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

[Golbez]

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!

[Golbez]

Hmm, I thought there were some theistic members in these forums. None of 'em brave enough to ponder what scenarios they might consider their position ill-reasoned?

[apricot-and-a-coffee]

There's no way to prove God doesn't exist; there's just common sense and probability. (I'm thinking of Dawkins' teacup illustration.) Yes, there's a slight possibility that there's a god, but it's really not probable. If scientific evidence indicated there was a god, I would change my mind accordingly. I might not be ecstatic about it, but I wouldn't try to live in denial.
In exploring atheism from a Christian background, I found it particularly helpful to focus not on the threat of hell or the sheer number of religions out there, but purely on the evidence for a god. I naturally found the idea of a god hard to believe, but I didn't want to base my worldview on my feelings or instinctual reaction. I've read a lot of good arguments for atheism, but most notable for me was the mathematical improbability of God's existence, as well as the fact that most of religious knowledge is based on holy books, not scientific discovery.

P.S. I'm not a theist, so you weren't exactly asking me, but I thought I'd share a bit of my thought process anyway. I never believed in a god, but I did go through a period of trying to give Christianity an open-minded evaluation and see if my atheism would hold up after that.

[Tonus]

Atheists know what would convince them that God is real.

If Angela Bassett offered to have my babies, I'd believe that god is real.

When I was a believer, I honestly could not fathom a scenario in which I would have accepted that god did not exist. Remember that for many theists, god exists outside of our ability to perceive him directly and therefore proof or evidence is a very personal thing, and it's acceptable to have only direct personal proof of god that cannot be verified by anyone but yourself. To get through that shell required a lot of small things that chipped away at it, not one bombshell that blew my whole worldview apart.

[Foxaèr]

There's no way to prove God doesn't exist.

The fact that there is zero evidence in support of his existence, and that there has been absolutely no evidence since the dawn of humanity, is rather convincing evidence that god does not exist.

[Lucanus]

There's no way to prove God doesn't exist.

The fact that there is zero evidence in support of his existence, and that there has been absolutely no evidence since the dawn of humanity, is rather convincing evidence that god does not exist.

Also, when you look at how faith is considered inside of religions, you see how they actually make you feel good about your gullibility and look down on asking for evidence. It really looks like a scam then.

[Esquilax]

Also, when you look at how faith is considered inside of religions, you see how they actually make you feel good about your gullibility and look down on asking for evidence. It really looks like a scam then.

And from there, just factor in the constant requests for money, and... bam. Pyramid scheme with a divine bent.

[Golbez]

I've read a lot of good arguments for atheism, but most notable for me was the mathematical improbability of God's existence, as well as the fact that most of religious knowledge is based on holy books, not scientific discovery.

I appreciate your response. Yeah, I didn't mean to post this to the exclusion of atheists' thoughts. I'm curious though - I haven't really come across the mathematical improbability argument. Would you care to enlighten me?

Re:Tonus - your devolution process sounds much like that video series "Why I am no longer a Christian" by 3videnc3. He breaks down how faith is a network of beliefs and support structures where it is not just one theme, concept, or series of proofs, but many chips in a shell, as you say. It's good for me to be reminded of this, because I usually approach debates from a more singular aspect and lose sight of this.

[fr0d0]

we have criteria which could convince us. Evidence could present itself. The possibility exists.

This is logically absurd. If there is a chance of your criteria being met, that would be in an alternate reality, that would have to be illogical, and therefore impossible.

---

What is it about our existence that demands that there is a god

Nothing. Or else you would believe now wouldn't you?

---

Do you allow yourself the possibility that you are wrong?

More than that. I actively search to disprove it. I'm required to do it as a condition of my faith, my doubt is prescribed.

[Esquilax]

This is logically absurd. If there is a chance of your criteria being met, that would be in an alternate reality, that would have to be illogical, and therefore impossible.

Does it ever bother you, not actually explaining why evidence is logically excluded in any detail?