What would convince you that God doesn't exist?

abnoxio · Post by **abnoxio** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:26 pm

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 · Post by **Diana Holberg** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:43 am

bernee51 wrote:It depends what you regard as poor.

No, actually it doesn't. It depends upon how wealth is distributed.

Have you ever been there? Have you seen (and I don't mean the sanitized CNN version of 'seeing') the slums of Mumbai? Calcutta?

This is one of the key differences between us, Bernee. I do not believe one has to see with one's eyes to know that something exists or to appreciate its gravity.

However, if your question is whether or not I have seen abject poverty, the answer is yes.

The per capita GDP stands at around $3000 (the US is over $40k).

[...]

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

To what do you attribute this discrepancy?

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.

And what I am trying to tell you is that without the conversion and splitting, those people will remain in abject poverty, because their "brothers and sisters" do not "sense" a burden to change things.

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

They are analogous in this example because the parent comes to know the child so well that the prediction is very close to what you are calling knowledge.

Diana Holberg wrote: 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.

He is powerless to effect His will through you so long as you are resistent... but He has still worked it out so that your actions are for the good of those who love Him.

I, on the other hand, am subservient to His will. It is through those who serve Him that His will is effected.

Yes, He knew before I was born that I would have this conversation with you, and that by this time I would be submitted to His will. He also knows whether or not I will remain that way, just as He knows whether or not you will remain resistent. His knowledge does not take away our free will -- it just makes us more or less useful to His purposes.

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.

Of course He knows His own will and actions. He doesn't "pull the plug" until the perfect time -- when our wills are permanently solidified for or against Him.

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.

I believe you make a logical error in dismissing so much evidence. How much would be enough to lead you to logically conclude that He does exist?

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.

Only since I got to know Him. Before that, their apparent nonsense was not open to challenge. (That is what it means to be "strong-willed".)

How is this understanding spiritually imparted?

How does God speak to a heart? I guess the person just has to allow Him to.

trencacloscas · Post by **trencacloscas** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:45 pm

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.

It's not my intention to insult anybody. I could send to you photos of my wife and kids. Could you send me a photo of your Lord? Because a relationship requires at least two sides. What common sense would you grant me if I suggest I have a relationship with a ghost?

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

Tell us the difference, please. Christians don't want to be treated as irrational but at the same time keep asking us to abandon our critical thinking in order to believe. In fact, your exact words were

understanding is most easily obtained when the rational functions recede

To "recede the rational functions" sounds pretty drastic to me.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 3:06 pm

Diana Holberg wrote:
McCulloch wrote: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.

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.[/quote]
This all sounds to me like a nice non-falsifyable situation you have created. Anyone points out something in the bible that is nonsense or contradictory then your immediate defence is "it must be taken as a whole. you are looking at it too narrowly."

McCulloch's very abridged bible wrote:In the beginning God created everything and it was good. Then he created humans. He told them to do certain things or else they would die. A talking snake was where the humans were and he convinced them to break God's rules. God punished the humans by driving them out of the garden and making life hard for them.
The humans had descendants. They were wicked. God decided to destroy them all except Noah and his family. He sent a flood. Noah saved his family and each species of animal. Noah had descendants. They became evil.
God chose Abraham to be the father of his chosen people. Abraham had descendants. Eventually, Moses one of Abraham's descendants, led the chosen people out of captivity and gave them God's Law. God lead to their promised land. God directed them in the genocide of the local people.
God did not want his chosen people to have a king, but they wanted one anyway, so he let them have one. God's chosen people became evil and eventually they were led into captivity. Prophets predicted the restoration of the kingdom of Israel and Israel was restored for a while.
Israel then became under the rule of Rome. God became human and was born into the people he had chosen. He let himself be killed so that he would be a sacrifice to himself so that the people's sins would be forgiven. Then he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven to be with God. His followers spread the word and argued among themselves. Paul, wrote much about how the new way is different from the old one. If a person believes all of this and has faith in this god then he or she will be saved eternally. Jesus will come back soon to judge.

Yes, taken as a whole, it is beautiful and coherent.

Diana Holberg · Post by **Diana Holberg** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 3:19 pm

trencacloscas wrote:It's not my intention to insult anybody. I could send to you photos of my wife and kids. Could you send me a photo of your Lord? Because a relationship requires at least two sides.

Probably not a photo you would accept, since you already do not accept His correspondence with us.

I wonder if you would argue that you and I have no relationship since you have not seen a photo of me?

What common sense would you grant me if I suggest I have a relationship with a ghost?

None. I don't claim a relationship with a ghost.

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

Reason involves drawing conclusions based on evidence (including experience). Rationalization involves convincing oneself of something, regardless of the evidence.

Reason doesn't preclude the supernatural. Normally I would appeal to spiritual experiences, but given the nature of this discussion, I'll assume you haven't had any for the time being.

So how about daydreaming? Have you never had a moment of epiphany while daydreaming? When the brain's rational functions are relaxed, creativity increases, but so does the potential for revelation.

Christians don't want to be treated as irrational but at the same time keep asking us to abandon our critical thinking in order to believe. In fact, your exact words were
understanding is most easily obtained when the rational functions recede

Anyone who has participated in meditation or hypnosis knows that this is true. Lots of people gain understanding while dreaming too. The mind is much more than just a logical computer.

To "recede the rational functions" sounds pretty drastic to me.

Not to be crass, but many men do this all the time and seem not to mind a bit -- and claim that it's "natural". It's pretty hypocritical to engage in lower functions and then complain when asked to engage in higher ones.

Cephus · Post by **Cephus** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:24 pm

Diana Holberg wrote:Probably not a photo you would accept, since you already do not accept His correspondence with us.

Mostly because you are completely unable to demonstrate such correspondence exists.

I wonder if you would argue that you and I have no relationship since you have not seen a photo of me?

I can print out your posts, I can show them to other people, I can go back to this forum and, theoretically at least, get your connection data and contact you. What can you offer for your 'relationship' with God?

Diana Holberg · Post by **Diana Holberg** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 6:09 pm

Only my word. Do I impress you as someone who makes a habit of lying? As someone who cannot distinguish between what is real and what is not real? As someone who is somehow lacking in analytical skills?

And beyond that, what would I have to gain from inventing a relationship with Jesus Christ? What would I have to gain from being repeatedly insulted and insinuated as ridiculous? What's in it for me if it's not the Truth?

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:02 pm

Diana Holberg wrote:

Only my word. Do I impress you as someone who makes a habit of lying? As someone who cannot distinguish between what is real and what is not real? As someone who is somehow lacking in analytical skills?

And beyond that, what would I have to gain from inventing a relationship with Jesus Christ? What would I have to gain from being repeatedly insulted and insinuated as ridiculous? What's in it for me if it's not the Truth?

Well you are sounding a little whinny like Paul.
We don't really know if your a person that is in the habit of lying.
You seem to think that you have the truth and every one else should see it.
Analytical skills are not what you are using. It is more apologetic and personal. How do we know you ca distinguish real from the unreal?
What would you gain from being insulted? Maybe some kind of sainthood for being a suffering witness? It maybe your truth but not everyones. What do you gain? Heaven and a sense of self righteous indignation?

Reason doesn't preclude the supernatural. Normally I would appeal to spiritual experiences, but given the nature of this discussion, I'll assume you haven't had any for the time being.

Your assuming here that your experience is the only spiritual experience
worthy of consideration. The "supernatural" should include reason.
Why don't you just pick any supernatural idea then?

Not to be crass, but many men do this all the time and seem not to mind a bit -- and claim that it's "natural". It's pretty hypocritical to engage in lower functions and then complain when asked to engage in higher ones.

Do you mean many men as in people or men as in sex?
Do you think just your feelings are some kind of higher ideal while reason is just fleshly lust of some kind.

He is powerless to effect His will through you so long as you are resistent... but He has still worked it out so that your actions are for the good of those who love Him.

I, on the other hand, am subservient to His will. It is through those who serve Him that His will is effected.

Yes, He knew before I was born that I would have this conversation with you, and that by this time I would be submitted to His will. He also knows whether or not I will remain that way, just as He knows whether or not you will remain resistent. His knowledge does not take away our free will -- it just makes us more or less useful to His purposes.

In other words God is powerless unless they are subservient like you.
Of course your predestined as is the resistent ones. How nice for you.
I guess the answer to your question

Do I impress you as someone who makes a habit of lying? As someone who cannot distinguish between what is real and what is not real? As someone who is somehow lacking in analytical skills?

is yes.

Diana Holberg · Post by **Diana Holberg** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:58 pm

My goodness, Cathar... could you possibly take the things I write in a more negative light? I don't think so... but I suppose I expect too much to be treated the way I treat others?

Well you are sounding a little whinny like Paul.

Since I don't consider Paul to be whiney, I don't mind sounding like him a bit.

We don't really know if your a person that is in the habit of lying.
You seem to think that you have the truth and every one else should see it.

How did you reach that conclusion? I went 30+ years without seeing the Truth of Jesus Christ... why on earth would you think I would expect others to see what I couldn't see without help?

Analytical skills are not what you are using. It is more apologetic and personal.

Regarding my faith, yes. But we have broached several other subjects in this thread giving you some basis for assessing my analytical skills.

How do we know you ca distinguish real from the unreal?

You can use your own analytical skills rather than try to "win".

What would you gain from being insulted? Maybe some kind of sainthood for being a suffering witness? It maybe your truth but not everyones. What do you gain? Heaven and a sense of self righteous indignation?

I apologize if I come across as self-righteous. I certainly don't intend to be.

Your assuming here that your experience is the only spiritual experience worthy of consideration.

Again, how do you reach this conclusion? I assume my own experience is the only one relevant to me. I make no assumptions about anyone else's experience, except what is common in the human experience.

The "supernatural" should include reason. Why don't you just pick any supernatural idea then?

Because I have analytical skills.

Do you mean many men as in people or men as in sex?

In this case I meant men, since as far as I can tell so far it is only men who are objecting. But this applies to women too.

Do you just your feelings are some kind of higher ideal while reason is just fleshly lust of some kind.

No, what I suggest is that the spiritual is higher than the carnal.

In other words God is powerless unless they are subservient like you.

No... God is a gentleman who will not intimidate or provoke. Unlike some here.

Of course your predestined as is the resistent ones.

Is this your belief? I do not believe in predestination in that kind of strict sense, though I do believe in God's omnicience.

How nice for you. I guess the answer to your question is yes.

Very well. You're certainly entitled to you opinion.

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:16 pm

Diana Holberg wrote:.

The per capita GDP stands at around $3000 (the US is over $40k).

[...]

The actual per capita income is $285 (2004-05).
To what do you attribute this discrepancy?

Probably the same reason as for the discrepancey in every other country - The average family income in Utah is around $25k. Why the discrepancy?

Diana Holberg wrote: splitting, those people will remain in abject poverty, because their "brothers and sisters" do not "sense" a burden to change things.

The one's who have converted are often still in abject poverty - and ostracized from their local community.

Diana Holberg wrote: They are analogous in this example because the parent comes to know the child so well that the prediction is very close to what you are calling knowledge.

Ah is see 'very close'.. God's knowkedge is not said to be only 'very close' is it?

I have three children, all of whom I have a close and open relationship with...nonetheless, predicting their behaviour is not something I would presume. And informed guess maybe, but not know 100%.

Diana Holberg wrote:
He is powerless to effect His will through you so long as you are resistent...

"Powerless to effect his will"...I see so, he is not omnipotent at all. The will of a mere human can overcome is desire for me to believe. (BTW this is the essence of the Argument for Non Belief)

Diana Holberg wrote: but He has still worked it out so that your actions are for the good of those who love Him.

How do you know tht my actions have been? And if they have been for the good of those who love him?

Now it is your credibility that is diminished.

Diana Holberg wrote: His knowledge does not take away our free will -- it just makes us more or less useful to His purposes.

His knowledge or our free will?

Diana Holberg wrote: Of course He knows His own will and actions. He doesn't "pull the plug" until the perfect time -- when our wills are permanently solidified for or against Him.

So that is when he decides we have had enough of this world - when he knows that our mind is made up one way or the other? Pity about all the children who die and never get the chance to make a decision.

Diana Holberg wrote: I believe you make a logical error in dismissing so much evidence. How much would be enough to lead you to logically conclude that He does exist?

If I made a logical error - point it out. Which of my objections to your evidence was illogical?

Lets take just one - you claimed 'historical documents' are evidence of gods existence. What 'historical douments' exactly?

Diana Holberg wrote:)
How is this understanding spiritually imparted?
How does God speak to a heart? I guess the person just has to allow Him to.

I don't know - how does god speak to a heart?

And then there are those on this board who claim to have desperately wanted to have god 'speak to their heart' - not even a whisper? Why do you think that is?

And again we run into the issue - I have to 'allow' the all powerful deity to 'speak to my heart'.

Diana Holberg · Post by **Diana Holberg** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:13 pm

bernee51 wrote:Probably the same reason as for the discrepancey in every other country - The average family income in Utah is around $25k. Why the discrepancy?

That's correct... the wealthy few throw off the calculation.

Diana Holberg wrote:The one's who have converted are often still in abject poverty - and ostracized from their local community.

Yup... sounds like a Christian...

Ostracism of one kind or another comes with the territory, unfortunately. And many Christians actually make vows of poverty by choice!

Statistics show that in Christian cultures, people provide for one another, while non-Christian cultures are very uncharitable in this respect. What is your explanation for this?

Ah is see 'very close'.. God's knowkedge is not said to be only 'very close' is it?

Nope... that's why it's only analogous (as opposed to the same thing). I'm sure you know this.

I have three children, all of whom I have a close and open relationship with...nonetheless, predicting their behaviour is not something I would presume. And informed guess maybe, but not know 100%.

Yeah, but it would be pretty close, wouldn't it? Close enough that you could make allowances for misbehavior, huh? Like, if you were going to plan a trip, you'd pick the departure time based on their waking habits... and you'd plan the schedule to allow for their eating habits... and you'd be sure to ask them if they packed to meet their specific requirements for comfort?

If you, in your limited human ability, can work things together in such a way, why would God, in His omniscience, be unable to do as much?

"Powerless to effect his will"...I see so, he is not omnipotent at all.

Quote taken out of context. "Powerless to effect His will through you" -- doesn't imply powerlessness overall. He is a gentleman. He will not force you.

The will of a mere human can overcome is desire for me to believe. (BTW this is the essence of the Argument for Non Belief)

No, the ANB as you posted it said that God "wants" this or that. All God "wants" is for men to return to Him. Everything else relates to how God provides a means for us to do that.

How do you know tht my actions have been?

I have no idea of what your actions are. I'm saying that regardless of your actions, He works them together for good.

And if they have been for the good of those who love him?

I know this because I believe God's promises in His Word... and that is one of them. (See Romans 8:28... which is just a broader version of Genesis 50:20.)

Now it is your credibility that is diminished.

How so?

Diana Holberg wrote: His knowledge does not take away our free will -- it just makes us more or less useful to His purposes.
His knowledge or our free will?

The culmination of His knowledge and our free will... and His promises.

So that is when he decides we have had enough of this world - when he knows that our mind is made up one way or the other? Pity about all the children who die and never get the chance to make a decision.

The death you are referring to is not spiritual death. God has made provision for all to return to Him. He doesn't "owe" us an explanation of what happens when children die young. But His Word says that He loses none of His own, and in fact says that the Kingdom of God belongs to little children (Matthew 19:14). So it sounds to me like He's made ample provision for them.

If I made a logical error - point it out. Which of my objections to your evidence was illogical?

Your insistence on making objections is what I find illogical. I would feel the same way if I presented someone with fingerprints and DNA evidence and a smoking gun and they said, "Fingerprints are not 100% conclusive and neither is DNA evidence... and there are lots of smoking guns out there."

But I don't expect you to share this perspective -- I didn't think myself illogical when I thought similarly.

Lets take just one - you claimed 'historical documents' are evidence of gods existence. What 'historical douments' exactly?

Prior to the 16th century, just about every historical document was written in the context of one belief in God (or gods) or another. Do atheists assert that all those folks are wrong? And, if so, how is it more self-righteous to believe that there is a God higher than me who created us than to believe that every believer throughout time was wrong and somehow this late in the game people started figuring things out?

And then there are those on this board who claim to have desperately wanted to have god 'speak to their heart' - not even a whisper?

There are? I would be interested in talking to them. So far I've only talked to those who claim that there is no God to speak.

Why do you think that is?

I'd have to talk to them before I could offer an opinion on that.

And again we run into the issue - I have to 'allow' the all powerful deity to 'speak to my heart'.

Why is that an issue? Would it somehow violate your free will to make such an allowance? Or would you prefer that God violate your free will to assert His will over yours?