Why do Athiests require 'proof' that God exists?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@chadwooters;

I love the smell of sophistry in the morning,and the cute use of special pleading.

I did not claim or mean to imply science can answer all questions (yet) That there is and arguably cannot be proof for some propositions (existence of god,free will,etc ) is not my problem. Without supporting proof,my position is a proposition may not be claimed to be true.Period. OF course,for many,many questions to which I don't know the answer, I'm happy to say 'I don't know 'or "THAT proposition may indeed be the case".

When it comes to gods,the soul,an afterlife,angels,demons, unicorns,dragons, mountain trolls and fairies,for example, I assert only "I do not believe due to a lack of credible evidence" For all I know,any or all of those things may exist,no matter how unlikely I think that might be.

.
Sorry, I thought I had mentioned I'm a materialist.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I love the smell of sophistry in the morning,and the cute use of special pleading...I did not claim or mean to imply science can answer all questions (yet)

It's fine to say 'I don't know' and I respect that. But isn't it important, or at least interesting to you, to question the basis for trusting the results of the scientific method or to probe the limits of those mental tools?

[Aegrus]

I can't prove you wrong and I accept that. However I do have serious doubts - biology and physics say its an impossibility.

Whoa! We're getting somewhere now. Because biology and physics also say that god is an impossibility.

---

Oh, I'm a bit late. The OP left. Oh well.

[DeeTee]

Why do Athiests require 'proof' that God exists?
There are some things we cannot prove.

For example one cannot prove ones own existence - I could argue that you are a figment of my imagination, like a person in a dream. You would be unable to prove that you were a self aware, autonomous human being.

Using atheist logic I should therefore consider all other humans to not be self aware, sentient, concious beings as they cannot 'prove' they have these qualities.

Would it not be better to accept that I can never know if other people are self aware like me? That I can never know if God exists or not?

Basically, the answer to your question is that the unbeliever/atheist put themselves in a position of superiority and think they get to call the shots. They do not realize that they do not have that right nor authority.

God has already created the criteia for belief and His existence. The atheist can stamp their feet all they want and shout that everyone must meet their demands but the believer knows it just doesn't work that way. If the atheist/unbeliever wants proof that God exists then they must do things God's way.

God's way is: accept the Bible as true; humble oneself to God recognizing that he rules not unbelief; repent of their sins. the evidence they do get is marred by their unbelief and desires to live theirown lives as they please and still expect to get a reward.

Again, it doesn't work that way. Entry to heaven and meeting God goes through Jesus as He said "no man cometh unto the father but by me"

The rules are very clear and FAITH is part of the equation.

[Ryft]

Likewise for Christianity. Evangelicalism and most mainline denominations stress orthodoxy or right belief because belief alone is considered by them the only means of salvation.

My views are largely consistent with the Presbyterian church, which is a mainline denomination, and the evangelical movement within Christianity. My library consists of a great deal of literature influenced by these traditional views, including confessional documents (Westminster Standards, and Three Forms of Unity), theological textbooks, and systematic theologies. So when I read this statement by you my first impression was, "Wait, where is it said, in such sources, that belief alone is the only means of salvation?" That actually contradicts the views expressed in evangelicalism and at least the Presbyterian mainline denomination, where the only means of salvation is Christ alone—not belief alone. As Benjamin Warfield put it (a Presbyterian): "It is not faith in Christ that saves but Christ that saves through faith." With respect to salvation, faith is instrumental but it is not causal. Christ alone is our only means of salvation. "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). It is Christ, not faith, that saves.

I think this is backwards. Truth alone when not coupled with the desire to do good and the cultivation of virtue has no practical value.

You are not alone, for biblical Christianity also teaches that "faith, if it does not have works, is dead, being by itself" (James 2:17). Just as Paul said that works without faith is useless, so James said that faith without works is useless. In other words, salvation is through faith alone but that faith is not itself alone; for a faith that is alone or by itself is a dead faith. A living and salvific faith, being a gift of grace from God (John 6:65; Acts 18:27; Php. 1:29), always bears fruit or produces works, "for the one bringing forth in you both the desire and the effort—for the sake of his good pleasure—is God" (Php 2:13; cf. 1:6). "For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them" (Eph. 2:10; Heb. 13:21). "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that remains" (John 15:16). In other words, there is no orthodoxy without orthopraxy. So John Gill: "For as works without faith are dead works, so faith without works is a dead faith." And Matthew Henry: "A bare profession may gain the good opinion of pious people ... [But here it is plainly shown] that an opinion or assent to the gospel, without works, is not faith." And so on.

The scientific method doesn’t operate in a philosophical vacuum. Philosophy plays a significant role in both establishing methodologies (Popper) and the interpretation of results.

For the latter point I would suggest Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edition (University of Chicago Press, 1996).

Without supporting proof, my position is a proposition may not be claimed to be true. Period.

This is what we call a self-stultifying statement, that is, a statement which defeats itself.

[Epimethean]

"Basically, the answer to your question is that the unbeliever/atheist put themselves in a position of superiority and think they get to call the shots. They do not realize that they do not have that right nor authority."

Basically, the answer to your question is that the atheist thinks and reasons, no longer running on the reptilian portion of the brain for the best thoughts. The cool thing about it? The atheist gets a continuous kick out of imperious dumbfuck fairytale whisperers suggesting that there is anything out there listening.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

@Ryft

I don't know what's believed largely by Christians in Canada, but down here in the states, there's actually a large number of groups of Christians who think salvation is completely by faith alone (in Christ of course, not just "faith") on the part of the believer. And they'll also adamantly reject "salvation is through faith alone but that faith is not itself alone." To them, the faith is completely alone (works comes after as part of "sanctification") and they think your view boils down to salvation by works. If you're interested, Fred Lybrand wrote a book called "Back to Faith" that expresses this side.

Basically, there's a debate going on between "Free Grace" salvation and "Lordship" salvation (which would be close to your view) right now.

Also, look at the "Constable's" commentary on the passage in James in the NET bible to find this side's interpretation of the James passage.

I'm not going to defend it, but I'm just letting you know where the confusion you hear on the part of atheists on Christian salvation is coming from.

[FallentoReason]

Allah's way is: accept the Qur'an as true; humble oneself to Allah recognizing that he rules not unbelief; repent of their sins. the evidence they do get is marred by their unbelief and desires to live theirown lives as they please and still expect to get a reward.

See the problem with this logic? Why should I accept your holy book over the countless others that have existed throughout human history?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

But isn't it important, or at least interesting to you, to question the basis for trusting the results of the scientific method or to probe the limits of those mental tools?

An unanswered question does not infer a limit to the method. Just as likely to be a problem with the question,the way it asked or the questioner.

The short answer to your question; No.

[DeeTee]

Allah's way is: accept the Qur'an as true; humble oneself to Allah recognizing that he rules not unbelief; repent of their sins. the evidence they do get is marred by their unbelief and desires to live theirown lives as they please and still expect to get a reward.

See the problem with this logic? Why should I accept your holy book over the countless others that have existed throughout human history?

There is no problem. I wasn't talking about allah but God. If you want the suppoase allah's way, go ask a muslim.