What kind of evidence of God’s existence would Atheists accept?

[Sal316]

Hang around the R/T forum, and within the first few minutes, you’ll see this gem… “I’m not saying there isn’t a God, I’m just saying there’s no evidence God exists.“

In leiu of God coming down, knocking on your door and handing you a business card, what kind of evidence would you accept?

Even if God came down, would you dismiss it as a hallucination?

If he didn’t fit the image you had seen of God, would you not believe it?

What if he had absolutely no “human” qualities at all?

Would you have to see these things firsthand, or can you hear about them from other witnesses?

Further, would God have to do this each generation, or would one time be enough?

Seriously, I want to know.

Please, no generic "scientific proof" answers, I'm looking for specifics. Secondly, if there's nothing that could convince you, please man up and admit that. Don't continue the "no evidence" charade if there's nothing that could convince you.

[maxsolomon]

1. i could be easily convinced.

i simply require something more than 1500 year old desert hearsay.

[Sal316]

3. How and what?

Be specific, please.

[maxsolomon]

53. An omnipotent being who refers to themselves as God, on-camera

and in english, and i'm operating the camera, with screened-for-rationality witnesses from every religion on earth, and submits to an interview. like Close Encouters, but with Yahweh.

as the poster below notes, what "god" is is a matter of some debate. the abrahamic god, yahweh, sure, if he appeared as i noted above, i'd be convinced. but if you're a Pantheist, then "god" is manifest everywhere all the time.

[ironbark]

94. I love the idea

but it would have to be David Frost doing the interview so that he could say
“Nice to have you here Yahweh… but I thought I was God”.

And of course it must be “on camera and in English” because we all know that the camera never lies (nor can it be deceived ;-) and that God is an Englishman.

I’m just dying to know the process for getting “screened-for-rationality witnesses from every religion on earth”….does it involve everyone getting ‘Audited’… Scientology Audited?

Can a ‘screened-for-rationality’ atheist attend as well or would the production costs be prohibitive? ;-)

Would the ‘screened’ Rabbi witness get to ask Yahweh- “What’s with the Hindu six arms”? and if the Lord responds “I’m working on four new chapters of the Kama Sutra” is that inadmissible as ‘evidence’ of Divinity?

Oh....and what if it's "an omnipotent being that refers to itself as" Bruce?

[tiny elvis]

232. jesus' birth certificate

the op is wide open to any description of bog, baal or gozer, but there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that jesus is a myth
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm

[Teaser]

2. first define God.

I don't believe in God because I don't think the word has any meaning. Give me a hard definition, and I'll tell you exactly what evidence I would need to acknowledge believe in it. Because right now you're asking me to tell me what it would take for me to believe in hurmdiddle.

[Sal316]

8. Sorry, try again.

That's a weak position.

You know what I'm talking about, but since you insist....for now we'll stick with the Christian definition of God, since that's the one most Atheists here on DU seem adamantly opposed to.

[Teaser]

20. Declaring it a weak position doesn't make it so.

And, coolio, I don't know what you're talking about. You could be one of those believers who argue that god isn't personal, is just some kind of force, or god is just love, or a universal creative principle. They all require something different in the way of evidence.


But since you bring up Christianity, I'll use a stripped down version of that god.

So, triune, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Son is wholly god and wholly man. God is personal, immanent, and transcendent.

So, what I would need is

1) a visitation from an entity powerful enough to convince me of omnipotence. Maybe it would destroy a planet or something.
2) the entity would have to convince me it was "personal", that it had a personality like I do, thinks in a linear, human like, fashion. A prolonged conversation with such an entity would be a start.
3) The entity would have to convince me of the truth of the assertions in the Bible about it. So it'd need to execute some kind of time travel that could be convincing enough that I would not suspect an illusion.
4) I'd have to meet each of the persons of the trinity, or be convinced that this one entity I was talking with was comprised of three persons. Again, conversation is a good way to do this.

That would be a start. I'd certainly be intrigued enough to take its assertions seriously at this point.

[tekisui]

80. Atheists aren't more opposed to one definition of god over another.

They simply don't believe in god.

[PassingFair]

108. I am at LEAST as "adamantly opposed" to PIXIES as I am to the notion of "god"

you've got some nerve!

:evilgrin:

[tekisui]

4. What a silly post.

Present the evidence, and I'll tell you what I think of it. A bunch of hypotheticals are meaningless. If someone claiming to be god knocked on your door and said he was god, would you believe it?

[Sal316]

10. What a silly answer.

It's the atheists who demand evidence.... I want to know what they would accept.

[tekisui]

17. It's the theists who request the atheist to define something

they don't believe in. Silliness.

[Sal316]

23. Well, considering....

...there are witness testimonials, archaeological evidence that supports and proves that the civilizations in the Bible existed, historical evidence of Royal lineages in both OT and NT...

I want to know what more it would take.

[LAGC]

26. Its easy to take a few historical truths and wrap them up in mysticism.

And that's what the Bible is. 10% historical fact, 90% mystic lore.

[Sal316]

30. That doesn't answer the question.... n/t

[LAGC]

32. I gave my response down below. (n/t)

[dmallind]

31. Atlanta exists. The Civil War happened. Is Gone with the Wind true? NT

[trotsky]

60. Haha

Should have read your response first. You said it better with one subject line than I did in a whole post. :thumbsup:

[sinkingfeeling]

33. Uh, history exists and has nothing at all to do with any god.

[trotsky]

59. ...

"there are witness testimonials"

No, there are documents that claim to be witness testimonials. No serious biblical scholar actually believes that the testaments of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were actually written by the men whose names they bear.

"archaeological evidence that supports and proves that the civilizations in the Bible existed"

Yep, there sure is. However that doesn't say one thing about the veracity of anything else in the bible, or certainly that a character called Yahweh actually existed.

"historical evidence of Royal lineages in both OT and NT"

Same as the above.

"I want to know what more it would take."

A hell of a lot more than that weak-ass shit.

[uberllama42]

67. Weak, weak sauce, my friend.

There are testimonials affirming that Siddhartha Gautama lived and that he attained enlightenment. The civilizations described in those stories existed as well. Does that mean that Buddhism is also, simultaneously true?

[ironbark]

95. “simultaneously” historically true…

or “simultaneously” spiritually true?

Is the former more important than the latter in any faith?

In relation to Christianity or any other major living faith I see no essential/fundamental conflict in spiritual teaching...they are “simultaneously true”.

The ‘truth’ of history and historical verification gets easier the nearer the religion is to our own period (Islam has an historical advantage)…but that’s true of any realm of historical research.

[uberllama42]

96. The notion that Christianity and Buddhism are both "spiritually true" is silly

The two religions have widely divergent ideas. In Christianity, the cause of suffering is a specific event in the past- the disobedience of Adam and Eve. In Buddhism, the cause of suffering is the ongoing worldly desires of human beings. Christianity postulates a single life on Earth followed by an eternal afterlife, whereas Buddhism teaches that humans are resurrected until they attain enlightenment and essentially cease to exist.

Christianity also describes the relationship between humanity and God in some detail, but Buddhism does not teach the presence of any specific god or man's relationship to any such gods. These are contradictions in the "spiritual" doctrines of the two religions in question. I don't think anyone who understands them could consider them both "simultaneously spiritually true."

Granted there are many who understand both better than I do, but I very strongly doubt that any of those people would consider them compatible in all their "spiritual" claims.

[ironbark]

97. Depends on what you think a spiritual truth is

Buddhism
“Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.”

OT
Tobit 4:15 "Do to no one what you yourself dislike."

Sirach 31:15 "Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind your own dislikes."

Top ten-
“Thou shall not kill”

NT
Matthew 7:12
12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Luke 6:31
And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.


“I don't think anyone who understands them could consider them both "simultaneously spiritually true."

I don’t think that anyone who understands the core spiritual truths could consider them as other than "simultaneously spiritually true." ;-)

“divergent ideas” are divergent ideas, postulation of afterlife and reincarnation are just that, divergent dogma is divergent dogma.

The Golden Rule is, for me, even as an agnostic, the core spiritual value and teaching of all faiths.


“but Buddhism does not teach the presence of any specific god or man's relationship to any such gods.”

I know it’s unconventional but I’m not at all convinced that a notion of god is even necessary or allways necessary for the existence of spirituality.

In the case of Buddhism it is my understanding that it needs be seen in the context of its backdrop/origins in Hinduism (much the same as Christianity in Judaism). Hinduism of the period had ‘God in a box’, say the prayer and preform the ritual in the correct manner and the exclusively external god was obliged to respond. In this cultural/religious context Buddhism was radically inward looking and neither taught nor rejected the notion of god. When asked regarding the existence of god the Buddha is supposed to have said something to the effect of “You are like a man carrying two buckets of water, you cannot carry a third”… perhaps the equivalent of “You’ve got enough on your plate to deal with”.
But I won’t argue with any Buddhist who argues Buddhism is godless.

If there is a god then I’m still down to-
“Whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me." As the core spiritual teaching of all faiths.

[Sal316]

115. Very well said nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

148. Those are about ethics, not about my 'spirit'

They say nothing whatsoever about whether I, or everyone, or everything, has a spirit, whether spirits exist before or after physical birth, death or creation, or whether spirits are individual or mergeable and dividable.

That many religions, philosophies or personal lifestyles contain very similar attitudes does not make the attitudes 'spiritual truths'.

[ironbark]

156. The Dementors kiss from Muriel

sucks the ‘spirit’ right out of ‘spiritual truths’ ;-)

Back to Azkabarn now M?

[muriel_volestrangler]

168. Do you feel like answering my point

Or would you rather just keep being insulting?

[ironbark]

174. Your point is answered, my point is made

Confronted with the Golden Rule you want to reject/ignore those spiritual truths regarding how others should be treated and reduce matters to the materialist consideration of ‘spirit’-

“whether spirits exist before or after physical birth”…” whether spirits are individual or mergeable and dividable”

These are materialist diversions from what was under discussion.

If you find it “insulting” to suggest that such a response sucks the spirit right out of spiritual truths I am somewhat reluctant to offer you another-

“To Mike Myers, who showed me that true spirituality means not taking ourselves to seriously…”
Dedication from ‘Why God is Laughing’.

;-)

“That many religions, philosophies or personal lifestyles contain very similar attitudes does not make the attitudes 'spiritual truths'.”

A proposition already covered in #97- “Depends on what you think a spiritual truth is”.
I don’t care if the spiritual truths of the Golden Rule are called “ethics” or “philosophy” or environmental and geo political necessity… and I’m certainly not interested in having the life sucked out of the issue by “…” whether spirits are individual or mergeable…”.

Get ye unto a Theosophist with that one.

[uberllama42]

190. Chomsky says that reciprocity is the merest of moral principles

and I agree. You're taking a simple and obvious claim in the realm of terrestrial ethics and defining it as a core spiritual tenet of every religion. Granted that people use many different and mutually contradictory definitions of the word "spiritual", but I would prefer if we used a definition that deals with spirits. Claims about souls, the metaphysical status human beings, and their relationship to any deities, should they exist, are the kinds of questions I would consider spiritual. Almost nothing you quoted comes close to those issues. Even the quote from the Gospel of Matthew, which almost implies a spiritual connection between Christ and humanity, doesn't go quite as far as saying that outright.

What Matthew gives you is a mandate to treat even the downtrodden and meek with the same respect as someone who is revered. It doesn't make an explicit claim about some deeper, metaphysical connection between Christ and the "least" of humanity. Like the other quotes you provided, it makes a claim about ethical conduct within our material world. I think spiritual truth should deal with spirit(s), and not with material things.

You really can't just dismiss all that divergent dogma with a wave of your hand. You are taking one idea from a bunch of different religions, deciding that you agree with it (on purely material grounds, I would argue), and declaring it the most important idea within them on the criterion of your own agreement with it. I agree that it is the most useful thing in any of those scriptures, as far as my own limited familiarity with them can indicate. That doesn't make the Golden Rule a core principle in those books or the faiths that follow them. I might read the collected works of Henry James and conclude that the most important thing a reader could learn from him is the Golden Rule, but that doesn't mean that that moral idea features prominently in any of the novels.

Also, I would argue from the empirical record that the Golden Rule is in fact not a very important idea in most religions. Most forms of Protestantism say that your treatment of others is irrelevant for salvation, all of Christ's lily-livered liberal moralization notwithstanding. From what I know about Hinduism, Buddhism and so on, it's not exactly central to those faiths either. If the Golden Rule was really important to the world's religions, there would be far less religious conflict.

[ironbark]

196. Are there extraterrestrial ethics?

“You're taking a simple and obvious claim in the realm of terrestrial ethics and defining it as a core spiritual tenet of every religion.”

Am I? Seems I’ve really started something previously unknown and unrecognised-
( Think I could claim royalties? ;-)

First 1 -5 of about 42,500,000 for the golden rule.

http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/goldrule.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html


So prolific it’s a poster-


Described variously throughout as ethics , values, spiritual or religious truths.
Take your pick I’m not fussed.

“Granted that people use many different and mutually contradictory definitions of the word "spiritual"….”

Yup…just as they do for ‘love’…there is the commonplace definition and cultural obsession with ‘romantic love’ and there are deeper more interesting definitions such as Scott Pecks- ‘Love is the preparedness to do for others’ (back to the Golden Rule ;-).


“…but I would prefer if we used a definition that deals with spirits. Claims about souls, the metaphysical status human beings…”

I’m afraid I cannot help you with your preference, I have no experience or knowledge of ‘spirits, souls or the metaphysical’ and having lived through the 70’s and proximity to the New Age movement I desire no knowledge thereof. I wont even sit in the same room when the kids watch ‘Medium’ or ‘Ghost Whisperer’ ….the whole thing makes me puke….sorry….sore point…can’t help you there ;-)

“…any deities, should they exist, are the kinds of questions I would consider spiritual”

Clearly there we differ, I would consider them questions of the metaphysical and supernatural and the spiritual pertaining to relationships- between people, people and god, inner journey/balance.
“…any deities, should they exist”… is a question I peruse through the historical record, reason/ discussion/ argument and a mug punters calculation of probability/the odds.

“You really can't just dismiss all that divergent dogma with a wave of your hand.”

Well…If you have an important/vital bit of dogma that you think I should consider then put it forward.

“You are taking one idea from a bunch of different religions…”

No…It was broadly commonly recognised that the major living faiths all shared the spiritual truth of that “one idea” long before I was around…that’s why they called it The Golden Rule and I get no credit or royalties ;-)

Even a cursory glance at the worlds major faiths finds similar commonalities-
One faith being the crucible for another Hinduism/Buddhism…or the People of the Book Judaism, Christianity, Islam.
Or the common evolution of these faiths- one individual, in opposition to the status quo, a small movement against overwhelming odds and opposition, persuasion of the population, becomes the established religion, flowering civilization, the decay of impetus and (spiritual ;-) influence.

Then there are then the common prophecies regarding return/reappearance-

“For We assuredly sent amongst every people a messenger”
Al Qur’an 16:36

“Whenever there is a decay of righteousness, O Bharata, And a rise of unrighteousness, then I manifest Myself. For the protection of the good, for the destruction of the wicked and for the establishment of righteousness, I am born in every age.
Bhagavad Geeta 4:7-8

We did aforetime send Messengers before you:
Al Qur’an 40:78


“deciding that you agree with it (on purely material grounds, I would argue),”

I (like others before me) found the Golden Rule in all major faiths, I decided I agreed with it because it made ethical/spiritual sense. I have no idea what “purely material grounds” would be for agreeing with the Golden Rule.

“I agree that it is the most useful thing in any of those scriptures”

Then perhaps it is also “…the most important idea within them on the criterion of {my} own agreement with it? ;-)

“That doesn't make the Golden Rule a core principle”

You concede it is “the most useful thing” but reject it as “the most important idea” or “a core principle”

I hold it as “the core spiritual value and teaching of all faiths”, standing among the most important ideas and useful things.


“…that the Golden Rule is in fact not a very important idea in most religions. Most forms of Protestantism…”

Sorry…Christianity is a “religion”….” Protestantism” is a branch church therein.

“…say that your treatment of others is irrelevant for salvation”

A theological position that is as well pursued/supported as the catholic one on birth control.
Not reflective of contemporary protestant churches, not reflective of Christianity.

“Hinduism, Buddhism and so on, it's not exactly central to those faiths either.”

I guess then that’s why Hinduism, Buddhism and so on all spread so far and have endured for so long…because their members ignored the Golden Rule and treated others like shit continually and that persuaded the others to join. People are so dumb and have been throughout history…treat em like crap and they will join up and remain in generationaly ;-)

“If the Golden Rule was really important to the world's religions, there would be far less religious conflict.”

What are the three most recent/major religious conflicts you have in mind?
Oh, I have no doubt they occur, just wondering which you have in mind.

A good big meaty post , a nice change from the usual drive by blipverts.
I couldn’t find Noam on reciprocity but interested to have a look if you can.

[tekisui]

79. A helluva lot more than a book with *some* historical facts.

That is quite a leap from a few possibly true stories to evidence of god.

[Goblinmonger]

86. Yeah, there were actually Jewish civilizations

Any proof they were enslaved in Egypt? Nope. Any proof that there was ever anyone doing the shit Jesus was other than in the Bible, because I would think that some dude doing all those miracles and rallying all those people against the man at that time would have been recorded by SOMEBODY. But even then, none of that proves that there is a GOD.

[rd_kent]

129. NONE of that is ANY kind of proof of a god

It shows that those who wrote the bible had the ability to get some historical stuff there, but in no way proves anything, at all.

[Taitertots]

153. Witness testimonials LOL

The New Testament was written several hundred years after Jesus died. I'm not sure the people who wrote it even spoke the same language as Jesus.

[SteppingRazor]

5. I'm more agnostic than atheistic, and I rarely post in this forum, but...

I just think it's a bit silly that all this walking on water, curing leprosy, etc. all happens thousands of years ago.

Certainly, if God descended from the heavens on a cloud escalator, tipped his hat and said, "Howdy," I'd have to concede that, yes, there is a God. It'd be intellectually dishonest not to.

Simply hearing about it from witnesses wouldn't necessarily be enough for me to believe, though. It would depend on the number and quality of the witnesses.

[Taverner]

6. The Empirical Kind nt

[Sal316]

12. Define.

DNA?

Photos?

Elemental analysis?

Medical physical?

What?

[Taverner]

16. Proof that passes a double blind test

Can two independent photographers take a photo of proof of God?

Can we measure proof of God?

First we would have to construct an experiment, and have the results validated by a third party source.

Saying "I felt god in my life" does not count. Showing a picture of the Virgin Mary in a potato chip doesn't count.

An amputee regrowing a limb, now THAT could count.

A man rising from the dead, long after brain and heart failure, now that could count.

[Sal316]

42. Ok, let's explore this empirical demand a little further.

What empirical data exists that proves out the Big Bang?

Answer: There is none. There are, however, theories that are created through analogous relationships to other experiments that may or may not be related to conditions of the universe @ the Big Bang. But science has yet to empirically prove out the Big Bang.

What empirical data exists the proves simple amino acids became human beings?

Answer: There is none. Science has yet to be able create life from simple amino acids.

However, both of these are accepted as fact.

[MineralMan]

46. The Big Bang is a theory.

It is not proven. There is mathematical evidence of its likely occurrence.

As for the origins of life, there are several hypotheses regarding that. None are proven. Mostly, they're not even theories, just speculations about ways it might have happened.

As for your deities or gods, they do not, by definition, normally exist in the physical universe. They are supernatural...also by definition. Now, Christianity claims that Jesus showed up in human form, and there are the human forms of the Greek and Roman deities, too. And yet...the human Jesus didn't really do much that was godlike. His "miracles" were pretty mundane, really, even if they actually happened, something for which there is no proof whatsoever...just words on a page.

Your question? Tell your hypothetical deity to show up in my front yard and create a chartreuse and purple bird, three feet tall, from nothing. Piece of cake for an omnipotent deity, right. Get your deity to do that and I promise I'll believe its existence.

Then, I'll chastize it for Noah's flood. Genocide sucks.

[Sal316]

61. Seems to me that the demand for empirical evidence....

...is a stricter criteria than what is typically set for those who subscribe to the Big Bang or origins of life.

Neither are proven with empirical data. If one applies the same logic to those as applied to the existence of God, then Big Bang and Origins of Life are simply myth and superstition.

[MineralMan]

64. You misunderstand science entirely.

Theories do not demand proof...merely evidence that demonstrates the probability of the theory. Anyone working with concepts such as the Big Bang will change their concept should someone come up with a better theory. Right now, that's the best operating theory regarding the origin of our universe.

Deities, on the other hand are entities supported by zero empirical evidence. They exist only in the minds of their followers, and are believed to exist by them based solely on faith.

I'm not a physicist or a mathematician, so I have no means to judge the math and physics that appear to lead toware the Big Bang theory. However, mathematicians and physicists seem to have come up with a plausible explanation for a lot of things I don't understand, such as magnetism and subatomic structure.

Theists, on the other hand, come up with faith as their only "evidence" of the existence of their supernatural entities. Since there are a number of religions followed on this planet, each of which is equipped with more or fewer deities and other supernatural entities, it presents a confusing picture. So far as I know, not a single one of those deities or supernatural entities has made an appearance that can be confirmed in any real way. Ancient texts prove nothing. The old Greeks wrote a lot of them about their pantheon of odd deities. Do you believe they really existed? I don't.

You believe in one more deity, more or less, than I do, since I believe that no such entities exist at all. That is your privilege. If you would have me believe that such entities exist, you must entreat yours to make an appearance and create the chartreuse and purple bird of which I spoke. Your faith is evidence of nothing, nor are the old texts you trust. I've read many old texts, many of which discuss other sorts of deity. I don't believe them any more than you do. Kali, Krsna, Ahura Mazda. You don't believe they exist, right? Well, I share that believe, and I'll give you your deity, too, as one I believe doesn't exist as well.

But, hey...if your deity wants to meet my proof standards, it must know where I live, and it may show up at any time it wishes.

[Sal316]

66. Misunderstand science?

Hardly.

I've spent 17 years of my life working as a Chemist. I'm trained and educated in environmental, analytical, nuclear, organic, inorganic, physical, and process chemistry. I'm also educated in advanced mathematics (through diff eq), physics, radiological fundamentals, ballistics, propulsion theory, heat transfer and fluid flow, materials science, etc., etc.

So, don't assume that I don't understand science.

"However, mathematicians and physicists seem to have come up with a plausible explanation for a lot of things I don't understand, such as magnetism and subatomic structure."

So, you're accepting the words of others on faith, even though you admit yourself that you don't understand it. Interesting. What's also interesting is that the scientific consensus was once that the world was flat, the sun orbited earth, the sound barrier couldn't be broken, there are only 109 elements in the periodic table, mammals are only 155 million years old, etc.

"Ancient texts prove nothing."

You've just dismissed the entire field of archeology. Good job!

"If you would have me believe that such entities exist, you must entreat yours to make an appearance and create the chartreuse and purple bird of which I spoke."

So, in order to prove it to you, I must make God dance like a monkey for the organ grinder?

"Kali, Krsna, Ahura Mazda. You don't believe they exist, right? "

I didn't say that, did I?

[MineralMan]

68. Sorry, but I won't be wasting any further time in this discussion.

I'm quite sorry I wasted as much as I have. Believe as you wish.

[laconicsax]

101. Maybe you could answer a question I've had for a while.

You say you're a chemist and have been working in that field for 17 years.

You've been very clear about your belief in the Abrahamic god ("God"), so I'm curious about the an assumption you must work under as a Chemist.

Do you believe that God can't interfere and manipulate your results or do you believe that God won't interfere and manipulate your results?

If you believe that God can't interfere, how do you reach that conclusion? How could an entity capable of creating the universe be incapable of changing some results?

If you believe that God won't interfere, how do you reach that conclusion? Do you have special insight into the mind of God that allows you to know that your experiments are safe? Has God told you that it won't interfere? Do you pray for God to stay out of it and just assume that your prayer was answered?

[Sal316]

116. Ok, I'll answer.

Do you believe that God can't interfere and manipulate your results or do you believe that God won't interfere and manipulate your results?

I believe he won't.

If you believe that God won't interfere, how do you reach that conclusion?

Because if we're truly made in "the image of God", then that includes using our intelligence to make sense of the world around us. I don't believe that God has a need to tell me how to titrate a polymer's hydroxyl content or take counts on a primary crud sample. Everything is the way it is.... it's only our understanding of the world around us that changes.

Those who believe that science and faith are incompatible (in either direction) are dead wrong. Both assume that the best we can be is, imo, half a person.

Do you have special insight into the mind of God that allows you to know that your experiments are safe? Has God told you that it won't interfere? Do you pray for God to stay out of it and just assume that your prayer was answered?

No, I use my God given intelligence to determine whether my experiments are safe or not.

You see, in the OT, God tried the "favored peoples, favored nation" thing. He set up for them an economic system based on social justice and debt forgiveness, he set up a justice system that was not only fair, but just, he set up this thing we call the Holiness Code....yet even then, his people wanted to be like everyone else and demanded a king. In 1 Samuel 8, God even tells them all the horrible things having a king would mean, and they still said "So, we want one!". God basically said "Ok, you asked for it!". Many years past, and, long story short, his people were sent into exile.

Then came Jesus, and the whole point of that was to get away from the "rules and regulations" which people were using to make themselves seem "more righteous" than others (today's fundies), and focus on what truly mattered..... relationships. Our relationship with God, our relationships with each other (belivers, non-believers, people of other faiths, etc.).

The difference between the two? Now we choose. I choose to believe... I choose to love my enemy...I choose to love my neighbor.

For God to interfere in things like my experiments, returns to OT God v 2.0 which, in the OT, didn't work because humanity is an arrogant, prideful, power-hungry bunch of stubborn sumbitches.

...so, basically, yes, if one understands what the Bible says, God has said he/she/it won't interfere.

The laws of the universe are what they are. I don't believe the particle accelerator is going to unzip the fabric of time and space. I think there's certain "safeties" in place to keep us from destroying the universe. Destroying each other.....well, now that's something completely different.

Does that make sense? I know it's sorta rambling.

[laconicsax]

118. Thanks.

You answered far more than I had hoped.

[trotsky]

120. ...

For God to interfere in things like my experiments, returns to OT God v 2.0 which, in the OT, didn't work because humanity is an arrogant, prideful, power-hungry bunch of stubborn sumbitches.

Then we truly are made in his image, huh?

[Sal316]

124. Good to see you missed the point.

cheers!

:toast:

[trotsky]

126. Don't mind me, I'm just waiting for answers to the questions you weren't ready for.

Carry on! :hi:

[Sal316]

128. I've answered your questions....

...you just have to be open to hearing them.

[trotsky]

134. Nope, you contradicted yourself!

This is fun!

[Birthmark]

88. I think you are confused, Sal

For one thing,science doesn't "prove" things. That's more of a philosophical concept.

For another, "fact" in science differs from common usage. In science, ALL facts are provisional, subject to change, refinement, or replacement due to the acquisition of new information. That is the strength of the Scientific Method.

So, no, the Big Bang isn't "proven" --and never will be. Neither will our Theories of Chemistry, Physics, or any other science. However, the BB is amply supported by the available evidence. It is so amply supported that it is regarded as fact.

"What empirical data exists the proves simple amino acids became human beings?'

Phrasing your question that way makes it nonsensical. There is no scientific assertion of any type that I am aware of that says amino acids became human beings.

Abiogenesis seems to make the most sense base upon what we know, but there is no single theory of abiogenesis. On that basis, I don't know that it's accepted as fact by anyone familiar with science.

[Sal316]

119. I'm not confused, I'm just returning the logic.

Yes, there are theories which will never be proven. I get that. Understand that as a scientist, and a person of faith, I'm playing devil's advocate in some cases.

For another, "fact" in science differs from common usage. In science, ALL facts are provisional, subject to change, refinement, or replacement due to the acquisition of new information. That is the strength of the Scientific Method.

So you're saying that the universe is constant, it's only our understanding that changes.

Interesting. One wonders why the same leeway isn't given to matters of faith.

"What empirical data exists the proves simple amino acids became human beings?' Phrasing your question that way makes it nonsensical.

If so, then it's just as nonsensical as asking "What empirical data exists that proves the existence of God?"

There is no scientific assertion of any type that I am aware of that says amino acids became human beings.

Miller-Urey in 1953 showed that simple amino acids are easily formed from a combination of ammonia, methane, water, and hydrogen...the things of primordial Earth.

This is expanded into "The origins of life required only organic molecules, water, and, most importantly, millions of years to develop." This is a statement proffered by atheists, including David Mills in his book "Atheist Universe - The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism" (emphasis his) You know what scientists call this sort of theory? TAMO - Then A Miracle Occurs.

There are currently a number of theories in abiogenesis to explain the origins of life, yet not a single one has been able to synthesize a protocell.

On that basis, I don't know that it's accepted as fact by anyone familiar with science.

Don't tell that to researchers working @ Harvard, LANL, or even the Genome project. You know scientists can be awfully sensitive about their work.

Like I've said all along, it takes faith to be a scientist, particularly one researching the questions of life, the universe, and everything.

This demand for absolute empirical evidence of God is a hypocritical position.

[Birthmark]

127. Interesting answers.

"So you're saying that the universe is constant, it's only our understanding that changes."

Our understanding changes with acquisition of new information. I'm certainly not saying that the universe is constant, even assuming I knew what you meant by "constant."

"If so, then it's just as nonsensical as asking 'What empirical data exists that proves the existence of God?'"

How so? In the one case you are directly attributing human beings as a product of abiogenesis. We're not. We are the product of evolution. Evolution, of course, doesn't begin to function until *after* there is life. We do know that life began simply, no matter how it began. However, it wasn't inevitable that human beings would evolve.

In the other case, you are attributing the cause for everything (I'm guessing) to a phenomenon for which there is no verifiable and unambiguous evidence, no apparent necessity, and that allows one no firm basis for prediction.

There is no equivalence between the two statements.

"This is expanded into "The origins of life required only organic molecules, water, and, most importantly, millions of years to develop." This is a statement proffered by atheists, including David Mills in his book "Atheist Universe - The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism" (emphasis his) You know what scientists call this sort of theory? TAMO - Then A Miracle Occurs."

And you are right to point that out. Abiogenesis is probably a little better than faith since it is based on physical laws, but far from good enough to regard as a fact. Just because something makes logical sense, doesn't make it true. And that might well be the case for abiogenesis on Earth.


"There are currently a number of theories in abiogenesis to explain the origins of life, yet not a single one has been able to synthesize a protocell."

That is correct. For the record, suppose each and every one of those theories of abiogenesis is wrong. What would that indicate?

"Don't tell that to researchers working @ Harvard, LANL, or even the Genome project. You know scientists can be awfully sensitive about their work."

Being sensitive about their work is fine. It shows that they are committed. However, their commitment probably leads very, very few (if any) to regard abiogenesis as a fact - a likelihood, perhaps, but not a fact.

"Like I've said all along, it takes faith to be a scientist, particularly one researching the questions of life, the universe, and everything."

It takes zero faith at all in the sense that you mean. The only "faith" it takes is that the universe is knowable. That "faith" is well founded given the track record of science in wresting knowledge from the universe over the course of the last 400 years or so.

"This demand for absolute empirical evidence of God is a hypocritical position."

In some cases, you are correct. You've already provided Mills as an example. I agree, he's a hypocrite.

But that doesn't make the request universally hypocritical, just the people who inconsistently apply a standard.

[ironbark]

159. I’m confused.

Two years ago I posted here how my dear old dad used to laugh at the proposition of science creating life from chemical primordial soup in the lab. The proposition at the time (1960’s) was that conscious deliberate scientific effort in controlled lab conditions would reduce natures random “millions of years to develop” down to a decade or so.

I wondered in my post if science had cracked the creation of life from constituent components and was advised that they had indeed done so.

“…yet not a single one has been able to synthesize a protocell.”

Sooooo…..a protocell would constitute ‘life’? and life hasn’t been synthesized yet?

[Bill McBlueState]

235. "science has yet to empirically prove out the Big Bang"

What do you conclude from the observation that distant galaxies are all receding from us, and that their observed recession velocity is proportional to their distance?

[PeaceNikki]

7. Nobody really defines what god is, so talking about the existence of god is fraught with issues.

Some good old-fashioned biblical miracles would certainly be a good start.

If somebody can walk on water, raise the dead, multiple loaves and fishes, or part a sea, I think that would be a pretty good indication of something extraordinary happening.

For some reason, you don’t see contemporary accounts of such occurences…

You do realize that if absolute proof was available, substantial enough for atheists, as well for religious believers in competing gods, to accept the existence of the Christian god – not necessarily to worship it or to refrain from asking who made it – the need for religious faith, that is, your very own, would go poof? It may turn out to be a case that you would be sorry for what you wished.

From: http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/482-what-would-count-as-absolute-proof-that-god-exists

[Taverner]

19. Yes, what she said

...

[Sal316]

28. Would you have to see these things first hand?

Or would the testimony of witnesses be enough?

As for your second assertion, I don't believe that if there was proof that faith would "go poof". Faith is so much more than believing in the existence of something....it's a way of life, really.

Yes, I know there are some out there whose version of Christianity is morally and ethically repugnant... just as there are with any ideology, there's an ass for every seat.

Being able to distill out those types is essential...being able to distinguish those who truly have faith from those who abuse the faith of others in the name of power or politics is essential.

[trotsky]

9. To wake up tomorrow morning and find...

that every single human being (believers of all religions and non-believers) had perfect knowledge of what god is and how it should be worshiped/followed/etc. No more religious wars, disagreements, etc.

Simple. For a god, that is.

[Sal316]

36. Perfection is an unrealistic ideal.

Perfect knowledge is an attribute of God.

Then where would free will be? If we had perfect knowledge like that, then how could we truly love?

True love is freely given...

[heidler1]

54. To me, so called free will does not exist in real life.

Humans do what their hormones, desires, taste and capabilities dictate just like all of the other animals sometimes smarter sometimes more foolish. The concept of free will was made part of the dogma to plug a hole in the previous dogma some Atheist noticed early on.

[trotsky]

57. !

The concept of free will was made part of the dogma to plug a hole in the previous dogma some Atheist noticed early on.

Nail on head.

[Sal316]

69. So we really don't have choices?

We're driven simply by hormones, desires, taste and capabilities?

Desires and tastes subjective, meaning one choice is preferable to another. It is not objective.

Also, if we're simply driven by hormones and instinct, then are we any more evolved than any other lifeform?

[uberllama42]

75. We're not "more evolved." That term is pure chauvinism

We have more complex cognitive abilities than any other species. It's not surprising that so many people set that up as the criterion for being somehow "more evolved," but there is no good reason to consider larger brains or more brain capacity the metric by which we measure successful evolution. The fact of the matter is that more complex brains are not always adaptive.

Parasites, for instance, often evolve to become less complex, including in their cognitive abilities. If the environmental conditions dictate that a simpler organism can better propagate its genes than a complex one, then a simpler organism is better adapted. It's not really "more evolved," but it will prevail.

Just because we have more complex brains than a horse or a dog or a termite doesn't make us "more evolved."

[trotsky]

56. Not perfection, just perfect knowledge of your god.

Put the word "perfect" aside if you wish, it's not necessary to my point.

I see that you've already started restricting what evidence is allowed. Didn't you ask atheists what evidence they would accept? And somehow "free will" prevents any real knowledge of your god? Your bible says that lots of people spoke with your god personally - did he violate their free will when he did so? Did they still love him after? If not, then why can't he do the same thing with every person on earth?

[Betty Karlson]

110. A Good Question deserves an answer form Luther.

In "De servio arbitrio" Luther explores the relationship between free will and God's involvement with our system of belief.

And while it was intimated that "free will prevents any real knowledge of God", Luther rather entertains the reverse thought: that knowledge of God is a prerequisite for a free will.

Luther's theories boil down to this (needless to say my summary is far from complete; Dr Akerboom's summary of 60 pages is just too large to be posted here):

We are all born in a state of sin. Please note that this is a preliminary idea that Luther doesn't work out. Please note as well that all philosophies have preliminaries.
This sin enslaves our will.
When God, in any way He deems fit, involves himself in our lives, He hands us the free will to henceforth choose between good and evil. This does not limit our choice, but rather - and for the first time so - gives us a real choice.

If God does not reveal Himself to all, right here and right now, it is because God is not a circus act or a lab pet. The atheist's position of "reveal yourself now or else" is rather disrepectful, don't you agree? That's like a police officer yelling to a Professor of Law: "GET OUT OF YOUR OWN HOUSE BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE YOU BELONG THERE!"

- What will you do when God says: "No"? Arrest Him for disorderly conduct? Label Him an uppity deity?

[trotsky]

112. Where's the answer in all that?

knowledge of God is a prerequisite for a free will

Then why do all the people on earth who presumably have free will not agree on what "god" is?

We are all born in a state of sin.

Proof of this? Oh yeah, the whole "Adam sinned so everyone born since then deserves to suffer eternally in hell" thing.

Please note that this is a preliminary idea that Luther doesn't work out.

No kidding. Neither has anyone else.

This sin enslaves our will.

I thought free will was inviolable?

When God, in any way He deems fit, involves himself in our lives, He hands us the free will to henceforth choose between good and evil.

So, why can't your god appear as a talking burning bush to everyone on earth? Why did he only do this for Moses?

The atheist's position of "reveal yourself now or else" is rather disrepectful, don't you agree?

No, I don't agree. By revealing itself, god could instantly end ALL religious conflict and strife. Your bible shows that it can reveal itself to humans without violating their free will. So why won't it do that for everyone? Does it ENJOY the violence and struggle over conflicting opinions of its nature? I think it's disrespectful to be able to put a stop to wholly unnecessary bloodshed, but refuse. Certainly a tad more disrespectful than asking for something that could easily do this, to do it. :sarcasm:

[Betty Karlson]

114. Easy on the sarcasm, Sir.

First of all, while there is no definite agreement on who God is, there is quite some general consensus. In that way, theology is much like other sciences - after all, just because we can't explain the inner workings of black holes does not mean we don't have to reckon with their existence, or don't know what they do, roughly speaking.

That we are born in a state of sin can be proven beyond Adam. Babies are completely selfish and have no concept of anything else than their own needs, at the time they are born. In adults, such an attitude would count as anti-social. In Christian terms: sinfull.

If you want worked out theories on Sin, you are advised that there is a whole section of theology devoted to that.

Free will inviolable? Certainly, but only after it has been given. As long as the will is bound to sin, there is no real freedom.

I do not know why God has stopped speaking through burning bushes. If the matter is of importance to you, wht don't you ask Him? Genarally speaking though, I surmise that miracles would be invalidated if they became a daily practice. And maybe today's population is just too advanced to still be moved by foleage on fire, and God hence decided not to do that kind of miracle again.

As for your criticism that God did nothing to prevent bloodshed:

* He commanded THOU SHALT NOT KILL. Exactly where did he fail to speak out against murder and war?
* He came to earth, in person, and told us again to turn the other cheek.

The concept of free will is that we can choose between good and evil. That doesn't take away we can still choose evil over good, war over peace, blasphemy over piety. It just means we are no longer bound to choose evil, war, and blasphemy. What you want is a God who takes away our free will, who takes away our individuality, who - like Trotsky - forces people to comply to his ideology.

Have you ever considered why so many people died when Trotsky held power in Russia? Could it be that using force is precisely what sheds all that blood? Could it be that God considered force, and discarded it, tried it in person, as was discarded, and now gives humanity some more time, because He knows we will get there, eventually?

This, of course, is mere theorising. It's just that I fail to support forced opinions.

[trotsky]

117. But I like sarcasm!

Especially when confronted with back-of-the-cereal-box theology.

First of all, while there is no definite agreement on who God is, there is quite some general consensus.

This is incredible news. What would that consensus be? To start:
1) How many gods are there? (You can start small with this, and just show that all Christians agree on the notion of the trinity, etc. Later you can move up and reconcile Hinduism, etc.)
2) Was Jesus the Son of God? (Would love to hear the consensus on that one.)
3) Does god intervene in the affairs of humans, or did he only set the universe in motion and then step back?

Any idea of "general consensus" should at least include those 3. I await your response on that.

Babies are completely selfish and have no concept of anything else than their own needs, at the time they are born.

They are also lacking the mental faculties to even understand the concept of something other than "self." What kind of disturbing game are you playing, trying to BLAME infants for being "selfish"?!?

As long as the will is bound to sin, there is no real freedom.

So there is free will, but there really isn't. Glad you could clear that up.

As for your criticism that God did nothing to prevent bloodshed:

* He commanded THOU SHALT NOT KILL. Exactly where did he fail to speak out against murder and war?
* He came to earth, in person, and told us again to turn the other cheek.

This one is so laughable it's really hard to take you seriously.

First off, you gotta go back to that consensus thing. More people on earth DISAGREE with your theology here than agree with it. They don't believe what you say is true. They don't necessarily believe your bible is true. Thus anything you point to in the bible is really no different than bald assertion.

(Oh and as to when he failed to speak out against murder and war? Presumably those countless times, as documented in the OT, where he ORDERED it.)

What you want is a God who takes away our free will, who takes away our individuality, who - like Trotsky - forces people to comply to his ideology.

Nope, not at all. And the fact that you are trying to misrepresent what I'm saying indicates that you really don't understand the question. Did your god FORCE Moses, Noah, David, Paul, and all the other biblical figures who directly interacted with him, to comply to his ideology? Please answer that question.

Have you ever considered why so many people died when Trotsky held power in Russia?

My username has nothing to do with the historical Trotsky. Not a fan of the guy. Swing and a miss.

It's just that I fail to support forced opinions.

I fail to support them too. Good thing the subject has nothing at all to do with forcing anything on anyone. You are sadly mistaken by insisting that it does. Just answer the question: Did your god FORCE an opinion on any of the biblical characters who directly interacted with him?

[rd_kent]

136. Again, you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

"That we are born in a state of sin can be proven beyond Adam. Babies are completely selfish and have no concept of anything else than their own needs, at the time they are born. In adults, such an attitude would count as anti-social. In Christian terms: sinfull."

Assuming that god created man, then god MADE babies that way. Why would he create something out of sin? Knowing that god didnt create man, babies are born helpless because they are..ready for it?.....BABIES. They are not selfish, they are helpless, and need help to survive. And beside, YOUR religion made up sin and its definition. Why should I abide by that definition?

"First of all, while there is no definite agreement on who God is, there is quite some general consensus." Really, what is this general consensus? Sure, you believers have a general consensus, but you assume that everyone else has the same consensus too. WRONG!


"As for your criticism that God did nothing to prevent bloodshed:

* He commanded THOU SHALT NOT KILL. Exactly where did he fail to speak out against murder and war?
* He came to earth, in person, and told us again to turn the other cheek."

Uh, yeah. Just one small problem. The CRUSADES! Guess the xtians at that time didnt take the word of god too seriously, huh?

Take your drivel back to church. I'm done with you.

[Betty Karlson]

143. You make this personal in an insulting way

If this is the tone you deem worthy of a debate, I suggest we better avoid contact.

[rd_kent]

150. Sure, go ahead and avoid the questions that refute your claims.

THATS the way to win a debate. I am under no obligation to change my "tone", especially when you are debating what I consider to be a fairy tale with me. This is an adult board, grow a thick skin and lets debate. I am not making this personal, I dont even know you, but I am passionate about the subject. Sorry, if you feel I am disrespectful, but thats not my intention, so let that go and lets talk about this.

Ignoring my "tone", what say you about my first response to your post?

[Betty Karlson]

163. "I'll flush your religion down the toilet"

How is this a refute? No sir, it is a waste of my time, as another respondent rightly pointed out.

[rd_kent]

201. C'mon! If youre gonna quote me, get the quote right, betty.

I respect you and your opinion. I am under no obligation to do the same for your religion, sorry. As I stated in the post you "quoted" from, when your religion respects me, I will respect your religion.

[Betty Karlson]

204. I will not put your tone aside, for there lies the core of our dispute

Your original words were: "Take your drivel back to church."

When was the word 'drivel' an articulate refute, Mr Red_Kent?

However < editing here > "I have got respect for your religion right here; watch as I flush it down the toilet", was a quote from Mr Trotsky, not from you.

You say you want respect from my religion. But respect, Mr Rd_Kent, is something that must be deserved. Acceptence of your existence, certainly, is the least Calvinism can do. Tolerating your opinion? Definitely an option. Understanding your position? - I'll try to.

But not respect. One of the most infuriating statements I have ever read was from a Dutch Muslem leader. In a nationally published interview, he stated: "You Dutch people should just respect that we Muslems don't accept homosexuals."

Apart from the notion that he wrongly surmised that Muslems are no part of the Dutch people - he juxtaposed the two groups - he made entirely the wrong demand. Because, while it can be accepted that Muslems don't respect gay people, the reverse (respecting that Muslems don't even accept gay people) goes against common decency AND against the instinctive feeling that respect must be deserved.

To transpose this analogy to the issue at hand, I would like to ask of you Mr Rd_Kent: do you fail to respect my religion, do you fail to tolerate it, do you fail to understand it? Do you fail on all three counts? Or do you just not accept it? Be honest!
For my next question would be: what is it, that you want Calvinists to respect?

[rd_kent]

206. Wow, you went all deep on me, and still managed to screw it up

First of all, I'm not trotsky. FAIL!

Second, I respect the right of individuals to practice whatever religion gets them through the day. I ask for that same respect back. IOW, keep your religion out of MY life and I will keep out of yours. The problem lies where religion tries to make the jump into the public forum, for example:
- Trying to pass laws based on scripture, or some twisted translation of it, in an effort to legislate morality.
- Trying to make prayer part of the public school system, or part of public meetings.
- Harrassing me, at my own home, uninvited
These are just a few examples of what I see as a lack of repect for MY rights. You will never hear me say that I oppose your right to do what you want, so stop trying to interfere with what I want to do (and by "you", I mean religious people) You stated "You say you want respect from my religion. But respect, Mr Trotsky, is something that must be deserved". Perhaps you should take your own advice.

[Betty Karlson]

207. I do apologise for the confusion

and I will correct the name I incorrectly attributed to you.

Now, let's tackle those issues of yours, and see if you can not just accept but even respect my positions.

You object to religions jumping into public forums. As examples you cite laws based on scriptures, prayer in public meetings, and harrassment in your home. I'm afraid that last example is rather vague, and I have difficulty to understand what you allude to.

As for the other two exaples:

* to what extent are you obliged to partake in the prayers? It would seem rather silly to me that 900 people have to be silent about their religion for the sake of one person who does not share it. Looking for a middle-fround, a compromise here, might help.

* Define scriptures. If laws are based on the Genovian declaration of human rights - which also express commonly held beliefs - does that constitute laws vbased on scriptures? Would Mr Jefferson's notes count as scriptures? Would Mr Kant's work be disqualified as the basis for laws because he had studied theology? What would be the criterium to disqualify a scripture as the basis for a law. I am afraid that criterium would be - and always will be - the majority vote, which can only be undone by majority votes at a higher government level and judiciary oversight over vote-changing procedures. I am not asking this to defend the people who want to conform your life to their exegesis of the Bible, but to ask you how you propose to change things.

If you merely mean to state that religious people should show restraint in their legislative efforts, we couldn't agree more. Doesn't it say in Ecclesiastes: "Do not be too righteous"?

[rd_kent]

212. Thanks for the opportunity to respond

As far as my home goes, I feel I should be able to not have people come to my door and preach their religion or try to convert me, unless first invited. If I want to know more about religion, I will go to your church. Lets keep it there.

"* to what extent are you obliged to partake in the prayers? It would seem rather silly to me that 900 people have to be silent about their religion for the sake of one person who does not share it. Looking for a middle-fround, a compromise here, might help."
Well, that part in the Constitution about separation of church and state is the compromise. If state business is being conducted, then religion should be no part of it. If 900 people want to be vocal about their religion at a state function, then so should the other who disagree with it. If that were the case, nothing would get done. Its like the nativity scene in a capitol building. If we are going to allow one religious display, then we have to allow all religious displays. In my state of Washington just this past year, atheists put up a simple display with what they feel is an appropriate xmas display. People went nuts. Read up on it, its fascinating. No, I don't know that there IS a compromise to be had on this subject. Religion does not belong in government, period.

"* Define scriptures." OK, the bible, the koran, the book of mormon, etc... I think that the term is self explanatory, and to try and expand its meaning beyond what point I am trying to make will only cloud the argument.

[Why Syzygy]

152. Choose your battles carefully.

Many un-believers here will do nothing more than waste your time. Belligerently.
A few are worthy of intelligent debate.

[Betty Karlson]

164. Too true.

I'll take your warning to heart, and bide by your advice. Thank you.

[Why Syzygy]

165. And, welcome to DU!

:hi:

[rd_kent]

173. Im not an "un-believer" for starters

And I will not waste her time, but I will be belligerent when confronted with nonsense.

[rd_kent]

202. I hope you are not including me in there.

If so, you have mistaken me.

[Betty Karlson]

208. Nope. You are as yet excluded.

I hold people to be worthy of my time until proven otherwise.

[Why Syzygy]

210. By their works you shall know them.

You admitted that you resort to belligerence. My statement includes anyone who has no regard for the feelings of other human beings. Belligerence might trigger someone with PTSD, for example. Is that okay just so someone can defend their position? There ARE those at DU who have proven beyond doubt that they care less than none for anyone else's well being. They are on Ignore. I choose not to engage with those who lack a moral regard for others. They are a waste of time and inner resources. A self admitted belligerent attitude might indicate that; and it might not.

[trotsky]

214. "My statement includes anyone who has no regard for the feelings of other human beings."

I still remember the terribly, nasty post from you dredging up what another DUer had said in confidence in the Addiction/Recovery group.

Talk about disregard for the feelings of other human beings. Lucky for you the post was deleted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=200934#201834

[rd_kent]

218. Correct: it might not.

[uberllama42]

193. What an abhorrent doctrine

The state of dependency in infants is sinful? Assigning moral culpability to a being that could not conceivably know better than to care only for its own needs is, frankly, disgusting.

If Christianity detects no moral difference between a newborn which has no ability to understand the world around it, much less provide materially for its own needs, and an egotistical and manipulative adult, then Christianity even more ludicrous than I thought. A conscious and intelligent adult that had absolutely no concern for anyone else would be considered a sociopath. An infant is not considered a sociopath because there are very meaningful differences between an adult and an infant. An infant is biologically, socially and morally justified in its concern for its own needs, not least because it is incapable of perceiving the world in any other way. The thought that there is some similitude between an infant and a sociopath is repugnant.

[Betty Karlson]

205. While I understand your anger, I do not share your point of view

There is something called developement psychology.
There is also something called pervasive disorders.
And then there is something called grades.

The similitude between a child and an adult is - of course - only at a given point in time. The child is expected to develope still, while the sociopath can only be taught to work around his disorder at best.

But at that given point of time, the perceptions of sociopath and child are broadly the same. If you can show me the bright reverse, feel free to do so.

It should also be noted that sociopathy and a child's dependence can vary and exist in many grades. Psychology is withdrawing from the all-or-nothing view.

Lastly, and most importantly, I showed one theory from a noted Christian theologian. Surely I don't have to explain that Christianity revolves NOT around Luther but around Jesus, who spoke: "Let all children come to me", who cured anti-social behaviour disorders? Surely I don't have to point out that other theologians and religious psychologists have done some work on "become like unto a child". Surely we can agree that Christianity's aproach to children is broader that one treatise that mainly focused on the free will?

[trotsky]

215. Your theology is utterly repulsive.

Calling infants selfish.

Comparing children to psychopaths.

Welcome to DU, glad to have you here spreading the WORST of what Christianity has to offer.

[Betty Karlson]

216. There is a difference between theology and psychology.

Can you please distinguish between the various things I bring up in this subject? I'm sure I articulate them.

I also pointed out that Mr Luther's thesis touched mainly the subject of the free will, just as I pointed out a few more points of marked importance to the distinction between children and people with a pervasive disorder.

This accusation is without merit.

[trotsky]

217. You blame infants for being "selfish".

You imply that children are no different than psychopaths.

You do all this to SUPPORT your theology, that we're born with "original sin" and deserve hell.

Your theology is foul, disgusting, pathetic, and utterly reprehensible.

[rd_kent]

133. That has got to be the STUPIDEST analogy I have ever read!

"If God does not reveal Himself to all, right here and right now, it is because God is not a circus act or a lab pet. The atheist's position of "reveal yourself now or else" is rather disrepectful, don't you agree? That's like a police officer yelling to a Professor of Law: "GET OUT OF YOUR OWN HOUSE BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE YOU BELONG THERE!"

Heres the deal, no atheist has said "reveal yourself now or else" What has been said is "until you reveal yourself, I will not believe in you." How you tied that to the Crowley thing, I have no idea.

Respectful? I have respect for your religion right here, watch it as I flush it down the toilet. When your religion respects ME, then I will respect it.

Have a nice day.

[Sal316]

130. So your proof is....

..that you wake up in the morning and everyone on the planet thinks the same, knows the same, believes the same.... really?

I see that you've already started restricting what evidence is allowed.

No, I'm not.

And somehow "free will" prevents any real knowledge of your god?

That's not what I said....nice strawman, though. I like the shift from "perfect" to "real"...nice tactic.

Your bible says that lots of people spoke with your god personally - did he violate their free will when he did so?

Uhhh..no.

Did they still love him after?

Most of the times, yes.

...then why can't he do the same thing with every person on earth?

I love the selfishness displayed in this thread. The demand is for God to come down and dance like a monkey for the doubting/unbelieving monkey grinder.

Funny, really.

[trotsky]

132. You have directly contradicted yourself.

...then why can't he do the same thing with every person on earth?

I love the selfishness displayed in this thread. The demand is for God to come down and dance like a monkey for the doubting/unbelieving monkey grinder.

You said that your god can't give us direct knowledge of itself because that would violate our free will.

But you admitted that the people who DID get direct knowledge of your god (as told in your bible) did not have their free will violated.

My question then is, why can't he do this for everyone?

You respond with a complete and total non sequitur attacking the "selfishness" of asking that your god do something that it has readily done in the past, and which you admit didn't violate any free will, but which would instantly end all religious strife and violence.

I love, love, love how you simply cannot answer this. Twistin' in the wind! :rofl:

[ironbark]

141. As I understand it

The “people who DID get direct knowledge” of god fall into a couple of categories- Prophets and Manifestations.

A prophet is one to whom and through whom god speaks. In the case of Moses (a stutterer once accused of murder) he did not want the job, felt no one would listen/believe, was persuaded to take up the task.

A Manifestation of god would be one whom god does not speak ‘to’ and ‘through’ but ‘from’…Jesus.

If gods intent is to maintain maximum free will for humanity then vehicles such as prophets/ manifestations (once in an era) provide a reasonable means of communication with humanity with minimal interference in free will. There remains, for humanity at large, free will and room to move between the polls of disbelief and belief.

As to the free will of the prophets/manifestations I know of none who were not already pious seekers after god prior to god giving them a job.

No breach of free will for those bare minimum individuals scattered through history who >sought< service of god and were chosen/anointed. There is no account of god taking an atheist by the scruff of the neck and forcing him against his will to be a messenger.

“…why can't he do the same thing with every person on earth?”

Because not “every person” wants it!...and to impose it on all humanity eliminates their freedom to learn, grow, evolve, choose.

“Wake up in morning and find “every single human being (believers of all religions and non-believers) had perfect knowledge of what god is and how it should be worshiped/followed/etc.”

No! No! Hell No!....I don’t want that, you might but I don’t, and everyone on the board wants/expects something else/different. Satisfaction of your expectation means a violation of my free will to choose and the elimination of humanities free will to choose. No thanks.
What you advocate as ‘evidence’ of god strikes me as a violation, something akin to psychic rape. A being getting into my head/all our heads while we sleep and making us all believe/know the same thing!?
Every single human being knowing “what god is and how it should be worshiped/followed” ?
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

I enjoy godless heathens, atheists, scientologists from a distance, sweet satanic goths, ranting Urantians and frightening the Mormons/Witnesses by inviting them in for a cup of tea when everyone else has slammed the door.

Please don’t advocate the elimination of all this diverse fun and free will…..god might be listening.
(And please don’t do your premature “Twistin' in the wind! ” victory dance until you have taken the time/energy/logical caress to satisfy the point/argument ;-)

[Sal316]

147. I said no such thing..

You said that your god can't give us direct knowledge of itself because that would violate our free will.

No, that's not what I said.

That dealt with the FIRST iteration of your argument, perfect knowledge, not the subsequent 2 iterations.

Nice try, tho.

But you admitted that the people who DID get direct knowledge of your god (as told in your bible) did not have their free will violated. My question then is, why can't he do this for everyone?

I have direct knowledge of God, in how he's been revealed to me in my life. I could give two sheets whether or not you believe it... my knowledge is direct. There are millions and millions of other believers who will tell you the same thing.

Of course, you'll deny it because YOU didn't see it even though these people having direct knowledge of God meets your criteria for proving the existence of God.

...and, yes, it is selfishness. Along with the "end all religious strife and violence" argument. It's like Mills' argument that Jesus was a fraud because he didn't get rid of cancer. It's a myopic and intellectually immature viewpoint.

How would you know hot without cold?

How would you know light without dark?

How would you know love and compassion without hate and indifference?

The argument that if God existed bad stuff wouldn't happen is, quite honestly, crap. Why? Because we view these things through our own limited viewpoints, and usually as singular events.

Who is to say that removal of the "bad" or "evil" event/person wouldn't have resulted in something worse coming along? What would happen to all the good that eventually comes out of these events? That'd be wiped away, too.

But, you don't believe that we really have the ability to choose anything...we're all hormones and instinct.... right?

[trotsky]

149. And now you change the subject.

You really have no answer for this very simple question. Of course I wasn't expecting one, because almost 2000 years of Christian apologetics have resulted in exactly zip.

I have direct knowledge of God, in how he's been revealed to me in my life. I could give two sheets whether or not you believe it... my knowledge is direct. There are millions and millions of other believers who will tell you the same thing.

Yeah, some of those believers include Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers. Others include Fred Phelps, George Bush, Pope Ratz, and Pat Robertson.

I know one thing - those believers sure as hell won't tell me the "same thing" as you do. And there is no - absolute ZERO - evidence indicating one of you is more right than the other. None whatsoever! You just try to out-scream each other, just as you have for thousands of years. Thank Koresh the rise of secularism prevents you from burning each other (and us heretics) anymore - well, at least for the most part.

So my central question gets even thornier - because if we accept what you have to say (that "millions" have direct knowledge of god), then it's not that your god just isn't saying anything, it's that s/he/it is willfully telling different people different things!

Do you worship Loki or something?

How would you know hot without cold?

How would you know light without dark?

How would you know love and compassion without hate and indifference?

Are there love and compassion in heaven? A stone-cold serious question. Do love and compassion exist in heaven?

The argument that if God existed bad stuff wouldn't happen is, quite honestly, crap.

Good thing that's not what I'm saying! Lovely strawman though.

But, you don't believe that we really have the ability to choose anything...we're all hormones and instinct.... right?

You have no idea what I believe, and I'm not letting you change the subject even more. You simply cannot answer complex questions about your theology, because it itself isn't that complex.

[Sal316]

151. Trying to debate with you....

....is like trying to nail water to a tree.

You really have no answer for this very simple question. Of course I wasn't expecting one, because almost 2000 years of Christian apologetics have resulted in exactly zip.

Says you.

Let's review, shall we?

You first said:

To wake up tomorrow morning and find...that every single human being (believers of all religions and non-believers) had perfect knowledge of what god is and how it should be worshiped/followed/etc. No more religious wars, disagreements, etc.

To which I countered that perfect knowledge is an attribute of God and was an unrealistic idea. I also said "Then where would free will be? If we had perfect knowledge like that, then how could we truly love? True love is freely given..."

Then heider1 said there's no such thing as free will, it just exists as a "concept that was made part of the dogma to plug a hole in the previous dogma some Atheist noticed early on." To which you replied: "Nail on head" Therefore we have now established, at least by analogy, that you do not believe in free will.

Then comes the first shift: "Put the word "perfect" aside if you wish, it's not necessary to my point....And somehow "free will" prevents any real knowledge of your god?"

Nowhere in the conversation to this point did I claim free will prevents real knowledge. This is an argument fabricated out of whole cloth by you....and the point you will hang on to like a chihuahua on a pork chop.

Here comes shift #2: "You said that your god can't give us direct knowledge of itself because that would violate our free will."

Again, that was never claimed by me. That's a position you made up for me. And it is made up because you start the sentence with "you said", which I never did.

Then ironbark comes in and delivers another blow to your position of your demand that everybody know/believe/worship the same by explaining, yet, again, that it is your definition of evidence the violates free will, not vice versa.

So, sticking to the third iteration of your argument, direct knowledge, then we can say this requirement is easily met. Knowing what was bound to come next, I said: "Of course, you'll deny it because YOU didn't see it even though these people having direct knowledge of God meets your criteria for proving the existence of God."

...and you didn't disappoint, throwing in a bit of melodramatics just for good measure:

"Yeah, some of those believers include Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers. Others include Fred Phelps, George Bush, Pope Ratz, and Pat Robertson. I know one thing - those believers sure as hell won't tell me the "same thing" as you do. And there is no - absolute ZERO - evidence indicating one of you is more right than the other. None whatsoever! You just try to out-scream each other, just as you have for thousands of years.

....and now position #3: So my central question gets even thornier - because if we accept what you have to say (that "millions" have direct knowledge of god), then it's not that your god just isn't saying anything, it's that s/he/it is willfully telling different people different things!

You were the one who shifted to direct knowledge, and then reneged on your position.

Let me ask you this. Is it God saying different things, or is it our interpretation of what God is saying? Is is possible to understand perfectly what God is saying? Even the OT prophets got it wrong on occasion, and they were pious men chosen by God.

Again, you're essentially assuming humanity as perfection in understanding and God as the responsible one.

Have you ever misinterpreted what someone said to you? If you haven't, then you're far better than all of humanity.

Tell you what.... when you pick a position and decide to stick with it, let me know.

[trotsky]

161. It works with an ice cube!

Since now you have no arguments, only whining, I'll give you exactly what you want so you have no more excuses for your arm-flailing and complaining that my questions are too hard for your children's sermon theology. Let's go back to the beginning.

I would accept as proof of "god" just what I asked for in my initial post:

To wake up tomorrow morning and find...that every single human being (believers of all religions and non-believers) had perfect knowledge of what god is and how it should be worshiped/followed/etc. No more religious wars, disagreements, etc.

You're frustrated because you have no answers. I totally understand. None of your theological predecessors have been able to manage it either - otherwise they would have convinced the rest of us long ago.

Have you ever misinterpreted what someone said to you? If you haven't, then you're far better than all of humanity.

But I'm just a human being. And the person I misinterpreted could step in and clarify. Your god apparently chooses not to. For what reason, you (or any of the thousands of apologists who came before you) simply have no idea, and instead, you attack the heretic. Back in the old days, I'd have been burned at the stake. Today, you only get to sputter and whine on a discussion board.

I love secularism.

Ooh, and on edit: I'd really like an answer to my question as to where there are love & compassion in heaven. Chew on that doozy, although I fully expect you'll respond with childish attacks on me rather than even trying to address it.

[ironbark]

176. Auwh…Come on Trots

Your respondent/opponent has given you a blow by blow account (with substantiating links) of every side step and evasion you have taken….and all you’ve got is “Since now you have no arguments” …!?

Immediately followed by a So You Think You Can Dance side step loop back to the very beginning and the advocacy of some form of global psychic rape while we sleep-

“To wake up tomorrow morning and find...that every single human being (believers of all religions and non-believers) had perfect knowledge of what god is and how it should be worshiped/followed”

I say again louder- NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

That aint ‘evidence’ Trotsky….that’s the final solution to any thing that even resembles choice, free will, reason, growth/evolution, individuality and diversity.

I like the wannabie Satanist/goth, the ranting Urantian and even the loopy bouncing Tom Cruise…I don’t want their harmless and fascinating diversity eliminated in some psychic compulsory acquisition of their/my right to work things out for themselves with the reason and evidence available.

What you advocate as evidence I hold to be a B grade horror show.

[Sal316]

192. Ok, so let me get this straight.

I would accept as proof of "god" just what I asked for in my initial post:

To wake up tomorrow morning and find...that every single human being (believers of all religions and non-believers) had perfect knowledge of what god is and how it should be worshiped/followed/etc. No more religious wars, disagreements, etc.

So, we're back to your FIRST position, where everyone who undeniably know who God was, how he was to be worshiped, how he was to be followed, and there would be no more wars, disagreements, etc?

So....

......what you want for proof is, essentially, the 2nd Coming.

Thanks for playing.

Please, just be honest and say you don't believe there is a God and no evidence will ever be sufficient for you to think otherwise.

That, I can respect.

[trotsky]

197. Well, you had the problem with the terminology.

Don't whine when I try to accommodate you.

......what you want for proof is, essentially, the 2nd Coming.

Uh, why is that necessarily the only thing that would satisfy my request? We've been through this before. If we accept certain stories in the bible at face value, your god has appeared and revealed himself to a number of people, giving them quite clear instructions on how we should behave, what we should do, and how we should worship it. Noah, Moses, Paul, just to name 3. (And just to give you a NT character so you can't play the tired "B-b-b-but that was the Old Testament, it doesn't count!" card.)

Please, just be honest and say you don't believe there is a God and no evidence will ever be sufficient for you to think otherwise.

You asked for what evidence it would take to convince me of the existence of a god. I gave you it. Apparently it's too tall of a task for your god to accomplish, even though it's done precisely that in the past (if the bible is true). And why can't it do that? Well, by golly, you said it can't! All you've done this entire thread when atheists have sincerely told you the evidence they would require to believe is to shoot them down, dismissing their requests without even the slightest intellectual justification. Just your say-so.

And you still wonder why people who value their reason and intellect can't bring themselves to believe in your god? What a mystery! :eyes:

[Sal316]

200. Your using 3 different arguments doesn't mean...

..that I have a problem with terminology. It means YOU can't pick a single position and stick with it.

Uh, why is that necessarily the only thing that would satisfy my request?

Because if your demand for perfect knowledge were met, and everyone, everywhere: knew who God was, knew how to worship God, knew how to follow God, with no more disagreements or fights or wars, then that's essentially what you described.

If we accept certain stories in the bible at face value, your god has appeared and revealed himself to a number of people, giving them quite clear instructions on how we should behave, what we should do, and how we should worship it. Noah, Moses, Paul, just to name 3.

Yes, and our knowledge isn't perfect because people can still choose not to or fight over details, etc. Paul mentioned this repeatedly in his letters, that these fights over 'trivial matters' shouldn't divide the church.

You asked for what evidence it would take to convince me of the existence of a god. I gave you it.

Which one of the 3 positions are you talking about?

Apparently it's too tall of a task for your god to accomplish, even though it's done precisely that in the past (if the bible is true).

You just admitted that God gave quite clear instructions on "how we should behave, what we should do, and how we should worship it", why is that insufficient? Because it didn't come FedEx'd to you directly? I'll send you a copy, any translation you want.

And why can't it do that? Well, by golly, you said it can't!

Thanks for showing you do not understand what I'm saying.

All you've done this entire thread when atheists have sincerely told you the evidence they would require to believe is to shoot them down, dismissing their requests without even the slightest intellectual justification.

Ahh... you're a member of the Church of Atheism: A "religion" people join to appear smarter. Just because you can't, or won't, understand what I'm saying doesn't mean that I'm "dismissing their requests without even the slightest intellectual justification".

And you still wonder why people who value their reason and intellect can't bring themselves to believe in your god?

.....and here's the big finish. The "believers are stupid" argument. That's a position just as intellectually immature as the fundamentalists who think education is dangerous.

If you honestly think faith and reason are incompatible, then it's obvious that YOU don't value reason and intellect.

Again, thanks for playing.

[trotsky]

203. "...doesn't mean that I have a problem with terminology."

Sure it does. That was your original objection - my use of the word "perfect." Why are you rewriting history?

Because if your demand for perfect knowledge were met, and everyone, everywhere: knew who God was, knew how to worship God, knew how to follow God, with no more disagreements or fights or wars, then that's essentially what you described.

But why is this necessarily so? You aren't offering any kind of explanation, just your unsupported assertion. I know that's par for the course in theology, but you wanted to know why atheists don't believe. This would be one big fat blinking reason.

Paul mentioned this repeatedly in his letters, that these fights over 'trivial matters' shouldn't divide the church.

This only further emphasizes my point. Paul knows, because he supposedly got direct revelation. He's trying to settle disagreements between "grunt" Christians whom god doesn't think are special enough to speak directly to. Paul allegedly knows full well what god wants, because he was told directly. Thus back to my question: why won't god do this for EVERYONE? It's like god enjoys starting a game of "telephone" and laughing at the violence and strife that ensues.

You just admitted that God gave quite clear instructions on "how we should behave, what we should do, and how we should worship it", why is that insufficient?

Because he didn't do that for EVERYONE, just a select few people. That's the whole freaking point! By sharing this info with EVERYONE, not just a couple of people (who then can go on to make mistakes in transmitting/translating it), it avoids the confusion that has led to such terrible bloodshed.

Ahh... you're a member of the Church of Atheism: A "religion" people join to appear smarter. Just because you can't, or won't, understand what I'm saying doesn't mean that I'm "dismissing their requests without even the slightest intellectual justification".

No, I'm not a member of your imaginary church that you created to soothe your obviously bruised ego from your debates with atheists. It isn't that I don't understand what you're saying - I understand it perfectly because I used to be a Christian, and swallowed those same answers uncritically at one time, just like you do now. But they aren't enough anymore. I need reasoning behind them. I need justification. You don't require that, so you are unable to provide either.

.....and here's the big finish. The "believers are stupid" argument. That's a position just as intellectually immature as the fundamentalists who think education is dangerous.

Or as intellectually immature as inventing a "Church of Atheism" with which to belittle the intelligence of atheists? When you set such a noble example, what can you possibly expect?

If you honestly think faith and reason are incompatible, then it's obvious that YOU don't value reason and intellect.

When you are ready to provide me with some actual reasoning, I'll be right here.

[trotsky]

93. Still no religious harmony in the world this morning.

Looks like your god doesn't exist after all.

[trotsky]

113. Still no religious harmony this morning either. n/t

[rd_kent]

131. You asked for what people would need as evidence of a god

and yet when people tell you what they would require, you fucking argue that what they require isnt really what they mean. Why not just accept that different people need to see different things, and if your god is real, that should be no problem for that god to provide that proof, whatever it is, to those different people.
You started a good thread and then pissed me off by arguing against what people said they would need. What the fuck are you really looking for here?

[Warpy]

11. I did a lot of acid in the 60s

but no gods ever turned up. It was most disappointing. You'd think that would be one occasion a god might feel it appropriate to put in an appearance. I did, however, understand what inspired the carvings on Gothic cathedrals.

The truth is that belief or lack of it is most likely hard wired. No skeptic is going to convince you that you're praying to air and no believer is going to be able to spout enough poetry to convince an atheist.

Perhaps instead of trying to figure out what would bring an atheist into the religious fold, you might want to concentrate on repairing the character flaw that causes you to want to force people to become what they are not.

Most atheists are reasonable people who give to charity and obey the speed limit. Chances are you know quite a few of them, although they'd never announce it to you.

It's time to grow some personal boundaries. Belief ends at the surface of your skin. Disbelief ends at the surface of mine.

[ironbark]

92. That’s because

god said don’t go messing with the tree of knowledge ;-)

See-
'The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross'

http://johnallegro.org/main/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=15&MMN_position=16:4

[county worker]

13. Isn't that begging the question? It seems to me you accept the premise that god exists and you

want to know how you can prove that premise to atheists.

You can't prove god exists. It is a matter of faith or belief.

You are making logical inferences like this:

If I can prove to an atheist that god exists,
Then atheists will believe in god.

Since the first premise is not true the next one is false.

[Sal316]

40. No, it's not.

Whether they believe in God or not is of no consequence to me....you know, that whole "free will" thing?

I do believe in and in the existence of God.

I just find the "no evidence" argument to be rather nebulous. I'm truly curious here.

[county worker]

73. Give me your proof of the existence of god. Take all the room and time you have.

You can't prove there is a god so you can't ask an atheist to accept a proof that doesn't and can't exist.

You believe in god is right.

[rd_kent]

137. How is that nebulous?

from dictionary.com

neb⋅u⋅lous –adjective
1. hazy, vague, indistinct, or confused: a nebulous recollection of the meeting; a nebulous distinction between pride and conceit.
2. cloudy or cloudlike.
3. of or resembling a nebula or nebulae; nebular.

There IS no evidence of god. What is nebulous about that?

[imdjh]

14. Are we arguing terminology?

People use "atheist" to include a broad spectrum of people who do not believe in the JCI or Hindu type manifestations of gods.

From their various comments we observe that most people in our lives who identify as atheist actually have a belief system which includes the notion that right and wrong transcend human existence and that the self endures beyond human form.

For all the word games Buddhists play, their belief system ultimately supports a belief in a heavenly existence and even a hierarchy in that existence.

The idea of god is actually somewhat logical. The traditional forms that idea takes are not.

[Meshuga]

15. An atheist could answer it with a question

Like, "What kind of evidence of Poseidon’s existence would you accept?"

Perhaps when Poseidon pokes your butt with his trident? :-)

But (in all seriousness now) why would you care to prove God's existence to atheists?

[Sal316]

45. I don't care to prove God's existence to atheists...

That's not the point of this.

I'm truly want to know what sort of "evidence" would be acceptable.

[rd_kent]

138. And yet when you are told what is acceptable

you argue that its not. What gives?

[enlightenment]

18. You're lumping.

As in any group, there are many stripes of unbelievers, just as there are many varieties of believers, and it is a matter of debate as to what one calls oneself within the larger group.

Technically, an atheist is without God; an agnostic is without knowledge (of God).

Some people prefer to use just the term atheist and place it on a continuum from weak to strong - weak being more similar to agnostic.

For myself, I don't quibble over semantics - but in light of your challenge ('man up'? Should I even be responding, since I'm not a man?) I thought I'd add my two cents.

To answer your question: from my perspective, if God landed on my lawn and introduced him/her/it self along with his/her/its CV and proof of 'godly powers', I'd probably accept it. Probably wouldn't be interested in joining the human sideshow called religion, but I'd accept the existence of God (and I realize that wasn't part of the question).

Of course, I feel the same way about extra-terrestrials.

At this point, however, there is 'no evidence' to convince me of either of those things, so until such time that there is, I'll continue being a content unbeliever.

[Sal316]

47. My premise is based on those that say....

....'there's no evidence for the existence of God'.

That's my focus group, you could say.

On your answer, you're basically saying you'd have to experience a personal revelation of God to accept existence? That seems to be the common denominator.

[enlightenment]

65. Not a 'revelation' as much as a physical proving.

Sorry, but the word revelation is loaded with religious meaning - a 'divine truth', etc. - so it's not my cuppa, really.

I did say that having God plop down on my lawn probably wouldn't have me buying into religion, but I guess I wasn't clear what I meant.
Having physical proof (seeing is believing, but I'd also want proof of the godlike nature of the being/thing/whatever that was on my lawn) does not imply that I'm going to believe it is worthy of worship or even divinity - just that it exists.

Does that make sense?

Recapping my convoluted and generally unclear explanation: Given sufficient physical proof, I could accept the existence of God. I seriously doubt anything could convince me to sincerely worship him/her/it.

I've always been stubborn about things like that . . . :)

[ingac70]

21. Physical evidence.

He literally has to come down, knock on my door, and hand me a business card.

[cyberswede]

38. bonus if he looks like George Burns n/t

[Sal316]

50. I prefer Morgan Freeman.

..anything to freak out the RW Fundies.

[Markus Of NY]

22. Atheist, or Agnostic??

I'm surprised that an Atheist would say something like that. That's more the response of an Agnostic who are kind of "on the fence" about the existence of God. Agnostics would want "proof" of God. I've always been under the impression that Atheists are firm believers in the statement, "God does not exist." As far as I know, Atheists are of the belief that ALL religions are mythology (in the lines of the Greek/Roman Gods & Goddesses of Mt. Olympus).

Being an Agnostic myself, my main "beef" with religions is that their holy scriptures are "interpretive" writings of what the writers believed were the actual words of God, but they're treated as finite fact and indisputable. That to me seems too "close minded". I also believe that as time goes on (if the human race lives that long), science will (a piece at a time) be able to explain everything in the Universe - which would probably put humans into the realm of gods themselves - but that probably would take a million years of research to have happen (hopefully, humans would evolve into better, more intelligent creatures by then!)

As far as what would constitute "proof" of God? That I think would be what each individual "disbeliever" would consider as proof. For myself, a great visible entity that could simultaneously be heard by every person on Earth, in their individual language and dialect, addressing the planet that he or she is the one true God and this is how he/she expects us to behave would be quite convincing to me.

If everyone on the planet saw that entity and heard the message, it would be hard to find anyone who could come up with a logical explanation to say it didn't happen, now would it? I mean, every person on the planet couldn't be simultaneously delusional at the exact same moment in time!

Considering all that God is supposed to be capable of: the creation of time, space, matter, life, and intelligence - basically the known Universe - something like what I described should be a cakewalk for a supreme being.

BTW: I think that God should not be addressed as "He" or "She". A God that has no equal, no other god/goddess in existence, has no beginning or end, and is the supreme all of existence, time and space, I don't believe would have a gender. God would, therefore, be an "It". Assigning a gender to God would mean that there would be the possibility of another God of the opposite gender and that said God could mate and create other supreme beings. Plus, I don't think a supreme being would have a form - so the concept of God creating humans "in his own image" is silly in my thinking. I don't think a true supreme being would be confined to a "form". God would have to be formless - an entity of pure energy and thought.

Okay, I'm going off on a tangent here! I'll stop now. ^.^

[ContinentalOp]

87. I think your definition of agnostic vs. atheist is incorrect.

An atheist says God doesn't exist because there is no proof of god. If proof suddenly surfaced we could change our minds. An agnostic says that the answer is fundamentally unknowable. That doesn't mean that an agnostic is "on the fence." You could be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. It's not a continuum from weak to strong, agnostic to atheist as some seem to believe.

[bowens43]

24. There is absolutely no evidnce that could be presented

that would make me believe in deities. The whole concept is ridiculous. Anything that I am unable to explain would be attributed to a lack of knowledge, not some mythological being.

[Sal316]

121. Thanks for your honesty.

I respect that far more than the pseudo-intellectual philobabble of some.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

25. If god is so mighty, then why knock on your door? Why not walk though it?

[LAGC]

27. If all the infidels were wiped from the face of the earth!

So that we'd know who the "true" believers were.

Or maybe just all the fundie Christians raptured away instead... now THAT would be a God-send.

[dmallind]

29. Simple test

Set up a double blind location containing a sealed monitored room which itself contains bowling balls inscribed with the names of any deities you wish to test.

Invite the most pious and devoted followers of all included deities to pray in another location that their god of choice levitate his or her bowling ball in the (unknown to the prayer) location where the balls are.

If we get a single ball levitated consistently we have a monotheism. If we get many we have a polytheism.

If we get none, we remain in a state of having no evidence at all for the existence of any gods.

[Sal316]

34. So, the Elijah test.

Would you have to see it for yourself or would you accept the testimony of witnesses?

[dmallind]

37. I'd accept objective data from unbiased sources - not just hearsay NT

[Frosty1]

39. What kind of evidence of God’s non existence would theists accept?

:evilgrin:

[heidler1]

62. All believers would be tossed out by me, I assume all none believers would be tossed out by you.

Every one is prejudiced about something.

[dmallind]

90. So why not use machines?

If computer output or cameras showed levitating bowling balls in a thoroughly controlled test with objectively verifiable protocols, then by definition we have discovered something that can act unseen in a way that suspends or contradicts known physical laws. That's as good a definition for a god as any.

[laconicsax]

85. One of the adults drinks the wine when you get up.

I figured that one out when I was 7.

[dmallind]

91. An honest corollary for you

Let's say we at some point in the future do some very deep exploration of the earth's core, and we expose, obviously for the first time ever, a huge cavern with walls covered by foot-high lettering in solid gold in all languages of the earth past and present saying "I your god made this planet".

That would be another great reason for me to believe in a divine creator; but for you - would it be evidence YOUR god made the planet? Why? What would make it more evidence for one god over another?

This is a valid point because whenever I hear believers discuss "evidence" for their god's existence it's almost always, even if it were somehow actual evidence, only supportive of the general idea of some kind of divine existence. You know the Aquinas' five ways and all that - what about them dictates that Aquinas' god is the right one?

Entirely hypothetical of course since such arguments are universally either logically flawed or flat out made up but I do wonder what would happen if there ever were some real evidence of A god when all the religions and denominations of the planet would automatically assume it was THE god they had in mind.

[Henryman]

35. The same evidence that you accepted, only on a different scale!

That is, if I was able to convince myself that my life is so useless that I need to believe in something that I can never know. Isn't that the same evidence that everyone with faith has? Your own gullibility?

[Sal316]

71. Nice sterotype.

"That is, if I was able to convince myself that my life is so useless that I need to believe in something that I can never know."

The assumption that believers have to think their lives are useless unless they believe is just an asinine stereotype as those that think atheists lives are worthless because they don't believe.

[trotsky]

74. Really?

The assumption that believers have to think their lives are useless unless they believe

Because I've personally met many believers who say just that: that without god, life would be meaningless for them. I even once had an e-mail debate with a guy who started off "warning" me that if I disproved god for him, he'd probably commit suicide. Needless to say I wasn't too aggressive in that one.

[Henryman]

104. Why Have "faith"?

What other reason is there for one to have faith besides making him/her feel better?
By definition, faith is illogical.

[Sal316]

122. Then why believe in BB, or origins of life?

Neither of those have definitive empirical evidence.

Belief in them is a matter of faith based on what has been revealed to us.

.....sound familiar?

[sinkingfeeling]

41. That you included the question about 'human qualities' kind of verifies that man created god and

not the other way around. That's the whole problem I have with religion. If there were some force that caused the existence of the universe and everything in it, why do you insist that it possess human qualities. It contradicts with the theology that god is all- powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent.

[Sal316]

72. Actually, it doesn't verify that.

While, yes, I will grant you that religions, particularly western versions, do focus on the anthropomorphic details. To me, that represents more of the cultural development in the understanding of God, than of God itself.

In fact, it is because of the tendency to focus on those details (i.e. Jesus was a white man from Oxford) that iconography (graven images) is forbidden in the OT, resulted in the Great Schism, and is still forbidden in Islam today.

When we describe things, we use terms, imagery, etc, that is familiar to us.

[sinkingfeeling]

76. See, it's that arrogance that a mere human can 'understand god' that makes religion, of any stripe,

unacceptable.

[mitchrodee]

43. Wouldn't God know what to do to convince me?

There is nothing that another person can do or say to convince me. There is no solid evidence or proof that exists. That's why it's a belief. But, if God does exist, I would assume that he is omnipotent and would know exactly which of my buttons needed to be pushed to convince me of his existence. I've prayed for him to just that, and I'm still waiting. So far, I'm not a believer.

[Teaser]

44. oh, St. Anselm is shitting his pants over this one

.

[trotsky]

58. Great point!

Welcome to DU!

[chaplainM]

48. I demand to see his birth certificate.

And it better be the long form, dammit!

[LAGC]

81. Curious, that does bring up a good point...

How many Birthers are religious? Why do they insist on seeing "the real evidence" with Obama's birth records despite being shown repeatedly, whereas they'll take their desert ramblings in their preferred holy book as factual on blind faith alone?

[Birthmark]

49. What kind of evidence of God’s existence would Atheists accept?

Verifiable and unambiguous.

Albatross!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

51. A lot of the arguments here deal with God concepts

namely the ones that portray God as separate from us or ones that portray God as super human.

Not all God concepts are like this, however; the concept of God as the life force of the universe, That which is behind the laws of science, That which is connected to everything and is everything, is a different concept, indeed. By that definition, perhaps an atheist would agree there are certain scientific laws--but they would argue that that isn't God. However this pantheistic concept is one shared by many mystical sects throughout the world.

[ashling]

52. What is the point of your question?

From the snark in your original statement, one might legitimately come to the conclusion that it was just to stir the pot.

Hang around the R/T forum, and within the first few minutes, you’ll see this gem… “I’m not saying there isn’t a God, I’m just saying there’s no evidence God exists.“

That makes as much or more sense than "The Bible Tells me so," "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it," "Because I have found Jesus," "I have been saved, born again,etc," or a hundred other such statements. They are, at best the evidence of a particular belief system which does not even allow for understanding the aforementioned question.

In another response you talk of archeological evidence that certain civilizations existed. Well, isn't that special (snark intended). I guess, then that you believe in Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite, Athena, et al., because of the archeological evidence that Greek civilization existed ... or Thor, odin, Frea, etc.

Oh, but I guess there is always the possibility that you are God and just asking so that you can present the requisite proof ... but wouldn't you already know, being omnicient and everything?

[Jim__]

55. I'm not sure there is any evidence that would (immediately) convince me that god exists.

Sure, god could come to my door and hand me a business card that identifies him as god; but then, so could you. While standing at my door, god could perform a few "miracles". But, lots of magicians can perform amazing tricks that I can't understand how they're done; but I don't believe they're magic. I would expect someone coming to my door and claiming to be god would be prepared with a few tricks.

Our belief in the type of world we live in involves our complete perception of the world. I doubt there is any single event that could overthrow that whole structure. If that belief is to be shaken, it would involve a series of things causing us to doubt our beliefs, doubt the correctness of our perceptions. And only after we begin to doubt, can we begin to construct a new set of perceptions.

You don't want any "scientific proof" answers. But, actually, scientific evidence could be one of the things that would shake my belief system. Say, there was very strong evidence that some of the steps required for life could not have happened by chance. Say, cosmologists came across a seemingly insurmountable problem concernign the existence of the universe. Things like that could begin to shake my beliefs.

My guess is that religious people's certainty is just as embedded in their whole understanding of life and the universe. I don't believe anyone can give up their entire understanding of reality except over a long period of doubt of their current beliefs and reconstruction of a new set of beliefs.

[chaplainM]

63. He could recreate that stunt in the gospel of Matthew

The one where Jesus stands upon a mountaintop so high that the entire (spheroid!) Earth is visible to him.

[ZombieHorde]

70. The diety could make his/her/its pressence known by...

Healing all amputees and somehow letting us know it was him/her/it.

Giving us all some prophetic dream on the same night which involved the nature of god.

Magically banishing all country music from the world.

Things like this would be very helpful.

Further, would God have to do this each generation, or would one time be enough?

Depends on the nature of the evidence.

For example, if god made the sky plaid for a day and told everyone it was he/she/it who did it by giving us all the same dream, then this should probably be done once every 20 to 50 years.

If god left behind something which was obvious proof of its existence, some difficult to imagine magical artifact, then this may be enough.

What if he had absolutely no “human” qualities at all?

Then it would not be a god.

Even if God came down, would you dismiss it as a hallucination?

If I was the only one who had this experience then I probably should dismiss it as a hallucination.

[maxsolomon]

77. booo! blues is country music

it's FROM THE COUNTRY.

if god made Branson-style country disappear, then we'd be talking improvement.

[ZombieHorde]

78. I am willing to give up blues if it means no more country.

[rrneck]

82. Well,

proof of your conception of god would have to do whatever you think it/he/she is supposed to do.

But since we don't know exactly whose god we're talking about, lets talk about my god.

My god would fix all the fucked up shit in the world he did wrong the first time he made it. He would turn this place into the heaven most people would like to believe they get after they do what some asshole in a special hat tells then to do for most of their lives.

And there would be no poison oak. Whoever designed that shit ought to have to eat it.

[tinrobot]

83. Make the Padres win the pennant...

Now THAT would be a miracle.

[laconicsax]

84. If a woman couldn't be convinced, should she "man up and admit that" or

is this discussion just for the men?

Are you saying that if someone came to your door and handed you a business card that read "God" you'd believe them outright? That's a good way to get hoodwinked. Not everyone who e-mails you is a Nigerian prince.

You need to define the qualities "God" has before asking what kind of evidence we'd accept. If this "God" is a non-corporeal entity, I would discount evidence for that in the form of a physical body. If this "God" can directly control the weather, I'd discount evidence for that in the form of a pattern in a piece of toast.

Definable qualities only please. Saying something like "God" is as strong as a unicorn is meaningless because unicorns don't really exist. You might as well say "God" smells like midichlorians or "God" is as clever as a leprechaun.

In short, if "God" exists, what are its actions? How are they observable? What makes them unattributable to other causes or other deities?

[ironbark]

105. So, saying “The strength of Superman” is “meaningless”

because Superman doesn’t exist?

The link you provided likened gods strength to that of a unicorn-
“God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn”.
And this you deem to be “meaningless because unicorns don't really exist”

How about “Your proposition sank like Atlantis” ?

No discernable meaning?


“You need to define the qualities "God" has before asking what kind of evidence we'd accept.”

From the range of responses so far…clearly not.

Respondents will accept levitating marked bowling balls, zombies from the dead, a birth certificate and descent from the heavens on a cloud escalator.

[laconicsax]

107. Come on, you're smarter than that.

Or perhaps as a fundamental agnostic, you don't really know anything.

[ironbark]

109. I don’t assume I’m smart enough to be psychic

and it’s your pov I’m seeking clarification of.

If "the strength of a unicorn" has "no meaning" because unicorns don’t exist
does the same logic/rule apply to saying- “The strength of Superman”?

Is there “no meaning” conveyed in the expression “The strength of Superman”?

Simple question from a simpleton….just trying to understand your pov.

[laconicsax]

135. It has to do with what's defined and what isn't.

Superman, while fictional, has a defined strength as measured through his actions. Saying someone or something is as strong as Superman means that they/it would be able to perform similar or identical feats of strength, imparting meaning to the expression.

Unicorns have no defined strength, especially in the Bible. There are just references to unicorns being strong. If we look through the rest of the Bible, we find some actions of God that define his strength. God was unable to win a wrestling match against Jacob and that he has a mixed record against iron chariots. This would indicate that Superman is quite possibly stronger than God.

As for other comparisons, such as Superman's strength and Atlantis' buoyancy, definition is key. Imagine if you read a book that contained similes but you had no knowledge of the references. You could of course glean some meaning from them because of the adjective/verb as/like a noun structure (provided you know your adjectives and verbs), but the full meaning would be lost. In the case of God and unicorns, it's easy to see that God and unicorns are supposed to be strong, but the question of 'how strong?' is left unanswered and we're just left with 'God is strong.'

Saying 'God is strong' on its own doesn't mean much. "God is strong? So what? So are forklifts. Is God as strong as a forklift?" Similarly, pondering a unicorn's strength doesn't get you very far. Figuring that a unicorn is like a horse, does that mean that a unicorn is as strong as a horse? If you figure that a unicorn is like a super horse then are they as strong as a 2 horses? 4? 10 or more?

A quick Google search reveals that riding lawn mower engines are around 25 horsepower, that is it can perform approximately the same work (mechanical work) as 25 horses. Is God as strong as a riding lawn mower? Can he perform the same work while holding a beverage?

[ironbark]

142. No, it has to do with what people often generally understand

even in the absence of definition or precise definition.

People today generally understand ‘Superman’ has “meaning” even though he is fictional.

Likewise the Unicorn has “meaning” as a “powerful” mythological creature. Ask any kid who has read Harry Potter.

Both fictional characters have “meaning”…..they represent power.

“meaningless because unicorns don't really exist” is debunked.

“Unicorns have no defined strength”

Contempory definition of the attributes and strengths of a Unicorn-
“In even the earliest references he is fierce yet good, selfless yet solitary, but always mysteriously beautiful. He could be captured only by unfair means, and his single horn was said to neutralize poison."

Unicorns in antiquity
A one-horned animal (which may be just a bull in profile) is found on some seals from the Indus Valley Civilization.<2> Seals with such a design are thought to be a mark of high social rank.<3> An animal called the Re’em ,Hebrew: is mentioned in several places in the Hebrew Bible, often as a metaphor representing strength. "The allusions to the re'em as a wild, un-tamable animal of great strength and agility, with mighty horn or horns (Job 39 -12, Ps 22:21, 29:6, Num 23:22, 24:8, Deut 33:17 comp. Ps 92:11), best fit the aurochs (Bos primigenius). This view is supported by the Assyrian rimu, which is often used as a metaphor of strength, and is depicted as a powerful, fierce, wild mountain bull with large horns."<4> This animal was often depicted in ancient Mesopotamian art in profile, with only one horn visible.
The translators of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible (1611) employed unicorn to translate re'em, providing a recognizable animal that was proverbial for its un-tamable nature.

“Unicorns have no defined strength” is debunked.

Thanks for answering the question…that’s a first…and is appreciated.

[laconicsax]

145. Rambling about metaphors and abstract meaning doesn't debunk factual claims.

Suppose I claimed that the statement "The Transamerica Pyramid is tall" doesn't say anything about how tall it is.

If you responded by saying, "The Transamerica Pyramid is a very recognizable tall building that is often used in to represent San Francisco," you haven't debunked my statement.

Now suppose I claimed that the statement "Unicorn are strong" doesn't say anything about how strong they are.

If you responded by saying, "Everyone knows that unicorns are strong--they're even used as a metaphor representing strength," you haven't debunked my statement. In fact, you haven't even addressed it. It's a question of 'how much,' not 'is.'

[ironbark]

146. Having established that the mythical creature conveys “meaning”

through its definition/description (the one you said didn't exist ;-) as “ un-tamable/ strong” we are now reduced to the endless pointless pursuit “about how strong they are.”

“It's a question of 'how much,' not 'is.'

“How much” strength does a mythical creature have?

Oh…………..at least as much as the other metaphor of strength- Superman ;-)

“meaningless because unicorns don't really exist” is debunked.

“Unicorns have no defined strength” is debunked.

“'how much” defined strength “how strong they are” is a question no adult individual would ask or path a sane mane would venture down……

Because it just leads to-
“Do ya think the Incredible Hulk could beat Superman in a fight”… “Nahhhh, only if he had a Unicorn on his side”.

Find another playmate for that ;-)

[ironbark]

89. How many of the myriad answers provided so far

could be subjected to or would pass any scientific scrutiny?

The OP asked for specifics and they are very thin on the ground.

“Please, no generic "scientific proof" answers, I'm looking for specifics.” OP

There are a couple of generic calls for “The Empirical Kind” of evidence or “ objective data from unbiased sources” but very few specifics that science/forensics could tackle.
And this really surprises me given the amount of lip service atheists pay to science.

Under rigid test conditions the amputation/resurrection one (16#) might pass -“An amputee regrowing a limb..A man rising from the dead, long after brain and heart failure”.
(If science cracks both of the above does science become god? ;-)

But the vast majority of responses provide only evidence for the individual experiencing the event, give no consideration to who could/would be considered reliable in reporting/transmitting the event, fail to factor in the potential (real or alleged) of- Magic con, hoax, hallucination, mass hallucination, drugged water supply, international/Govt/alien conspiracy or would simply stand the consideration/verification of science.

29# The double blind with marked bowling balls starts off well…but would leave us with no more than the legitimate assumption that someone had cracked levitation.

I’m kinda amused with the recent proposition that believers can’t agree on what’s literal and what’s symbolic in scripture so atheists are entitled to demand an exclusively literal reading.
Leaves me wondering if the proposed god is waiting for a universal coherent ‘evidence’ expectation from atheists? ;-)

Amid all the proposed ‘evidence’ I couldn’t see anyone answer the OP’s other question-
“would God have to do this each generation, or would one time be enough?”

It’s a valid question.

To the OP question-
If it’s conclusive incontrovertible evidence of god being sought I’d prefer not to see (personally, photo, film) any image of any divine being. Even if the encounter was beyond doubt…it would be either a freakout or a disappointment.
I’d settle for a prophecy of impeccable provenance, widely distributed and considered prior to the event…the event need be of an unpredictable nature that logic, reason and science could not foresee…the emergence of an island mid ocean with no prior seismic activity, the appearance of a celestial body that science could not foresee.

I would prefer a verifiable prophecy of a major unpredictable event in nature because it breaks the constraints of time making it much more difficult to forge or falsify.

Even then it will be alleged someone has cracked precognition ;-)

Oh....and once a thousand years ought do.

[sinkingfeeling]

98. Is there a way to scientifically prove something that doesn't exist? Prove a negative?

[ironbark]

111. Sorry

I can’t see the connection between the question your asking and anything I wrote.

Would you care to clarify by linking your question to the passage that prompted it?

[Sal316]

123. Thanks ironbark.

I'm really enjoying your posts!

[ironbark]

144. And I’m really enjoying your thread

I even brought a cut lunch and a supply pack…

But the latter hasn’t been required ;-)…

Perhaps you can make use of it in the future?
A small token of gratitude for a most entertaining thread-
(I would say that I haven’t laughed so hard since granny got her tit caught in the washing wringer…but that would be inappropriate ;-)

The Harmony of Science and Religion
"Science without religion is lame,
religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion:
a Symposium", 1941

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use
and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can obtain by
them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical
matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or
necessary demonstrations.
- Galileo Galilei 1615.

..science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with
the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling,
however, springs from the sphere of Religion... science without religion
is lame, religion without science is blind.
- Albert Einstein "Ideas and Opinions" 1954

The Greatness of God is something we cannot understand even though we
are aware of it
- Rene Descarte 1596-1650 mathematician and philosopher

The glory and greatness of the Almighty God are marvellously discerned
in all His works and divinely read in the open book of heaven
- Galileo Galilei 1564-1642

I see everywhere the inevitable expression of the infinite in the world
- Louis Pasteur 1822-95

As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner
by which the All-Wise God perceives and understands all things.
- Sir Isaac Newton 1642-1727

The scientific picture of the real world around me is very
deficient...Science cannot tell us why music delights us, of why and how
an old song can move us to tears.... Science is reticent too when it is
a question of the great Unity... of which we all somehow form a part, to
which we belong. The most popular name for it in our time is God.
- Erwin Schroedinger 1933 Nobel prize in Physics
"My view of the World" 1918

There can never be any real opposition between religion and science.
Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the
religious elements in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if
all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance
and harmony.
- Max Planck winner of the 1918 Nobel prize in Physics
"Where is Science Going" 1918

"Something unknown is doing we don't know what"
-Sir Arthur Eddington

Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can
soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not
possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the
wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of
superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone
he would make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of
materialism.
- 'Abdu'l - Baha "Paris Talks" 1911

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of
the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as
well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces
worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the
facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost
beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in
the laws that make this possible. Realization of the
complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use
the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological
status of the word." (3)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it
quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be
some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the
explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something
instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards,
a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the
Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could
never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances
indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the
thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather,
Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without
intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence
of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially
crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or
Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present
state of scientific theory." (9)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique
event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very
delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to
permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say
'supernatural') plan." (10)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe
has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty
of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very
tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am
sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by
our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the
divine." (13)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has
lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad
dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to
conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he
is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for
centuries." (14)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to
take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and
the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the
ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of
God." (15)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my
career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced
atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be
writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-
Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are
straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand
them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable
logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since
has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The
Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is
described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created
it."(17)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the
existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and
refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie
evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that
requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one....
Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the
teleological or design argument." (18)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe,
in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but
our picture is incomplete without Him ." (19)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no
question but that a God will always be needed." (20)

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe,
however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial
conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981
Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the
marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how.
The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God
in the universe and in my own life." (22)

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and
director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the
University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes
in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to
myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little
corner of God's plan." (23)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to
understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a
superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to
comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in
Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I
can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100
billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed
and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would
contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that
the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out
of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to
that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may
extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be
entirely unique." (25)

"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a
little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the
ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that
someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It
does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the
child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a
mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly
suspects." - Albert Einstein

"The statistical probability that organic structures and the most
precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be
generated by accident, is zero."- Ilya Prigogine (Chemist-Physicist)
Recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry
I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28

"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a
knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge,
and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off
even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a
chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems
unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived --
you might say a 'put-up job'."- Dr. Paul Davies
(noted author and Professor of Theoretical Physics at Adelaide
University)

[rd_kent]

99. Well, first, he could live up to the "loving, caring god" moniker his followers give him

by healing the sick, stopping war, walking on water, turning water to wine, etc, etc. You know --- miracles. The proof is in the pudding as they say. Show me the money.

[rd_kent]

100. He could start by smiting bush, rove, Pat Robertson, etc.

That would certainly go a long way to convincing me.

[dcsmart]

102. what does it matter if god exists or does not exist....

what has god done for anyone lately...look at the horror of human history.....if god exists, same story same history. if god does not exist, same story same history....worry about what you can see and feel and hear and the real suffering that is going on in the world....let god take care of itself.

[RebelOne]

103. Only if I prayed for a million dollars and it dropped out of the sky.

That might just convince me there is a god.

[Strong Atheist]

106. Same evidence I would except for any other product of the

human imagination...

[conscious evolution]

125. It took meeting them

to convince me.
I don't worship any of them though.I just try to keep an eye out on what they are up to.
Especially Sheva.When that mofo starts kicking up his heels its time to hunker down and wait till he chills out.

[Why Syzygy]

139. The problem

is with the limitation of scope. The atheists who demand "proof" of God are as 2D flat-landers demanding that you prove you're a third dimensional being. Even if you could express yourself as 2 dimensional, as soon as you do so, you still have no proof of three dimensions. You become one of them.

The problem isn't that God offers no proof of his existence. The dilemma is that those who make up their minds, refuse to look beyond their own dimensional selves. To experience God, one must open up to something beyond 3 dimension materialism. There is plenty of "proof" to that existence. So, "proof" is not the real issue.

[stopbush]

140. Oh, I'd probably accept the same level of proof that you would

accept to believe that fairies and/or werewolves existed.

Apply your questions above to the subject of fairies and werewolves and tell me what you come up with.

[Taitertots]

155. The problem is that fairies and werewolves don't hide like god does

If there were fairies and werewolves they could see them. The idea of god is so twisted that there is nothing you could just see to prove god. It is not like an old man with a beard is going to come flying down on a cloud.

[Taitertots]

154. What would I accept?

More than a book written 1700 years ago by wealthy elitists about a man who lived hundreds of years before they were born.

What ever it is it must be: Repeatable, independently verifiable, and unequivocal.

[Odin2005]

157. Unmistakable evidence of design inherent in the universe.

If "God came down" it would have to be in public, otherwise I would just think I'm going nuts and check myself into a mental hospital.

[Why Syzygy]

160. Fractals are pretty unmistakable evidence. nt

[rd_kent]

166. Really? How so?

Please be clear and concise on how fractals (which are really cool, BTW) to be "unmistakable evidence" of an intelligent design.

[Odin2005]

167. How?

[Why Syzygy]

171. My statement

was made from instinct/intuition. Instinct is influenced by everything I've been taught, read, heard and observed, which is quite a bit in the realms of nature, physics, geometry and to a lesser extent, mathmatics.

It might be worth investigating further for more conclusive evidence. Evidently it is being debated in other circles. For now, I only have time to post a couple of links from those who agree:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Heavens-Fractal-Net/William-J-Jackson/e/9780253216205

http://www.designwatch.org/2008/07/galaxy-map-hints-at-fractal-universe.html
(I'm not familiar with this site and in no way endorse everything that may be posted there.)

[Odin2005]

175. LOLOLOLOL!!!

A whole lot of nonsense, there! :rofl: :crazy:

[Why Syzygy]

177. I perceive you aren't interested in evidence after all.

I'll save my bother in the future.

I supported your thread about generation M. But, feel free to mock and rollick someone who shares at least one of your ideals.
Not very fitting for the new world your idealist thread suggested.

[Odin2005]

178. "Intuition" and "Instinct" isn't evidence.

[Why Syzygy]

179. The evidence is in the study itself.

And I never said my intuition is 'evidence'. But that's why I made the statement.
Go find your own evidence or remain skeptical. Does not matter to me. They show DESIGN, which was the requirement you set forth. If you can't see DESIGN in fractals, you haven't looked.

[Odin2005]

180. Wow, that's some elitist reasoning there.

I see it and if you are not a victim of confirmation bias you just aren't looking hard enough!" :crazy:

I simply don't see any evidence of design in fractals, non at all, you are "seeing" things that merely confirm your own biases, that's not science, that's superstition.

[Why Syzygy]

181. What do you call all those little repeating patterns?

The mathmatics show design. I suppose you can disregard mathmatics.
It isn't random. So, what's your explanation?

[Odin2005]

182. The cosmos is self-organizing, no design necessary.

Hence Richard Dawkins calling Nature "The Blind Watchmaker". Philosopher Daniel Dennett talks about this in his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, order emerges spontaneously out of chaos; there is no First Cause, the notion that there is is a human prejudice. We are by nature designers, and so fool ourselves into seeing design in the universe, we invent a designer that is merely a projection of ourselves.

[Why Syzygy]

183. So, when you said in your earlier post

that "unmistakable design in the universe" would be evidence, you already had made the conclusion that design already exists. But it is produced by chaos and not intelligence. Is that right? There is a term used to describe the reorganization of chaos into new forms, which I can't think of at the moment. But the outcomes are never predictable. They ARE random. Fractals are not random. They are mathematically predictable.

[Odin2005]

184. How is mathematical predictability evidence for design?

Because I'm not seeing it.

[Why Syzygy]

185. Because chaos does not consistently arrange itself into

mathematically predictable arrangements. You need to be aware of the alternate phenomena which explains how the results of chaos behave in the laboratory. It is RANDOM.

Do you understand how quantum sciences were discovered? When we began to study atoms in depth, up close, it was discovered that there is no mathematical predictability to their behavior, the same as human behavior being random. Yet these unpredictable atoms arrange themselves into mathematically calculable forms. One fractal may be the result of random outcome. But at the extent we see them, it is cannot be contributed to random outcomes. If it isn't random, then there is a design, a MATHEMATICAL formula/model. Furthermore, when an "observer", even a camera, is placed into an photon experiment, for example, the behavior of the photon changes. That's why the quantum physicists say that without an observer, nothing happens!

Maybe think about it some more.

Think of the randomness of human behavior. Yet with a design/plan, they can organize themselves to function in a pescribed, uniform manner, such as a marching army or symphony.

[Odin2005]

186. But chaos DOES consistently arrange in mathematically predictable arrangements.

That is exactly the point Dennett makes in the book I mentioned. It's called EMERGENT BEHAVIOR. And your knowledge of quantum mechanics is the typical popular misunderstanding of the "Copenhagen Intepretion" of QM that is in fact no longer held by the majority of physicists, the majority nowdays subscribe to some form of the "Many Words/Parallel Universes" interpretation, which the observer is irrelevant.

[Why Syzygy]

187. I don't believe that is true. It is as much speculation as anything else.

I read current physics information almost daily. I've seen no indication that there is a "popular misunderstanding". I read the most current stuff I can find as well as the previous 100 years of explorations. The observer research I've seen is current and only amplifies the original findings.

This is not exactly what I was trying to remember, but it is part of it. I've posted about it here, and I've seen someone else mention it by name as well. I just read an enormous amount of material and do not have this specific item bookmarked anywhere. At least nowhere I've looked so far.

Self-Organized Criticality

In physics, a critical point is a point at which a system changes radically its behavior or structure, for instance, from solid to liquid. In standard critical phenomena, there is a control parameter which an experimenter can vary to obtain this radical change in behavior. In the case of melting, the control parameter is temperature. Self-organized critical phenomena, by contrast, is exhibited by driven systems which reach a critical state by their intrinsic dynamics, independently of the value of any control parameter. The archetype of a self-organized critical system is a sand pile. Sand is slowly dropped onto a surface, forming a pile. As the pile grows, avalanches occur which carry sand from the top to the bottom of the pile. At least in model systems, the slope of the pile becomes independent of the rate at which the system is driven by dropping sand. This is the (self-organized) critical slope. (...)

http://www.santafe.edu/~hag/internet/node9.html

[ChadwickHenryWard]

189. What do you mean that human behavior is random?

I've never heard that claim before. I'm not even really sure what that means. In what way is human behavior "random?"

[Odin2005]

191. Yeah, that made no sense. Human behavior is very predictable.

If it wasn't there wouldn't be psychology and sociology. It was realizing the predictability of my own behavior that lead me to finally rejecting the notion of Free Will.

[Why Syzygy]

199. It is exactly the opposite.

If human behavior were predictable there would be no psychology and sociology. Those are study fields, not application fields.

Bottom line looks like you are interested in reading and believing contraction methods. I read and trust expansion methods. Two poles of the spectrum. Adios.

[Odin2005]

220. What do you mean by "expansion" and "contraction" methods?

Just because human behavior is not 100% predictable doesn't mean it isn't predictable. There is a good analogy with weather and climate, we can't predict the exact weather for Barrow, Alaska for January 20th, 2010; but we can predict with very high certainty that it will be COLD. If human behavior had no predictability then people would not have distinctive personalities. If you could somehow record the activity in my brain stem one would notice below average activity in a structure called the Reticular Activating System and would thus predict that I am an Introvert, and if you observed my behavior you would indeed see that I am an Introvert.

[Why Syzygy]

dupe

[Why Syzygy]

222. It means you

have accepted a theory as true and accurate; Darwinism. Every other piece of evidence you encounter has to be sifted and manipulated to fit within the confines of that theory or rejected entirely. I reject Darwinism. Every piece of evidence I encounter can be evaluated on its own merits without predetermination that it must fit a previously ordained theory.

[Odin2005]

223. It is impossible NOT to do that, and you are deluding yourself if you think you can.

Every experiment and observation is an attempt to falsify a theory, even if it is not explicit of conscious because of the Baconian inductivist myth of abstracting a theory from "unbiased" observation. Evidence can only be evaluated in terms of some theory or hypothesis.

Natural Selection is the basic organizing principle of Biology. One of the pioneers of population genetics, Theodosius Dobzhansky, famously stated that "Nothing in biology makes sense unless in the light of evolution". It was the first great self-organizing principle found in nature, throwing Man off his throne as the Crown of Creation just as Copernicus threw Man off his thrown as the center of the Universe. I do not accept evolution and modern neuroscience because I am an Materialist and an Atheist. I am an Atheist and a Materialist because I accept the facts given by science, with both reject the notion of a Grand Designer and the notion of an incorporeal soul.

[Why Syzygy]

198. Not predictible.

omg. Entire books are written, research departments and degree programs dedicated to this study. Start with a search of "physics of human behavior" if you want more insight.

This study claims to show "predictable" human behavior:
http://www.physorg.com/news145281421.html

A computer model that can predict how people will complete a controlled task and how the knowledge needed to complete that task develops over time is the product of a group of researchers, led by a professor from Penn State's College of Information Sciences and Technology.

However, it is a "controlled task". ONE task. It in no way begins to predict the wide variances of behavior in real life situations. There are others who have developed models to predict GROUP behavior. But again fail to predict individual human behavior.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

230. But human behavior is predictable.

If I were to set you on fire, you would run around screaming. If I gave you a million dollars, you would buy a new house. If I called a Nazi on syndicated television, you would object. Plenty of human response is predictable, if you know a little about the causality involved. Books are written, research departments and degree programs are dedicated to the study of predicting human behavior. As Odin said, they are psychology and sociology. So I'm not really sure what you're talking about here.

I will make on prediction, though: you will respond to my post.

[TZ]

213. How is instinct/intuition different from faith?

You say its proof because you BELIEVE its true. Thats some circular logic there. Just because someone states they THINK it is so, does not make it so.
Me, don't know what I would accept as evidence. It was have to be extaordinary though..extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And no, I am not a seeing is believing type person either.

[saltpoint]

158. Beliefs differ.

But in fact no evidence exists that a god or gods exist.

There are words written down in many cultures asserting that there is a god or gods.

But no evidence to date.

[jody]

162. Why don't you present all known "evidence of God’s existence" and see how much of that survives

rigorous scientific evaluation?

[laconicsax]

169. Did you plagarize this post from someone else's blog?

http://csalafia.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/what-kind-of-evidence-of-god-would-atheists-accept/

What kind of evidence of God's existence would Atheists accept?

Talk to any atheist, and within the first few minutes, you’ll hear this gem… “I’m not saying there isn’t a God, I’m just saying there’s no evidence God exists.“

I know there’s some atheist readers of my blog, so I’d like to pose these questions to you.

In leiu of God coming down, knocking on your door and handing you a business card, what kind of evidence would you accept?

Even if God came down, would you dismiss it as a hallucination?

If he didn’t fit the image you had seen of God, would you not believe it?

What if he had absolutely no “human” qualities at all?

Seriously, I want to know.

Perhaps you’ve seen the evidence, you just haven’t noticed it.

[charlie]

170. That's his blog n/t

[laconicsax]

172. That answers that.

Apologies to Sal316.

[Sal316]

188. That's my blog.

So it's not plagiarized at all.

Thanks, charly.

NP, Sax

[laconicsax]

194. My apologies Sal.

[Sal316]

195. no prob, man. :-)

[heidler1]

209. Due to the natural prejudice of believers nothing they say carries any weight.

Like wise this is also true in reverse. IMO what causes a person to suddenly or slowly change his view point is loss of control of his/her life to the point that in order to stand up to life, the person must change their outlook. This can cause loss of belief as well.

[rd_kent]

219. Huh? I dont understand.

"IMO what causes a person to suddenly or slowly change his view point is loss of control of his/her life to the point that in order to stand up to life, the person must change their outlook."

Loss of control? How does accepting new facts amount to loss of control? Maybe I just dont understand where you are coming from on this one. Can you please re-explain?

[heidler1]

225. My point is that it is not some believers views that cause a none believer to change. It is what is

going on internaly to the nobeliever that convinses him/her to change. This is in reguard to the OPs question "What kind of evidence of God’s existence would Atheists accept?

[rd_kent]

226. Hmmm, interesting, I think.

I hope I am following you and will assume I am. Are you saying that those non-believers who start to believe do so because of some internal issue? I will go out on a limb and say that there are very few non-believers that become believers. Conversely, I will say that there are hundreds times more believers who realize that there is no evidence or rational argument to support believing in a god, and when that happens, it is not due to some internal conflict but an awakening to reality.

[Occam Bandage]

211. Any. nt

[Iggo]

221. Scientific proof.

[Evoman]

224. Letting me win the 36 million dollar lottery tomorrow would be a good start.

[rd_kent]

227. Hey, if I talk to god and arrage that

will you share half with me? I just spoke with him and he says he will see what he can do.

[Evoman]

228. Sure. If I win, not only will I believe in god, but you can have half the money.

But if I lose, both you and god are in on my shit list.

[rd_kent]

229. Hey, wait a minute! Im just the middle man.

Go ahead and put me on your list as we BOTH know god aint gonna do shit.

[frogmarch]

231. I would believe in God/Yaweh

or any other deity that would manifest herself/himself/itself at the same instant to everyone everywhere in the world and admit to being an inhabitant of a distant planet in a distant galaxy, or maybe an inhabitant of a distant 'brane, who created our universe in her/his/its kitchen one day - and duplicate the procedure for all our eyes to see, while explaining it step by step. Wait. No. That wouldn't convince me either.

[Saboburns]

233. As an Atheist I'm going to have to witness a Smoting

Or maybe a talking Burning Bush.

Or, hell, even a devious speaking serpent.

Something like that ought to do it for me.

[libguy9560]

234. If God exists, why is there so much pain in the world?

A truly just God would try to bring some comfort or solace to his children.

[Evoman]

236. Maybe god likes pain?

Maybe god isn't just, he just gives us a sense of justice so our pain will be all that much fun for him.

Or maybe there is no god.

Hmm.

[Bill McBlueState]

237. it's a hard question to answer

because nobody seems to agree on what is meant by "God"

It's not like proving the existence of extrasolar planets. Everyone knows what an extrasolar planet is, so there's broad agreement on the kinds of things you would detect if there were a planet orbiting a particular star.

[Sean44]

238. To each his own

There is a false strength from having strong convictions about anything. Just as our "names" in some way steal away our true idenities so do our beliefs.

[LAGC]

241. And yours is an Irish name...

Means "God is Gracious" -- who would have thunk?

http://parenting.ivillage.com/pregnancy/babynames/name/0,,cf7,00.html?name=Sean&qry=Sean&page=1&max=1

[piratefish08]

239. I would need to see the ORIGINAL vault copy Birth Certificate.

NOT the Certificate of Live Birth, which would obviously prove nothing.........

[Kevin_X2]

240. What evidence would the religiouse accept about god not existing?

I don't think they would, because it cant be proven either way as it stands.

This argument is redundant. I'm not an atheist, i just don't believe in any god prescribed to any one religion. I have my own god and he doesn't require money or praise to be happy about me.

Everyone is god, and every person should worship others as such through love.

[centristgrandpa]

242. " i don't need any stinkin evidence "

The benchmark of religious conviction is too telling, Gods messengers are always in need of money and tax exemption status not to mention those who supposedly ask every Sunday for forgiveness when dealing with hallmark SinS. My “way of life” excludes any form of organized religion regardless IF there was a god like entity. I can form my own opinion to the true meaning to life without the precursors of the “all mighty one”.

[onager]

243. Bwah! It's the famous "Xian\Car Salesman" pitch!

Almost every boron who ever tried to convert me used a variation of that Subject line. "What would it take, Mr. Atheist, to make you believe in God RIGHT NOW!?!"

It always reminded me of the pitch you get at shadier car lots: "What would it take to put you in that new car TODAY, and let you drive it home?"

No thanks.