitude for someone who claims knowing or bein absolutely certain there is a God, the single most important thing in the universe.

What an atheist considers to be "reasonably based" evidence, however, is usually so exceedingly biased and narrow that it is logically incoherent: that it cannot possibly exist. For example, the demand for "objective evidence" of a non-objective phenomenon.

Name me one "non-objective phenomenon" that is reputed to exist besides deities and let's see if we can get to prove it to ourselves, thus establishing a common set of evidence we can then use on deities.

 

[sayak83]

...What sort of characteristics would God have to have for you not even to believe in him, but say "I may have just met God"? I mean, I have heard a few atheists say "we would believe in God if there was enough evidence" or "I'll believe in God if I ever see him." So what does that entail?

1. Personality characteristics (Is God like a mirror of you? Is God insane like Coyote? Is God like a lover? Or an antagonist?)
2. Physical characteristics (Can God look human, or is it required that he have three heads and six wings? For that matter, would your feminist sensibilities only be satisfied if God appeared as a woman? Would you have to see an old man like in paintings?)
3. How God came to you (Is coming in a dream enough? Would you need a near-death experience? Would God need be floating in the sky? Or could God walk down the street and say or do something that would be enough?)

Or would you not believe no matter what?

I guess the point is to figure out if there is a consensus image of what atheists would visually accept.

If he can make time run backward for everyone for a day, that should do it.

 

[dianaiad]

That's actually what I'm trying to illustrate to you and Firemorphic, but it's not easy through such a medium. Gods have all sorts of definition. In the end, the only point in common between all those definition is that a god is something/someone that is worshiped and honored often in a ritualised manner. What are the characteristics of the gods in question varies from religion to religion, from culture to culture and can even change with time or from person to person.

To you, the thing your worship, is "the crearor of all things". That's "your god" so to speak. It's the being you worship and honor often in ritualised manner for example through prayer or fasting. I'm an atheist. I don't worship and honor any being in such a manner for I don't think there is any being deserving of it. The sort of being I would revere and honor like you do would not have the same characteristics and that being cannot exist in our universe. I will not revere and honor a fiction. I'm thus an atheist and you are not. I don't think that my definition is universal or that any "god" definition is universal. We each have or own. Some people have the same, or similar enouh ones, others don't.

That means that for me to start to believe in your god in a religious sense, not only would you have to make the demonstration of its existence to reasonnable degree, you would have to convince me that your god should also become my god. If you can't I will consider your god just like you would consider a person who believes Pooch the dog is a deity. "Sure your god exists, but it's not mine".

You have, I submit, just written about as clear an example of confirmation bias as I've seen in awhile. It all boils down to : I define 'God' thusly, and my definition of "God' cannot exist, and therefore there is no God...and there fore, should a God appear to me personally with all sorts of proof that he IS "God" (creator of the universe and everything) then I can and will dismiss him. He can't be God because he doesn't fit my definition.

My personal definition of "God" is pretty definite, with lots of parameters; I believe that He looks a specific way, behaves in a specific way, etc., However, if He ever came down and told me that I was wrong about any of my beliefs regarding Him, I'd believe Him and change my definition.

I get the feeling that if He ever came down and tapped you on the shoulder, you'd....well, you just told us what you would do.

My point is that it is rather circular, yours.....and other atheistic...approaches.

There is no God because
There is no evidence that there is one
There can be no evidence that there is one because
There is no God.

Classic.

 

[dianaiad]

The first thing you need to do is provide evidence for a god before you can start giving them attributes such as box maker.

No I don't. I haven't claimed that there IS one and that you must believe in one. the point I'm making is that you...and some of the other posters in here, ARE making category claims for god....and using those definitions to "prove" that there isn't one. This isn't about whether or not there is a God. It's about whether there is one or not. YOU have already made up your mind that there isn't, and no evidence for one will be accepted.

Which is fine...if y'all would come out and admit that...but y'all don't. You do it at the same time you criticize believers for 'confirmation bias,' and accuse us of doing precisely the same thing you are doing, while pretending to be open-minded.

All i have stated is "An omni everything being should have no problems proving his credentials",

First, that is as much a classification and an attribute given to God as 'He made the boxes (He created all things)"
Second, you are correct, I think. I don't think an omni everything being would have any problems proving his credentials, either But...what if He isn't 'omni everything?" What if He is and chooses not to BE omni everything( a god Who allows us free will has restricted His own omniscience, hasn't He?)

And since when does one person's ability to prove something ensure that someone else will accept that proof? This whole thread is full of people who straight out say that it doesn't matter what God does....they would not believe because, since one does not exist, then one cannot prove anything.

This is a hypothetical, what if thread , so why the griping because people give hypothetical answers?

Just call it hypothetical griping. that's what conversations/debates mostly are, after all. Tell me; if this were NOT 'hypothetical,' would your answers change?

I mean, there's a word for that, and it begins with "hypo.." too.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I don't know, they might cure any disease, give each individual a paradise dimension, generate food. If they did all that and wanted a bit of worship from you, what would be the problem. What if it wouldn't even be much worship

The price is still too high. Worship is demeaning, and unbecoming of a human being.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Amazing.

Every atheist, agnostic, ignostic, believer or non believer here has pretty much defined who or what God must be, what He must look like, what She must act like, what It must be capable of. Once God is properly defined in the imagination of the ag/ig/atheist or theist, then the possible encounter is scripted...and found to be impossible. There. All done, God doesn't exist so if He showed up in the defined iteration, that would be proof that he didn't, and if he does NOT show up as defined, well, that also would be proof that the experience was "not God,' 'more gravy than of grave'

non believers would not accept any evidence of God...especially objective evidence, since of course they have already decided that there can not be any objective evidence of God. How can there be? He doesn't exist.

Circular indeed, but I've never met an atheist who SAW the circularity of it.

I suggest, humbly, that the non believer stop attempting to put this God he doesn't believe in into a box for comfortable definition. He won't fit there.

Just....be. If God wants' to prove Himself to you, He will.

You obviously didn't even read many of the actual replies to this thread by atheists/agnostics. Barely any of them actually "define God" or tried to put him/her/it in a box like you seem to have found so "Amazing." I can point you to posts that specifically do exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. Here are a few:

• I don't know and I have no preconceived ideas of a god
• why put it on the poor sap of limited Intelligence
• I don't have a concept of the abrahamic god to ask for evidence.
• Doubtful, since there's no consensus among theists
• I'm not sure what it would take.
• I don't think that anything could convince me
• Intersubjective verification would be a good start.
• This question doesn't make any sense to me.
• Any god worth its salt would know how to convince any given human of its existence

And the above are actually the majority of serious replies to the OP (meaning things that weren't posted for a laugh or just for fun - not that there is anything wrong with that either) that were in before your post I quoted above.

So, can you provide to me the quotes that support your side of the story here? The posts that are from people trying to describe what God must be and do? There were a couple, to be sure that threw in a few ambiguous "high-level" ideas, but otherwise I'm not seeing it. I honestly see this post of yours as evidence that you are the type of person who HEAVILY sees what you want to see in things - evidence be damned, am I right?

 

[epronovost]

You have, I submit, just written about as clear an example of confirmation bias as I've seen in awhile. It all boils down to : I define 'God' thusly, and my definition of "God' cannot exist, and therefore there is no God...

So far so good. You seem to understand my position, but you made a critical mistake in the following section.

and there fore, should a God appear to me personally with all sorts of proof that he IS "God" (creator of the universe and everything) then I can and will dismiss him. He can't be God because he doesn't fit my definition.

What you did here is inserting a false premise. You basically imply that a being that doesn't match my definition can or should be considered a god (even by me) and that should that different being personnaly contact me, I must accept it as such; that I cannot consider a creator of the universe and everything as something else than a god.

My point is that it is rather circular, yours.....and other atheistic...approaches.

There is no God because
There is no evidence that there is one
There can be no evidence that there is one because
There is no God.

Classic.

Actually the sequence goes like this

To be a god, a being must have the characteristics X
There can be no being with the characteristics X
Thus, There can be no god.

As you can see this isn't a circular reasonning. It's standard logic.

 

[ChristineM]

No I don't. I haven't claimed that there IS one

Right "He created the boxes." Is not a claim that your god created the boxes but really means 'i believe he...' gotya

This isn't about whether or not there is a God. It's about whether there is one or not.

Two ways of writing the same thing is like writing the same thing two ways.

YOU have already made up your mind that there isn't, and no evidence for one will be accepted.

Please dont dictate. I, like most atheists have followed the evidence (or the complete lack of it), should that lack change, i, like most atheists would reconsider. However, as is evident from this thread, that evidence would need to be conclusive.

First, that is as much a classification and an attribute given to God as 'He made the boxes (He created all things)"

Not my classification but the classification of god believers. And there yo go again with the definitive statement!

Second, you are correct, I think. I don't think an omni everything being would have any problems proving his credentials,

I know i am correct, however, an omni everything being cannot exist in this universe

But...what if He isn't 'omni everything?"

Then not a god worthy of consideration

And since when does one person's ability to prove something ensure that someone else will accept that proof?

There are always those who ignore fact, its a human condition and where would we be if we all stuck our heads in the sand?

Tell me; if this were NOT 'hypothetical,' would your answers change?

I mean, there's a word for that, and it begins with "hypo.."

I believe i have answered that above, and there us a word for your hypo comment, it begins ad hom

 

[amorphous_constellation]

If a god needs worship then there is a problem right there. Egotistical manifestations are ten a penny, even here on RF.

If gods come and provide really great services, why wouldn't they ask for a little veneration? be kinda odd if they didn't

 

[ChristineM]

If gods come and provide really great services, why wouldn't they ask for a little veneration? be kinda odd if they didn't

Why should they need it?

Egotistical?

Perhaps omnitistical to go with all the other omnis that people attribute to their mind fairy

 

[Quintessence]

The price is still too high. Worship is demeaning, and unbecoming of a human being.

I would hope you are aware that your understanding of what "worship" entails and that practiced by actual theists probably do not match up that well. Because for the life of me, I can't figure out what is demeaning about expressions of gratitude, awe, and reverence. I'm guessing you are imagining we do all sorts of silly things like running about naked in the streets in broad daylight flagellating ourselves with whips. Sorry to burst your bubble, but much like the Christians who claim Pagans like me flay and eat babies, that's not really how we work.

 

[Quintessence]

If gods come and provide really great services, why wouldn't they ask for a little veneration? be kinda odd if they didn't

It's not odd if your gods are not assumed to have human qualities. It's really important to remember that when it comes to religious mythos, personification is primarily a narrative tool not intended to be taken literally. That is, we tell stories about the gods as persons because we are persons and relate better to stories that are framed that way. Some take these stories at face value instead of going to their deeper lessons and meanings (aka, "mythological literalism"). When you don't do that, a question like this takes on a different light.

For my part, it's my understanding that the gods (well, most of them) are not human and have very alien motivations and natures. I wouldn't expect them to "ask" for anything, much less worship. It would be very odd if they did. Would we expect Storm who passes by our home to ask us to worship it? Of course not, that's silly. Storm just does what Storm does, humans bedamned.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Why should they need it?

Egotistical?

Perhaps omnitistical to go with all the other omnis that people attribute to their mind fairy

Why would they need it? Probably merely as a matter of respect, since they want some recognition for what they can help us with, so that we don't forget them in our history when we set out and go interstellar. I don't really know if they'd be 'egotistical,' to be egotistical, that means you don't measure up to what you say you can do. If they bring the goods, then the ego can be bigger. They can do more and know more