Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Mystical]

Without proof, yours amounts to wishful thinking. Most here would and will argue critical thinking is a better strategy, but to each his own, I reckon.

Welcome to AF! Nice to see a theist with the ability to form complete sentences!

LAWL!

Don't mind this guy, he just hasn't had his morning pills yet ..

[Max_Kolbe]

So I've long dabbled in theological debate, and watched a number of them on youtube as well. One line of questioning has piqued my interest. Atheists know what would convince them that God is real. There is established criteria for which we could not deny the existence of God - his holy presence manifested in some unambiguous, obvious godly form, before a reasonable audience (easy thing to do if you, say, occupy the vast majority of the sky over the US, for example), performing any number of supernatural feats that defy the laws of physics. Maybe an upsidedown volcano in the sky that erupts and disappears before it touches anything. Maybe having it actually rain locusts globally, which turn into broccoli afterwards, etc. You know, supernatural business. Do something supernatural, and make it literally spectacular.

Or, shit, heal an amputee. But I digress.

Anyway, we have criteria which could convince us. Evidence could present itself. The possibility exists. We could be wrong. We'd have to accept it.

But do you have a similar set of circumstances, where it can be proven to you that God doesn't exist? Or at least that there's no reason to suspect that he does? What is it about our existence that demands that there is a god, which if you found a legitimate explanation for, you could let go? Would you be willing to accept that argument, if confronted with the evidence/reasoning/explanation?

Do you allow yourself the possibility that you are wrong? Do you have an out, or are you forever bound to the belief of religion, regardless of the evidence put forth against it?

If so, what would it be? What instance, or discovery, or scientific theory (much more than just conjecture - based on mounds of facts), would it take to free you from your faith? I hope you'll weigh in. I'm quite interested in the responses to this question. Thanks!

This is an awesome question.

Yes, I allow myself the possibility that I'm wrong. But that's just ridiculous because I am not.
Yes, I am forever bound to my religion.

Kidding aside, I honestly don't know. Like an atheist, I want empirical, irrefutable evidence that God does not exist. (Although I don't demand empirical, irrefutable that God does exist). This means that someone would have to be able to prove, universally, that God doesn't exist? I cannot even imagine how one would begin to mount that kind of investigation.

I am going to pose this question to some of my fellow Christians and my friend at work who is an atheist. It will be interesting to hear what they say.

---

Found this, just FYI:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic...eists.html

[Cyberman]

Like an atheist, I want empirical, irrefutable evidence that God does not exist. (Although I don't demand empirical, irrefutable that God does exist). This means that someone would have to be able to prove, universally, that God doesn't exist? I cannot even imagine how one would begin to mount that kind of investigation.

Which is precisely why atheists, if they're doing the job properly, don't ask for evidence that "God" doesn't exist. If that really is what you're looking for, you're going about it the wrong way. No wonder you're bound to your religion.

[Minimalist]

Like an atheist, I want empirical, irrefutable evidence that God does not exist.

Now that we have established that you know nothing about what atheists want, let's move on.

I have never demanded such evidence that god does not exist. Rather, I insist that you types provide evidence that he does.

None of you ever have.


(P.S. - your bible is a pile of crap - don't even bother.)

[Foxaèr]

I want empirical, irrefutable evidence that God does not exist.

Asking for evidence regarding the non-existence of something is shifting the burden of proof and illogical.

After all, unicorns do not exist and it would be illogical to state show me the evidence that they do not exist.

If there is no evidence to support the existence of something, logically it does not exist and the burden of proof is upon the person stating it does exist despite the underwhelming evidence to support its existence.

[Max_Kolbe]

Like an atheist, I want empirical, irrefutable evidence that God does not exist.

Now that we have established that you know nothing about what atheists want, let's move on.

I have never demanded such evidence that god does not exist. Rather, I insist that you types provide evidence that he does.

None of you ever have.


(P.S. - your bible is a pile of crap - don't even bother.)

Thanks to you and Stimbo. I hadn't thought about it that way. So correct me if I'm wrong, atheists want proof that God exists, not proof that he doesn't exist? I guess the real point I wanted to make is that I would want, for proof that God does not exist, irrefutable evidence. Yet, I do believe that God does exist, and I believe that without irrefutable evidence. I just find that interesting and it is something I had never thought of before.

(P.S. we can engage in civil discourse.).

---

I want empirical, irrefutable evidence that God does not exist.

Asking for evidence regarding the non-existence of something is shifting the burden of proof and illogical.

After all, unicorns do not exist and it would be illogical to state show me the evidence that they do not exist.

If there is no evidence to support the existence of something, logically it does not exist and the burden of proof is upon the person stating it does exist despite the underwhelming evidence to support its existence.

Maybe I misunderstood Golbez. It seemed to me that he/she was asking a theist, "what evidence would it take to prove that God doesn't exist".

[Esquilax]

Thanks to you and Stimbo. I hadn't thought about it that way. So correct me if I'm wrong, atheists want proof that God exists, not proof that he doesn't exist? I guess the real point I wanted to make is that I would want, for proof that God does not exist, irrefutable evidence. Yet, I do believe that God does exist, and I believe that without irrefutable evidence. I just find that interesting and it is something I had never thought of before.

(P.S. we can engage in civil discourse.).

Well, the point my peeps were trying to get across, I think, was that the time to believe that something exists is when you have evidence for it, and not before. The absence of evidence for a god, from our perspective, is why we're atheists. By demanding evidence that he doesn't exist before you stop believing in him, you've shifted the burden of proof, and put yourself in an odd kind of position; either you stay consistent and believe in every claim that is made until evidence is presented that it doesn't exist, or you engage in blatant special pleading and require evidence for every other claim, but require the opposite with regards to your god claim.

Neither of those decisions seems at all rational to us, and in fact the latter is a particularly frustrating feature of theism, and so we don't believe. If I came up to you and told you I was god, would you believe me until I was proved wrong, or would you not believe me until I could demonstrate that I was?

[Tonus]

So correct me if I'm wrong, atheists want proof that God exists, not proof that he doesn't exist?

Yes. Many of us are former believers who could not prove that god exists and found that we had no reasonable basis for our beliefs. So we abandoned them. I'm not interested in proving that god does not exist, as much as I am interested in whether anyone who still believes can prove that one does.

[Cyberman]

Well, I'm pleased that my little contribution to the conversation managed to tickle the little grey cells, as it were. It's rather gratifying to be able to have an effect on another's point of view and altogether exceedingly rare. The last similar occasion was in a Facebook exchange with a person who used the phrase "patty de fwa grar". I offered the correct spelling, fully expecting to be shot down in flames for being a Grammar Nazi, whereupon he thanked me for setting him straight. He said he'd only ever heard the term before but never seen it written down and so found my input really helpful.

It's nice when we can learn from one another.

So correct me if I'm wrong, atheists want proof that God exists, not proof that he doesn't exist?

Of course. We atheists already don't believe any gods exist, so why would we want to prove they don't? Quite apart from which we can't anyway, generally speaking, unless the god being proposed is so vastly incompatible with what we know of history, physics, astronomy etc as to make such a thing incredibly unlikely as to be impossible. For instance, the god of the bible is supposed to have created everything in six days, with light and photosynthesising plants before creating a sun to make those things possible; to have made the stars as tiny lights fixed to the dome of the sky "for signs and for seasons" and which can be shaken down to Earth during the Final Battle; to have drowned the world in a giant, physically- and geologically-impossible flood apart from a select élite group. That god we can be reasonably certain does not exist, to the extent we can know anything at all.

Incidentally, we generally ask for evidence, rather than proof. Something, anything, that we can actually examine and assess on its own merits. So far, when any evidence is offered at all, literally none of it has withstood even the most cursory scrutiny. That is why I, at least, remain atheist.

[Minimalist]

(P.S. we can engage in civil discourse.).

Of course we can. That's why I didn't say its a load of shit. I'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt unlike some of the others that I've just given up on.

Archaeology has provided us with enough evidence to know that the OT is a bunch of silly stories written and edited over the course of centuries by the ruling classes of an insignificant province to advance their own interests.

For whatever reason, xtianity attached this ancient drivel to itself and now finds that its foundation is badly cracked. This is not my problem.