What evidence do athiests need to believe in God?

[Flavus Aquila]

Any or none of these things could be true. I don't know, neither do you, neither does the pope, neither does Stephen Hawking, neither does Richard Dawkins.

It is ridiculous to have a belief about how the universe came about or what happens when you die. We simply don't know.

Not knowing is proof of nothing. You can't claim this to be proof of god or proof of an uncaused being. Thats just silly.

i think it seems likely that time itself is an invention and therefore cause and effect are irrelevant. Again I'd like to point out that this does not mean god must exist.

It means we don't know

Exactly - we simply do not know. Nobody alive knows for an absolute fact.

The pope believes God causes the universe to exist.
Richard Dawkins believes the universe exists uncaused.

What we think concerning existence is a matter of belief, regardless of whatever we might think - because it is impossible to prove any position scientifically.

 

[NeverAmI]

Exactly - we simply do not know. Nobody alive knows for an absolute fact.

The pope believes God causes the universe to exist.
Richard Dawkins believes the universe exists uncaused.

What we think concerning existence is a matter of belief, regardless of whatever we might think - because it is impossible to prove any position scientifically.

It doesn't need to be scientific, only some people need scientific. If God comes down in some sort of physical manifestation that extends beyond our standard laws of physics and tells me to stop using his name in vain and I can be sure I wasn't dreaming, then I am not going to ask him to do it 15 more times to make sure the variables remain constant.

But I agree with everything else you said.

 

[Poetic Justice]

If God comes down in some sort of physical manifestation that extends beyond our standard laws of physics and tells me to stop using his name in vain .

Even this wouldn't be enough for me. There may be another explanation. Just because a guy with a beard turned up and turned wine into water, it doesn't mean he is really god.

He may be lying.

It increases the odds slightly but it's not proof

 

[Doris]

As someone who has just returned from the old world to carry out research for the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology I am deeply perplexed by this thread. I've only been a member here for a few days and don't wish to upset the balance here but I, as an athiest, would never dream of posting a thread asking believers what proof they need to believe in evolution and the non existence of god and to do so would be rude and irrelevant. I just don't see the reasoning behind the initial question at all.

If I am wrongly offended by this topic then please enlighten me (excuse the choice of words if you may) as to the actual reasoning behind this thread, accept my apologies and I will gladly retract my sentiments.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Even this wouldn't be enough for me. There may be another explanation. Just because a guy with a beard turned up and turned wine into water, it doesn't mean he is really god.

He may be lying.

It increases the odds slightly but it's not proof

In other words it is impossible for God to prove his existence to some, unless he were to contradict himself by doing something completely disruptive to the order he has established - which would only prove that he is not perfect, which is contradictory of the notion of God.

In other words, absolutely nothing in heaven or earth can make a decided atheist believe... I think.

 

[~jet]

I have a hunch, that for the most staunch atheists there is no amount of proof which would be sufficient.

Quite so, quite so; just as the same can be said for staunch creationists and non-environmentalists ignoring the vast sums of data indicating a 13 billion old universe and all photography demonstrating the decimation of glaciers all around the world (not to mention photography of populations suffering the resulting lack of water supply that results.)

Okay, that sounded antagonistic; not meant to be. I do agree that both sides are prone to this cherry-picking of information to self-satisfy what they want to believe.

When it comes to god; I've nothing against the guy, and will concede that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Still, the evidence of an ancient earth, universe, evolution, et cetera is overwhelming in terms of proving the existence of THESE things. I'd simply argue none of them are mutually exclusive with the idea of God; just the idea that he whipped us up out of nothing 6000 years ago, as many of the 'staunch' believe. There's far more physical evidence of aliens having visited earth at this point than there is of God's machinations at any point!

So yeah; an atheist is taking the world as they see it; they're working with the information they can get their hands on. This is an honest if cynical approach, but one I can understand. I'm agnostic; I don't know either way, but I'd kinda like to find out! =)

 

[basic]

For me it's simple matter of one's own observations and how he/she comes to a conclusion. The real question (in my opinion) is "Does it make sense for a god to exist?" Whether or not something makes sense to one person compared to another is completely subjective, and therefore one's answer can only be considered opinion. Some people answer by saying yes there is a god/higher power, some people are unsure, and some people say there isn't one (all at varying levels and for different reasons).

I don't believe in god because I don't see why there would/should be one. It seems like an overly-complicated and very human solution to a question nobody can answer. I did not grow up in a religious household, although I did sort of grow up with the idea of a higher power. I rejected the idea fully as I got older. Although I am very firm on my position on whether or not there is a god or higher power, I am willing to admit that there is no "proof" for either position. There is no certain answer, and I am fine with a permanent question mark.

Because there are so many ways of looking at and defining god, presenting supposed proof is unimportant. There are highly acclaimed scientists out there who deal with the origin of everything in the universe who are religious and believe that at the end of the day, everything must've been divinely designed. It doesn't have to do with science vs. non-science. It has to do with one's own opinion. Again, I say "opinion" because it is a subjective question.

On another note, I just watched an episode of "Through The Wormhole" on the science channel where the subject was whether or not there is a god. It's was rather interesting, and I suggest checking it out if you can, if you find discovery channel-type programs interesting.

As a last thought that is somewhat unrelated:
Wouldn't God need a definite, singular, universal, definition to even exist?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Quite so, quite so; just as the same can be said for staunch creationists and non-environmentalists ignoring the vast sums of data indicating a 13 billion old universe and all photography demonstrating the decimation of glaciers all around the world (not to mention photography of populations suffering the resulting lack of water supply that results.)

Okay, that sounded antagonistic; not meant to be. I do agree that both sides are prone to this cherry-picking of information to self-satisfy what they want to believe.

When it comes to god; I've nothing against the guy, and will concede that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Still, the evidence of an ancient earth, universe, evolution, et cetera is overwhelming in terms of proving the existence of THESE things. I'd simply argue none of them are mutually exclusive with the idea of God; just the idea that he whipped us up out of nothing 6000 years ago, as many of the 'staunch' believe. There's far more physical evidence of aliens having visited earth at this point than there is of God's machinations at any point!

So yeah; an atheist is taking the world as they see it; they're working with the information they can get their hands on. This is an honest if cynical approach, but one I can understand. I'm agnostic; I don't know either way, but I'd kinda like to find out! =)

I don't think it is antagonistic calling stupid out.

I freaking hate biblical fundamentalists who give Christians a bad name (most of them aren't even Christians). The problem is that the Bible was written as a mostly allegorical/anagogical/analogical work - but some nuts read it as though it were a chronological quasi documentary of geological history. The basic problem is that the New Testament was written by bishops (eg. St Peter) or their assistants (eg. St Mark - St Peter's assistant) - and the Bible's various books were authentically/authoritatively assembled/collected and INTERPRETED by bishops who were their successors. In other words, the Bible is a collected work of the Church, interpreted by the Church - and always in a way that does not contradict scientific knowledge. But then you get some american hillbilly pick up a bible and invent his own church and start claiming the world is 6000 years old in the name of Christ. It makes me sick.

 

[slant]

There are some texts like the Bible and Torah that have inaccurate information which can be disproved.

However, aside from this, there is no way to disprove that a God exists, is there? What if God set up evolution? What if everything that science proves was set up by God?

Can atheists really dictate that God must be proven to exist, when many legal systems slogans are "innocent until proven guilty"? The normal means of proving a hypothesis is wrong is by disproving it, not waiting for someone to prove that it exists. If it's impossible to disprove something, while that doesn't inherently make it true, it also doesn't inherently make it wrong.

 

[KazeCraven]

I think the idea of God isn't something that has much weight with an atheistic philosophy. The point is to look for that which explains how the natural world works. Perhaps I am conflating atheism and materialism or scientific philosophy, but if an atheist can explain the laws of reality and how it works without having to invoke God, there's really no reason for them to ever believe that God does exist.

I think the only problem is when someone goes so far as to claim that they know God doesn't exist. I don't think atheism was ever meant to be used to claim that.

Also, slant, the 'innocent until proven guilty' idea is a deliberate bias for pragmatic reasons.

 

[Tamagochi]

If God wanted someone to believe in him, he would simply wish for it instead of arguing after all the Universe would be his playground

 

[Flavus Aquila]

If God wanted someone to believe in him, he would simply wish for it instead of arguing after all the Universe would be his playground

To cause someone to believe without their explict knowledge or consent is contradictory of that person's free will. God does not contradict the order he establishes. He's too perfect for that.

 

[slant]

I think the idea of God isn't something that has much weight with an atheistic philosophy. The point is to look for that which explains how the natural world works. Perhaps I am conflating atheism and materialism or scientific philosophy, but if an atheist can explain the laws of reality and how it works without having to invoke God, there's really no reason for them to ever believe that God does exist.

I think the only problem is when someone goes so far as to claim that they know God doesn't exist. I don't think atheism was ever meant to be used to claim that.

Also, slant, the 'innocent until proven guilty' idea is a deliberate bias for pragmatic reasons.

I don't understand why people always bring the comparison of Science and belief in God.


I would like to clarify this for all who try to bring this up again, because I am sure it will happen:

Science and Religion, and the belief of God, are not the same thing. They are not a fair comparison.

Science and Religion aim to prove two different things:

Science observes the world around and tells the way things 'are'.

Religion seeks to embody a higher power and tells 'why' the way things are the way they are. They don't tell the way things are, they focus on WHY.


Science isn't trying to explain why there is gravity, why would such a thing exist, who created gravity, how did it come into play? Mainly Science is a means of observing and recording.

To be an atheist does not believe you believe in Science or Evolution. It's not something that's interchangeable. There are plenty of religious people who do believe in Science, in fact, some churches use Science to prove their points. The Mormon church is a prime example of this; they are not phobic of Science and recognize them as two different things.

 

[Tamagochi]

To cause someone to believe without their explict knowledge or consent is contradictory of that person's free will. God does not contradict the order he establishes. He's too perfect for that.

Says who?

We have a notion that God is perfect from religious texts. But it is not a very reliable source of reference or is it? If we're capable of lying and deceiving then it surely be within mental capabilities of a God

 

[~jet]

I don't think it is antagonistic calling stupid out.

I freaking hate biblical fundamentalists who give Christians a bad name (most of them aren't even Christians). The problem is that the Bible was written as a mostly allegorical/anagogical/analogical work - but some nuts read it as though it were a chronological quasi documentary of geological history. The basic problem is that the New Testament was written by bishops (eg. St Peter) or their assistants (eg. St Mark - St Peter's assistant) - and the Bible's various books were authentically/authoritatively assembled/collected and INTERPRETED by bishops who were their successors. In other words, the Bible is a collected work of the Church, interpreted by the Church - and always in a way that does not contradict scientific knowledge. But then you get some american hillbilly pick up a bible and invent his own church and start claiming the world is 6000 years old in the name of Christ. It makes me sick.

Glad to hear it, and I'm more along your vein... I was raised either christian or catholic (i can't tell the difference anymore.) but do rather like jesus and would be pleased to discover there is a god... but PEOPLE... people screw this up so badly I veer sharply away from any form of organized religion.

As for the bible, yes... for example, apocalypta (probably misspelled, but meaning 'to reveal.') was a LANGUAGE derived in rome for the use of cloaking communications unintelligibly to the authorities. It was often used to allow christians to broaden their discussions with one another, among other things... so I am ~almost~ amused that the part of the bible that employs it is taken literally as an account of the end types. *shrug*

 

[slant]

For me it's simple matter of one's own observations and how he/she comes to a conclusion. The real question (in my opinion) is "Does it make sense for a god to exist?" Whether or not something makes sense to one person compared to another is completely subjective, and therefore one's answer can only be considered opinion. Some people answer by saying yes there is a god/higher power, some people are unsure, and some people say there isn't one (all at varying levels and for different reasons).

I don't believe in god because I don't see why there would/should be one. It seems like an overly-complicated and very human solution to a question nobody can answer. I did not grow up in a religious household, although I did sort of grow up with the idea of a higher power. I rejected the idea fully as I got older. Although I am very firm on my position on whether or not there is a god or higher power, I am willing to admit that there is no "proof" for either position. There is no certain answer, and I am fine with a permanent question mark.

Because there are so many ways of looking at and defining god, presenting supposed proof is unimportant. There are highly acclaimed scientists out there who deal with the origin of everything in the universe who are religious and believe that at the end of the day, everything must've been divinely designed. It doesn't have to do with science vs. non-science. It has to do with one's own opinion. Again, I say "opinion" because it is a subjective question.

On another note, I just watched an episode of "Through The Wormhole" on the science channel where the subject was whether or not there is a god. It's was rather interesting, and I suggest checking it out if you can, if you find discovery channel-type programs interesting.

As a last thought that is somewhat unrelated:
Wouldn't God need a definite, singular, universal, definition to even exist?

It is not a subjective question, actually. "Does God exist?" Is not subjective. You asked "Does it make sense for God to exist?". This is not the question most people ask.

If you were to ask the originally stated question, you would be able to boil down to a Yes or No answer.

Either God exists or God does not exist. Either there is evidence to prove that he doesn't exist or there is evidence to prove that he does. God would be a universal concept, universally provable.

Like you have said, whether it makes sense for God to exist or not is opinion. Opinions are invalid and don't constitute fact unless they are proven; even if you believe something really hard, in reality, it can either be right or wrong.

The statement "The grass is blue" can only be right or wrong. Even if you think it's right, if it is proven that the grass is actually green, the Universal truth is that the grass is green, despite whatever opinion others might hold.

 

[Poetic Justice]

I don't understand why people always bring the comparison of Science and belief in God.


I would like to clarify this for all who try to bring this up again, because I am sure it will happen:

Science and Religion, and the belief of God, are not the same thing. They are not a fair comparison.

Science and Religion aim to prove two different things:

Science observes the world around and tells the way things 'are'.

Religion seeks to embody a higher power and tells 'why' the way things are the way they are. They don't tell the way things are, they focus on WHY.


Science isn't trying to explain why there is gravity, why would such a thing exist, who created gravity, how did it come into play? Mainly Science is a means of observing and recording.

I disagree. I think science would love to be able to explain WHY there is gravity etc but they know that that is way beyond them at the moment so they start with the "easier" stuff.

Religion doesn't explain any of the hows because when it was written they didn't know any of the hows. The went straight for the top i.e. the why's because thats what people really want to know.

Religion and science are methods of explaining the same thing. They are so different because the methods are different. One makes it up and tries to make the evidence fit. The other goes only by what is observable and claims that that is all there is

Both faulty. Both wrong

 

[~jet]

It is not a subjective question, actually. "Does God exist?" Is not subjective. You asked "Does it make sense for God to exist?". This is not the question most people ask.

Totally fair question, and one that I bet cannot be answered. I think I've described this once before on this forum, but I feel like doing it again.

I call it the 'where' singularity. Where did ____ come from? Have you ever been able to answer that question without introducing a new element that required the question be asked again? Where did I come from? Where did my parents come from? Where did humanity come from? Where did the land come from? Where did the world come from? Where did the sun come from? Where did the galaxy come from? Where did the universe come from? Where did the 11-dimensional foam sea of 5-dimensiona branes come from? (this is where our math runs out) Where did ____ from from? No matter what we find the answer is, we can always ask the question all over again. Even god is not immune to the question, if human ingenuity and ability to question is any measure.

Still, we DO exist. Somehow that happened. The singularity kinda sorta REQUIRES faith that things worked out (thus far) and we should accept that we exist and just roll along with the punches as best we can. Keep asking good questions, dammit!

 

[slant]

I disagree. I think science would love to be able to explain WHY there is gravity etc but they know that that is way beyond them at the moment so they start with the "easier" stuff.

Religion doesn't explain any of the hows because when it was written they didn't know any of the hows. The went straight for the top i.e. the why's because thats what people really want to know.

Religion and science are methods of explaining the same thing. They are so different because the methods are different. One makes it up and tries to make the evidence fit. The other goes only by what is observable and claims that that is all there is

Both faulty. Both wrong

Direct that argument here.

http://forums.infjs.com/showthread.php?t=3206

 

[durentu]

The burden of proof lies with the ones who claim that god exists. and the ones who say that 'The God ' exists are misled and mistaken.

Basically, the King James version of the bible has italicized words in the translation denoting translation differences* rather than emphasis*.

"I am a God" turns into "I am the God" and all the confusion starts from there. The people who belief that god exists in some physical form are really intolerant and therefore really insecure. Poor souls ...