Why do some people find it hard to believe in God?

[MosEisley]

I believe in God.

However, I am attending an adult confirmation class and we have been asked to consider why some people do not believe in God. DH and I came up with:

• there is no absolute proof of God's existence
• they are rebelling against a strict organised religion that they can't accept as literallly true

If you know someone who doesn't believe in God, why don't they?

Excuse me, rational?

No one thought to record it? What do you mean?

exexpat, you undoubtably wont believe a testimony but that doesn't mean there's no proof.

Shroedinger's cat?

Beginners, Cottonmouth?

How strange.

I should point out that I, in common with many other atheists, am not only the product of a Christian religious upbringing, I was also a member of a cult evangelical church as a young person. I've heard dozens of testimonies, seen people speaking in tongues and having raptures, ruling their choices through random selection of biblical verses ("consulting").

I know the bible very, very well. Far more so than most of the christians I come across.

How would a beginners book help, exactly?

I now expect a riposte along the lines of "he who has ears to hear" or possibly "God hardened your heart" or similar.

If my earlier response was to you, crunchyfrog, please accept my sincere apologies. I have obviously overlooked your Christian pedigree.

However, my point basically stands. There is proof in those testimonies, even if you personally don't connect with it. There is a lot of life that I don't understand, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't live in the Universe according to Cottonmouth. I can't interpret classic literature without the help of an English teacher, I don't have a clue what goes on at CERN, Stephen Hawkins' mathematical equations make my eyes gaze over, I don't 'get' the exhibits in the Centre Pompidou, I don't know a word of Mandarin, and I could go on and on. Do I accept that other people get them? Yes, absolutely.

As I glance through this thread, I see what it means in John 1:10.

I think some people need to find out what Evidence and Proof actually mean and then use them correctly if they are attempting to prove there is evidence that there is a god.

Why don't you share your wisdom, Tapir?

Gosh, sorry cottonmouth I assumed you were speaking to all of the people contributing to the thread, that's why I replied, see.

But you were only directing your remarks to atheists with no experience, who have never been affected by religion?

OK.

PS, please explain what this proof is? How is it verifiable?

I am waiting for Tapir to educate me on what proof is.

I assume we are not talking about a scientific proof?

While we are waiting, can anyone prove that God does not exist?

Course not. He may well exist, in his all his patriarchal glory. There's no certainty in life. Unless you're a theist, of course.

What proof are we talking about then? Feelings and similar?

Don't you find it an extraordinary co-incidence that of all the gods who have ever been worshipped, the 21st century version of a Hebrew death cult is the one who is actually true and ought to be venerated?

Can anyone prove Santa does not exist? There are celebrations where he figures heavily, photos and pictures are taken of him, songs are sung about him.

Dictionary definitions of Evidence and Proof are below.

evidence [ˈɛvɪdəns]
n

1. grounds for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood
2. a mark or sign that makes evident; indication his pallor was evidence of ill health

proof (prf)
n.

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions. b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.

a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability. b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

My wisdom is this. I have had dealings with many believers, of lots of different flavours of faith, and have found that the only difference between them is which god/s they believe in.

Of course no one can prove the non-existence of anything.

No one can prove that the Loch Ness Monster, the Yeti or Big Foot exist, but given the repeated failure of anyone to provide concrete proof that they do exist, most rational people now conclude that they don't.

Likewise with the existence/non-existence of God. There is no actual - yes, scientific - proof that God exists. I can quite accept that some people feel that there is a God, even believe that they can communicate with him, but what someone else believes or feels does not amount to proof of existence.

I don't really see what you are trying to get at with the analogies of not understanding certain pieces of literature or art, or other languages - no one would ever try to claim that those things didn't exist because some people didn't understand them, would they? I think it would be fairly easy to provide scientific proof that a book called Pride and Prejudice exists, or a language known as Mandarin.

Why is the demand for proof so one-sided?

Can we just agree that proof doesn't make one a Christian. It is faith. You either have it or you don't. It's a red herring asking for it. If someone has no faith, no mountain of evidence is going help them get it.

Faith comes from an encounter with God, mostly through human relationships.

"Is it your belief that Christians do not have evidence for their faith. If that is the case, you are wrong."" is what you posted last night.

That's why people are asking for evidence!

Exexpat - the analogy thing is circular thinking. A = B = C = A.

Kinda like this.

The bible is the word of god

but how can you be sure it's the word of god?

Because the bible tells us so

but why believe the bible?

Because the bible is infallible

but how do you know the bible is infallible?

Because the bible is the word of god.......

Crunchy, and I invited you to read testimonies to find out the evidence that Christians have. It is not your evidence, but it is their evidence. No one can say there is no evidence for God's existence because there is plenty. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is a very self-centred view to think otherwise.

This thing about 'evidence' for God's existence...

I think it's all about (to use the time-honoured phrase) 'wat gets to be Queen of the Sciences?'

In the mediaeval period, theology was thout of as 'Queen of the Sciences' in that it provided the intellectual framework for all studies. That's why theology was called 'the highest faculty' in Oxford.

That changed round about the time of the Renaissance, and from there on in, physics has taken over as Queen ofthe Sciences, in that the methodology used in physics has become the accepted way of accessing 'truth' in all studies. Hence big ruckus between Dawkins and (eg) McGrath. (There's going to be a public debate between Dawkins, Rowan Williams and Anthony Kenny in Oxford soon - unfortunately sold out but it'll be reall yworth listening to the transcripts).

It's ultimately a question of authority, this search for 'evidence' is a demand for Christian faith to be answerable to the methodology of science, and therefore implicitly the statement that 'science' (as it is variously understood) is the authoritative standard. Which is okay as far as it goes, I'm no Luddite - but I do think that theological questions (eg God's existence) can't logically be answered with scientific answers. That's like asking a question in French and being answered in Swahili. That's my take, anyway...

Apologies for hideous typos! I am literate, honest, guv - my computer less so...

It's very self centred to think that because you feel a thing is true, it counts as proof that there is a god.

If that actually counted as evidence, court cases would certainly be a lot different.

OK, so cottonmouth about an hour ago said, "exexpat, you undoubtably wont believe a testimony but that doesn't mean there's no proof." But having been able to supply any proof, cottonmouth is now falling back on the argument that proof doesn't matter, and it is all about faith. Which I think we all agreed on several days ago anyway. Yes, it is all very circular.

So, to sum up, atheists don't believe in god because they don't believe there is a god, and Christians believe in god because they believe there is a god. Everything else is basically irrelevant, and no Christian is ever going to prove to an atheist that God does exist, and no atheist is ever going to prove to a Christian that God doesn't exist. Right?

That was the basic conclusion of a long discussion I had with my SiL and BiL (evangelical Christians) many years ago, and after that we agreed to drop the subject as we were never going to change each others' minds.

So everything is fine, we can all believe what we want to believe and leave each other alone. The only problem comes when one set of people insists that their beliefs are superior to or take priority over anyone else's beliefs. And unfortunately that happens far too often.

It's not evidence. It's personal anecdote.

Evidence is a different thing entirely.

I've read testimonies. I've also seen people delivering their testimony. I had a wonderful teacher who has an amazing testimony about how his belief in god saved him from alcoholism.

The fact remains, it is all based on personal experience and feelings. That is not evidence.

Exactly, exexpat. Why should the religious dominate education, abortion rights, politics etc? Why should their beliefs be more important than anyone elses?

It certainly is hard to imagine any kind of evidence based on a human perceptual experience that would convince me to accept the existence of God. I live with a person who at times can read other people's minds, including mine, and will tell me all about what they are thinking.

I think he is a highly sensitive person who suffers from a mental illness, and also that, in his illness, although it is painful and debilitating and he/I would rather he didn't have it, he frequently has interesting insights into other people and his own life.

I am not convinced by any of this that telepathy exists.

I don't see the issue. I am not the one asking for proof. I don't think (material) proof gets you anywhere.

But if the way this debate goes is to demand proof from one side, it is only fair to ask for it in the other direction too, if only as a debate tool.

That's in response to exexpat (why can't you quote on this site?)

Well, there aren't any gods. But some people seem to want to believe in 'something'. I think they are entitled to have as many imaginary friends as they like, but problems arise whenever they start insisting that the rest of us take these imaginary friends seriously.

"Excuse me, rational?

No one thought to record it? What do you mean?"

I was being flippant actually, but there is a point to my comment.

You, and other christians, tend to talk a lot about god 'revealing' himself and how he just hasn't 'revealed' himself to me. Now, think about the word reveal, it means 'to lay open to view/display/exhibit. Now if something were truly 'revealed' one should be able to touch it, see it, and photograph or record it on film. My flippancy being that no one had thought to record the event on camera.

The word reveal is being manipulated to mean another thing entirely, purely because it's in regard to your god. You can't just change words, it doesn't work like that. It certainly doesn't act as evidence to say that he has revealed himself to you. That is unless you do have photographic evidence?