What is Proof of Gods existence to you?

[Laika]

I get the impression that Athiests tend to dominate the debates on RF, and that many theists get fed up of the atheist retort..."where's your proof!" I get the feeling that there is a major breakdown in communication between theists and atheists and that we are infact talking about completely different things and have very different ideas of what "proof" is. To test this theory I have provided a poll to see if a majority of atheists and theists would actually change their mind.

For Theists: How do you define God? What would convince you atheists were right? could you be convinced?

For Atheists: How do you define God?What would convince you theists were right? could you be convinced?

For Agnostics: How do you define God? Do you feel that agnosticism is because atheists or theists have made inadequate arguements? Or are you agnostic for reasons other than arguments for theism and atheism? (e.g. strong agnostics believing that the question of gods existence is insoluable in principle).

I've put in the Comparative Religion forum specifically so theists and atheists can be honest with each other and not feel like they are going to end up in a debate. call it a "ceasefire" if you will.

Be nice to each other.

How do you define God?

I'm biased by Christian influences, so I would say a being that possesses consciousness and is omnipotent, omnisciencient. I'm less sure on the omnibenevolence for reasons I'll elaborate on.

I am open to the possibility of a "god" which does not have the absolute qualities of an abrahamic one- as a being with physical limitations fits as more plausible in my own beliefs. So, maybe God is an alien race or something?

What would convince you theists were right?

For myself, as a materialist there is very little that could persuade me that god exists other than first hand experience. There are some serious weaknesses in a materialist argument, particuarly round the area of the "hard problem of consciousness". The "proof" of god's non-existence is that consciousness is a product of matter and cannot therefore exist without coming from a brain, body or a phyiscal form. That would exclude the possibility of god's existence as a form of dis-embodied consciousness.

It is however an 'odd' argument as it doesn't say that religious belief and belief in god is absolutely false, but that the belief in gods existence is an illusion of infering a cause that is not there. God is therefore a projection of ourselves and a creation of man. God may not exist, but religion still tells us something about people.

If this was wrong, materialism and therefore atheism as I understand it would be an untenable position. There have been times when I have entertianed the idea of a god but mainly to strengthen my own convictions by playing "devil's advocate" and finding weaknesses or inconsistencies in my beliefs. logical consistency can sometimes take precedence over evidence in that I do have a confirmation bias and select evidence to fit my assumptions about how the world works.

Could you be convinced?

Answered Maybe. I'm not going to lie but I suspect I'd be in denial for quite a long time as it would however be a major upheaval of my worldview and philosophical beliefs. its not based on scepticism or free thought in a sense other atheists would understand. I would admit that if there was a god I would in all probability be a misotheist as I feel uncomfortable accepting a higher power. I might end up a Satanist of some sort; the one property that matters in a higher power is omnibenevolence (or at least benevolence), otherwise the god is not worth having. The problem of evil seems to make omnibenevolence unlikely, or otherwise god has a very different standard of good and evil to what I and many people would expect. Whether I could accept that moral standard would be a reason in addition to the questions of god's existence as to whether I could accept a form of religious belief.

 

[viole]

I get the impression that Athiests tend to dominate the debates on RF, and that many theists get fed up of the atheist retort..."where's your proof!" I get the feeling that there is a major breakdown in communication between theists and atheists and that we are infact talking about completely different things and have very different ideas of what "proof" is. To test this theory I have provided a poll to see if a majority of atheists and theists would actually change there mind.

For Theists: How do you define God? What would convince you atheists were right? could you be convinced?

For Atheists: How do you define God?What would convince you theists were right? could you be convinced?

For Agnostics: How do you define God? Do you feel that agnosticism is because atheists or theists have made inadequate arguements? Or are you agnostic for reasons other than arguments for theism and atheism? (e.g. strong agnostics believing that the question of gods existence is insoluable in principle).

I've put in the Comparative Religion forum specifically so theists and atheists can be honest with each other and not feel like they are going to end up in a debate. call it a "ceasefire" if you will.

Be nice to each other.

How do you define God?

I'm biased by Christian influences, so I would say a being that possesses consciousness and is omnipotent, omnisciencient. I'm less sure on the omnibenevolence for reasons I'll elaborate on.

I am open to the possibility of a "god" which does not have the absolute qualities of an abrahamic one- as a being with physical limitations fits as more plausible in my own beliefs. So, maybe God is an alien race or something?

What would convince you theists were right?

For myself, as a materialist there is very little that could persuade me that god exists. There are some serious weaknesses in this argument, particuarly round the area of the "hard problem of consciousness". The "proof" of god's non-existence is that consciousness is a product of matter and cannot therefore exist without coming from a brain, body or a phyiscal form. That would exclude the possibility of god's existence.

It is however an 'odd' argument as it doesn't say that religious belief and belief in god is outright false, but that the belief in gods existence is an illusion of infering a cause that is not there. God is therefore a projection of ourselves and a creation of man.

If this was wrong, materialism and therefore atheism as I understand it would be an untenable position. There have been times when I have entertianed the idea of a god but mainly to strengthen my own convictions by playing "devil's advocate" and finding weaknesses or inconsistencies in my beliefs. logical consistency can sometimes take precedence over evidence in that I do have a confirmation bias and select evidence to fit my assumptions about how the world works.

Could you be convinced?

Answered Maybe. I'm not going to lie but I suspect I'd be in denial for quite a long time as it would however be a major upheaval of my worldview and philosophical beliefs. its not based on scepticism or free thought in a sense other atheists would understand. I would admit that if there was a god I would in all probability be a misotheist as I feel uncomfortable accepting a higher power. I might end up a Satanist of some sort; the one property that matters in a higher power is omnibenevolence (or at least benevolence), otherwise the god is not worth having. The problem of evil seems to make omnibenevolence unlikely, or otherwise god has a very different standard of good and evil to what I and many people would expect. Whether I could accept that moral standard would be a reason in addition to the questions of god's existence as to whether I could accept a form of religious belief.

Honestly, I do not care about the definition of God. Any definition would do.

What would make me reconsider my atheism is some sort of breaking news on the CNN communicating that all believers in the world decided overnight to believe in the same God (no matter which one).

Until that day, I will hold on the most rational conclusion: there is not such a thing as God's revelation or personal relationship with God. The God people believe in is a mere accidents of birth.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Quintessence]

Amending this somewhat, as indicated by the brackets, because I do not follow the one-god of the Abrahamic religions (which is, God, in proper case, singular).

For Theists: How do you define [gods]? What would convince you atheists were right? could you be convinced?

I use a culturally-neutral, religiously-inclusive understanding of the word "gods." Devoid of ethnocentric biases, "gods" are that which a person or culture deems worthy of worship. What attributes gods have beyond that depends entirely on what is being deified, or what specific type of theism we are talking about. Basically, there are no attributes gods are "supposed to" have or "need" to have – all such designations are specific cultural or personal understandings of that which is deified. To use a specific example, it's commonly assumed in my culture that gods must be supernatural. This is not the case. Gods are whatever a person or culture deems worthy of worship. It's worth noting that in many cases, the things a person or culture deifies may not be called "gods" but by some other language-specific term.

"Worship" is understood to be worth-ship, or designating something to be of special or significant value. A deified aspect of reality holds a position of great respect, honor, and reverence to that person or that culture. It also typically means that the thing deemed worthy of worth-ship is honored with expressions of gratitude and thankfulness. The specifics of worship take many, many forms.

Absolutely nothing could convince me that atheists are right. Deeming something worthy of worship is an exercise in personal and/or cultural values. It's a matter of preferences and a creation of life-meaningfulness based on your own experiences. Honestly, I don't believe in atheists. I don't believe there is a single human being on the planet who doesn't hold something in high esteem or honor. I only believe in people who choose to not use the word "gods" to describe those things. That is the only distinction I see between theists and atheists: the use of the word "gods" (or some equivalent term like "kami" or "spirits").

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Okay. I buy it. Lets see.

For Atheists: How do you define God?What would convince you theists were right? could you be convinced?

Im influenced by christian thought too. After being on RF for a long while, I came to a concensus that:

God is supernatural. (I notice people dont worship actual items-the metal, the statue, the rock in the sky)

He is defined by Wisdom (Buddha-nature), mind (consciousness), invisible person (spirit), perfect (contrasting human inperfections which seems like a core in many faiths)

It always has to be "a mystery" to call it God.

--

Which theists? Abrahamic?

Ive had personal experience with the spirit of Christ. I know spirits exist; thats handa down. God?

I honestly dont know. Everything is God. Everything is an objective or living thing to give reverence for ones life. I would literally have to separate a spirit from life to find evidence that this spirit is real apart from everything else.

Impossible. Eveything is interconnected.

No, there is nothing they can say to convience me "God" is seperate from life (as so stated he existed before life began)

Took awhile. No. I cant be convinced.

 

[George-ananda]

What is Proof of Gods existence to you?

First off, I dislike the word 'proof'. For me the strongest I will say is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

For Theists: How do you define God?

God/Brahman is pure consciousness. We are Brahman shining through temporary finite forms in the play/drama of the cosmos..

What would convince you atheists were right?

Well, I see materialism as the strongest argument against theism out there. That is why I take very seriously my study of all the many fields of paranormal/spiritual phenomena. From that study, I believe beyond reasonable doubt that things really do exist that are antithetical to materialism. My study was convincing to me beyond all reasonable doubt.

could you be convinced?

I would lean to atheism only if I objectively believed all the phenomena I studied could best be explained materially.

 

[Tumah]

I chose not, not because i don't think its possible in principle, but because I don't think its practically possible. There are plenty of positive reason that together I feel make a solid argument in my mind for the existence of G-d in accordance with Jewish teachings and I think proving the negative is impossible. Therefore, I remain with only positive reasons to believe in the existence of G-d.

 

[jonathan180iq]

For Atheists: How do you define God?What would convince you theists were right? could you be convinced?

I don't define god - that's the job of people who claim that there is such a being or entity or presence or whatever.
I'm simply taking the default stance of skepticism in regards to all things - so all that is needed to change my mind is anything of substance. (And I'm sorry - but personal conviction is not substance.)
Of course I could be convinced - just "show me the money."

This applies to all religions - not just a select few. I'm skeptical of absolutely everything until it's substantiated.

 

[Nakosis]

If an entity/being showed up and showed me that they could alter what I perceive as reality at whim in any fashion imaginable, I'd consider accepting their Godhood.

Bringing someone I know for certain had died, back to life. I'd take that into consideration too. Control over life and death is pretty godlike right?

The story of Lazarus would be compelling if it could be validated.

 

[dust1n]

Voted "Maybe, I'm not sure I can be convinced."

Theological noncognitivism seems to be place I lie. I couldn't possibly understand the consequences of something I can't imagine in the first place. I could possibly be convinced that humans could go faster than the speed of light tomorrow, if I have some pretty convincing evidence that came out. I can't possibly know the details of all the unknown possibilities, which are probably infinite in nature, or at least in terms of human possibilities.

Ultimately, human informal languages have the compacity and posit non-real things, such as trolls. Any sort of human understanding of God should take into the fictitious nature of human languages, and the pliability of them to produce amazing complicated things which simply do not exist in any physical form.

 

[idea]

The below scriptures sum up my belief well.

link
39 Will ye deny again that there is a God, and also deny the Christ? For behold, I say unto you, I know there is a God, and also that Christ shall come.
40 And now what evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only.
41 But, behold, I have all things as a testimony that these things are true; and ye also have all things as a testimony unto you that they are true; ....ye have the testimony of thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets. The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

 

[illykitty]

Would be very difficult to persuade me. Thing is, I don't have the same definition of god(s) as you put in the OP and mine is closer to what Quintessence said. I consider myself to be theistic.

I am a pantheist and have some untangled beliefs about nature (I'm not sure how to label it all but so far animism is the closest word). So while I do believe there's "more to the universe than just being the universe", it makes no difference to me. If someone proved to me tomorrow that there's no such thing as spirits, as gods and so on (in a more literal sense), then it wouldn't change a thing because of their importance and my reverence towards them.

I am quite certain of this because I have pondered these kinds of questions before, including whether I'm really theistic and if I would be comfortable in my path as an atheist. I feel I sort of walk the line between the commonly known definitions. I'm very subjective so objectively it doesn't matter if what I worship isn't a literal being with powers.

 

[Laika]

Thanks everyone.

Alot of fascinating and unexpected responses. I'm a bit stunned by just how diverse it is, though I really shouldn't be as this is RF. keep them coming.

 

[leibowde84]

The below scriptures sum up my belief well.

link
39 Will ye deny again that there is a God, and also deny the Christ? For behold, I say unto you, I know there is a God, and also that Christ shall come.
40 And now what evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only.
41 But, behold, I have all things as a testimony that these things are true; and ye also have all things as a testimony unto you that they are true; ....ye have the testimony of thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets. The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

But, this is a clear example of an "argument from ignorance", which is a logical fallacy and doesn't actually say anything about the existence of God. The mere fact that no evidence has been presented proving that God does not exist in no way supports the proposition that God does exist.

"Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)."

You claim that this passage "sums up your beliefs well", but it is nothing more than a logically flawed argument, evidenced by it's reliance on ignorance. Does this bother you?

 

[Quintessence]

I wish that on the whole, we would transcend the atheist-theist lexicon because it is such rubbish in a multicultural society. The term "atheism" was never intended to apply against theism as a whole, it was contextual to designate an outsider of a specific tradition (much like the term "pagan," really). Instead, I wish we'd shift the dialogue to:

1) What are the things that you feel are of great worth or great value? Or put another way, what things out there inspire feelings of awe or profound gratitude? (Spoiler: those things are your gods, your "higher powers," perhaps not in name, but in function)
2) Are you mindful of your relationships with those things you deem of great worth or value? Or put another way, do you celebrate them and seek to develop more meaningful connections with them? (Spoiler: actively doing this is what it means to be religious, your "re-connection", perhaps not in name, but in function)

 

[leibowde84]

I wish that on the whole, we would transcend the atheist-theist lexicon because it is such rubbish in a multicultural society. The term "atheism" was never intended to apply against theism as a whole, it was contextual to designate an outsider of a specific tradition (much like the term "pagan," really). Instead, I wish we'd shift the dialogue to:

1) What are the things that you feel are of great worth or great value? Or put another way, what things out there inspire feelings of awe or profound gratitude? (Spoiler: those things are your gods, your "higher powers," perhaps not in name, but in function)
2) Are you mindful of your relationships with those things you deem of great worth or value? Or put another way, do you celebrate them and seek to develop more meaningful connections with them? (Spoiler: actively doing this is what it means to be religious, your "re-connection", perhaps not in name, but in function)

The meaning of all terms change throughout history though. Why should "atheism" be any different?

 

[idea]

But, this is a clear example of an "argument from ignorance", which is a logical fallacy and doesn't actually say anything about the existence of God. The mere fact that no evidence has been presented proving that God does not exist in no way supports the proposition that God does exist.

"Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)."

You claim that this passage "sums up your beliefs well", but it is nothing more than a logically flawed argument, evidenced by it's reliance on ignorance. Does this bother you?

Does the testimony of a witness constitute evidence in the court of law? Read the next scripture. There are many who have witnessed and stand as a witness of God and Christ. They have written their testimonies down (scriptures) and I believe there are both ancient and modern day prophets. In addition to having had my own personal witness, I also see the fine tuning of the universe as evidence of God.

 

[Augustus]

For Theists: How do you define God? What would convince you atheists were right? could you be convinced?

For Atheists: How do you define God?What would convince you theists were right? could you be convinced?

I quite like the idea behind negative/apophatic theology (and by continuation its atheist converse), you cannot say what God is, only what God is not (and even this is problematic). As such you cannot make any positive statement as regards God, not God is one, not God is just, not even that God exists. God defies categorisation and conceptualisation, and any attempts to do so ultimately distort His nature. Attempts at rationalisation are futile, and it is better to express ignorance as to God rather than knowledge. God is an indescribable feeling or experience rather than something that can be understood through reason and verbalisation.

The atheist version of this cannot therefore reject the existence of such a God. The atheist has to reject God as a meaningful concept, if God has no characteristics and can be known only through feeling or experience, the atheist cannot accept that the word 'God' conveys any actual meaning. "I know not what you mean by God; the word God is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation." or "whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent".

Speaking about God as an exercise in logic therefore has no purpose from either perspective.

 

[Quintessence]

The meaning of all terms change throughout history though. Why should "atheism" be any different?

It's not.

That said, in a multicultural society, having a term that means "rejects/lacks/disbelieves in god(s)" without specifying precisely which god-concept one is talking about is extremely problematic. A case in point: I never assume someone is atheistic with respect to my theology, because the result is not just extremely unflattering, but downright inaccurate with respect to what that person likely means to convey to me.

 

[leibowde84]

Does the testimony of a witness constitute evidence in the court of law? Read the next scripture. There are many who have witnessed and stand as a witness of God and Christ. They have written their testimonies down (scriptures) and I believe there are both ancient and modern day prophets. In addition to having had my own personal witness, I also see the fine tuning of the universe as evidence of God.

But, no eye witnesses wrote any of the Gospels or any Scriptures for that matter. We don't know who wrote the Gospels, and Paul never even met Jesus. So, the best you could argue would be hearsay, which is, most often, not accepted in court.

Also, you trust the hearsay witnesses in Scripture, but you deny the claims made by cult leaders who claim to speak to God, right?

Not trying to be difficult here. I am just very interested in what you are basing this all on. Why you feel so confident.

 

[leibowde84]

It's not.

That said, in a multicultural society, having a term that means "rejects/lacks/disbelieves in god(s)" without specifying precisely which god-concept one is talking about is extremely problematic. A case in point: I never assume someone is atheistic with respect to my theology, because the result is not just extremely unflattering, but downright inaccurate with respect to what that person likely means to convey to me.

Exactly. So, shouldn't we refrain from assuming anything about self-proclaimed "atheists", as it is not necessarily an implication of any belief.