What would constitute proof of God's existence?

238 posts / 0 new
Last post
LogicFTW's picture
Heh, his postings are getting

Heh, his postings are getting increasingly incoherent. They were bad enough to start. Now it is a wall of text where he barely bothers to put in periods and does not capitalize anything (including start of sentence) other than "God."

I am no grammar/spelling police but sheesh, at this point it not even worth trying to read what FiG writes to point out all the problems with what he writes.

Perhaps he got continuously more drunk as the night went on? And that is the polite assessment of what I think is happening as his post continue to deteriorate.

Sheldon's picture
"after he has given you

"after he has given you written revelation that he has"

>>>That's an oxymoron Billy, either something is written or it is a divine revelation, it can't by dentition be both.

" The reason why I know that Jesus did not lie is because he said that he came to give witness to the truth. "

>>>Another hilarious tautology.

" I think you can come away that morality is not in the long run subjective "

>>>You're wrong Billy, and again endless tedious repetition doesn't make your absurd claims more valid.

" Like I have repeatedly say he is outside space and time."

>>>And you know this how? Hitchens's razor applied - slash.

>>>Your endless repetition that your superstitious beliefs provide objective morality is nonsense Billy, and though you keep repeating the claim, you dishonestly refuse to even try and evidence it. We can only infer that like the rest of your verbiage and rhetoric you have nothing tangible to support any of it.

David Killens's picture
@ Fig

@ Fig

"The reason why I know that Jesus did not lie is because he said that he came to give witness to the truth."

Never buy a used car until you have had it inspected by a qualified and reputable mechanic. Making a decision based on "trust me" is being a fool, trusting something just because it was written by dubious sources with dubious agendas and known to be edited is doubly foolish.

Sapporo's picture
If god does not need to be

If god does not need to be worshiped, it would be a sin to waste time on him.

Sheldon's picture
"Where all guilty"

"Where all guilty"

I give up, where all guilty? We are is abbreviated as we're, Billy.
Billy "isn`t punishing anyone who doesn`t deserve it. "

What about all the babies and pregnant women that your deity murdered in the bible?
Billy "Well it may be dogma but god does not lie "

You don't know what dogma means do you?

Dave Matson's picture


All are guilty? Doesn't that point to a defective product? Who designed that product? Doesn't that make God the guilty one? What do I call the wise sayings of Jesus? Why, they were borrowed from Egypt and Jewish literature! The Golden Rule predates Jesus by countless centuries. What do I call the miracles and the resurrection? I call them stories that have roots in pagan literature. Jesus (if he existed) wasn't the only "Jesus" running around in those days. There were several of them, all doing their miracles and preaching their agenda.

Tin-Man's picture
@Greensnake Re: FIG

@Greensnake Re: FIG

Ummm.... Ahem... *clearing throat*... Apparently, Green, you didn't get the memo. You are currently talking to a ghost. Our beloved FIG is no longer with us. He was recently exiled to the nether-regions of cyber-space for transgressions demanding swift and just actions by our devout team of AR mods.

Fear not, however! For we must all have faith that our dearly departed FIG will soon rise once again as a new and wondrous beacon of wisdom and enlightenment to spread light and hope to our empty souls in his own unique manner that we all know and love. Farewell, dear FIG. We all await your second coming... or third... fourth?... maybe sixth or seventh?... Somebody help me out here. Anyway, meanwhile, cue the "Taps" music....

Dave Matson's picture


Argh! That ghost must have had an evil effect on me. It seems that I've even gotten JoC and FIG mixed up in my last post! (Quickly edited!) Aww, I was just starting to have fun when I found out that I was playing with a ghost! We'll keep those little pies in the freezer to be warmed up on FIG's next resurrection. Feel free to snack on them whenever needed. Thanks for passing the word.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ TM

@ TM
Damn I missed that memo as well. I suppose he is in cyber heaven being serenaded by harp choruses of Billys, ABs and other clones.

Annoying little shite but fun sometimes.

I often pictured him with a large tub of KFC, cherry coke, long greasy hair and a vest, typing and chuckling as he annoyed the snot out them there intelleckshual atheists before he trotted off to his community college where he studies computer networking and macrame.

Dave Matson's picture
"Proof" is not the right word

"Proof" is not the right word. Science (and any serious investigation of our physical world as versus mathematics) doesn't deal in "proofs." It seeks highly probable explanations based on evidence that allows extensive checking by others. Good explanations are part of a coherent picture where the pieces tend to fit together, where useful predictions can be made and checked, where a lot of loose facts get tied together.

Give me evidence for your God that is more reliable, more compelling than the evidence for the natural laws of nature. (The laws of nature are the most rigorously tested general principles known to the human race.) That is, if it is easier for me to believe that the laws of nature have failed because of evidence for your God, then you have done your part. You still haven't proven God (it's not clear how that could reliably be done) but at least you have reached 1st base. I will also need a good definition of your God.

jonthecatholic's picture
Way back when I started this

Way back when I started this thread, it was during a time that people would say the exact same line you’re using. “Show me evidence of God.”

Which is why the question is what would constitute proof? Or if I were to rephrase it, what would evidence for God look like? It would actually be senseless for a theist to give things he thinks are evidence only to be rejected by the atheist and say, that’s not evidence.

An example I could think of is evidence of a bear in the woods. Would finding a footprint of a bear be good enough evidence? Would it’s fecal matter be enough? Would hair from the bear be enough. Or de we actually need to show the actual bear to show that, “There’s a bear in the woods.”

Tin-Man's picture
@JoC Re: "A bear in the

@JoC Re: "A bear in the woods"

Aw, c'mon. Really? Am I really gonna have to be the one to point out the obvious on this? ME?.... Okay. FINE! Ugh...

What size shoe does god wear? (Or sandals? Or does he go barefoot?) Does god shit, and if so, what would it look like? (That would imply he has to eat, of course. And that begs another question entirely.) What color and texture is god's hair?

You see, we ALREADY KNOW what a bear is. It is a REAL creature. There are even many different varieties of bears. BEARS ACTUALLY EXIST! Therefore, should you find a paw-print, or a pile of shit, or some hair samples somewhere in the woods, then there are people who are so good they can actually tell you WHAT TYPE of bear it is. Now, whether or not that particular bear is still in those particular woods at that time would be open for debate, of course. But there would be no doubt there was a bear of some sort there at one time.

On the other hand, regarding your god, you are talking about a "being" or entity that is reportedly "beyond our space and time" at one point, but then supposedly is able to interact and manipulate things within our world at another point. And he/it has never been seen (unless you count the burning bush), and has never been truly described in any true physical way, and is self-proclaimed as a being that Man cannot fully comprehend. (paraphrasing a little) Therefore, how is it OUR (atheists') responsibility to tell YOU what constitutes evidence of YOUR god, when WE(atheists) are not the ones who made him up in the first place??? YOU are the one who supposedly knows your god so incredibly well, then YOU should be the one most qualified (and able) to find whatever credible evidence might be available.

Which brings to mind another mind-numbingly obvious question. How is it that YOU are the designated speaker and proofer for god, anyway? If he is so amazingly powerful and all-knowing, seems to me he shouldn't have any problems whatsoever proving HIMSELF to us atheists if he wished to do so. Perhaps your trying so hard to prove him to us might actually be going against His Will. Now THERE'S something to make you go, "Hmmmmm....."

Dave Matson's picture


Do you have any evidence for your God that is more credible than the laws of nature? We don't overthrow the best established principles known to the human race for rank speculation! I explained the test your evidence would have to pass before I sat up and took notice. That describes all possible evidence that would cause me to sit up and take notice. I can't give you more than that! Asking for particulars when I've given you the whole, theoretical ball of wax is just plain silly. Why should I waste time with a silly request?

Moreover, I don't see any way you could rigorously prove that your God exists. How would you eliminate a devil who pretends to be God in a universe where God does not exist? Do you know of any way to eliminate that scenario? If not, then don't say you have proof. At best you might come up with evidence for the failure of natural laws. That would at least open the door for further speculation.

As for your bear, fecal matter or hair might be enough if it matched the genetic profile for bears that live in those woods, if a hoax could be ruled out beyond a reasonable doubt. It would then be reasonable grounds for showing that there WAS a bear in the woods--not that there IS a bear in the woods.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

"It would actually be senseless for a theist to give things he thinks are evidence only to be rejected by the atheist and say, that’s not evidence."

But that is all you can do.There is no objective evidence existence for any god. Not just yours, so any 'evidence' you offer is a product of your programming and the lies you have swallowed. It cannot be considered unbiased, contemporary evidence for your god.

Let me ask you, what would you consider evidence for any of the greek gods?

I can bring many eye witness accounts of their existence, many priestly accounts of their 'miracles' a myriad of apocryphal tales of their doings and their interactions with humans.
A whole civilisation lasting longer than the catholic church believed in them, so much so the Romans renamed them and carried on the belief.

And you will rightly cast that as myth, happenings that can be explained by rational means, and a product of their times or just stories told around a campfire. But definitely untrue.

But you ask me to accept the same evidence for your miserable threesome deity?

Dave Matson's picture


"It would actually be senseless for a theist to give things he thinks are evidence only to be rejected by the atheist and say, that’s not evidence." --JoC

Why would it be senseless? If my rejection were not sound you would hardly be bound by it! Indeed, you would presumably point out why my rejection is unsound. If you feel your evidence is decisive, why would you withhold it? Are you trying to grease our path to hell? Or, are you afraid that your evidence is not all that hot after all?

jonthecatholic's picture
Exactly my point. If I

Exactly my point. If I provide philosophical evidence, would that be permitted? If I provide scientific evidence of an effect that only God can produce but not God in 3 dimensions, would that be permitted? Would you need to see, feel and hear God for you to believe? Would video evidence be sufficient?

I have to ask this because again, it's very easy to say, show me evidence of a bear in the woods and show you a paw print consistent with that of a bear and you could simply say, "Well, I need to see the actual bear."

Fair enough though, I would need to give the definition of God. Coz when I say God, I don't mean some guy with a beard or a man with magic powers. That is not the definition of God. God would have to be a necessary being who is all-knowing, all-powerful, creator of time and space (as such will have to be immaterial and timeless) and perfect goodness. This is the classical definition of God.

People on this thread have given their take on this where if an amputee grew their limbs back, it would be sufficient evidence for a God. Though another atheist, rightfully pointed out that this could actually just be caused by advanced technology or some unknown alien power. Other people here have suggested that a prayer that could make a pen levitate could also be evidence. I'd argue that an atheist would also be rightful to point out that if that were the case, the atheist could simply say, "We just don't know yet. Science will figure it out."

I think the atheist would have to come up with something that truly only God could ever be the cause of and then we could move forward from there.

Kataclismic's picture
No JoC, you missed the point.

No JoC, you missed the point. You have no evidence, you have only assertions.

If you had evidence you wouldn't need the bible to tell you about your god, you'd know all about him via the evidence.

Dave Matson's picture
If you don't have the

If you don't have the evidence I asked for, then be honest and admit it! If you do, then what are you afraid of?

Can there be such a thing as a necessary being? I have no problem imagining a universe without God. Why is it so easy to imagine a universe governed only by natural principles if God is really necessary in some logical sense? Shouldn't it be like imagining a square circle? Can there be independent, multiple necessary beings? Why only one?

Didn't our time and space come out of the Big Bang?

"All-knowing" contradicts what we know best about this universe, kind of like going faster than the speed of light. Why should God-speculation, authored by medieval theologians who penned in God's powers, be considered more reliable than the principles of nature which have been repeatedly tested in modern times under the most exacting conditions?

What is perfect goodness? What qualifies as "all powerful?" You have defined God in terms that are, themselves, entirely vague. While we are at it, how can any creating be done outside of time and space? The very word "create" implies something being brought into existence, a "before" and an "after" state of being, which necessarily involves time. A god truly untouched by time would be frozen and dead, incapable of thought or any creating ability. As far as I can tell, you are simply talking nonsense!

Again, ask yourself why learned theologians often admit that there is no proof for God. Moreover, as I have pointed out, there can be no real proof for God until you find a way to eliminate a godless universe run by a devil who is impersonating God. At best, you might show us evidence of failure for natural laws legitimately interpreted.

Before you start telling us what atheists would say to a prayer-levitated pen, maybe you should produce one! Then we would have something to talk about!

Sheldon's picture
"Which is why the question is

"Which is why the question is what would constitute proof? Or if I were to rephrase it, what would evidence for God look like? It would actually be senseless for a theist to give things he thinks are evidence only to be rejected by the atheist and say, that’s not evidence."

This is a fascinating insight, not only can you not evidence your deity, you admit you have no idea what would constitute proper evidence, and best of all you want people who don't believe a deity exists to tell you what would constitute proper evidence for your belief, that's absurd JoC.

It's your belief, just present the best evidence you have. If it's rejected on here by atheists they will detail why, and if their objections are valid then it's reasonable to infer you have not properly examined your best evidence.

This requesting atheists detail what is proper evidence for theism is the silliest fishing expedition I have seen. You've been told repeatedly that demonstrating objective evidence commensurate to the claim would be a minimum, but you just ignored this and presented the usual subjective arguments, ontological, teleological and cosmological, all of which posters on here have given detailed and expansive responses outlining why they fail. They're not objective evidence either, and then you offer subjective claims for a miracle, and again people offered expansive and detailed posts explaining why this was not remotely objective evidence for the claimed miracle, let alone a deity.

So pretending you have offered the evidence asked for and atheists are dishonestly rejecting it is just plain dishonest JoC sorry.

Sapporo's picture

A start would be to do as Greensnake asked: define god.

If you cannot define god in a way that is falsifiable, then you have no evidence for god.

jonthecatholic's picture
I have defined God. Go ahead.

I have defined God. Go ahead.

Sapporo's picture
JoC: Fair enough though, I

JoC: Fair enough though, I would need to give the definition of God. Coz when I say God, I don't mean some guy with a beard or a man with magic powers. That is not the definition of God. God would have to be a necessary being who is all-knowing, all-powerful, creator of time and space (as such will have to be immaterial and timeless) and perfect goodness. This is the classical definition of God.

You have not defined god in a way that is falsifiable. For me, any being that exists is a necessary being. God is only a necessary being if it exists.

jonthecatholic's picture
Well, I have a problem with

Well, I have a problem with your assumption that any being that exist is necessary. It's quite possible that I couldn't exist. Or that the Earth couldn't exist. And finally, the universe need not exist. Existence isn't in our definition, as it were.

For example, having 3 sides is a necessary component to being a triangle as it's in the definition itself. We cannot conceive of a 4 sided triangle coz when you add the 4th side, it ceases to be a triangle.

The question here, does there exist a being that has existence in its definition (aka. a necessary being?)

Sapporo's picture
The laws of nature

The laws of nature necessarily lead to phenomena being the way they are. The property of existence is redundant.

Kataclismic's picture
Again, He would have to be

Again, He would have to be self-evident. Like you or me. It makes no sense for a jealous, all-powerful god to not stand in the sky and say "Yo! Up here!"

But there's already been a huge book written by people about Him because He's done no such thing, which constitutes evidence that HE DOES NOT exist. Therefore you would have to REMOVE evidence before you start dreaming it up.

I don't make a claim that there is or isn't a god at all. I make the claim that religion is a con for your money. Do they not pass a plate around for everyone to see you donating/not donating? Does that not instill a sense of guilt when you don't? Why does God need your money? Because He isn't self-evident and the church needs your money to get the word out so they can make more money.

jonthecatholic's picture
Why would God have to be self

Why would God have to be self evident? Do there not exist any good reasons for him to not be self evident? If God has given us a way to know him, wouldn’t that be enough? Btw, I’m not talking about a book (as books would exclude the entire population before writing or languages was a thing). I’m talking about something every person on earth in the past and in the future has.

Sheldon's picture
"Why would God have to be

"Why would God have to be self evident? Do there not exist any good reasons for him to not be self evident?"

If as theists claim their deity wants us to care whether he exists, and worship him, with an eternity of torture as the booby prize, then I'd say that's a pretty good fucking reason for your deity not to hide from me. Yet he has offered me no more reason to believe he is real than Zeus or Apollo.

" If God has given us a way to know him, wouldn’t that be enough?"

Except he hasn't as there is no objective method to distinguish your deity from all the others. Don't forget you had a whole thread to offer even one piece of objective evidence and all you could offer was the standard logical fallacies and fallacious arguments, not one piece of objective evidence at all.

Kataclismic's picture
No JoC, I already explained

No JoC, I've already explained why God isn't self-evident; because the church needs your money.

The only other reason God would conceal His own evidence is to be deceitful, which would contradict the definition of one that loves you.

Jamesroper35's picture
There is a large divide

There is a large divide between how Hod behaves in the bible and how he behaves in modern day. In the Bible, he is constantly performing undeniable miracles in full view of unbelievers, and this seems to contradict the idea that God acts mysteriously or indirectly.

Sheldon's picture
It's impossible to ignore the

It's impossible to ignore the connection between the advances in scientific explanations, and technologies that can record and examine everything everywhere, and the sharp and corresponding decline in claims for miracles.

I'm reminded of those puerile cheesy programmes that have the words ghost or haunting in the title, and never fail to be staged in a deserted darkened house in the middle of the night or early morning.

Ghosts, like deities seem to be shy of crowds daylight and public places, but most of all they shy away from leaving unequivocal evidence. Not unlike Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, or aliens that are obsessed with probing the anus of human captives.

If only we could make sense of it....


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.