Just Curious
Posted on: February 26, 2007 - 2:56pm
Offline
Just Curious
I'm new here, but I've seen a few posts here that refer to words like proof / evidence / etc.
I'm curious, what would constitute proof to an athiest that God exists..?? Give me just one or two examples of something that would provide indisputable evidence of the existence of God...??
Some of you are asking the theists for proof / evidence - so what would that proof / evidence be..??
- Login to post comments
God actually appearing and announcing himself would be evidence. And I don't mean some weird event happening that someone says is that, I mean in a way that can't be explained in any other way.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
"God actually appearing and announcing himself would be evidence".
Matt - in the year 2007 - EVERYTHING / ANYTHING can be explained by anybody who chooses not to believe in something.
Do you have any idea how many people around the world really believe that the Holocaust is actually a myth - despite the overwhelming evidence ??
C'mon, Matt, you can do better than that - according to theists, "God" did appear in the person of Jesus Christ a couple of thousand years ago - and you don't believe - so your response is nothing more than a leaky vessel - it doesn't hold water..!!
C'mon it's an easy question - what would convince you that God really exists..??
Go read more around here - many of us believe Jesus Christ was a myth - there is no evidence whatsoever he was anything other than a retelling of earlier myths - and there is plenty of documentation of the holocaust - writings of those who lived through it, pictures, the actual camps themselves, etc. For Gd/Jesus - a book written many years after he supposedly died - filled with utter nonsense.
By the way, don't be surprised if this gets moved - only Freethinkers are supposed to be posting in this forum.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
According to christians and the like. There are many theists who don't think Jesus was real, or a prophet. etc.
"of those who lived through it, pictures, the actual camps themselves, etc."
That's precisely the point I'm trying to make, Matt.
Despite a mountain of evidence that the Holocaust actually happened, there are hundreds of millions of people around the world - i.e. the middle east - who believe it was a myth.
So, if a mountain of evidence can't convince hundreds of millions of people that an actual event that happened / was documented less than 70 years ago actually occured, then what could possibly convince anybody that God possibly exists.
As for the "non-existence" of Christ, there are several non-Christian references to Christ i.e. Josephus / Cornelius Tacitus / Lucian / Suetonius / Pliny the Younger / Thallus / Mara Bar Serapion.
Of course, there are no photographic references to Jesus - but then there isn't any photographic references to George Washington either.
So let's deny his existence too while we're at it..!!
"There are many theists who don't think Jesus was real, or a prophet. etc. "
Yeah - you're probably right - and there are many theists - and non-theists too for that mater - who believe that they're Napolean and belong in padded cells..!!
Your point is what..??? That just because some non-credible people believe in something somehow gives their ideas or beliefs legitimacy / credibility..??!!
As far as I'm concerned, a person can believe in anything they want - just don't try and convince me that just because they believe in it makes it credible..!
But I'm curious - point me to a link of a respected THEIST - SCHOLAR who doesn't believe that Jesus was a real person..!!
It just flew over your head
No.
Just find any scholar who isn't a christian and the like, chances are he/she will think that jesus wasn't the son of god/wasn't real etc.
If the scholar didn't think Jesus was a real person, I doubt he would still be a theist.
Atheist Books
Sigghh Why do Christians always bring the same BS up - is there like an academy where they teach this? Every time you bring up Ceasar, George Washington, Napoleon, etc we can show there are tons of evidence for their existence - and even their own writings in many cases! The people who deny the holocaust are a very small group who have a reson for doing so. And here's a video made by the admins on this site that also answers much of what you said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lnFobYlsF4
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
You just summed up the entire field of apologetics in that sentence. That is exactly what they do. Kudos goes to you, sir.
Maybe if they were a Hindu or other non-Abrahamic religion.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
"There are many theists who don't think Jesus was real, or a prophet. etc. "
OK - so like I asked you in my ORIGINAL response, point me to one link of a RESPECTED theist who claims that Christ was a fictional character.
You made the claim that "there are many theists who don't think that Jesus was real" - now you back it up..!!
And spare me the nonsense about any writer who "isn't a Christian" - you said that there are many theists..!!!
Now back it up with some facts..!!!
"Every time you bring up Ceasar, George Washington, Napoleon, etc we can show there are tons of evidence for their existence - and even their own writings in many cases!"
Yeah - yeah - yeah - and you guys bring up the same nonsense too - "Gee, we know Caesar existed because people wrote about him"..
Well, let me give you a scoop, Matt - people wrote about Christ too..!!
So if you're using written references as the standard, then I guess we can both agree that Christ was a real person.
And you have irrefutable proof of God appearing as Jesus of Nazareth where? Oh, that Bible thingy written long after he "died".
I've always been a fan of the answer "If God is omniscient as you claim, he knows what he needs to do to prove he exists. If he's omnipotent as you claim, he can pull what he needs to do off. Since he hasn't done it yet, he either doesn't know what it is, he can't do it or he simply doesn't care enough about my soul to make it happen."
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Try reading. Ceasar wrote things himself! Did you even watch the video? People wrote about Superman, guess he exists too.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
DUH - that's kind of the point isn't it..??
Ophios' comment was akin to "alot of theists don't think Christ was real or a prophet".
His statement - not mine.
ALL I asked him to do was to point me to one single link to a credible theist / scholar who believes this..??
Are you the creme of the free thinkers / rational repsonders..???
I would say it's a safe bet that Mensa isn't actively recruiting you all for membership...!!
If people can deny the Holocaust despite a mountain of evidence, then the existence of god is all the less credible, where there is not a smidgen of evidence, let alone a mountain.
Wrong, O baptized one. there are non-christian references to christianity and the worship of christ. Outside of the gospels, there are no references to jesus himself. And to this day, there are no contemporary accounts (i.e., dating approximately to the years 0 - 33) attesting to a person named jesus, who traveled the countryside doing tricks, and certainly no contemporary accounts of anyone rising from the dead.
Search through the forums a bit and see what your catholic forbear St. Michael left in his wake.There are no theists on operating tables.
No I don't have irrefutable proof - I never said I did.
I threw out a very simple question - what in the year 2007 would actually constitute proof / evidence of God's existence..??
And so far I've gotten nothing but BS answers from you "free thinking" genius'.
Like I said to another poster a few minutes ago, judging by the responses I've gotten, I don't think any of you have to worry about Mensa bothering you about joining their organization..!!
Since there is no evidence to present then there really isn't much point to the question is there?
Zarathustra:
Seriously, are you guys naturally stupid - or do you have to work at it..???!!
Once again, let me throw out the same question and I'll try to use as many one syllable words as I possibly can so all of you "free - thinking rational responders" will understand.
In the year 2007, what would be proof of the existence of God..??
Sorry for the 3 syllable word - existence - look it up in the dictionary if you don't know what it means..!!
My ancestors hired Washington as an attorney over some land deals. So there are some signed documents by George Washington but there is nothing written by Jesus or anything written by contemporary historians about Jesus. So it's a piss poor comparison.
How about instead of making excuses you present the evidence that you have then open it for critique. That would be the most sensible path to take. However I don't expect you to actually present any since that's not your point of posting here.
hi catholic theist,
why do you think atheists don't believe in a god of the bible? why do you think that not every person in the world is catholic?
Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein
Who says there isn't evidence - you..????!!!
But that's kind of the point of my post, isn't it..??
If you Einsteins don't believe there's any "evidence"/ proof, then why are you "free thinking rational responding " genius' asking theists for evidence if there is none..??
Proof?
First assemble an independent panel of judges consisting of scientists, medical professionals, and any other specialists deemed necessary to ensure no trickery is conducted during the test. Then, produce a person - whom the panel confirms is an actual human being - who can 1)walk on water, 2)turn water into wine, 3)wither fig trees, and 4)raise people from the dead. Each of these miracles would have to be verified by the panel of judges to confirm authenticity. Then, permit this person to be killed, and have the panel confirm that he/she is dead. Place the dead body in a tomb and seal the tomb with a stone which is beyond the strength of at least 3 human beings to roll away. Have the panel affirm that there are no possible means of egress from the tomb. Let the tomb remain under continuous observation for a duration of 72 hours, to ensure that no interference occurs. After 72 hours, let the stone roll away by non-human means (if an angel is required for this, this should be established before the test begins). The individual who was previously certified as dead should present him/herself from within the tomb, and submit to a DNA test to confirm that it is the same individual. Following investigation to ensure no trickery is involved, the individual should rise into heaven. If possible, the individual should take a device by which to record images of heaven to ensure that he/she has arrived there. . The individual should promptly return to earth trailing clouds of glory. The individual should also bring back a material sample from heaven. The sample will be submitted for inspection to ensure its substance does not exist on earth, or anywhere else in the known universer. The individual should also bring back a carefully-worded explanation from God as to why he/she cares if we believe in him/her, as well as parsimonious solutions to the omnipotence/omniscience and Euthypro paradoxes. These should be submitted to a team of logicians to ensure no logical fallacies are being employed. If possible, an original, uncorrupted version of the bible should also be produced, along with explanation for each innaccuracy in the scriptures.
That should do it for me.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Mouse:
I have no idea why somebody believes or doesn't believe in something.!!!!!
Why do YOU think my neighbour down the street believes that the Broncos are going to win the Super Bowl in 2007..??
Or why do YOU think a fellow I work with - Bob - doesn't believe he's going to get a big bonus at work this year..??
Do you have any more stupid questions you want to ask me - or is the two you've already asked your quota for today..???
Anyone want to start a pool on how long before this asshat gets banned for trolling and ignoring posts that counter him?
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Simple: We are not aware of any evidence for God, or any god, unless you can present it to us.
When there was no evidence for black holes that didn't stop people from looking for evidence of black holes. When evidence was found it was presented. Scientists didn't go around asking people what sort of evidence they'd accept before they presented it, they just presented the evidence they had. You, on the other hand, don't have evidence, that's why you aren't presenting any and that's why you are making pathetic excuses for your failures.
I would like to see him earn the Asshat avatar, first.
Atheist Books
Oh - I;m sure I'll get banned - because I see thorugh the BS you guys are full of.
I raised a simple question - and 30 response later, all I've gotten is one stupid answer and 29 incredibly stupid answers.
But don't worry, Matt, I got a real flavour of the people who post here..!!
I see.
You:
1. threw out flamebait
2. got answers to your question
3. made a claim that "God came to earth as Jesus Christ"
4. got called on that claim
5. resorted to ad hominem because you didn't like the answers you got.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
geez, sorry i'm not at your level of intelligence, but even still, just the answer-"I have know idea why somebody believes or doesn't believe in something" would have been sufficient (thank you for your answer). i asked a question; no need to get angry in a discussion forum.
Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein
His only intent on posting was to harass and insult Atheists. That's quite typical of the bible thumpers who can't engage in intellectual discourse.
Never even watched the video either.
What video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lnFobYlsF4
From the link above - made by Sapient and Rook.
Oh! I thought that you meant the God Who Wasn't There movie. But he should watch that one, too.
Atheist Books
I'm sure he hasn't seen that! Wouldn't want to spend that money to have it go to atheists! Of course he could just make a youtube video denying the Holy Spirit and get it free that way! LOL!
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I've said it before and I'll say it everytime I hear this challenge: If a book materialized out of nothing right in my hands, and it contained convincing information of its truth (such as large amounts of scientific knowledge that has not already been discovered, or information about me that nobody knows but me), and it contained god's true message to humanity (i.e. no one can find contradictions or anything like that), then I would believe in god.
The problem with the bible, quran, and any other holy book is that their prophecies are bogus and they are full of contradictions. Give me some non-bogus predictions that can be tested scientifically and no lies or falsehoods, and yeah, I'd be able to dig that.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Damn, somebody just got f'ed in the a.
Personally, I'd like to see a DNA test. We could get a sample from god and compare it to jesus to see if god is really mary's baby daddy. The guy owes 2,000 years of back child support no wonder nobody's seen him in millennia.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Which god?
As a Deist I believe in a intelligent first cause/prime mover force because there is evidence to suggest that such a thing exists- ie: the mathematicall precise design and complexity of the Cosmos. But as for a personal sky-daddy/mommy, I don't think I can be convinced such a thing exists- too much evidence against the idea.
In Reason:
Iconoclastithon
"There is no greater weapon against errors of any kind than REASON, I have never used any other and I trust I never shall"-Thomas Paine
"God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon"-Thomas Paine
Yea, you are coming pretty close. Not there yet, but a few more ad hominems and some more unnecessary antagonizations and you will be. Consider yourself warned.
Post moved to the appropriate section.
The Enlightenment wounded the beast, but the killing blow has yet to land...
really? what a weird thing to say.
they may not be correct, but i could definitely come up with some ideas. you couldn't? not even one idea? that's really weird.
what exactly is stupid about asking you to speculate on the reasons why atheists don't believe in your god? (shouldn't you know them, so as to be able to refute them?) most people are perfectly capable of such speculation. even if you are not (which i can only assume would be the result of some kind of bizarre localized brain damage). perhaps you were too scared to hazard a guess, so you had to lash out instead.
as for your original question, i don't know what kind of evidence would convince me. all the evidence i can think of would not point to god in any kind of definitive way. the best answer i can give is that the evidence which would be able to convince me that such a being truly exists, and didn't point to something else, is currently beyond my ability to conceive. what do you think should convince me? (oh, shoot, i'm sorry, you're probably not able to answer such a question, my bad).
Rill
Proof?
First assemble an independent panel of judges consisting of scientists, medical professionals, and any other specialists deemed necessary to ensure no trickery is conducted during the test. Then, produce a person - whom the panel confirms is an actual human being - who can 1)walk on water, 2)turn water into wine, 3)wither fig trees, and 4)raise people from the dead. Each of these miracles would have to be verified by the panel of judges to confirm authenticity. Then, permit this person to be killed, and have the panel confirm that he/she is dead. Place the dead body in a tomb and seal the tomb with a stone which is beyond the strength of at least 3 human beings to roll away. Have the panel affirm that there are no possible means of egress from the tomb. Let the tomb remain under continuous observation for a duration of 72 hours, to ensure that no interference occurs. After 72 hours, let the stone roll away by non-human means (if an angel is required for this, this should be established before the test begins). The individual who was previously certified as dead should present him/herself from within the tomb, and submit to a DNA test to confirm that it is the same individual. Following investigation to ensure no trickery is involved, the individual should rise into heaven. If possible, the individual should take a device by which to record images of heaven to ensure that he/she has arrived there. . The individual should promptly return to earth trailing clouds of glory. The individual should also bring back a material sample from heaven. The sample will be submitted for inspection to ensure its substance does not exist on earth, or anywhere else in the known universer. The individual should also bring back a carefully-worded explanation from God as to why he/she cares if we believe in him/her, as well as parsimonious solutions to the omnipotence/omniscience and Euthypro paradoxes. These should be submitted to a team of logicians to ensure no logical fallacies are being employed. If possible, an original, uncorrupted version of the bible should also be produced, along with explanation for each innaccuracy in the scriptures.
That should do it for me.
Exactly! If there truly was a God who did send his son to die for our sins (as Dawkins pointed out, what was the point? If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive?) Why does God have to be so unreasonably enigmatic? This happened 2000 years ago and is of questionable veracity. Memories fade, documents are distorted, history is rewritten, meaning is distorted. If God was truly a reasonable God, he would not expect us to have faith in this event. In this day and age, we have far better tools of recording and academic integrity. If God wants us to turn to him, He would do it again...and with the amount of irrefutable evidence that we could compile today, everyone would be convinced. Why does God have to play as the man in the shadows?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
In any case, we can always fall back on Reggie's classic: Surely God would know what evidence would be sufficient enough to convince me that he exists. That's the problem with claiming your god is omniscient and omnipotent. If he really is, then the question of what evidence would it take to believe in him is a moot question, because god surely knows the answer and has the power to show the evidence as well. If he refuses to give the evidence, then why should we believe?
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Thanks, natural.
I brought that one up myself and forgot to attribute it to friend Reggie.
I think that's what started Catholic Theist on his "all I'm geting is stupid answers from stupid people" rants.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Starting to think this was one of those "hit and run" type posters.
I know...I was really curious to see his/her response, especially after that cat-calling frenzy. Are the theists now resorting to guerilla warfare?
There are no theists on operating tables.
I would like to add something about what evidence would be enough for me to believe in a god. I ,as what is called a postive agnostic atheist, personally think there is nothing that someone could show to me to prove that there is a god.
'Proof', huh? Well, I suppose god could just perform the miracle of neuron reconfiguration: He could just modify my brain to be a theist one. That would work, if god were to exist.
As for less direct methods, I don't know if there is any sure-fire way to prove the existence of god to me. Perhaps you'd like to present a case for god, and see if it works.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.