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

[Michael]

So Origen has a higher authority than the Bible for you.

No, Christ is the moral authority of the Bible. He told me to love even my enemy and turn the other cheek and to be 'perfect' as my father is perfect. A perfect father has the capacity to redeem all of his children over the whole of time with patience and persistence.

Christ forgave a man a lifetime of sin in an instant while hanging on that cross being tortured to death, and praying for those who were torturing him to death. That's a perfect human embodiment of a perfect heavenly father.

 

[lesliedellow]

No, Christ is the moral authority of the Bible. He told me to love even my enemy and turn the other cheek and to be 'perfect' as my father is perfect. A perfect father has the capacity to redeem all of his children over the whole of time with patience and persistence.

Then why does a reading even of the Sermon on the Mount make it crystal clear that is not going to happen?

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

Doubtless they are among the verses which would get expunged from your version of the Bible.

 

[Michael]

Then why does a reading even of the Sermon on the Mount make it crystal clear that is not going to happen?

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

Doubtless they are among the verses which would get expunged from your version of the Bible.

Ego death and destruction are pretty much a given. Indeed very few find the narrow path of agape love that Christ taught.

 

[quatona]

Interesting development of this thread.

 

[lesliedellow]

Ego death and destruction are pretty much a given. Indeed very few find the narrow path of agape love that Christ taught.

"Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. "

As the twenty first century self help guru that he was, it is absolutely obvious that Jesus was there speaking of "ego death" isn't it? Who do you suppose it was whom Jesus envisaged to be weilding the axe?

It is truly amazing, the lengths people will go to, to make the Bible conform itself to their favourite idol, which they choose to christen "God".

 

[Michael]

Interesting development of this thread.

Indeed. I think it demonstrates that the term 'God' can be defined in many unique ways. It also demonstrates that even the concept of "evidence" becomes highly subjective at some point in the process. Two well intentioned individuals, subjectively interpreting the very same book, can even define the term in very unique and subjective ways.

It's not just atheists that 'lack belief' in various definitions of the term. We all lack belief in various definitions of the term "God". I for instance lack belief in many of the qualities that Leslie would ascribe to God, specifically the lack of forgiveness, the motive of revenge, and just plain vindictiveness that Leslie would ascribe to that term. I can't even imagine the point of God creating living, compassionate beings simply to torment them over the whole of time for the sins that might occur in the relative blink of an eye, and having 'predestined' such endless torture in advance no less. Such qualities just seem so incongruent with the actions of a man, hanging on a cross, forgiving a lifetime of sin in an instant, and praying for well being of his own executioners.

I think one of the most interesting aspects of this thread is noting how each individual, atheist and theist alike, define the term God, and how each of us might subjectively interpret the "evidence". I think it speaks volumes about our individuality.

 

[quatona]

Indeed. I think it demonstrates that the term 'God' can be defined in many unique ways. It also demonstrates that even the concept of "evidence" becomes highly subjective at some point in the process. Two well intentioned individuals, subjectively interpreting the very same book, can even define the term in very unique and subjective ways.

It's not just atheists that 'lack belief' in various definitions of the term. We all lack belief in various definitions of the term "God". I for instance lack belief in many of the qualities that Leslie would ascribe to God, specifically the lack of forgiveness, the motive of revenge, and just plain vindictiveness that Leslie would ascribe to that term. I can't even imagine the point of God creating living, compassionate beings simply to torment them over the whole of time for the sins that might occur in the relative blink of an eye, and having 'predestined' such endless torture in advance no less. Such qualities just seem so incongruent with the actions of a man, hanging on a cross, forgiving a lifetime of sin in an instant, and praying for well being of his own executioners.

I think one of the most interesting aspects of this thread is noting how each individual, atheist and theist alike, define the term God, and how each of us might subjectively interpret the "evidence". I think it speaks volumes about our individuality.

Personally, I tend to think that a term that can be and is defined in so many different ways, doesn´t really lend itself to being the keyterm in a discussion.
The fact that you tried to ask your question without being willing to define the keyterm, and the fact that you ended up discussing particularities of your God concepts with other believers, feels like a confirmation of this my idea.

 

[Michael]

Personally, I tend to think that a term that can be and is defined in so many different ways, doesn´t really lend itself to being the keyterm in a discussion.

If you can use the term "dark matter" in a discussion, then the term God can be used that way too. There's lot of different opinions about our President too, so it would unlikely that everyone would agree on the various attributes of God.

The fact that you tried to ask your question without being willing to define the keyterm, and the fact that you ended up discussing particularities of your God concepts with other believers, feels like a confirmation of this my idea.

I think it simply demonstrates that everyone "lacks belief" in at least *some* definitions of the term "God", whereas atheists simply lack belief in all definitions of that term.

I think the way the term is defined has a lot to do with one's belief in the idea, or lack thereof.

 

[quatona]

If you can use the term "dark matter" in a discussion, then the term God can be used that way too.

There's lot of different opinions about our President too, so it would unlikely that everyone would agree on the various attributes of God.

The term "President of the United States" is clearly and sufficiently defined to discuss the question "Does the President of the United States exist?". People´s varying opinions about him aren´t the problem that I was alluding to.

I think the way the term is defined has a lot to do with one's belief in the idea, or lack thereof.

Bingo - that´s exactly why it would have been necessary for you to define the term for purposes of your OP-question upfront.

 

[lesliedellow]

Personally, I tend to think that a term that can be and is defined in so many different ways, doesn´t really lend itself to being the keyterm in a discussion.
The fact that you tried to ask your question without being willing to define the keyterm, and the fact that you ended up discussing particularities of your God concepts with other believers, feels like a confirmation of this my idea.

I refuse to believe that atheists do not have a generic idea of what the word "god" means; otherwise they would be disbelieving something without knowing what it was they disbelieve.

 

[quatona]

I refuse to believe that atheists do not have a generic idea of what the word "god" means;

You are free to believe what you want.

otherwise they would be disbelieving something without knowing what it was they disbelieve.

Nothing that I believe exists I would call "God". I´m not a theist. I don´t need a generic or elaborated god concept for that, and I have none.

 

[lesliedellow]

You are free to believe what you want.

Nothing that I believe exists I would call "God". I´m not a theist. I don´t need a generic or elaborated god concept for that, and I have none.

In that case I disbelieve that gumpnuf is botnum.

 

[Michael]

The term "President of the United States" is clearly and sufficiently defined to discuss the question "Does the President of the United States exist?". People´s varying opinions about him aren´t the problem that I was alluding to.

Well, from a Panentheistic perspective, you don't reject the existence of the physical universe, even if you lack belief that it's "aware". I can hand you even a perfectly empirical definition of the term, but that doesn't mean you're going to accept it.

Bingo - that´s exactly why it would have been necessary for you to define the term for purposes of your OP-question upfront.

Sure, but I was more interested in how atheists would tend to justify their lack of belief in God in the most general sense possible. It also gave me insight into the motives for "lacking belief" based on how they chose to define God. The ambiguity was intentional if somewhat misguided.

 

[quatona]

In that case I disbelieve that gumpnuf is botnum.

That´s fine with me, particularly since it wasn´t me who coined or used these terms, made any statements about them, asked you what evidence you need in order to believe them, etc. etc.
I would also like to remind you that I never said I "disbelieved" anything.


All I did was asking the OP to define his keyterm for purposes of discussing his question. Thankfully, you managed to prompt Michael into revealing at least some parts of his God concept.

I hold no God concept of my own, and I am familiar with countless vastly different God concepts, presented to me by others. So if someone asks me "What evidence of God would you accept?", I feel that I need to be informed which God concept they ask about.
I haven´t made "God? What do you mean?" my profile line for nothing. I think there isn´t much point in starting epistemology from an poorly defined word. Usually I do it the other way round: I look at what is there first.

 

[quatona]

Well, from a Panentheistic perspective, you don't reject the existence of the physical universe, even if you lack belief that it's "aware". I can hand you even a perfectly empirical definition of the term,

...but you didn´t. You didn´t even give "panentheistic" as a qualifier.
Understanding what is meant by "President of the USofA" doesn´t require me to apply any particular world view or philosophy. So, apples and aeroplanes.

but that doesn't mean you're going to accept it.

I´m pretty flexible when it comes to accepting definitions for purposes of a discusssion (it´s but words, after all). If you´d define e.g. "God" as the pen on my desk, I could easily accept that "God exists", under that definition. I´d even call myself a "theist" in regards to said God concept.
I`m just not going to pretend I can discuss epistemological questions based on words without a clear definition. And the definition is the job of the claimant.

Sure, but I was more interested in how atheists would tend to justify their lack of belief in God in the most general sense possible.

Well, I don´t think I have to justify any lack of belief, to begin with. And as long as "X" hasn´t been properly defined, I am left with nothing.

It also gave me insight into the motives for "lacking belief" based on how they chose to define God.

"Motives for lacking belief"? Sorry, that sounds like word salad to me.

The ambiguity was intentional if somewhat misguided.

Of course it was intentional.

 

[Michael]

...but you didn´t. You didn´t even give "panentheistic" as a qualifier.

But I didn't do so *intentionally*. I wanted to hear the individual explain why they lacked belief in an entire concept, without limiting the conversation to one specific definition.

Hypothetical forms of physics are *always* rather "ill defined". There's typically any number of potential variations on the same basic "theme". To reject something from hypothetical physics typically requires one to "lack belief" in the whole concept, and there is typically a "rationale" to explain that "lack of belief" in the whole concept.

I was more interested in how or why they rejected the concept as a whole, not some specific variation on the same basic theme.

Understanding what is meant by "President of the USofA" doesn´t require me to apply any particular world view or philosophy. So, apples and aeroplanes.

So the universe itself.

I´m pretty flexible when it comes to accepting definitions for purposes of a discusssion (it´s but words, after all). If you´d define e.g. "God" as the pen on my desk, I could easily accept that "God exists", under that definition. I´d even call myself a "theist" in regards to said God concept.

Well, I think every resident atheist at CF already knows "my" definition of God, but they'd all apparently prefer to hold belief in a pantheon of supernatural constructs related to cosmology.

I wasn't really trying however to limit the conversation to that specific concept of God, rather I was looking to for the "rationale" behind a "lack of belief" of the whole concept of God.

I`m just not going to pretend I can discuss epistemological questions based on words without a clear definition. And the definition is the job of the claimant.

But almost all hypothetical forms of physics are not "clear definitions" to begin with. Do you have any idea how many unique metaphysical brands of inflation there are to choose from? Dark matter? String theories?

Well, I don´t think I have to justify any lack of belief, to begin with. And as long as "X" hasn´t been properly defined, I am left with nothing.

So is there a "well defined" definition of God which you personally might entertain, provided you were provided the 'right' type of evidence?

"Motives for lacking belief"? Sorry, that sounds like word salad to me.

Not really. The reason I personally "lack belief" in LCDM theory is because I prefer EU/PC theory. My cosmology theory of preference is more applicable to *all* events in space, starting with the heat source of the sun's corona, planetary aurora, cathode rays in our solar system, solar wind, coronal loops. EU/PC theory is applicable on all scales, large and small. I have a very specific set of "motives" for lacking belief in LCDM, based on a personal preference for EU/PC theory because I prefer physics theories that actually work in the lab. My cosmology bias is directly related to that personal preference from empirical physics.

When I embraced atheist for a time in my life, I started down that path because I "lacked belief" in the a lot of the 'dogma' that was taught by my church. There was an entire 'rationale' (based on human compassion) behind my rejection of the belief system about God that Leslie describes.

Lack of belief can stem from a subjective choice one makes.

Of course it was intentional.

I really was on a "fishing expedition" of sorts, and the open ended nature of the question was intended to catch the 'rationale' behind the "lack of belief".

 

[quatona]

But I didn't do so *intentionally*. I wanted to hear the individual explain why they lacked belief in an entire concept, without limiting the conversation to one specific definition.

That it was intentional, doesn´t make it any better.
A mere undefined word isn´t an "entire concept", it isn´t a concept at all.

Hypothetical forms of physics are *always* rather "ill defined". There's typically any number of potential variations on the same basic "theme". To reject something from hypothetical physics typically requires one to "lack belief" in the whole concept, and there is typically a "rationale" to explain that "lack of belief" in the whole concept.

Irrelevant.

I was more interested in how or why they rejected the concept as a whole, not some specific variation on the same basic theme.

I don´t reject any "concept as a whole", because there isn´t such "a concept as a whole", in the first place. Before I can address a concept and discuss it, I must know it.

So the universe itself.

That´s why the existence of the universe isn´t in dispute any more than the existence of the President of the USofA.

Well, I think every resident atheist at CF already knows "my" definition of God, but they'd all apparently prefer to hold belief in a pantheon of supernatural constructs related to cosmology.

"Prefer"? The more self-suggesting interpretation would be that the vast majority of God concepts have "supernatural" at their core, and that´s why - without being given a particular definition - people assume that this is what a question regarding "God´s" existence is about.

I wasn't really trying however to limit the conversation to that specific concept of God, rather I was looking to for the "rationale" behind a "lack of belief" of the whole concept of God.

There is no such thing as a "whole concept of God". There are countless different concepts.

But almost all hypothetical forms of physics are not "clear definitions" to begin with. Do you have any idea how many unique metaphysical brands of inflation there are to choose from? Dark matter? String theories?

So is there a "well defined" definition of God which you personally might entertain, provided you were provided the 'right' type of evidence?

Sure, I have given you a couple of them in the course of this thread.
We can e.g. epistemologically agree that the pen on my desk (or the universe, or the president of the USofA, or everything) exists - where we might disagree is whether or not to use the term "God" for it.
The way you approach this topic, you are inviting confusion as to whether a disagreement is of epistemological or semantic nature.

Not really. The reason I personally "lack belief" in LCDM theory is because I prefer EU/PC theory. My cosmology theory of preference is more applicable to *all* events in space, starting with the heat source of the sun's corona, planetary aurora, cathode rays in our solar system, solar wind, coronal loops. EU/PC theory is applicable on all scales, large and small. I have a very specific set of "motives" for lacking belief in LCDM, based on a personal preference for EU/PC theory because I prefer physics theories that actually work in the lab. My cosmology bias is directly related to that personal preference from empirical physics.

I really was on a "fishing expedition" of sorts, and the open ended nature of the question was intended to catch the 'rationale' behind the "lack of belief".

And I was telling you that the way you did it was a poor approach. (GIGO)

 

[SkyWriting]

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?

27‘Then I beg you, father,’ he said, ‘send Lazarus to my father’s house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them so they will not also end up in this place of torment.’

29But Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let your brothers listen to them.’

30‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone is sent to them from the dead, they will repent.’

31Then Abraham said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Matthew 22:40 All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments."

 

[Michael]

That it was intentional, doesn´t make it any better.
A mere undefined word isn´t an "entire concept", it isn´t a concept at all.

I could make the same claim about any and all hypothetical forms of physics too. They all suffer from the ability to be "modified at will", and they all represent a *range* of ideas, not one specific idea.

Irrelevant.

Not really. The biases of the individual can often play a role in a 'lack of belief'.

I don´t reject any "concept as a whole", because there isn´t such "a concept as a whole", in the first place. Before I can address a concept and discuss it, I must know it.

Even your 'statement of faith' that there isn't a "concept as a whole" (related to God) is part of your own "biases", and part of your "belief system". The concept as a whole could be summed up as any form of "intelligent creator", natural, supernatural, or otherwise.

That´s why the existence of the universe isn´t in dispute any more than the existence of the President of the USofA.

So we're really just debating the "character" of the universe, not it's existence. Same deal with the president.

"Prefer"? The more self-suggesting interpretation would be that the vast majority of God concepts have "supernatural" at their core, and that´s why - without being given a particular definition - people assume that this is what a question regarding "God´s" existence is about.

Well, it "could be" a supernatural definition, but that's not a given.

There is no such thing as a "whole concept of God". There are countless different concepts.

That's not really so. I'm going to use the LCDM example as a counter argument to your arguement. There is a "whole concept" of dark matter and a whole concept of a 'big bang', as well as individual definitions of dark matter, and variations on "bang" theories. The "most common" definition of dark matter is based upon a "supernatural" forms of matter too (WIMPS/Axions), but like the God concept, there are "ordinary" definitions of dark matter as well (MACHOS). I have personally chosen to "lack belief" in the entire concept of 'dark matter' however because I see no need for it in the first place. I reject each specific definition of dark matter for exactly the same reason too, specifically due to a lack of evidence. I also reject all big bang theories, not just one of them because I prefer a "tired light" solution to the observation of photon redshift over distance. I reject the "whole concept" of "space expansion", not just "some" of them.

The way you approach this topic, you are inviting confusion as to whether a disagreement is of epistemological or semantic nature.

The topic itself invites confusion. You can't blame me for that. Sure I used an open ended question, but that was done intentionally. I know you may not like the fact I did so, but I intentionally wanted to *not* focus on a 'specific' definition, but rather I wanted to understand why individuals atheists lacked belief in the whole concept. Some atheists noted that they could not and would not do that, and required a better "definition". So be it. That's a legitimate answer too.

And I was telling you that the way you did it was a poor approach. (GIGO)

If I were trying to be specific, yes it would be a poor approach, much like if I asked why someone lacks belief in 'dark matter' might be a poor approach. If I wanted to be specific I would have to ask them if they "lacked belief in SUSY theories", or "WIMPS", or "Axions", or MACHOS. I didn't care if they lacked belief in specific definitions of the term God, because I do too! I was asking them to explain why they lacked belief in the concept as a whole.

Many atheists noted that they needed specific definitions to reject the term, while other atheists explained why they rejected supernatural definitions. It was all good from my perspective, and I wasn't trying to suggest that there was a right or wrong answer. It was a good approach from my perspective, even if you didn't see it that way.