Prove that humans aren't blind to God's existence

[PureX]

I would submit that religion spreads because many people are not mentally strong enough to face reality without a crutch.

I see no prejudice in that, but perhaps you do.

There are all kinds of "crutches" in life. Atheists and theists each have their own kinds of "crutches" that they rely on.

 

[PureX]

Exactly. Evidence is based on experience. That was the whole point of this thread. Atheists ignore what a theist considers evidence, while a theist accepts what an atheist considers evidence. It's a completely one-sided debate.

A man is sitting under an apple tree contemplating the existence of God. Unknown to him, a deadly spider is crawling up the back of the tree, about to bite him on the neck. An apple falls off the tree and kills the spider just before it can bite the man, and the noise alerts the man to the danger he was in, and to what happened to relieve it.

"It's a sign from God!", the man cries. "God has saved my life and the proof of his existence is right before our very eyes!" But a skeptic happens along at that time, and points out that although the apple falling on the spider just as the man was in danger is an unlikely event, it did occur, and is therefor not an impossible event to have occurred simply by chance. And therefor is not proof of God's existence or manipulation of physical events.

My point is that both the believers and the skeptics are irrational, and are basing their beliefs on pre-determined opinions about what God is and how God "works" that have no basis in reality. As a result, they both have completely different criteria (and they both have biased criteria) as to what constitutes "evidence". Which is why "evidence" will never resolve the debate between theists and atheists.

 

[crystalonyx]

A man is sitting under an apple tree contemplating the existence of God. Unknown to him, a deadly spider is crawling up the back of the tree, about to bite him on the neck. An apple falls off the tree and kills the spider just before it can bite the man, and the noise alerts the man to the danger he was in, and to what happened to relieve it.

"It's a sign from God!", the man cries. "God has saved my life and the proof of his existence is right before our very eyes!" But a skeptic happens along at that time, and points out that although the apple falling on the spider just as the man was in danger is an unlikely event, it did occur, and is therefor not an impossible event to have occurred simply by chance. And therefor is not proof of God's existence or manipulation of physical events.

My point is that both the believers and the skeptics are irrational, and are basing their beliefs on pre-determined opinions about what God is and how God "works" that have no basis in reality. As a result, they both have completely different criteria (and they both have biased criteria) as to what constitutes "evidence". Which is why "evidence" will never resolve the debate between theists and atheists.

So what is god?

 

[Magic Man]

Exactly. Evidence is based on experience. That was the whole point of this thread. Atheists ignore what a theist considers evidence, while a theist accepts what an atheist considers evidence. It's a completely one-sided debate.

I wouldn't say that a theist always accepts what an atheist considers evidence. The difference between what an atheist generally considers evidence and what a theist considers evidence is that the atheist's is something that can easily be experienced by anyone. Everyone can easily see gravity. Everyone can easily see biology and even evolutionary processes. It takes a very particular perspective or experience to see God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly. Evidence is based on experience. That was the whole point of this thread. Atheists ignore what a theist considers evidence, while a theist accepts what an atheist considers evidence. It's a completely one-sided debate.

I disagree.

I accept quite a bit of what could be considered evidence in favour of theism, but I also accept evidence in favour of atheism. In the balance, for me, atheism wins out. It's not a matter of ignoring all evidence for theism; in some regard, even an image of Jesus in the mold on the side of a building in Arkansas is evidence for theism. It's actually a matter of weighing the evidence on both sides.

Also, I think it's worth pointing out that certain types of evidence are different in nature to different people, and therefore command different weight in their decisions: I'm sure that what you take as a personal revelation of God would be very compelling to you, but to anyone else that same experience would be only hearsay.

On top of this, the atheist has the problem of having similar hearsay from theists whose beliefs are mutually exclusive, implying that at least some compelling theistic experiences come from something other than a deity. Once this is acknowledged, there is no pressing reason for an atheist to assume that anyone's compelling theistic experiences come from a deity at all.

 

[emiliano]

Based on your religion tag, you believe that the Christian god exists, and if you are like the average Christian, you devote a significant portion of your time to activities that are based on your belief that the Christian god exists. Unless you can produce evidence that the Christian god exists, you "believe in something without any evidence whatsoever, to the point of devoting lifelong time and energy to it." The same is true for any devoutly religious person.

Why to you worry about other peoples usage of their time and energy?
Have you ever asked a Christian if they lament having use their time in communion with the greatest of being?
What do you think that the end result of these practices is?
Personally I can tell you that spending this time and energy, gives me rest, hope and happiness, at one stage of my life I searched and I found (there is no doubts in me) now I can be still and know that there is God, as the Psalmist said Psa 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God! I will be praised among the nations, I will be praised in the earth.
What make you think that Christians need to prove to you that their God exist?
They know that He does and so do billions of others peoples. If God want you in His flock He would just call you and you could not resist, and you would not know why you changed, it is God work , His Grace sovereignly give to whom He wants. I see this coming to pass “I will be praised among the nations, I will be praised in the earth” some are out of the loop, I don’t know why.

 

[Dunemeister]

Just so you know, I haven't forgotten this thread. I just haven't had time to compose a response that 9/10 Penguin's post deserves. However, I may just leave it alone given that it's slightly tangential to the real topic of the thread. Nice sparring with you, Penguin!

 

[Willamena]

I wouldn't say that a theist always accepts what an atheist considers evidence. The difference between what an atheist generally considers evidence and what a theist considers evidence is that the atheist's is something that can easily be experienced by anyone. Everyone can easily see gravity. Everyone can easily see biology and even evolutionary processes. It takes a very particular perspective or experience to see God.

But the objective evidence (that that is seen by everyone, experienced by anyone, which belongs to atheist, theist and everyone else) is not seen in the same way by everyone, which I think PureX's story demonstrates well.

 

[Gunfingers]

It should also be mentioned that evidence doesn't have to come from experience. Evidence from experiences is called an anecdote and is kind of irrelevant since no one else can experience and/or verify it.

 

[Willamena]

It should also be mentioned that evidence doesn't have to come from experience. Evidence from experiences is called an anecdote and is kind of irrelevant since no one else can experience and/or verify it.

Everything that is "to us" is evidenced by the senses. There is nothing that we can be aware of that is not "anecdotal" in the sense you mention.

 

[Gunfingers]

Erm...no? Anecdotal evidence is stuff that happened to you. Valid evidence is things with references, things people can look at and verify. "God is real because i can feel him" tells me nothing. "Here is a readout from my God-O-Meter(tm)" is something i can use. It's objective, it's measureable, and it's real. Experiences are, at best, only one of these.

 

[PureX]

So what is god?

EXACTLY! That's the question that has to be asked and answered before we can determine what would constitute evidence of the existence of "God".

 

[Willamena]

Erm...no? Anecdotal evidence is stuff that happened to you.

That says the same thing I said, in a nutshell.

Valid evidence is things with references, things people can look at and verify. "God is real because i can feel him" tells me nothing. "Here is a readout from my God-O-Meter(tm)" is something i can use. It's objective, it's measureable, and it's real. Experiences are, at best, only one of these.

Right. But one person can look at a book and verify it exists with his senses. If he then tells another person about what he experienced, that is anecdotal. He has become a reference for its verification: the book is evidenced to him, and he in turn evidences it to others.

"God is real because I can feel him" tells the person who didn't feel God just as much (and as little) as "the book is real because I saw it and I held it" tells the person who didn't experience the book. If a person didn't directly experience it themselves, it's anecdotal; and everything directly experienced can be anecdotal.

 

[Dunemeister]

EXACTLY! That's the question that has to be asked and answered before we can determine what would constitute evidence of the existence of "God".

Yep. Part of the problem is that we all think we know what everyone's talking about when we throw around this notoriously slippery word. However, another problem lies with deferring all discussion until all the terms have minutely precise definitions. And when it comes to foundational or important terms, such as "god", we may have to live with a certain fuzziness. Some people unreasonably assume that the fuzziness constitutes an excuse for saying the word has no referent, and that's just as bad as not offering a definition at all.

 

[emiliano]

This is good, but it is time for conclusions, I conclude that some men are blind to God’s existence but the great majority of all generation of humans are not, putting fancy (slippery) words and define them in terms that the exponents of theism did not use is not going to prove anything to either side.
Tompug what was your intention for starting this discussion?
Conversion? What is your conclusion?
To me believing without proof causes me no problems, I walk this life by faith not by sight, it actually brings me hope, peace and happiness. I like Pascal’s wager, if I am wrong, still I would have lived a life of hope, a happy life, if I am right and God exist, my earthly happiness will turn into a blissful eternal life. if I am wrong on this what have a lost?

 

[tomspug]

If he then tells another person about what he experienced, that is anecdotal. He has become a reference for its verification: the book is evidenced to him, and he in turn evidences it to others.

Huh, sounds a lot like the Bible! And the Bible itself isn't evidence of God for ourselves. In comparison with our own experience, it is either contrary or compatible. BUT, neither conclusion can be drawn without a proper understanding of the book's contents and context. Education is NECESSARY! In the same way that education is necessary to understand and accept math, science, economics, etc.

 

[tomspug]

This is good, but it is time for conclusions, I conclude that some men are blind to God’s existence but the great majority of all generation of humans are not, putting fancy (slippery) words and define them in terms that the exponents of theism did not use is not going to prove anything to either side.
Tompug what was your intention for starting this discussion?
Conversion? What is your conclusion?
To me believing without proof causes me no problems, I walk this life by faith not by sight, it actually brings me hope, peace and happiness. I like Pascal’s wager, if I am wrong, still I would have lived a life of hope, a happy life, if I am right and God exist, my earthly happiness will turn into a blissful eternal life. if I am wrong on this what have a lost?

Why so impatient? It is not my job as a Christian to be responsible for other people's relationship with God. My only purpose is to experience God for myself and to share my experience with others. Through those two things, I love God and love others, thus fulfilling the commandments laid down by Jesus Christ. How am I loving people by attempting to force them to draw conclusions? Let them figure things out for themselves.

 

[PureX]

Yep. Part of the problem is that we all think we know what everyone's talking about when we throw around this notoriously slippery word. However, another problem lies with deferring all discussion until all the terms have minutely precise definitions. And when it comes to foundational or important terms, such as "god", we may have to live with a certain fuzziness. Some people unreasonably assume that the fuzziness constitutes an excuse for saying the word has no referent, and that's just as bad as not offering a definition at all.

I agree. One thing we can say about "God" is that the idea of God exists. And ideas have a kind of reality of their own even if they are based on an inaccurate conception of reality. Our ideas effect us. And that effect is real. People do experience this effect and rightly attribute it to "God".

 

[The Voice of Reason]

...To me believing without proof causes me no problems, I walk this life by faith not by sight, it actually brings me hope, peace and happiness.

Even though I am an agnostic, I have a lot of respect for people that espouse this position. I put Scott1, angellous, Scuba Pete, and several others in this category.

 

[Magic Man]

But the objective evidence (that that is seen by everyone, experienced by anyone, which belongs to atheist, theist and everyone else) is not seen in the same way by everyone, which I think PureX's story demonstrates well.

Right. That's why I mentioned before that it's two different ways of looking at things. The point is that we can all see a baby, and agree that it's a baby. The difference is in what we attribute to it. Atheists don't generally (and I do mean generally) attribute any more meaning than that to it. In that way, it's easier to agree on that evidence.