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

[Silver]

I don't think he would be if he felt any real doubt, you wouldn't want to be wrong about this one.

One can allow himself the possibility that he is wrong in relation to the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, but doubt and no proof in support of its existence does not mean one forgoes with reason to believe it exists nonetheless.

Unlike the typical atheist, since I am anti-theist, I have no qualms in stating that I know for certainty a silly flying spaghetti monster does not exist.

[Sword of Christ]

One can allow himself the possibility that he is wrong in relation to the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, but doubt and no proof in support of its existence does not mean one forgoes with reason to believe it exists nonetheless.

There isn't any specific proof for what you would prefer to believe either. What we have to go on is what we have to go on.

Unlike the typical atheist, since I am anti-theist, I have no qualms in stating that I know for certainty a silly flying spaghetti monster does not exist.

How about a Flying Random Chance Coincidence Monster?

[Theo Zacharias]

1. This is still social pressure. I don't play Russian Roulette because I could kill myself. I haven't played, so I've never felt this threat. But I haven't played precisely because I don't want to feel this threat (not that I've ever had the opportunity...)

Yes like you said above that you've never felt that threat because you never play Russian Roulette, I've also never felt the pressure because I've never changed my position to atheist before. At best, I only imagine feeling the pressure. If you still call that a social pressure, then it may be a semantic issue here. Let's try to avoid semantic debate unless it's really important. Because I don't think this issue (whether I really feel the pressure or not) is important, if there's still a disagreement here, I suggest to agree to disagree and move on to the more important issues.

2. Interesting question. I suppose it's possible then. I don't believe it's possible now. It's still something that would certainly shake my foundation, and I would have to think I'd still believe. This almost makes you more skeptical than me. Which reminds me, why do you think Jesus is the son of god and not either imaginary, a fraud, improperly documented, or a near-magical future being?

I have acknowledged, in many of my previous posts, that there is no known evidence that God exists. This of course also means that I also acknowledge that there is no known evidence that Jesus is the Son of God.
So why I believe that Jesus is the Son of God? I have actually answered this kind of question in my first post in this thread. I will answer it again in here.
There are 2 reasons (both must be fulfilled). First, because there is no evidence that He is not. Second, because believing that Jesus is the Son of God brings an overall positive impact to me.
The second reason is not evidence, but a pragmatic reason why I choose to (stay to) believe instead of change my position to not believe. If the reason is valid, it will only make my belief rational, but not necessarily true (or false).

Btw, you mentioned about the possibility that Jesus is just an imaginary, fraud, improperly documented, or a near-magical future being. I don't believe that but I admit it's a possibility. Do you have any evidence of this? If you do, what's the evidence? If you don't, do you believe that Jesus is just an imaginary, fraud, improperly documented, or a near-magical future being?

3. Agree. But there does seem to be some exceptional confidence in these laws as being universally inviolable. I wonder why the degree of confidence if they think it could be broken.

There is a high degree of confidence in physic theories/laws, but it's not 100%.
In empirical science such as physic, there is no theory/law that is 100% true. If something is 100% true, then it's not empirical science.
Why is that? Because theories/laws in physic are supposed to be universal. There's simply no known way to verify whether a theory/law really applies on every point in space-time.

4. As far as I understand it, such a being would be god. But again, if you're skeptical about this, what convinces you of Jesus, or the Bible as an inerrant work of the almighty? How could something so ancient, poorly documented, conflicted, littered with horrible morals, etc be so convincing whereas, in all other cases, you would first suspect future humans?

I think this question is a similar to the one in item 2 above. So let's combine this with the above.
Also, I have explained why such a being might not be God, but you still believe that such being would be God without refuting my argument.
What's the difference between God and any natural being with technology far more advance than what we have now? The difference is that God is a supernatural being, right?
But how do you differentiate between natural being and supernatural being if you don't know what the true laws of nature is?

5. I didn't assume. It's built right there in the language. "If you should..."

But there is none of my posts that can be interpreted that I support all of the bad things you said.
How about if I said bad things to you without no basis and use the phrase "if you should" as an excuse, something like "if you should agree that killing theists are allowed, then you really are a bad atheist" even though there are nothing you said that can be interpreted that you agree about this thing. Are you really have no problem at all with me or anyone saying this to you?

6. Again, I still wasn't assuming, especially that anyone is having a miserable time in church. I understand there's strong community, good music, friends, etc. Even enjoying it as you and others do now, you can still regret having dedicate so much of your life to what turns out to be glorified Zeus. Maybe you won't. But surely there would be an abundance of other activities you could have been doing, where maybe you'd meet a different girlfriend who wasn't offended that you recognized the lack of evidence for God. Whereas you still seem open to the question, maybe she's a bit more confident that he exists, confident science is wrong. And/or maybe your kids grow up being imbued in religious doctrine, afraid or unable to think of what else may be. Maybe she or they might support like-minded politicians, anti-scientific policies, anti-gay freedoms, etc. It's hard for me to pretend to imagine there are no negative consequences in going through life believing a fully unsubstantiated massive claim about life at best, and at worst an outright falsehood and possibly the biggest lie to ever subdue the human population.

I don't understand how your maybe-argument (if you call it an argument) suppose to convince me that there are overall negative consequences to me on believing in God. If I said to you "maybe your kids grow up being imbued in atheist behavior full of negative thinking about all theists, afraid or unable to think positively or tolerate any theists even though those theists never disturb or do any harm to your kids", will you be convinced by my maybe-argument that your kids will become those kind of bad people?

7. No, they have reasonable theories at play that give credence to their beliefs. And as scientists, I imagine they all are willing to discard their beliefs if sufficient evidence comes to light to discredit it. Still, it is a belief and not a fact. They don't assume it's absolutely true. They simply believe it is/may be, which seems to be your position on God as well. But this is a much better tone than the vast majority of religious people seem to share.

I'm also willing to discard my belief if sufficient evidence comes to light to discredit it. I'm also realize my belief that God exists is only belief and not a fact (just as agnostic atheist realize that their disbelief that God exists is only disbelief and not a fact). I also don't assume that God exists is absolutely true. Yes, that's my position and I agree that this position is better than those with dogmatic belief.

8. You seem to be putting ET life on equal grounds with a creator of the universe. I assume (with some basis in scientific hypothesis), as a person who believes god does not exist, that we arose spontaneously. And as that must have come through natural processes, it is available to other planets in the universe, acknowledging that there are more stars out there than all the grains of sand in the world. It would be a bit arrogant to simply assume it is only possible for us. So I acknowledge it ought to be at least possible somewhere else as well, if not millions of other places. Yet, I do not confidently say they do exist. I'm only welcome to the idea that they might be. It's worth looking, just as it's worth exploring for life on Mars, just as it's worth exploring your surroundings in a new town, isles in a new store, etc. It's worth looking to see what's out there. This is the basis for scientific inquiry and empirical analysis.

What you said above about ETI is a not evidence that ETI exists. I think you know this.
Although, it's not evidence, it is a reason to believe that ETI exists. So as long as we don't claim to know that ETI exists, believing that ETI exists without evidence is a rational believe. Do you agree with this?
Like many scientist working on SETI projects, I also believe that ETI exists. How about you? Do you believe that ETI exists?

Btw, seems like you said above that you believe God does not exist. Is that your position? So you're not just not belief that God exists, but believe that God does not exist?

9. Apologies. I assumed you would have thought your position to be the correct one. I'm hesitant to think anyone would think of the more incorrect of two positions and willfully settle towards that. My assumption nevertheless. Of course the third option is that someone finds these two possibilities equally likely. But it seems to me you'd either have to have mathematically done some sort of calculation (though I can't imagine what) or just not cared enough to decide one is more likely than the other, and so it ends up being a default position through lack of investigation/inquiry/curiosity.

It's equally likely in the context of evidence (that both have no known evidence either way), but not equally likely in the context of reason. See my argument below.

10. Well, so your reasons for believing in the unverified so far has been supported by social reasons. So if society rallied around Scientology, Leprechauns, Russel's teapot in the same way it has rallied around Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc, then you'd believe those as well? Actually, clearly not, since you don't believe in Judaism or Islam. So your reasoning again is inconsistent at best, which is a very flimsy argument for agreeing/believing/pretending to support a massive claim.

It seems your motivations for believing in religion are social first and foremost. And since it can't ever be disproved (nor is it likely to be proven correct), you can always just cling to it, hoping it's true, because friends/family/gf. To me, with a thing so influential over a person's life, you'd want to believe in something because you legitimately thought it was true/correct, first and foremost. Otherwise, who knows what bogus things you might end up agreeing with, just for social reasons.

I have mentioned about two other things 2 weeks ago about my reasoning to believe other than social reason. Not sure why you always focusing on social reason.
The other reasons are because believing in God gives me more motivation to do good, and by being a theist I will have more influence (compare to atheist) to persuade bad or irrational theists to become good & rational theists.
Believing in leprechauns or Russel's teapot or something like that does not have this advantage. That's the difference.

How about believing in other religions? Do I claim that Christian teaching to do good is better than other religions teaching? No, I don't certainly claim this because I have not spent enough time studying other religions (yet). So I don't know whether Christian teaching is better or not. So why do I choose to (stay to) believe in Christian teaching? Because I have spent enough time studying Christian teaching so I know that it is good. It's irrational to convert to another religion unless I know that the religion has a better teaching. How about if someone comes to me with his/her religion and successfully convince me that his/her religion teaching is much better? If that's really happen, I will convert to that religion. But of course I don't expect that person to be an atheist. This is an atheist forum. So I expect that atheist like you will convince me that I can be a better person by become an atheist.

So why do you disbelief? I have mentioned above that just because there is no known evidence that ETI or graviton does not exist, it does not mean that we should jump to the conclusion that we should disbelief. In fact, if we have a good reason to belief (doesn't have to be evidence), then we should believe. I will give you another example. Say that my girlfriend tell me that when she's walking alone yesterday, she met an old friend that she hasn't met for 10 years. But she forgot to ask for address or phone number so she can't really prove to me that what she's saying is really true. I love and trust my girlfriend and as far as I know she never lies to me before. I also see no motive for her to lie and even if that's a lie, it won't bring any negative impact to me. Note that those things are not evidence. But those things are very good reasons to believe that what my girlfriend said is true. So even though I don't really know whether the friend she's telling me really exist or not because there is no evidence either way, I should believe that the she's telling me the truth because there's a good reason to believe. It would be irrational for me to not believe just because there is no evidence that it is true in this case.

Of course there is another example where we should not believe without evidence because there is a good reason to not believe. My point is that in situation where there is no evidence either way, we should not just jump to disbelief position. We should also take other things into consideration/reason to not belief or to believe. Do you agree to this? You do have someone that you trust and love in this world, right? Do you always ask for evidence to someone you trust and love before you can believe to anything he/she says? Or sometimes you do believe without evidence?

Regarding belief in God existence, as far as I know there is no evidence either way. Do you agree with this?
If you agree that there is no known evidence either way, I have argued above that we should have a reason to belief or to not belief in this situation. I have told you my reason to believe above. What's your reason to not believe?

[Silver]

There isn't any specific proof for what you would prefer to believe either.

Absence of proof in support of something is rather compelling evidence to the rational mind. If there is no evidence of its existence, it is counterproductive to reason that one should believe it exists nonetheless.

[Theo Zacharias]

First, I must point out that there are atheists who belief that God does not exist.
There also atheists who claim to know that God does not exist.

Those are two different things.
Belief/disbelief in a god determines if you are an atheist or theist.
Claiming to know if a god does or does not exist determines if you are gnostic or agnostic.
Your first sentence is what an atheist is. IE, if you believe in a god you are not an atheist.

Yes, I agree that the 2 statements I said above are 2 different things. I think you also know that I have never suggested in my post that those 2 are the same things.
My point is that not all atheists is just disbelief (that God exists). There is also atheist who believes (that God does not exist). More than that, there is also atheist who claim to know that God does not exist. All of these people are atheist.
Also if you agree with Plato's definition of knowledge that knowledge is a justified true belief, then to know is also to belief. So if there there's a person claiming to know that God does not exist, by definition, the person should also believe that God does not exist. So claiming to know that God does not exist, other than determine that you are a gnostic, also determine that you are an atheist.

[Sword of Christ]

Absence of proof in support of something is rather compelling evidence to the rational mind. If there is no evidence of its existence, it is counterproductive to reason that one should believe it exists nonetheless.

What would you class as evidence for God? A big bearded face suddenly appearing in the sky like in Star Trek V?

[Theo Zacharias]

Not necessarily true.
If God affects the world frequently on the same place/person, then yes it's reproducible and subject to scientific investigation. We can go to the place or meet the person and conduct a scientific experiment to verify the effect.
But if God affects the world frequently but always (or at least most of the time) on a different place/person, then how can we conduct any scientific investigation if we don't know where to go to verify the effect?

No, that's not how it works, control for age, gender, other possible confounding factors and you're good to go. In fact, that design will have greater external validity compared to a "lab type scenario" where the same phenomena happens to the same person over and over again.

I don't think we have to move forward to experiment design when we haven't even have a cause to study these phenomenas though.

long story short: that's not a dilemma, it's done all the time in science.

Are you saying that if God exists, He is not able to affect this world in unreproducible way? Not just God, I think if there is an alien natural beings with technology million years more advanced than what we have now, they can easily affect this world without leaving any evidence at all that can be detected by our current technology if they want to.

[Silver]

What would you class as evidence for God?

Verifiable evidence that does not require faith as its wobbly foundation.

The question has been answered by atheists countless times. There have been threads dedicated to it, recent ones even.

Personally, I require stringent evidence.

For starters, the god would have to manifest itself in a way that could be properly understood and studied by anyone. None of that incorporeal illusion crap and none of that just being a human pretending to be a deity crap.

Secondly, the god would have to perform supernatural feats that cannot be discounted as mere smokes and mirrors stage magic or technologically advanced hocus pocus.

Also, the god would have to prove it is the creator of mankind by creating either another human or an entirely new life-form that cannot be discounted as more illusion.

Lastly, but probably not least, though it may be harder to verify, one would have to discover whether the god is really a deity or merely a highly advanced alien life-form from elsewhere in the universe that possesses knowledge and power from a process of evolution.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

No, that's not how it works, control for age, gender, other possible confounding factors and you're good to go. In fact, that design will have greater external validity compared to a "lab type scenario" where the same phenomena happens to the same person over and over again.

I don't think we have to move forward to experiment design when we haven't even have a cause to study these phenomenas though.

long story short: that's not a dilemma, it's done all the time in science.

Are you saying that if God exists, He is not able to affect this world in unreproducible way? Not just God, I think if there is an alien natural beings with technology million years more advanced than what we have now, they can easily affect this world without leaving any evidence at all that can be detected by our current technology if they want to.

You were talking about miracles, yes? I'm telling you it can be studied and analyzed. You're not understanding the reproducible part. It isn't the miracle that has to be reproduced, it's the analysis. If the miracle doesn't happen again, what we say is there aren't enough study samples. But if there are enough study samples (in reality there are multiple miracle claims that are very similar), then the analysis can be done. By controlling for confounding factors we group people with similar properties together such that they are "repeats" of each other. I don't know why I'm explaining this to you since you are so bent on giving god properties that cannot be studied. But this is how many scientific studies are performed. They have their weaknesses but IMO superior to lab studies for this type of investigation.

If you want to go with what you just said. Which is god affects the world in undetectable ways. Then I can say god doesn't affect the world at all. Those are 2 theories that can be generated from the same evidence: which is no evidence of interference. But your theory assumes god. Now you need to justify why it makes sense to make this assumption.

Edit: ok, there are more than 2 theories than can be generated. There are multiple: aliens/christian god/allah/hindu gods/thor/poseidon/zeus/ares/buddha/Gandalf/etc. etc. are interfering the world in undetectable ways. So you REALLY need a justification to say it's your god.

[discipulus]

What would you class as evidence for God?

Verifiable evidence that does not require faith as its wobbly foundation.

The question has been answered by atheists countless times. There have been threads dedicated to it, recent ones even.

Personally, I require stringent evidence.

For starters, the god would have to manifest itself in a way that could be properly understood and studied by anyone. None of that incorporeal illusion crap and none of that just being a human pretending to be a deity crap.

Secondly, the god would have to perform supernatural feats that cannot be discounted as mere smokes and mirrors stage magic or technologically advanced hocus pocus.

Also, the god would have to prove it is the creator of mankind by creating either another human or an entirely new life-form that cannot be discounted as more illusion.

Lastly, but probably not least, though it may be harder to verify, one would have to discover whether the god is really a deity or merely a highly advanced alien life-form from elsewhere in the universe that possesses knowledge and power from a process of evolution.

For the one unwilling to believe, nothing will convince them.

For example, let us take your first evidence in hand. God manifesting Himself in a way that could be understood and studied by everyone. How would He do that in such a way that could not be explained away by them that are unwilling to believe it is God? If I, along with everyone else in the world simultaneously saw a bright light in the sky, and heard a booming voice saying: Jesus is My Beloved Son, hear Him and Worship Him, and did not want to believe it was actually the voice of God, I could simply dismiss it as any number of possible elaborate hoaxes. I could simply say that it was an advanced alien race using advanced technology to make everyone think they actually heard God's voice, but in all actuality, it was nothing more than a sophisticated recording broadcast by aliens.

Even if we all saw a form or shape of a man standing in the sky, those unwilling to believe could simply pass it off as an elaborate holographic image and immediately begin theorizing as to what type of technology could cause such an image.

Secondly, supernatural feats. Ok, Jesus feeds thousands of people with a basket full of fish and bread. People not wanting to believe could simply say that everyone he fed actually had brought food with them and had it hidden until He began passing the food out. Voila, the feeding of the thousands is explained!

Or, Jesus could have had everyone sit in certain places on the hillside where fish and bread had previously been placed beforehand and when He began passing it out, voila! Everyone has something to eat!

The raising of Lazarus from the dead three days after he died. It could all have been a setup if one was not willing to believe Christ could raise the dead.

Thirdly the creation of a human before our eyes could be explained away as a hallucination or an advanced alien race who wants us to worship them and as a result devised an elaborate hoax to convince us.

Lastly, if one was unwilling to believe that all of these things were of God, they could simply dismiss it as the work of an alien race.

My point should be clear. One must be willing to accept that it is possible for God to exist and that certain acts are indicators of His existence.

If one is unwilling to believe, then not even someone being raised from the dead will convince them. Jesus Himself said this.