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?

You must be able to define, or at least describe the Divine. What does it do? The scientific model should be able to observe it, if not directly then by quantifying its unique effects.

Bosons, for instance, have never been seen. They were hypothesised as the only 'things' that could explain why matter is stuff - why particles have mass, force, electromagnetism - and behave as they do. Particles in their raw state would just randomly zip around the universe at light speed, having no effect on anything. By patiently observing the effects of different particles bumping into each other, physicists were able to confirm that bosons exist and, eventually, to identify different kinds and how they interact with various types of particle.

It's not overly poetic to state that bosons create order out of chaos. They could also, given the right conditions, reduce everything back to randomly chaotic particles.

You could say, then, that God is a boson or all the bosons. I mean, you might not want to. If you did, though, it would at least be a scientifically coherent position. It still wouldn't explain why we should treat it as a magical being with its own intelligence.

The omnipotent, omniscient intelligence, God the Divine, is said to influence all things on a far higher level than the subatomic - geophysical events, biological processes, human decisions, a cat eating a bird. Compared to particle physics, it should be really easy to pick out one or two effects of GtD that cannot be otherwise explained, measure them and analyse the findings.

In fact, this is what people used to do. It used to seem scientifically reasonable to look at epidemics for instance, correlate them with 'ungodly' behaviours, and conclude that GtD smites naughty people with disease. Then people started to notice other correlations suggesting person-to-person transmission and, with rudimentary infection controls, show that holy smiting was not inevitable. Surprisingly early in history, thinkers hypothesised disease vectors as tiny organisms - much as bosons were hypothesised without seeing them - and, as soon as someone made a good magnifying lens, were able to see these "animalcules".

Medical science could've come along a lot faster if the thinkers hadn't been forcibly shut up by their various religious enforcers. My point here, though, is that the scientific model used to apply to claims of GtD, due to lack of other evidence. Unless God's stopped working in mysterious ways, it should still be fairly easy to demonstrate his unique and measurable effects.

Religion's continued opposition to scientific examination does suggest that it's given up on showing that God is real. It looks like the divine 'reality' depends on material ignorance.

And what @Sleepmoreplease just posted!

@Sleepmoreplease Interesting and well-put. I was an evangelical Christian for years, until I eventually realised a lot of this stuff. The universe doesn't need a "brain" behind it, it just evolved incredibly slowly. I was reflecting on this while sitting in a spectacular Scottish landscape which has taken millions of years to end up looking the way it does.

Agreed, if God made the universe and then left it running without further intervention - which I'm willing to entertain as a possibility - then he's irrelevant to everyday life. He ignores us, we can ignore him.

I can't believe that God loves and cares for us, and has a plan, because the world is just too much of a mess for that. As for Hell, don't even get me started.

“You must be able to define, or at least describe the Divine. What does it do? The scientific model should be able to observe it, if not directly then by quantifying its unique effects.”

See my post upthread which I’ve now copied onto the edited version of my post you quoted.

Im sorry, I’m not seeing anything in you post that contradicts anything in my definition, can you please expand?

I guess the relevancy/irrelevancy of a Divine force is a separate question its existence though.

OK, then it might as well be a boson 👍🏻

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.
This is like arguing with Trans. We believe in biological sex, defined by science. They believe in gender, which they can never define. We don't accept gender as a valid concept (especially as it is regressive and pigeon-holing), they don't accept sex (because they think their feelings are more important than scientific certainty).
Debate is impossible because we are speaking different languages. As I see it, the scientists are continually trying to improve understanding; the believers just knit fog.

Well, conscious beings do things with purposeful intent. These factors about the universe make it appear unintended.

I'm a conscious being, and if I fancy a 20 minute game of chess, I don't spend a week laying out a million chess boards for no obvious reason.

Even if for a moment I assume there was a consciousness at the origin of the universe and we will never be able to perceive it because of its divinity - it seems that God diluted to this extent adds nothing to how we understand / model of the universe. If something adds nothing to our understanding, why fixate on it? And why this model of something we can't perceive, in particular?

For example, I could speculate that we're all in a virtual reality simulator that due to its parameters, can never be detected from within. So we'll never be able to perceive whether or not we're in a virtual reality simulator, and for all purposes we can understand the world as though we're not, and our understanding (our model) will work whether or not we have this untestable theoretical belief in the virtual reality simulator.

Can you explain what it is about the universe that to you makes it appear it was originated by consciousness? Can you explain what it would take, for you to believe in the undetectable virtual reality simulator idea instead?

@senua I think it’s a good statement we are talking different languages. I guess my position is, if I go to say France because I want to learn about history and culture, Do I just shout at locals in English in ever louder ways, make personal attacks on them because they aren’t English, only try to understand the French culture and history in terms of English Culture and history, then call them combative when they roll their eyes? Same thing if we are discussing spirituality. Whats the point in someone demanding objective data when that just isn’t the language of spirituality. I wouldn’t walk into a lab saying “let’s” meditate and see if we can experience the presence of acid or alkaline - I’d say break out the universal indicator!

I think it’s about mental flexibility of understanding different situations.

It’s interesting that you bring up the whole trans debate (it is Mumsnet after all and a thread wouldn’t be a thread without it). Arguably, it’s an area which is entirely subjective (for good or bad), yet science is increasingly being evoked in order to add legitimacy to what many think are subjective claims. - I think that says a lot regarding society’s frameworks and probably worthy of its own thread. How do you view science’s increasing involvement in the trans debate?

If it makes you happy - go for it🙏

There are different language games being played it is true. But that does not mean they are equally valid. The scientific method is an objective and falsifiable way way of discovering the truth about reality and the nature of experience. The religious paradigm isn’t.

This is not to say that spiritual meaning is unimportant. I would even say that, yes, the scientific experience does not seem adequate in all cases. Science can probably explain love for example - a Darwinian impulse that exists to propagate the species - but I agree it doesn’t quite capture what love is.

But that does not mean we can make claims that we have absolutely no rational basis for making. Whatever your subjective experiences are - which may be genuine and sincere - this tells you nothing about the origins of the Universe.

To be fair, you are bringing the language of rational scientific analysis to a discussion about "spirituality" by asking for examples of proof.

For me, I generally don't have discussions with people who believe in spiritual concepts because it is entirely about unevidenced faith, not about provable or disprovable concepts. It's their mental world they are talking about and of course they are free to imagine and believe what they want about the world. As long as it doesn't impact on my free choice to ignore their imaginings.

Whats the point in someone demanding objective data when that just isn’t the language of spirituality.

You've asked for an objective answer to your question - what would it take for people to believe in god / the divine. And been frustrated that many people, you feel, haven't given you a solid answer.

But if the language of spirituality, as you've just said, means objective data isn't possible, perhaps an objective answer to your specific question isn't possible either?

Well if we take each point in turn

Re the universe is expanding - there’s a great story in the Kabbalah about the shattering of the vessels - basically there was a contraction of what then existed which filled the vessels the Divine used to store it in. These shattered with such force they filled the universe, that force is continuing as energy doesn’t disappear and the fragments of those vessels continues to disperse. I often wonder if the Catholic priest was inspired by this with the Big Bang.

The last two points can be taken together if the universe is infinite it’s because the divine is - As above so below.

Re evolution - time doesn’t really exist in spiritual terms, it is all about a journey, learning along the way. I think evolution fits very neatly into this as a physical reflection of the spiritual.

Now I don’t discount the simulator theory at all, it’s perfectly compatible with the Divine consciousness. In fact almost every cosmology is compatible with the Divine.

Why do I think there’s a Divine consciousness? Well that is an internal feeling or knowing which is not objective or really fully explainable, That's enough for me to know.

I don't believe in anything supernatural - gods, fairies, leprechauns, whatever.

Show me proof of anything like that I will accept that proof. It will be acceptance of evidence though - not belief.

What's the point in someone demanding objective data when that just isn’t the language of spirituality.
Let's remember that it was you that started this thread. We were all peaceably going about our day when you demanded of us what it takes to believe your arcane musings. As many have said, the onus is on you to prove.

And you haven't done that. If anything, you have pushed people further into not believing in spirituality / divinity. That's what I mean when I say "epic fail".

This a false equivalence.

You might have this concept of divinity as something that is irrelevant to the material realm but your extremely minimalist interpretation of God places you closer to the position of most atheists than it does to the position of most theists.

It's interesting that you position yourself as religious when according to what you've described as your understanding of divinity, you must believe that most religious belief is nonsense?

I thought it might be interesting to rework your original question and see what your answer would be.

If you believe in god / the divine, what proof would you need to see or experience to stop believing and become an atheist?

Lol. I didn’t demand anything. Do you believe I exercised some black magic spell that made poor helpless atheists drop whatever they were doing at start posting?

I don’t really care whether others believe in the Divine or not. My beliefs are esoteric so by definition no don’t think they are for the majority.

As I have mentioned several times. I have been part of other threads where atheists have been saying they are open minded and would believe if they had proof. I was merely asking what sort of proof. It’s a fairly simple question. Interestingly, not one person has asked for a link to those threads if they thought they needed more information. Indeed the thread was actually started in response to one of the posters here saying I wasn’t willing to discuss the very point Thread thread is about. So I created this in response to an atheists wish to discuss this point.

I would need a loss of faith which is internal.

I don’t “position myself as religious” though, what makes you think that?

I have not detailed my full beliefs as that would fill several books.

However, I don’t believe most religious beliefs are nonsense, I believe in a perennial philosophy so, to me all religions carry a truth wrapped up in different wrappers. some of the details of religions I disagree with because history tells a different story as does knowledge of other religions. So, for example, I wouldn’t see Paul as a true apostle and therefore would question the backstory regarding the legitimacy of much of the New Testament. But I believe the spiritual elements of Paul’s writings have value.

As I have mentioned several times. I have been part of other threads where atheists have been saying they are open minded and would believe if they had proof. I was merely asking what sort of proof. It’s a fairly simple question.

But the thread is going round in circles again because you're asking people what proof they would need to believe in something without clearly defining what that thing is.

I appreciate you have now said that the language of spirituality means you can't objectively define it, but that also means people can't give an objective answer to the question.

People can't say what precise proof they need to believe in something when that something hasn't be defined.

But I have defined it and then reposted my definition a couple of posts up.

what proof do you want though, that’s the original question