How to disprove God to a believer? (no really)... (reject, Creator)

[s2a]

Well, alrighty then. In celebration/recognition of attaining my 100th-plus post within REF (woo-hoo!), it's time to kick off another topical thread.
[Note to mods: I am unsure as to whether this topic is submitted under the proper forum heading, so I defer to your guidance as to it's proper placement. ;-)]

In the now degraded (and more or less defunct) thread entitled "How to prove God to an atheist (no really)" [ How to prove God to an atheist (no, really)... ]; I initially offered up (by enumerated example and specified means) what I would accept as incontrovertible and undeniable evidentiary proof of the existence of a supernatural deity that would, in effect, make me a "true believer" and "convert".

Perhaps now is the opportunity for believers (adherents of deistic religious beliefs) to cite any evidentiary examples (as undeniable and incontrovertible) they can offer that would, in effect, "disprove" the "existence" of their professed deity - and would result in their "un-conversion" to "unbelief" (or non-acceptance of claims) of any/all supernatural god(s).

To my knowledge, this is not some "trick question" that pre-supposes some "correct" (or final/ultimate) "trick answer". Obviously, from my perspective as an atheist, there is no compelling evidence to suggest (beyond a reasonable doubt) that any supernatural being/entity, "force", or otherwise ordained supernaturalistic course/purpose/cycle, etc. is evidentially "existent" or "real". I consider the extant "evidence" alone sufficient to draw the self-assured conclusion that all claims to supernatural cause/effect phenomena are, well..."unbelievable".

It is well documented and accepted that believers are prone to "crises of faith" (even Mother Teresa had her moments), but that differs from abject rejections of all religious claims tendered as immutable truths. One may reject a certain religion's tenants, or dogma, or political ideology...but typically, a belief is retained (or at least, a "sense") that some supernatural deity is "real", or existent in some shape, form, or fashion (or at the very least, an "unproven possibility").

But is there any "evidence" (beyond that which is already available) that would persuade you as a "believer" that all claims of supernatural deities are bunk? If so, please offer such prospective "disproofs".
Would discovery of alien life forms (not of this Earth) do the trick?
How about "proof" of UFO's (essentially the same thing)?
Is there some element of cosmology; mathematics; elemental, particle, or theoretical physics; chemistry (akin to "proof" that "life" can spark or originate from otherwise inorganic compounds); or biology (or evolution), or some other "find" or "discovery" (either scientific or even philosophical) that would, in fact, lend you to conclude that all claims to deities are unfounded/unmerited, or certifiably "disproved"?

Faith (religious) is defined in Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary thusly:
"Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true
(Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and
therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of
faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests."

If the description/definition above has it's own merited "truth" itself, then certainly the converse, or (otherwise) the absence of "faith" would demand similar considerations in determining a satisfying and self-conclusive "truth" of a "disproof" of supernatural deities.

Believers have asked me many times over the years, "What would it take (for) you to believe?". Well, in the thread referenced above, my earnest answer is tendered in reply. Now, the converse question is put to believers for similar consideration and honest reply.

What say you?

[Feathers in Hair]

Congratulations on the 100+ posts, s2a! I'm very sorry that my answer to this is a very boring one.

Originally Posted by s2a

What say you?

You have every right to your opinion, and I have every right to mine. The only harm comes when we try to force one upon the other.

[Snowbear]

Originally Posted by s2a

Perhaps now is the opportunity for believers (adherents of deistic religious beliefs) to cite any evidentiary examples (as undeniable and incontrovertible) they can offer that would, in effect, "disprove" the "existence" of their professed deity - and would result in their "un-conversion" to "unbelief" (or non-acceptance of claims) of any/all supernatural god(s).

In my case at least, there are none. In fact, after "becoming" a believer many years ago, due to stuff to personal to talk about, I made the decision that a God who cares about me just wasn't true. I didn't "fall away" ~ I turned around and walked away. For part of those many years, I tries to believe there was no God at all. I tried to educate myself as to the reasons why. I used my science (biology) education to refute all "evidence" of an outside force. It never did work. I always found fallacies in the disproofs. There were always holes in the scientific explanations.

Originally Posted by s2a

It is well documented and accepted that believers are prone to "crises of faith" (even Mother Teresa had her moments), but that differs from abject rejections of all religious claims tendered as immutable truths. One may reject a certain religion's tenants, or dogma, or political ideology...but typically, a belief is retained (or at least, a "sense") that some supernatural deity is "real", or existent in some shape, form, or fashion (or at the very least, an "unproven possibility").

You are certainly correct in this. As a relatively new believer (been a year and a half since I decided to accept that what God says in the Bible really is the Truth), I do have "crises of Faith." But these crises do not in any way sway my belief that God is real, exists, has a purpose for everything... the crises mostly come from not wanting to accept the cards I've been dealt 'cause they hurt too much. I find I don't want to hurt, so I want God to change His plan.... never works, but that certainly doesn't mean God doesn't exist

Originally Posted by s2a

But is there any "evidence" (beyond that which is already available) that would persuade you as a "believer" that all claims of supernatural deities are bunk?

Again, no. Not as a true believer.

Originally Posted by s2a

Would discovery of alien life forms (not of this Earth) do the trick?
How about "proof" of UFO's (essentially the same thing)?

No... If God created us, what precludes Him from creating others as well? He is, after all, omnipotent

Originally Posted by s2a

Is there some element of cosmology; mathematics; elemental, particle, or theoretical physics; chemistry (akin to "proof" that "life" can spark or originate from otherwise inorganic compounds); or biology (or evolution), or some other "find" or "discovery" (either scientific or even philosophical) that would, in fact, lend you to conclude that all claims to deities are unfounded/unmerited, or certifiably "disproved"?

No. I just cannot believe that the complexity of even the simplest forms of life were a result of random chance.

[true blood]

Believers and non-believers rely on what they read and hear and see. The senses. However one gains knowledge. Also possible to receive revelation of God. But, if a power can control what we are exposed to, like what we can read, what we can listen to, etc.. it could be possible to control what we have faith in.

[s2a]

Hello Feathersinhair,

You said:

"Congratulations on the 100+ posts, s2a! I'm very sorry that my answer to this is a very boring one."

Thanks, and...me too. ;-)

"You have every right to your opinion, and I have every right to mine."

Excepting of course, your stated exception...

"The only harm comes when we try to force one upon the other."

I don't know that I would agree that all forceful attempts to impose opinion upon others is inherently or necessarily "harmful" (at least not in any permanent way - the religious indoctrination of children by their parents is certainly "forced" upon their kids, but many would argue [not me] that such mandated acceptance of "opinion" is for a child's benefit, or "their own good" - not unlike many other justifications from "well-meaning" people).

At any rate, your input is appreciated, with qualification. I wouldn't consider your response as "boring" - just non sequitur as "answer".

[Note: I would submit that presentation of evidence to support a given position - for consideration and deliberation - is a far cry from "forcing", or "imposing an opinion upon" anyone.]

[Feathers in Hair]

An excellent point. I merely chose the term 'force' to emphasize, for example, the difference between presenting evidence to support a given position (which I quite naturally agree with) from such things as demanding that one's own viewpoint is the only acceptable one. I'm quite sure that you would never suggest the second, so I was trying to show it use it as the exception.

[s2a]

Hello Snowbear,

When I presented:
"Perhaps now is the opportunity for believers (adherents of deistic religious beliefs) to cite any evidentiary examples (as undeniable and incontrovertible) they can offer that would, in effect, "disprove" the "existence" of their professed deity - and would result in their "un-conversion" to "unbelief" (or non-acceptance of claims) of any/all supernatural god(s)."

You replied:

"In my case at least, there are none."

Candid and concise. Thanks.

"....I tries[sic] to believe there was no God at all. I tried to educate myself as to the reasons why. I used my science (biology) education to refute all "evidence" of an outside force."

Hmmm. Is (was) this "evidence of an outside force" scientifically derived "evidence", or simply anecdotal claims of "miracles" and "unexplained phenomena"? To my knowledge, science addresses the natural world, and does not attempt to either validate or "refute" explanations attributed to supernatural cause/effect (by definition, "supernatural" suggests: "existence outside the natural world", or things "not physical or material"). It would indeed be pointless to bother to "refute" (by scientific means) proffered unscientifically derived "evidence".

"It never did work. I always found fallacies in the disproofs. There were always holes in the scientific explanations."

I'm curious. Which "disproofs" do you speak of that you found scientifically unmerited? Is there an enumerated list somewhere (that you could reference for me), detailing these fallacious "scientific disproofs" of "evidence" of an outside force."? I'd be interested (sincerely) in reading any legitimately submitted, scientifically-supported, and peer reviewed expositional "explanations" submitted with the expressed intent of scientifically disproving or refuting the validity of claims of "evidence" of an outside force." Really I would. I know of none.

I asked:
"But is there any "evidence" (beyond that which is already available) that would persuade you as a "believer" that all claims of supernatural deities are bunk?"

You reiterated:

Again, no. Not as a true believer.

Okay. I accept your position that there is no scientific evidence (that you can conceive of) that would certifiably disprove your faith in, or the believed existence of, an omniscient deity.

In consideration of your stated immutable position, would it be fair then to ask that evangelizing Christians (and proselytizers of any deistic religious belief) refrain from asking unbelievers, "What would it take for you to believe in [a] god?"

It is, after all, quite tiresome to constantly endure and subsequently fend off such an entreaty from "true believers" (and no, I'm not implying knowledge of whether or not you specifically have ever engaged in such a tactic, but surely you are aware that the question is commonplace amongst your adherent peers). I have, in fact, offered a most sincere and straightforward "answer" to such a question [as referenced in my first post in this thread].

The question, "What would it take for you to believe in [a] god?" is not qualitatively dissimilar from the more confrontational challenge of, "Prove that God doesn't exist!".

Well, OK. All I need to know then is...what evidence would you accept as definitive "disproof"? If you can establish no standards of acceptable evidentiary "disproof", then why should I even bother trying to falsify a conclusion that you readily concede can not (ever) be falsified to your satisfaction?

I asked:
Would discovery of alien life forms (not of this Earth) do the trick?
How about "proof" of UFO's (essentially the same thing)?

You said:

No... If God created us, what precludes Him from creating others as well? He is, after all, omnipotent

I know of nothing in Christian Scripture that obviates the possibility...but then, I am also unaware of any allusions to such possibilities afforded by that same Scripture. If the God of the Bible had (has) created other sentient life-forms capable of interstellar space travel, it would at least have made in interesting footnote in Scripture, dontchathink?

"I just cannot believe that the complexity of even the simplest forms of life were a result of random chance."

Not a very scientific conclusion, but as rationale from (individualized) incredulity as a justification of your personal faith, I understand. ;-)

[It should be noted that even if such a conclusion were evidentially proven beyond and all doubt as "true", it would not constitute "disproof" of some mankind-creating deity - it would merely render such a god as...unnecessary.]

[s2a]

Hello trueblood,

You said:

"Believers and non-believers rely on what they read and hear and see. The senses. However one gains knowledge. Also possible to receive revelation of God. But, if a power can control what we are exposed to, like what we can read, what we can listen to, etc.. it could be possible to control what we have faith in."

Thanks for your reply. I confess that I do not entirely grasp [how] what you offered directly relates to the question at hand.

Your last sentence reminds me of the bumpersticker that says:
"Why do you question why your God chooses for me not to believe in Him?"

[Snowbear]

Originally Posted by s2a

Is there an enumerated list somewhere (that you could reference for me), detailing these fallacious "scientific disproofs" of "evidence" of an outside force."?]

Nope. Not that I know of. I was just answering your post from my own personal journey of questioning, studying, exploring, seeking and discovering. Any scientific proofs, disproofs, evidence or outside forces that I was speaking of were those personal, individual perceptions, quotations, evangelizations, preachings and teachings that were parts of that journey. My answer was meant to be a very general synopsis.... but as one (general) example, the theory of evolution has so many holes in it that I was never able to come up with enough faith to believe it was the explanation of how people evolved from bacteria.

Originally Posted by s2a

In consideration of your stated immutable position, would it be fair then to ask that evangelizing Christians (and proselytizers of any deistic religious belief) refrain from asking unbelievers, "What would it take for you to believe in [a] god?"

Why? I'm certainly not offended by your query. I would not ask you to refrain from asking it any more than I would ask an evangelist to stop asking their questions. If you don't want to answer, just decline to do so and walk away (that's what I always did)

Originally Posted by s2a

Well, OK. All I need to know then is...what evidence would you accept as definitive "disproof"? If you can establish no standards of acceptable evidentiary "disproof", then why should I even bother trying to falsify a conclusion that you readily concede can not (ever) be falsified to your satisfaction?

I don't know. How can I possibly tell you what evidence I would accept as disproof of God of I don't know of any evidence that can disprove that to my satisfation? Why should you bother? I don't know that either.... you can try, but sorry... I can't answer it for you

Originally Posted by s2a

I know of nothing in Christian Scripture that obviates the possibility (of aliens, UFO's)...but then, I am also unaware of any allusions to such possibilities afforded by that same Scripture.

There's nothing in there that I've been able to find that negates that possibility either.... Just like there's nothing that negates or obviates the possibility of many, many things we know of.... like advances in medicine, technology, space travel, the planets, other solar systems, other galaxies .....

Originally Posted by s2a

Not a very scientific conclusion, but as rationale from (individualized) incredulity as a justification of your personal faith, I understand. ;-)

It wasn't meant to be a scientific conclusion.... merely a personal conclusion based on my own personal journey.

Originally Posted by s2a

[It should be noted that even if such a conclusion were evidentially proven beyond and all doubt as "true", it would not constitute "disproof" of some mankind-creating deity - it would merely render such a god as...unnecessary.]

My own personal conclusion is that God has proved Himself to me beyond any doubt. It's my personal experience that He is not mankind-created, but that He is mankind Creator.

[ChrisP]

Originally Posted by s2a

But is there any "evidence" (beyond that which is already available) that would persuade you as a "believer" that all claims of supernatural deities are bunk? If so, please offer such prospective "disproofs".

Hi S2A,

I myself have no belief in a single entity who is the creator and controller of all. My beliefs centre around the common energy that flows through all things within the physical world.

To disprove this energies existence would be difficult, as at any one point in time all energy contained within the universe remains at a constant value with energy types being converted when their present form (light, electricity, heat, kinetic, potential etc.) is used towards an end.

So, (I'm getting to the point, honest) to disprove the existence of this energy, it would need to be proven that energy can dissipate and disappear effectively ceasing to exist (dieing if you will).

Nice question btw.