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?

How do you know it wasn't the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Or the tooth fairy? Or SpongeBob?

The rest as to why does water have that effect on light can be explained if you step through the relevant physics. As the PP has said, it can be demonstrated through experiment.

A scientific fact is an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and is currently accepted as true. Importantly, if further information comes to light that fact could be reclassified as inaccurate and modified or rejected if now completely inaccurate.

This would seem to indicate a linear progression of religious thinking into scientific thought which is clearly incorrect. It is framework largely based on a paradigm popularised in the 19th century and naively still followed by some today!

I’ll refer you back to the previous thread and the Gilgamesh AI incident!

I don’t assume that people on Mumsnet can’t write decently. I, justifiably, have that opinion of AI.

Frankly, if there was a god, he/she/it would be so pissed off with people worshipping different versions of he/she/it -self, and killing each other over it, that they would surely have to appear to clear matters up!

The evidence that he/she/it obviously doesn't give a sh!t about that, is basically the same as if he/she/it didn't exist. Which is rather more likely.

We're left with "what about a God that does nothing we can ever observe". Such a "God" is meaningless.
Brilliant point, well made.👏
What is the point of a god that never manifests itself?

I have adhd and ptsd which can both affect communicating style. maybe you should take less offence and stop judging and criticising people when you don’t understand the background and consider other factors might be at play that influence style.

You don’t have to interact, it’s your choice. Just like it’s your choice to be so judgemental.

I'm not offended at all. I was communicating that your tone can make it difficult to engage with you because it's combative.

I appreciate your communicating style is affected by the diagnoses you mention.

I didn't make a value judgement about it. In fact, I specifically mentioned that you have some thought provoking and interesting ideas! I didn't dismiss you or judge you at all.

I was pointing out that you can have a more meaningful discussion if you use a less combative tone.

My ADHD affects me in a number of ways too. I do get it. It's not easy. So I try to work on the challenges (whether that's communication / concentration / hyper fixation) it can cause me.

I think it's a shame to dismiss people as judgmental so easily rather than taking on board someone saying that trying to post your interesting and thought provoking thoughts in a less argumentative way would help you have more meaningful discussions.

Doesn’t that make them agnostics ? Not atheists.

Frankly, if there was a god, he/she/it would be so pissed off with people worshipping different versions of he/she/it -self, and killing each other over it, that they would surely have to appear to clear matters up!
He did, according to the Bible, regarding Baal.
If he did it thousands of years ago, why not now?

But that’s the very question - what proof would convince you?

@Kdtym10

I've said this several times but will say it again:

An omnipotent God that knows everything will know that many of us do not believe he exists

Therefore he will know exactly what he needs to do to convince us of his existence. There are a million ways that he could make himself known!

If he really existed then he would easily know the best way to let us know and convince us!

@Kdtym10 Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Maybe consider how your own comments might come across. For example, your initial comment came across to me like a teacher rebuking a 12 year old
and very controlling and passive aggressive.

I found it came across much worse than anyone else’s style. But, if you hadn’t raised style issues I would just have moved on and I find it an utterly bizarre point to pick up on.

Because light is made up of different wavelengths and those wavelengths travel at different speeds in different mediums.

Both.

"Scientific fact" is just that. Scientifically, evidentially proven to be so.

Who made light? Why does there need to be a 'who'?

But why is light made up of different wave lengths, in fact why have wave lengths at all? All science is really doing is describing a phenomenon, it’s not really getting down to the fundamental phenomena.

So what does “scientifically evidentially proven so” actually mean?

Why can’t there be a who?

*@Kdtym10

I've said this several times but will say it again:

An omnipotent God that knows everything will know that many of us do not believe he exists

Therefore he will know exactly what he needs to do to convince us of his existence. There are a million ways that he could make himself known!

If he really existed then he would easily know the best way to let us know and convince us!*

Following on from this, why doesn't God reveal himself to the entire world?
With so many religions in the world, revealing himself would weed out all the other religions. That would surely be in God's interest ?

It indicates nothing of the sort. For centuries, scientific progress was actively held back by the presence of religion, and the powerful people behind it.

In some quarters, it still is.

Apologies for double posting if someone answered this and I missed it but I'm really curious if any people of faith can let me know what they think of the below as I've never had an answer before and think it's a fair question.

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.

I think I’ve previously stated these at length, but to summarise; maybe there is no desire to prove existence to such an extent it takes away work or part of an individual’s own journey. It allows the individual to explore his or her own spiritual path and discover the “truth” which is much more powerful than simply being handed to them and lets him or her discover things when it is right for them.

This was the explanation on the other thread (which led to the laughable Gilgamesh incident)

Once we moved past small family groups, we needed something else to unite us in a larger social group. Ideas and beliefs are it.

This is an interesting thought. In ancient Mesopotamia, each city-state had a patron god by which the city was known. Syria was previously called Assyria, named for its capital city Assur, which was also the name of its main god (Ashur). Wars between city-states were mythologised as conflicts between their patron deities. To some degree, this tradition extended to Greece and Rome.

More nomadic civilisations don't seem to have defined themselves by their gods, though they had them. Genghis Khan, for instance, observed his religion and consulted his shamans before actions, but the unifying factor among Mongol tribes was that they were Mongols by culture and by bloodlines. They didn't think of themselves as fighting for their gods, but for Mongols and their supreme khan.

I think you would have seen similar among Northern & Western European peoples, too - they were united by what they saw as their nationality: Goths, Jutes, Angles, Gauls and so on. Like the Mongols, they were loyal to both their tribal leaders and an overarching leader whose call they would answer at any time.

I agree that we still seek belonging and leadership.

In many traditions there is a concept that The Divine came from nothing. He thought himself into being and created something separate from himself in order to contemplate the nature of this own existence. There’s varying details across different traditions.

This might shed some light (pun intended)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayin_and_Yesh

"All science is really doing is describing a phenomenon, it’s not really getting down to the fundamental phenomena."

What fundamental phenomena are you referring to here? If not the very underlying basis of the universe, eg quantum mechanics or similar?

I made that up, you numpty. On my own keyboard. Humans can do this writing stuff, incredible though you may find it!

The other poster you kept accusing of being an AI had only used it to get background information, because you'd challenged her on topics she wasn't familiar with. The rest of her replies were her own.

The OP is proving here that the worst examples of any religion are its adherents

You might find critiques of the Draper White conflict model useful when evaluating the impact of religion on scientific progress through the centuries

How so?

Because you’re snotty, and dismissive of everyone else’s opinion

maybe there is no desire to prove existence to such an extent it takes away work or part of an individual’s own journey. It allows the individual to explore his or her own spiritual path and discover the “truth” which is much more powerful than simply being handed to them and lets him or her discover things when it is right for them

But his plan is clearly not working! Many of us do not believe that he even exists.

So why is he not adapting his approach?