Atheists and proof

[Kdtym10]

On several threads, some atheists have said they would believe in God/the Divine if they had proof. If you’re an atheist what would that proof look like to you?

The burden of proof is always on the one who asserts the claim.

That is very true. Otherwise I could assert that there is a pink unicorn flying around earth and influencing events. People would rightly want some proof of my assertion.

Same with a mythical 'God'

*If god appeared in the sky and said tomorrow I'm going to make Mount Everest disappear and the next day it had disappeared then I'm be inclined to believe that he existed (unless there was evidence of some David Copperfield style trickery going on).

If god existed and wanted us to be sure of his existence then the proof for him would be obvious. It's only because he either doesn't exist or for some reason doesn't want us to be certain that he exists*

Exactly. Christians always assume that non believers 'will never be satisfied' with any proof. That is simply wrong!

It would be SO easy for a supposed omnipotent God to prove his existence, so easy! I for one would certainly change my mind in that case.

But he doesn't, so he either doesn't exist or doesn't want us to know he exists. I am happy to accept that too.

@JustForWomen - How do you explain this without a creator?

Evolution. Mathematics describes the repeating patterns found in nature, allowing us to understand why they have evolved that way (efficiency, basically). It doesn't imply they were designed by a mathematician or an intelligence of any sort. Unless you choose to call the budding patterns of an archaic micro-organism intelligent - I suppose some might, but it certainly didn't sit down and think about ways to generate copies of itself!

The Eden question's emblematic of the faith debate: God explicitly told Adam & Eve not to eat the fruit of knowledge. Sneaky satanic snake persuades them to eat it; God's furious and chucks 'em out. Accordingly, the very worst crime humanity can commit against God is to get a taste of knowledge.

This tells us the biblical god is violently opposed to human knowledge. He wants us to live in ignorance, depending entirely on him.

It's very convenient for the priestly class, who, in those days, were more powerful than kings and wanted to hold on to their power.

@Kdtym10 "How do yo think scientific methodology is equipped to deal with the non physical not bound by rules of scientific theory"

Like what?

All posts are referring to god as 'him'. Is this just the translation of the christian bible or are gods in other religions referred to as 'him' as well?

For me the absence of childhood cancer and childhood suffering would do it for me. No god would allow that.

I know it's an age old question but to people who believe in god who say "but where did the first organism come from"... where did god come from?

If you don't believe the earth came to be without a creator, then who or what created the creator? Why is it that god can just 'be' but other things can't?

I'm always curious as to thoughts on this as I've heard the question posed many times but never heard an answer.

Personally, I don't think we need to define god. For me the question is "Do you believe in the paranormal?" My answer is no.

This is known as the problem of infinite regress.

Religious people do not have an answer for this.

Good question! He or she would have to show evidence of their age somehow, their ability to blink the universe into existence, create planets and lifeforms, right in front of me.

Here's the thing though, if this somehow happened and I was convinced by the evidence, I would absolutely NEVER bow down to him or her. I wouldn't become religious in any way. Any diety that created lifeforms that had to eat each other for survival is a monster and not worthy of love and worship in any shape or form.

To be fair there are lots of questions we can ask that the scientific method as such can't (yet) address. For example, the origin of the universe could be considered not exactly a science question but a metaphysical one. But it doesn't mean we can't have a rational approach to the question, actively seeking scrutiny / testing so that our beliefs may better approximate the truth.

This could be seen as the opposite of faith, which seeks to maintain the belief for its own sake and therefore prevents the selection of more truth-approximating beliefs.

The way I see it, faith is a good way for non-truth-approximating beliefs to persist in the face of scrutiny. If a belief system places a strong emphasis on faith, it can be taken as a proxy for it not being very true, as not-truth-approximating belief systems are under the greatest selection pressure to emphasise faith.

@Sleepmoreplease "To be fair there are lots of questions we can ask that the scientific method as such can't (yet) address."

For me, it's always the "yet". Much virtue in "yet"!

Isn't that all a bit 'circular reasoning'?

Forgive me but I don't see the circle in what they've said.

If I said "I presume my neighbour doesn't have a gardener, because their brambles are out of control" would that be circular reasoning?

Weeds = no gardener

Suffering = no all powerful benevolent entity

These are both linear deductions

Here's the thing though, if this somehow happened and I was convinced by the evidence, I would absolutely NEVER bow down to him or her.

If there was evidence of any God, then I'd have to have a good long chat with him/her before trusting him/her! He/she would have to earn his/her trust and work hard to persuade me to trust him/her

I find it so strange that some people choose to blindly trust and believe in some mythical figure - a figure that chooses to create genetic mutations that cause brain tumours in small children

Don't you believers ever question this 'blind' faith??

Begging the question of whether God has to be benevolent?

Proof of which God though?

And what if it's a gardener who happens to be sympathetic towards brambles and likes to encourage their growth?

I'm not saying there is or isn't a God but I think a lot of the problem is to do with our overwhelming urges to be anthropomorphic, we can only see things through the human lens.

Begging the question of whether God has to be benevolent?

Why on earth would I want to look up to a God that creates cancer in my children, that lets innocent children die????

we can only see things through the human lens.

And through our human lens there is absolutely no evidence of any god!

So let's just accept that we don't understand everything (yet).

This is why God has to be defined by the person asking the question if they want a satisfactory answer.

Personally I find this line of argument a touch disingenuous as I'm yet to meet a person advocating religious faith who thinks they're adhering to the expectations of a morally ambiguous or evil God for solely for the pragmatic benefits. Meeting somebody who did hold that belief would certainly be an interesting conversation!

What I'm referring to is garden with no evidence of interference or maintenance by any external entity whatsoever.

Can you be a "gardener" if you do no gardening?

Can you be a God, if you don't ever do any "God stuff"?

I can't rationally deny the existence of an all powerful deity that chooses to do nothing ever, or to perfectly simulate their non-existence but then that's God reduced to the inconsequential (and it's not the God that theists have faith in either).

Or all powerful. Lots of gods are depicted as neither.

This isn't a question of looking up to a god though, the question was what proof would convince you of it's existence.