the case against the case against god

[ManMachine]

Hello all. First time on this forum, would love to discuss atheism.

Has anyone on this forum given any thought as to the kind of evidence which would convince you that god exists?

I like this question. For me this cuts right to the heart of the debate between atheists and non-atheists. It's a very idiosyncratic issue and I suspect you will get as many different replies as there are thinking atheists in this forum. Proof requires evidence, and the level of evidence we are prepared to accept is based on our personal values. I personally believe scientific theory is as much a system of belief as any other.

It's easy to believe in the force of gravity as I watch a hammer fall to the ground, in everyday life that would seem to be sufficient, and for the vast majority of people it is. But I also know that Einstein demonstrated that gravity is not a force but an artefact of our relative view of spacetime distortions - in the same way I used to think as a child the merry-go-round was throwing me out, when in fact I was simply travelling in a straight line in accordance with the laws of conservation of momentum and that it was the merry-go-round that was changing direction and acting on me. For all intents and purposes it felt like I was being spun out, but I can now understand that is not the case.

For may people centrifugal and gravitational force are real and they believe in them because it fits their understanding of the world. People will park their systems of belief at the level of their understanding and then seek the evidence to fix it there.

Evidence is often not what it seems, empirical evidence from observation, for example, is a record of an historical event, this is then used to predict future events, when these events happen we retrospectively apply our prediction to that event and claim it as a truth. Scientific 'truth' is actually a retroaction, because there is no evidence of any kind that proves the repeatability of historical events, even scientific ones. Science requires faith, but that does not mean it is not reasonable.

What baffles me about the Western god is he was once very active and got heavily involved with intervening with particular tribes of humans, namely the Jewish tribes. But for some reason he decided to vanish up to the high heavens and not get involved any more - odd behaviour? Why is he no longer up to his antics?

If there is a god then he as screwed up monumentally. He has created religion and scientific theory both of which require faith, but scientific theory keeps coming up with information, data and observations that give scientists substance to reason, while he has decided not to give his own followers anything for over 2000 years. Why would a loving god gift his people with the ability to reason then give them nothing to reason with? That sounds incredibly cruel, egotistical but most importantly, unnecessary.

The Christian god in his own book said, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." if his words are 'true' then in the absence of any 'substance' there is no hope; in his lack of evidence there is no god. God fails his own test of faith. God is nothing but an empty promise echoing down the millennia, that will remain unfulfilled until all his followers die, along with the rest of the human race, just as Darwin predicted.

MM

[Mystic]

Seeing a connection to God and knowing the connection is real should be enough proof. I think goodness, love, greatness, praise, value, are signs of this connection, and with reflection people can see we are connected to the Divine. Really reflect over the nature of things people deem spiritual, are they connected to a higher reality? Is there something more to them then the material world?

Atheists from my experience don't take into consideration that the proof maybe inside of them and all they have to do is reflect over it. They've already decided it must be by empirical evidence or proven by a logical argument.

[Esquilax]

Atheists from my experience don't take into consideration that the proof maybe inside of them and all they have to do is reflect over it. They've already decided it must be by empirical evidence or proven by a logical argument.

Of course it must be those things. Subjective feelings are not evidence, and there's a simple way to demonstrate that: you feel that your god exists, and someone of another religion feels that their god is real. This is true of multiple religions, and at least a couple hundred followers. But they're all different gods, mostly mutually exclusive. Someone is wrong there. It's possible everyone is wrong there. But what's truly evident from that example is that "feeling" god inside you is not an accurate depiction of reality necessarily, because at least a few of the people reporting precisely the same effect you are, are by definition entirely wrong. So feelings produce, at best, both correct and incorrect results: how do you tell which is right?

Oh, and by the way: if I feel in my heart, as truly as you believe in your god, that rocks can talk, does that mean that rocks can talk? Or does that mean my feelings are factually wrong?

Hmm, I guess feelings aren't reliable evidence then.

[Tonus]

Atheists from my experience don't take into consideration that the proof maybe inside of them and all they have to do is reflect over it. They've already decided it must be by empirical evidence or proven by a logical argument.

The subconscious mind can accept pretty much any premise, and thereby influence our thoughts and actions. Remember that many atheists were once theists, and were convinced that they could experience the spiritual world in some way or another. There are any number of ways to interpret the things we perceive. Some regard it as having to do with our soul, others point at mysticism, others at intuition. The thing is, when we strip away the selection bias and take a more analytical approach, we find that those experiences are more consistent with natural phenomena than with whatever we substitute as a placeholder. And as we learn more and more about how the human mind works, we are finding more and more natural explanations for such phenomena.

[downbeatplumb]

Hello all. First time on this forum, would love to discuss atheism.

Has anyone on this forum given any thought as to the kind of evidence which would convince you that god exists?

First of all we'd need a proper definition of god that lists all its attributes and abilities, otherwise you just get an endless series of goal post moving.

[Mystic]

Atheists from my experience don't take into consideration that the proof maybe inside of them and all they have to do is reflect over it. They've already decided it must be by empirical evidence or proven by a logical argument.

Of course it must be those things. Subjective feelings are not evidence, and there's a simple way to demonstrate that: you feel that your god exists, and someone of another religion feels that their god is real. This is true of multiple religions, and at least a couple hundred followers. But they're all different gods, mostly mutually exclusive. Someone is wrong there. It's possible everyone is wrong there. But what's truly evident from that example is that "feeling" god inside you is not an accurate depiction of reality necessarily, because at least a few of the people reporting precisely the same effect you are, are by definition entirely wrong. So feelings produce, at best, both correct and incorrect results: how do you tell which is right?

Oh, and by the way: if I feel in my heart, as truly as you believe in your god, that rocks can talk, does that mean that rocks can talk? Or does that mean my feelings are factually wrong?

Hmm, I guess feelings aren't reliable evidence then.

If you have some false memories, it means memory is never reliable and you can never be certain of a certain memory?

[The Grand Nudger]

Hello all. First time on this forum, would love to discuss atheism.

Has anyone on this forum given any thought as to the kind of evidence which would convince you that god exists?

Got one in your pocket? That'd be a start.

[Mystic]

Atheists from my experience don't take into consideration that the proof maybe inside of them and all they have to do is reflect over it. They've already decided it must be by empirical evidence or proven by a logical argument.

The subconscious mind can accept pretty much any premise, and thereby influence our thoughts and actions. Remember that many atheists were once theists, and were convinced that they could experience the spiritual world in some way or another. There are any number of ways to interpret the things we perceive. Some regard it as having to do with our soul, others point at mysticism, others at intuition. The thing is, when we strip away the selection bias and take a more analytical approach, we find that those experiences are more consistent with natural phenomena than with whatever we substitute as a placeholder. And as we learn more and more about how the human mind works, we are finding more and more natural explanations for such phenomena.

If we take a more scientific approach, sure, it might not seem we have a soul. But who says that must be the approach we take? It seems it is as I said, you are ruling out the experience within and a conclusion of a spiritual nature. You are already concluding they must have an explanation that is natural as opposed to being supernatural. That means no matter how supernatural we appear to be, you will always take those visions of yourself as a natural phenomena. But this is circular reasoning. You should at least concede the possibility of the experience yielding spiritual knowledge. Then decide if you have it or not. I find Atheists rather not concede to this possibility so as to not see any possible rational basis to faith by theists. Tiberius is the only Atheist I've seen that says Theists may know God but he is unaware of it therefore withholds belief regarding God.

[abaris]

That means no matter how supernatural we appear to be, you will always take those visions of yourself as a natural phenomena.

What, pray tell, is supposed to be supernatural about us.

To make such a claim you have to ignore everything we know about nature and all the other beings populating it. It simply means your ego needs to feel special, your species has to be special and in some way chosen.

[Mystic]

What, pray tell, is supposed to be supernatural about us.

Our perpetual identity for one. The different types of love we have and the relationships we form on it is another.