What proof would convince you God doesn't exist?

[Katzpur]

If you had a magic wand and could pretend for a moment it was possible God doesn't exist, what kind of proof could someone show you to convince you? I would really like to know what it would take for YOU to be convinced. What would prove it to YOU?

Also I wanted to say this is not an atheist trap. I'm not interesting in debating your reasons here, I am just curious if you can think of any.

I guess if I were to die and it were to turn out that I simply ceased to exist and there was nothing beyond the grave, I'd realize I'd been wrong all along and that there was really no God. On the other hand, if I simply ceased to exist, I guess I wouldn't realize anything at all. I guess that means that I'm pretty much beyond convincing. You could probably say that my mind is pretty much closed to the possibility that there's no God. I've tried to consider the possibility, but I never get very far before I realize what a ludicrous notion it is.

 

[jacobweymouth]

An overly hypothetical question... I don't think I can answer. I suppose there would have to be incontrevertible proof -will that ever be possible? My faith is pretty stong, and it would take a lot to shake it -let alone destroy it.

Basically it would be impossible to convince me.

 

[Storm]

Fair's fair, TerranIV.... What would it take to convince you that God DOES exist?

 

[Katzpur]

: unless it was US who existed forever...

Maybe we did, in some form.

 

[Luminous]

Maybe we did, in some form.

maybe... but to put such a believe as truth is a negative assertion that takes away from finding truth. work way up from evidence, not down from belief.

 

[Katzpur]

maybe... but to put such a believe as truth is a negative assertion that takes away from finding truth. work way up from evidence, not down from belief.

You totally lost me.

 

[TerranIV]

Non-existence. Of anything. Of course.

Your question seems very illogical to me. The very proof it would take to convince me God does not exist is the one proof that can never be given. We are only having this discussion about whether or not God exists because God exists.

I would contend that something which cannot POSSIBLY be disproved is a false concept. In other words, anything in reality could be disproved by changing some variable or another. Only imaginary things cannot be disproved. So if God cannot be disproved, he (she,it, whatever) would be, by default, an imaginary or un-real concept.

I know a lot of theist think of God as some magical being not tied to any rule or reality, but such a being seems to have so little to do with human reality as to become meaningless. This discussion is to help me inject a little reality into God to make the concept be a little less easy to dismiss entirely.

Ready, set, FLAME!

 

[TerranIV]

Fair's fair, TerranIV.... What would it take to convince you that God DOES exist?

Easy!

- If God, or an angel, appeared in front of me and/or cameras.
- If someone found a way to "see" spirits and ghosts all around us and was able to repeatedly get the same results.
- If some sort of evidence was discovered which substantiated EVERYTHING in the Biblical account of the creation of the earth. (partial evidence is only for partial Gods)
- If modern day prophets and holy men could do the same miracles Jesus and his apostles supposedly did with repeatable consistency.

Basically anything supernatural which could be consistently reproduced in front of independent witnesses and modern scientific (and photographic) equipment would convince me of the reality of God and the supernatural.

The "need" for faith idea is a very convenient one. The idea that God is purposefully hiding his/her/it's presence from us and simultaneously demanding absolute devotion is ludicrous.

If there really is a God out there, all the new ways we have invented to look at the world would result in SOME sort of evidence or indication God is real - but everything is to the contrary.

BUT...

The difference between myself and a lot of religious folks out there is I am completely open to the idea of God existing. If any of those things above happened I would completely reverse my position and admit I was wrong the whole time. I am not demanding God show himself to me, I simply do not see him/her/it anywhere anything (other than the human imagination) looks. Just because we are alone on this island called Earth, doesn't mean there isn't something out there.

Thanks for the question, Storm!

 

[TerranIV]

Sorry to be spouting so much atheist rhetoric. I really do like to hear your guy's ideas.

Thank you for all your feedback on my question - even if some of your answers have been "no way I could even imagine God not existing"!

 

[Katzpur]

Sorry to be spouting so much atheist rhetoric. I really do like to hear your guy's ideas.

Thank you for all your feedback on my question - even if some of your answers have been "no way I could even imagine God not existing"!

Well, thank you for being respectful of our answers. It just goes to show that atheists and theists can have a civil dialogue when they want to. :yes:

 

[Storm]

I would contend that something which cannot POSSIBLY be disproved is a false concept. In other words, anything in reality could be disproved by changing some variable or another. Only imaginary things cannot be disproved. So if God cannot be disproved, he (she,it, whatever) would be, by default, an imaginary or un-real concept. [snip]

I can't agree. Is string theory "by default, imaginary?"

Easy!

- If God, or an angel, appeared in front of me and/or cameras.
- If someone found a way to "see" spirits and ghosts all around us and was able to repeatedly get the same results.
- If some sort of evidence was discovered which substantiated EVERYTHING in the Biblical account of the creation of the earth. (partial evidence is only for partial Gods)
- If modern day prophets and holy men could do the same miracles Jesus and his apostles supposedly did with repeatable consistency.

OK, I should have been more specific, which is my fault. I'm not a theist, nor was I raised a theist. When people say God, my default mindset is deist, not Christian. Not only is it what I was raised to, it just makes more sense. So, same question again, what would convince you a deistic God existed?

I ask because I find the idea of an interventionist God who cares what we think to be rather silly.

Thanks for the question, Storm!

Any time.

 

[Storm]

Sorry to be spouting so much atheist rhetoric. I really do like to hear your guy's ideas.

Oh, honey, this is nothin. Even here, where courtesy is enforced.

 

[TerranIV]

I can't agree. Is string theory "by default, imaginary?"

String theory is not imaginary because it can be easily dis-proven. Once the Large Hadron Coldier is back up and running later this year, scientists will be able to look for particles at certain energy levels which will need to be there is string theory is correct. If they don't find them, string theory is proven false. Because there is a meaningful way to prove or disprove String theory it is not imaginary. It may not be correct, but it is not imaginary.

 

[Storm]

String theory is not imaginary because it can be easily dis-proven. Once the Large Hadron Coldier is back up and running later this year, scientists will be able to look for particles at certain energy levels which will need to be there is string theory is correct. If they don't find them, string theory is proven false. Because there is a meaningful way to prove or disprove String theory it is not imaginary. It may not be correct, but it is not imaginary.

OK, I may be revealing my ignorance here, but on te NOVA string theory miniseries, there were like 10 physicists complaining that it wasn't science because it was unfalsifiable. Why should I trust your opinion over theirs? (Apologies if this is too far off-topic.)

EDIT: Actually, forget that. How 'bout ethics, and the rest of philosophy?

 

[TerranIV]

OK, I should have been more specific, which is my fault. I'm not a theist, nor was I raised a theist. When people say God, my default mindset is deist, not Christian. Not only is it what I was raised to, it just makes more sense. So, same question again, what would convince you a deistic God existed?

I ask because I find the idea of an interventionist God who cares what we think to be rather silly.

Deism could easily be proved by someone with a time machine able to go back to the beginning of time and see if God was there to start it.

If you define deism to be some God outside of our universe who created the universe then the question really becomes meaningless because if God never existed in our universe he/she/it is reduced to an EVENT in time and is powerless to have any effect in our daily lives. Therefore in any real sense this kind of God DID exist but DOES NOT exist now.

Again, time travel or (inter-dimensional travel) could prove this correct. If multiple people could independently verify each other's results through a specific way (i.e. - if there was a vehicle which could travel to the begining of time repeatedly and always see the same thing or travel to another dimension and meet God or the gods repeatedly) you could definitively say it was not someones prejudice or imagination but something real.

It comes down to being able to elimitate the human factor beyond a "resaonable" doubt. Most people would be satisfied by a repeateable procedure which comes to the same or similar conclusions every time. Every time I drop a penny it falls towards the earth. The only time it doesn't is if I am behond eath's gravity. Therefore, there I can prove gravity beyond any reasonable doubt. There are many reasonable doubts to String Theory - therefore I do not accept it as a reality. But I DO appreciate it for it's simplistic beauty.

 

[Storm]

Deism could easily be proved by someone with a time machine able to go back to the beginning of time and see if God was there to start it.

Oh, come on, dude! Time travel?! How is this any better than "it couldn't be proved." What is the functional difference?

If you define deism to be some God outside of our universe who created the universe then the question really becomes meaningless because if God never existed in our universe he/she/it is reduced to an EVENT in time and is powerless to have any effect in our daily lives. Therefore in any real sense this kind of God DID exist but DOES NOT exist now.

That's just silly. Interaction has no bearing on existence.

It comes down to being able to elimitate the human factor beyond a "resaonable" doubt.

But the human factor can never be eliminated from anything we do. Not theology, and not science.

 

[TerranIV]

OK, I may be revealing my ignorance here, but on te NOVA string theory miniseries, there were like 10 physicists complaining that it wasn't science because it was unfalsifiable. Why should I trust your opinion over theirs? (Apologies if this is too far off-topic.)

EDIT: Actually, forget that. How 'bout ethics, and the rest of philosophy?

I would guess the scientists meant more that String theory shouldn't be accepted because we cannot disprove it right now - and I totally agree with them on that. There is no reason - other than it explains everything very nicely - to accept string theory. It (currently) doesn't have any experiments you can perform on it to prove or disprove it. Even if the LHC can't find any particles predicted by String Theory the theory DOES predict at certain energies you should be able to find them so if you COULD get to those energies you would disprove it. Again I would argue because String theory provides a way to disprove itself it is disprovable, at least in theory.

As for ethics and philosphy you don't need anything else than the writing itself to prove or disprove it. Ethics and philosphy exist because we have people who have writtin about them. They could be easily disproved by none of the books or writing existing. If I asked you, "Show me a book about philosphy or ethics" or "Tell me what ethics or philosophy is." and you were unable to do so or have someone else do so, then that would disprove the reality of ethics or philosophy.

These are concepts which really only rely on the existance of the human brain to exist. If I was to go to a doctor and have him x-ray my head hopefully I would be able to see a picture of my brain inside. I could do this multiple times and get the same result (and probably brain cancer as well). So I could prove to myself and others I really have a brain.

This is much different than God who is claimed to exist but we have no way of seeing his face, hearing his voice, kissing his feet, or touching his long white beard. God is not sitting down for any portraits or x-rays to prove his existance.

Perhaps he is hidding from us to test whether we will still belive in him. Or maybe he is playing a big practical joke on all of us. Either way - not cool, man!

 

[TerranIV]

Oh, come on, dude! Time travel?! How is this any better than "it couldn't be proved." What is the functional difference ?

Remember, my question was "if you had a magic wand and could do anything could you disprove god". I reserve the right to use a magic wand as well! Also, just because we can't time travel or travel between dimensions doesn't mean it isn't possible. If time travel is not possible, then why should I care about a God who doesn't exist in any way where I (or others) can interact with him/her/it?

That's just silly. Interaction has no bearing on existence.

What do you know of which exists but has no interaction with anything at all (other than God)? Even dark matter and dark energy exert measurable influence over matter which can be observed by astronomers and cosmologists.

But the human factor can never be eliminated from anything we do. Not theology, and not science.

Not true. Gravity has nothing to do with me. It doesn't take a human being to make something fall. I can watch my cat fall off a table and I can set up a video camera and it will see the same thing as I do - the cat falls to the ground when he leaps off the table. This has nothing to do with me, and can be independently verified through many other sensors and equipment which see beyond the scope of the human senses.

Unless you subscribe to the idea that all of existence is a dream and there is no reality, you must admit there has to be a way to verify things beyond just our own eyes. At the very least you should be able to show something to someone else and they should be able to see the same thing as you. I think Moses was the only one who saw God's finger on the stone tablet. (I know you are a deists and you may not believe that story) but it seems pretty silly for a whole bunch of people to devote their lives to something ONE GUY said he saw. I mean, at least the parting of the Reed Sea was in front of a bunch of people!

 

[Storm]

Remember, my question was "if you had a magic wand and could do anything could you disprove god". I reserve the right to use a magic wand as well! Also, just because we can't time travel or travel between dimensions doesn't mean it isn't possible.

I must have missed that. It does change things. I may have to change my answer, then.

If time travel is not possible, then why should I care about a God who doesn't exist in any way where I (or others) can interact with him/her/it?

Bit of a non sequitur there, but to answer the question: don't you want to know the truth, whatever it is? Knowledge for its own sake, man!

What do you know of which exists but has no interaction with anything at all (other than God)?

Rainbows.

Not true. Gravity has nothing to do with me. It doesn't take a human being to make something fall.

No, but it takes a human to figure out how it works.

Unless you subscribe to the idea that all of existence is a dream and there is no reality, you must admit there has to be a way to verify things beyond just our own eyes.

Ah, but are those methods necessarily intersubjectively verifiable? I think not.

At the very least you should be able to show something to someone else and they should be able to see the same thing as you. I think Moses was the only one who saw God's finger on the stone tablet. (I know you are a deists and you may not believe that story) but it seems pretty silly for a whole bunch of people to devote their lives to something ONE GUY said he saw. I mean, at least the parting of the Reed Sea was in front of a bunch of people!

Actually, I'm not a deist, my dad is. I'm just weird.

 

[TerranIV]

Bit of a non sequitur there, but to answer the question: don't you want to know the truth, whatever it is? Knowledge for its own sake, man!

I would love for someone to prove God, that would be great. It may be useful to know of God's existence as an interesting fact like the existence of black holes and quasars, many theists believe we should devote our whole lives to God. They don't think of this as an intellectual exercise. They start wars and kill people over their opinions of what God is and how God wants them to act. They make their children stay away from hospitals when they are sick and rely on God to heal them. They take their children out of school so they can teach them at home because there is not enough God in school.

My point is if God is really just some guy who started this whole ball rolling then why are people killing each other over something which happened before we existed and isn't anything we can change by our prayers, actions, and devotions?

Storm, you may be a rational intelligent person, but I don't think many theists can even talk with an infidel like me. Some would want to kill me for even suggesting God could be proven wrong - even in theory.

Rainbows.

Other than the light beams interaction with water droplets which causes the prism-like effect of splitting the white light into the various light frequencies which then excite our optic nerves and are interpreted by our brains as rows of colors. Other than that there is no interaction at all with anything!

No, but it takes a human to figure out how it works.

Only in the way it takes and observer to look at the results of evidence. You don't really need to know how gravity works to notice you see the same thing every time the cat falls. It doesn't fall for some people, float for others, and then fly up into the sky for a special few. It behaves the same time after time, no mater who drops the cat or if the cat jumps off the table himself. It doesn't matter who the observer or the instigator is, the results are always the same.

I'm sure you don't seriously think gravity is only in my imagination. I think we are losing some common ground here. Do you really think it is not possible to find any evidence for gravity beyond the human experience? Do you think gravity is effected by our belief in it or our observance of it? If we are going to say "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" we need to come to some common ground on what "existing" or "reality" is or we are not really communicating here. You can't think God really exists if it's all in our heads. That kind of proves the atheist's point, doesn't it?

Ah, but are those methods necessarily intersubjectively verifiable? I think not.

Maybe not, but you can't just refuse to believe in any sort of reality. If you can't define anything then why should people care about one opinion over another? Why would your position be better than mine if everything we see is based on the human mind? Does reality depend on our thoughts? Are we gods?

Actually, I'm not a deist, my dad is. I'm just weird.

Weird is good!