How to show an atheist the possibility of God

[Chriliman]

This is an assertion:

"Since you can't provide direct evidence for God, it is not true that God exists, therefore I don't believe in God."

Assertion - a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.

This is a belief:

"Since you can't provide direct evidence for God, I must believe in God in order for God to be true to me."

Belief - an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists

Can you see the difference?

 

[Davian]

I've used reason to demonstrate my beliefs. Do you not value a reason for a belief?

Not circular reasoning.

We has humans can reason for eternity, but until we actually believe that our reason has gotten us somewhere, we'll never get anywhere.

You do not appear to be getting anywhere.

I most likely wont be there when people are down-and-out. What I hope is that they will turn to Jesus Christ, when they are really down-and-out, when they realize they can't do it on there own.

You run into this problem when you try to assert the truth that you are conscious.

I do not assert this as truth.

Yet even without direct evidence of your consciousness, I still believe that you are conscious.

Do you believe that I'm conscious? If you say yes, then I'm NOT going to say that you have asserted your belief as truth, I am, instead, going to say thank you for believing me when I say it is true that I'm conscious.

It does appear that you are self-aware.

If you say no, you don't believe I'm conscious, then I'm going to believe you're delusional and try to stay away from you because there is no telling what you might try to do to me if you believe I'm a being without consciousness.

So, in fact it is not me who is asserting my beliefs, I'm simply claiming I have beliefs and attempting to use reason to explain why I believe them.

That you believe them does not make them true.

It is in fact you who continues to claim that I'm asserting my beliefs as truth, when in fact I'm saying it requires "belief" in absolute truth in order to make the most sense about this life we all find ourselves in.

That is what you are asserting.

However, I don't expect you to understand, since you choose neither to believe in or not-believe in absolute truth, which now that I've typed that out, I'm not even sure that it's possible to neither believe or not-believe in something, but I guess you may have proven it's possible.

I guess the only way to neither believe or not-believe in something is if you never knew about the "something" to be believed in. I think it's safe to say that you have heard the term absolute truth, so I guess we're back to the question that you're so good at avoiding: Do you believe in absolute truth or not? Please try to answer this question with the terms "believe" and "absolute truth" in the answer.

I do not know what you mean by "absolute truth", so I cannot comment on whenever I believe in it or not. Perhaps you could present it in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. Define your terms in a coherent manner.

If you have no evidence for absolute truth then simply say you don't believe in an absolute truth because there is no evidence that supports it. I would accept this answer, but in my conversation tree I show how this answer leads to irrational thinking that YOUR conscious mind is the only thing that has ever existed.

I do not think that.

Just honestly answer the question.

What was the question?

 

[[serious]]

This is an assertion:

"Since you can't provide direct evidence for God, it is not true that God exists, therefore I don't believe in God."

Assertion - a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.

This is a belief:

"Since you can't provide direct evidence for God, I must believe in God in order for God to be true to me."

Belief - an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists

Can you see the difference?

i suppose it comes down to the formulation of the null hypothesis.

I see 3 options
God doesn't exist (atheist default)
some unspecified god or gods exist (deist default)
Some specific God or set of Gods exist (specific religious default)

now keep in mind, we arent discussing which is right we are discussing which is the most useful null hypothesis. for most tests i could think of, we would be testing for the existence of a god. example, group a prayed for, group b not prayed for. which has better 5 year cancer survival. under these, the no god would be the proper null hypothesis. i could see the deist view in certain circumstances as well. example, what has more effect, christian prayers, muslim prayers, or prayers to odin.

i suppose in an individual case, one could say, "well, i was raised christian, so ill believe that and identify with that unless evidence for not-that is discovered" which is fine for the individual i suppose, but hardly a useful position crossnculturally

 

[Chriliman]

i suppose it comes down to the formulation of the null hypothesis.

For YOU, yes it comes down to whether or not you believe the null hypothesis is the best way to figuring anything out. It appears that you believe that the null hypothesis is the best way to figure anything out. That's fine. For ME, I believe in an absolute truth and that absolute truth is Jesus Christ and this belief has changed my life in an amazing way that it very hard to explain to someone who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ. Yet this belief I hold has allowed me to answer many questions about life especially considering what science has discovered regarding the origins of the universe. Science can't answer the questions that my beliefs can answer, so why wouldn't I believe them?

God doesn't exist (atheist default)

You'd have to know absolutely everything at all times to know that God doesn't exist. Which some atheists do believe they are gods because when you get down to the bottom of their reason, they believe their own mind is the only thing that has ever existed, everything has existence because of their own mind.

Some specific God or set of Gods exist (specific religious default)

Requires belief in God to think God exists.

i suppose in an individual case, one could say, "well, i was raised christian, so ill believe that and identify with that unless evidence for not-that is discovered" which is fine for the individual i suppose, but hardly a useful position crossnculturally

Would you also suppose in an individual case, one could say, "well, I was raised not believing in God, so I'll continue not believing that and identify with that unless evidence for God is discovered"?

Of course, which only supports my belief that it all comes down to "belief". And yes you'll say just because I believe it doesn't make it true. Before you say that consider this, IF there is an absolute truth about why we're all here and IF we DON'T BELIEVE the absolute truth, is our non-belief in the absolute truth going to have any effect on that absolute truth? The logical answer is no, when you consider the meaning of the word "absolute".

If you're unwilling to honestly consider the IMPLICATIONS of absolute truth, which requires BELIEF, then you won't be able to understand the above logic.

Go ahead and say I'm asserting my beliefs, even though I've shown that I'm not. I'm simply showing you the implications of believing in absolutes and not believing in absolutes.

 

[HitchSlap]

For YOU, yes it comes down to whether or not you believe the null hypothesis is the best way to figuring anything out. It appears that you believe that the null hypothesis is the best way to figure anything out. That's fine. For ME, I believe in an absolute truth and that absolute truth is Jesus Christ and this belief has changed my life in an amazing way that it very hard to explain to someone who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ. Yet this belief I hold has allowed me to answer many questions about life especially considering what science has discovered regarding the origins of the universe. Science can't answer the questions that my beliefs can answer, so why wouldn't I believe them?



You'd have to know absolutely everything at all times to know that God doesn't exist. Which some atheists do believe they are gods because when you get down to the bottom of their reason, they believe their own mind is the only thing that has ever existed, everything has existence because of their own mind.



Requires belief in God to think God exists.



Would you also suppose in an individual case, one could say, "well, I was raised not believing in God, so I'll continue not believing that and identify with that unless evidence for God is discovered"?

Of course, which only supports my belief that it all comes down to "belief". And yes you'll say just because I believe it doesn't make it true. Before you say that consider this, IF there is an absolute truth about why we're all here and IF we DON'T BELIEVE the absolute truth, is our non-belief in the absolute truth going to have any effect on that absolute truth? The logical answer is no, when you consider the meaning of the word "absolute".

If you're unwilling to honestly consider the IMPLICATIONS of absolute truth, which requires BELIEF, then you won't be able to understand the above logic.

Go ahead and say I'm asserting my beliefs, even though I've shown that I'm not. I'm simply showing you the implications of believing in absolutes and not believing in absolutes.

Correct, you're making positive claims without objective evidence to support your assertions. In which case, the null hypothesis is the best approach.

 

[Chriliman]

Chriliman - "You run into this problem when you try to assert the truth that you are conscious. Yet even without direct evidence of your consciousness, I still believe that you are conscious."

I do not assert this as truth.

Is it true or not that you are conscious? If you don't claim/assert that it's true that you're conscious, how do you expect anyone to believe you are conscious? Wait...are you a robot??

I do not know what you mean by "absolute truth", so I cannot comment on whenever I believe in it or not. Perhaps you could present it in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. Define your terms in a coherent manner.

You must either be deceiving yourself or you just have a bad memory if you honestly don't know what I mean by absolute truth, when I've claimed many times what I believe the absolute truth is. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you just have a bad memory, I believe the absolute truth is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Do you believe in Jesus Christ? If not, then I'd say it's time for us to agree to disagree for now.

Also, IF there is an absolute truth about life, then this truth would be absolute and therefore not falsifiable. It wouldn't be absolute truth if it was falsifiable. This term "falsifiable" was created by us humans to keep our subjective minds in check when we're observing our objective universe, however it has no effect on absolute truth IF there is an absolute truth about life.

If you can honestly consider the IMPLICATIONS of absolute truth, the logic above will makes sense to you, if not, it won't make sense to you.

What was the question?

Okay, maybe you are just deceiving yourself, cause if you memory is really this bad, I'm concerned you may have dementia.

 

[[serious]]

For YOU, yes it comes down to whether or not you believe the null hypothesis is the best way to figuring anything out. It appears that you believe that the null hypothesis is the best way to figure anything out. That's fine. For ME, I believe in an absolute truth and that absolute truth is Jesus Christ and this belief has changed my life in an amazing way that it very hard to explain to someone who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ. Yet this belief I hold has allowed me to answer many questions about life especially considering what science has discovered regarding the origins of the universe. Science can't answer the questions that my beliefs can answer, so why wouldn't I believe them?



You'd have to know absolutely everything at all times to know that God doesn't exist. Which some atheists do believe they are gods because when you get down to the bottom of their reason, they believe their own mind is the only thing that has ever existed, everything has existence because of their own mind.



Requires belief in God to think God exists.



Would you also suppose in an individual case, one could say, "well, I was raised not believing in God, so I'll continue not believing that and identify with that unless evidence for God is discovered"?



Of course, which only supports my belief that it all comes down to "belief". And yes you'll say just because I believe it doesn't make it true. Before you say that consider this, IF there is an absolute truth about why we're all here and IF we DON'T BELIEVE the absolute truth, is our non-belief in the absolute truth going to have any effect on that absolute truth? The logical answer is no, when you consider the meaning of the word "absolute".

Once again, "Now keep in mind, we aren't discussing which is right we are discussing which is the most useful null hypothesis."

What I believe to be true isn't a factor when selecting a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is selected based on it's usefulness in respect to the specific tests being conducted.

If you're unwilling to honestly consider the IMPLICATIONS of absolute truth, which requires BELIEF, then you won't be able to understand the above logic.

Go ahead and say I'm asserting my beliefs, even though I've shown that I'm not. I'm simply showing you the implications of believing in absolutes and not believing in absolutes.

But you are making unsupported leaps in your argument.

For example, on your chart you indicate that atheism requires a rejection of absolute truth/objective reality, but this is not a necessary consequence of atheism nor is it a common view within atheism.

 

[Chriliman]

For example, on your chart you indicate that atheism requires a rejection of absolute truth/objective reality, but this is not a necessary consequence of atheism nor is it a common view within atheism.

Is it true or not that our subjective minds are required to realize our own truth/subjective reality? I say "subjective reality" because "objective reality" is either absolute (when there is no mind to realize it) or it's subjective (when there is a mind to realize it). I'll ask the question again:

Is it true or not that our subjective minds are required to realize our own truth/subjective reality?

 

[HitchSlap]

Is it true or not that our subjective minds are required to realize our own truth/subjective reality? I say "subjective reality" because "objective reality" is either absolute (when there is no mind to realize it) or it's subjective (when there is a mind to realize it). I'll ask the question again:

Is it true or not that our subjective minds are required to realize our own truth/subjective reality?

We all make three fundamental assumptions:

Reality exists.
We can learn something about reality.
Falsifiable models with predictive capabilities work better than those without.

Do you accept this?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, which only shows that the truth that the rock weighs 5kg is an objective truth and if the truth is objective then it cannot change and if it cannot change then it must be absolute.

You should have said that empirical measurements were absolute truth from the very start.

But, this still requires belief because it was our subjective minds that defined kg as weight and it was our subjective minds that tested the rock, so through our subjective minds we determined a degree of objective truth about the rock, but we cannot determine absolute objectivity about the rock, simply because we are subjective beings.

. . . and now it's back to not being absolute truth. Go figure.

If you aren't able to agree that a rock is 5 kg because you are all tied up with metaphysical problems within in your own worldview, then that worldview doesn't seem like something worth keeping. From where I sit, you are trying to find excuses for a worldview that must ignore the evidence.

The fact that I'm conscious without needing evidence to prove that I'm conscious is more than enough for me to hold my beliefs about how I came to be conscious.

You are correct in saying that evidence does not stop you from holding whatever position you wish to take.

You on the other hand are very uncertain on how it could be possible that you are conscious, simply because you withhold belief until evidence is presented.

What is wrong with uncertainty?

Again, stop claiming my beliefs are assertions. Look up the definition of both words and you will see they are not the same.

Assertion: "a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assertion

Looks to be dead on.

 

[[serious]]

Is it true or not that our subjective minds are required to realize our own truth/subjective reality? I say "subjective reality" because "objective reality" is either absolute (when there is no mind to realize it) or it's subjective (when there is a mind to realize it). I'll ask the question again:

Is it true or not that our subjective minds are required to realize our own truth/subjective reality?

I'm not sure what you mean by "our own truth". I thought we were talking about objective truth, which would be independent of our ability to observe or comprehend it.

If by "subjective truth" you mean our best model approximating observations, then yes, a mind would be required. However, if we agree that there is an objective reality which influences what we observe, then no mind is required for that objective reality to exist.

For example, let's look at the model of the solar system. Our first observations were that the sun rose in the east and set in the west. There was no detectable movement of the ground, so the "subjective reality" was that the sun moved around the earth. As we made more careful observations of the solar system, we realized that the orbits of the planets could be better described by everything orbiting the sun. our model became one saying that everything circled the sun. Now, with that change, none of us, atheist or theist, assume that the objective reality changed. We merely adjusted our model to better fit the data with the goal of moving our "subjective reality" closer to "objective reality".

 

[Neogaia777]

Some people aren't worth debating with, especially if their deeply entrenched in their positions, but ask them, "Do you believe in the miracles of the old or new testaments?" Do you believe Jesus performed supernatural actions (miracles) with the power of God. Do you believe that Jesus died and rose again for sinners...

I am trying to reconcile my beliefs in science with the Bible in order to establish my beliefs, and I've had some success, but there are still some things I can't seem to get


Dear God, show the atheist signs of your presence, and wonders and portents and dreams so that they cannot deny you. Help them to believe in the miracles of the Old and New testaments so that there's no denying you. help them to believe in your death burial and most imporatntly the resurrection that shows you are here with us in spirit.

It actually takes more logic to believe in God, than it does to deny him...

God Bless!

 

[Loudmouth]

Dear God, show the atheist signs of your presence, and wonders and portents and dreams so that they cannot deny you. Help them to believe in the miracles of the Old and New testaments so that there's no denying you. help them to believe in your death burial and most imporatntly the resurrection that shows you are here with us in spirit.

Still nothing.

It actually takes more logic to believe in God, than it does to deny him...

God Bless!

Looks like we have yet another person who thinks bare assertions constitute a valid argument.

 

[HitchSlap]

It actually takes more logic to believe in God, than it does to deny him...

God Bless!

It's actually also difficult to reason someone out of a position they didn't come to reasonably accept.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm not sure what you mean by "our own truth". I thought we were talking about objective truth, which would be independent of our ability to observe or comprehend it.

By "our own truth" I do mean subjective truth.

If by "subjective truth" you mean our best model approximating observations, then yes, a mind would be required. However, if we agree that there is an objective reality which influences what we observe, then no mind is required for that objective reality to exist.

I do agree that there is an objective reality which influences what we observe. Meaning no "subjective" mind is required for that objective reality to exist. If no "subjective" mind is required for that objective reality to exist then that objective reality would logically be absolute or unalterable, does this make sense to you?

For example, let's look at the model of the solar system. Our first observations were that the sun rose in the east and set in the west. There was no detectable movement of the ground, so the "subjective reality" was that the sun moved around the earth. As we made more careful observations of the solar system, we realized that the orbits of the planets could be better described by everything orbiting the sun. our model became one saying that everything circled the sun. Now, with that change, none of us, atheist or theist, assume that the objective reality changed. We merely adjusted our model to better fit the data with the goal of moving our "subjective reality" closer to "objective reality".

Exactly, objective reality is "unchanging" or "absolute" or "unalterable", we agree on this. My next question is where the problem of our current model becomes apparent. If the universe was absolutely nothing or absolutely a singularity how could it ever not be absolutely nothing or not be absolutely a singularity? We just agreed that objective reality cannot be changed or altered, it must be absolute, so how could it change from being an absolutely unchangeable singularity to a singularity that changed into the reality we see today? This is the QUESTION we face in science today. I have an answer, do you?

Since I have an answer, I will continue believing my answer is true until proven otherwise.

 

[Neogaia777]

You do realize that the probability of any specific god being real is exceedingly low, right? Here is how the reasoning for that works, and I am being exceedingly generous with these numbers, it is just using probability in a way that doesn't spark any issues about what evidence exists or what various observations mean, it is neutral. Probability deities exist: 50%. Probability only 1 exists: 50% probability of deities existing X limited number 50% = 25% and so on in that manner. Probability that the 1 deity that exists is relevant to our lives in any regard: 12.5%. Probability that this deity cares about our actions: 6.25%. Probability that this deity rules over an afterlife in addition to all the other things: 3.125%. Already getting pretty low, and I haven't brought up any bible specifics yet, such as Jesus. The more specific one gets, the lower the probability goes.

God likes it when the Odds are overwhelmingly against him (it gives him a chance to show of) "show off" that he is the God of impossibilities and he is really into proving that too, if we go by your logic, Shadrac, Mescach, and Abednego, would have seemed to have no choice, it was impossible for them to survive, and yet they did, and when Daniel was thrown into the lions den, he would have seemed to have zero chances to make it out alive...

Where are you getting your statistics from?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

It's actually also difficult to reason someone out of a position they didn't come to reasonably accept.

Why can't you come to reasonably accept God, could you give some answers and reasons?

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

MOD HAT ON

I'm sorry. This thread will need to close. There is no place on Christian Forums to discuss General Apologetics topics. That is, debates on whether or not God exists, or whether Christianity in general is true or false. Since we have no forum set up for that, it would be considered off topic everywhere.

MOD HAT OFF​