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.
