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

[loverofhumanity]

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?

Impossible request for every atom in existence is a sign of God.

 

[1213]

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

God is the creator of this world. So, if this world would not exist, it would probably be convincing enough.

 

[blü 2]

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?

For me, the central phenomenon of religious belief ─ central problem, if you like ─ is the absence of any definition of God that's appropriate to a real being (as distinct from an imaginary being).

That is, the word 'God' doesn't denote any real thing. Thus there's no test that could tell us whether any real candidate were God or not.

This isn't a problem with imaginary gods ─ they're whatever you want.

For that very reason, it appears not to be a problem for the churches ─ both they and their flocks present as being entirely content with an imaginary God (although you're not allowed to say it's imaginary).

So if belief can, like Superman, leap that tall building in a single bound, I dare say belief is equally immune to any other argument that shows the sky's empty, there's no one there.

It may be that humans have evolved to believe in this manner, the hypothesis being that a shared belief, a set of stories in common, increases the sense of identity with one's community, and reinforces cohesion and cooperation to directly benefit survival. But that's a different facet of the question.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

The goal of science is not to prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural. Science, by design, only operates in the natural, physical universe because it's the only realm that can be unambiguously tested. Many scientists believe in the supernatural but they don't impose their supernatural beliefs on their scientific methods. Science will never prove the "exact beginnings of the universe" but religion certainly won't either. Why not remain agnostic about things we as humans know nothing about rather than dogmatically commit to a religion just because science can't "prove" something?

 

[shmogie]

The goal of science is not to prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural. Science, by design, only operates in the natural, physical universe because it's the only realm that can be unambiguously tested. Many scientists believe in the supernatural but they don't impose their supernatural beliefs on their scientific methods. Science will never prove the "exact beginnings of the universe" but religion certainly won't either. Why not remain agnostic about things we as humans know nothing about rather than dogmatically commit to a religion just because science can't "prove" something?

As I said science operates within a philosophical naturalist framework. To me, personally, I find the evidence for the Christian faith compelling, so, that is what I believe.

I once was an atheist, then an agnostic, then a believer.

If science met the standard I have for explanations I would be compelled to re examine my beliefs

 

[Rational Agnostic]

As I said science operates within a philosophical naturalist framework. To me, personally, I find the evidence for the Christian faith compelling, so, that is what I believe.

I once was an atheist, then an agnostic, then a believer.

If science met the standard I have for explanations I would be compelled to re examine my beliefs

Why not call yourself an "agnostic believer" then? There is a difference between belief and knowledge. I have a strong suspicion it's not possible to know with certainty whether God/gods exist or don't exist. I may be wrong about that, but I haven't seen any correct proof of the existence or non-existance of gods.

 

[Spartan]

The world (due to having the evils it has) and a Good benevolent creator are incompatible.

I don't see that.

Two things:

1. God does do away with evil in the end. The reason he doesn't do it now is for several reasons. First, In Job chapter 1 we see where God is allowing Satan to make his own case why Satan's ways and thinking are superior to God's. So, God allows Satan and mankind a period of time (perhaps 7,000 years) to test or try to refute God's ways. Second, God is allowing more time to allow people to repent of their sins so they may go to heaven.

2. Free will. Let's assume you are God for the moment. How would you create man with free will and at the same time not allow him to sin or do evil?

 

[stvdv]

Interesting questions. They are quite hypothetical. The first being the definition of God.
So, as it is your thread, could you tell us how you define "God"?
Then I can answer, according to that definition.

There are debates on Gods existence.

Without a definition of God, all are willing to agree on, a debate makes no sense.

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.

I thought this "burden of proof" is only needed/possible if someone makes a claim. Saying "I (don't) believe God exists, unless...." tells me:
a) The person just shares his opinion (not need/possible to proof your opinion)
b) The person has quite a shaky belief, which vaporizes the moment the other proves the opposite.
So they both admit they "believe", and they "don't know". Naturally if you "don't know", you need/can not proof anything.

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.

I do agree that it is a "funny" situation to tell "I believe ... unless you prove the opposite".
I rather would say "I believe ... unless I can prove otherwise".
But even better "keep silent .. until you know".

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

I agree that empathy is a good thing, especially when trying to understand each other.
Better than empathy is "not having the arrogance to think that I know better what is good for the other"

 

[stvdv]

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

You ask "what evidence" would convince a theist that God does not exist?

Atheists always claim, that Atheism means "Lack of belief in God".
As Atheists lack belief in God, they will never be able to prove that "God does not exist"

IF an Atheist could never convince a Theist that God does not exist
THEN it's only a Theist that could convince a Theist that God does not exist

IF a Theist declares "God does not exist",
THEN he is per definition not a Theist anymore

So, this proves that both Atheist & Theist cannot "provide evidence" that would convince a Theist that "God does not exist"

Your question was about a debate between "Theist" and "Atheist"
So this proves that this "evidence" would never come from them debating
Hence I never bother about debating whether God exists or not

 

[Baroodi]

Small things like fruit formation in a small plant to huge things like galaxies tell every one about a genius infallible creator and a maintainer. I can`t imagine a factory running for thousands of year without a keen maintainer.

 

[Dell]

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?

First off a believer of the Lord Jesus Christ their mindset is by faith... good luck with presenting facts and physics...
But regarding your question... Physics vs miracles. Primarily the impossibility to meet the attributes given to God as Omnipresent.. omniscience.. omnipotent.

 

[wizanda]

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

We would need to switch off all mathematical intelligence, as then we can't compute the sequential mathematics in the world around us everywhere (Logic).

Since the religious text bypass needing maths for some, then we'd need to turn off reasoning; yet since reasoning is all about balancing equations in our mind, that is all maths anyway.

Thank you for the question, as hadn't thought how without maths, no one can understand even the basics of the reality around them.

In my opinion.