A Challenge to Theists

[Mind Over Matter]

When debating the existence of God, the non-believer often demands evidence. He usually means by that proof delivered by science, which, in his view, is the most solid (and sometimes the only) reliable source of knowledge.

In my view, he is like the boy in the school yard who sees other kids run off and asks them where they're going, and when the kids tell the boy that the icecream van is around the corner and want him to come along, stubbornly shakes his head and says: No, I haven't heard the bell ring yet.

Does the boy really need to hear the bell ring before he can trust the existence of the icecream van? There seems to be no irrefutable scientific proof for the existence of God. But, is that really needed, considering that the majority of humans believe in His existence nonetheless? Doesn't the non-believer want his life and actions to have meaning? Doesn't he want eternal life, eternal happiness, fulfillment of all desire?

Non-believers, don't wait for the bell to ring, please come, and have icecream with us!

 

[Mind Over Matter]

What evidence, solid scientific, universally proven evidence do you have that your God truly exists?

Be patient. In the long run, you will have all the proof you need. And an eternity to ponder it.

 

[wynn]

When debating the existence of God, the non-believer often demands evidence. He usually means by that proof delivered by science, which, in his view, is the most solid (and sometimes the only) reliable source of knowledge.

In my view, he is like the boy in the school yard who sees other kids run off and asks them where they're going, and when the kids tell the boy that the icecream van is around the corner and want him to come along, stubbornly shakes his head and says: No, I haven't heard the bell ring yet.

Does the boy really need to hear the bell ring before he can trust the existence of the icecream van? There seems to be no irrefutable scientific proof for the existence of God. But, is that really needed, considering that the majority of humans believe in His existence nonetheless? Doesn't the non-believer want his life and actions to have meaning? Doesn't he want eternal life, eternal happiness, fulfillment of all desire?

Non-believers, don't wait for the bell to ring, please come, and have icecream with us!

While that might seem like a nice approach, it does not work with those who have bad experiences with theists. And many people have bad experiences with theists.

In fact, one of the first experiences that many people have with theists is that the theists abused their trust.
Not only that, all too often, newcomers are expected to trust and to continue to trust despite being betrayed.

Many newcomers leave after having been betrayed too much.

Some people resort to trust substitutes in order to be able to continue their involvement with theism and theists.
The general trust substitutes are listed in the link; specific to theism, I think a frequent trust substitute is an anxious reliance on philosophical understanding and anxiously seeking empirical proof.

Note that many people rely on philosophical understanding and seeking empirical proof, and there needs to be some measure of both.
But when a person does so anxiously, then this is a sign that something is wrong.

 

[wynn]

More importantly, why do they not require the same level of proof as they would in the scenario of aliens?

People generally believe in things for two kinds of reasons: 1. empirical, 2. moral.

When it comes to things like cooking, cleaning, cars, building houses or fixing rotten teeth, we go for empirically tested approaches.

But when it comes to things like free will, justice, goodness, we tend to believe things for moral reasons (even when they are directly opposed to empirical findings).
For example, people generally believe we have free will. There is no conclusive empirical evidence that we in fact have free will, moreover, some studies suggest we do not have it. But we believe we have free will anyway.

Similarly, some people believe in God on the grounds of moral arguments.

E.g., from the above link:

Argument IX:

32. It would be demoralizing not to believe there is a moral order to the universe.
33. Demoralization is morally undesirable.
34. There is a moral advantage in believing that there is a moral order in the universe.
35. Theism provides the best theory of the source of moral order.
36. Therefore there is a moral advantage in accepting theism. (Adams 1987, 151)

 

[Thoreau]

Then ask them. Ask them directly.

Send out invitations to all the theists on this board and ask them about this.


Ask -
"SAM, what evidence do you have to make such a huge claim that god is not just a possibility but a reality?"
"Adstar, what evidence do you have to make such a huge claim that god is not just a possibility but a reality?"
"Lightgigantic, what evidence do you have to make such a huge claim that god is not just a possibility but a reality?"
and so on.




Unless you were my friend, relative, boss or otherwise relevant to me, I wouldn't care.




I don't know. Why don't you?

(or did you mean to ask - "So, why may we not require the same level of proof from theists?")




Ask them.

That's exactly what I'm doing here.

When debating the existence of God, the non-believer often demands evidence. He usually means by that proof delivered by science, which, in his view, is the most solid (and sometimes the only) reliable source of knowledge.

In my view, he is like the boy in the school yard who sees other kids run off and asks them where they're going, and when the kids tell the boy that the icecream van is around the corner and want him to come along, stubbornly shakes his head and says: No, I haven't heard the bell ring yet.

Does the boy really need to hear the bell ring before he can trust the existence of the icecream van? There seems to be no irrefutable scientific proof for the existence of God. But, is that really needed, considering that the majority of humans believe in His existence nonetheless? Doesn't the non-believer want his life and actions to have meaning? Doesn't he want eternal life, eternal happiness, fulfillment of all desire?

Non-believers, don't wait for the bell to ring, please come, and have icecream with us!

Who said I don't believe in God? Who said I do? The world isn't so black and white as both atheists and theists alike tend to make it. Just because I question peoples judgement doesn't mean that I don't have a faith of my own. Again, I have no problem with people believing that it is likely that God exists; key word: believing. However, I am curious as to why so many people make the existence of a God a fact or a truth when they have little to no firm evidence to support their own truth.

Be patient. In the long run, you will have all the proof you need. And an eternity to ponder it.

You say this as a fact. You didn't say I MIGHT have an eternity to ponder it. You said I WILL. Ok, what proof do you have that would suggest that I have an eternal soul? What makes you 100% sure that what you call fact really is?

People generally believe in things for two kinds of reasons: 1. empirical, 2. moral.

When it comes to things like cooking, cleaning, cars, building houses or fixing rotten teeth, we go for empirically tested approaches.

But when it comes to things like free will, justice, goodness, we tend to believe things for moral reasons (even when they are directly opposed to empirical findings).
For example, people generally believe we have free will. There is no conclusive empirical evidence that we in fact have free will, moreover, some studies suggest we do not have it. But we believe we have free will anyway.

Similarly, some people believe in God on the grounds of moral arguments.

E.g., from the above link:

Interesting. Now we are getting somewhere. Give me a little time to respond to this. I'm at work and things are starting to pick up. I will respond as soon as I am able.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

If you ask Me free will is a urban myth.

House building is not very scientific either. It is still pretty primitive and subject to constant change. House building is more of a shoot from the hip kind of business. especially custom house building . Track housing can be refined , but methodology is still primitive. So consider the track housing that has a repeated flaw in one or more of the models . To make the correction before all the houses are built is a monumental task because of production procedures. The correction needs to be made before the start of the project or chances are you will have to retrofit the fix or just deny it exists like a lot of builders do. This is difficulty unless you can see the product in all its element in advance. The best of engineers and Architects think they can see in there minds start to finish . This is a delusion of there profession. Reality is the egg before the chicken and the chicken before the egg. Builders and Mechanics know this and have to deal on a day to day bases .

Note : there are engineers and architects that do get pretty close to seeing the whole picture and if there heads are not to big they might even listen to supporting industries as to get a much clearer picture

 

[SciWriter]

Non-believers, don't wait for the bell to ring, please come, and have icecream with us!

There will always be ice cream, and ever the material, but nothing more.


THE ETERNAL RETURN…

Behind the veil, being that which ev’r thrives, the eternal multi-cycle has ever been alive. Some time it needed to learn everything for, and now well knows how these bubbles to pour, of existence in some meant universe, those that wrote your poem and mine, every verse.

So, as thus, thou lives on yester’s credit line, in nowhere’s midst—now in this life of thine, as of its bowl our cup of brew was mixed into this state of being that’s called “mine”. Yet worry you that this cosmos is the last, that the likes of us will become the past, space wondering whither whence we went after the last of us her life has spent?

The eternal Saki-Cycle has thus formed trillions of baubles like ours, and will form, forevermore—the comings and passings of which it ever emits to immerse in those universal bubbles blown and burst. So, fear not that a debit close your account and mine, knowing the like no more; the eternal cycle from its pot has pour’d zillions of bubbles like ours, and will pour.

When you and I behind the cloak are past, but the long while the next universe shall last, which of one’s approach and departure it grasps as might the sea’s self heed a pebble-cast.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

There will always be ice cream, and ever the material, but nothing more.


THE ETERNAL RETURN…

Behind the veil, being that which ev’r thrives, the eternal multi-cycle has ever been alive. Some time it needed to learn everything for, and now well knows how these bubbles to pour, of existence in some meant universe, those that wrote your poem and mine, every verse.

So, as thus, thou lives on yester’s credit line, in nowhere’s midst—now in this life of thine, as of its bowl our cup of brew was mixed into this state of being that’s called “mine”. Yet worry you that this cosmos is the last, that the likes of us will become the past, space wondering whither whence we went after the last of us her life has spent?

The eternal Saki-Cycle has thus formed trillions of baubles like ours, and will form, forevermore—the comings and passings of which it ever emits to immerse in those universal bubbles blown and burst. So, fear not that a debit close your account and mine, knowing the like no more; the eternal cycle from its pot has pour’d zillions of bubbles like ours, and will pour.

When you and I behind the cloak are past, but the long while the next universe shall last, which of one’s approach and departure it grasps as might the sea’s self heed a pebble-cast.

I think you should change the " mine " to "You" in the second verse and change the next line to " Yet worry Me that the cosmos is the last

 

[SciWriter]

Since there is a universe here, at any old non special time, there will always be one, and there always has.


Be of good cheer—the sullen month will die, and a young moon requite us by and by: look how the old one meagre, bent, and wan, with age and fast, is fainting from the sky! (A Fitzgerald quatrain that’s not in his Rubaiyat of Omar)


Yet worry Me-Ki-Gal that the cosmos is the last…

 

[wynn]

That's exactly what I'm doing here.

But you're not getting many responses from theists.

Interesting. Now we are getting somewhere. Give me a little time to respond to this. I'm at work and things are starting to pick up. I will respond as soon as I am able.

Did you read the link? Did you find it useful?

 

[birch]

Interesting. Now we are getting somewhere. Give me a little time to respond to this. I'm at work and things are starting to pick up. I will respond as soon as I am able.

no, you are the one who is correct. it's that your opening post was not taking into account that a belief in a entity/god can't be proven or disproven.

one can say it's a faith and there are those of religions who honestly say it's a faith/belief when asked and not a fact that can be proven or disproven. it's much like one who says they have faith that they will be reunited with a dead relative etc. religion can be used to some extent to feed our emotional and moral nature or to pursue that development.

there is nothing to argue there or it shouldn't be argued but respected. i can tell the reason why you started this thread was because of the theists who consistently post that say their god is a fact.

that would be different if one went to a church and demanded they prove their god is a fact. if they are not bothering anyone or shoving it in your face that it is a fact, then there really is not a problem or anything to argue about.

when theists make the decision to claim their version of god is the only one to "everyone" else, then it's their responsibility to validate their claims.

 

[Thoreau]

no, you are the one who is correct. it's that your opening post was not taking into account that a belief in a entity/god can't be proven or disproven.

one can say it's a faith and there are those of religions who honestly say it's a faith/belief when asked and not a fact that can be proven or disproven. it's much like one who says they have faith that they will be reunited with a dead relative etc. religion can be used to some extent to feed our emotional and moral nature or to pursue that development.

there is nothing to argue there or it shouldn't be argued but respected. i can tell the reason why you started this thread was because of the theists who consistently post that say their god is a fact.

that would be different if one went to a church and demanded they prove their god is a fact. if they are not bothering anyone or shoving it in your face that it is a fact, then there really is not a problem or anything to argue about.

when theists make the decision to claim their version of god is the only one to "everyone" else, then it's their responsibility to validate their claims.

Agreed.