What type of "evidence" of God would an atheist accept?

[jayem]

Hmmm. I guess the basic problem I have with that line of thinking is that science doesn't really work like that. We have to actively investigate things to discover the way things work, and to find 'evidence' of everything else. Why would you just assume that God "owes" you something, even life itself?

I'm sort of a Calvinist atheist (how's that for a contradiction in terms?) It's based on the idea of a god who is claimed to be sovereign, and has a plan for the universe. If such a god exists, could anything happen that is not part of this god's grand plan? And--by logical extension-- wouldn't that plan include who believes, and who doesn't? I don't assume this god owes me anything. I think that if a totally sovereign, omnipotent diety truly exists, then it has already decided the matter of my belief. And that of everyone else. Don't even non-Calvinist Christians teach that faith is a gift? And that Christians can share the gospel, but only the Holy Spirit can convict someone of belief. Well, if that's true, then I will become a believer, if God has ordained it as part of my life. Like I said, it would be an act of God. But as for now, how would it please God if I claimed to believe, but really had overwhelming doubts?

I don't want to get off-topic, but how can any believer know he's accepted God by his own free will? Isn't it possible that God arranged the circumstances under which his faith was realized? Or maybe God was subconsciously directing him. It's happened before. The Bible says God hardened Pharaoh's heart against releasing the Hebrews from slavery. How can a believer really know if his faith is his choice, or God's?

 

[Michael]

Irrelevant, and all still conjecture. I cannot even prove that there is anything truly "out there" besides the phenomena experienced by my mind.

I would argue that one can empirically and scientifically demonstrate that (virtually) everything is 'out there'. Whether one can 'prove' (provide evidence) that it includes a higher intelligence is going to depend on an almost unlimited number of subjective factors related to our individual experiences in life.

 

[Kylie]

Yes we know how the information is encoded (the form of the code) and perhaps what it does coming from the DNA (the decoding process) but how did the information get into the DNA (what or who is the encoder)?

But back to the OP, what evidence would you accept that would convince you there is a God?

Do you not understand English?

I stated very clearly that if the Bible had some passage like the one I presented, some scientific knowledge that is clear and unambiguous and could not have been known by anyone at the time it was written, then that would count as evidence.

You need to actually read things before you reply to them, lest you risk making yourself look foolish.

 

[Larniavc]

I'm curious to know what type of 'evidence' of God that the resident atheists around here might accept, and find compelling? At the present moment, do you believe that there is "no" evidence of God, little evidence of God or just not convincing enough evidence of God for your personal tastes? Do you believe that the topic of God can be studied scientifically? Must all cause/effect relationship be demonstrated empirically in controlled experimentation to your personal satisfaction, or would you accept simple uncontrolled observations as a form of "evidence", even if it's less than convincing evidence?

Being re united with dead family members.

That would turn things around for me, easily.

 

[Kylie]

Danial 9 describes a Messiah in the future who would be cut off (a reference to Isaiah 53:10) or killed just before a prince would come in and destroy the Holy Sanctuary (which had not yet been re-built) and that the sacrifices and ablations would cease.

Please show me archaeological evidence that what the prophecy predicted came to pass. Citing another passage from the Bible doesn't count, because anyone could have written that in there to make it look like the earlier prophecy had been fulfilled. Then, show me that the prophecy was written before the events it allegedly describes, since anyone can add a prophecy of current events to texts written many years before.

And make sure that your evidence shows how the specific time periods described in Daniel were accurate.

Now whether one accepts Daniel had this vision when he says he did (around 560 bce) OR that later student scribes wrote it down around the dubiously assumed later date of 175 bce. it is absolutely prescient and historically correct.

You can't even narrow down the date of the prophecy, yet you claim it as absolutely correct?

A Messiah was indeed born, and killed (cit off from the land of the living) who brought in Everlasting Righteousness (the righteousness of God available to all who follow His outlined protocols exactly) and an Everlasting Peace (a Shalom unlike peace as this world describes peace that never ceases) and following this event another prince (Titus, son of the Emperor of Rome) came in and destroyed the Holy Sanctuary and the sacrifices and oblations have indeed ceased and never been restored.

You can't use the Bible as both the claim and the support.

 

[Michael]

I'm sort of a Calvinist atheist (how's that for a contradiction in terms?) It's based on the idea of a god who is claimed to be sovereign, and has a plan for the universe. If such a god exists, could anything happen that is not part of this god's grand plan? And--by logical extension-- wouldn't that plan include who believes, and who doesn't?

I think that depends on whether you believe in the concept of 'free will' and allow for it.

I don't assume this god owes me anything. I think that if a totally sovereign, omnipotent diety truly exists, then it has already decided the matter of my belief. And that of everyone else.

That makes it sound like we're preprogrammed robots without any latitude for free will.

Don't even non-Calvinist Christians teach that faith is a gift?

I think they tend to include the concept of choice in there somewhere. Most topics in science include a fair amount of ambiguity and 'doubt' unless they are forms of pure empirical physics. I think faith tends to be a subjective choice at some point, even faith in various scientific hypotheses.

And that Christians can share the gospel, but only the Holy Spirit can convict someone of belief.

I would tend to agree. Logically however we can tie ourselves up in knots if we so "choose".

Well, if that's true, then I will become a believer, if God has ordained it as part of my life. Like I said, it would be an act of God. But as for now, how would it please God if I claimed to believe, but really had overwhelming doubts?

I think it would be more pleasing to simply be honest with your doubts which ever way you go. I've personally walked both sides of that street at different times in my life, so I see nothing wrong with holding reasonable doubts, both toward religions ideas and scientific ideas. Honest skepticism is healthy IMO as long as it doesn't torment you.

I don't want to get off-topic, but how can any believer know he's accepted God by his own free will?

I can really only speak as it relates to my life. I had to reach a point in my life as an atheist where I realized that I didn't have an honest scientific answer, and I may never have such an answer in terms of 'absolute evidence', but I did make a conscious effort to learn how to meditate and take time to pray, even without "conviction" at first. It was the experiences that came from those efforts which "convinced" me. That came from that conscious choice and that effort.

I loved the suggestion about applying the teachings of Christ to one's life and loving one's enemies, because that "test" tends to facilitate the same types of experiences in a very direct and meaningful way. Even as a humanitarian, it's a wonderful way to live one's life and very selfless and noble way to live one's life.

Isn't it possible that God arranged the circumstances under which his faith was realized?

Sure, but don't you think we as individuals have some say in those arrangements somewhere along the way?

Every time I've wanted to learn something about a subject, I've had to make an effort to study the idea, read about it, and put some effort into it. Ignorance is free, but it's usually not bliss. It doesn't really matter which topic we're discussing, if I've wanted to learn about any topic, I've had to make the effort.

Or maybe God was subconsciously directing him. It's happened before. The Bible says God hardened Pharaoh's heart against releasing the Hebrews from slavery. How can a believer really know if his faith is his choice, or God's?

Maybe it's not an either/or proposition in the first place. Parent's don't tend to micromanage every detail of their children's lives, and the child would ultimately resent it if they tried. Parents can be loving, kind, knowledgeable and helpful, without trying to be in full control of all of their children's choices in life. I'm pretty sure that applies to way God treats all of his children.

 

[Michael]

Being re united with dead family members.

That would turn things around for me, easily.

That could happen, but you may have to leave your physical form behind.

 

[Larniavc]

That could happen, but you may have to leave your physical form behind.

Then I shall reserve judgment until that time.

 

[quatona]

That could happen, but you may have to leave your physical form behind.

Suicide??

 

[ananda]

I would argue that one can empirically and scientifically demonstrate that (virtually) everything is 'out there'.

How so?

Whether one can 'prove' (provide evidence) that it includes a higher intelligence is going to depend on an almost unlimited number of subjective factors related to our individual experiences in life.

Evidence is not proof.

 

[pshun2404]

1. How have you proven for yourself that Daniel 9 was indeed written hundreds of years before its alleged fulfillment?
2. How does this prove "God"? Even if we could somehow directly know for ourselves that Daniel 9 was truly written hundreds of years before its fulfillment, it still doesn't prove "God". It could potentially point to an extremely powerful, long-lived being - but not necessarily Almighty, Infinite, Omnimax, or Eternal - who orchestrated the prophecy and its alleged fulfillment.

Because even the most critical educated skeptic will still give you a date of around 175 bce, which is two entire centuries BEFORE these events occurred. Our earliest surviving samples so far are from around 125 bce, which are copies of something already traditionally extant and accepted.

As for your second point you are correct, this does not "prove" God, but none the less such obvious prescience proves a "beyond the natural order"...also the post was a response to an erroneous claim which this fact refutes. As a Buddhist I think you can at least agree that some aspects of reality do not always fit what a materialist would define as "the natural order" though we would probably agree that these are also quite natural just denied.

...who orchestrated the prophecy and its alleged fulfillment

Foreknowing and revealing does not equal "orchestrating"...I may know something ahead of time (for a bad example let's say tomorrow's weather) and share this knowledge with someone NOT having orchestrated it, but now that they have been enlightened, when they see it come to pass they will know that they knew (they are without excuse for not taking advantage of this information and cannot deny the veracity of the report).

 

[pshun2404]

Do you not understand English?

I stated very clearly that if the Bible had some passage like the one I presented, some scientific knowledge that is clear and unambiguous and could not have been known by anyone at the time it was written, then that would count as evidence.

You need to actually read things before you reply to them, lest you risk making yourself look foolish.

No! What you said that I responded to was "And lo, all living things were made up of tiny bags, filled mostly with water, but also other things which made them work together. And in the heart of each bag there was a great source of control, for it carried the instructions that would be followed. And the instructions were spelled with only four letters, but were still so complex that all life could thrive on what they said."

Not "if the Bible had some passage like the one I presented, some scientific knowledge that is clear and unambiguous and could not have been known by anyone at the time it was written, then that would count as evidence."

In response to this I have no doubt that the Bible is NOT a science book nor was it meant to be...having said that there are some things it says that could not have possibly been known at the time (I have provided two examples so far) but as for specifically statements that indicate scientific fact we must first separate statements made by people in these passages and those allegedly told to someone by God.

Job, allegedly written around the time of Abraham but even if later, speaks of what the KJV translators called "recesses" (literally trenches) in the oceans and springs in the deep (Job 38:16) which 1,000s of years later science has proved to actually be there. He was not Job Cousteau and lived in Mesopotamia far from the oceans (which NO ONE at that time were able to explore at such depth). SO there is example number three (and one related to a scientific fact). There are more should you care, but I surmise that even if I give a dozen more you will still not accept them (though you claimed you would).

 

[ananda]

Because even the most critical educated skeptic will still give you a date of around 175 bce, which is two entire centuries BEFORE these events occurred. Our earliest surviving samples so far are from around 125 bce, which are copies of something already traditionally extant and accepted.

Unfortunately that does not answer my question - this seems to be all second-hand information which you have faith in ... but not personal knowledge.

As for your second point you are correct, this does not "prove" God, but none the less such obvious prescience proves a "beyond the natural order"...also the post was a response to an erroneous claim which this fact refutes. As a Buddhist I think you can at least agree that some aspects of reality do not always fit what a materialist would define as "the natural order" though we would probably agree that these are also quite natural just denied.

...who orchestrated the prophecy and its alleged fulfillment

Foreknowing and revealing does not equal "orchestrating"...I may know something ahead of time (for a bad example let's say tomorrow's weather) and share this knowledge with someone NOT having orchestrated it, but now that they have been enlightened, when they see it come to pass they will know that they knew (they are without excuse for not taking advantage of this information and cannot deny the veracity of the report).

I'd rather give the example of (if possible) preaching to a colony of ants, that in 3 generations they will be wiped out by a flood. And then, a couple of months later, I come by and dump a bucket of water into their anthill. Does that make me Almighty God?

 

[pshun2404]

Also I clearly answered your query about micro-organisms (life forms invisible to the humans at that time) and again in their limited understanding of some invisible life forms invading people and causing diseases, they were correct (we call them bacteria or Viruses) they just had a different name and did not yet know about what form they came in (microscopes were not yet invented).

 

[Michael]

Suicide??

I was thinking more in terms of old age.

 

[Michael]

How so?

In terms of pure mass and energy, the part that's not contained in our physical forms is much greater than the stuff inside our physical forms.

Evidence is not proof.

True but science only deals with "evidence". 'Proofs' only apply to mathematics.

 

[ananda]

In terms of pure mass and energy, the part that's not contained in our physical forms is much greater than the stuff inside our physical forms.

How do you know that is so? Perhaps all your measurements are simply mental phenomena.

True but science only deals with "evidence". 'Proofs' only apply to mathematics.

Evidence can be interpreted in many different ways; therefore, evidence cannot be said to prove anything, besides the evidence itself.

 

[Michael]

How do you know that is so? Perhaps all your measurements are simply mental phenomena.

I'd definitely characterize all measurements as a mental phenomenon, but I still can't pickup my car, or jump off the planet at will.

Evidence can be interpreted in many different ways; therefore, evidence cannot be said to prove anything, besides the evidence itself.

Science doesn't really require absolute proof, just evidence.

 

[ananda]

I'd definitely characterize all measurements as a mental phenomenon, but I still can't pickup my car, or jump off the planet at will.

The "car" and "planet" are experienced in the mind, therefore we still can't say anything is truly "out there". E.g. It would be more accurate to say "I am mentally experiencing something which seems to be a heavy car".

Science doesn't really require absolute proof, just evidence.

Yes, but there is no amount of evidence that can prove "God".

 

[jayem]

I think that depends on whether you believe in the concept of 'free will' and allow for it.

That makes it sound like we're preprogrammed robots without any latitude for free will.

If you accept the premise that God has ultimate universal sovereignty, then there can be no free will in the absolute sense. I've often heard Christians talk about finding God's plan for their lives. Isn't this a tacit admission that they don't have truly free will? I suppose God may allow them to choose different paths, but they will all end at the same destination in accordance with God's will.

I think it would be more pleasing to simply be honest with your doubts which ever way you go. I've personally walked both sides of that street at different times in my life, so I see nothing wrong with holding reasonable doubts, both toward religions ideas and scientific ideas. Honest skepticism is healthy IMO as long as it doesn't torment you.

I agree fully. I consider myself an honest religious skeptic. And as I think about, I always have been. Even as a child--attending the usual Bible school for a time, and going to services occasionally--I never connected with religion. In the back of my mind, I always thought it was just make believe. I know this may sound self-serving, but--in all honesty--I've never felt any need for religion. Maybe I've just been very fortunate, but I've never had a life crisis, or been tormented by some personal vicissitude that I couldn't deal with by myself. I've always been a generally happy and contented person. If there is a sovereign, omipotent god, for some reason he's been extremely good to me so far. But if he wants me as a believer, then he'll arrange events so that it happens. How would I be able to resist?

OTOH...though I don't believe in any god, I do have a higher power. It's called my wife.





I