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

[Audie]

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

And there is NO equivalence between the god-claim,
and not believing it!

Sorry, goddies, you dont get to do that any more
than creos get to claim ID is "science".

 

[Audie]

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

The fellow on the iceberg wearing a feather tux is way way
to smart not to understand, my friend. The failure is entirely on you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

 

[George-ananda]

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

Every one of your posts says the same thing!!

The only tune I’m interested in is the most accurate one, Ms Sourpuss.

 

[sun rise]

I have, as it were, smelled a rose. Someone telling me I've not, as it were, smelled the rose would be nonsensical to me.

I have come to believe masters/gurus that have delved the deepest can tell us of this 'more'.

That is my experience as well. I have had experience of this that are seared into and become a central part of my being.

 

[firedragon]

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.

People vary in their thoughts. There are some who became theists simply because they saw an exorcism work right. And there are theists who lost their faith because the same exorcism was a psychological therapy, not a divine healing and it was evident.

There are others who will never see any evidence of any standard to mean anything. There are people who believe in astrology but are living in poverty. And every time you show them that they have failed in their astrology all their life, they will never change their beliefs. There are Atheists who claim to be atheists who in research interviews say that they actually believe in God. There are Theists who's wives know that they only claim to be theists but thats for acceptance in a group or institution that has a good network of people.

People are diverse. So I wish to hear peoples views. And thank you for yours.

 

[Link]

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?

The world (due to having the evils it has) and a Good benevolent creator are incompatible (That is if they can properly show no possible theodicy can work). (1)

This would convince me God doesn't exist.

That God is not universally experienced by every human including themselves. (2)

This would as well.

That who we are can exist accurately without God's vision (3)

The reason this would make me believe he doesn't exist, is this how mainly I see him to exist and so if what appears to be an attribute of God and reality intertwined is proven hallucinatory, I would doubt everything I experience about God and God would be appear if he exists, to have made it seem he exists with some illusion, which seems like an incompatibility with God.

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

I don't think that there is such a symetry of burder of proof here. Claiming the existence of a deity is inherently a bolder claim than the claim of disbelief in such a deity.

That aside, it is generally impossible to disprove anything except to the extent that what is being proposed can be detectable. That is why Russell's Teapot is a thing (or rather, probably isn't).

A theist may have his or her own parameters, or he or she may be suscetible to arguments based on theodicy, for instance. But it is essentially impossible to prove that there is no god if that god might conceivably exist yet choose not to be detectable.

So it comes down to gauging what form of structure sustains the individual believer's theism and addressing that structure. Or, perhaps, analyzing the description of a certain god-conception and pointing out its flaws and contradictions (which could easily result in simply encouraging the adoption of a different god-conception).

Other than that, no, it is not really possible to evidence the non-existence of any god. Not anymore than it is possible to prove that I am not from Alpha Centauri.

 

[MonkeyFire]

I was faced with evidence suggesting there were no God, known as the problem of evil, but I defeated problem of evil crab in great battle. Whereth I reasoned that one must save itself to go to Heaven. For your ignorance and bigotry are your own and they're the only thing preventing the end of your suffering, but the problem is people wont let go of there anger in order to do it. But, because I was happy, and had equanimity the crab moved out of my way, and I climbed up the rope and I went into nirvana.

 

[David J]

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?

I don't believe a teapot too small to be seen by a telescope orbits the Sun between Earth and Mars. Is there a burden on me to disprove such an assertion?

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

It's pointless really. There was never ever a God in the first place to be pointed out.

The only thing there is, is just people themselves saying it. It's the only thing theists have the go by and they have absolutely no choice in the matter because if they didn't say anything, there would be no God whatsoever to even prove by default.

 

[Cooky]

I would need to see the Pope, and all the bishops offer up ancient evidence that the whole thing was a hoax, and apologize to the world prior to closing every Catholic Church building, and dissolving all church assets, and relieving all priests and clergymen of duty permanently.

I see no chance of this ever happening.

 

[Ouroboros]

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?

Actually, the problem starts much earlier.

To proper investigating something, first there has to be an agreement on definitions. Something has to be well defined to be possible to even argue for or against. Most things, tangible and intangible alike, have a decent definition already in place, but when it comes to God/gods, it's very much all over the place. Quantum physics have better definitions of the things we don't understand yet than we have a definition for what "God" is supposed to be.

So if you ever would prove a god of any kind to be non-existent, you first have to find out what the person really mean with God, then you can figure out what might be wrong with their God... but then again, maybe it's just his/her or your definition that's wrong in the end...

 

[Salvador]

Balderdash! Quantum entanglement refutes your refutation.

Quantum entanglement does indeed happen when a pair of particles are induced in such a way that each of their individual quantum states are indefinite until observed; measuring one of them determines the result of measuring the other, even if each of them are far apart from each other. Because there are unobserved particles having an indeterminate state means there isn't any observer around them; In conclusion, logically speaking, there can't really be a totally omniscient being.

Furthermore, according to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, a particle's location and momentum can't be simultaneously known. Because the position and momentum of particles can't be simultaneously known, there is a fundamental limit to knowledge and in no way can there be total omniscience.

If there were a God in control of quantum entanglement, then he/she/it/they would be a God who seemingly plays with loaded dice.

 

[exchemist]

People vary in their thoughts. There are some who became theists simply because they saw an exorcism work right. And there are theists who lost their faith because the same exorcism was a psychological therapy, not a divine healing and it was evident.

There are others who will never see any evidence of any standard to mean anything. There are people who believe in astrology but are living in poverty. And every time you show them that they have failed in their astrology all their life, they will never change their beliefs. There are Atheists who claim to be atheists who in research interviews say that they actually believe in God. There are Theists who's wives know that they only claim to be theists but thats for acceptance in a group or institution that has a good network of people.

People are diverse. So I wish to hear peoples views. And thank you for yours.

I agree with Salix Incendium. God is a notoriously imprecise concept that can always be formulated in a way that defeats any attempt to disprove his existence. Those that want to believe in a god will do so and others will maintain they "have no need of that hypothesis"* and therefore do not subscribe to the idea. It is a matter of personal taste and will always be so.


*I am being slightly unfair here to Laplace who, if he ever said this, probably meant merely that he had no need to invoke divine intervention in the context of modelling planetary motion. (Newton had needed to invoke it to prevent perturbations from eventually disrupting the solar system.)

 

[robocop (actually)]

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?

If I didn't want to believe in God, I would be more likely to vainly imagine no God.

 

[Willamena]

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

That's easy. Anything that contradicts their expectations.

 

[Mister Emu]

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

I think that depends on the theist. I'd have to be convinced that I am altogether unsound of mind, that my very perceptions were untrustworthy and incapable of relaying the truth. I have met God; I'd have to believe those meetings which seem very real are in fact the delusions of a broken mind.

 

[Phaedrus]

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

First it would take a miraculous removal of cognitive dissonance.

Secondly, all a theist logically has to do is apply the same method of dismissing the existence of a god in which they do not believe to the god in which they do believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

Nobody can prove universal negatives like the nonexistence of God or the nonexistence of the afterlife.

However, I would have no reason to believe they exist if I had never become a Baha'i.