Show me the proof??

[seekandlisten]

An interesting question that was raised that I would like to hear others opinions on. I was watching a debate between and athiest and a christian and it struck me that in all 'reality' they are looking for the same thing in their arguments, proof. The athiest wants 'proof' that there is a 'God' and the christian wants 'proof' that their isn't a 'God'. Simply put you cannot 'prove' 'God' by our 'physical means', it requires faith plain and simple. I'm sure there is a debate on this point but that is not what I'm after with this thread. Their are two sides to the athiest/christian debate.

Let's see if I can explain my question properly. The athiest will disagree with the christian based on the simple fact there is no 'evidence' of 'God'. The only counter argument is that what the athiest presents as simply 'I don't know' the christian will present as 'God' and on the flip side will say show me 'evidence' that there is no 'God'. Well to me this seems like nonsense as both are in agreement that in order to change their mind they need 'evidence' and the conclusion that either side comes too is basically a matter of personal opinion yet they will argue almost 'violently' against each other?

So I would like to know from both sides of this argument what is this 'evidence' you are looking for? Is the statement about 'evidence' mainly a cop out? Can you actually put into words what would make you change your mind? For example I've heard what specific evidence would change an evolutionists mind about their theory but on the creationists side it seems like nothing short of 'God' himself slapping them up side the head would change their mind.(please don't debate creation and evolution in this thread, I merely provided it as reference to what I'm looking for in regards to the athiest/christian point of view on the question I asked)

So basically the question I would like discussed is what specific 'evidence' would change your mind or is the reality of the situation simply we don't know and some put their faith in 'God' being the answer and others just accept the fact that the knowledge we have simply can't explain it? Please keep this civil as it is not about who is right and who is wrong mainly just something I found interesting that I would like the opinions from both sides on. Thank you

 

[JoJo]

I've talked about this before:

...I cannot prove Christianity. I cannot prove God's existence. You should not expect me to prove that God exists anymore than I should expect you to prove that He doesn't. It's impossible. Thus, the burden of proof is not on me because proof does not factor into this equation. As I said earlier in this thread, it is ultimately a battle of opinions.

Though perhaps I should have said a battle of faith vs. no faith.

 

[prough91]

I can't think of any evidence that would make me not believe in God. Well, maybe a disaster that was going to destroy the whole Earth and there was no sign of Jesus.

 

[JoJo]

I can't think of any evidence that would make me not believe in God.

Me either.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

I'm an agnostic Pantheist so I'm usually left out of these kind of debates. But I'll join in anyway.


I believe that "God" is the very air I breath, The love I feel when I hold my friends, The pain and Hate I feel when I'm hurt. The miracle of life. The mystery of death. The unknown, the laws of physics/ the known. The force that drives me to live, to eat, to breath, to love, to stand up and scream I am a man. The beauty in a sunrise, the horrors of war, the sensation of learning something new. God is the drive to learn and to grow. Progress, the cycle of life. All is God and all is Good. For we shall never truely understand what is truely good.

So the only way I could possibly change my mind is if this force manifested physically and stood before me.

I don't know wheather this force is God, or just a way for my brain to make sense out of random paterns. Its just how I view the world.

 

[Ed the Ned]

I believe the evidence of God is all around us. Its in the fact that his word has survived and is distributed around the world. Bible prophecies have come true with amazing accuracy. Stand and look out over the ocean or at the mountains and see what has been created. Its more the fact that we don't want to be held accountable to a supreme God, our creator. Its hard to look at our sinful nature in the light of our Creator. Its easier to believe that there is no such thing as sin.
According to Zig Ziglar a trucking company had as a part of their entry into the company insisted all possible staff have lie detecter tests. One of the questions was: "Do you believe in God?" All those who said they did not believe in God were recorded as lying when asked that question. Every single one! So maybe some outwardly choose to say they don't believe in God yet because they are his creation, inside they all know their is a God.
Go and have a lie detector test, I don't know, maybe you will suprise yourself!

 

[Hugo]

What kind of god are we talking about? For theism, we need evidence of a personal deity that is concerned with human affairs. It's not too hard to imagine what that would be like. For deism we don't need much evidence at all, but that's just inserting an explanation into a knowledge gap.

Stand and look out over the ocean or at the mountains and see what has been created

If there is a beautiful sunset that inspires awe, why do you find a deity to be an explanation of that? This is a huge obstacle for many religious people (it was for me as well). They think that if there is mystery, then it must be God.

Thus, the burden of proof is not on me because proof does not factor into this equation.

The burden of evidence is on you. If evidence does not factor in, then what does that say about your belief?

Even though we can't prove that deities don't exist, there is strong evidence against belief in deities. Especially with the advance of modern scientific thought.

By the way, Atheism is merely a position. It is a by-product of skeptical inquiry.
Do you believe in fairies? If not, I might call you an "Afairyist". It's simply a lack of belief. We make too much of it. Atheism does not necessarily represent a set of beliefs. This is something that even a lot of atheists don't realize. Someone could be an Atheist and Buddhist at the same time, but they obviously aren't a skeptic or agnostic or rationalist. To me, those are more descriptive terms of someone's belief set. Atheism is just a lack of a single belief.

We don't know if Jehovah, Allah, or Krishna exists. Why should I put my faith in any of these as the answer? We simply don't know all the answers, but I suspect that there is a much more sophisticated and awe-inspiring explanation to the universe than a deity.

 

[Ed the Ned]

If there is a beautiful sunset that inspires awe, why do you find a deity to be an explanation of that? This is a huge obstacle for many religious people (it was for me as well). They think that if there is mystery, then it must be God.

I am talking about creation (which had a creator), it is visible to each of us daily. I am not talking of a beautiful sunset,I am just talking about the measure of Gods creation. The op was on show me the proof. If you have decided that you do not want to have faith in God. That is clearly your choice, you wont see God in anything, how could you. My faith in Christ came before I saw his creation, not the other way round.

 

[seekandlisten]

I can't think of any evidence that would make me not believe in God.

Me either.

So in your guys opinion would you say that the argument "prove 'God' doesn't exist" doesn't really hold any merit as there is no 'evidence' that would make you change your mind? Do realize I'm not saying you would use this argument, but I have seen many 'christians' use this argument and I personally think it's a 'cop out' so to speak. In my opinion I don't think one can prove 'God' doesn't exist in the same way that I don't think one can prove 'God' does exist. All we really do is 'shift the words on the issue' so to speak. Any thoughts?

 

[seekandlisten]

If there is a beautiful sunset that inspires awe, why do you find a deity to be an explanation of that? This is a huge obstacle for many religious people (it was for me as well). They think that if there is mystery, then it must be God.

I am talking about creation (which had a creator), it is visible to each of us daily. I am not talking of a beautiful sunset,I am just talking about the measure of Gods creation. The op was on show me the proof. If you have decided that you do not want to have faith in God. That is clearly your choice, you wont see God in anything, how could you. My faith in Christ came before I saw his creation, not the other way round.

Can you understand the position of faith though? If an athiest is in awe of the world around them due to totally different reasons than just saying it's 'evidence' of 'God' are they any more right/wrong than your opinion? You are content with explaining things simply as 'evidence' of God. An athiest on the other hand may want to dive deeper into the processes involved and come to a different conclusion based on the 'physical evidence' they find. Is this wrong? At some point everything comes to an 'unknown' cause and is open merely to speculation. Some say 'God' did it others say they don't know. The 'reality' is both are opinions. I realize 'faith' comes in to play here on your side but is it wrong to simply state you don't know?

 

[seekandlisten]

I'm an agnostic Pantheist so I'm usually left out of these kind of debates. But I'll join in anyway.


I believe that "God" is the very air I breath, The love I feel when I hold my friends, The pain and Hate I feel when I'm hurt. The miracle of life. The mystery of death. The unknown, the laws of physics/ the known. The force that drives me to live, to eat, to breath, to love, to stand up and scream I am a man. The beauty in a sunrise, the horrors of war, the sensation of learning something new. God is the drive to learn and to grow. Progress, the cycle of life. All is God and all is Good. For we shall never truely understand what is truely good.

So the only way I could possibly change my mind is if this force manifested physically and stood before me.

I don't know wheather this force is God, or just a way for my brain to make sense out of random paterns. Its just how I view the world.

Lance,
I'm similar in my beliefs I just have yet to find a reason to 'subscribe' to a set of beliefs. I have found most beliefs that are against each other are merely due to lack of understanding. I am a strong believer that one must first except that fact that one can't prove 'God' exists no matter what set of beliefs they subscribe to. I'm not saying it's wrong to stand unmoved in one's beliefs but recognize that we have no right to force our beliefs on others.

I believe in the good of people. If someone wants to say 'God' is responsible for that I'm fine with that if your actions are in agreement with what you claim. If someone simply comes to a point that they don't know and are content with that fact yet their actions still promote the good of people I also don't see a problem with that.

I heard this statement before which I think sums it up fairly well in regards to athiests. We are all athiests to an extent its just that the one who claims to be an athiest takes it one 'god' farther.

I also think of the quote by Douglas Adams "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

Personally I believe there is a 'God' but I don't think 'He' can be defined in our terms so if someone holds a different set of beliefs then me I'm ok with that and I simply look at their actions to see if they truly adhere to their beliefs or are just a 'poseur' in a matter of speaking.

 

[prough91]

I can't think of any evidence that would make me not believe in God.

Me either.

So in your guys opinion would you say that the argument "prove 'God' doesn't exist" doesn't really hold any merit as there is no 'evidence' that would make you change your mind? Do realize I'm not saying you would use this argument, but I have seen many 'christians' use this argument and I personally think it's a 'cop out' so to speak. In my opinion I don't think one can prove 'God' doesn't exist in the same way that I don't think one can prove 'God' does exist. All we really do is 'shift the words on the issue' so to speak. Any thoughts?

If you read my complete post (JoJo only used part of it), I gave what evidence I would need to dissuade my belief in God. Out of curiosity, what evidence do you think would need to be presented to change a Christian's mind?

 

[seekandlisten]

Even though we can't prove that deities don't exist, there is strong evidence against belief in deities. Especially with the advance of modern scientific thought.

Just a thought on this statement. It is simply not possible to describe a 'deity'. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say there is 'strong evidence' against beliefs held or religious doctrines more than the 'deity' itself? The reality to claiming that a 'deity' is responsible for what we don't know is the same as saying we simply don't know just a 'shift in words'.

By the way, Atheism is merely a position. It is a by-product of skeptical inquiry.
Do you believe in fairies? If not, I might call you an "Afairyist". It's simply a lack of belief. We make too much of it. Atheism does not necessarily represent a set of beliefs. This is something that even a lot of atheists don't realize. Someone could be an Atheist and Buddhist at the same time, but they obviously aren't a skeptic or agnostic or rationalist. To me, those are more descriptive terms of someone's belief set. Atheism is just a lack of a single belief.

I used to think that athiesm was really just another religion in the sense as why does one need to associate with a certain term just because they don't believe in something. Since talking to athiests and reading certain works by athiests I have come to realize there are those that have merit to holding their position as an athiest and those that claim to be athiests but use it as a 'religion' and more or less are just out to attack those who don't believe their opinions. Would you say this is true or am I missing something here?

 

[seekandlisten]

If you read my complete post (JoJo only used part of it), I gave what evidence I would need to dissuade my belief in God. Out of curiosity, what evidence do you think would need to be presented to change a Christian's mind?

"I can't think of any evidence that would make me not believe in God. Well, maybe a disaster that was going to destroy the whole Earth and there was no sign of Jesus."

You don't think that 'God' might use a disaster to destroy the earth? 'He' used physical means to 'create' it why wouldn't he do the same to 'destroy' it?

From what I see no evidence will change a 'christians' mind and that is part of a problem I see with 'religion'. I don't really think one has to change their mind so to speak but be open to change and recognizing that, for instance, accepting evolution as fact doesn't go against the bible. Or on the other hand putting 'faith' in 'God' alone is different than putting your 'faith' in the bible. Or promoting your 'beliefs' as 'truth' when they are opinions. These are just some of my personal issues with organized religion.

'God' created us all as individuals with free will yet organized religions will make you conform to their set of beliefs alone otherwise you are in the wrong, why is that? Why must I go from being a 'slave' to 'worldly desires' to being a 'slave' to the 'church'? I'd rather just be the 'servant of all'. Why must I be like you to be in the 'truth'? Why can't you accept me as I am and we can work together to promote 'God's Kingdom'? If 'God' can accept me as I am why can't a religion? 'God' comes to where we are to reach us, why then should I leave my 'place' to move into an exclusive group when I believe 'God' is inclusive?

I may be getting off my own topic here but why can't we work together rather than arguing over the same thing from different perspectives?

 

[prough91]

"I can't think of any evidence that would make me not believe in God. Well, maybe a disaster that was going to destroy the whole Earth and there was no sign of Jesus."

You don't think that 'God' might use a disaster to destroy the earth? 'He' used physical means to 'create' it why wouldn't he do the same to 'destroy' it?

No, I don't think God will destroy the whole Earth because the Bible says Jesus will come again to judge the Earth. He can hardly do that if the Earth is destroyed.

From what I see no evidence will change a 'christians' mind and that is part of a problem I see with 'religion'. I don't really think one has to change their mind so to speak but be open to change and recognizing that, for instance, accepting evolution as fact doesn't go against the bible. Or on the other hand putting 'faith' in 'God' alone is different than putting your 'faith' in the bible. Or promoting your 'beliefs' as 'truth' when they are opinions. These are just some of my personal issues with organized religion.

That's because religion is man's institution; not God's. I don't promote any of my beliefs unless they are founded unequivocally in the Bible. I don't care for organized religion, for the most part, either.

'God' created us all as individuals with free will yet organized religions will make you conform to their set of beliefs alone otherwise you are in the wrong, why is that? Why must I go from being a 'slave' to 'worldly desires' to being a 'slave' to the 'church'? I'd rather just be the 'servant of all'. Why must I be like you to be in the 'truth'? Why can't you accept me as I am and we can work together to promote 'God's Kingdom'? If 'God' can accept me as I am why can't a religion? 'God' comes to where we are to reach us, why then should I leave my 'place' to move into an exclusive group when I believe 'God' is inclusive?

I am not going to pretend I know anything about your history, but it sounds like you have went to some messed up churches, man(?). I've been to some like that in my past and they are not part of God's Will, in my opinion.

I may be getting of my own topic here but why can't we work together rather than arguing over the same thing from different perspectives.

Dude(?), I've never argued with you. In fact, I enjoy working to understand why people believe the way they believe. There are some things people can believe completely different on, but I don't think necessarily will keep you out of Heaven.

 

[JoJo]

Thus, the burden of proof is not on me because proof does not factor into this equation.

The burden of evidence is on you. If evidence does not factor in, then what does that say about your belief?

Even though we can't prove that deities don't exist, there is strong evidence against belief in deities. Especially with the advance of modern scientific thought.

I fail to understand how the burden of proof is on me. For one, I am not forcing my beliefs on anyone so that I would need to back up this force with evidence. I can share my beliefs and if you reject them based on lack of evidence, that is your issue, not mine. I feel no burden to "prove" God to you because I don't even require proof for myself.

What does it say about my belief when I require no evidence? That it is in line with God's Word: Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

I disagree that there is "strong evidence" against belief in deities. Even if you could prove to me that chemicals in the brain cause us to believe in a deity, I would say that those chemicals were God-ordained.

By the way, I think you should know that you are wasting your time trying to debate with me over the matter of God's existence. I've explained this at length in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=41577

So in your guys opinion would you say that the argument "prove 'God' doesn't exist" doesn't really hold any merit as there is no 'evidence' that would make you change your mind? Do realize I'm not saying you would use this argument, but I have seen many 'christians' use this argument and I personally think it's a 'cop out' so to speak. In my opinion I don't think one can prove 'God' doesn't exist in the same way that I don't think one can prove 'God' does exist. All we really do is 'shift the words on the issue' so to speak. Any thoughts?

It really is a way to shift the demand. If I ever say "prove God doesn't exist" it is simply a way of showing the opposition that proof does not factor into the equation; if he can't provide proof, he should not ask me to.

 

[seekandlisten]

No, I don't think God will destroy the whole Earth because the Bible says Jesus will come again to judge the Earth. He can hardly do that if the Earth is destroyed.

My thoughts on this are more we haven't seen the supernatural manifest itself physically yet so why would the end of the world be any different? I have reason to believe that the world will end by physical means and we will all stand before 'God' at that time if he 'exists'. I also wonder if 'Jesus' is reigning as we speak but that is merely a matter of opinion.

Dude(?), I've never argued with you. In fact, I enjoy working to understand why people believe the way they believe. There are some things people can believe completely different on, but I don't think necessarily will keep you out of Heaven.

Sorry, my comment wasn't intended to be directed at you personally but more of a general statement.

 

[seekandlisten]

So in your guys opinion would you say that the argument "prove 'God' doesn't exist" doesn't really hold any merit as there is no 'evidence' that would make you change your mind? Do realize I'm not saying you would use this argument, but I have seen many 'christians' use this argument and I personally think it's a 'cop out' so to speak. In my opinion I don't think one can prove 'God' doesn't exist in the same way that I don't think one can prove 'God' does exist. All we really do is 'shift the words on the issue' so to speak. Any thoughts?

It really is a way to shift the demand. If I ever say "prove God doesn't exist" it is simply a way of showing the opposition that proof does not factor into the equation; if he can't provide proof, he should not ask me to.

Fair enough and an interesting point. Would you agree with the statement that the 'evidence' of 'God' in us can only be seen through our 'works'?

 

[Hugo]

Just a thought on this statement. It is simply not possible to describe a 'deity'. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say there is 'strong evidence' against beliefs held or religious doctrines more than the 'deity' itself? The reality to claiming that a 'deity' is responsible for what we don't know is the same as saying we simply don't know just a 'shift in words'.

There is incredibly strong evidence against all religions, and each one of them has no evidence whatsoever. There is also evidence that their deities do not exist. For each religion, it depends on how they define their deity as to how you can approach it and assess whether it's true. Once you realize that religion is nonsensical (as you seem to), that leaves you with deism or pantheism or whatever. You might think it's a shift in words, but that's because you're starting to realize that a deity is simply superfluous. It adds nothing.

I used to think that athiesm was really just another religion in the sense as why does one need to associate with a certain term just because they don't believe in something. Since talking to athiests and reading certain works by athiests I have come to realize there are those that have merit to holding their position as an athiest and those that claim to be athiests but use it as a 'religion' and more or less are just out to attack those who don't believe their opinions. Would you say this is true or am I missing something here?

I primarily think of myself as a rationalist. It identifies my philosophy more. Atheism pertains to a single belief. I could be an atheist and be a totally irrational idiot. However, obviously there is this "New Atheist" movement which I think is mostly good, but I don't understand latching onto the term Atheist so strongly.

I think you're identifying a lot of the semantic difficulties. It comes down to personal preference mostly.

 

[JoJo]

Would you agree with the statement that the 'evidence' of 'God' in us can only be seen through our 'works'?

I would agree that God works through His followers.