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

[The Reality Salesman01]

If you say so.

[Minimalist]

Are you saying that ones belief in religion is an example of mental illness?

Delusions?

Thinking you hear voices?

Having an invisible "friend" into adulthood?

I'd say the mental illness model has some validity. Just because a lot of you are crazy does not mean you aren't crazy.

[Ryantology]

Objective evidence is evidence that can be independently understood by others, it is not internal.

Let's move those goal posts.

Yes objective evidence is independently understood by others. You do know that Christians affirm each other's experiences right? So objectivity as you use it needs more refining.

No, it doesn't, because this is not an example of objectivity since there is the prerequisite of being a Christian before the 'evidence' exists for you to examine. Truly objective evidence would appear to any person regardless of their belief or lack thereof. Furthermore, the 'evidence' isn't being examined by other people. There is no legitimate way of verifying any of these experiences or assertions. It amounts only to a lot of individual and 100% subjective experiences, which in almost every case is inspired by a dogma inculcated in them from an early age. Objectivity exists nowhere in this scenario.

The basis to religion, is that the choice to live morally/ with interest in your personal gain to be the best you can be... has to be a choice. You cannot have proof that goodness triumphs, you must believe it.

Why must anyone believe it? "Evil" triumphs in this world just as frequently as "Good".

Sans justice (God), your ability to achieve happiness is limited by your reality, which acknowledges unfairness.

And reality.

The ONLY point to faith is the enrichment of life.

It's too bad the majority of believers don't share your personal opinion on the matter.

[Theo Zacharias]

Hello,
I'm a new member in this forum.
I'm interested to join discussion in this topic.

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.

I think it's not that easy. If there is a phenomenon that seems supernatural, i.e. defy known laws of physic, I think most scientist will first say that either the data is probably flaw or there probably are some hidden variables that we don't know. Even if those 2 possibilities are shown to be wrong, most scientist will say that the known laws of physic is probably wrong and they will develop a new theory that will bring the seemingly-supernatural phenomenon back to natural phenomenon.

Phenomenon like "occupy the vast majority of the sky over the US" or "an upside-down volcano in the sky that erupts and disappears before it touches anything" are, in my opinion, not supernatural phenomenons even according to known laws of physics. An example of phenomenon that defy known laws of physics is faster-than-light communication. If such phenomenon is observed, repeatable and validate, will most scientist say that it is a supernatural phenomenon? Unlikely in my opinion. They will instead say that the current known laws of physics (special relativity in this case) is not correct and they will develop a new theory that will allow such phenomenon to exist under natural assumption. This will of course bring the faster-than-light communication back to natural phenomenon.

So you haven't really answer yourselves what would it take to prove that God exists. Can you give me just one phenomenon that if observed, repeatable and validate will convince you that God exists?

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?

I open to the possibility that I'm wrong.

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!

My belief is based on the following reasons:
1) There is no evidence that God does not exist
2) Belief in God brings an overall positive effect to me
If you can show one of the above to be wrong, i.e. evidence that God does not exist or belief in God brings an overall negative effect to me, then I will leave theism.

[FallentoReason]

1) There is no evidence that God does not exist

You weren't born a theist, so naturally you presumably reasoned yourself into believing God exists. This is the only way your question makes any sense, unless you didn't reason yourself into theism in the first place.

Care to guide us through your thought processes?

[Silver]

1) There is no evidence that God does not exist

That would be considered shifting the burden of proof, which incidentally lies upon you to prove that a god does in fact exist.

---

2) Belief in God brings an overall positive effect to me

Serial killers feel an overall positive effect from murdering their victims. That does not mean the feeling is morally positive.

Also, just because someone garners an overall positive feeling from something for which there is no evidence to support its existence does not mean that something automatically exists. Humans tend to be emotional beings who seem to love attributing good feelings as proof of something, when it is nothing more than an illogical emotional appeal.

[Theo Zacharias]

1) There is no evidence that God does not exist

You weren't born a theist, so naturally you presumably reasoned yourself into believing God exists. This is the only way your question makes any sense, unless you didn't reason yourself into theism in the first place.

Care to guide us through your thought processes?

Yes, I agree that I wasn't born a theist.
As I mentioned before there is another reason other than there is no evidence that God does not exist, i.e. belief in God brings an overall positive effect to me.

Let me start with a simple thing. Although I wasn't born a theist, I was born in a theistic environment. The people in my environment can tolerate difference in theism (e.g. difference in belief in God as long as it does not disturb other people) but cannot tolerate atheism. Yes, I agree that this is a wrong view. But this is the reality in my environment. If I don't believe in God publicly, it will most likely bring an overall negative effect to me and to my family. If I secretly don't believe in God, I will have to lie in many circumstances. So, at least for me, believing in God brings an overall positive effect to me. I don't know whether God exists or not because there is no evidence either way as far as I know. So why not choose a side that brings an overall positive effect to me?

1) There is no evidence that God does not exist

That would be considered shifting the burden of proof, which incidentally lies upon you to prove that a god does in fact exist.

---

The burden of proof is debatable. In my opinion, the burden of proof lies on both theist who claim to know that God exists and to atheist who claim to know that God does not exist.
I don't claim that I know God exists. In fact, I don't know that God exists or not.

2) Belief in God brings an overall positive effect to me

Serial killers feel an overall positive effect from murdering their victims. That does not mean the feeling is morally positive.

I don't think I will feel an overall positive effect by being a serial killers so your argument does not apply, at least not to me.

Also, just because someone garners an overall positive feeling from something for which there is no evidence to support its existence does not mean that something automatically exists. Humans tend to be emotional beings who seem to love attributing good feelings as proof of something, when it is nothing more than an illogical emotional appeal.

I agree that my second reason does not entail God exists. I have to repeat that I'm not claiming that I know God exists. If someone asks me whether I know God exists, I will answer "I don't know".
My second reason is the reason *for me* to believe God exists even though I don't know that God exists.

[Silver]

The I don't know response has always been the weakest argument in history. It is a veritable cop out. It allows the individual to remain neutral because the individual is afraid to make a real decision discerning something.

If there is no evidence is support of something, especially after many thousands of years of human evolution in search of evidence for its existence, the odds of it being real is basically nonexistent.

After all, I do not see agnostics stating that they are uncertain of the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, and Santa Clause. Agnostics are rather willing to claim they do not exist. There is no difference between them and god.

[Theo Zacharias]

The I don't know response has always been the weakest argument in history. It is a veritable cop out. It allows the individual to remain neutral because the individual is afraid to make a real decision discerning something.

If there is no evidence is support of something, especially after many thousands of years of human evolution in search of evidence for its existence, the odds of it being real is basically nonexistent.

There is no evidence of intelligent being other than human.
What is your view about this? Do you believe that there is non-human intelligent being?

After all, I do not see agnostics stating that they are uncertain of the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, and Santa Clause. Agnostics are rather willing to claim they do not exist. There is no difference between them and god.

I will say I don't know whether unicorns, leprechauns, or Santa Clause exist or not, but I don't believe that they exist.
Why I don't know? Because there are no evidence that they exist or not as far as I know.
Why I don't believe? Because believing in them does not bring an overall positive effect to me.

[fr0d0]

Don't be an idiot maelstrom. "I don't know" is the most intellectually honest and reasonable stance of all.

Once you've stated what kind of evidence would be possible, then we could start looking for it. Unfortunately, your dumb ass is limited by reality.