Atheists and proof cont….

[Kdtym10]

A carry on from the previous thread

But because scientific proof won't work doesn't mean it isn't a reasonable answer to "what proof would you require to believe in God"

Some people require scientific proof. That's their answer. So whilst you can say "unfortunately it doesn't work like that" it doesn't make their answer any less reasonable as their personal requirement of what they would need to believe in God which I think was the original point?

I'm not sure I fully understand why someone would ask the question "what proof would you need" if when some people answer you dismiss their answer as impossible?

But then I didn't read the full previous thread so it's quite possible I have missed nuance that makes sense of this.

I think for many people, that isn't really a 'problem' per se. I mean that in the sense that there's nothing that has to be fixed. There will be believers who believe because their standard of proof is met, and there will be non-believers because their standard of proof isn't met. And that's ok. There's nothing contradictory there. It only becomes a problem if one group thinks it is. And even then it's only a problem for that group. For people who don't view it as a problem, there isn't one.

Well yes, I guess that’s the position. The problem arises in that most spiritual people would argue scientific methodology is really only suited to the physical rather than spiritual realm so their requirement of “scientific evidence” if never likely to be met.

But it's as if you are suggesting there is another kind of evidence - i.e. one that is not scientific or at least recordable and verifiable beyond individual personal experience. As far as I'm concerned there really isn't any other kind of evidence. 'I have experienced a connection with god', or 'Bob says god cured his impetigo', for example, are not evidence.

Ha! Luckily it didn't stop me getting a first in my English degree 😁.

I am a "dont know" ... and simply have no need to know. I can see what a decent way of living is ... a way based on kindness ... and do my best to live by that.
I could use up my whole life trying to prove the existence of god/s in the certain knowledge that I would never find the answer ... what a waste of life.
And then there is faith ...... which, unless for some reason you have this, is meaningless.
Just be kind ... that is more than enough of a challenge.

Am intrigued by all the anger and general snottiness on this thread. Tbh I'm not remotely interested in religion but am getting my popcorn anyway 😀

I've got a huge bag of sweet and salty - willing to share. 😀

I wasn't on the other thread because I didn't have a lot to say and needed thinking time, but here it is:

I wouldn't expect proof that satisfies scientific methodology because that doesn't make sense to me. However, I would require something big that proves there is an all knowing, all powerful and all loving God. It would probably require a major intervention in human nature to make us stop being tribal, selfish, stupid, greedy etc. Which would mean removing free will, which has massive ethical fallout.

I would also expect an instant end to genetic and birth defects, and all instances of incurable disease, especially in children, and I would expect all death to be peaceful and painless, preferably occurring in sleep.

I know it's a lot to ask. But it would make me believe.

I'm with Douglas Adams on this one.

"The problem arises in that most spiritual people would argue scientific methodology is really only suited to the physical rather than spiritual realm so their requirement of “scientific evidence” if never likely to be met."

There simply is no other evidence other than that which is universally and consistently observable.

It f God existed and wanted to make himself known, he would easily find a way, given how 'powerful' and 'omnipotent' he supposedly is

As he doesn't exist (imo) the Believers have to somehow justify the lack for evidence, therefore they claim that the evidence only occurs in people's heads and call in spiritual'

Another frustrating issue with the previous thread was that no satisfactory answer was provided for the unimaginable suffering of innocent children, who are dying of malnutrition, hunger or brain cancer! No loving God would allow that to happen.

So imo there is more evidence/proof against God's existence than for it - actually there is none at all for it!

New thread, same old arguments. Religion never has anything new to say. It is a closed system though. It claims to already know the answers. But it can never substantiate its claims.

There is (probably) no God. So relax.

OP - what kind of proof do you think actually counts as proof, apart from the types I mentioned in my last post? Surely even religious people can't claim that proof = anything that anyone claims to have experienced? If I said that I'd flown to the moon in a hot-air balloon, would that be proof that I'd done it?

And if you're insisting it's because it's a spiritual matter... do you automatically take just anyone's personal experience of any deity, spirit etc as proof of its existence, or just the Christian god? If I said I had a close relationship with Zeus or Thor, would that prove they exist?

Sorry - that post was addressed to the OP, not you @Iusedtobeapenguin !

No prob - peace and love :)

I don't call myself an "atheist". I might as well call myself an "amermaidist".

I do not define myself by something that does not exist.

You can call yourself whatever you want, just don't ask the rest of us to buy into it. And then get snippy when we don't.

Yes absolutely I would take it as proof of the existence of any deity. To me they’re just iterations of the same thing. I work with deities from many different cultures

No one cares whether you buy into it or not.

Look, it seems to be increasingly apparent that you have probably lost a child who was close to you at some point. If so I’m really really sorry. But you have been given answers to this point repeatedly from many perspectives

Im sorry you haven’t found any “satisfactory” but it’s unlikely you will find anything will help. I’m not sure what else you want anyone to say about this. You’re not going to get anything out of this

No the believers don’t have to justify anything in scientific terms. That is not possible. So basically nothing will be good enough for you to believe. That’s probably where you should leave it.

Do you think God has the same opinion of these things as people?

But I don’t dismiss their answer- I’m just saying it’s impossible to get what they want.

But you won’t acknowledge that it’s impossible to give you an answer that you want.

You say, “So basically nothing will be good enough for you to believe”. Which is rather ironic because nothing anyone you call an atheist can say anything that is good enough to make you believe that that would be their standard of proof.

So in your concept of a deity they are not capable of everything? Or is it more that you don't think they would reveal themselves in that way?

Because in the Christian all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present sense I don't understand why it wouldn't be possible if he so willed it.

I'm also curious as to what source you are relying on when you say its not possible?

It feels like a very definitive answer as something that is "firmly known" which is interesting when you (I think if I have understood correctly) believe in a deity in a more generalised less religion specific manner?

I would sincerely hope so, because otherwise what is the point of him? You don't get to create a whole universe and then walk away from the consequences. That sort of thing merits unbelief.