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.

[bernee51]

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?

I guess you could be wrong about that as well...

The fourth pillar of Islam...zakah...

An important principle of Islam is that everything belongs to God, and that wealth is therefore held by human beings in trust. The word zakah means both "purification" and "growth." Our possessions are purified by setting aside a proportion for those in need and for the society in general. Like the pruning of plants, this cutting back balances and encourages new growth.

Whenever I have traveled in Muslim countries or Muslim areas I have never found them wanting when it comes to charity.

"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.

OK through me...I am able to resist god's will.

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?

Presuming to know my actions. But I see you ae speaking generally based on the so called 'word of god'.

I am still not sure how you know what is in the bible is the word of god.

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.

Ah, it is not my arguments but the fact that I make them you find 'illogical'. Why is making objections to unsubstantiated (and, IMO, fallacious) claims '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."

You have presented neither a smoking gun or DNA - you have presented opinion as evidence

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.

And you call this 'evidence' of god's existence.

The church and state were one. Heresy was also an act of treason.

What else did people believe? The earth was flat and at the centre of the solar system. Women and children were beleived to be property. Slavery was believed acceptable. To name a few of the 'beliefs' of the middle ages.

Do atheists assert that all those folks are wrong?

Yes. I don't doubt they 'believed' but belief does not a fact make. Is the earth flat? Are women property?

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?

Better late than never

Actually it is called 'spiritual evolution'. Have you noticed that belief in a mythological god is part of a chain of belief? From animistic, through the 'power gods', the magical, the mythical and so on.

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.

That is up to them to make themselves known.

I'll see if I can find posts they have made and refer you to them.

[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?

From the ANB...

"Why should showing things to people interfere with their free will? People want to know the truth. It would seem, then, that to show them things would not interfere with their will, but would conform to it. Even direct implantation of belief into a person's mind need not interfere with his/her free will. If that person were to want true beliefs and not care how the beliefs are obtained, then for God to directly implant true beliefs into his/her mind would not interfere with, but would rather comply with, the person's free will. An analogy would be God making a large unexpected direct deposit into someone's bank account. It would make the person quite pleased and would not at all interfere with his/her free will"

[Cathar1950]

Paul said he would do or be anything for the gospel. He also says I do no lie. I belive the first statement.
I think our experiences add to God's enjoyment and sorrow. If God knows everything even before it happens I do not see how God could experience anything. If God is an unmoved mover then it would seem that God would be powerless and not even capable of what the simple creatures enjoy.
When did you get this idea That God knows everything before hand.
My idea of God knowing things in the future is due to God acting to bring it about. At least this is the usual Hebrew understanding of history. Paul liked to brag that God chose him before birth. This attribute was later given to Jesus in the Gospels. Paul felt that God chose to show himself through Paul to the Gentiles. Jesus to the Jews Paul to the Gentiles.
I don't share your view of scripture(writing). I am not against the spiritual dimensions. I just belive there is more then your truth and alternatives despite what some obscure bible passage says.
I am not trying to be dark or insulting. But you come across as if you should be believed do to your spiritual knowledge an it's expression.
Many Christians come across as mean spirited and arrogant. You assume that the only reason people don't belive is due to lack of reason and faith or some personal flaw.
Often their faith seems like some kind of magic trick done by God.
That their faith and spirituality is unquestionably solid.
I tend to have a sympathetic desire for your cause. It is the means and interpretations that I take issue.
In the end you argue against reason and skip to some spiritual hiding place and right off objections to a lack of spiritual understanding or ignorance on the part of others.

[trencacloscas]

I don't claim a relationship with a ghost.

But if you want to present God to us, there is no difference. Is there?

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

Sounds like an artificial difference to me, I never heard of such a definition about "rationalization" before; but anyway, are you drawing conclusions based on evidence when you speak about God?

Reason doesn't preclude the supernatural.

I don't know. Only if you consider the supernatural reasonable. If it exists, it should be part of the universe, this is: natural. If not, well, maybe we can call it "supernatural". Even "mythical".

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.

On the contrary. Abandoning Christianism and religion in general was my most powerful and enlightning spiritual experience.

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.

Yes. But I don't call it revelation. I call it... daydreaming.

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.

Indeed! But that doesn't imply revelation or intervention of a God.

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.

I don't believe much in "lower" and "higher", or probably we have different standards for each category. But if we talk exclusively about "higher" functions and you ask people to recede the rational permanently, aren't you degrading reason?

[trencacloscas]

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?

What statistics, please?
Charity is definitively not a Christian virtue, it is a human virtue, present in all cultures and all times. Christians didn't invent charity and they even monopolized it for their own hegemonic or proselytical purposes. Pagans, for instance, had strong rules and appreciation for charity and hospitality. "The poor and the supplicant come from Zeus", says Homer. You'll find such sentences in every culture.

[bernee51]

Reason doesn't preclude the supernatural.

I don't know. Only if you consider the supernatural reasonable.

I would suggest that to reason (to determine or conclude by logical thinking} would preclude the supernatural ( of or relating to existence outside the natural world} That tends to go against logic.

The likeness between the invisible and the non existent is uncanny.

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.

On the contrary. Abandoning Christianism and religion in general was my most powerful and enlightning spiritual experience.

Agreed. Freedom from the constraints of religious dogma opens up a whole universe of spiritual possibilites.

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.

Indeed! But that doesn't imply revelation or intervention of a God.

I think it would be reasonable to describe experiences I have had in meditation and contemplation as 'revelation' - but the only 'divinity' inspiring it was within.

[Diana Holberg]

What statistics, please?

There are many studies. Here is an international one from the Center for Civil Society Studies. But my personal favorite is The Generosity Index from the US's Catalogue for Philanthropy.

[Diana Holberg]

Whenever I have traveled in Muslim countries or Muslim areas I have never found them wanting when it comes to charity.

People as individuals are generally charitable. It's when they get in groups that they become stingy. Or when they gain power. Statistics don't lie... in the area of philanthropy and volunteerism, the numbers are clear.

OK through me...I am able to resist god's will.

Yes. Because He allows you free will.

Ah, it is not my arguments but the fact that I make them you find 'illogical'. Why is making objections to unsubstantiated (and, IMO, fallacious) claims 'illogical'

It is not the objections to my claims that I find illogical -- there is no reason for you to believe anything I tell you. It is objection to evidence that God makes readily apparent that is illogical (but understandable).

You have presented neither a smoking gun or DNA - you have presented opinion as evidence

No... I don't expect anyone to accept anything based on my opinion. I expect they will use their own eyes and ears, and will.

The church and state were one. Heresy was also an act of treason.

What? Where? That wasn't true everywhere. What I wrote was.

What else did people believe? The earth was flat and at the centre of the solar system.

Okay, and they weren't wrong, were they? From their perspective, the earth IS flat -- else we would have a lot more difficulty building. From the perspective of the moon, the earth IS central. They weren't wrong -- they were only missing information by going only on what they could see. When we discovered that the earth is not central, we didn't throw the earth away, did we?

Women and children were beleived to be property.

They weren't just "believed to be" property -- they WERE property. In many parts of the world, they still are. This isn't a matter of belief -- it's a matter of practice. When we stopped believing that women were property, we didn't throw away women, did we? We didn't throw away property, did we?

Slavery was believed acceptable. To name a few of the 'beliefs' of the middle ages.

There was a time when what you and I consider slavery was acceptable both to servant and master. People sold themselves to pay a debt. In many places they still do. When we decided that this was wrong, we didn't throw away the people, did we? We didn't throw away the concept of debt, did we?

Yes. I don't doubt they 'believed' but belief does not a fact make. Is the earth flat? Are women property?

Belief sheds light on fact. Viewed from the earth, the earth is flat. Viewed from the moon, it is round... but it is still there.

From the perspective of the buyer, a woman is property. From the perspective of a redeemer, a woman is her own person... but she is still a woman.

Actually it is called 'spiritual evolution'.

No... evolution doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Atheism is spiritual abandonment.

Have you noticed that belief in a mythological god is part of a chain of belief? From animistic, through the 'power gods', the magical, the mythical and so on.

Sure... and we should evolve spiritually. I believe in the development of doctrine... but not in throwing away the One who creates and sustains us.

From the ANB...

"Why should showing things to people interfere with their free will? People want to know the truth. It would seem, then, that to show them things would not interfere with their will, ...

This is wrong. Since God is Truth, for Him to implant His Truth in someone's mind without their consent would be violation. The person would cease to be who they are.

This is, in fact, what happens when one opens oneself to His Truth -- but we do it willingly, trusting that what we will see is worth seeing, and that who we will become is better than who we started out to be. It's a matter of trust, respect, love.

I wouldn't expect anyone to trust a god who would impose himself on a person without consent. Though in a sense, God does do this by being omnipresent... but since you don't see Him anyway, I suppose that's not a violation...

[Diana Holberg]

I am not trying to be dark or insulting. But you come across as if you should be believed do to your spiritual knowledge an it's expression.

I am sorry if I come across to you as though I should be believed for anything that is just me. I usually try to make a point of directing people to the evidence that surrounds them, and not just to my opinions. But for some reason, people think it is just my opinion that there is anything around them but what they already see.

Many Christians come across as mean spirited and arrogant. You assume that the only reason people don't belive is due to lack of reason and faith or some personal flaw.

I make no such assumptions. I respond to each individual based on what that individual says. You seem to have interpreted my comments to Bernee as some kind of global statement -- let me assure you, they are not.

Often their faith seems like some kind of magic trick done by God.
That their faith and spirituality is unquestionably solid.

This is only because it is faith based on real relationship. I could no more deny God or Jesus Christ than I could deny my own parents. But until a person has that relationship, there really is no reason to believe it. This is why I say repeatedly that I do understand atheism... been there myself.

I tend to have a sympathetic desire for your cause. It is the means and interpretations that I take issue.

Again, understandable. I think the most common excuse people offer for remaining closed to the Lord is "Christians".

In the end you argue against reason and skip to some spiritual hiding place and right off objections to a lack of spiritual understanding or ignorance on the part of others.

Ignorance and lack of spiritual understanding is a reality -- I'm not going to lie! I do not argue against reason... I argue against rationalizing. There is a difference. God created reason; men created rationalizing.

You can't put yourself in God's shoes, of course, but your reactions to things are somewhat analogous to His, since you are created in His image. Suppose you were God, and you created men, and they rejected you. So you became a man yourself and died so that they could be saved from the destruction of being without you. But they still rejected you -- and not only that, they attacked and insulted and even killed those who did believe, and who did write down what you had done, and who did continue to spread the "good news". What would you do?

The difference between God and us is that, as Sender posted, He will embrace even the hardest-hearted person who turns to Him. That is the part I find the hardest to understand. But I'm learning...

[Diana Holberg]

Time is short, sorry...

But if you want to present God to us, there is no difference. Is there?

God presents Himself to you. I only describe what I know of Him.

Sounds like an artificial difference to me, I never heard of such a definition about "rationalization" before; but anyway, are you drawing conclusions based on evidence when you speak about God?

I refer you to Webster's. "Rationalize" has several definitions... none of them equating to "reason". I draw my conclusions based on the evidence God provides to me... there is also evidence He provides to all.

Indeed! But that doesn't imply revelation or intervention of a God.

True, but it does involve the recession of rational functions, which you are arguing to me is "drastic"... and yet now you say you already engage in practices that involve this?

But if we talk exclusively about "higher" functions and you ask people to recede the rational permanently, aren't you degrading reason?

I never said anything about "permanently". Please don't put words in my mouth.

[trencacloscas]

God presents Himself to you.

How?

I only describe what I know of Him.

And what do you know about him?

I draw my conclusions based on the evidence God provides to me...

God provides you evidence on a personal basis?

there is also evidence He provides to all.

Like what? Never saw such evidence.

I refer you to Webster's. "Rationalize" has several definitions... none of them equating to "reason".

One of the definitions says "give a rational explanation of". Anyway, reason, rational and rationalize come all from the same etymological root: latin 'ratio', which means measure, portion, etc.

I never said anything about "permanently". Please don't put words in my mouth.

So, you recede the functions to "understand" and then recover them somehow? Then your God cannot be known rationally?

There are many studies. Here is an international one from the Center for Civil Society Studies. But my personal favorite is The Generosity Index from the US's Catalogue for Philanthropy.

Sorry, I fail to see your point expressed even in the figures of these organisms.