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

[Willamena]

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

That's not the question, here.

The world is positive.

 

[Trailblazer]

The world is positive.

Not the whole world.

 

[Willamena]

Not the whole world.

There's no part of the world that is impossible, by definition. The world is positive.

 

[Trailblazer]

There's no part of the world that is impossible, by definition. The world is positive.

What do you mean by "The world is positive?"
What is the world positive about?

 

[Willamena]

What do you mean by "The world is positive?"
What is the world positive about?

"To posit" is to be able to formulate and state something. Positive refers to a world that can be posited. Possible refers to the positive world, essentially to fact rather than fiction.

For instance, Darth Vader isn't possible.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

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?

Has it ever occurred to you that you might be the one who is wrong?

That theists have seen actual evidence there might be a God or something of that sort?

What do atheists have evidence of? Usually that life sucks, and they assume this means God can't exist.

But that's assumption. That God is completely good. That God necessarily cares about us. The God interferes in human affairs. We could assume God has a part-time job. That God only likes certain people. That God prefers to live among us, over handing out free cures to cancer. And there's also the problems of interference with free will.

So tell me, why is it that I must give up my beliefs yet atheists aren't expected to change a thing?

 

[firedragon]

Has it ever occurred to you that you might be the one who is wrong?

That theists have seen actual evidence there might be a God or something of that sort?

What do atheists have evidence of? Usually that life sucks, and they assume this means God can't exist.

But that's assumption. That God is completely good. That God necessarily cares about us. The God interferes in human affairs. We could assume God has a part-time job. That God only likes certain people. That God prefers to live among us, over handing out free cures to cancer. And there's also the problems of interference with free will.

So tell me, why is it that I must give up my beliefs yet atheists aren't expected to change a thing?

I dont make any case here sis.

 

[night912]

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.

Actually, in your example, the atheist isn't committing "the burden of proof fallacy." The evidence/reason for their "burden of proof" was given in this particular case, which it is that there are no evidence.

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 know why some atheists are providing all sorts of answers for this question when there is only one answer that an atheist can give if they wish to answer it. That is, it's up to the theist to accept whatever evidence needed to convince themselves.

 

[Deeje]

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

I don't think any exist.

Apart from the ingenious designs found in nature itself, I believe one of the biggest clinchers for me is the gulf between man and the animal kingdom.

Humans being created 'in the image of God' is seen in so many distinct ways, such as man's inventiveness, his creativity, intelligence and ingenuity. Animals do not plan their activities because they have no concept of the future. They live in the present, even though they may retain memories from the past. They understand familiarity and bad past experiences might make them wary, but they will never plan to do something tomorrow or next week, or a year from now.

Instinct is what guides them to gather food for the winter, or to hybernate or to metamorphose into a butterfly. Instinct guarantees that creatures will migrate, because it is not planned, but programmed into them. What program do humans use that was not invented by an intelligent mind, for a specific purpose? Purpose is demonstrated on so many levels in nature, and that demands planning......and planning requires intelligence and foresight.

I see too much of God all around me to ever have someone convince me that it is all a mindless accident....the result of random chance. I don't believe that life could arise by chance....just as I don't believe that the universe just exploded itself into existence either. It's just a no brainer for me.....

 

[Faithofchristian]

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?

To answer your question, It's not for a Christian to debate whether God exist or do not exist.
But as for Atheists, Seeing that Atheists do not believe in God.
I find it quite amazing that Atheists will argue to condemn a God Atheists don't believe in.
If I don't believe in something I'm sure not going to argue or go about condemning something I don't believe in.
And I'm sure not going to let it bother me or lose sleep over it.. thats ridiculous.

 

[Phaedrus]

It is more in relation to how we argue against the theistic concept of god and how many theists use god to manipulate politics and inform others how they should live in accordance with the theistic god concept.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

I dont make any case here sis.

I see. So you accuse, but refuse to say why any of us should be expected to play along. Then neither will I answer any of your questions.

 

[firedragon]

I see. So you accuse, but refuse to say why any of us should be expected to play along. Then neither will I answer any of your questions.

Cheers.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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.

Yes, someone who makes a claim in the positive about a thing has the "burden of proof". But anyone is allowed to say "I don't believe you," and they are not required to provide evidence for their disbelief of the other's claim - even though they may obviously feel compelled to explain why any given evidence is not convincing or is felt to be incorrectly applied. It's up to the person who desires to do the convincing to actually convince people. It is not up to the people to simply believe anything and everything that someone wants to assert.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, someone who makes a claim in the positive about a thing has the "burden of proof". But anyone is allowed to say "I don't believe you," and they are not required to provide evidence for their disbelief of the other's claim - even though they may obviously feel compelled to explain why any given evidence is not convincing or is felt to be incorrectly applied. It's up to the person who desires to do the convincing to actually convince people. It is not up to the people to simply believe anything and everything that someone wants to assert.

Depends on what you think is negative and positive. Empathy.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Depends on what you think is negative and positive. Empathy.

Well, I don't mean "positive" as in "good." I mean being the one to assert that you have knowledge on a topic - rather than not asserting, or being willing to admit you don't know. Taking a "positive" position would therefore be to affirm that you are correct in your assumptions/statements. The full "negative" would be to affirm that you are incorrect, with neutral being that you don't know, are unsure, or are potentially on the fence.

 

[Audie]

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?

Those guys should have launched a teapot too when they sent up that Tesla.

 

[Audie]

First it would take a miraculous removal of cognitive dissonance.
.

Might be deeper than that. Believers just believe things,
like fish swim and birds fly.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

But that's assumption. That God is completely good. That God necessarily cares about us. The God interferes in human affairs. We could assume God has a part-time job. That God only likes certain people. That God prefers to live among us, over handing out free cures to cancer. And there's also the problems of interference with free will.

We could assume all of these things, you're correct! Which is part of what makes the initial proposition of "God" so strange in the first place. It is a concept that anyone, at any time, can apply ANY attribute to, and it is all just "hunky dory" apparently. It happens all the time. People even make careers out of it.

So tell me, why is it that I must give up my beliefs yet atheists aren't expected to change a thing?

Seems you probably believe some things about atheists that aren't necessarily true. Chalk up another thing you believe in for which you have no compelling evidence I guess. Show an atheist something that they are believing in without proper warrant and you have a case against THAT PARTICULAR atheist. Otherwise, what is there to change? What is a general "atheist" failing to do? Believe you in your assertions about God? If that's your beef, then produce the evidence and shut them up! If you admit you have none, then what are you complaining about? You can't expect them to believe you. You can't. It would be like me encountering aliens that hide themselves from everyone else and then expecting people to believe me when I told them but couldn't provide a shred of evidence. It's exactly the same as that.

 

[firedragon]

Well, I don't mean "positive" as in "good." I mean being the one to assert that you have knowledge on a topic - rather than not asserting, or being willing to admit you don't know. Taking a "positive" position would therefore be to affirm that you are correct in your assumptions/statements. The full "negative" would be to affirm that you are incorrect, with neutral being that you don't know, are unsure, or are potentially on the fence.

I got it.

But yet again, it depends on a person's position.