Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
oslove

Inviting atheists to state what is evidence?

557 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

oslove

Atheists who write in the web are always demanding evidence from theists to prove to them that God exists.

I have been looking for what is evidence in the web, but I am not getting anywhere to a systematic but simple, clear, and intelligible exposition of what is evidence, in particular as regards the existence of God.

So, atheists here, as you are the people who are demanding evidence for theists to prove that God exists, I like to ask you what you know to be evidence.

I have some ideas about evidence myself from my own thinking, but I would rather hear or even listen to you first, and also seek to learn from you, and give you also my inputs, so that we might come together to a consensus on what is evidence and what kind is needed to prove God's existence, and how such kinds of evidence are to be sought and applied in order to prove God's existence.

Oslove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

That Diogenes guy couldn't even find an honest man, so what hope this ? :rolleyes: I advise altering the name "God" to "Woongaboonga", that will have people asking 'who or what is he/that ?' Once you get that nailed down, the hunt for proof of Woongaboonga's existence is on !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Atheists who write in the web are always demanding evidence from theists to prove to them that God exists.

I have been looking for what is evidence in the web, but I am not getting anywhere to a systematic but simple, clear, and intelligible exposition of what is evidence, in particular as regards the existence of God.

So, atheists here, as you are the people who are demanding evidence for theists to prove that God exists, I like to ask you what you know to be evidence.

I have some ideas about evidence myself from my own thinking, but I would rather hear or even listen to you first, and also seek to learn from you, and give you also my inputs, so that we might come together to a consensus on what is evidence and what kind is needed to prove God's existence, and how such kinds of evidence are to be sought and applied in order to prove God's existence.

Oslove

If an atheist had evidence of gods existence he would cease to be an atheist (or be quite irrational) You can only (rationally)chose to be an atheist while you lack evidences for the existence of god.

I understand and empathise with people who chose to disbelieve in god because they have no compelling evidences for his existence.

It is when they try and proselytise others, on the basis of their own disbelief that god does not and cannot exist, that i take exception. The foundations of (and lack of evidences for) their personal (dis)belief system are only applicable to them, and can no more be transfered to another person than can a believers. Yet they try to transfer and apply their own lack of experiential evidences and their own logic systems, based on their personal, and individual, lack of experiences and evidences, to everyone else, as if that made sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

You know how atoms, germs, gravity have evidence, thats the level of evidence most atheists ask for.

Verifiable evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fullywired

.

It is when they try and proselytise others, on the basis of their own disbelief that god does not and cannot exist, that i take exception. The foundations of (and lack of evidences for) their personal (dis)belief system are only applicable to them, and can no more be transfered to another person than can a believers. Yet they try to transfer and apply their own lack of experiential evidences and their own logic systems, based on their personal, and individual, lack of experiences and evidences, to everyone else, as if that made sense.

You never seem to realise that your claim applies to you just as it applies to atheists.you no more can prove the existence of God than they can disprove the existence ,but with one exception the atheist has a stronger case

yet you try to transfer and apply your own logic system based on your personal so called evidence as if it made sense

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0011235813

You know how atoms, germs, gravity have evidence, thats the level of evidence most atheists ask for.

Verifiable evidence.

Yeah, verifiable evidence.

1.) Math, if you can find mathematical evidence to support the idea that the (multi) universe was "created" by an entity.

2.) If you make observations in the cosmos that support creationist theory, i.e a phenomena that can only be explained by creationism and not by ordinary science.

That's pretty much the only thing that could sway us (atheists). Though it is to be noted that we would still remain scientists, the term "atheists" is a bit... unclear.

Anyway, science has shown how a lot of the universe works, and all of it with proof. Sometimes, sciences discoveries contradict what certain religious dogma claims, and that's when people go all

angry because their little pet theories turn out to be wrong. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0011235813

Oh did I mention:

3.) Making an experiment to communicate with "God", and ask it questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

It stand to reason, if you find evidence for god...then you will no longer be the non-believer .... it makes perfect sense.. everyone knows this

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton

It stand to reason, if you find evidence for god...then you will no longer be the non-believer .... it makes perfect sense.. everyone knows this

I think the OP was asking more for a definition of what an atheist would count as sufficient evidence.

So far as I would say: Something that could be objectively tested and repeated with no other explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0011235813

I think the OP was asking more for a definition of what an atheist would count as sufficient evidence.

So far as I would say: Something that could be objectively tested and repeated with no other explanation.

Can you expand further on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton

Can you expand further on that?

Um...not really. It's what it says. Find something where you think God is the only explanation. Test it a few times. Have someone else test it without knowing your conclusions. See if your conclusions match. If so, there's your proof. Unless someone comes up with another explanation that's equally well supported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0011235813

Um...not really. It's what it says. Find something where you think God is the only explanation. Test it a few times. Have someone else test it without knowing your conclusions. See if your conclusions match. If so, there's your proof. Unless someone comes up with another explanation that's equally well supported.

and there's why atheists and theists are constantly arguing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digitalartist

It is when they try and proselytize others, on the basis of their own disbelief that god does not and cannot exist, that i take exception. The foundations of (and lack of evidences for) their personal (dis)belief system are only applicable to them, and can no more be transfered to another person than can a believers. Yet they try to transfer and apply their own lack of experiential evidences and their own logic systems, based on their personal, and individual, lack of experiences and evidences, to everyone else, as if that made sense.

Do you also take exception with the religions that proselytize others in an attempt to convince them God exists?

The lack of evidence that would support the existence of God does make the belief in God a personal belief only. Those that believe may join with others that believe in church or at other gatherings and share those beliefs, but they remain personal to the individual. That same lack of evidence causes others not to believe in the existence of God. That is not personal but should, IMO, be considered universal. You don't have to believe or have faith in the lack of evidence which would make it personal. The lack of evidence is factual and requires nothing on the personal level to accept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton

and there's why atheists and theists are constantly arguing.

Not really. Whatever my personal beliefs, God's existence has never been supported by evidence that matches the above criteria. Otherwise, it wouldn't be faith, it would be scientific theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

I think the OP was asking more for a definition of what an atheist would count as sufficient evidence.

So far as I would say: Something that could be objectively tested and repeated with no other explanation.

Feeling god...Seeing god ( as so many religious seem to have claimed) ..Hearing god.. That about covers it..don't you think? If you cannot hear, see, feel gods presence, then you will not believe there is such a being..

Those of us that do in fact believe, all do so because we have felt god.. aka experienced god... it stands to reason.. IF we didn't .. then we too may fall into the same boat

Each to their own??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid

Are we speaking of God in the religious sense, or a Creator devoid of any religious baggage? Perhaps Something did create the universe, but why must we add to It anthropomorphism and various religious doctrines?

The only evidence I see for a possible Creator is Existence itself, and it seems to me a generic Existence in any case. I think we're more likely to discover a serial number or a corporate logo hidden somewhere in the fabric of the universe than some religious evidence of a Biblical-type God.

Or I could say it's up to God to prove His existence. Why hasn't a religious God or a generic Creator revealed Him-/It-self? Why put the burden of proof on us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

If an atheist had evidence of gods existence he would cease to be an atheist

This I do agree with...If you do not see any evidence or even feel it.. then you are not likely to peg yourself a believer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oslove

Please take notice of the title of the thread: "Inviting atheists to state what is evidence? So that I can look for the evidence for God's existence."

Here, below, read about it.

Atheists who write in the web are always demanding evidence from theists to prove to them that God exists.

I have been looking for what is evidence in the web, but I am not getting anywhere to a systematic but simple, clear, and intelligible exposition of what is evidence, in particular as regards the existence of God.

So, atheists here, as you are the people who are demanding evidence for theists to prove that God exists, I like to ask you what you know to be evidence.

I have some ideas about evidence myself from my own thinking, but I would rather hear or even listen to you first, and also seek to learn from you, and give you also my inputs, so that we might come together to a consensus on what is evidence and what kind is needed to prove God's existence, and how such kinds of evidence are to be sought and applied in order to prove God's existence.

I think the OP was asking more for a definition of what an atheist would count as sufficient evidence.

So far as I would say: Something that could be objectively tested and repeated with no other explanation.

I like to ask you for one or two examples or even three of evidence in accordance with your idea of evidence as "Something that could be objectively tested and repeated with no other explanation."

And also the target of the evidence, i.e., for whose existence outside its concept in the mind of people the evidence is supposed to substantiate.

A big footprint in the snow could be an example of a piece of evidence to substantiate the existence of Bigfoot -- the target of the evidence.

Are we speaking of God in the religious sense, or a Creator devoid of any religious baggage? Perhaps Something did create the universe, but why must we add to It anthropomorphism and various religious doctrines?

The only evidence I see for a possible Creator is Existence itself, and it seems to me a generic Existence in any case. I think we're more likely to discover a serial number or a corporate logo hidden somewhere in the fabric of the universe than some religious evidence of a Biblical-type God.

Or I could say it's up to God to prove His existence. Why hasn't a religious God or a generic Creator revealed Him-/It-self? Why put the burden of proof on us?

Yes, we do have to come to a concept of God in our mind for Whose corresponding existence outside our mind we will search evidence [for].

Shall we agree on this fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe, namely:

God is the maker of everything that is not God Himself.

And the Big Bang universe where we have our residence and of which we are part and parcel, to be the domain where we are to search for evidence of God.

Oslove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

And the Big Bang universe where we have our residence and of which we are part and parcel, to be the domain where we are to search for evidence of God.

How does one search for evidence of god?... It is called a faith for a reason, and millions that follow god accept it that way.. You cannot just go on a hunt for evidence.. not in reality you can't, meaning evidence that can be proven with science. People who want to believe find god in their own way.. and the evidence they have, is only through their own personal experience, this is something they cannot prove to others, hence why is is called ones own personal experience ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

You never seem to realise that your claim applies to you just as it applies to atheists.you no more can prove the existence of God than they can disprove the existence ,but with one exception the atheist has a stronger case

yet you try to transfer and apply your own logic system based on your personal so called evidence as if it made sense

fullywired

Of course i realise. That was an ironical post. People say, publicly, that what I know is wrong/impossible, based entirely on their disbelief systems, Those disbeliefs have evolved from a lack of any personal evidences; but they complain when i argue against their position of disbelief based on what i know ie from my personal evidences.

For me there are 3 ways a sapient being can form a world view. The first is belief. Belief is posible where evidence is absent, and in fact is only rationally possible where belief is absent. For mos tof human history for example, in the absence of belief/ evidence, people believed the world was flat.

They believed this partly on the basis of the second process by which we come to know the world . That is personal evidence and experience.

All babies learn initailly by this method. They know nothing but what they experience. Historically, humanity has learned by this method. Oral tales and even books provide knowledge but no indepndent proof of anything.

Only in the last couple of centuries has humanity devised ways of providing evidences which are transferrable over distance.

That is the third way by which we may make sense of and understand our world. We can see eveidences transferred via various means. BUT, and it is a big but, we still have to be convinced, by some process, of the validity of those evidences, otherwise we are just believing in them when they may be incorrect. It is bothe commonality and abundance of proofs along with their synchronicity with personal expereince , which convinces most tindividuals and a culture of trus tin scientists and acadenmics which allows this transferability to occur. For example i acept the nature and vaidity of gravity because i feel it myself AND I was taught the forces and mecahnics by which it operates. However, if i had been taught the theory and maths of gravity and found myself floating off the ground whist awake, I would question the theory and maths rather than my experiential evidences.

Personally i truly"know" only what i experience for my self. The most convincing and real evidences are those I encounter myself But through eductiaon I have benn trained /indoctrinated, to accept secondary tertiary and other evidences as proofs.

However I trust what i know persoanlly much more highly than i trust anything which has been gathered by another and filtered through other's perceptions and views.

I do so because i understand the nature of knolwedge and of human history. I also do so because i know myself very well and trust both my physical senses and my mental perceptions. I appreciate that my survival, growth and evolution as a being, relies on that knowledge and trust.

I reiterate. The evidentiary proofs for gods existence in my life are as great as, and very similar to, the evidentiary proofs for exiastence of all real things in my life like my dog or my wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

There is a little book called The Cloud of Unknowing, the author unknown, ( and very likely because it would have been regarded as an heretical text in the medieval times it was written, with all the dire implications of that) that professes to act as a manual for seekers of direct experience of God. You can take it as you please, but it does challenge the reader in ways conventional religious texts do not. The author is adamant that if you can fulfill what he outlines, you will be beyond outside instruction as to the existence of God. And I believe that is how people do come to "know" God, not from the outside in, but as an arising from within.

Edited by Habitat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
name='digitalartist' timestamp='1310153399' post='3980642']

Do you also take exception with the religions that proselytize others in an attempt to convince them God exists?

As noted above i the post was ironical. I would like to see, as regards belief/disbelief, both sides argue it out incessantly in a free democratic world. It is like philosophical positions on anything unknown.

I was speaking of the difference between knowledge and belief/disbelief. Atheists tend to claim, on the basis of their personal lack of evcidences for god, that god cannot exist, and thus i cannot possibly HAVE any personal evidences for god. That is both arrogant and illogical. Knowledge, and physical evidences, even personal ones, trump belief, in establishing a universal reality.

Suppose an alien landed and met just one human being. That one human being would KNOW the truth, no matter what the other 7 billion believed was the truth; and their belief/disbelief could not shape or alter the physical reality/truth..

The lack of evidence that would support the existence of God does make the belief in God a personal belief only. Those that believe may join with others that believe in church or at other gatherings and share those beliefs, but they remain personal to the individual. That same lack of evidence causes others not to believe in the existence of God. That is not personal but should, IMO, be considered universal. You don't have to believe or have faith in the lack of evidence which would make it personal. The lack of evidence is factual and requires nothing on the personal level to accept.

See my earlier post about how humans create their world views. Likes tend to attract and humans tend to group/divide, in all things, but that is a separate issue The critical differnce here is that between belief, personal knowledge, and evidences, and commonly accepted knolwedge and evidences.

And how each individual uses those processes/understandings to form their own world view.

Let us suppose that alien made itself known to 10 humans over a century. Or one million people. There would remain nearly 7 billion humans who had never met it. Their personal evidences would contradict the 10 and even the one million.

But they would be wrong albeit understandably so, if they allowed their own lack of personal experience with aliens, and the knowledge that every one they knew had never met one, to convince them that absolutely, alien beings did not existand so the ten or the one million were; wrong, deluded, fanasists, needy, etc.

On the other hand the one, or the one million, will KNOW, quite correctly and absolutely, that alien beings exist, even if tha tis ALL they know about them. (The assumtion in this scenario is that the alien being is a real physical entity, not an archetypal construct of the human mind)

But let us suppose that one million people found that, independent of each other, they had constructed indvidually, an alien archetype of common shape, form, and purpose. In itself, that would be interesting, suggestive and worthy of study.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mactiegre

Please take notice of the title of the thread: "Inviting atheists to state what is evidence? So that I can look for the evidence for God's existence."

The bible says that the people rejected their chief cornertone (referring to Jesus) just like the Egyptian pyramid builders rejected the chief cornerstone of the great pyramid because they didn't understand it.

One of the 12 disciples denied he knew Jesus even though he had seen, spoke and touched him. The bible says Jesus prophesized that betrayal on the night before he was crucified.

The bible mentions a virgin birth (not disputed in history), visitations by scary angels to shepherds who told of the birth and where to find him. Credible witnesses to miracles. Written accounts of the living savior.

What more evidence would one want? Even if the creator provides evidence we ask for, would we understand it?

What if the only reason we exist is because it is god's will? And ability to evolve was a gift to some creatures by the creator?

Obviously, that is not the type of evidence they want. My wife, the believer, says it would take a live-after-death experience. Some personal experience that makes them have faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

The bible says that the people rejected their chief cornertone (referring to Jesus) just like the Egyptian pyramid builders rejected the chief cornerstone of the great pyramid because they didn't understand it.

One of the 12 disciples denied he knew Jesus even though he had seen, spoke and touched him. The bible says Jesus prophesized that betrayal on the night before he was crucified.

The bible mentions a virgin birth (not disputed in history), visitations by scary angels to shepherds who told of the birth and where to find him. Credible witnesses to miracles. Written accounts of the living savior.

What more evidence would one want? Even if the creator provides evidence we ask for, would we understand it?

What if the only reason we exist is because it is god's will? And ability to evolve was a gift to some creatures by the creator?

Obviously, that is not the type of evidence they want. My wife, the believer, says it would take a live-after-death experience. Some personal experience that makes them have faith.

Jesus was not betrayed...

You cannot call them credible accounts written..when you have not got a clue who wrote them.. all you have is a choice - to believe it blindly with no evidence.. OR not..

You cannot call it not understanding the evidence.. not if one cannot see, hear or feel it...that is not the same

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UniversalSceptik

If an atheist had evidence of gods existence he would cease to be an atheist (or be quite irrational) You can only (rationally)chose to be an atheist while you lack evidences for the existence of god.

I understand and empathise with people who chose to disbelieve in god because they have no compelling evidences for his existence.

It is when they try and proselytise others, on the basis of their own disbelief that god does not and cannot exist, that i take exception. The foundations of (and lack of evidences for) their personal (dis)belief system are only applicable to them, and can no more be transfered to another person than can a believers. Yet they try to transfer and apply their own lack of experiential evidences and their own logic systems, based on their personal, and individual, lack of experiences and evidences, to everyone else, as if that made sense.

Very well said. Thank you. I am an agnostic, which is a little bit different but it is nice hearing someone say they understand others views and acknowledges they are OK to have.

I believe in a higher power, but outside of that, I can't generalize any more beliefs. As for what is proof? Well, that's a tough one. For me, I have a belief and you are right, if I found proof that pushed me in one direction, I wouldn't be an agnostic anymore.

For me, I've looked for years, but haven't found any higher calling, I just have faith in myself those I love and go from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.