Atheism:believe in no God or disbelieve in God

[(Q)]

How would you define evidence for God?

A 2x4 made of Bloodwood is somewhat less dense than you.

The evidence for gods is defined exactly the same as evidence for anything else. Pete has been telling you that over and over. Start paying attention.

Faith is the only reason you or any other theist believes in gods. It has nothing to do with evidence.

 

[ashura]

I suspect that nobody can establish this in your stead;

I suspect the same, but this needs to be established to move forward with lightgigantic's definition of god.

 

[greenberg]

How would you define evidence for God?

As far as traditional empiry goes - there can be no evidence for the existence of God: simply on account that in line with traditional empiry, whatever would happen, that phenomenon while it might be rare or extraordinary, would still be classified as a "natural", "non-divine" - as per traditional empiry.

If one really wants something that could be called "evidence of the existence of God", one would have to take a path different than traditional empiry.
What that path might be, I am not sure, but I think it would include something personal, something specifically pertaining to the seeker, whatever his current state of mind and body is, something personal that might be impossible to verify interpersonally.

P.S. There is an important implication to the above: Namely, that a person might not necessarily have to shape their belief in God totally in accord with other people's belief in God; as such, accusations of the kind "You have the wrong belief in God!" and fears like "If I don't believe in God the way person X does, then I don't believe in God at all" need to be re-examined for validity.

 

[greenberg]

I suspect the same, but this needs to be established to move forward with lightgigantic's definition of god.

Do you believe in karma nad rebirth?
What is your stance on these?

 

[ashura]

I don't because I've never observed, read or felt anything that would compel me to believe in them. My stance towards karma and rebirth is the same as my stance towards god: could it be real? Sure. But I've seen nothing as of yet that would convince me of it's reality.

 

[S.A.M.]

The evidence for gods is defined exactly the same as evidence for anything else.

So what would you accept as evidence of God?

If he is supposed to exist, yes.
Doing something unnatural doesn't have to be the same as performing acts outside nature.
For example, it is unnatural for me to have a baby since I'm a guy. But having a baby in itself is not performing an act outside of nature.

Hmm so a miracle that cannot be explained by logic is the evidence you would accept as an act of God.

As far as traditional empiry goes - there can be no evidence for the existence of God: simply on account that in line with traditional empiry, whatever would happen, that phenomenon while it might be rare or extraordinary, would still be classified as a "natural", "non-divine" - as per traditional empiry.

So what does it mean when atheists ask for evidence of God, if a phenomenon, merely by happening, is classified as natural?

 

[sniffy]

My water turning to wine.

 

[Syzygys]

So what would you accept as evidence of God?

let's say, if you stopped posting...

 

[S.A.M.]

let's say, if you stopped posting...

So suppose I died and stopped posting, you would see this as irrefutable evidence of God?

 

[audible]

If god made himself known to every person on the planet, at the same moment, and spoke every language, it would only have do or say one thing, and that would be pretty hard to refute.
But as it doesn't exist, well not so we can find it, we have to take the reasonable stance and declare it non-existent, unless we want our imaginations to control our thoughts that is. Then it can exist as much as you wish it to.

 

[S.A.M.]

If god made himself known to every person on the planet, at the same moment, and spoke every language, it would only have do or say one thing, and that would be pretty hard to refute.

Hmm so like a general revelation to all? What would this revelation have to be for you to consider it representative? A voice beyond nature? An epiphany? If you heard a voice and no one else heard it, what would that mean?

 

[sniffy]

A laying on of hands and then I can walk/see/become brainier.

 

[Nasor]

Considering that theism is a faith based position and theists often have their own interpretations of scripture, God or gods and even theism itself, what would an atheist consider robust evidentiary support for the postulate of God?

Here are some things that I would consider strong evidence:

1. If praying to a particular god caused something spectacular and inexplicable to happen (like, say, allowing people to re-grow lost limbs) but it didn't happen when people prayed to other gods.

2. If an ancient holly book (or any other religious source that was supposedly "from god") contained a lot of specific, unambiguous information or predictions that could not possibly have been available to human authors at the time the book was written. Things like "There will be a powerful earthquake in Geneva on March 3rd, 2017. 53 buildings will be knocked down." I'm not talking about things that can be "interpreted" in a certain way, or things that are generic enough that they could end up being correct through chance. Also, most or all of the predictions would have to be correct; a few correct predictions out of many failures would not be very impressive.

2.5 If follower/priests/holly people of a particular religion could make predictions as above.

3. If the followers of a particular religion were magically immune from physical harm - if bullets stopped suddenly in front of them for no reason, they never got sick, they could walk through intense fire without harm, etc.

That's just off the top of my head.

 

[sniffy]

A marriage proposal from Craig Venter.

 

[spidergoat]

At this point, God would have to appear before me and prove it's reported qualities, omnipotence- it should be able to do anything, and omniscience- it should know everything even the future.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Considering that theism is a faith based position and theists often have their own interpretations of scripture, God or gods and even theism itself, what would an atheist consider robust evidentiary support for the postulate of God?

Atheists tend to focus on what a theist can do to prove it to the theist. In other words private experiences are no nos.

A secondary focus is to come up with alternative interpretations of those private experiences AS IF those private experiences can be understood by focusing on the language used to describe them.

There are strong atheists who say there is no God.
There are other atheists who simply do not believe.

A common intermediate position is the atheist who does not believe in God
and
thinks theists are idiots - or, more mildly, confused, manipulated, or foolish - for concluding there is a God either from private experiences or on authority or some combination of the two.

We seem to have reached a place where the dynamic dialogue here at sciforums in with atheists in this middle ground.

 

[S.A.M.]

Here are some things that I would consider strong evidence:

1. If praying to a particular god caused something spectacular and inexplicable to happen (like, say, allowing people to re-grow lost limbs) but it didn't happen when people prayed to other gods.

2. If an ancient holly book (or any other religious source that was supposedly "from god") contained a lot of specific, unambiguous information or predictions that could not possibly have been available to human authors at the time the book was written. Things like "There will be a powerful earthquake in Geneva on March 3rd, 2017. 53 buildings will be knocked down." I'm not talking about things that can be "interpreted" in a certain way, or things that are generic enough that they could end up being correct through chance. Also, most or all of the predictions would have to be correct; a few correct predictions out of many failures would not be very impressive.

2.5 If follower/priests/holly people of a particular religion could make predictions as above.

3. If the followers of a particular religion were magically immune from physical harm - if bullets stopped suddenly in front of them for no reason, they never got sick, they could walk through intense fire without harm, etc.

That's just off the top of my head.

Hmm so basically anything that defies logic. Interesting.

At this point, God would have to appear before me and prove it's reported qualities, omnipotence- it should be able to do anything, and omniscience- it should know everything even the future.

When you say appear before you, is it safe to say that a definition of God for you would be a corporeal being with the qualities of omniscience or omnipotence? How do you visualise this God?

 

[Nasor]

Hmm so basically anything that defies logic. Interesting.

If a magic being with total control over reality exists, it does not defy logic to expect it to be able to make predictions about the future, cause lost limbs to re-grow, etc.

I was simply trying to list things where "a magical super-being did it" is the most logical/simple explanation.

 

[Jan Ardena]

sowhatifit'sdark,

We seem to have reached a place where the dynamic dialogue here at sciforums in with atheists in this middle ground.

It hasn't been reached, it always was, with a few acceptions (from my experience anyway).



Jan.

 

[S.A.M.]

If a magic being with total control over reality exists, it does not defy logic to expect it to be able to make predictions about the future, cause lost limbs to re-grow, etc.

I was simply trying to list things where "a magical super-being did it" is the most logical/simple explanation.

Its just interesting to me that most atheists have a vision of a magical God who is bound by empiricism.