What proof would convince you God doesn't exist?

[Quagmire]

God Himself would have to appear and tell me He doesn't exist.

And even then I probably wouldn't believe Him, my faith's pretty weak.

 

[TerranIV]

As I said before, one God for all no matter how they conceive God to be.

The first and second part of your second seem to contradict each other. How can you say there is "one god" and then say "God [is] for all no matter how they conceive God to be."? Either god IS a certain thing or he doesn't exist.

It is meaningless to say there is a "god" if he is all things to all people. This would mean god is different depending on who believes in him/her/it, which is very close to saying god is in their minds.

If god's existence depends on belief, doesn't it make more sense to realize god is in people's minds instead of somewhere in reality?

God is a concept based on experiences people have but not on any actual one "thing" or "person" or "being" which actually exists.

The OT is as it was written and it is known that the NT was altered. What I believe is that the man Jesus lived and had advanced teachings and that's good enough for me, along with what I have found/learned.

Quote:If you think the "common belief" of god is "proof" of gods existence I will have to strongly disagree with you as well.

Terran, I did not say that either

Yes, I realize you did not, I was anticipating your argument and asking if you believed that the "commonality of belief" was proof of god. You kind of implied you believed this by your statement

All the people around the world had some kind of belief in a "higher power" and searched to communicate in one way or another, all forming their own images.

If you meant we can infer the presence of god by the fact many people believe in something they label "god", I would have to disagree with you.

If you don't, then can I ask what convinced you god does exist? (I realize this is a complicated question.)

 

[TerranIV]

A couple decades ago I considered becoming a mathematician. My professor pointed out that one of the fundamental assumptions in mathematics is "there exists a number one".

The number one isn't proven. It isn't provable. It's a label of convenience that is the foundation of an entire paradigm.

The reason you cannot "prove" one is it is not a noun, but a adjective. Just like you can't prove "run" exists by itself. The number one is representative of SOMETHING - one apple, one person, one ounce of water.

You are right when you say we believe in fundamentally different things. Religion is a collection of non-sequiturs and flawed logic. Forming incorrect statements and applying rules which govern one thing (nouns) towards another thing (adjectives) will obviously produce only confusion and frustration.

I accept them on faith. Unless I have actually gone through and mathematically proved or experimentally tested a scientific fact, then I'm accepting it purely on faith. (And given my limited skills in the science lab, I've accepted some scientific facts on faith ... despite my personal experiments which produced conflicting results.)

Faith, belief, judgment - we have many reasons for believing something. I know the term "faith" has a lot of religious baggage to it but it is nothing special. Of course you accept them on faith - you trust that the people who go to school and study science and to do experiments and calculations for a living would know better than you or I about such things.

I also sure you are not ONLY accepting it on faith. You have experience with school and you have probably looked into a few things scientists have done and are satisfied to a certain enough degree that you feel you can trust these people. I'm also sure you have experiences and possibly testimony of others about your religion. You don't just accept it completely on faith or you would be a fool. I don't think you are a fool. I don't just have faith you aren't a fool, I have read your thoughtful arguments and can see you have thought a lot about this.

Of course I don't KNOW for certain. There is a certain degree of knowledge which can probably never be obtained, but there is a degree which is close enough to certainty that it resists any meaningful attack. I don't know it would serve much purpose to argue that the amount of evidence which would convince me of certain things is enough to convince you. You could be a fool for not listening to reason and I could be a fool for not seeing what you may consider obvious.

The theory of gravity hasn't been proven (though it is supported by a preponderance of evidence). If it was disproved tomorrow, would we suddenly start flying away from the earth as inertia takes over? Of course not.

More to the point, do you think the theory that would replace the theory of gravity would be completely different from the previous theory, or do you think it would be similar, just slightly modified to accommodate the new data?

If evidence disproves a scientific theory, the only part of scientific knowledge that you change is the part actually disproved by the evidence. There is no suggestion that the rest of the scientific knowledge is inaccurate.

Why would you expect me to treat my religious beliefs so dramatically differently than my scientific beliefs? (I realize that you treated yours differently, but do you have any other reason to expect me do that?)

You are very correct that the universe is not going to change just because of our perception of it. The beauty of atheism is disproving god doesn't affect the universe at all, one way or another.

When I talk about "disproving god" perhaps I should be more precise and say "your idea of god". I'm sure you don't believe in many other people's ideas about god. If you have conflicting ideas about god presumably you either think you are more correct, or the point of contention doesn't matter that much to you. But if there REALLY was a god, he/she/it would have specific properties which would NOT depend on your opinion, my opinion, or any other believers opinion.

The "problem" with many people's believe in god, is they don't really believe in their own ideas. They have kind of a "general idea" about what god is. This is fine, but when you corner them about what or who god IS they say silly things like "god is everything" or "god can be different things to different people" which is tantamount to admitting god is just a concept with no actual example in the real world.

I don't expect you to throw your beliefs out the window. I'm sure this would cause a great deal of anxiety and uncertainty - an insurmountable amount to most people. Much of your perception of the world is seen through this paradigm of there being an unseen god behind the scenes controlling it all. What I am asking you to do is just imagine for a MOMENT that there is no god. This is almost impossible for the human mind to do, because almost all of use were raised with the idea of god being real. This would mean not only were you wrong, but your parents, and all your friends who stood up in church and testified of god were wrong. This is not easy to think about, and even harder to admit.

So no, I don't expect you or anyone else who has so much riding on god being true to abandon their beliefs (and family? and friends?). Most atheists do not come to the conclusion god is all a very complicated lie easily. It is because it is a truth I can't deny, not because I take any pleasure in being right. I wish it (god, miracles, etc) was true sometimes, but I can't pretend it is.

Originally Posted by TerranIV View Post
Perhaps you accept the idea of "love your neighbor" as a religious idea because you were first presented it in a religious setting. Just because it was first presented to you in a religious setting doesn't mean it is not still with us today because it was panned out by experience (history - also not religion) and research (science).

I believe the statement in blue is a religious idea. I realize the part in red isn't provable, but could you provide some supporting evidence for your belief?

I would say that history is full of examples that this religious idea is rarely put into practice. The closest thing to scientific research (that I'm aware of) would involve some game theory models, and those would tend to support other forms of behavior as being superior.

This is a common belief across many cultures. I realize you (and I) were born in a christian society and it is hard to see how many ideals are handed over to Jesus as the author without any thought into the matter.

I would recommend this brief article on wikipedia about the subject:
Ethic of reciprocity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sure you could argue god was merely inspiring these various authors throughout history. I could also argue the writers of the bible were influenced by the societies around them. I don't know there is much to prove them either way. If you believe in god you would give more credence to the first position, if you didn't, to the second.

There are plenty of reasons why social animals like humans, ants, bees, birds, fish, bison, etc would develop "Do what is go for the group" type mentalities. Obviously if you strengthen the group which you rely on for your support you will increase you chances of survival. If you agree with the principal of evolution I'm sure you could find many possible explanations for the adaptation of morality in general and reciprocity specifically.

 

[TerranIV]

Miracles don't prove the existence of god ... but they do supply supporting evidence.

You act like miracles were commonplace in old and new testament times. Count the number of recorded miracles in the bible. Count the number of years covered by the bible. Figure out the average number of years between miracles. And with the exception of the Exodus, consider that there weren't that many witnesses for most miracles.

But even if you saw a miracle occur right in front of you, how could you be certain that it wasn't stage magic (think about what David Copperfield does). And in front of TV cameras? Think about the special effects in a typical action or scifi movie.

Miracles prove nothing. Let's say I pray to god for a miracle and it occurs. Does prove there is a god? No. It's possible that one time in a billion I can cause a supernatural event to occur merely by willing it. It's possible that a powerful alien entity decided to fulfill my wish on a whim. And even if god was the sole cause behind the miracle, it doesn't imply that my knowledge about god is any less flawed than the next person's knowledge.

I would agree with you. How many of the modern miracles of science are exponentially greater than anything even CLAIMED in the bible? Flight? Computers? Internal combustion engines? How many religious people are convinced science and reason is the correct "god"? Not many.

I'm not asking god to do anything he (at least the god of the new testament - Jesus) said he would do. Ask it ye shall receive. I didn't make that up. Someone attributed that to god. Perhaps it doesn't mean ALL GODS must do miracles, but the miracles in the bible are ATTRIBUTED to god so he is supposedly CAPABLE of miracles and prophecy.

The only miracle workers and prophets today with any credence are those who are based on science. The weather man doesn't pray about his predictions, he looks at satalite images and other data about the atmosphere. Astronomers don't pray to god to predict where the planets they are sending satellites to will be when the rockets get there, they use mathematics.

Nothing in science, by the way, comes with a creed saying it is TRUE. It is not scientist and mathematicians saying THIS IS HOW THE UNIVERSE IS. They are reporting observations, not dictating reality without any evidence. You can disagree with their conclusions, but only if you actually look at the data and how it was collected.

You're entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is wrong. You might want to read the definition of "metaphor" before making these kinds of statements.

Here is one of my favorite metaphors:
"My girlfriend could be in heaven, and I could be in hell, and it would be the same place ... a bingo game."
- my Uncle

Do you believe my uncle was lying when he said that? He clearly was not talking about the literal afterlife. Even though he is speaking a literal falsehood, his meaning is clear. The meaning is also figuratively true.

This is my favorite metaphor because it uncovers a larger, universal truth. The reality of a situation is not separate from our own perspective.

You read the story about Jonah and the big fish. To you, it's probably just a whopper of a fish story. To me, it's a myth with a couple important lessons (or more).

metaphor:
1: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money) ; broadly : figurative language — compare simile2: an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor : symbol
metaphor - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

I'm sure your uncle did use a metaphor correctly. The bible, however, did not. The idea of a metaphor is to make a point about something.

Your uncle didn't say, "One day I was sitting in a game of bingo one day and I saw a devil walk into the room and light everything on fire and then when I turned to my wife in horror about what I was seeing she just smiled and asked what I was talking about. When I pointed to the devil she said I was acting very strangely to be afraid of a beautiful angel. I asked her what she saw and she described just the opposite - an beautiful angelic figure with wings and a halo."

Johna and the whale is not a metaphor. It is a story meant to be something discribing an actual event. You could REPHRASE it INTO a metaphor if you wanted - but this is not what the story was, it is what you and other readers of the bible have made up about it. The metaphor is "God is like a fish and will swallow you up if you don't do what he asks he will spit you back up on dry land." There is no figurative language in the story of Jonah.

I'm not saying there are not metaphors in the bible, there are. Jesus' parables are a type of metaphor and were presented as such. The creation story is in no way a metaphor for anything. It is a story with purports to actually be telling you how the earth was made. This doesn't mean you have to take everything "literally", but to take it "metaphorically" is to completely replace the original author's intent with your own agenda. I don't actually believe the authors of Genesis were meaning any harm. I'm sure they just found a story which sounded interesting and told it to someone and they thought it was great and so they wrote it down. After all, they never could have dreamed of the power of science to ACTUALLY find some REAL evidence of how the earth was made. What IS a deception is for people to portray it as real. I appreciate that you seem to realize it is not.

 

[TerranIV]

We were raised differently. My father is a chemist and has a scientist's skepticism toward everything ... science as well as religion. In my opinion, it takes more courage to say that you don't know the answer.

One of the greatest fears that people have is fear of the unknown. People don't like being afraid, so they pretend they know what the universe is like. (Whether it's god creating the universe in six days, or saying there is no god.)

I can't prove whether there is a god. Based on my own personal experiences, the evidence indicates that there's a theistic god. (But I fully respect that any other individual has different personal experiences, so they would have evidence that could lead them to other conclusions.) I'm a practicing christian. I don't believe that christianity is necessarily any closer to the truth than any other religion, but I'm able to follow the practices a bit better. (I may be a mediocre christian, but I really suck at buddhism.) Since I believe in the validity of other religions as well, I've spent a few years studying them in order to incorporate their teachings into what I have already learned.

It sounds to me that you would like a universe where you can know what is right and wrong, what is true and false, what is good and evil. I've come to the conclusion that the universe (and god) isn't nearly that accommodating. I've become accustomed to not knowing the answers.

You have some valid complaints about how religions tend to conduct themselves. Unfortunately, I think the radical difference in our perspectives would interfere with us having that discussion.

I would have to strongly disagree with you on this point. I see religion as the guilty party when it comes to arrogance and believing they have the "true" answer. I don't "know" there is no god. What I DO know about religion (about christianity in particular) leads me to believe there is more evidence in favor of god not existing than there is for god to exist. Of course no one really knows anything, but we can examine the evidence and go with what seems to have a better chance in our minds of being correct. We disagree on this, and that is fine, this relates to the core differences between atheists and believers.

I would actually like nothing better than to be disproved. I would LOVE for someone to show me SOMETHING, ANYTHING which would change my mind. EVERY SINGLE TIME religion is tested it fails. There has never been any objective proof for any of the fantastical claims of religion. Many believers fail to question the validity of ideas they are basing their lives on. Perhaps because the idea they could get some reward at the end of this life is enough to look the other way when deception after false perception, after irrational thought is struck down. Atheism can be disproved so easily it is almost unbelievable that religion hasn't proven it false. I can think of a thousand ways god could prove himself/herself/itself. Most believers can't think of one way to disprove their religion. Why? Because it is irrational and you can't prove an irrational thought incorrect other than to expose why it is irrational.

I'm not saying you can't hope for something more. I'm not saying there is not some good which comes from wishing for an afterlife, to see a dead loved one again, or that there is some kind old man who is watching after us all. That is certainly a good IDEA. The problem with believing these things is people take harmful actions based on the premise the idea is TRUE.

People kill themselves (and others) in the hope for a future reward. The devote time and expense to entertaining these false ideas which could be used to help themselves or their family have a better life. I know it is hard to see the harm in believing in fairies or ghosts, but if you don't take your child to the doctor because you think god will magically cure them then you have crossed the line from a "nice idea" to a harmful. You will notice there are no scientists who are dying for their hypotheses. There are no bombings of cosmologists labs by botanists.

Religion forms the basis for irrational and harmful decisions which cause great suffering in this world. You may not be doing anyone much direct harm by going to church. If your church is trying to tell gay people how they should live a many homosexuals would say your church is doing them great harm. I would argue religion and superstition form the basis for most of the irrational decisions we make. I commit the "gambler's fallacy" from time to time, but the difference is I will admit I was acting irrational while religious people will try to talk themselves out of wrong decision by saying it was "a trial" or a "test of faith" or some such nonsense.

I would very much like a universe where we could know what's right and wrong, I'm shocked you would say there is a utility in IGNORANCE! I also realize we do not live in such a universe. We are learning more and more every day about how the universe works and I have a HOPE that someday we will reach a level where we (or our children) will have a perfect knowledge of how they can lead happy and productive lives. Perhaps this will never happen, but the idea helps me find a purpose to living. The difference between hoping for this day and for some imagined heaven is it is based on actual discoveries which have been made since the beginning of history which have gotten us almost unbelievable amounts of knowledge. Science has discovered more beauty and complexity in the universe than all the religious thinkers in all of human history because they didn't rely on their own ideas or preconceptions but were willing to challenge their own ideas and in doing so come to a better understanding of what REALLY is going on in the universe.

I find it interpreting you believe "fear of the unknown" is a GOOD thing! Why would you ever need to fear what you don't know? There is very good reasons for moving cautiously in the dark, but there is no reason to be afraid of it. Fear can serve us well to keep away from things which we know can harm us (bears, cliffs, electrical sockets, etc), but the unknown is something which can be harvested from. Knowledge only comes from conquering the unknown. Sometimes this comes at a price, but many times that price is more than worth the cost and it is a reward more that just comforting words and pleasant ideas but real knowledge which can improve our lives and help us understand our universe and ourselves.

 

[Spiritone]

The first and second part of your second seem to contradict each other. How can you say there is "one god" and then say "God [is] for all no matter how they conceive God to be."? Either god IS a certain thing or he doesn't exist.

It is meaningless to say there is a "god" if he is all things to all people. This would mean god is different depending on who believes in him/her/it, which is very close to saying god is in their minds.

If god's existence depends on belief, doesn't it make more sense to realize god is in people's minds instead of somewhere in reality?

God is a concept based on experiences people have but not on any actual one "thing" or "person" or "being" which actually exists.

It makes sense to me that: A Creator of all, that all is a part of, including us, was believed by people around the world in what ever way they choose to communicate with that Creator which was in very diverse ways that I won't try to go into now.
If there is one Creator of all why would that Creator recognize one group or religion and not others. People's divisions and headstrong idea that others were wrong was and is still the biggest problem. There is one that encompasses all.

Yes, I realize you did not, I was anticipating your argument and asking if you believed that the "commonality of belief" was proof of god. You kind of implied you believed this by your statement If you meant we can infer the presence of god by the fact many people believe in something they label "god", I would have to disagree with you.

If you don't, then can I ask what convinced you god does exist? (I realize this is a complicated question.)

I don't and did not imply that.
There have been countless things all through the years of searching that convince me that there was/is a Creator. I considered myself an atheist at one time, an agnostic, a Christian, a deist, a Christian Gnostic and Buddhist, at different times. All religions are saying basically the same thing. I don't follow any organized religion and that is perfectly fine in my book.
Many religions have shuttled the masses of people into tunnel visioned thinking but that is changing.
We are going from the dark ages into the light, so to speak. imo.

 

[TerranIV]

It makes sense to me that: A Creator of all, that all is a part of, including us, was believed by people around the world in what ever way they choose to communicate with that Creator which was in very diverse ways that I won't try to go into now.
If there is one Creator of all why would that Creator recognize one group or religion and not others. People's divisions and headstrong idea that others were wrong was and is still the biggest problem. There is one that encompasses all.

Exactly. So if one religion says "God only talks to us" then they must, by your definition, be wrong. Guess what, most religions do say this. (Not the believers who belong to the religions, but their leaders and creeds say they are the only correct church in many if not most cases.) So if some people ARE wrong about what they say about god, how can we be certain of ANYTHING people say about god? Especially when NOTHING is every verified but MANY things are easily proven wrong.

TerranIV Quote:

...I was anticipating your argument and asking if you believed that the "commonality of belief" was proof of god. You kind of implied you believed this by your statement

All the people around the world had some kind of belief in a "higher power" and searched to communicate in one way or another, all forming their own images.

If you meant we can infer the presence of god by the fact many people believe in something they label "god", I would have to disagree with you.

If you don't, then can I ask what convinced you god does exist? (I realize this is a complicated question.)

I don't and did not imply that.
There have been countless things all through the years of searching that convince me that there was/is a Creator. I considered myself an atheist at one time, an agnostic, a Christian, a deist, a Christian Gnostic and Buddhist, at different times. All religions are saying basically the same thing. I don't follow any organized religion and that is perfectly fine in my book.
Many religions have shuttled the masses of people into tunnel visioned thinking but that is changing.
We are going from the dark ages into the light, so to speak. imo.

I disagree with you that all religions say the same thing. They say very different things about who god is and what he/she/it has done and what he/she/it wants us to do. They are all similar in how they appeal to reason and then run away from it when they back themselves into a corner they can't escape from. They capitalize on human weakness and emotion and cater to our fear of the unknown. They make up unverifiable explanations for things and then make life or death decisions based on them.

I know religion is at most times a harmless thing, but when there are so many rational and reasonable explanations for how this world work which don't require the sacrifice of our lives (in terms of our devotion and sometimes our mortality) religion becomes a dangerous liability in times of crisis and an excuse for some of the most heinous crimes in all of human history. If god really is speaking to these people he is not a god but a devil and the real god must be hiding in impotence and cowardice.

 

[Spiritone]

Exactly. So if one religion says "God only talks to us" then they must, by your definition, be wrong. Guess what, most religions do say this. (Not the believers who belong to the religions, but their leaders and creeds say they are the only correct church in many if not most cases.) So if some people ARE wrong about what they say about god, how can we be certain of ANYTHING people say about god? Especially when NOTHING is every verified but MANY things are easily proven wrong.

You are right about religions saying they are right and others wrong, except for Buddhism which is more in tune with how to live each moment.
We need an invasion from outer space to get us all together and finally realize that it is us who are wrong, not God. We have free will but don't make good use of it.

It is very hard to explain but I'll try; God, it seems, set all in motion so that everything in existence works by unchanging laws. We have had spiritual "messengers" try to tell us how those laws work but most don't get it. Jesus told us many times that we can do what He did and more and that it is up to us. In my opinion we zero in on things to argue about and totally miss the absolute meaning of what has been given to us.
. [/QUOTE]

 

[zenzero]

Friend TerranIV,

What proof would convince you God doesn't exist?

No proof required; as all searches to find either *I* MYSELF or God has failed and of the firm belief that NEITHER exits.
Love & rgds

 

[Enoch07]

No physical proof could convince me that he does not exist. But I ask why is it so important that you prove/disprove it? Here is my reasoning.

If lets say for instance atheist are correct and there is no God or afterlife, then we all simply vanish and would not even get to know whether you was right or wrong, because we cease to exist.

If lets say Christians are correct and there is God and an afterlife then the Christians will have been prepared for it while the atheist stand there stunned and unprepared..prolly still in denial.

So whats the worse fate?

I can hear the screamers already. Yes I know there is more than 1 religion. I am just using what I know best to make a quick explanation.

 

[RomCat]

There is nothing surer than faith.
For an explanation of what faith is
read the "Ascent Of Mt. Carmel" by
the great Spanish mystic St. John of
the Cross.