I'm a Christian honestly wanting to dialogue with an atheist and/or agnostic who would be open to the idea of God if he could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. What would be considered proof and what would enough proof look like?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
NewFinland
I'm an Atheist. Can you give testable evidence for your god? Your bible is not evidence.
Hi NewFinland
Welcome to the forum:)
I would love you to prove god because that has never been done. If you can prove his existance then id still struggle with the idea of worshiping him if your referring to the god of the Bible. Not a fan. Visible scientific proof would work. Got any?
Hi
I'm not trying to prove anything right now. I also can appreciate that it would be another thing entirely to worship a God. I am just curious to know what specific proof or type of proof would be considered legitimate. Time and again I have seen the same old back and forth of a christian presenting some point and it never seems to even come close to a satisfactory answer. It just seems to me that a lot of skeptics don't really want a deity to exist, I could be wrong though. What kind of scientific, philosophical, or experiential evidence do you think is needed to prove God's existence beyond a reasonable doubt?
Religious claims typically are missing aspects needed for science; such as prediction and reproducibility. A specific example might be the spontaneous (supernatural) healing of an amputated limb.
Thank you. I agree that would be good proof. What do you think of more indirect evidence like the second law thermodynamics, and the evidence that the world had a beginning,(the big bang?) what about the idea of objective morality? Would any evidence like that work? I'm only trying to find out, because these are a few that seemed legitimate to me, and I just want to know what other's standards are.
I've found that even those who pay lip service to objective morality, don't "engage" in objective morality; it's a myth.
---------------------
The 2nd law comes from the law of large numbers, which is essentially just an effect of averaging. How exactly is this evidence (scientific or otherwise) for god?
---------------------
Even if there was evidence the universe had a beginning (there isn't), that wouldn't be evidence for god. f6393bf3000b8d22baee555d34c76563
"Objective Morality" is a clever play on words, made up by religious scholars. If you truly drill down on definitions, its trying to ascribe real world physicality and consequences to made up ideas and thoughts in the head and communication. The two words: objective, and morality are water and oil, they simply do not mix. It is saying its hot and its cold at the same time and that is suppose to make sense and convey information.
Did you mean the first law of thermodynamics? (That energy cannot be created or destroyed?)
Why does the world or the universe having a beginning possibly mean that your god is real? That is kind of like saying: "hey there is a present under the Christmas tree, Santa must be real!"
Unlike most other atheist here, in the very hypothetical situation that you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your god is real I would worship the SHIT out of your god, I would be 10x more faithful then you ever were. I assume your religion "god story" has a heaven, if it was real, I would do anything to get in internal paradise. I would dedicate the rest of my life figuring out exactly what I needed to do to improve my odds of getting into heaven. Anything else would be utterly illogical when we are talking an eternity of paradise. If god wanted I would cut off all my limbs, I would give away all my worldly possesions, I would kill in his name etc etc etc.
Fortunately, for me and the rest of us, I cant even begin to think of a way god could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if I was missing a limb and it spontaneously grew back, and there was a booming voice in the sky everyone saw and heard, and a bunch of other super obvious miracles, I would assume that the more likely scenario is that I have been drugged, and hallucinating or came down with serious mental illness. That is how incredibly unlikely your god, or any other god is.
Of course, if god is real and all powerful he can simply make me believe in him, if its so important to him. I had an open challenge to him for the last 20 years to strike me dead with lighting or whatever for the last 20 years, still waiting on this supposed god to get around to that. I am not worried because everything I ever learned about reality points to the fact that this god idea is beyond absurd.
I'd like to talk about objective morality, you interested?
Are you talking to me or the original poster?
The actual empirical evidence strongly suggests gods and related entities and dogma are human inventions/constructs. For example, all sources of information about the Christian God come only from human sources, such a writings and oral statements. These writings and oral statements are made up of a plethora of mere assertions and claims. Certain humans believe these mere assertions and claims are true and correct, but the evidence further reveals that such belief arises because of childhood religious indoctrination from...guess who...other humans (usually trusted adults). Such belief is usually maintained by peer pressure from...guess again...other humans.
When asked to provide empirical evidence to support these mere assertions and claims, commons responses involves (i) invoking apologetics which are typically laced with logical fallacies or outright lies or (ii) pleading religious faith is all that is needed (i.e., belief without such empirical evidence).
If you can find actual empirical evidence to demonstrate the existence of your Christian Gods (yes, there are more than one of them depending on the denomination), you will be the first human to do so.
Sdelsolray:
You are quite right.
The surface of the Earth is littered with evidence of past events. There are meteor craters everywhere, fossils of dead animals, sedimentary layers, mountain ranges pushed up by tectonic plate collisions... But nowhere do we find any trace of a being who can allegedly part seas, move mountains, and obliterate cities. The only physical evidence consists of trivial conjuring tricks like weeping statues, random images in oil stains or toast, and fake relics of saints or the so-called "true cross."
The desperate believers cling to this pathetic "evidence", giving the lie to their claim is faith is enough.
If the entire human race had a picnic on the moon without any special equipment and went on a tour of the entire universe that could be a start.
JamieB even if the christian god was proven real with testable evidence, I wouldn't worship it as one of it's slaves in heaven or on this earth.
@NewFinland: Sorry, you can see any other thread in this forum about exactly the same thing that you've exposed and also see this video... https://youtu.be/VuyYGVDCdN0
It's boring to answer the same thing over and over, over and over, over and over again.
This was tried just last month and the Op didn't provide any proof of a god. Go ahead and try but I doubt if you have discovered anything new.
Would you agree there is No proof that god or gods exist? If you disagree you have the floor. Please describe the gods or god you believe in and provide the proof.
Assuming we are dealing with evidence, the question becomes: What good evidence do you have that gods exist. I think that there is no simple answer to the question of what counts as good evidence, but if a god exists, she/he/it would certainly know what good evidence would convince me of its existence.
To the extent that I would consider evidence to be good, it would need to be evidence that is (1) testable (2) repeatable and (3) falsifiable.
Let's explore that a bit. Personal experience may justify your belief and faith --- but because that experience is not testable or falsifiable, it is not good evidence. Alleged miracles from gods or god are not good evidence because they are not testable. References to the bible are not good evidence because there are no original manuscripts to examine and no reason to believe the book was inspired by an all powerful entity and no way to test or falsify whether the book was inspired by a god. In fact, there is nothing in the holy babble to suggest in any way it is anything more or less than the writings of a bunch of bronze age peasants. .
NewFinland: If millenniums of gods, scriptures, eyewitness accounts, and personal testimonies have not already convinced me I guess nothing will. Do you think you have something convincing?
Good morning New Finland.
Before we can even consider proof, we need to define what it is that we're trying to prove or disprove. So please provide a definition of god. For example, if we were trying to prove the existence of bats, we would be looking for nocturnal flying mammals that navigate and hunt using sonar. Can you provide a similarly succint definition of your deity?
Per NewFinland - "If God could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
I'm a Christian honestly wanting to dialogue with an atheist and/or agnostic who would be open to the idea of God if he could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. What would be considered proof and what would enough proof look like?"
_______________________________
How can you write this and say you're a christian? There's no semblance of logic in it. "If god could be proven..." juxtaposed to "I'm a Christian..." is the same thing as saying you don't know if god exists but you're a member of one of the religions that worship it.
You are not alone, though. My expectation is that most people who profess a belief in a god really have no idea what they're talking about because they have no frame of reference for it. You can't nail anything down to a solid piece of convicting evidence for the belief system you say you embrace, and that alone is the internal conflict with all religions. No one knows what a god is because none have evidence of one. Nothing can be found in common between apologists except their ignorance of the god they can only pretend to worship. Without revelation there is no basis for a common god and that forces everyone to filter their own notions of one through their very private and imaginative psyches. It would make a very good movie, IMO, but hardly a thought to be taken seriously by the more cognitive audience you're posing your question to here.
Next time you ask a question like this first convince the audience that you have the stuff of a stalwart believer, why and are willing to back it up. We've seen all the usual suspect responses, will still dismiss yours as more of the same but at least you can be credited as an opponent with some self respect.
The usual proof offered or sought is miracles. But is there any miracle in the Bible that couldn't be replicated using current or near-future technology? Some of the Old Testament stuff is replicated many times a day at Universal Studios. Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm sure any competent magician could do the water into wine trick, and with the right sort of 3D printer you could probably turn out a reasonable approximation of loaves and fishes. Walking on water would be doddle. I've watched board riders do it from the beach near where I live. Reviving the dead is also routine in hospital emergency departments. Regrowth of severed limbs will probably be possible soon, using stem cell technology.
So I'm afraid miracles would convince me that someone had great technology, not that they were deities.
What about weeping statues? or some of the other modern miracles I formerly mentioned.
Weeping statues? Not impressive. Easily explained any time a person with any skepticism looks into it. Joe Nickell again.
I was talking about the ones accepted by the Vatican like Akita. Its strange if have nether heard of any skepticism from that one Joe doesn't even mention it in his book.
Oh, the Vatican. Gods Resort for Child Rapists! That 's an authority to put your faith in.
And as for Akita, well I lived in Japan for many years, and I can tell you that the Japanese love the paranormal, supernatural, ESP, telepathy and all the rest of it. The Akita Madonna statue is nothing. I once saw a woman on Japanese TV who claimed to in a telepathic contact with people on Venus who gave her the power to sweat gold dust from her finger tips. "Experts" checked her story on air and declared it to be genuine, just like Akita.
You have to realize that paranormal "experts" always have a vested interest in proving the paranormal. The Vatican has about as much credibility as Ghostbusters where miracles and spirits are concerned. In fact they have no credibility about anything.
A fair point on the ghost busters but otherwise can you offer any arguments against the phenomenon other than the Japanese loving the supernatural.
@Jacob Cornelius: "Any arguments against the phenomenon other than the Japanese loving the supernatural."
Katsuko Sasagawa, the woman who claimed to see the apparition of Mary, was supposedly cured of deafness. Interesting that Mary would choose a condition with no external symptoms. Sasagawa didn't grow new ears. She just said she that couldn't hear, and then she said she could hear. All very subjective. Nobody saw her stigmata appear. She was alone with the statue, and then suddenly she had a wound on her hand and there were markings on the statue's hand.
The weeping statue was filmed by TV Tokyo in 1973. TV Tokyo was a low-brow sensationalist tabloid channel. I wonder why no respectable channel, like NHK, ever covered this amazing miracle.
Finally, the Catholic church itself has rejected Akita. The local bishop thought it might be real and asked for an investigation, but that was inconclusive. A claim was made that Cardinal Ratzinger had verified the miracle, but that turned out to be untrue.
C'mon JC you live in the same century as the rest of us. Accepted by the Vatican is like saying accepted by Hogwarts.
I literally laughed out loud when Jacob here suggested that we should believe miracles blessed or whatever by the vatican. JC, you have to admit this is funny since the vatican clearly has a very specific agenda to identify ''miracles'' since they support the catholic church's dogma
@JacobCorneluis "weeping statues"
All found to be either deliberate fakes or natural phenomena, such as condensation. I'm surprised you even mention them.
Pages