With my first post on this site, I'd like to address two issues:
1) What of evidence?
I like the opening question on this post, and would like to bring this thread back to what originated it. What would comprise sufficient evidence for me to become a believer? One of the main forces in my conversion to atheism was my search for truth. I take philosophy and ethics very seriously, and if I was going to embark on this search, I wanted to be as impartial as possible. So many times we see the extremes from both camps being so dogmatic in their refusal to consider the other view point, that it seems pointless to debate.
This question is an important one for both theists and atheists to ponder. To take the position that nothing, be it hard-evidence or points conceded in a philosophical debate could ever change your view is to admit that reason and logic have been thrown out of your arena alltogether. It is important for the theist to entertain the thought: "Just *what* could prove to me that my theism is unfounded or untrue?". It is just as important for the atheist to think "What evidence could I be presented that would make me believe?"
I had an interesting thought a few months ago that I think both theists and atheists should grapple with. Even if there was a plethora of evidence for the existence of a god, there would still be atheists in the world. Even if there was no evidence whatsover, there would still be theists.
So, without opening a huge discussion on epistemology, I'll say that here is my list in two sections
A) In the philosophical arena
- We've already talked about the use of our 5 senses in both gaining knowledge about and interpreting human knowledge. So I'll start with the given premise that we consider that our five sense are valid cognitive tools for human understanding.
- That being said, if someone posited a coherent and internally consistent definition of God, he would have to explain by which means I needed to come to "see" god. If these means rely on something outside of the five sense (something like "faith"), then he would have to demonstrate that faith is both a valid and consistent cognitive tool. By consistent, he would have to demonstrate that faith can not only provide the correct answer, it can do so consistently. Unlike the tossing of a coin, it can't be merely statistically deterministic and "sometimes right".
He would also have to contrast how faith as a cognitive tool has impacted not only the differing belief's of people in the same religion, but also differing religions, be they currently practiced or dead.
I consider none of these requirements to be too strict in that I require the same rigour of the scientist, of the philosopher, and of the atheist. I make the same demands of a the scientist when he argues that empiricism is a valid means of human knowledge.
B) In the material arena
- This is where I echo what has already been said. Theists (at least Christian theists) are positing the existence of an all-powerful being. To say God is all powerful is an attempt to ascribe a positive attribute to a being that is sorely lacking in the department, and to attempt to avoid the limitation of a negative. Omnipotent - without limitations with regards to power. (Of course, even this poses serious problems when we take a real human concept like "power" and try and apply it to the infinite. Can god make a square circle in the same respect? A rock so large he can't lift it?)
So atheists reply "Show us the money!". Give us hard evidence about the existence of an immaterial all-powerful being and we will concede our point. We don't mean a human finding solace in the thought of a an omnibenevolent father, or that freak appearance of what looks like a virgin mary in that cheese-sandwich that sold on eBay for 30,000. We want simple, non-contestable evidence.
The all-too oft reply is "You're being too literal! God works in mysterious ways. We can't possibly comprehend the mind of our infinite father! He has a reason for everything, even if you can't see the master plan". Aside from the glaring agnostic problems with this line of reasononing, we still respond with "where's the beef? I still see no problem with asking God to appear in front of every person on the planet at the same time and say "STOP FIGHTING MY PETTY CHILDREN!!!"".
Omnipotence. Such a being that posesses it has the ability to do anything. There is no action required from such a being. There is literally nothing standing in the way of God having exactly the universe he wants. (And yes, that even includes a world-filled with humans that both had complete free-will, and all CHOSE to be good out of their own volition, all make the *right* choice.)
If such a being wanted to let people on earth be aware of his existence, it would be done. He could put a fresh loaf of bread by the feet of all of the millions of hungry people in the world. News reporters would flock to 3rd world countries to cover the story, showing thousands of tapes of footage of people eating bread that just appeared out of nowhere. People would rejoice. The world would be stood on its head!
Again, what is preventing such a God from flexing his omnipotent muscle? Especially considering that he doesn't even have to flex any muscle to accomplishe his goals. (Is this being perfect? Can a perfect being even *have* goals?)
Thy will be done?
Jaggy
For me to believe God exists, I merely have to sense Him/Her/It in some way... either with one of the 5 senses, or with my intellect, or instinct or intuition. SOMETHING. But I don't... and until I do, I'm not believing.
