What would Atheists consider adequate proof of God?

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

You can provide no evidence that your last dream involved something on your campus, so does that mean that your dream didn't actually happen?

1. False equivalency. The claim "My dream involved something on my campus" is nowhere near as extraordinary and life/world changing as the claim that a supernatural being like god exists.

2. Ignoring the false equivalency, the approaches to the problem are different any way. If I were to insist that I had that dream, and I found someone who doubted me, I would say "You're right, I don't have evidence that my last dream involved something on my campus, you have every reason to doubt my statements". I sure as fuck would not be here insisting that everyone has to believe my dream, and that people who don't have a defense mechanism and/or are blind. My position would be weak, not theirs, and I would accept that.

You don't do that. You insist that your position is strong, insist that we have defense mechanism and are blind because we don't believe your awful arguments and lack of evidence. That's ridiculous.

but if we are going to believe your claims about your dream, why shouldn't you believe that people who say Christ provides an unequaled sense of fulfillment are telling the truth, since that is also very consistent among humanity at large?

Are telling the truth about what? That it it provides them with fulfillment? I don't doubt that. I don't think any atheist here doubts that a religious belief can provide fulfillment. The delusion that I'm married to Angelina Jolie and get to bang her every night might give me unparallelled sense of happiness... it's still a fucking delusion.

The issue is whether that theistic/religious belief is true or not, and in that sense - the only relevant sense here - there is absolutely no reason to believe that those people are telling the truth (i.e. that Christ/God exists)

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

Allah also provides great fulfillment to people. Enough fulfillment to fly a plane into a building.

Pretty much every religion does this, including ones that are definitively opposed to each other. But it's not just religious, is it? Any grand purpose fulfills human beings. I know many atheists who are committed to causes and have similar satisfaction as religious people. I count myself as one of them.

So what you're demonstrating is that purpose makes people happy. That doesn't prove that God exists. Not by a long shot.

I never said anything about purpose. In fact, I believe someone who feels absolutely purposeless could also feel absolutely fulfilled in Christ in a very non-abstract, ecstatic sort of way. Atheists don't get the ecstatic sort of satisfaction that a theist can without having sex or using drugs.

[lillix]

I would consider it adequate proof of God if He spirited away all of His followers and we didn't have to have these petty debates anymore. I would even thank Him for it.

The world might actually make some progress for once, and the rest of us could continue the human experiment in solitude. We'd have been wrong, perhaps, but at least we'd have peace and quiet.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

I never said anything about purpose. In fact, I believe someone who feels absolutely purposeless could also feel absolutely fulfilled in Christ in a very non-abstract, ecstatic sort of way. Atheists don't get the ecstatic sort of satisfaction that a theist can without having sex or using drugs.

That has nothing to do with what he said. Stop being dishonest and either answer his points or admit that you cannot.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

I never said anything about purpose. In fact, I believe someone who feels absolutely purposeless could also feel absolutely fulfilled in Christ in a very non-abstract, ecstatic sort of way. Atheists don't get the ecstatic sort of satisfaction that a theist can without having sex or using drugs.

Not true. As someone who is currently an atheist and formerly a theist, I feel a richer quality of life and deeper fulfillment than when I was a Jesus freak.

Not that you'd have any way of knowing what millions of people think and feel, anyway. Fuck you.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

Not true. As someone who is currently an atheist and formerly a theist, I feel a richer quality of life and deeper fulfillment than when I was a Jesus freak.

Not that you'd have any way of knowing what millions of people think and feel, anyway. Fuck you.

The richer quality of life and deeper fulfillment is more than likely a result of you growing older and has nothing to do with your conversion to atheism. Also, you completely ignored the whole ecstasies issue.

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Atheists don't get the ecstatic sort of satisfaction that a theist can without having sex or using drugs.

Ignorance is bliss...

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

Ignorance is bliss...

In this case, knowledge (of the divine) is bliss.

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

In this case, knowledge (of the divine) is bliss.

Yeah, ignorance...

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Also, you completely ignored the whole ecstasies issue.

No, he didn't. You changed the subject. The subject was not "ecstasies" of anything. The subject was your complete lack of evidence, and your dream analogy. You changed the subject to "fulfillment" because you couldn't respond to anything else.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

The richer quality of life and deeper fulfillment is more than likely a result of you growing older and has nothing to do with your conversion to atheism. Also, you completely ignored the whole ecstasies issue.

You have no idea when I converted or when any of this happened. You're completely talking out of your presumptuous ass.

I didn't ignore the "ecstasies" issue, that was what I directly addressed.

Not to mention, you've been ignoring the reality/logic/science issue this entire time, so I don't want to hear it.

Originally Posted by gadzooks

Ignorance is bliss...

And this.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

You have no idea when I converted or when any of this happened. You're completely talking out of your presumptuous ass.

I didn't ignore the "ecstasies" issue, that was what I directly addressed.

Not to mention, you've been ignoring the reality/logic/science issue this entire time, so I don't want to hear it.

And this.

Ecstasy isn't a word used for fulfillment, it is a word used to describe intense, excruciating pleasure.

A metaphysical being such as God requires a mind capable of thinking about more than just the material universe. I'm sorry if you haven't evolved to that level yet.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

A metaphysical being such as God requires a mind capable of thinking about more than just the material universe. I'm sorry if you haven't evolved to that level yet.

Originally Posted by Rust

If I were to insist that I had that dream, and I found someone who doubted me, I would say "You're right, I don't have evidence that my last dream involved something on my campus, you have every reason to doubt my statements". I sure as fuck would not be here insisting that everyone has to believe my dream, and that people who don't have a defense mechanism and/or are blind. My position would be weak, not theirs, and I would accept that.

You don't do that. You insist that your position is strong, insist that we have defense mechanism and are blind because we don't believe your awful arguments and lack of evidence. That's ridiculous.

Exactly.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Ecstasy isn't a word used for fulfillment, it is a word used to describe intense, excruciating pleasure.

A metaphysical being such as God requires a mind capable of thinking about more than just the material universe. I'm sorry if you haven't evolved to that level yet.

I think Rust just covered this pretty well.

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

A metaphysical being such as God requires a mind capable of thinking about more than just the material universe. I'm sorry if you haven't evolved to that level yet.

I decided to sit down and really open my heart to the all-pervading Love, when all of a sudden...

[baffler]

Originally Posted by Dr. Awkward

Or scientists finding "fuck off, seriously" inscribed on all quarks

Haha dude if you study quantum mechanics, this practically is the case

[Rolf]

"Adequate proof", states Rolf, would be fifty meter tall avatar of true father of Rolf (who is clearly Godly) appearing before Rolf and demanding said Rolf to bow to Abrahamic God, proclaims Rolf.

[Edge]

Adequate proof would be something not written by humans. Something else than the bible or quran. An omnipotent deity who wants to be believed should be able to provide that. Evidence of the scriptures only proves a human wrote it.

[Zanick]

Originally Posted by Edge

Adequate proof would be something not written by humans. Something else than the bible or quran. An omnipotent deity who wants to be believed should be able to provide that. Evidence of the scriptures only proves a human wrote it.

But the Bible WAS written by God

And a just God would not want you to have to simply believe, he wants you to have faith.

[Captain Falcon]

Originally Posted by Edge

Adequate proof would be something not written by humans. Something else than the bible or quran. An omnipotent deity who wants to be believed should be able to provide that. Evidence of the scriptures only proves a human wrote it.

One could argue that the omnipotent deity is testing your faith with a lack of evidence, but assuming God tries to fuck with our heads and makes a HUGE evidence for us.

For example, as Rust said would be adequate, he causes the stars to align and say "I am banging every virgin girl named "Mary" on Earth right now. No, really, go check, get a pregnancy test, you'll all have little Jesuses (Jesii) in 9 months" and every girl named Mary goes and gets a pregnancy test, find they have a baby despite being virgins and give birth to kids 9 months later.... The star alignment could simply be the power of human suggestion and a massive Christian conspiracy to impregnate their daughters and pretend they're virgins. After all, that's STILL a more pplausible theory than the wizard in the sky. That's my question; no matter what proof you get it'll always be unreasonable to believe in a God, so why even claim that you want proof of a God before believing in one? Why not just say that there is no God and there can never be proof of a God?

[Edge]

Originally Posted by Captain Falcon

Why not just say that there is no God and there can never be proof of a God?

If there has never been proof of a God, there might as well be no God.
Solidly saying there is no possibility of a God would be as fanatical as the theists. The most rational approach is evidence based reasoning instead of making total beliefs one way or the other.

[Captain Falcon]

Originally Posted by Edge

If there has never been proof of a God, there might as well be no God.
Solidly saying there is no possibility of a God would be as fanatical as the theists. The most rational approach is evidence based reasoning instead of making total beliefs one way or the other.

Don't misconstrue what I said; "if there is no way for us to realistically prove God, there is no reason to BELIEVE in a God, because there is a lack of evidence and there is no way any evidence can be credible."

Also, assuming god is omnipotent, as I've already explained, no matter what a "god" does, it'll be "correct", i.e. explainable because a God can't be "wrong"; the rules of the game will form AROUND such a deity, meaning it's impossible to ever prove God. Even if there is a God, if he's fair, it's perfectly justifiable to not have believed in him; after all, he's the one who made that the most rational conclusion.

[Edge]

Originally Posted by Captain Falcon

Don't misconstrue what I said; "if there is no way for us to realistically prove God, there is no reason to BELIEVE in a God, because there is a lack of evidence and there is no way any evidence can be credible."

It's not that there can't be any credible evidence, it's that there currently is none at all. The supposed creator deity could be an omnipotent troll who will never allow for any evidence of his existence.

Originally Posted by Captain Falcon

Also, assuming god is omnipotent, as I've already explained, no matter what a "god" does, it'll be "correct", i.e. explainable because a God can't be "wrong"; the rules of the game will form AROUND such a deity, meaning it's impossible to ever prove God. Even if there is a God, if he's fair, it's perfectly justifiable to not have believed in him; after all, he's the one who made that the most rational conclusion.

The problem with that is the abrahamic god insists many times that he exists, going so far as to say whoever does not believe god exists is a fool such as in Psalms 14:1 "The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good."
According to God it is not justifiable to not have believed in his existence.
If this God can keep making contradictory rules that are always right even if wrong and directly contradicting earlier rules made by the same God, then it is a bizarre doublethink concept that only illustrates how illogical such faith is.

[Captain Falcon]

As I've already demonstrated, no, unless god bends the laws of logic for it, there is NO way to give credible evidence, even if God himself slaps you in the face.

[Edge]

An omnipotent God would have unlimited power to show or forcibly convince people that he exists, if he did want people to believe in his existence.

God could slap the world in the face. He could align the stars to say GOD EXISTS. God could bend the laws of logic too. This God could will everyone to believe he exists. An omnipotent God could do anything, but if he won't give any evidence he exists and yet apparently wants to be worshiped (test of faith?), why should anyone have belief in such a God?

If the scenario is that there is no way to give credible evidence ever, that only proves it is pointless having faith in a creator's existence. Such belief would have the same value as belief in any other deities, or belief in mythical spirit entities.

[Captain Falcon]

Originally Posted by Edge

An omnipotent God would have unlimited power to show or forcibly convince people that he exists, if he did want people to believe in his existence.

God could slap the world in the face. He could align the stars to say GOD EXISTS. God could bend the laws of logic too. This God could will everyone to believe he exists. An omnipotent God could do anything, but if he won't give any evidence he exists and yet apparently wants to be worshiped (test of faith?), why should anyone have belief in such a God?

If the scenario is that there is no way to give credible evidence ever, that only proves it is pointless having faith in a creator's existence. Such belief would have the same value as belief in any other deities, or belief in mythical spirit entities.

As I said, that's the point. But should there be any amount of miracles, you could just explain them because definitionally god can't be "wrong". Everything he does will BECOME within reason. Therefore, no, unless he bends that rule as well (abrahamic god won't) there's no way to prove god and therefore no reason to believe in one.

[Edge]

Originally Posted by Captain Falcon

Therefore, no, unless he bends that rule as well (abrahamic god won't) there's no way to prove god and therefore no reason to believe in one.

Fear of eternal hell and the reward of eternal heaven. The believers always seem to be able to conjure backup reasons for their faith, such as reward/punishment threats and promises that rely on the premise of only being disprovable after dying.

The strangest part of their system is how they refuse to apply the same lack of thinking to the thousands of other gods purported to exist.

Regardless of what the religious believers claim, the fact remains that they only believe in it because they read it in a book or heard it from someone else such as their parents who heard it from theirs and so on.

[Actor]

LOL duh Gods not real, its beings from higher dimensions.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Faith and reason are not opposed, but complimentary to a full human experience:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo...-ratio_en.html

Logic is like a ladder, but if used only by itself, is like a ladder placed against a blank wall. You can climb up and down the ladder all you want, but the highest point you can reach is still just a blank wall. Adding faith to the mix is like moving the ladder to right underneath a window. Now, when you climb to the apex of the ladder, there is a window which you can open and discover a plethora of new things.

The existence of Christ can be known through the function of being, and as far as I'm concerned atheists are simply intellectually too lazy to continue the search for transcendental Truth beyond the painfully obvious scientific method that we all learned in 3rd grade.

[Rust]

In other words, your superstitious nonsense can only exist if we deliberately abandon any rational way of testing your ridiculous claims. If we actually have a system in place to judge the accuracy of your claims - to determine if your claims are supported by something other than assertions - your superstitions cannot exist.

Clearly, it's you who is being intellectually lazy. There is no intellectual work in abandoning rigor, and buying into superstitions without any framework to test them.

[ArmsMerchant]

Experience cannot be taught, nor can one's personal experience be proven to one who mind is made up and does not wish to be confused with facts.

[Rust]

Asking for evidence is having an open-mind. If their mind were closed, they wouldn't be asking for evidence (they wouldnn't need it, they'd reached the conclusion without it).

So I'm here asking for evidence. What's the theist's excuse for the continued failure to provide it?

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

In other words, your superstitious nonsense can only exist if we deliberately abandon any rational way of testing your ridiculous claims. If we actually have a system in place to judge the accuracy of your claims - to determine if your claims are supported by something other than assertions - your superstitions cannot exist.

Clearly, it's you who is being intellectually lazy. There is no intellectual work in abandoning rigor, and buying into superstitions without any framework to test them.

Prove that reason is reasonable without using tautology. Or use science to prove the scientific method without tautology. You are already using faith to believe in reason and the scientific method as instruments to garner the truth, so why not have faith that if you move the ladder of reason under the window that you can go in and discover more of the universe?

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Prove that reason is reasonable without using tautology. Or use science to prove the scientific method without tautology. You are already using faith to believe in reason and the scientific method as instruments to garner the truth, so why not have faith that if you move the ladder of reason under the window that you can go in and discover more of the universe?

No, the scientific method can be observed to work. Empirical evidence is crucial to it. There is no faith involved.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

No, the scientific method can be observed to work. Empirical evidence is crucial to it. There is no faith involved.

That's tautology.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

That's tautology.

No, it's empirical evidence and it stands for itself. If you drop a pencil 100 times and it has the same acceleration each time, you can begin modeling that phenomena and proving things about the universe. Science proves itself in its ability to make predictions and those predictions come true.

Your ideology is, really, the exact opposite. How many times has the world ended? How many prophecies come to pass? Hrm?

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Prove that reason is reasonable without using tautology. Or use science to prove the scientific method without tautology. You are already using faith to believe in reason and the scientific method as instruments to garner the truth, so why not have faith that if you move the ladder of reason under the window that you can go in and discover more of the universe?

1. Prove that any word you use means what you think it does without tautology or circular reasoning. Exactly.

It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of definition. That's how logic is defined. Much like how we defined "Boardwalk" in Monopoly to be the most expensive property. Faith doesn't come into play when reading the rules of Monopoly. You either agree with the rules or you disagree with the rules. Clearly your superstitious nonsense cannot exist if science and reason do, which says a lot of how awful your beliefs are.

2. Even if we ignore this, that would still not be an argument for having even more faith than we already have, "You use faith, so why not do something stupid like abandoning any attempt to judge the veracity of statements or test whether claims are supported by evidence or not" isn't an argument.

"Hey you kill ants, so why not go ahead and kill humans?"

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

No, it's empirical evidence and it stands for itself. If you drop a pencil 100 times and it has the same acceleration each time, you can begin modeling that phenomena and proving things about the universe. Science proves itself in its ability to make predictions and those predictions come true.

Your ideology is, really, the exact opposite. How many times has the world ended? How many prophecies come to pass? Hrm?

That's using the scientific method to prove that the scientific method works. That is just like me saying the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true. Tautology.

Originally Posted by Rust

1. Prove that any word you use means what you think it does without tautology or circular reasoning. Exactly.

It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of definition. That's how logic is defined. Much like how we defined "Boardwalk" in Monopoly to be the most expensive property. Faith doesn't come into play when reading the rules of Monopoly. You either agree with the rules or you disagree with the rules. Clearly your superstitious nonsense cannot exist if science and reason do, which says a lot of how awful your beliefs are.

There are still hermeneutics at play when interpreting rules. For example, a police officer looks at the law and wonders what he can arrest people for, while a criminal looks at the law and wonders what he can get away with. Logic and reason do not disappear when faith arises, but rather they expand to encompass the new ideas and evidence that also arise with metaphysics.

2. Even if we ignore this, that would still not be an argument for having even more faith than we already have, "You use faith, so why not do something stupid like abandoning any attempt to judge the veracity of statements or test whether claims are supported by evidence or not" isn't an argument.

"Hey you kill ants, so why not go ahead and kill humans?"

Like I said above, keep your logic and your reason, but place them in a context of faith that there is a transcendental Truth to the universe.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

There are still hermeneutics at play when interpreting rules. For example, a police officer looks at the law and wonders what he can arrest people for, while a criminal looks at the law and wonders what he can get away with. Logic and reason do not disappear when faith arises, but rather they expand to encompass the new ideas and evidence that also arise with metaphysics.

1. You avoided the argument altogether. There is no faith involved in agreeing with the rules of science and or logic, much like there is no faith in agreeing with a definition of "house". It's an agreement between people on what the rules will be when operating in the particular framework/system.

2. Logic and reason take a back-seat to your ridiculous superstitions. That's a fact. Whether you want to call that "disappear" or not, is semantics. It's a fact that your ridiculous superstitious cannot muster even trivial cricitism from a scientist.

Like I said above, keep your logic and your reason, but place them in a context of faith that there is a transcendental Truth to the universe.

That's a fancy word of saying that you abandon logic and reason whenever it suits you. Whenever your sacred-cows run the risk of being refuted, logic and reason suddenly don't apply; whenever your sacred-cows are safe (or your life depends on it), suddenly it's okay to use logic and reason.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

1. You avoided the argument altogether. There is no faith involved in agreeing with the rules of science and or logic, much like there is no faith in agreeing with a definition of "house". It's an agreement between people on what the rules will be when operating in the particular framework/system.

2. Logic and reason take a back-seat to your ridiculous superstitions. That's a fact. Whether you want to call that "disappear" or not, is semantics. It's a fact that your ridiculous superstitious cannot muster even trivial cricitism from a scientist.



That's a fancy word of saying that you abandon logic and reason whenever it suits you. Whenever your sacred-cows run the risk of being refuted, logic and reason suddenly don't apply; whenever your sacred-cows are safe (or your life depends on it), suddenly it's okay to use logic and reason.

Your ladder of logic and reason is still leaning against a blank wall. You can climb up and down it all you want, but your ladder isn't taking you anywhere. My ladder already took me to the window where I climbed inside and learned of new things.

But go ahead, keep ignoring the fact that the window exists, and keep climbing your ladder to the blank wall.

Also, read this before you continue thinking faith and reason are opposed to one another. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo...-ratio_en.html