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.

[McCulloch]

It would be like trying to prove my earthly father doesn't exist.

As for why I am here... it's to gain understanding about what stands between other people and our Lord.

No, it is quite a different thing. We know from biology that humans do not come into existence without a father (Jesus notwithstanding). So trying to prove that your earthly father doesn't exist would be going against science. But then you already knew this.

God, however, is believed to exist by those who believe in him, by faith and not by any direct evidence. Does God talk to you (I mean literally not spiritually)? Did God manifest himself to you in some unambiguous objective way?

[McCulloch]

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?

One fundamental concept in debate is that you cannot prove a point which cannot be, at least hypothetically, disproven. So evolution would be disproven if they find the fossils of a poodle in with the Jurassic fossils. Newton's theory of gravity would be disproven if the planets did not all follow paths predicted by the equations of that theory.
So, this thread is trying to ask if the existence of God is falsifyable. That is, Is there any possible or impossible piece of evidence which would show that God doesn't exist? If there is not, then there cannot be a debate.

[Diana Holberg]

No, it is quite a different thing.

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

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

Biologically, you have an argument. I meant experientially.

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.

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.

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

Why the qualification?

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.

[Sender]

[/quote]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.[/quote]

That was beautifull. Did you write that or is that someone elses?

[Diana Holberg]

Why, thank you, upnorthfan. The words are my own; the sentiment is common.

[Cathar1950]

I can't think of anything that could prove that God does not exist.
I might be able to be shown some kind of prof that God does exist.
That seems possible. God could do something that would convince me. I am not sure it would convince others.
I don't think you can prove that God doesn't exist. You can prove the Bible is not perfect that is done all the time.
Even if you found Jesus' body would not prove that God did not exist.
It wouldn't even prove there was no resurrection. Paul seems to think he was a spirit. They had visions of him.
Good question.
We might be able to show that the ideas of God are unreasonable.
Such as all powerful. Does it mean God has all the power? No we have some.
Some one might argue that God knows everything. I have argued God didn't know the future because it hasn't happened. Unless he makes it happen then he knows it by creating it. To say God is outside of time and space seems to make God irrelevant.

[Lotan]

Hi Tilia, looks like I missed all the fun.

Teaching creationism in schools

For what reason is that fanaticism?

Because arguments for creationism are based on religious ideology, not reason, nor are they universal.

What if a non-religious person votes to deny homosexuals the right to marry? Is that permissible? Is it fanaticism?

Of course it's permissible. If the person who votes to deny homosexuals the right to marry is an ideologue who cannot support their choice with a reasonable argument then yes, it is fanaticism.

But who decides what is mistaken?

Whoever has power. In a democracy this would presumably mean the majority which is why would like to see more people learn to reason.

Tilia, unless you see a need to continue this exchange I would like to suggest that we pick this up another time, on another thread.

Hey upnorthfan. I see that you love my signature so much that you had to copy it. Good for you!

[Sender]

Hi Tilia, looks like I missed all the fun.

Teaching creationism in schools

For what reason is that fanaticism?

Because arguments for creationism are based on religious ideology, not reason, nor are they universal.

What if a non-religious person votes to deny homosexuals the right to marry? Is that permissible? Is it fanaticism?

Of course it's permissible. If the person who votes to deny homosexuals the right to marry is an ideologue who cannot support their choice with a reasonable argument then yes, it is fanaticism.

But who decides what is mistaken?

Whoever has power. In a democracy this would presumably mean the majority which is why would like to see more people learn to reason.

Tilia, unless you see a need to continue this exchange I would like to suggest that we pick this up another time, on another thread.

Hey upnorthfan. I see that you love my signature so much that you had to copy it. Good for you!

Thanks, you did give the inpiration. I am changing it btw.

[Cathar1950]

upnorthfan wrote:

That was beautifull. Did you write that or is that someone elses?

in response to this.
Diana Holberg wrote:
[/quote]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.[/quote]

Doesn't God do that for everyone rather they belive in anything or not? Unless they wake up dead of course or they are on life support. Who are those that deny they live in faith? Do you think they are closet believers?
I think the question is what would make you not belive. what would it take for you to say ok there is no God?
I can't really think of anything. That doesn't mean I have prof or that it is perfectly rational. I tend to think it is non-rational even if I use reason
and I try to stay coherent with in the bounds. But I am open.
I see no reason why I should belive all that is wrote in the Bible or what people preach or think.

[Tilia]

quote="Lotan"

Teaching creationism in schools

For what reason is that fanaticism?

Because arguments for creationism are based on religious ideology

So why pick on creationism? (I presume you mean Young Earth Creationism, YEC.) There are many more religious ideas than that. There are many ideologies, religious or political, taught in schools; Roman Catholicism, Buddhism, Marxism, Quakerism, you name it. Now are those practices to be prohibited? I don't think they can be, in private establishments. Whether a public should support such things in publicly funded schools is quite another matter. (My view is that the state should not get involved in religion in any way whatever, and certainly not claim that it is 'under God'.)

YEC proposed to be taught as science is a quite different argument, too; and a crazy one, imv. The end of civilisation looms, if that happens.

What if a non-religious person votes to deny homosexuals the right to marry? Is that permissible? Is it fanaticism?

Of course it's permissible. If the person who votes to deny homosexuals the right to marry is an ideologue who cannot support their choice with a reasonable argument then yes, it is fanaticism.

Why would anyone not have reasonable argument? But the religious person may have reasoning similar to that of the non-religious person; they may in fact be perceived as having the same reason, to lesser or greater extent. How can one distinguish between reasons based on considerations common to much humanity and religious reasons?

Is it not true anyway that all religions may have a reasonable argument? Is it not circular to discount religious views on the basis that they must be irrational? Is it not necessary to prove a particular religion illogical before describing is as being a fanaticism?

I suggest that one enters a minefield when trying to sort out such matters, and that clear infractions of law are the only criterion for fanaticism. They are the only method of ultimate persuasion, anyway. Religious ideas are hardly likely to just go away by mere argument, though they may be modified by legal changes.

But who decides what is mistaken?

Whoever has power.

So truth is protean and negotiable? Might is right? Fanaticism defines fanaticism? Sharia law is ok? Roman Catholicism is ok? And 'Christian' fundamentalism that re-elects Bush is ok? I thought that was the very argument you opposed.

Take these arrogant religious people deciding things in Iraq, interfering cowards every one. Who do they, as supposedly responsible individuals, think they are, trying to tell others how to live their lives? Do they even deserve to live in civilised society? Very questionable, I would say.

In a democracy this would presumably mean the majority which is why would like to see more people learn to reason.

That might mean that everyone turns out to be Christian. Is that ok by you?

You wrote:

I would also agree that one need not be religious to be a "fanatic". I realize that this is the term that you took issue with, but it's definition -filled with mistaken enthusiasm- suits my intent.

I suggest that all you can object to is enthusiasm. Otherwise you must agree that the only usable definition of fanatic is a legal one. After all, there are sports fanatics, and they don't get your disapproval!