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?

My own NDE with a saint ...the Heavenlies were discussing to take me Up also, at a very young age, without having majour health issue....happened, but I was told it is not my time yet, so I was left ....that was 30 years ago. I am still here and I believe in God, Jesus and all that. I cannot give anyone other proofs other than telling my experiences are real and not made up

Mumbo jumbo

She came on her major holiday in my room at night, I was fully awake and an angel was present, gave me a personal message and I did not know that on the next morning was one of her feast. When I woke up , the whole visit is amazing

Wait... were you awake or was this a dream?

We have to allow the unbeliever to be gently convinced ....by the Holy Spirit

@TheFancyPoet

I have zero experience speaking to people who had relatives died in pain or early, apart from a friend of mine who died at the age of 42 on a street, from asthma attack, in front of her two small children. So I talked to her parents.

I'm so sorry for the loss of your friend. I could cry and the unthinkable trauma of her children watching her die.

Do moments like that not rock your faith hugely though? That god could watch two small children terrified, crying, watching their mum die in front of them and allow it to happen? Would a kind and loving god watch and allow that to happen?

You say you talked to her parents. I hope that you only said things along the lines of 'it's gods plan' if they were already religious so receptive to it.

I hope her children are doing OK now, the poor little things 😞

I am open to being convinced. But I need convincing. What process of reasoning did you use to arrive at your beliefs? To believe something just because you feel you want to believe it does not make any sense. What objective evidence is there for the existence of the Holy Spirit?

I've never understood why NDEs are considered to have any relevance. They are after all the experiences of people who didn't die.

I would need someone to come back from the dead, having been dead for hours or days, not just a few minutes, and tell everyone what the afterlife is like, what goes on there and who/what god is. The coming back from the dead would be the miracle that could verify that what they'd experienced was probably real.

Randy Kay on youtube

@TheFancyPoet how long was he "clinically dead" for? I can't be bothered wading through reams of evangelical BS to find out

Agreed.

If God really existed and if he wanted us all to believe in him, he should have no problem to make this happen. It would be so easy for him to prove his existence unequivocally.

But he doesn't exist and therefore we aren't seeing any evidence of his existence.

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

What makes you think there is a 'fundamental' phenomenon that explains all others? Why does there have to be a why?

it’s a shame so few people have managed to read and answer the original question.

I honestly think people have answered and others just think there is no point repeating but I shall have a go at putting it in clearer terms:

1. You'd need to define and describe God (I.e. make a model).
2. You'd need to make a testable prediction based on that model (a hypothesis).
3. You'd need to test your hypothesis (controlling for other variables) and get results that support it.
4. You'd need to repeat those results under different conditions and others would need to reproduce them.

You could do 1 and 2 on here @Kdtym10 and we could all have a stab at 3 and 4. I think people are frustrated, not by you believing in God, but by you not doing 1 and then being a bit combative and disingenuous with those who press you on it.

I am inclined to think its probably because you don't know how to do 1 and so are frustrated being asked to do something you think you've already done.

I don't accept the premise of your question. I don't believe any true atheists claim they would believe if there was proof.

I'm basing this purely on myself and on my friends/family, but I think you're massively overestimating how much time people who are atheist or agnostic spend dwelling on this. And as others say, even if 'god' made himself apparent it wouldn't mean anything to me - his existence does not demand my worship of him.

I'm happy to say I'm agnostic rather than athiest because there really isn't any proof either way. But in all honesty no, I do not believe. In the same way as per PP I don't believe in unicorns. And I give the existence, or not, of a god pretty much the same amount of thought as I do to the existence of unicorns.

I do find religious zealots (of which there have been a fair few on this thread...) frustrating, particularly when they spout really hateful or hurtful stuff in the name of religion. But it doesn't occupy my thoughts - again, as per a PP this just popped up in active and it has been a bit of an eye opening read. And tbh reinforces my automatic response when I find that someone I meet and felt was quite sensible is actually strongly religious - that's fine, but our world views are so very different that I doubt we can be real friends. I feel the same about eg hard right wingers so it's not just those who are religious!

I could state it out loud, yes - but no one would be able to scientifically prove if I was telling the truth or lying
How do you prove love?

Thank you for taking the time to set that out.

It’s interesting though. Why do you think the scientific model is the only way to view the world. The reason I haven’t done as you suggest is because I don’t think the scientific model is suitable to test out spiritual concepts. Therefore, in my mind, it’s impossible to do as you suggest.

I realise that if you can only view the world through a scientific lens it must be frustrating that someone sees the world very differently. But to me, scientific methodology is suited to testing the physical world, not the spiritual. Proof here to me is gained through experience. Therefore, what you’re suggesting is impossible, it’s like saying to me design a hearing aid to analyse the way the smell of food affects your appetite.

I am wondering whether you have found the personal attacks against me on here “combative and disingenuous”?

In a word, nothing.

There is no God. As someone who doesn’t believe, it’s not a case of what could you do to convince me, because there is no God.

And tbh I find it alarming that anyone would actually want to believe in the God who is depicted in the bible.

Love thy God above all else, for who so ever should believeth in him should not perish, but should have ever lasting life…

The bible depicts God as being a vengeful, narcissistic controlling abuser who is happy to condemn anyone who doesn’t believe in and worship him. Exactly what is positive about that image?

If this was a parent in the real world people would be told that they should go NC, that they don’t deserve to be treated like that, and that they had been the product of an abusive childhood.

But because God “the father” has control, we must worship him, fear him, otherwise face eternal punishment.

I understand why religion was originally invented. Man needed a way to explain the world around him, added to which, people don’t want to believe that there is no life after death, and so the idea that a higher being must exist was born. Also the majority of law is born from the Ten Commandments and so brought law and order to society. But we’re centuries on from that now, and we have the knowledge and the insight to know that it can’t possibly be real. And also that people shouldn’t be guided by fear of retribution.

I’ve found religious people some of the most judging offensive people I’ve ever met. Not all, but unfortunately it’s a case of those having the most offensive and hateful views shouting the loudest, and those are the people who create the picture of what religion really looks like.

I don’t go round condemning people openly for believing in God. I don’t care as long as they don’t feel the need to tell me about it.

People can believe what they want. If they’re a decent person they won’t have preached to me anyway.

Preaching on the streets and at people’s doors and even on threads like this is offensive IMO and should be banned. There are churches if people want to go and live out their beliefs.

If I stood out on the street and proclaimed that there is no God, and that the God depicted in the bible is an abusive narcissist, I would probably be charged with a hate crime. And yet someone can stand on the street and call people to God lest they be condemned to the eternal Hell and we’re supposed to respect their beliefs?

It’s interesting though. Why do you think the scientific model is the only way to view the world. The reason I haven’t done as you suggest is because I don’t think the scientific model is suitable to test out spiritual concepts.

I don't. You asked how to provide evidence- that's how. If you aren't going to define God and test whether your predictions are valid then you can't provide any evidence.

This.

But, I guess that is what the original question is asking. Do you only define evidence as that which can be derived from the scientific model? If so, do you think you can test the existence of the Divine through the scientific model?

From my perspective the answer to both of those questions is no. But interested to heAr your perspective.

Do you only define evidence as that which can be derived from the scientific model? If so, do you think you can test the existence of the Divine through the scientific model?

The Scientific model is not some discrete thing, its just a way of being systematic about trying to be objective. If objective evidence of a real phenomenon exists it will satisfy the scientific method.

I don't even know what you mean by the Divine, so its not possibleto answer your question better than that. If, for example, you are a Hindu then the kind of evidence would be a 4 armed elephant turning up and asking for milk.

Since you seem to say your particular God can't be described or perceived in any way this thread seems a little pointless.

If I stood out on the street and proclaimed that there is no God, and that the God depicted in the bible is an abusive narcissist, I would probably be charged with a hate crime.

You wouldn't. The same laws that protect preachers would protect you.

Ah sorry, I answered the question of my definition of the Divine towards the start of the thread.

Thanks, I’m aware of the scientific model. How would you define objective evidence? Do you think objective evidence is necessary for proof or do you think subjective evidence is sufficient proof on an individual basis?

edit
Here is my post upthread re my definition of the Divine

Kdtym10 · Yesterday 11:11

whatsitcalledwhen · Yesterday 10:58

I think this is a really good point.

Proof of one concept of a God / divine power would differ from others.

“Could you share what your concept of god / divine power is OP and then people could respond accordingly?
Show quote history
Yes, this is an excellent point, and often one that is not picked up in these discussions. “

My concept of the Divine is nothing, thinking itself into being emanating out to create the whole universe simultaneously the same as but (potentially giving the illusion of being) separate. Neo Platonism or Kabbalah are good reference points. I think this is a perennial concept expressed in different religions through the filter of imagination (Blakean imagination rather than fantastical)
OP posts:See next

If your concept of the divine / God only relates to the origins of the universe, with no onward intervention of any kind, then I'll say that it's very different to and much more reductive than most people's conceptual framework for God, and it's also not really relevant to day to day life.

But I'll bite. I would more readily accept that a divine being created the universe "simultaneously" from its thoughts, if the empiric evidence didn't suggest the following:

• The universe is outwardly expanding in the manner of a shockwave. This doesn't seem rationally to fit with a being thinking up the universe at once.

• The universe being so absolutely unfathomably massive and so much of the universe is empty and/or filled with basic elements. I mean, why bother with this 99.99999*(lots of 9s) of your creation just being repetitive samey lifeless stuff, much of which is so far away from the living beings you've created (or set the conditions for their existence) they struggle to even observe let alone reach? This does not suggest a consciousness behind the universe to me.

• So much of what is beautiful / meaningful/ interesting took ages to happen. We have good evidence that helps us to deduce this. Why take so long?

What difference does a God that can at best only answer one metaphysical question (origin of the universe), make anyway? How does this belief instruct or shape your life? Why is it important?