RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
October 14, 2015 at 7:25 pm
(This post was last modified: October 14, 2015 at 7:47 pm by Simon Moon.)
(October 14, 2015 at 7:07 pm)jenny1972 Wrote:(June 25, 2015 at 11:22 am)Psychonaut Wrote: ... and that everyone knows that you're really saying
"no, and there really is no way to get evidence for such nonsense".
If we can't get evidence, because evidence (at least by scientific standards) is by it's very nature falsifiable,
(something which the god claim can't provide [currently]) then what would anyone constitute as evidence? Are those who use the "we don't have evidence yet" claim literally, deceived?
Seeing it with our own eyes? How would we know it's not a hallucination?
If by some chance we are provided falsifiability, how would we know we aren't deceived by an alien hallucination inducing device?
unless your open to the possibility to begin with no proof God provides will convince you your limited only by your own mind . some people God gives proof to will just assume they are crazy or hallucinating or delusional if the possibility of God is not permitted in their minds .
As many of s responded to you on the other thread, the vast majority of atheists are open to the 'possibility' of the existence of a god.
The only thing that prevents us from believing in the existence of a god, is the continued absence of demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support the claim that a god exists.
Atheism is not a dogmatic position, it is a provisional one.
Belief comes from being convinced that a premise or proposition is true. Why should I be convinced that the claim that a god exists is true, before the claim is supported by demonstrable evidence?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
