If God manifested himself, how would you know that it was God?

[WoundedDeep]

Something being invisible and unable to be touched is not the same as it being non-physical. There are many invisible substances or things I have never touched that I believe exist.

However you want to define it, when I say physical, I'm talking about things invisible and untouchable. My original argument stands. People are willing to believe that there are invisible things in the universe whether proven or not, yet they refuse to believe in an invisible God whether proven or not. That's irrationality.

No, I think there are many things god could do that would be better evidence. If he came back as Jesus TODAY with modern technology to document it, that would be orders of magnitude stronger evidence.

Stronger evidence does not change a stubborn man's unbelief. Jesus was rejected as God 2000 years ago, the same thing will happen if He came back today.

People who don't believe in god don't believe that there was a person named Jesus who did the things attributed to him in the Bible.

Yet Jesus is a verifiable historical figure from both Christian and non-Christian sources. But like I said stubborn people remain so despite evidences, that is why they never find God.

But you're still dodging the question: Why would someone who doesn't believe seek god? You keep saying that their unbelief is due to stubbornness, but that's beside the point Your claim is that if someone seeks god, they will believe. But why would someone who doesn't believe seek god?

I didn't dodge your question, I already said in my previous reply that people who don't believe won't seek God. So why repeat the same question over and over? Look at my last reply, you wholly misunderstood my claims.

 

[Kylie]

However you want to define it, when I say physical, I'm talking about things invisible and untouchable. My original argument stands. People are willing to believe that there are invisible things in the universe whether proven or not, yet they refuse to believe in an invisible God whether proven or not. That's irrationality.

Speaking for myself, I can say that whether something is invisible in this sense has no bearing on whterh I believe. But if you take invisible to mean (invisible to any and all attempts to detect it by any means), then yes, I agree with Conscious Z and God is invisible. There is no evidence for God, therefore I do not believe.

Stronger evidence does not change a stubborn man's unbelief. Jesus was rejected as God 2000 years ago, the same thing will happen if He came back today.

If someone claiming to be Jesus came back today, would you believe him?

Yet Jesus is a verifiable historical figure from both Christian and non-Christian sources. But like I said stubborn people remain so despite evidences, that is why they never find God.

Could you provide these verifications please? I'm only aware of sources that were written after the fact. We don't even know for a fact who wrote the Gospels!

I didn't dodge your question, I already said in my previous reply that people who don't believe won't seek God. So why repeat the same question over and over? Look at my last reply, you wholly misunderstood my claims.

You don't believe in fairies and I bet you don't seek out fairies either. But if you don't seek out fairies, you'll never find out that they're real and you'll never experience their fairy magic!

When you understand why you don't seek out fairies, you'll understand why I don't seek out God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Davian

No. My beliefs change, based on new information. I do not have a belief so precious that I cannot let it go.

Hmmm....wait till I tell your wife about the fact that you've just divulged.

Yourself?

Sure. I have tentative beliefs, starting with the pure objectivity of 'evidence,' as I already cited to you a few weeks ago, and with which you basically ran half a yard with it and then drop the effort over some minuscule paragraph that lightly mentioned 'god' in passing......In game terms, we call that an academic fumble.

 

[WoundedDeep]

I said that your broader definition was not sufficient, which it wasn't. All irrationality features bad logic, but not all bad logic is an example of irrationality.

Your statements make no sense.

Nothing can explain the logic behind not believing there is evidence for X? You believe there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the existence of stuff all the time....take unicorns, for example. Is it irrational for you to not believe in unicorns because you don't believe there is sufficient evidence for them?

Yes it is. It is only rational when I have sufficient evidences to prove that unicorns don't exist. And I believe anything false can be proven to be false.

You may make the case that someone is being a bad epistemic agent because they are overlooking evidence for god, but that is not irrationality.

Its possible, but instead of overlooking evidence, I see more a case of open denial of evidence. And then, irrationality and depravity of mind comes because these people realize they can't prove something that exists as non-existent. The end result is endless arguments and controversies that contradict one another and confuse themselves even more.

Both of those certainly are physical. You're kidding, right?

You defined physical differently. I know what I'm saying.

"Discovering" god or "knowing" god both require belief in god.

Again, it would be irrational for someone to seek god if they do not believe he exists.

Yes I know and already acknowledged that. Shall we move on since its the third time you've mentioned the same point?

 

[Conscious Z]

However you want to define it, when I say physical, I'm talking about things invisible and untouchable. My original argument stands. People are willing to believe that there are invisible things in the universe whether proven or not, yet they refuse to believe in an invisible God whether proven or not. That's irrationality.

People are willing to believe in invisible things when there is sufficient evidence for them. Atheists do not believe there is sufficient evidence for god. That is not in itself irrational. You may think they are evaluating the evidence incorrectly, but there is nothing inherently irrational in believing in electromagnetism but not believing in god.

Stronger evidence does not change a stubborn man's unbelief. Jesus was rejected as God 2000 years ago, the same thing will happen if He came back today.

For some, perhaps. But there is no way that there would be no converts if Jesus came back today and performed the same miracles the Bible attributes to him.

Yet Jesus is a verifiable historical figure from both Christian and non-Christian sources. But like I said stubborn people remain so despite evidences, that is why they never find God.

I was simply stating the beliefs of atheists....they don't believe that such a Jesus existed and performed the miracles the Bible attributes to him.

I didn't dodge your question, I already said in my previous reply that people who don't believe won't seek God. So why repeat the same question over and over?

Because I want you to admit that seeking something that you don't believe exists would be inherently irrational, and it is thus unfair to expect people to do such a thing.

You may think their reasons for unbelief are poor or inadequate, but the fact remains that seeking god if you don't believe in god would be irrational.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It would be irrational for a person to seek that which he or she believes does not exist. That is almost the definition of irrationality.

That's the great catch-22 of the whole "seek god and you'll find him" bit. If one believes god doesn't exist, it would be insane to seek him. Do you seek Zeus? Or Krishna? Of course not....because you believe they do not exist.

Yes, but . . . do you seek truth? Do you seek to help others? Do you seek to improve your ethical practices? In doing this, if God is real, He will count it as seeking Him.

 

[Conscious Z]

Your statements make no sense.

That makes perfect sense. It's the difference between something being necessary and sufficient. It is necessary that someone be tall to play power forward in the NBA, but it is not sufficient. Therefore, all power forwards are tall, but not all tall people are power forwards.

Yes it is. It is only rational when I have sufficient evidences to prove that unicorns don't exist. And I believe anything false can be proven to be false.

That is wholly untrue, and I don't think you believe that. It is impossible to prove a universal negative. You cannot prove to me that there is no invisible fire breathing dragon who has magic invisible capabilities somewhere in our universe.

Keep in mind that many atheists do not claim "There is no god." They claim that there is insufficient evidence to believe in god, therefore they do not hold the belief that god exists. That's not the same as holding the belief that no god exists.

Its possible, but instead of overlooking evidence, I see more a case of open denial of evidence. And then, irrationality and depravity of mind comes because these people realize they can't prove something that exists as non-existent. The end result is endless arguments and controversies that contradict one another and confuse themselves even more.

Surely you don't think the evidence for the god of the Bible is so strong that one would need to be in denial or have a depraved mind to not believe, do you?

You defined physical differently. I know what I'm saying.

Gravity and electromagnetism are physical forces under any definition of "physical."

 

[Conscious Z]

Yes, but . . . do you seek truth? Do you seek to help others? Do you seek to improve your ethical practices? In doing this, if God is real, He will count it as seeking Him.

That is a different definition of "seeking" than Wounded Deep, who was my audience, was using. Many atheists do all of those things.

 

[Roonwit]

Keep in mind that many atheists do not claim "There is no god." They claim that there is insufficient evidence to believe in god, therefore they do not hold the belief that god exists. That's not the same as holding the belief that no god exists.

That depends... In my experience many atheists and agnostics try to sound open minded by making this kind of claim, but in practice they require a standard of proof so high that they could not be convinced even if God was real, and their requirement for proof is way higher than they would have for any other belief. That's disingenuous.

Roonwit

 

[variant]

That depends... In my experience many atheists and agnostics try to sound open minded by making this kind of claim, but in practice they require a standard of proof so high that they could not be convinced even if God was real, and their requirement for proof is way higher than they would have for any other belief. That's disingenuous.

Roonwit

The claim of God is basically a claim of a being that exists that can do anything.

With such an extreme claim you shouldn't be surprised that the evidence required for such a claim would also be fairly difficult.

The theist likes to pretend that the atheist is just intransigent because the claims they make are very difficult to evidence and often nebulously defined in an unfalsifiable manner.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Speaking for myself, I can say that whether something is invisible in this sense has no bearing on whterh I believe. But if you take invisible to mean (invisible to any and all attempts to detect it by any means), then yes, I agree with Conscious Z and God is invisible. There is no evidence for God, therefore I do not believe.

Neither is there evidence that God does not exist. It is easier to find evidences to prove something as false than it is for something true. (Especially something invisible) If atheists cannot prove God's existence as false, they have no valid reason to say God does not exist.

If someone claiming to be Jesus came back today, would you believe him?

All hinges on whether that someone can prove his claims like Jesus did. Can this man do miracles that surpass the miracles done by Jesus as said in the Bible? That means doing miracles even greater than raising people from physical death. This is not a ridiculous claim since God is believed to be all powerful and nothing is impossible with Him. So for someone to be valid, he needs to show that he can do miracles that surpass those before and during his time, just like how Jesus' miracles surpassed those before and during His time. Not a single man could do that today or since the time of Jesus.

Could you provide these verifications please? I'm only aware of sources that were written after the fact. We don't even know for a fact who wrote the Gospels!

An atheist brought up two sources on this forum, I need to dig it up first.

You don't believe in fairies and I bet you don't seek out fairies either. But if you don't seek out fairies, you'll never find out that they're real and you'll never experience their fairy magic!

When you understand why you don't seek out fairies, you'll understand why I don't seek out God.

I don't believe in fairies because there is concrete evidence that they are invented and are myths. It isn't hard at all to prove that something is a myth. No one, however, has succeeded in proving that God is myth.

 

[variant]

Neither is there evidence that God does not exist. It is easier to find evidences to prove something as false than it is for something true. (Especially something invisible) If atheists cannot prove God's existence as false, they have no valid reason to say God does not exist.

Looks like someone failed logic class and thinks that proving negatives with unfalsifiable entities is easy!

Give me a single criterion that we could reasonably use to show that God did not exist.

 

[Conscious Z]

That depends... In my experience many atheists and agnostics try to sound open minded by making this kind of claim, but in practice they require a standard of proof so high that they could not be convinced even if God was real, and their requirement for proof is way higher than they would have for any other belief. That's disingenuous.

Roonwit

I'll second variant on this: it makes sense that we would need greater proof for a being like god's existence than we would for the existence of a previously-unknown animal species....or really, just about anything else. The existence of an immaterial god who is omnipotent is quite a grand claim, whereas the existence of a new animal species really isn't contrary to anything in our everyday experience.

 

[madaz]

Neither is there evidence that God does not exist. It is easier to find evidences to prove something as false than it is for something true. (Especially something invisible) If atheists cannot prove God's existence as false, they have no valid reason to say God does not exist.

Whut!

 

[WoundedDeep]

Give me a single criterion that we could reasonably use to show that God did not exist.

I give you a few choices.

1) Prove that electromagnetism and all other forces present in the universe came into existence by pure randomness or independent of an invisible Force-Setter.

2) Prove that inanimate objects like the Planets set their own orbits, rotation speeds etc and can alter them freely, independent of an invisible Creator.

3) Prove that every life form with DNA codes originated from randomness, independent of an invisible Creator.

If mankind can offer concrete evidence for any of the above criterion, they have proven that God does not exist.

 

[TillICollapse]

You've misunderstood me. If you met my criteria of seeing evidence for it, and it is something I would call God; of course I would call it God. My point is; I have yet to see evidence of such a being;thus there is currently nothing that I call God.

Ken

I gotcha. One more question then: what is something you would call "god" ?

 

[WoundedDeep]

Looks like someone failed logic class and thinks that proving negatives with unfalsifiable entities is easy!

If an entity is unfalsifiable in the first place, is it then not failed logic for them to insist it as false?

 

[Kylie]

If an entity is unfalsifiable in the first place, is it then not failed logic for them to insist it as false?

If something is unfalsifiable, then it is useless to use it in a discussion at all, because it can lead us to no useful information.

 

[variant]

If an entity is unfalsifiable in the first place, is it then not failed logic for them to insist it as false?

Unfalsifiable means the idea can not be distinguished as true or false no matter what evidence is present.

An unfalsifiable idea is free to be false.
Falsifiable and non-Falsifiable Ideas - Less Wrong

 

[WoundedDeep]

If something is unfalsifiable, then it is useless to use it in a discussion at all, because it can lead us to no useful information.

If something is unfalsifiable, the only logical explanation is that it might be true and not false. Why is it so hard to admit that?