What would convince you that God doesn't exist?

[abnoxio]

I'm interested what it would take for a Christian, Catholic, etc. to be convinced that God did not exist.
In other words what kind of proof would convince you. The discovery of Jesus's body? Alien invaders? that kind of thing.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.

[Diana Holberg]

I have made an attempt to answer your questions...

Yes, and I do thank you for that.

What do you think the reason is (for so much beauty and so many intricacies in the world? Why so much beauty and ability in man?)

I believe the reason is that God loves beauty, and pays attention to detail. I believe that we are, to Him, as art is to us -- a wonderful creation, greatly appreciated, regardless of our usefulness. Of course, that is not all that we are, but in the context of this discussion, that's my answer.

In your mirror analogy, I believe that we are like a reflection to Him -- His image.

Why do we have consciousness?

Because He is able to create with consciousness. If we were able, we would too. The deepest desire of consciousness is to be known and loved.

The best answer I have heard for this thus far is that if God saw fit to adorn Paradise with the beauty of plants and animals, and if He saw fit to spare them from the Flood, we have every reason to believe Heaven will be similarly adorned.

This is straight out of the bible.

On the contrary -- it is just one interpretation. Most "Bible-believers" do not believe Heaven includes plants or animals. But it is consistent with the Bible, to be sure.

Why is that the "Truth"?

Are you asking for more Scripture?

Jesus said, "I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

I believe in Jesus Christ as the Word of God... He is also a mirror, as it happens. Check out James 1:23-25.

What gives you reason to believe that nheavven will be kitted out like a 'perfect' earth?

To be honest, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about an afterlife Heaven. I enjoy today far too much. I believe Jesus' references to the "Kingdom of God" pertained as much to what we can find on this earth as to what is in the next.

What is your stance on "Truth"?

Jesus said that we can "know the Truth" and that it sets us free.

What is your criteria for what is real?

Good question. At this point, I assume a thing is real until I have reason to believe it is not. I do the same thing with Truth and authenticity. (Of course, I have good reason for believing that a great many things are not true or authentic... but I find the optimistic approach to be much preferable to the pessimistic one.)

[Diana Holberg]

God is part of a your and many other's worldview. Our love of art is related to our worldview and that of the society or culture with which we identify.

Okay, that leads to our variety of worldviews. It seems that unified purpose would serve us better in the evolutionary scheme of things. Why our passion for different traditions? Why our determined adherance to differing worldviews?

[bernee51]

I have made an attempt to answer your questions...

Yes, and I do thank you for that.

Reciprocated.

I believe the reason is that God loves beauty, and pays attention to detail. I believe that we are, to Him, as art is to us -- a wonderful creation, greatly appreciated, regardless of our usefulness.

But all that could (I believe does) exist without the necessity for god. One of the reasons we love beauty is to enhance our feeling of well being. God is a perfect entity - his sense of well being is 'unenhanceable'. What's in it for god?

In your mirror analogy, I believe that we are like a reflection to Him -- His image.

Do you mean a reflection OF him? Do you mean that god looks down on his creation sees it as a reflection of himself?

The deepest desire of consciousness is to be known and loved.

We do create with consciousness - your entire worldview is your creation.

I believe in Jesus Christ as the Word of God...

The word of god - this is where I have a big problem. Why is the bible the word of god?

Jesus said that we can "know the Truth" and that it sets us free.

I prefer to think that TRUTHFULNESS will set you free.

[Diana Holberg]

But all that could (I believe does) exist without the necessity for god.

If you're saying that we can live our entire lives never acknowledging God, I would agree. I'm only so grateful He didn't allow me to do that. I feel I wasted enough time as it was.

One of the reasons we love beauty is to enhance our feeling of well being. God is a perfect entity - his sense of well being is 'unenhanceable'. What's in it for god?

If we are talking about the Christian God, the best source for answers is Scripture. Job asked the same question, but the answer he received was only that God appreciates His creation.

I view us as a family with God as Father. If a child asks his father, "Why do you love me?" what answer do you expect he will receive? Probably one that reflects identity ("Because you are my son") and appreciation ("Because you are unique, special, precious"). I see no reason to think it is any different with God.

In your mirror analogy, I believe that we are like a reflection to Him -- His image.

Do you mean a reflection OF him? Do you mean that god looks down on his creation sees it as a reflection of himself?

I suppose that's possible -- I don't presume to know what God sees. The Bible says we are created in His image... when He came to earth it was as a man. The formation of man is the only thing in creation that God declared to be "very good". Somehow He gave us something of Himself that the rest of creation did not receive.

The deepest desire of consciousness is to be known and loved.

We do create with consciousness - your entire worldview is your creation.

Actually, it would be quite arrogant and ignorant if I were to lay claim to the worldview I hold. It is the result of thousands of years of reflection, debate, and development.

I believe in Jesus Christ as the Word of God...

The word of god - this is where I have a big problem. Why is the bible the word of god?

Jesus Christ is the Word. The Bible is our most reliable source of revelation.

Jesus said that we can "know the Truth" and that it sets us free.

I prefer to think that TRUTHFULNESS will set you free.

I agree with that. But what is it about identifying Truth in the person of Jesus Christ that makes that preferable?

[trencacloscas]

Useful but not necessary.

Yes, necessary. Why not?

It can also be a source of sentimentality, which I would think an evolutionist would consider to be a weakness.

Why sentimentality should be considered a weakness? Who said that? Sentimentality is important in evolution too.

So it becomes neutral in your evolutionary argument, once again raising the question of why we not only engage in art, but love it with such passion...

Neutral? Nothing is neutral in evolution, all is part of the change. What does this argument have to do with a supposed God?

How do you explain that the art with the most adherents is the least useful?

I don't agree, sorry. Art is not measured by utility, or perhaps you have a very limited idea of what art means. Or even what utility means.

As yet no one has offered me an alternative explanation for the love of art.

Well, I tried. But I feel that you didn't even understand.

[trencacloscas]

If we are talking about the Christian God, the best source for answers is Scripture. Job asked the same question, but the answer he received was only that God appreciates His creation.

This is curious. I never thought or felt that the Christian God has something to do with beauty or be interested in beauty. Would you say that the 'Scripture' is the biggest work of art or beauty ever created?

[Diana Holberg]

Yes, necessary. Why not?

"Plenty of species do not engage in works of art and survive."

Why sentimentality should be considered a weakness? Who said that? Sentimentality is important in evolution too.

How so?

Neutral? Nothing is neutral in evolution, all is part of the change. What does this argument have to do with a supposed God?

The argument against God that has been presented in this thread is that any change experienced by humans is just adaptation. I do not see how works of art represent nothing more than adaptation. The argument that has been presented for this is that art sparks innovation. I answer that it is one means of that, but not the only means, so this is not proof that art serves only human adaptation.

I posit that art serves many purposes other than innovation or adaptation.

How do you explain that the art with the most adherents is the least useful?

I don't agree, sorry. Art is not measured by utility, or perhaps you have a very limited idea of what art means. Or even what utility means.

No call to become insulting. Obviously art is not measured by utility. It was you, I believe, who initially posted regarding the "usefulness" of art when you wrote:

Art becomes a source of new ideas for social and individual development. In this sense, it is useful for evolution.

My answer is that art can be useful in this way. But the art with the most adherents is not clearly connected with "new ideas" but is rather an expression of existing emotion or longing.

As yet no one has offered me an alternative explanation for the love of art.

Well, I tried. But I feel that you didn't even understand.

You offered me an explanation of the utility of art. Purpose doesn't explain passion.

[Diana Holberg]

I never thought or felt that the Christian God has something to do with beauty or be interested in beauty.

The Christian God is believed to be the Author of all creation. If He was not interested in beauty, why would He have created such a beautiful world? Why would He have given us an inate sense of beauty?

Would you say that the 'Scripture' is the biggest work of art or beauty ever created?

It has an unexplainable beauty when taken as a whole. But most people take it in pieces, like pieces of a jigsaw. It is unlikely that a jigsaw piece would be viewed as beautiful... no matter how lovely the picture when the puzzle is complete.

[Sender]

I never thought or felt that the Christian God has something to do with beauty or be interested in beauty.

The Christian God is believed to be the Author of all creation. If He was not interested in beauty, why would He have created such a beautiful world? Why would He have given us an inate sense of beauty?

Would you say that the 'Scripture' is the biggest work of art or beauty ever created?

It has an unexplainable beauty when taken as a whole. But most people take it in pieces, like pieces of a jigsaw. It is unlikely that a jigsaw piece would be viewed as beautiful... no matter how lovely the picture when the puzzle is complete.

Gods most beautiful creation are you and me.

[trencacloscas]

trencacloscas wrote:
Yes, necessary. Why not?

Diana Holberg wrote:
"Plenty of species do not engage in works of art and survive."

Sure, amebas neither required intelligence nor works of art to survive, but we do.

The argument against God that has been presented in this thread is that any change experienced by humans is just adaptation. I do not see how works of art represent nothing more than adaptation. The argument that has been presented for this is that art sparks innovation. I answer that it is one means of that, but not the only means, so this is not proof that art serves only human adaptation.

I posit that art serves many purposes other than innovation or adaptation.

Excuse me, but I didn't see an "argument against God", it's rather a problem of "no reason for God" argument. You actually did not give any argument relating the necessity of God with conciousness or works of art.

No call to become insulting. Obviously art is not measured by utility. It was you, I believe, who initially posted regarding the "usefulness" of art when you wrote:
Quote:
Art becomes a source of new ideas for social and individual development. In this sense, it is useful for evolution.

My answer is that art can be useful in this way. But the art with the most adherents is not clearly connected with "new ideas" but is rather an expression of existing emotion or longing.

Excuse me?????????? Who is insulting you???? Not me, for sure, unless you are taking it all wrong.
Expression is a necessity of conciousness. Emotion or longing don't need any justification.