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]

I see... your opinion is that I do not live "in reality". So noted.

Ah the passion of some to take things out of context to suit their argument. I never said any such thing. I was merely expressing the opinion that you chose to use the word 'faith' in a manner that was not appropriate to the topic. This is often done in order to attempt to show that people who do not believe do, in fact, show 'faith'.

You see a vast difference. I say there is evidence sufficient for those who desire to understand. But again, no amount of evidence will be proof for you.

I love the arrogance of some chriostians who presume that those that disagree have 'no desire to understand' because, obviously, if they did have a desire they would. To claim that no amount of evidence would be proof is presumptious.

No it is a choice you would make to your detriment. It is obviously no such thing for me.

Please explain how it is to my detriment to honestly acknowledge that there is truth in Sacred Scripture.

I never claimed any such thing. You should perhaps take the time to read posts before replying.

Scriptures: The sacred books of [y]our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.
~ Ambrose Bierce

Most who desire to understand question.

I have arrived at my present position from doing just that. And I continue to.

You give the impression that you no longer question. Is it because you understand or have no desire to understand?

[Diana Holberg]

Ah the passion of some to take things out of context to suit their argument.

Who is the one creating an argument?

I never said any such thing. I was merely expressing the opinion that you chose to use the word 'faith' in a manner that was not appropriate to the topic.

By your own definition, faith is "confident belief". That is the definition I have intended throughout.

This is often done in order to attempt to show that people who do not believe do, in fact, show 'faith'.

I believe your responses have in fact supported this view, as you profess confident belief in tomorrow in spite of the fact that tomorrow is not promised to anyone.

I love the arrogance of some chriostians who presume that those that disagree have 'no desire to understand' because, obviously, if they did have a desire they would.

I suspect they would ask questions rather than call the person with whom they are conversing "arrogant" and "presumptuous", and accuse them of not reading before responding and of taking things out of context.

To claim that no amount of evidence would be proof is presumptious.

Perhaps. Time will tell.

I never claimed any such thing. You should perhaps take the time to read posts before replying.

Then perhaps you will enlighten me as to what you meant when you said it was "to my detriment"?

Scriptures: The sacred books of [y]our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based. ~ Ambrose Bierce

Interesting quote.

Most who desire to understand question.

I have arrived at my present position from doing just that. And I continue to.

I look forward to evidence supporting that statement.

You give the impression that you no longer question. Is it because you understand or have no desire to understand?

In fact, I did ask you a question, which you side-stepped. We will see if you respond now that I have asked a second time.

[bernee51]

By your own definition, faith is "confident belief". That is the definition I have intended throughout.

OK you have a 'confident belief' in your god and religion. Your words would indicate something stronger. Along the lines of "[a] theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. "

This is often done in order to attempt to show that people who do not believe do, in fact, show 'faith'.

I believe your responses have in fact supported this view, as you profess confident belief in tomorrow in spite of the fact that tomorrow is not promised to anyone.

Confident belief yes. Nothing theological about it - which is how the word 'faith' was used in this thread

I love the arrogance of some chriostians who presume that those that disagree have 'no desire to understand' because, obviously, if they did have a desire they would.

I suspect they would ask questions rather than call the person with whom they are conversing "arrogant" and "presumptuous", and accuse them of not reading before responding and of taking things out of context.

I would only make such claims if they were staring me in the face.

I never claimed any such thing. You should perhaps take the time to read posts before replying.

Then perhaps you will enlighten me as to what you meant when you said it was "to my detriment"?

Again I never said any such thing..lets review the conversation


Me: I have no faith in you mythical entity or the fairy stories of 'the scripture'.

You: A choice you make to your own detriment.

Me: No it is a choice you would make to your detriment. It is obviously no such thing for me.

Notice the word WOULD. If you were to choose as i have you would no doubt beleive it was to your detriment - given you current beliefs.

Most who desire to understand question.

I have arrived at my present position from doing just that. And I continue to.

I look forward to evidence supporting that statement.[/quote]
The evidence is in self enquiry.

You give the impression that you no longer question. Is it because you understand or have no desire to understand?

In fact, I did ask you a question, which you side-stepped. We will see if you respond now that I have asked a second time.

As you can see I did answer your question.

You give the impression that you no longer question your beliefs. Is it because you understand or have no desire to understand?

[Lotan]

I think it must be the principle employed in any Christian view regarding human relationships.

Amen, brother. It's not a bad idea for non-Christians too.

Congratulations on reaching Sagacity, btw.

Thanks.

I've really enjoyed this discussion, but unless you feel that there is more that we need to cover I think I'm going to let it go now. I need to study up on some things.

[Tilia]

I think it must be the principle employed in any Christian view regarding human relationships.

Amen, brother. It's not a bad idea for non-Christians too.

Congratulations on reaching Sagacity, btw.

Thanks.

I've really enjoyed this discussion, but unless you feel that there is more that we need to cover I think I'm going to let it go now. I need to study up on some things.

I've enjoyed it also, thanks, and I agree that we have covered enough ground.

[MJB05]

I honestly can't think of anything that would convince me...I don't believe they could ever provide proof that they found Jesus's body and I don't believe that if aliens visited that it would prove to me that God didn't exist or even that Creation was wrong for that matter.

Thank you for that honest answer. But one can rightly ask, then why are you here? Certainly not to debate. When I come to debate, it is with three thoughts in mind.
1) I think I am right.
2) I think I can convince my opponent (or the audience) that I am right.
3) If my opponent betters me, I should be willing to consider that I am wrong.

If you are not willing to consider that you are wrong, then debate is useless. It is more likely, therefore, that you are here to preach and/or witness.

So why are you here?

Where have I been bettered? I said I can not think of anything that would convince me, but I didn't say that it wasn't possible. In a debate it is not my job to tell the other side how to defeat me in that debate is it? I can think of anything that could convince me...it is up to the other side to find something that would/could...or am I just way off base?

Well, I see where your response kicked up a little dust, but I think I understand where you're coming from, and I accept it as a fair response. You're not saying "nothing will convince" you, you're simply saying you can't think of something that will convince you. Correct?
[/i]

Yes that is what I was saying...it would have to be some very strong undeniable evidence though...

I didn't come to my faith lightly and it is going to take something more than light or sketchy evidence to ever tear me from my faith. I am sure that in your belief that it would take a similar drastic event.

[McCulloch]

No, it is quite a different thing.

Rather, your opinion is that it is quite a different thing. Let's be clear.

No, it is a different thing. The fact that you have or once had a biological father is objectively provable. All of science agrees with this. We can clearly and unambiguously identify the individual who is your biological father. The allegation that you have a heavenly father is not objectively provable. You sincerely believe that you have a heavenly father, but a significant number of scientists and others do not believe that you have a heavenly father. Spiritual beings cannot be shown objectively to exist nor can different spiritual beings be objectively identified. And if a spiritual being could be shown to exist and be identified there is no objective way to determine if that specific spiritual being is your spiritual father. There is no spiritual DNA. This is not a matter of opinion. The two things are different.

We know from biology that humans do not come into existence without a father (Jesus notwithstanding).

Biologically, you have an argument. I meant experientially.

The problem is that experientially, spiritual phenomena are, by their very nature, subjective.

So trying to prove that your earthly father doesn't exist would be going against science. But then you already knew this.

Yes... just as trying to prove that my heavenly Father doesn't exist goes against nature and the order of things, not to mention my own experience and changes in my lifestyle and habits that are objectively observable.

One hundred per cent of biologists believe that you have a biological father. Science is unanimous on this one fact. Less than one hundred per cent of scientists believe that you have a heavenly father. And of those, less than 100% believe that science can prove that He exists. So, early 21st century science, cannot prove the existence of your heavenly father. You believe, I assume, that the belief in your heavenly father has brought about certain experiences and lifestyle changes. No doubt that this is true. But that cannot objectively prove that your beliefs are correct.

God, however, is believed to exist by those who believe in him, by faith and not by any direct evidence.

Again, this is your opinion... which obviously I do not share.

I am unaware of any objective unambiguous direct evidence of the existence of God. All of the evidence that I have been presented with are either subjective (not available to objective scrutiny and validation) or ambiguous (there are possible explanations other than the existence of the christian god for them). But, please, if you have such objective unambiguous evidence, present it here.

Does God talk to you (I mean literally not spiritually)?

Why the qualification?

Because any spiritual evidence is by its very nature subjective.

Did God manifest himself to you in some unambiguous objective way?

I daresay He does that every single morning that I wake up with my heart beating and my lungs drawing breath. No amount of evidence is proof to those who deny that they live in faith.

Objective proof of the existance of God

1. heart beat
2. lungs still operational
3. personal consciousness of these.

You will forgive my lack of faith in asking for a bit more rigorous proof.

[Diana Holberg]

OK you have a 'confident belief' in your god and religion. Your words would indicate something stronger. Along the lines of "[a] theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. "

Which words?

I suspect they would ask questions rather than call the person with whom they are conversing "arrogant" and "presumptuous", and accuse them of not reading before responding and of taking things out of context.

I would only make such claims if they were staring me in the face.

Please identify for me where I have been arrogant or presumptuous. It seems to me that we disagree because you choose to read more into my statements than was intended, and you are saying less in your statements than you intend (i.e., you are being cryptic).

Again I never said any such thing..lets review the conversation
[...]Notice the word WOULD. If you were to choose as i have you would no doubt beleive it was to your detriment - given you current beliefs.

Thank you for the explanation. I now understand what you meant. But the quote you posted suggests that you would encourage Christians to explore other writings. That is no different than the encouragement I would give you to read Scripture with an open mind.

The evidence is in self enquiry.

Evidence of being cryptic.

As you can see I did answer your question.

Again, thanks.

You give the impression that you no longer question your beliefs. Is it because you understand or have no desire to understand?

There are certain doctrines of my faith that I continue to question -- and I expect that will always be true.

Was there ever a time when you professed a religious faith? (Or do you consider atheism religious faith?)

[Diana Holberg]

You will forgive my lack of faith in asking for a bit more rigorous proof.

Of course I will.

[Diana Holberg]

All of the evidence that I have been presented with are either subjective (not available to objective scrutiny and validation) or ambiguous (there are possible explanations other than the existence of the christian god for them). But, please, if you have such objective unambiguous evidence, present it here.

Objective proof of the existance of God

1. heart beat
2. lungs still operational
3. personal consciousness of these.

Please explain how these are subjective or ambiguous.