How to disprove God to a believer? (no really)...

[Melody]

A Theist can no more prove that God/Gods exist than an Atheist can disprove their existance. When it comes to things as such, it is all a matter of how you view it. I think by either standard it takes FAITH to believe what you do.

Frubals. :clap

 

[Karl R]

Is it your opinion that appeals to reason (as opposed to appeals to emotion) inherently undermine faith?

... (some editing for brevity) ...

Is human employment and emphasis upon skepticism, reason, and critical evaluation/estimation to be relegated to some facile, dismissible "cult" status of errant, especially purposed, or wild-eyed "evangelism"?

Is supplantation of reason and critical thinking over faith-based rationales something to be feared and avoided at all costs? Is personal faith and derivative self-validation/justification so weak and unsubstantial, so as to regard espousal of critical thinking an evangelistic endeavor in and of itself??

... (some more editing for brevity) ...

Faith is easy to accept. Reason takes effort to employ. Debate serves to define the differences between the two. All may choose accordingly...and freely...

And in another thread:

I suppose the bottom line for an Atheist is, 2+2=4
you can be told all of your life it's 5, but no matter how much
you tell yourself they are right,
something deep down keeps telling you it's 4.
So if you know the answer is 5, you have got religion,
if you think the answer is 4, your an Agnostic,
if you know the answer is 4, your an Atheist.

I find this explanation interesting, due to its absolute ignorance of math.

Let me explain:
When I first went to college, I started off in honors calculus. In our first class, the professor did a proof on the board. (First listing the axioms that we were going to use as givens.) After completing the proof, the professor asked us, "We made one assumption that we shouldn't have. Does anyone know what it is?"

Several of the students guessed, but none of us were able to figure out the answer, until the teacher told us, "We assumed that two is not equal to zero."

30 students suddenly discovered that we had been accepting an unproven assumption as if it was fact.

In mathematics, everything is based on assumptions, even 2+2=4.


Many atheists aren't using "reason, and critical evaluation/estimation" to form their beliefs. They may use skepticism, but they blindly accept that atheism is somehow connected to science and fact.

I don't mind people who accept atheism as their belief system. Based on what can be proven, atheism is just as logical as theism.

I don't mind people who suggest (due to the lack of evidence) that Ockham's razor would indicate atheism is a more reasonable assumption than theism.

I do mind atheists who abandon critical evaluation and proclaim that they are atheists because atheism is reasonable and theism is not. They have fallen into the same trap they accuse evangelicals of succumbing to. shytot's post is a good example of an appeal to emotion masquerading as an appeal to reason.


I got the point of the original post. Atheists are tired of being asked what would "prove" theism to them. You wanted to turn the tables and direct the same kind of question at the theists. Neither question is productive, but the point was a useful one.

I agree, "Faith is easy to accept. Reason takes effort to employ." That phrase could be applied equally to atheists and theists. However, when debating about proving the unprovable (in either direction), a debate quickly passes a point of productivity.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Greetings s2a!!!
You replied to my post with:

And the first thing you manage in your above reply is a complete evasion of nearly 3/4 of my preceding post (you know, the parts about your characterization of "evangelical atheists"?); instead you choose to argue an issue I never presented.

*sigh*

Just the same, in reply to your first vague assessment, I ask:
How so? I made reference to issues of faith many times in the OP, acknowledging it's role in theistic beliefs.

Just the premise of asking believers to present arguments that would disprove their beliefs assumes as much despite the clarifications presented in the OP. It would be like me asking you to disprove atheism without using reason while acknowledging the role reason plays in atheism.

It was not I that suggested that faith was "dependent on ignorance". But neither would it be unfair to observe that many of faith willingly reject any knowledge that they deem as conflicting with - or contradictory to - their understanding or their faith.

Did I happen to quote any statement you made in my previous response as to rebute a direct statement of yours? All I did was acknowledge the existence of Fideism, which you have also acknowledged, and clarify that, that is not the presentation I would be using.

As Paul notes in Titus 1, "...the knowledge of the Truth..." is "...a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life..." [as promised by God]). Faith-based rationales and motivations borne of wishful thinking are not especially conducive to discernment of fact, or to open inquiry.

"wishful thinking" eh? Nice choice of words. You should look into the history of this subject matter. You might find that Christian Apologetics (1Pet. 3:15) was actually born of criticism and persecution of believers. Did you know that some of the first Christians were actually called atheists for their refusal to acknowledge that ceasars were gods? Polycarp tried to present an argument defending that accusation and was arrested and sentenced to death. While in the arena facing his impending doom, he was told to recant his beliefs to avoid death and he answered by calling the crowd atheists. The rest is obvious.

Faith is easy, and many can claim "knowledge of the Truth"; even or despite lacking capacities to read, write, or astutely evaluate foundational claims and concepts for themselves.
Ignorance certainly isn't requisite to faith, but neither is challenge to personalized faith especially encouraged, invited, or welcomed either.

By some maybe but I and the Bible more than welcome it (once again 1Pet.3:15)

I advocate reason. I don't waste effort "downplaying the role of faith" in religious beliefs. Your piety is yours - and yours alone - to claim or master as you see fit. Whatever level, degree, or brand of faith you espouse is of no interest or consequence to me, nor is it of any question in the points I choose to offer within this thread.

Thats mighty big of you!!! I guess I was under the impression that I was allowed to present exactly which faith I held before I presented an argument. Appearantly I was wrong, my bad.

Your lent caveat ("From a Christian Theistic worldview") - while candid - certainly does limit the scope of what such a perspective might constitute as "damaging" disproof.

With the vast varieties of philosophies that can be claimed while also claiming "christianity" (wiccan/christian; fideism; deism; etc.) I felt the need to claify once again which argument I would be presenting. How nice of you to point out how candid it is though.

The "Cosmological argument" (or as you qualify it, "the first principle of causality"), is an argument for (or favoring) the existence of [a] god.

While the first principle of causality plays a role in the cosmological argument, there is much more to it than that. While I could've presented other such parts of the cosmological argument as motion(Aquinas); possibility & necessity; gradation; Duns Scotus' argument from producibility; Leibniz's argument from sufficient reason; etc. I felt it would better serve the thread by not taking up as much space and present a simpler aspect.

It proposes no methodology for falsification of that "logical proof"

Nice copout. Silly me, I didn't know that I was required to present the methodology of it. If you would like I can do so, but wouldn't it be better presented in a different thread? Then again I am sure we will have to clarify what is meant by methodology.


continued in the next post...

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

continued from previous post...

which goes somewhat like this:
1) If something exists...then "something else" must have caused that first something to exist.
2) Nothing can cause itself into existence.
3) A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4) Therefore, there must be a first cause.
Rhetorical conclusion: What could possibly exist before the universe existed, to "cause it" into existence? Only [a] god."
Seems to make sense at first glance, doesn't it...at least if you don't bother to think too much beyond that simplistic conclusion; to ask more questions; or to illustrate the flaws/errors of the given premises themselves.
If space/time the cosmos) is infinite (a cyclical continuum - instead of a linear progression), does it then require a "first cause"? If no causation is required, then no "god explanation" is necessary.
If the cosmos (spacetime) is finite (with a beginning and end), then there is a point in which spacetime is (or was) non-existent. "Cause" (or causation) is itself a temporal concept (of time) - an instigating event (or "thing") that produces a result...over some measure of time. If there is no time, there is no existent cause (nor any need of one).
[The question and nature of cosmological spacetime (as being either finite or infinite) remains unanswered and incomplete by science today, as both possibilities have their supporters and detractors. This is not to be confused with Big Bang theory, per se...as most cosmologists (and within other related fields of study) retain an overwhelming consensus in support of that predominantly-held understanding (considering that the Bang has been evidentially demonstrated "backwards" in spacetime to the first few millionths of a second, it's hard to argue against it ;-)).
We already know (in fact) that sometimes, some things can and do come from "nothing" (ex nihilo). Subatomic particles pop into and out of existence as virtual particles; unpredictable manifestations of a time-energy uncertainty principle. [Go ask a qualified quantum field theorist for expert details on this phenomena]. In essence, there is no attributable "cause" to either their temporary existence, or disappearance into non-existence. Does this phenomena prove that a god therefore exists...or that a god is completely unnecessary as a logical explanation of (first) cause and effect?
When you think about it for just a bit, the "first cause" argument is demonstrably flawed (by extant fact); presents no empirical or evidential "proof" (of an existent god), just an "either/or" rhetorical proposition; nor does it outline any methodology of/for "disproof".
As you might suggest, it's a matter of faith to accept the "first cause" conclusion as some compelling logical fact, or existential "Truth".
Lucky me - as I am not bound by faith to believe or accept anything so tenuous, or failing in compelling conclusion.

Has this turned into a debate over causality? I am trully impressed in your vast knowledge of $20 dollar words and scripture and would love to have a one on one debate with you over the existence of God. I will even start one for you if you would like. I was under the impression that this particular thread was for believers to present possible disproofs of their beliefs. While this is a debate forum, for the sake of keeping this thread from taking a completely sidetracking direction, I propose the above.

To reiterate once more, I have lent ernest, honest, and qualified answer here to the inevitable religious evangelist's query of "What would it take for you to believe in God?".
It would again seem that my question of "What would it take for you to not believe in God?" remains beyond any similarly qualified response on your part, excepting:

As a follower of calvinism, my answer to your question of "What would it take for you to believe in God?". would be a regeneration of your heart by God.
I guess now is just as good a time as any to clarify the difference between evangelism and apologetics. As R.C. Sproul puts it in his book "Defending your Faith", while the role of evangelism may be persuasive, the role of apologetics is to merely present proof.
" The old aphorism rings true 'people convinced against their will hold the same opinions still'. That is why, for example, if a Christian were to win an intellectual debate with a non-Christian, the victory celebration may never take place. The non-Christian might concede defeat, thought usually not until his head hits the pillow at the end of the day. This may never translate into conversion, but there is some value to this aspect of 'winning' an argument. On the one hand, as Calvin said, the unbridled barking of the ungodly may be restrained; and on the other, the intellectual victory provides assurance and protection to the young Christian who is not yet able to repel the bombardment of criticism from scholars and skeptics. It serves as a confirmation of the Christian faith."

You wouldn't know. You'd never know. You'd just be dead. The dead know nothing, feel nothing, and retain nothing.
Ecclesiastes 9:10
Now that, I can believe. ;-)

While your knowledge of scripture is impressive, your exegesis is lacking. To take a book that happens to be one of my favorite and turn verses in to absolutes while ignoring the conclusion made at the end of the book; Ecc. 12:13-14; "The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgement, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil." shows nothing more than a convenient and complete refusal to use the proposed verse in it's original context. Eccl. 9:10 is a verse proclaiming the lack of activity as we know it here on earth, not a proclaimation that there is absolutely no activity when one dies or ends up in "shoel". Obviously, with the end of the verse stating "where you are going" is a statement claiming some sort of existence and activity after death.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[Katzpur]

I'm curious as to why anyone would particularly want to try to disprove God to a believer. Maybe it's for the same reason a lot of Fundamentalist Christians try to tell me I don't believe in the "real Jesus" -- it's just out of love, or so they say. Do you, as an atheist, just want me to stop believing because of some deep-seated feeling of concern for my well-being?

 

[Snowbear]

I'm curious as to why anyone would particularly want to try to disprove God to a believer. Maybe it's for the same reason a lot of Fundamentalist Christians try to tell me I don't believe in the "real Jesus" ...

Me too.... Probably much like a lot of mormons trying to tell me that the LDS is the only true church and the rest of us are using a bible with 'incorrect' translation rather than the interpretation of a certain church founding prophet

But as has been clear in this thread, s2a just wants to beat down anything Christians say as illogical in an attempt to prove to himself how right he is for holding on to his atheist beliefs. I do enjoy fruballing those who, in good faith, attempt to debate him, though

 

[Katzpur]

Me too.... Probably much like a lot of mormons trying to tell me that the LDS is the only true church and the rest of us are using a bible with 'incorrect' translation rather than the interpretation of a certain church founding prophet

I can see what you're getting at, but for starters, we actually use the same translation of the Bible as a great many other Christians (i.e. the KJV). Secondly, I'm actually not opposed to anyone trying to share their beliefs with me. It would be totally hypocritical for me to say it's okay for Mormons to proselytize but wrong for anybody else to. I've just never been able to feel any kind of love at all when I'm being told I'm going to Hell unless I find the "real" Jesus. I'm sure there are some Mormons whose approach is similar to that. I hope I'm not one of them.

But as has been clear in this thread, s2a just wants to beat down anything Christians say as illogical in an attempt to prove to himself how right he is for holding on to his atheist beliefs. I do enjoy fruballing those who, in good faith, attempt to debate him, though

You're right about that, and I think he has a lot of company. I'm sure you won't be fruballing me, because I am almost never inclined to get into debates with atheists over the existence of God. I'm sure that, in spite of our differences of opinion, you will agree with me that it is pointless to debate something that cannot be logically proven one way or the other. I figure it would be pointless for me to try to convince someone who doesn't believe in God that He exists. On the other hand, any athiest who is convinced that he can disprove the existence of God to a believer is kidding himself. It's just not going to happen and, in my opinion, it's a waste of everybody's time.

 

[MaddLlama]

I'm curious as to why anyone would particularly want to try to disprove God to a believer. Maybe it's for the same reason a lot of Fundamentalist Christians try to tell me I don't believe in the "real Jesus" -- it's just out of love, or so they say. Do you, as an atheist, just want me to stop believing because of some deep-seated feeling of concern for my well-being?

I agree with you. I for one have no interest in convincing theists not to be. What purpose does that serve? Id rather worry about myself.

 

[joeboonda]

You want us to cite something that would make us not believe in God? Well, there just isn't anything! My conscience, the creation, changed lives, the lives of my parents and Christians I knew growing up and now, and the difference I saw in them compared to others, the scientific, historical, archeological, prophetical, spiritual truths of the Bible...etc. There is nothing that can compare. It is funny, in the 1800s some preachers and regular folk became discouraged because of some paper of 66 or so scientific statements of the Bible that they had proved incorrect, but, as the years passed, the scientists were seen to be incorrect, on all 66 statements, and the Bible true. I will stick with my Bible, and Jesus, He has taken care of me all this time, I trust Him to bring me home.

 

[s2a]

For the following commentaries lent by these contributors, it is incumbent - as preface - that I quote myself from the OP (just 48 posts previous), to illustrate once again the presented premised questions put of self-ascribed "believers"...

As I said in the OP:

"Perhaps now is the opportunity for believers (adherents of deistic religious beliefs) to cite any evidentiary examples (as undeniable and incontrovertible) theycan offer that would, in effect, "disprove" the "existence" of their professed deity - and would result in their "un-conversion" to "unbelief" (or non-acceptance of claims) of any/all supernatural god(s)."

"But is there any "evidence" (beyond that which is already available) that would persuade you as a "believer" that all claims of supernatural deities are bunk? If so, please offer such prospective "disproofs"".

"Believers have asked me many times over the years, "What would it take (for) you to believe?"...
...Now, the converse question is put to believers for similar consideration and honest reply.

What say you?"
[Boldface emphasis added]

Needless to say, the first simple answer presented in reply could just have been..."no".
The second most obvious answers could have been, "I don't know", or, "I can't think of anything that would".
Another option would have been (as initially invited) to present an example (either phenomena, physical evidence, or circumstance) that would constitute - in the mind of that individual - a positive "disproof" of any veritable existence of a supernatural force/deity...as adhered/accepted by (their individually held) faith.

A simple revisitation and rereading of that OP would note that I tendered NO disproof(s) of any god(s), nor did I suggest that ANY were available. I did not inquire as to how I might "disprove" an individual's faith/belief in a/their god(s), as part of the initial premised inquiries.

A poor (and univited) option in reply was exercized instead to mischaracterize the qualified questions (and lent position) as outlined in the OP; (errantly) implying efforts on my part to "disprove" some existent god (or adherent belief therein).

To wit:

retrorich said:

Why would anyone want to disprove God to believers? Let them take comfort in their beliefs, as long as they do not attempt to impose them on others. PEACE

"As long as..."
Indeed.

Katzpur said:

I'm curious as to why anyone would particularly want to try to disprove God to a believer....

Dunno. Let's ask someone who is actually attempting to do so, shall we?


The only straightforward and most recent contextually apt reply was offered by joeboonda, who said:

You want us to cite something that would make us not believe in God? Well, there just isn't anything!

Ya see? Answer to the question at hand can be met, beyond mischaracterization or rhetorical question.
(Frubals for joeboonda's earnest and pointed reply).

 

[s2a]

Snowbear said (offhand, to Katzpur):

But as has been clear in this thread, s2a just wants to beat down anything Christians say as illogical in an attempt to prove to himself how right he is for holding on to his atheist beliefs.

Spurious allegation.
Please cite quotable instances within this thread where I characterized a commentary as "illogical".
The only specific reference I made regarding logic was within post #11 (in a reply to you), in which I said:
"So, to pose "the question" [ie., "What would it take for you to believe in God"] without reflexive accountability (whilst maintaining the original claim that "disbelief" will result in undesirable personal consequence) is rationally, logically, and intellectually bankrupt in my estimation."

Note that my position was predicated upon (an) unaccepted accountability for due answer to a reflexively - fair, contextual, counter-question. My comment lent no measure as to any logic you chose to utilize as commentary for yourself.

Once again, I would remind you that this thread resides within a forum inviting debate. It would be counter to my interests not to present arguments/commentary that I feel support/justify my stated positions. As always in such give-and-take exchanges, it is for both the participants involved, and the attendant audience to decide for themselves who is "right"...or presents the more compelling argument.

[I'm curious. Just what are "atheist beliefs", beyond non-acceptance of claims of supernatural cause/effect explanations as being credible (or "believeable") beyond reasonable doubt? I invite you to specifically detail what "atheist beliefs" incorporate, claim, or espouse (as you understand them to be beyond my own provided caveat). I seem to have misplaced my own "Handbook of Atheist Beliefs". Who knows what ungodly things I am supposed to be believing, but not living up to somehow?].

 

[s2a]

To Karl R and SoliDeoGloria,

I appreciate both of your thoughtful replies, and I seek to provide you both due rebuttals within the next 24-72 hours. A familial priority that supersedes my indulgence of REF matters has just arisen, that demands my immediate and focused attentions.

Your consideration of this inopportune timing is appreciated.

Thanks. ;-)

 

[Snowbear]

Once again, I would remind you that this thread resides within a forum inviting debate.

Yep. And as you yourself pointed out, I have already answered your original question....

Is there ...[anything]...that would, in fact, lend you to conclude that all claims to deities are unfounded/unmerited, or certifiably "disproved"?"

To paraphrase (abuse?) a popular cinematic classic quote...You had me at; 'In my case at least, there are none.'"

Your answer was, succinctly put..."NO".

And now after again showing me how intellectually bankrupt a post of mine is, you extemd the following:

I invite you to specifically detail ...

No thanks. As I said before (to paraphrase): It was an error on my part to attempt to participate in a discussion with you as I'm far too stewpid to hold up my end of the discussion/debate. I'd rather not keep setting myself up to have my intellectually, scientifically and logically bankrupt statements further discredited

 

[Fluffy]

There is no evidence that I can think of at this point in time which would lead me to feel that my faith has been disproved. I would go even further and say that my faith is impossible to disprove.

This is simply because my faith, at least at its very core, is not based upon reason nor evidence. It is pure blind emotion. You might be able to come up with evidence and reasoning that change me as a person, and therefore perhaps change my emotions and make me abandon my faith. But this would not disprove my faith.

 

[Mister_T]

There is no evidence that I can think of at this point in time which would lead me to feel that my faith has been disproved. I would go even further and say that my faith is impossible to disprove.

This is simply because my faith, at least at its very core, is not based upon reason nor evidence. It is pure blind emotion. You might be able to come up with evidence and reasoning that change me as a person, and therefore perhaps change my emotions and make me abandon my faith. But this would not disprove my faith.

That pretty much sums it up for me as well.

I personally have tried to disprove my faith to myself. After experiencing what I have, I can't logically do so.

 

[logician]

It is quite evident that the biblical Jesus could never have existed, given, the lack of independant historical evidence of such a man, and the many conflicts of the gospels and epistles. Given that, Chrisitianity is a religion that must at some point change , or fade away as an anachrosnism.

 

[Snowbear]

It is quite evident that the biblical Jesus could never have existed, given, the lack of independant historical evidence of such a man, and the many conflicts of the gospels and epistles. Given that, Chrisitianity is a religion that must at some point change , or fade away as an anachrosnism.

Prove it.

 

[Smoke]

It is funny, in the 1800s some preachers and regular folk became discouraged because of some paper of 66 or so scientific statements of the Bible that they had proved incorrect, but, as the years passed, the scientists were seen to be incorrect, on all 66 statements, and the Bible true.

What were the 66 statements? Who wrote the paper on it, who was discouraged by it, and who proved the statements true?

 

[logician]

"prove it"

Check out the jesuspuzzle site, which also has links to many other sites that discuss the historicity of the supposed Jesus.



Let's face it, there really is no concrete evidence whatsoever that the biblical Jesus existed, but plenty of evidence that he was a mythical creation of the "literalist" wing of early Christlianity, that's why Christianity stresses "faith" over facts.

 

[logician]

One cannot disprove a religion based upon faith, because the foundation of that religion is not based upon fact to begin with. This is how Chrisitianity has maintained its hold for 2k years, by demanding unquestioning faith from its followers.