How to prove God exists.

[Skreeper]

Why don't they just come clean, and say nothing would convince them?

I thought your god is all-knowing? So your god absolutely knows what would convince me but so far hasn't done any of it.

 

[quatona]

Exactly. Nothing could convince an atheist, because for them it is axiomatic that, come what may, there must always be a naturalistic explanation.

You are conflating atheism and metaphysical naturalism.

Why don't they just come clean, and say nothing would convince them?

Because we are describing our actual positions, not the positions you would prefer us to hold.

 

[quatona]

Don't forget babies - for some reason they're evidence of god as well.

...and "sperm in anus".

 

[lesliedellow]

You are conflating atheism and metaphysical naturalism.


Because we are describing our actual positions, not the positions you would prefer us to hold.

No I am not, metaphysical naturalism implies atheism, or at the very least deism.

 

[lesliedellow]

I thought your god is all-knowing? So your god absolutely knows what would convince me but so far hasn't done any of it.

As a Calvinist, I don't believe it is necessarily true that God wants to convince you.

 

[Freodin]

Exactly. Nothing could convince an atheist, because for them it is axiomatic that, come what may, there must always be a naturalistic explanation.

Why don't they just come clean, and say nothing would convince them?

Can we turn that around?

Claim "Hey, look, I have the ultimate proof that God doesn't exist. Unrefutable, undeniable proof!"

"So, what is it?" a Christian might ask.

"Well, you wouldn't accept it, whatever it might be, so I won't tell you." we will smugly respond.


It is interesting to point out the differences between our respecitive positions here though.

I would never ever claim to have the ultimate proof against the existence of "God".

But if I - as I repeatedly did - present Christians with the chance to present me with a "come what may" that is indeed in their power to present... they cop out.

So it seems to me, that, in contrast to what you claimed, it is not "axiomatic atheists" that are the problem... it is Christians who simply do not have anything to offer for atheists to reject.

 

[KCfromNC]

...and "sperm in anus".

I'm sorry I missed that post. And by sorry, I mean glad I've been skipping over them.

 

[Skreeper]

As a Calvinist, I don't believe it is necessarily true that God wants to convince you.

Then it's not my problem.

 

[KCfromNC]

No I am not, metaphysical naturalism implies atheism, or at the very least deism.

So it implies a lack of belief in gods or maybe a belief in certain types of them? That doesn't exactly narrow things down.

 

[lesliedellow]

Can we turn that around?

Claim "Hey, look, I have the ultimate proof that God doesn't exist. Unrefutable, undeniable proof!"

"So, what is it?" a Christian might ask.

"Well, you wouldn't accept it, whatever it might be, so I won't tell you." we will smugly respond.

If you claimed to have irrefutable proof, I would quite rightly want to know what that irrefutable proof is. I don't claim that, but I do claim that nothing would convince an atheist, despite their incessant demand for "evidence" - by which internet atheists usually mean empirical evidence.

 

[lesliedellow]

Then it's not my problem.

If somebody keeps demanding evidence, it is their problem to state what the evidence they keep demanding would look like - or else admit that there is nothing that would convince them.

 

[Skreeper]

If somebody keeps demanding evidence, it is their problem to state what the evidence they keep demanding would look like - or else admit that there is nothing that would convince them.

I have no idea how I am supposed to define something that I don't even believe exists. How about you stop with your tap-dancing and just present for example your "most convincing" evidence for the existence of your god?

 

[lesliedellow]

So it implies a lack of belief in gods or maybe a belief in certain types of them? That doesn't exactly narrow things down.

A deistic god, who creates a universe and then walks away from it, taking no further interest in it, might just as well not exist. Deism is a philosophical word game, and, for all practical purposes, it is indistinguishable from atheism.

 

[quatona]

No I am not, metaphysical naturalism implies atheism

Be that as it may (you may want to talk with Michael about it)...but atheism doesn´t imply metaphysical naturalism - THAT was the error your false statement was founded upon.

 

[lesliedellow]

I have no idea how I am supposed to define something that I don't even believe exists.

If you don't even know what it is you are demanding evidence for, why do you keep demanding it. For that matter, if you don't even know what it is that you want evidence for, how can you have any opinion at all about whether or not it exists - for or against?

 

[lesliedellow]

Be that as it may (you may want to talk with Michael about it)...but atheism doesn´t imply metaphysical naturalism - THAT was the error your false statement was founded upon.

I think Michael would have big problems squaring his position with the Nicene Creed. His theology is as off the wall as his physics.

 

[quatona]

I think Michael would have big problems squaring his position with the Nicene Creed.

Yes, but then again accepting the Nicene Creed isn´t a requirement for being a theist (and thus, not accepting it doesn´t make you an atheist).

Since you didn´t respond to my second, actually more important point, I am assuming that you concede your error.

 

[quatona]

If you don't even know what it is you are demanding evidence for, why do you keep demanding it.

Because here we have a thread started by a guy who promised to prove God´s existence. So it was him who set the bar.

 

[Skreeper]

If you don't even know what it is you are demanding evidence for, why do you keep demanding it. For that matter, if you don't even know what it is that you want evidence for, how can you have any opinion at all about whether or not it exists - for or against?

My position is very simple: I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe that a god or gods exist but I also don't know whether or not a god or gods exist. Theists claim that a god exists, I don't believe them because they have not met their burden of proof.

 

[VirOptimus]

If you don't even know what it is you are demanding evidence for, why do you keep demanding it. For that matter, if you don't even know what it is that you want evidence for, how can you have any opinion at all about whether or not it exists - for or against?

What a weird post.

The one who is making the claim has the burden both to prove the claim but also to define it. Shifting this burden to the atheist is intellectually dishonest.