What would constitute proof of God's existence?

238 posts / 0 new
Last post
jonthecatholic's picture
Thing is, that being you say

Thing is, that being you say could say hi and people would still doubt his existence. Some people out there even doubt the roundness of the earth as some people have mentioned on this thread.

LogicFTW's picture
This almighty "god" has had

This almighty "god" has had ~6000 years to convince people of his existence without stepping on "free will" as theist put it, and instead the amount of people that believe in different variations or no god at all has only numbered into the billions in all this time. If this god idea exist, it does not seem like he is in control at all seems like this almighty god is losing ground big time.

algebe's picture
There are very few miracles

There are very few miracles that a god could perform that couldn't be replicated with modern science and technology.

I can think of a much simpler test. If god can directly get into my mind and make me believe, I'll believe in it, and I'll witness my belief right here.

So far god has had 65 years to get inside my head and turn me into a believer. There have been times of loss, loneliness, and fear when I would have been a pushover for god's persuasive powers. When I was at school belief in gentle Jesus meek and mild was the pervasive default position. But all I heard on the god channel in my head was silence. There was nothing there except the squelchy footsteps of other people wading through bullshit.

bigbill's picture
That`s because Your heart was

That`s because Your heart was hardened, So he gave you over to your carnal mind. Read Roman chapter 1 and following. He was always calling you, But your obstinate in your response. You say that other people were incorrect that they of no help to you, Tell me did you want to hear them out. Because many times God works through innocent people. Who meant well here.

algebe's picture
@Simply agnostic:

@Simply agnostic:

Are you Christian again?

What on Earth is my "carnal mind." I sense an insult, but I'll wait for your explanation.

bigbill's picture
The carnal mind the bible

The carnal mind the bible says is at enmity with god. You think as the people of this world does your not enlightened by the spirit from above. You as an atheist some times sound very militant here, All that you state in your post is of this world and against religion. Jesus said look not on your sins but of the faith of the church. Your so busy looking at other peoples wrongs that your not looking at yourself clearly and rationally.Come to the light which is jesus Christ and then you will see your imperfections.Begin to pray and wipe the dust of your bible and read it. we can`t bring anything we possess with us someday, store up your treasures in heaven where rust and moth and decay are not present.

xenoview's picture
What do you mean by treasures

What do you mean by treasures stored in heaven? Is faith the only way to prove your god is real?

bigbill's picture
xenoview Christian teaching

xenoview Christian teaching is fro jesus originally that clearly states to accumulate things in heaven to have virtue and love. don`t look to fatten your bank account or your stock portfolio don't rely on the insecurity of this world that we live kin by its methods. try to find a good charitable cause to give to look to someone as better then yourself be humble put on Jesus Christ.Most of all FORGIVE

algebe's picture
Agnosticism is a funny flag

Agnosticism is a funny flag to wave from a pulpit.

This world is all we have, and it's up to us to nurture it and make it better for everyone. We've wasted far too much time, money, and effort trying to please different brands of non-existent sky-spooks. If you want to see your savior, look in a mirror. Look at other people around you. Not up at the empty sky. Jesus isn't the light. He's a black hole of ignorance and superstition.

bigbill's picture
No this life and world isn`t

No this life and world isn`t all there is and jesus proved that by rising from the grave. You right now don`t have the spiritual eyes to see beyond this existence, I`m doing my best to make things understandable here to a Christian view point. Where going to leave all this behind some day and stand before GOd to give an explanation on what we did with our time and resources that he blessed us with.I personnaly don`t feel that all that we spent in way of time and money to do good here was a waste of those resources. WE have treated many children and adults at the refugee camps we have educated untold millions.If I just look at the others around me what do I see I see suffering and evil. Jesus said that he was the light of the world so I believe it.

LogicFTW's picture
@simply agnostic:

@simply agnostic:

It would be nice if you had a atheist/theist neutral nick name here, and you swapped out your profile picture based on the current atheist/agnostic/theist view you are in for the day/hour. Would save us all some confusion, especially the newer users unused to your rapid changing back and forth.

Anyways: explain to me why you do not believe in santa claus or the tooth fairy, and I will use those exact same reasons to explain why this "jesus character" is no son of god, and did not resurrect from the dead. But instead some sort of religion leader (that went by a different name" that died on a roman cross, or survived it, like many others normal people did back then.

bigbill's picture
Can you pleas site why as you

Can you pleas site why as you call him this Jesus character is no son of god, and how can you foolishly say that he didn`t raise from the dead?please be specific

LogicFTW's picture
I asked you to explain why

I asked you to explain why you do not believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy first. You answer my question with a question?

Anyways.. I do not feel very foolish saying "jesus did not raise from the dead." I been saying there is no god and no son of god, "jesus" for a very long time, and so far I have had a good life, and openly challenged any and all gods to smite me down, and I am still around. I simply do not fear your god or any god. I do fear the zealot followers of this imaginary god a bit, which is why I take precautions, like discussing this stuff in anonymity.

This "jesus" character, (if the original person was even named jesus that the early bibles and scrolls did not simply rip off the name/idea from an earlier religion,) has zero evidence being son of a god, so if this "jesus" human person so happened to live, he did not die and then come back to life. We have had 10's billions of people die in the last few centuries alone, and none of them came back to life after being pronounced dead by modern equipment and well trained doctors.

Voidgift's picture
So a all powerful God does

So a all powerful God does not have the power to penetrate a stubborn childs mind? I agree the challenge is hard, but you would expect more.

jonthecatholic's picture
Changing your mind does sound

Changing your mind does sound like something God could do if He existed but wouldn't that be a violation of your free will?

That means you wouldn't be allowed to choose between "I believe in God" and "I don't believe in God".

Quesion is this: Is him proving his power by changing your mind more important than him proving his love for you by letting you keep your free will?

LogicFTW's picture


Also he could do both just fine, change my mind, and do it w/o ruining my free will.
Most of these "god" ideas are supposedly all powerful and all knowing. Surely there is a better way to convince us of his reality (which is apparently so important to this god character.) Also according to this bible book manual thing on god (for most religions) apparently it was just fine 100's or 1000's of years ago to do all kinds of god proving major acts, but now, suddenly, nope? Supposedly only a very small group of people alive at a certain time get the privilege of having god prove himself in an obvious way?

Kataclismic's picture
Jon, you have it all wrong;

Jon, you have it all wrong; belief is not a choice.

If you do not believe in unicorns (I'm making an assumption here, pardon my arrogance) and I said there was a book that told of punishment for those that didn't believe in unicorns would that make you "choose" to believe in unicorns? I could make the same analogy for any number of other gods like Allah for instance, but unicorns are religion neutral and serve the metaphor simply. Perhaps you'd like to discuss garden fairies and how they make tomatoes out of dirt?

I cannot choose to believe in your god any more than you choose to believe in unicorns or garden fairies and to suggest I'm making a choice is simply ignorance (and perhaps arrogance) on your part. But maybe that's the difference between you and me; I can't choose such things, I require convincing.

But this brings up another point, why would your god punish me for something entirely out of my control? Or do you need to tell me that it IS under my control in order to avoid this conundrum?

chimp3's picture
Historically, gods only know

Historically, gods only know what the people who invented them know. A first century god is confined to imparting first century wisdom to its devotees. The god of the OT instructed people to treat tuberculosis by using a live bird to sprinkle a dead birds blood on the walls. No instructions to cover your mouth when you cough then washing your hands. No instructions to boil water before drinking it. God did not know about microbes it seems.
So, gods can still prove themselves more knowledgeable than us modern humans. The opportunity is available. Instead of telling the Pope that using condoms is immoral or telling my Baptist neighbor that he has a "word" for me , he can use those devotees to communicate something that would advance our well being in leaps and bounds. Cures for cancers, a viable plan for peace for his favorite real estate in the Middle East, clean energy solutions. Instead knowledge continues to be gained at a very human pace. Thanks to humans , not gods.

David_Holloway's picture
Fair point Jon. I'll have you

Fair point Jon. I'll have you dig it up the source where I heard that the Jesus had a twin brother and the New Testament being written 100 years after Christ died. I did hear it on a documentary on the archaeological study of biblical events. I can't remember what is was called. I suspend my statement until I can find the documentary and post it. Watch this space.

jonthecatholic's picture
Thanks. I respect that. I'm

Thanks. I respect that. I'm actually very interested in the topics regarding faith in religion. Which is why I'm trying to look at all sides of the (I'd like to say coin but it seems this question has more sides to it) many sided solid.

mykcob4's picture
Just so jon the catholic will

Just so jon the catholic will finally know. There was never a bible in the 1st century. It took Constantine to commission the first bible in 324 ADE. That bible was lost, BUT the Codex Sinaiticus, written in the 400s survives. The Codex S. differs greatly from the 'Holy Bible' and the 'King James Bible' and all the bibles written after that time. For example, the Codex doesn't have "the resurrection."
This causes a HUGE problem for christians as their whole faith is based on the resurrection.
BTW and FYI EVERY bible was political propaganda. They were all intended to put forth a narrative advantage to the powers that commissioned them.
No bible has ever been verified as a factual document let alone a historical document.
Here are glaring examples of what I am talking about. The King James Bible was written to advance political aspirations of King James. It wasn't actually written by King James. It was a bible that moved power to kingdoms and away from Rome. The holy bible was written to give political advantage to protestants. It was a political move to secure power away from Roman catholic rule. The book of morons was written to give credibility to a drug induced psychotic nightmare. L. Ron Hubbard, dispensed with the bible altogether and wrote a sci-fi fiction novel. The Pharaohs commission 'The Book of the Dead'.
All these bibles and books have one thing in common. They are BULLOCKS, BULLSHIT, HORSECRAP.

jonthecatholic's picture
I'm aware of the compilation

I'm aware of the compilation of the Bible or what Christians call the canon of the Bible being recognized. This however still doesn't prove that the books in the New Testament (this is what we're talking about now) wasn't written by the people the Church says they were written by.

The Church, thru her hierarchy, has received these books and letters from the Apostles from the beginning and have passed them on until a canon was established/recognized. There have been a bunch of other books which weren't included because they were written 300 years after the death of Jesus. Or were written by someone who didn't actually have an encounter with Jesus.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jon the Catholic - Or were

Jon the Catholic - Or were written by someone who didn't actually have an encounter with Jesus

No biblical author met Jesus (at least not in the physical world, I'm not counting Paul's "vision").

jonthecatholic's picture
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did. and so did Peter.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jon the Catholic - Matthew,

Jon the Catholic - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did. and so did Peter.

We know that:

  • Matthew didn't write Matthew
  • Mark didn't write Mark
  • Luke didn't write Luck
  • John didn't write John
  • Peter didn't write 1st or 2nd Peter

Got any more?

jonthecatholic's picture
How do you know this? Because

How do you know this? Because the only sources are from the Church? I'm sorry but that reason won't cut it. You're going to have to admit that someone wrote these things. And who would you ask if not the institution that knows of possible people who might've wrote these things. It doesn't make it any less true.

LogicFTW's picture
Do you always believe the

Do you always believe the people that write things simply because they are supposed to have the most authority on what they write?

Lets not forget how incredibly wealthy the churches are, passing around their tithing plates, and all the money written in from wills etc. Are you sure it is not in a churches best interest to maybe lie to protect their enormous income stream?

mykcob4's picture
That is a complete myth Jon

That is a complete myth Jon the catholic. There is no proof that anyone that was alive during the time that jesus was supposedly alive wrote anything. Provide proof that these first-century writings actually existed. The ONLY thing that I can find that actually claims that the Apostles wrote anything come from christian sites and they don't bother to prove what they claim is true. No accepted research corroborates that the apostles wrote anything. Theologians can't even confirm who wrote the gospels and when. They call the authors Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John, but they don't that to be the case. They surmise ( and this is speculation by theologians) that the gospel of Mark was written possibly around 324ADE and the others gospels came much later. Also, the later gospels were copies that took literary license and embellished the stories to fit a narrative that they wanted to promote. Luke was particularly wild and loose with his version.
Supposedly Paul wrote four letters but that is highly unlikely as it is thought that Paul was illiterate. Peter (Simon) may have been literate because he was supposedly an official of the Jewish church once. Judas Iscariot was a tax collector. Funny how the most educated person of the apostles didn't write a word about jesus.
The possibility of a bible before Constantine is very slim. Christians were not literate. They came from the dregs and disenfranchised of jewish society. There was no reason to write a book. You don't go before low information voters and present a physics book. You give them red meat oratory. This is the case with christianity. Books meant nothing to them. They would have burned them for fuel. They probably hated books in the first place. Books were part of the establishment.
Christians were not educated until Charlemagne when it became mandatory. Charlemagne was uneducated.

jonthecatholic's picture
This is throwing out a lot of

This is throwing out a lot of allegations, my friend. You must remember that the early Christians were persecuted. I doubt anyone would come out of the blue with a book or letter with their name and address on the book or letter that they wrote. This would explain to you why the New Testament authors had to be taken at the world of those who received them.

Take this analogy. You get a letter from your mom containing sensitive information. It's not signed nor does her name appear anywhere on the letter. But you know her handwriting and you know her speech patterns. You're gonna know it came from her and whether the everyone doubts it, you can vouch for its authenticity.

Now, when they did replicate these books, the handwriting changes but the speech patterns are preserved. English composition teachers will tell you they can tell if a student wrote the paper they said they wrote.

As to the early Christians not needing books as they were illiterate. This does not follow. Even today, illiterate people can know what the Bible says. Nature gave us ears to hear. There only needs to be one person who knows how to read and shout it out.

Now, as to your claim that these books weren't written by the Apostles, this is your assertion. Please prove this. You don't share any less in the burden of proof on this matter. I wouldn't call it reliable but check out the Wikipedia page on the New Testament and under the section of when it was written. It seems this is the generally accepted claim when it comes to the New Testament books.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jon the Catholic - check out

Jon the Catholic - check out the Wikipedia page on the New Testament and under the section of when it was written.

All right:

Wikipedia - Gospel of Matthew - The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, and the superscription "according to Matthew" was added some time in the 2nd century

nowhere does the author claim to have been an eyewitness to events

The majority view among scholars is that Matthew was a product of the last quarter of the 1st century. This makes it a work of the second generation of Christians

Wikipedia - Gospel of Mark - Most scholars also reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

The Gospel of Mark is anonymous.

Early Christian tradition ascribes it to John Mark, a companion and interpreter of the apostle Peter. Hence its author is often called Mark, even though most modern scholars are doubtful of the Markan tradition and instead regard the author as unknown.

Wikipedia - Gospel of Luke - Luke-Acts does not name its author.

According to Church tradition this was Luke the Evangelist, the companion of Paul, but while this view is still occasionally put forward the scholarly consensus emphasises the many contradictions between Acts and the authentic Pauline letters.

The most probable date for its composition is around 80–100 AD, and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century.

The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.

Wikipedia - Gospel of John - the Gospel of John is anonymous
Traditionally, Christians have identified the author as "the Disciple whom Jesus loved" mentioned in John 21:24, who is understood to be John son of Zebedee, one of Jesus' Twelve Apostles. These identifications, however, are rejected by the majority of modern biblical scholars.
the true name of the author remains unknown.

Wikipedia - First Epistle of Peter - Although the text identifies Peter as its author, the language, dating, style, and structure of this letter have led many scholars to conclude that this letter is pseudonymous.

Again, there are no known contemporary sources for the character Jesus; inside or outside the bible.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.