How to show an atheist the possibility of God

[Chriliman]

What evidence do you have for this claim? What observed mechanisms does this whatever use to do whatever you're claiming it does?

Seems like you're making a rather large jump here, and I don't see it as justified in any way other that "it seems" OK to you. Most people are going to have a higher standard of evidence than that.

Do you need evidence to know your conscious? If you don't need evidence then why do you believe you're conscious?

 

[Chriliman]

You still haven't defined "absolute truth". Your answer in that thread was: "No one can define absolute truth, all we can comprehend is that it must not be able to contradict itself."

I believe in an absolute truth. I believe in absolutes. The question is do you believe in absolutes?

You stated in the other thread: “You need to have faith in absolute truth and the absolute truth is that God has sacrificed himself for all of us and we should have faith in Jesus because of this.”

So, I need to have faith that a thing that you wont define and have not/cannot demonstrate exists, because of the existence of a thing that you cannot show to exist, and I need to have faith – that is, belief without evidence – in Jesus because of this.

Why do you believe you are conscious when you don't need evidence to know you are conscious? Obviously, I can't force you to believe anything, I can only hope to present my beliefs in such a way that might help you question your own beliefs.

I'm not entering a debate where the fundamental term underpinning the argument remains undefined and you claim is undefinable. That's just an exercise in futility. It's the logical equivalent of nailing jelly to a wall, or punching fog.

Or trying to prove to someone that you are conscious. You can't prove this, yet I still believe you are a conscious being just like me. Why should I believe this when I don't have evidence or proof? I believe this because I perceive you as an intelligent being and I want to treat you as I would want to be treated. Where does this desire to treat others fairly come from? I have an answer to that question that makes sense, do you?

 

[Loudmouth]

My replies are usually a retelling of what Hitchens and Russell have said, so I might as well quote them both directly.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens

"I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely."--Bertrand Russell

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do you believe you are conscious when you don't need evidence to know you are conscious?

Being conscious is really good evidence that you are conscious.

Obviously, I can't force you to believe anything, I can only hope to present my beliefs in such a way that might help you question your own beliefs.

What would be compelling to atheists is evidence that is independent of your beliefs.

 

[Gene2memE]

I believe in an absolute truth. I believe in absolutes. The question is do you believe in absolutes?

That wasn't the question. The question I asked is "what is absolute truth". You're deflecting and diverting. Your failure to define it, after repeated requests, is noted.

You can't have a debate on something unless you have defined terms.

As for whether I "believe in absolutes"? The question itself is malformed. It makes no sense. Absolutes exist in reality. They require no belief.
You may as well ask me whether I believe in chocolate, or binaries.

Why do you believe you are conscious when you don't need evidence to know you are conscious?

Who says I don't have evidence of consciousness? I'm not taking your word for it, without evidence.

Or trying to prove to someone that you are conscious. You can't prove this,

Try this: Have someone knock you unconscious. While unconscious, try to prove to someone that you are conscious. When you wake up, try to prove to someone that you are conscious.

Do you really think we can't provide evidence for consciousness?

 

[Loudmouth]

I've also attached the concept of the existence of absolutes that can be used to show that God is just as possible as an atheist belief of there being no god.

Most atheists accept the fact that God could exist. What we require is evidence in order to have a positive belief in a deity. Therefore, it comes down to evidence, not belief.

Many theists I know are comfortable with the idea that their beliefs are based on faith, and that atheists are unwilling to base conclusions on faith. Unfortunately, there is a minority of theists, christians particularly, who use faith as a term of derision. They try to insult atheists by accusing atheists of using faith. That seems like a rather self defeating tactic.

If you want to convince an atheist to become a theist, then at some point the atheist has to accept faith as a valid justification for belief. Until then, it just won't work.

 

[Givemeareason]

If you really want to talk with atheists about God then you need to understand their reasoning. Once you understand their reasoning you can show them that their reasoning leads to irrational thinking.

I've attached a graphic that goes through a conversation with an atheist and points out all the problems with their thought process. Take a look and let me know if you have any input.

I've also attached the concept of the existence of absolutes that can be used to show that God is just as possible as an atheist belief of there being no god. It all comes down to belief, except that the idea of God seems more true when considering relativism and absolutism together.

You can also visit this forum http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/god-real-thought-experiment to see the full extent of this reasoning in action.

Do you really not know what an athiest is or are you just trying to create a straw man argument against athiests to justify your own beliefs??

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you really not know what an athiest is or are you just trying to create a straw man argument against athiests to justify your own beliefs??

Whenever a christian starts a thread discussing what atheists really think, I just cringe and wait for the strawmen to appear.

 

[Givemeareason]

Whenever a christian starts a thread discussing what atheists really think, I just cringe and wait for the strawmen to appear.

I am guessing it gets sort if boring after awhile.

 

[Chriliman]

Will people have the option to do wrong? To be unfair?

Ken

It wouldn't be a perfect eternity if "people" had the option to do wrong. I don't believe we will be people at all, but rather purely spiritual beings made one with God, but not equal to God, just unified to him like a man a women become one when married, at least in the Christian sense, not the secular sense.

 

[Chriliman]

Being conscious is really good evidence that you are conscious.

Your own consciousness is good evidence for YOU, but not for me, I have to believe you are conscious because I can see you are typing on this forum. I have to believe your existence is absolute and not dependent on my existence. However, if you absolutely exist how could you ever not absolutely exist?

What would be compelling to atheists is evidence that is independent of your beliefs.

What would be compelling to a Christian is evidence that God doesn't exist that is independent of an atheists beliefs. Do you see how it can go both ways simply because it all comes down to belief?

 

[Chriliman]

That wasn't the question. The question I asked is "what is absolute truth". You're deflecting and diverting. Your failure to define it, after repeated requests, is noted.

Our minds can't comprehend absolute truth, or any absolutes for that matter, which is why we must either believe in them or not believe in them. If you don't believe in absolutes then you can't say with certainty that my existence is not dependent on your existence. In other words if you don't believe in absolutes then everything you perceive with your mind relies on your mind to exist. So when you go unconscious the universe ceases to exist.

You can't have a debate on something unless you have defined terms.

How can you debate that God doesn't exist? The only way you can debate this is because you believe God doesn't exist, even though there is no evidence to support this claim.

As for whether I "believe in absolutes"? The question itself is malformed. It makes no sense. Absolutes exist in reality. They require no belief.
You may as well ask me whether I believe in chocolate, or binaries.

Yet you can't say with absolute certainty that absolutes exist in reality because your a subjective being that can't comprehend absolutes, which is why you must either believe in them or not believe in them.

Who says I don't have evidence of consciousness? I'm not taking your word for it, without evidence.

You don't have evidence that you can present to me to prove you are conscious. If you did then we would be able to fully define consciousness, which we all know has not been fully defined, simply because there is no evidence to define it. This is why we are all subjectively conscious and not absolutely conscious.

Try this: Have someone knock you unconscious. While unconscious, try to prove to someone that you are conscious. When you wake up, try to prove to someone that you are conscious.

Do you really think we can't provide evidence for consciousness?

This is true, but you still must believe the person is conscious and you must believe their existence is absolute and not dependent on your own consciousness. If their consciousness is dependent on your consciousness then your consciousness is the only thing to ever exist. However, if their consciousness is not dependent on yours then their existence is absolute and if their existence is absolute how could their existence ever not be absolute? In other words if their existence is absolute then they will never cease to exist.

 

[Givemeareason]

Your own consciousness is good evidence for YOU, but not for me, I have to believe you are conscious because I can see you are typing on this forum. I have to believe your existence is absolute and not dependent on my existence. However, if you absolutely exist how could you ever not absolutely exist?



What would be compelling to a Christian is evidence that God doesn't exist that is independent of an atheists beliefs. Do you see how it can go both ways simply because it all comes down to belief?

Which only goes to show that to validly decide if there is god or not you need to stop believing first. Atheism is absense of belief. And as you guys love to say, " Believing is Seeing". There goes your theory.

 

[Givemeareason]

I think most Christians an Athiests would agree that if there is a god he should not need to be proven.

 

[Gene2memE]

Chriliman, I don’t think you understand my position.
I have no beliefs on the existence or non-existence of God.

You’re a Christian. Your base claim is therefore “God exists”.
I’m an atheist. My response to the claim is: “I have no sufficient reason to believe your claim”.

I am not arguing that God doesn’t exist. I’m not in the position of making a positive claim regarding the existence or non-existence of a God. The burden of proof lies on you. If you provide me sufficient evidence, I’d be inclined to change my position.

Consider a sealed jar full of coins.
Your God exists claim is analogous to “There is an odd number of coins”
My response is “Without evidence, I don’t believe that claim”.

That response is not a positive claim that the number of coins is even.

It is also not a positive claim that the number of coins cannot be odd.

It is simply a position of non-belief of your original claim.
If you can indeed show me that the number of coins is odd, then I’ll believe your claim. Until then, I’ll withhold apportioning my belief either way.

 

[Ken-1122]

I think most Christians an Athiests would agree that if there is a god he should not need to be proven.

I would agree if there is a God his existence should be as obvious as the guy standing next to you

K

 

[Ken-1122]

It wouldn't be a perfect eternity if "people" had the option to do wrong. I don't believe we will be people at all, but rather purely spiritual beings made one with God, but not equal to God, just unified to him like a man a women become one when married, at least in the Christian sense, not the secular sense.

So there is no free will in Heaven?

K

 

[Catherineanne]

If you really want to talk with atheists about God then you need to understand their reasoning. Once you understand their reasoning you can show them that their reasoning leads to irrational thinking.

I have no problem talking to atheists, but of all the things to talk about, God would not be up there.

I am not sure why I would want to choose this subject, unless they brought it up themselves. I would talk about the weather, holiday plans, favourite types of tea; anything they like. But why would I want to talk about God?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think we can all agree that objective reality exists even though we can't be absolutely certain because of the barrier of our brains, would you all agree with this statement?

Sure, put I feel you are setting up the scene to play with the words.

No, I can't be "absolutely certain" that objective reality exist. But then again, I can't be "absolutely certain" about anything.

I'ld say that I'm as "certain as I can be" that the universe objectively exists.

If you agree then you can say with certainty that you believe there is an absolute unchanging reality that exists and is not dependent on your subjective mind to exist, agree?

What do you mean with "unchanging"?

Anyhow, I see no reason to assume that reality is dependend on my brain existing...

If there is an absolute unchanging objective reality then how could it be possible for our universe to once be an absolute objective singularity and then become an absolute objective non-singularity without any outside force acting on it?

Who says no outside force was acting on it?
The origins of the universe are unkown. So making any statements about these (and worse: using those statements in premisses as arguments) will not turn out to be very trustworthy...

My argument is that it's impossible for this to happen because as we're all aware any action in our objective reality requires energy. There could never be any energy in a singularity

And you have determined this, how exactly?

My argument is that there is an absolute mind (God) that isn't confined to time and space that is the force/energy/action

That's not an argument. It's an assertion. Based on nothing but your a priori religious beliefs.

(which we can't comprehend because this force is beyond our time and space)

Then how can you know anything about it?

that created all we observe and experience. This makes sense to me which is why I believe it

What is "sensible" to you is no more or less then what fits in your subjective view of the world, through the knowledge goggles that you have.

Before Einstein explained relativity, it was "sensible" to people that time is constant and not dependend on speed and gravity.
For a lot of people today, that STILL is sensible.

I'ld say that time being a constant is a LOT more sensible then time being relative to the observer and influenced by speed and gravity. But what I find "sensible" is irrelevant. My brains evolved to deal with macroscopic objects traveling at sub-light speeds (sub-sound speeds actually). My brain isn't wired to "feel at home" in quantum bizarro-world or to intuitively expect the outcome of traveling at light speed.

I'm just saying, when talking about such alien environments, we cannot rely on our "common sense" to draw conclusions. Because our human "common sense" isn't wired for such environments.

To use that famous quote:
"our common sense is helpful to avoid being eaten by lions in Africa... not to understand quantum mechanics"

 

[Givemeareason]

Perhaps God has taken the objective position in order to see if we can prove that he exists.