What evidence would convince a theist that God doesn't exist?

[firedragon]

There are debates on Gods existence. I believe that a lot of these debates commit the burden of proof fallacy. For example, when a theist opens the debate by saying "I believe God exists, unless you prove he doesn't" and to be fair when an atheist opens by saying "I dont believe God exists, unless you prove he does", both are committing the burden of proof fallacy.

When you propose something, you should provide the evidence to support your claim. When you propose something, negative or positive, and you base your argument on the opponents evidence that proves you wrong, thats the burden of proof fallacy.

But theists must have the empathy of the mind of the atheist as well. Thus, I wish to ask this question.

What evidence would convince a theist that God doesn't exist?

 

[SalixIncendium]

There is no objective evidence in favor of or against the existence of any sort of god, and there are so many varying perspectives on what god is, I find any argument for the existence or nonexistence of god an exercise in futility.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I find any argument for the existence or nonexistence of god an exercise in futility.

That said doesn't stop me from trying to think of one. Just call me Sisyphus.

 

[leov]

There are debates on Gods existence. I believe that a lot of these debates commit the burden of proof fallacy. For example, when a theist opens the debate by saying "I believe God exists, unless you prove he doesn't" and to be fair when an atheist opens by saying "I dont believe God exists, unless you prove he does", both are committing the burden of proof fallacy.

When you propose something, you should provide the evidence to support your claim. When you propose something, negative or positive, and you base your argument on the opponents evidence that proves you wrong, thats the burden of proof fallacy.

But theists must have the empathy of the mind of the atheist as well. Thus, I wish to ask this question.

What evidence would convince a theist that God doesn't exist?

something appeared to me a long time ago and declared 'I am God'. it did not direct me to prove anything to the the others.

 

[Salvador]

The double-slit experiment refutes the hypothesis of an all-knowing all-seeing God.

If there were an omni-God always observing and knowing which slit of a double-slit apparatus that a particle went through, the particle should always go through the double-slit apparatus only as matter behaving like a particle rather than a wave, such as observation collapses the particle's wave-function. However, unobserved matter appears to have a wave-like interference pattern as it passes through a double-slit apparatus. Since there are unobserved particles as evident by their wave-like interference pattern formed as they go through a double-slit apparatus , there is apparently no such real thing such as all matter always being observed nor thereby any omniscient being.

 

[Terry Sampson]

something appeared to me a long time ago and declared 'I am Go

You, too?

 

[Terry Sampson]

The double-slit experiment refutes the hypothesis of an all-knowing all-seeing God.

Balderdash! Quantum entanglement refutes your refutation.

 

[shmogie]

There are debates on Gods existence. I believe that a lot of these debates commit the burden of proof fallacy. For example, when a theist opens the debate by saying "I believe God exists, unless you prove he doesn't" and to be fair when an atheist opens by saying "I dont believe God exists, unless you prove he does", both are committing the burden of proof fallacy.

When you propose something, you should provide the evidence to support your claim. When you propose something, negative or positive, and you base your argument on the opponents evidence that proves you wrong, thats the burden of proof fallacy.

But theists must have the empathy of the mind of the atheist as well. Thus, I wish to ask this question.

What evidence would convince a theist that God doesn't exist?

Science and Atheists are incapable of providing proof that God does not exist. Philosophical naturalists operate within a framework which by itś own standard eliminates the supernatural. The supernatural that is part of the human experience. It is simply dismissed because it doesn't fit within the self limiting rules used.

Until science can prove, not hypostulate or theorize, the exact beginnings of the universe, and the beginning of life, for me personally, I will never change my views.

 

[leov]

You, too?

i guess so...

 

[leov]

Science and Atheists are incapable of providing proof that God does not exist. Philosophical naturalists operate within a framework which by itś own standard eliminates the supernatural. The supernatural that is part of the human experience. It is simply dismissed because it doesn't fit within the self limiting rules used.

Until science can prove, not hypostulate or theorize, the exact beginnings of the universe, and the beginning of life, for me personally, I will never change my views.

atheism is the last place i would check when looking for God...

 

[Terry Sampson]

atheism is the last place i would check when looking for God...

Ha! My list of "last places to look" is much longer than yours.

 

[SalixIncendium]

atheism is the last place i would check when looking for God...

Mine is under my bed. I don't think God would be consorting with monsters.

 

[Audie]

The double-slit experiment refutes the hypothesis of an all-knowing all-seeing God.

If there were an omni-God always observing and knowing which slit of a double-slit apparatus that a particle went through, the particle should always go through the double-slit apparatus only as matter behaving like a particle rather than a wave, such as observation collapses the particle's wave-function. However, unobserved matter appears to have a wave-like interference pattern as it passes through a double-slit apparatus. Since there are unobserved particles as evident by their wave-like interference pattern formed as they go through a double-slit apparatus , there is apparently no such real thing such as all matter always being observed nor thereby any omniscient being.

In stories of someone betting against Satan,
that they can outsmart him?

They always lose.

If there is god, there is no way anyone is
going to outsmart him.

 

[leov]

Mine is under my bed. I don't think God would be consorting with monsters.

try ' moving furniture trick'.

 

[George-ananda]

What evidence would convince a theist that God doesn't exist?

Well as a pantheist, no evidence for anything beyond physicalist operation of the universe would make me see no reason to be any kind of theist.

(The paranormal/mystical has convinced me there is 'more'. And I have come to believe masters/gurus that have delved the deepest can tell us of this 'more'.)

 

[Audie]

Well as a pantheist, no evidence for anything beyond physicalist operation of the universe would make me see no reason to be any kind of theist.

(The paranormal/mystical has convinced me there is 'more'. And I have come to believe masters/gurus that have delved the deepest can tell us of this 'more'.)

You have been telling us that.

 

[George-ananda]

You have been telling us that.

??? Just answering the OP question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are debates on Gods existence. I believe that a lot of these debates commit the burden of proof fallacy. For example, when a theist opens the debate by saying "I believe God exists, unless you prove he doesn't" and to be fair when an atheist opens by saying "I dont believe God exists, unless you prove he does", both are committing the burden of proof fallacy.

Not accepting a claim until there's reason to believe it's true isn't a fallacy; it's skepticism.

 

[Audie]

??? Just answering the OP question.

Whatever. Just sayin'. Ever tho consider
learning about one more tune?

Every one of your posts says the same thing!!

 

[firedragon]

Not accepting a claim until there's reason to believe it's true isn't a fallacy; it's skepticism.

You didnt understand the fallacy. But thats not too important.