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]

Maybe that's not important to you since you look so desperate to believe in this fable of the Christian God, but it is important for those who don't care about fables.

My relationship with the Lord is no more a fable than your relationship with those around you. Again you can do nothing but insult by inferring that I have no common sense.

Never. Religion aims to make adults live like ignorant cattle all their lives, no questions, no thinking, so they can be easily controlled by the unscrupulous.

First, I do not know how you can engage in discussions such as this and emerge still believing that Christians are "ignorant" or "controlled". You do us a vast disservice, and show your own partiality in the process.

Second, what you have written is far from true. Religion teaches us to challenge all of those around us who would lead us astray in an attempt to control. Who is more unscrupulous -- those who ask for obedience or those who resort to attack and insult?

Reason is our only hope to be Human, that is what make us different from the rest of the species of the planet so far.

Agreed. There is a difference between reason and rationalization. I suggest you explore what it means to achieve the former by abandoning the latter.

[bernee51]

You don't agree that there have been rulers, renowned scientists, doctors, educators with powerful Christian conversions? Would you like me to post links to their testimonies?

I certainly agree that the powerful and the educated have taken to christianity. Consantine is a prime example.

It is true that those of lesser education and lower means are more open to the message of the Gospel.

why do you think that is?

Conversion of educated atheists rarely happens by means of missionaries -- but it still happens regularly. Do you deny this as well?

It is a big world, anything is possible.

Very well. If there is no evidence to be offered for His non-existence, it seems to me it is more justified to believe than not to believe -- since the evidence of His existence surrounds us.

Evidence of non existence an interesting philosophical problem. There are two ways (at least) to prove non existence. One is to show a logical impossibility (eg married batchelor), the other is to look and see. Your god fails on both accounts.

The 'omni's' ascribed to the christian god are mutually exclusive. The Argument from non belief and argument from evil shore up the illogicity.

As for looking and seeing. You claim the evidence of his existence is all around us...that would be evidence if your god was the only possible reason for 'all around us'. He/she/it isn't the only possible explanation.

If the faith of believers mystifies you to the point of desiring to understand, I suggest that you stop trying to rationalize. I'm sure you're aware that understanding is most easily obtained when the rational functions recede.

I am not mystified by the faith of believers, I understand it very well.

[McCulloch]

It [the bible] 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.

You cannot dissect Scripture and expect it to maintain its integrity. It is an organic whole. No matter how "many" pieces you pull out, they are just pieces. They are not the whole.

How do you read the bible as a whole? I can only read a few pages at a time. I usually expect beautiful and cohesive textbooks to maintain their integrity even when reading a small section. Understanding other sections may be required to understand the current section, but the whole thing should maintain integrity, as a whole and in sections.

[Diana Holberg]

I certainly agree that the powerful and the educated have taken to christianity. Consantine is a prime example.

I thought so.

It is true that those of lesser education and lower means are more open to the message of the Gospel.

why do you think that is?

I believe there are a number of reasons. The one that matters most is that they have hearts that are open to receive, because they have no illusions about their need for salvation.

A better question is: Why do you think those of greater education and means are closed to the Gospel?

Evidence of non existence an interesting philosophical problem. There are two ways (at least) to prove non existence. One is to show a logical impossibility (eg married batchelor), the other is to look and see. Your god fails on both accounts.

The 'omni's' ascribed to the christian god are mutually exclusive.

How so?

The Argument from non belief and argument from evil shore up the illogicity.

So you have stated before. Do you care to elaborate?

As for looking and seeing. You claim the evidence of his existence is all around us...that would be evidence if your god was the only possible reason for 'all around us'. He/she/it isn't the only possible explanation.

God is the only confirmed explanation. But you are welcome to offer an alternative.

If the faith of believers mystifies you to the point of desiring to understand, I suggest that you stop trying to rationalize. I'm sure you're aware that understanding is most easily obtained when the rational functions recede.

I am not mystified by the faith of believers, I understand it very well.

This diminishes your credibility. As I said before, you can explore the human psyche but you cannot define it.

[Diana Holberg]

How do you read the bible as a whole?

The same way I read a biography as a whole. To do less is to do an injustice to the person about whom it is written.

I can only read a few pages at a time. I usually expect beautiful and cohesive textbooks to maintain their integrity even when reading a small section.

(1) The Bible is not a textbook. (2) Your expectations are a big part of the reason you do not understand Christian appreciation of Scripture. You want it to be a poem or a play, when it is instead a sacred revelation of the Living God and His relationship with His chosen people.

Understanding other sections may be required to understand the current section, but the whole thing should maintain integrity, as a whole and in sections.

Because you say so?

By the way, the integrity you speak of exists as well. Some see that first; others have to accept the whole first. You have to receive things in the order in which they come. God moves at His good pleasure.

[bernee51]

why do you think that is?

I believe there are a number of reasons. The one that matters most is that they have hearts that are open to receive, because they have no illusions about their need for salvation.

In my experience in India it was usually because they are less than dirt poor and are being offered food and clothing. It is not their hearts that are open to receive, it is their mouths.

A better question is: Why do you think those of greater education and means are closed to the Gospel?

Because they see it for what it is - a book of myth and metaphor.

How so?

Omniscient and omnipotent for a start. If god 'knows' everything that will come to pass, he is powerless to change it.

The Argument from non belief and argument from evil shore up the illogicity.

So you have stated before. Do you care to elaborate?

Both are rather exensive so I wont go into them in detail. If you are interested a version of them can be found here

God is the only confirmed explanation. But you are welcome to offer an alternative.

Confirmed explanation - confiirmed by whom? God?

An alternative explanantion... IT IS.

If the faith of believers mystifies you to the point of desiring to understand, I suggest that you stop trying to rationalize. I'm sure you're aware that understanding is most easily obtained when the rational functions recede.

I am not mystified by the faith of believers, I understand it very well.

This diminishes your credibility. As I said before, you can explore the human psyche but you cannot define it.

Diminishes my credibilty - how so?

[Diana Holberg]

In my experience in India it was usually because they are less than dirt poor and are being offered food and clothing. It is not their hearts that are open to receive, it is their mouths.

I don't doubt the truth of that... the question is, why is it Christians who feed them and not their brothers and sisters by blood? Perhaps the Christian message accompanied by the demonstration of the love it promises is more persuasive than the alternatives they are offered.

A better question is: Why do you think those of greater education and means are closed to the Gospel?

Because they see it for what it is - a book of myth and metaphor.

What is your obsession with the Bible? You seem to be as obsessed with it as any Christian I've met.

The Gospel is not a book. The Gospel existed for centuries before there was a book.

Omniscient and omnipotent for a start. If god 'knows' everything that will come to pass, he is powerless to change it.

Not so. A parent learns to predict the behavior of a child. That does not imply that he or she is powerless to change it. But prudence is used in doling out encouragement, correction and punishment.

The Argument from non belief and argument from evil shore up the illogicity.

I followed your link. Both arguments presented there project desires upon God that are human, and, at least as described there, are apparently not consistent with His will. God's ways are not our ways. There are things worse than suffering and death, and we are given ample time to make choices so as to avoid what is worse.

Confirmed explanation - confiirmed by whom? God?

By God... by nature... by common human experience... by centuries of testimony... by apparitions... by historical documents... by scientific papers... by miracles... by continuing creation... the list goes on and on and on...

An alternative explanantion... IT IS.

That explanation isn't feeding those hungry in India you mentioned.

Diminishes my credibilty - how so?

Simple... I do not believe that you understand my faith. I believe you only understand your own perception of it... and as you have stated that this is consistent with your worldview, I feel pretty confident in saying that you exaggerated.

[bernee51]

I don't doubt the truth of that... the question is, why is it Christians who feed them and not their brothers and sisters by blood?

Their 'brothers and sisters' may. But I don't think you appreciate the scale of the poverty - the brothers and sisters have nothing as well.

Perhaps the Christian message accompanied by the demonstration of the love it promises is more persuasive than the alternatives they are offered.

I'm sorry but you have no idea. There are no alternatives offered. It has nothing to do with the 'message'. Christians have been coming to India since the apostle Thomas landed on the Malabar coast in 52 CE. In the invervening 1950 or so years the percentage of Indians who are christian is around 2% of the population. And many of those are christians who mix it with Hinduism.

Poor Indians don''t accept the message they accept the food.

I'm not going to even start of the destruction to local society wrought by the divisions created by the inculcation of christianity.

A better question is: Why do you think those of greater education and means are closed to the Gospel?

Because they see it for what it is - a book of myth and metaphor.

What is your obsession with the Bible? You seem to be as obsessed with it as any Christian I've met.

You asked a question as to why the greater educated rejected the gospel...I thought I was answering it. But I note now that you meant 'gospel' as a metaphor for the teachings of Jesus.

It is a very good question. You seem to be fairly well educated and are obviously not closed to the gospel so there are exceptions. Perhaps you see it as a matter of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Knowledge of the 'gospel' comes from where - the bible and religious practice and teaching. Some people may look at the written word and cannot reconcile the obvious contradictions and absurdities. Others may see the hypocricy of the self proclaimed religious and decide they want nothing to do with.

Omniscient and omnipotent for a start. If god 'knows' everything that will come to pass, he is powerless to change it.

Not so. A parent learns to predict the behavior of a child.

Straw man - god is said to 'know' not 'predict'

Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Confirmed explanation - confiirmed by whom? God?

By God... by nature... by common human experience... by centuries of testimony... by apparitions... by historical documents... ..... by continuing creation... the list goes on and on and on...

by god - circular
by nature - other possibilities (surely you are not claiming 'god of the gaps')
by common human experience - argumentum ad numerum
by centuries of testimony - argumentum ad numerum
(500 years ago most thought the earth was flat and the sun circled the earth)
by apparitions - anecdotal
historical documents - god is verified by history?
(You are surely not going to claim historical accuracy for the NT)
and by scientific papers?
(or scientific accuracy?)
by miracles - anecdotal
by continuing creation - see nature

the list does go on and on doesn't it.

An alternative explanantion... IT IS.

That explanation isn't feeding those hungry in India you mentioned.

Irrelevent. There are many organisations, faith based and otherwise, attempting to provide relief.

Diminishes my credibilty - how so?

Simple... I do not believe that you understand my faith.

I have not claimed, nor would I, to understand any particular individual's faith. Any understanding I do have is obviously based on my own experience and a personal and general understanding of what 'faith' is all about.

Just as you cannot understand my experience and understanding of the nature of the Self. An understanding that can only be gained by doing the exercise. I'm sure you will be able to relate to that.

[Diana Holberg]

Their 'brothers and sisters' may. But I don't think you appreciate the scale of the poverty - the brothers and sisters have nothing as well.

This is inaccurate... India has many poor, but India is not a poor country.

Poor Indians don''t accept the message they accept the food.

If this were true, there would not be the "destruction to local society" you mentioned.

It is a very good question. You seem to be fairly well educated and are obviously not closed to the gospel so there are exceptions. Perhaps you see it as a matter of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Absolutely.

Knowledge of the 'gospel' comes from where - the bible and religious practice and teaching. Some people may look at the written word and cannot reconcile the obvious contradictions and absurdities. Others may see the hypocricy of the self proclaimed religious and decide they want nothing to do with.

Yes... I fell into both of those categories.

Omniscient and omnipotent for a start. If god 'knows' everything that will come to pass, he is powerless to change it.

Not so. A parent learns to predict the behavior of a child.

Straw man - god is said to 'know' not 'predict'

Not a straw man -- an analogy. Having knowledge of something does not make one powerless. Epicurus assumed he fully understood what comprises evil. I am not so confident that we have that understanding. A lot of what is evil masquerades as good, and a lot of what is good is frequently perceived as evil by the ignorant.

the list does go on and on doesn't it.

I could easily take your approach and call everything irrelevant. But that is not how progress is made.

Just as you cannot understand my experience and understanding of the nature of the Self. An understanding that can only be gained by doing the exercise. I'm sure you will be able to relate to that.

Knowledge is gained this way. I believe true understanding is spiritually imparted.

[bernee51]

Their 'brothers and sisters' may. But I don't think you appreciate the scale of the poverty - the brothers and sisters have nothing as well.

This is inaccurate... India has many poor, but India is not a poor country.

It depends what you regard as poor. Have you ever been there? Have you seen (and I don't mean the sanitized CNN version of 'seeing') the slums of Mumbai? Calcutta?

The per capita GDP stands at around $3000 (the US is over $40k). This is the approximately the salary of a relatively well paid middle level office worker. The average salary for a driver is around $2000 per annum. A security guard earns in the vicinity of $1000 per annum. The percantage of the workforce in agricuture - traditionally the lowest paid of all - is around 60%. Women work on the roads, carting rocks in baskets of their head for as little as $2 per day - if the contractor pays them.

The actual per capita income is $285 (2004-05).

Poor Indians don''t accept the message they accept the food.

If this were true, there would not be the "destruction to local society" you mentioned.

In many cases (if not all in the case of christians) the giving of food comes with prosletyzation. Conversion does not happen on 'faith' it happens on hunger. Conversion spilts families, splits villages.

Omniscient and omnipotent for a start. If god 'knows' everything that will come to pass, he is powerless to change it.

Not so. A parent learns to predict the behavior of a child.

Straw man - god is said to 'know' not 'predict'

Not a straw man -- an analogy.

Only if you accept there is no difference betwee 'predict' and 'know'

Having knowledge of something does not make one powerless.

We are not talking about a level of knowledge we are talking total knowledge. If god is omniscient he has known all for all eternity. Past, present and future. If he knows the future, how can he change it? He knows that we are having this discussion and is powerless to change it. Unless, of course he was to 'pull the plug' on one of us, but then he would have known he was going to do that wouldn't he.

I could easily take your approach and call everything irrelevant. But that is not how progress is made.

I was not condemning anything as irrelevent - I was pointing out the logical errors in the reasons you state as 'evidence' for the existence of god. If you beleive that they are not logical errors I would be happy to know how so.

Progess is made by discussion and being open to an alternative viewpoint. For you the words of Jesus are 'gospel' and not open to challenge.

Just as you cannot understand my experience and understanding of the nature of the Self. An understanding that can only be gained by doing the exercise. I'm sure you will be able to relate to that.

Knowledge is gained this way. I believe true understanding is spiritually imparted.

How is this understanding spiritually imparted?