What would constitute proof of God's existence?

238 posts / 0 new
Last post
mykcob4's picture
Bullshit JonC. You asserted

Bullshit JonC. You asserted that the apostles wrote the bible. FUCKING PROVE IT.

Most CREDIBLE scholars, not people that are clear propagandist believe that the bible was written well after the time of jesus (if jesus lived at all) and NOT by the apostles.
Some say the 2nd century, most think the 3rd century, but none believe whoever wrote the bible was alive in the 1st century, not even close.
1) You claim that experts can recognize an author by his/her writing style. That is true BUT you have to have a sample of the original author. No such sample of Mark, Luke, Matthew or John exists.
2) There is not one document from christianity that survived from the 1st century, NOT FUCKING ONE!
There are Greek and Roman, and even Egyptian, but no christian documents from that time. Big fucking hole in YOUR theory!
3) As in the example of 1st Timothy (attributed to Luke and or Paul), there is clearly a motive to promote a political theme. The passages denouncing women for preaching to men. These passages were written in the 4th century to stop a rise in a woman's movement. And using authorship style as a guide they are clearly forgeries.
No, the EDUCATED consensus is that the whole damn book came from a commission by Constantine and was an edict of propaganda to solidify his power through the church. The church being an instrument to demand obedience. This was an astute political move because it meant Constantine didn't have to commit troops to maintain obedience, he could just issue and edit and claim it was an order or "the word of god."
BTW Constantine didn't commission the bible for the general public in the first place. He commissioned it to consolidate the churches into one church that he would rule over. That is the genius of Constantine. Thus he needed an authority that all the churches would accept, so he had his big political propaganda book written. He assigned names of the apostles as authors knowing that the clergy would not dare to question their authority.
It would be like Trump demanding that every American ONLY spoke English because he has a document written by Geo. Washington himself that proclaimed it. In fact, Trump would have to forge such a document because there is no such document. Trump would be using the authority of Washington to justify his criminality!
This is the case with the bible. Forged documents written after the fact, accredited to people that were dead and could not have written any part of it, politicized and propagandized to fit a narrative that gives authority to one man for the purpose of securing unquestioned authority.
Over the years this practice continued. The succession of popes and kings did exactly the same thing, editing the bible, giving credit to authors that didn't write a word of it, claiming to have found new historical documents (that didn't exist in reality), all to fit a political agenda of the time.
How many fucking versions of the bible are there or have there been? THOUSANDS! Each with its own political aim.

jonthecatholic's picture
This is a lot of allegations,

This is a lot of allegations, my friend. First of all, where are you getting your sources? Could it be that they too have their own agenda to pursue?

Anyway, you must remember that the early Christians were persecuted by the Roman Empire (or do you doubt this as well). I highly doubt any of them would put their name, address and email address on their letters. Secondly, the printing press was not yet invented during this time. When Matthew wrote his gospel, guess how many copies he came up with. This one book (actually scroll) would then have to replicated by hand.

As to proof as to who wrote the gospels, I'd like to make an analogy. Say your mom left a note on your table containing some potentially dangerous information. It's not signed so it won't be traced back to her but nevertheless know it came from her as you'd know her handwriting or the way she speaks. Right now, you'd be the only person to verify that that in fact came from your mother. When historians look at this letter many years from now, they can actually take your word for it without having her testify that she indeed wrote such a thing.

As to the question of illiteracy. This doesn't follow that an illiterate person can't be an author nor that the book is useless to them.

Illiterate author. If my hands are chopped off, or I'm blind, and I want to write something, what's the logical thing to do? Ask someone who can write it on your behalf. You'd still be the author. Then you have them read it back to you. So you'd know they got it right.

Illiterate Christians. Even today, illiterate Christians can hear the words of the Bible. And this was actually how they did it back in the day (as it was the only way). Someone had to read the books/letters. And all an illiterate Christian would do is listen.

Now, I checked the online sources and they don't say anything of what your trying to push especially with the dates the gospels were written. True, there were gnostic gospels written in the 3rd century but those aren't in the Bible we know today. I'm curious as to your sources.

Last point. You assert a lot of things but provide no proof. What I've asserted here are simply the most generally accepted ones by the Christian community, which by the way doesn't make anything any less credible. Just so you know.

Randomhero1982's picture
Nor I, he could quite easily

Nor I, he could quite easily have been hitting the Stella and disco biscuits at the time.

Deidre32's picture
Religion, faith, spirituality

Religion, faith, spirituality, etc...it's all based on one's own subjective emotions, and illusions. If you are a person of faith, then what you believe, should be enough. It shouldn't require you to make others believe, for your personal belief to have worth. I've gone back and forth to faith twice, and realized that my faith was largely based on wishful thinking. Or just wanting to believe. It's fine if you do believe, but if you need others to buy into it too, that is where you'll end up having disappointments.

bigbill's picture
well I can only speak for

well I can only speak for Christianity, We are told by Jesus in matthew 28 to go out into all the world and preach the gospel and baptize and that is what the church has done. Yes religion is a subjective thing, God doesn`t force anyone to believe that`s why we have a thing called free will.But even thought faith is up to the person god is objective by me accepting him or rejecting him doesn`t matter because God is still there, so in a way our faith is subjective but God stands outside of us.,no matter if where believers or not, prone to ones subjective stance.

jonthecatholic's picture
I'm not saying any of that,

I'm not saying any of that, actually. I'm curious on the matter and would like to know how others weigh in. I don't actually expect to convince anyone. But I do expect to learn something from this forum.

David_Holloway's picture
Simply Agnostic, you have the

Simply Agnostic, you have the wrong username and avatar. It is very clear to anyone who takes a passing glance at what you write that you are a theist.

Sky Pilot's picture
It's easy to prove that

It's easy to prove that Yeshua was the real deal: simply do what he said people could do if they believed in him and didn't have any doubts.

Randomhero1982's picture
Diotrephes - Thank you for

Diotrephes - Thank you for the standard Theistic logical fallacy! Any chance of some non anecdotal evidence...

Pitar's picture
The whole argument for the

The whole argument for the existence of a god is based on hearsay. The 700,000+ words of the bible are exactly that. They are a collection of works done in pseudepigraphy with precious little authenticity "testable" (as the OP seeks) in the realm of fact. Humanity's timeline into antiquity captures real events by the scribes and reporters of courts for countless public events and decrees, and then contrasts them to the biblical telling of the time span. Simply put, the contributors to the bible didn't even bother to facts-check themselves to better conjure up credibility.

What we have in modern day theism, and soldiers thereof, is their ignorance of fact fighting against their own demons of doubt. Atheists have no dogs in that race. That argument is wholly focused within the ranks of the theists and atheism seeks no recognition nor credence. That's what atheism is all about - nothing.

Agnosticism is not atheism. If the theist seeks a parlay with the agnostics then do not knock on atheism's door. There are no agnostics within and the theist who answers the door has no interest in what the visiting theist thinks. The theist who thinks he must prove his argument to the atheist merely personifies his own doubts and thereby proves his enduring obliviousness.

manthony121's picture
The basic problem is how to

The basic problem is how to tell a miracle apart from advanced physics we do not understand. As we do not, and likely cannot, know everything nature is capable of, we will never be able to tell the difference between the natural and the supernatural. That being said, any god capable of creating a Universe would certainly be capable of convincing humans of his existence. So, the very fact that there are atheists in the world shows that one of the following must be true: a) some gods exist, but hide their existence from some people, or b) gods don't exist at all.

bigbill's picture
it would certainly look like

it would certainly look like there is no God at all, I always wondered why if there is a god or gods why are there so many different religions.Some of the time it is according to the geographical area that you live in.Since I was a Christian at one time I always asked myself what was the real significance that Jesus died on a cross. As I have looked into this the only thing that I come away with is that not much changed since his death, Life went on there was still wars and evil and people faced trouble and worries in there life.We have earth quakes tornadoes etc. Christian apologist answer this dilemma by saying that god has a reason, and by them saying that there is no real way that I have found to test this explanation.

xenoview's picture
Did you just flip on us again

Did you just flip on us again? What are you now? What will your new name be?

bigbill's picture
I was just at times playing

I was just at times playing the devils advocate here, Since I was a Christian at one time I always had my doubts. I always searched for answers, My current title is correct I am an agnostic leading to atheism.

LogicFTW's picture
You really need to work on

You really need to work on labeling your post.

Something like at the start of each post:

"I am playing devil's advocate here!"

Randomhero1982's picture
And this why Christian

And this why Christian apologists always lose debates when they answer that premise with circular logic.

As always, no actual evidence and just appeals to religion which puts your straight back to square one.

bigbill's picture
good point because some

good point because some claims that Christianity professes leads to unanswered questions,and so far apologist haven`t answered succinctly my questions take the problem of evil and suffering , I heard some of the best say that god has a moral reason for it to happen, that we can`t know the mind of god, There is just no way to test this or prove this.Your left with more doubt and questions. That`s why I left Christianity to many open questions.

jonthecatholic's picture
I'd like to summarize

I'd like to summarize everything that I've gathered from this thread regarding the topic. It seems there are three general answers I go on this question.

1. If god performed a miracle like the healing of an amputees limbs in front of their eyes during a certain religious ritual and this happens every time, they'd consider that as evidence.
2. If god made changed their mind to believe using his unlimited power, they'd (well) believe.
3. This is no evidence that will ever convince me. Science has an answer we simply haven't discovered yet.

Thanks, everyone! It's been a blast. I have to admit learning a lot. I find it highly unlikely anyone would flip any time soon. I started this thread really just wanting to know what people mean when they say, "There is no evidence for God." I just wanted to look at where people have been looking for their evidence.

chimp3's picture
You missed my point about

You missed my point about gods not knowing anymore than what their human creators knew. A first century god that told his followers to boil their water before drinking would be impressive. A god that did not tell the Pope condoms were immoral but revealed a cure for breast cancer would be impressive in the modern age.

LogicFTW's picture
I also stated something along

I also stated something along the lines of:

More peer reviewed,scientifically, controlled experiment result evidence, that: exceeds the amount of evidence that goes against a particular "god" idea.

If a particular god idea was some sort of entity that we do not understand that had some sort of role to play in us being here today that is either long gone or left no evidence we can discover yet behind. I would say the evidence is near even, with only logic and reasoning weighing against it. By most commonly accepted definitions of god, this is not a god at all. Certainly zero reason to worship it.

But say the christian god? There is a lot of evidence against such a christian god existing that other evidence for would have to overcome.

So far, the more we learn, the worse that imbalance against god piles up against the scant to no evidence for the christian god. The same is true for all religion/god concepts, I just pick on christianity as it is the largest.

MCDennis's picture
You are a catholic and you

You are a catholic and you believe in god? Fantastic. Please provide your best proof that gods or god exists and let's examine it.

mykcob4's picture
I don't think you learned

I don't think you learned anything at all jon the catholic.
You don't seem to grasp what evidence is. If there was a god (and there isn't) He/she/it wouldn't be so obscure. A being that is all knowing and has infinite power could just make everyone know that it exists. It wouldn't play games with people.
Believers have a problem, several in fact.
1) They have been institutionally indoctrinated for centuries. It has been a cultural institutional brainwashing, a systematic programming. To actually be logical and come into reality, they have to fight institutional systematic relentless brainwashing.
2) They fear the unknown. That fear is met with a comfort of a myth. So, even if one can come to grips with reality there is always the nagging of fear of both the unknown and the alienation of society. Only people brave enough to think critically, that truly have free will understand that gods/god is and are a myth.
3) Believers cannot question the myth because to do so is to become an outcast.

Life isn't fair, it isn't easy. The powers that profess a god demand obedience. To defy that obedience is dangerous in many ways and in many degrees. Even those that question the myth do so only in secret for fear of retribution.
I don't think any believer that comes to this forum actually wants to learn anything. I think that they have an agenda. I think that they want converts, or more likely to just vent hatred. I think deep down every believer questions their god myth and envies all atheist for the freedom of thought that atheists exercise openly. I think this envy manifests itself into hate.
Believers always profess that their myth is about love but their actions prove otherwise. Hate is the hallmark of all believers.
A believer should never ask "Why do you believe there is no god?" They should ask "Why don't you believe in my god?" Atheists are not believers. We don't have a belief. Atheism is not a belief system or a religion. It isn't an organization. What it is is a realization, not a revelation.
Most if not all people are born into a religious subjugation. Every is actually born an atheist. You have to be programmed, institutionally brainwashed, "raised" to be a believer. Most of all atheists have been raised to be believers. It takes courage to seek answers to question so powerful an authority as religion. Some of us take that step. If one questions faith, god/gods and is honest about it, if they can understand logic and proof, one will always come to the realization that "god" is a man-made thing.

Lemna Minor's picture
It doesn't seem to make sense

It doesn't seem to make sense anymore to ask for proof of god - when gods have been so thoroughly disproven by proxy. Evolution shows there is no plan at work creating anything in particular. Psychology shows we are susceptible for believing in non-rational things and convictions, especially in group settings; sociology shows how religion and myth and mass phenomenons develop, and brain/neuroscience show that we are not only susceptible to making irrational connections, but we can replicate all kinds of religious ecstacies and experiences simply by drugging a persons brain.
And many more things that have really, really proved that the mythical figures of yore actually are mythical figures.
The question today should not be "does god exist" but, "what good can a religion and ritual still bring us, how do we deal with god, knowing all legend and myth is symbolic rather than verbatim - and how can people overcome their need for simple answers and promise of heaven.."

To speculate about proof of god today is like - don't know - concocting a conspiracy theory saying that planes don't fly and that bicycles really are donkeys made to look like mechanical devices, while air travel is really people being put to sleep in a plane, carried to a steam boat, expedited across the ocean and put back into a plane before they wake up - all, to make it look more modern, and get higher fares out of them.. doable, but nonsense..

jonthecatholic's picture
I think the point of this

I think the point of this post/forum has been lost again. I hear it so often said by atheists and agnostics that they don't see evidence for God's existence. All well and good. What I was seeking to understand when I asked this question was, what would this evidence look like if God existed. If I challenge the answer I'm given, it's usually because I'd see a flaw possible evidence being proposed.

Example would be, someone answered that if God changed his mind to believe in him, he'd believe in him. The problem I see with this evidence (IF IT HAPPENED) would be that it would contradict God's all good nature as he'd technically have to override our free will.

Another answer posed to me would be a religious ritual which could be performed without fail to say, regrow an amputee's leg or arm. The problem I see with this proposed evidence is that we'd simply call the science since it does happen all the time and without fail and it ceases to become an evidence for God's existence.

In other words, I'd say that people need to know, even vaguely, what evidence for God would look like for them to say that they have found no evidence for God.

Nyarlathotep's picture
I think the point of the

I think the point of the amputee went over your head. We know it won't happen without intervention of a supernatural power. Your suggestion that it would be considered science is ludicrous. So it would be excellent evidence. Anyway, why won't god heal amputees?

jonthecatholic's picture
Not really. The point of the

Not really. The point of the amputee was it would have to heal an amputee all the time. Meaning, it would have to be something which has worked before, works now, and will work in the future... all the time. What's to stop us from calling it scientific if it's always happened before, happens now, and we can accurately predict that it will work in the future.

Why won't god heal amputees? Well, have you ever considered the possibility that he does? Maybe the limb doesn't grow back but his spirit may have been healed and really, in his eyes, that's more important part than a missing limb.

And I expect you'll call BS. hahaha. But that's what I believe.

xenoview's picture
If your god could heal

If your god could heal amputees all the time, then it would prove it was real. Jon what do you mean by healing their spirit? Jon is faith the only way to prove your god is real?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jon the Catholic - And I

Jon the Catholic - And I expect you'll call BS. hahaha. But that's what I believe.

We already knew you believed in BS. It is right there in your name: "Catholic".

Jon the Catholic - The point of the amputee was it would have to heal an amputee all the time.

That was not one of the stipulations; you added that part.

jonthecatholic's picture
True, I added the "all the

True, I added the "all the time" part but I got it from another person's answer. They said it would have to be verifiable through science -through repeated testing. I don't see how this would be possible if it could not be replicated all the time.

Also, if you say that it's not necessary that God should perform these kinds of miracles all the time, then you can actually go visit any one of the Eucharistic miracles around the world. There's a number of them out there but the one in Lanciano, Italy might be the place to go to. It's not a growing limb but it's living human flesh and blood that started out as bread. I'd say that's evidence.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jon the Catholic - They said

Jon the Catholic - They said it would have to be verifiable through science -through repeated testing. I don't see how this would be possible if it could not be replicated all the time.

That is a very deterministic view that is quite outdated.

I find it rather insulting that you think a repeatable ritual, designed to have a supernatural effect, preformed by practitioners of a religion, that spontaneously regrew severed limbs; would just be dismissed as science and wouldn't be taken as evidence by me (for a religion in question). Do you really think I am that dishonest?

Jon the Catholic - Also, if you say that it's not necessary that God should perform these kinds of miracles all the time, then you can actually go visit any one of the Eucharistic miracles around the world

The Miracle of Lanciano i̶s̶ isn't repeatable.


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.