• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Where is the proof ?

Neuropteron

Active Member
A recurring theme amongst Atheist and Scientifically minded people is to look or ask for proof for the existence of a creator.

You might have wondered, why do sceptics peruse forums such as this one to inquire of believer for proof of something they don't believe in themselves ?
I would be the last to criticise an inquisitive nature or a generous amount of scepticism towards religiously oriented affirmations. The Bible itself on two occasions warns us to "test the inspired expression" so as to assure ourselves of its validity (Mal 3:10;1 John 4:1).

Could it be that as rational minds they are irritated by the foolishness of organised religion and those that blindly follow their dictates? Perhaps nothing would please them more than to show how gullible believers are.

Keep in mind that even believers recognise and condemn churches hypocritical activities and teachings. Even the Bible judges organised religion as a harlot that will be destroyed (Rev 17).

Perhaps the reason atheist seek to question believer is the lack of foundation thus lack of conviction for their own belief ?
It would not be surprising considering the alternatives.
For example: some scientific theories require even more faith than belief in an almighty creator.
Another hypothesis is that aliens put humans on the earth, but who created the aliens ?
Does 'random chance events' give atheist a firm basis to reject an intelligent creator? Scientific facts like the 'third law of thermodynamics' tells us that this is not even a consideration.
On the other hand we know why believers talk to others, in most cases it's to share their hope with them.

That being said there are those that believe neither in religious dogmas or unproven scientific theories but rather in the pure inspired word of God . They claim to have found the truth and encourage others to investigate the Bible apart from religious interpretations.(2Tim 3)

Most of the above is just my random musing and has no weight even in the microcosm in which we hold our discussions. However the words of Christ has much more relevance. When he addresses those that want proof of God's existence -although the evidence is right in front of them- he said the following:

"A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet,... hypocrites, you know how to examine the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to examine this particular time ?"

Just as in Jesus days, our time has more than enough signs if we look for them in the right place.
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
We don't ask for "proof", we ask for evidence, an even lower bar to pass and yet no reliable evidence for a God is forthcoming.

Okay, and what is the difference between proof and evidence? Also, any evidence I did give, you would immediately dismiss as not REAL evidence. We call this shifting the goalposts. Why? Because atheists are under a delusion.

"If I believe in God, this means I have to join this group or that group and I can't go on doing what I want."

As for evidence we have:
  1. A universe that depends on a great number of scientific laws to even exist
  2. Life is such a Goldilocks event that it should exist at all in the universe, and yet this world has thousands/millions of animal/plant/bacteria/fungi species.
  3. People do actually have unique selves. Souls. This is pretty much provable in any large household that has a consistent method of raising children.
  4. By the way, I am not one of these people that believes science is wrong. Evolution is part of God's plan. I do not, however believe in "survival of the fittest" as this sort of mentality is one of a psychopath that would see Hitler's master race belief as justified. No thanks.
  5. The Big Bang was not invented by Stephen Hawking, no matter what "Theory of Everything" movie will tell you. It was by Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest and scientist, as a way of explaining exactly what happened during the beginning of the universe. Hubble took credit for it two years later.
This not to say "Things are complicated, I can't explain it, must be God." This is things are complicated because there is intelligent design and a creator. Because there is a plan, and a planner, there are different models of planets, different species, and they work together to not wipe out the planet. But let's talk about #5. What was matter before the Big Bang? Well, not nothing. It was a superatom. A "Cosmic Egg" if you will. But wait, cosmic egg sounds familiar... Yeah, Vedic myth, Egyptian myth, Zoroastrian myth, Greek myth, Phoenician, Norse, etc. They all came up with the same idea. A superconcentrated thing expands itself outward, and like a seed, stuff comes into being. Not an old man, a seed.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Okay, and what is the difference between proof and evidence? Also, any evidence I did give, you would immediately dismiss as not REAL evidence. We call this shifting the goalposts. Why? Because atheists are under a delusion.

"If I believe in God, this means I have to join this group or that group and I can't go on doing what I want."

As for evidence we have:
  1. A universe that depends on a great number of scientific laws to even exist
  2. Life is such a Goldilocks event that it should exist at all in the universe, and yet this world has thousands/millions of animal/plant/bacteria/fungi species.
  3. People do actually have unique selves. Souls. This is pretty much provable in any large household that has a consistent method of raising children.
  4. By the way, I am not one of these people that believes science is wrong. Evolution is part of God's plan. I do not, however believe in "survival of the fittest" as this sort of mentality is one of a psychopath that would see Hitler's master race belief as justified. No thanks.
  5. The Big Bang was not invented by Stephen Hawking, no matter what "Theory of Everything" movie will tell you. It was by Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest and scientist, as a way of explaining exactly what happened during the beginning of the universe. Hubble took credit for it two years later.
This not to say "Things are complicated, I can't explain it, must be God." This is things are complicated because there is intelligent design and a creator. Because there is a plan, and a planner, there are different models of planets, different species, and they work together to not wipe out the planet. But let's talk about #5. What was matter before the Big Bang? Well, not nothing. It was a superatom. A "Cosmic Egg" if you will. But wait, cosmic egg sounds familiar... Yeah, Vedic myth, Egyptian myth, Zoroastrian myth, Greek myth, Phoenician, Norse, etc. They all came up with the same idea. A superconcentrated thing expands itself outward, and like a seed, stuff comes into being. Not an old man, a seed.
Forward engineering is pretty hard. When a person starts out with a wrong premise then no matter how you stack it, everything is going to be wrong.

I prefer backwards engineering to find out what's what. You start out right with the truth and facts and try to work your way to the origin best one can.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Okay, and what is the difference between proof and evidence? Also, any evidence I did give, you would immediately dismiss as not REAL evidence. We call this shifting the goalposts. Why? Because atheists are under a delusion.

"If I believe in God, this means I have to join this group or that group and I can't go on doing what I want."

As for evidence we have:
  1. A universe that depends on a great number of scientific laws to even exist
  2. Life is such a Goldilocks event that it should exist at all in the universe, and yet this world has thousands/millions of animal/plant/bacteria/fungi species.
  3. People do actually have unique selves. Souls. This is pretty much provable in any large household that has a consistent method of raising children.
  4. By the way, I am not one of these people that believes science is wrong. Evolution is part of God's plan. I do not, however believe in "survival of the fittest" as this sort of mentality is one of a psychopath that would see Hitler's master race belief as justified. No thanks.
  5. The Big Bang was not invented by Stephen Hawking, no matter what "Theory of Everything" movie will tell you. It was by Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest and scientist, as a way of explaining exactly what happened during the beginning of the universe. Hubble took credit for it two years later.
This not to say "Things are complicated, I can't explain it, must be God." This is things are complicated because there is intelligent design and a creator. Because there is a plan, and a planner, there are different models of planets, different species, and they work together to not wipe out the planet. But let's talk about #5. What was matter before the Big Bang? Well, not nothing. It was a superatom. A "Cosmic Egg" if you will. But wait, cosmic egg sounds familiar... Yeah, Vedic myth, Egyptian myth, Zoroastrian myth, Greek myth, Phoenician, Norse, etc. They all came up with the same idea. A superconcentrated thing expands itself outward, and like a seed, stuff comes into being. Not an old man, a seed.

Quite the list of PRATT's.

1 How is this "evidence"? It is merely an observation.

2. Actually the rarity of such Goldilocks zones are an argument against God since only the smallest fraction of a fraction of the universe is hospitable to life.

3. So what? Natural laws predict that everybody will be unique and there is no evidence for a "soul" that I know of.

4. That is good to hear, but "survival of the fittest" is a distortion of evolution usually used by creationists. And Hitler himself opposed the theory of evolution. He was a theist after all.

5. We all know that. And Lemaitre was also famous for pointing out that the Big Bang was not evidence for God.

It does appear that you may be using a argument of "we don't know therefore God". But this was not the worst try that I have seen.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
A recurring theme amongst Atheist and Scientifically minded people is to look or ask for proof for the existence of a creator.

You might have wondered, why do sceptics peruse forums such as this one to inquire of believer for proof of something they don't believe in themselves ?
I would be the last to criticise an inquisitive nature or a generous amount of scepticism towards religiously oriented affirmations. The Bible itself on two occasions warns us to "test the inspired expression" so as to assure ourselves of its validity (Mal 3:10;1 John 4:1).

Could it be that as rational minds they are irritated by the foolishness of organised religion and those that blindly follow their dictates? Perhaps nothing would please them more than to show how gullible believers are.

Keep in mind that even believers recognise and condemn churches hypocritical activities and teachings. Even the Bible judges organised religion as a harlot that will be destroyed (Rev 17).

Perhaps the reason atheist seek to question believer is the lack of foundation thus lack of conviction for their own belief ?
It would not be surprising considering the alternatives.
For example: some scientific theories require even more faith than belief in an almighty creator.
Another hypothesis is that aliens put humans on the earth, but who created the aliens ?
Does 'random chance events' give atheist a firm basis to reject an intelligent creator? Scientific facts like the 'third law of thermodynamics' tells us that this is not even a consideration.
On the other hand we know why believers talk to others, in most cases it's to share their hope with them.

That being said there are those that believe neither in religious dogmas or unproven scientific theories but rather in the pure inspired word of God . They claim to have found the truth and encourage others to investigate the Bible apart from religious interpretations.(2Tim 3)

Most of the above is just my random musing and has no weight even in the microcosm in which we hold our discussions. However the words of Christ has much more relevance. When he addresses those that want proof of God's existence -although the evidence is right in front of them- he said the following:

"A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet,... hypocrites, you know how to examine the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to examine this particular time ?"

Just as in Jesus days, our time has more than enough signs if we look for them in the right place.
People and churches who hang their faith on ignorance of science are the ones who are treading on water, in my view.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Okay, and what is the difference between proof and evidence? Also, any evidence I did give, you would immediately dismiss as not REAL evidence. We call this shifting the goalposts. Why? Because atheists are under a delusion.

"If I believe in God, this means I have to join this group or that group and I can't go on doing what I want."

As for evidence we have:
  1. A universe that depends on a great number of scientific laws to even exist
  2. Life is such a Goldilocks event that it should exist at all in the universe, and yet this world has thousands/millions of animal/plant/bacteria/fungi species.
  3. People do actually have unique selves. Souls. This is pretty much provable in any large household that has a consistent method of raising children.
  4. By the way, I am not one of these people that believes science is wrong. Evolution is part of God's plan. I do not, however believe in "survival of the fittest" as this sort of mentality is one of a psychopath that would see Hitler's master race belief as justified. No thanks.
  5. The Big Bang was not invented by Stephen Hawking, no matter what "Theory of Everything" movie will tell you. It was by Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest and scientist, as a way of explaining exactly what happened during the beginning of the universe. Hubble took credit for it two years later.
This not to say "Things are complicated, I can't explain it, must be God." This is things are complicated because there is intelligent design and a creator. Because there is a plan, and a planner, there are different models of planets, different species, and they work together to not wipe out the planet. But let's talk about #5. What was matter before the Big Bang? Well, not nothing. It was a superatom. A "Cosmic Egg" if you will. But wait, cosmic egg sounds familiar... Yeah, Vedic myth, Egyptian myth, Zoroastrian myth, Greek myth, Phoenician, Norse, etc. They all came up with the same idea. A superconcentrated thing expands itself outward, and like a seed, stuff comes into being. Not an old man, a seed.
1. Any existence will have laws which are nothing but regularities within phenomena.
2. Actually, this galaxy alone has a trillion planets of which many millions exist within the goldilocks zone...as recent exoplanet missions have observed.
3. Most people also have unique combination of genes as well...apart from identical twins who are seen to have over 50% of their character traits in common even when raised seperately. The commonality goes to 80% when raised together. However, none of this implies either absence of self-actuated will or genetic determinism.
4. Evolution is much more than survival of the fittest...that motto is a caricature. Evolution totally refutes the ideas of racial superiority and eugenics.
5. Actually everyone (in science) knows that Big Bang was proposed by Dr. Lamaitre. Hubble did not take credit for the proposal either...he gathered the evidence for the expansion of the universe which was one of the predictions of Lamaitre model.

Science neither supports nor refutes theism or atheism in general. But it rules out certain kinds of theisms and atheisms.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
A recurring theme amongst Atheist and Scientifically minded people is to look or ask for proof for the existence of a creator.
Not believing in god, atheists don't "look" for the existence of a creator, but they do "ask" for proof. However, this is only because theists say they have such proof. Soo, they ask, "show us your proof," which is almost inevitably followed by the atheist pointing out the faults in the theist's "proof." And therein lies the continual give and take between atheists and theists.

Could it be that as rational minds they are irritated by the foolishness of organised religion and those that blindly follow their dictates? Perhaps nothing would please them more than to show how gullible believers are.
Speaking for myself, I challenge theists because I dislike the spread of oft-times compelling, but erroneous and illogical information.

Perhaps the reason atheist seek to question believer is the lack of foundation thus lack of conviction for their own belief ?
As the American Atheists web site puts it:

"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."
source

It would not be surprising considering the alternatives.
For example: some scientific theories require even more faith than belief in an almighty creator.
I would ask you for examples, but it's clear you're just blowing smoke here.

Another hypothesis is that aliens put humans on the earth, but who created the aliens ?
Off on another tangent are you. Please yourself, but I doubt anyone will care to play your game.

Does 'random chance events' give atheist a firm basis to reject an intelligent creator?
Nope, but lack of evidence does.

Scientific facts like the 'third law of thermodynamics' tells us that this is not even a consideration.
THIRD LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
"If the entropy of each element in some (perfect) crystalline state be taken as zero at the absolute zero of temperature, every substance has a finite positive entropy; but at the absolute zero of temperature the entropy may become zero, and does so become in the case of perfect crystalline substances."
Really? How? Please explain.

On the other hand we know why believers talk to others, in most cases it's to share their hope with them.
Hey, sometimes it's just to get the other person into bed with them.

.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
A recurring theme amongst Atheist and Scientifically minded people is to look or ask for proof for the existence of a creator.
Some do, some don’t. Some religiously minded people ask for proof of contradictory religious beliefs too. A key thing to remember in discussions like this is that we’re all basically the same regardless of individual beliefs.

For what it’s worth, I’ve never asked for “proof” (if only due to the confused definition of the word). I normally find myself asking for a well-defined hypothesis since my issue is less the content of religious claims but the lack of specificity and concrete definitions. :cool:

You might have wondered, why do sceptics peruse forums such as this one to inquire of believer for proof of something they don't believe in themselves ?
I think it boils down to believers expecting (sometimes demanding) that individual behaviour and wider social policy to be built around their beliefs. You’ll notice that there are a whole range of religions and beliefs around the world that don’t face the same challenges because they don’t make the same kind of demands (if only for lack of authority). If someone tells us we shouldn’t do something because God said it was a sin, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that there are follow-up questions.

I mean, there will be lots of other reasons different people do things, good, bad and indifferent. Plenty of people will indeed struggle with confidence in their own position, be honestly seeking understanding or just be trolling for their own entertainment. That doesn’t really say anything about anyone other than those individuals though.

For example: some scientific theories require even more faith than belief in an almighty creator.
A slight tangent but an important and relevant misunderstanding. No scientific theory requires faith by definition. You go on to refer to hypothesis, which is a distinct concept from theory in science (not to be confused with casual use of the word “theory” to mean a more general idea). The idea of an intelligent creator is a hypothesis (albeit an as yet poorly constructed one). Which brings us back to why it’s questions – that’s exactly what you’re meant to do with hypotheses.

That being said there are those that believe neither in religious dogmas or unproven scientific theories but rather in the pure inspired word of God .
I think it should be noted that the existence of some form of intelligent creator is a very different proposition to your specific interpretation of Biblical Christianity. Again, I feel this demonstrates the problematic lack of consistency in what any given religious believer is actually proposing in the first place. The easiest way to stop people questioning your beliefs would be to give clear and rational answers… if you can.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
A recurring theme amongst Atheist and Scientifically minded people is to look or ask for proof for the existence of a creator.

You might have wondered, why do sceptics peruse forums such as this one to inquire of believer for proof of something they don't believe in themselves ?
I would be the last to criticise an inquisitive nature or a generous amount of scepticism towards religiously oriented affirmations. The Bible itself on two occasions warns us to "test the inspired expression" so as to assure ourselves of its validity (Mal 3:10;1 John 4:1).

Could it be that as rational minds they are irritated by the foolishness of organised religion and those that blindly follow their dictates? Perhaps nothing would please them more than to show how gullible believers are.

Keep in mind that even believers recognise and condemn churches hypocritical activities and teachings. Even the Bible judges organised religion as a harlot that will be destroyed (Rev 17).

Perhaps the reason atheist seek to question believer is the lack of foundation thus lack of conviction for their own belief ?
It would not be surprising considering the alternatives.
For example: some scientific theories require even more faith than belief in an almighty creator.
Another hypothesis is that aliens put humans on the earth, but who created the aliens ?
Does 'random chance events' give atheist a firm basis to reject an intelligent creator? Scientific facts like the 'third law of thermodynamics' tells us that this is not even a consideration.
On the other hand we know why believers talk to others, in most cases it's to share their hope with them.

That being said there are those that believe neither in religious dogmas or unproven scientific theories but rather in the pure inspired word of God . They claim to have found the truth and encourage others to investigate the Bible apart from religious interpretations.(2Tim 3)

Most of the above is just my random musing and has no weight even in the microcosm in which we hold our discussions. However the words of Christ has much more relevance. When he addresses those that want proof of God's existence -although the evidence is right in front of them- he said the following:

"A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet,... hypocrites, you know how to examine the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to examine this particular time ?"

Just as in Jesus days, our time has more than enough signs if we look for them in the right place.

You got the "no weight" right. Not much else.
You got in a major error right in the first line, more than one actually.

One. though, is that a person of scientific bent will never ask for "proof".
Saying that one does is wrong from so many different angles that
I wont even go into it, other than to say that science does probabilities*
based on verifiable evidence, not "proof".

IF you have some sort of solid evidence to offer, by all means do so.

Try doing that instead of making up bunch of calumny about people
you do not know, and whose thinking you clearly do not understand.


* how probable is it, for example, that all the different gods and
their attendant religions are true? All of them are fervently
believed by people such as yourself, who also think they
gots "proof". Or at least some, like, evidence? :D
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
A recurring theme amongst Atheist and Scientifically minded people is to look or ask for proof for the existence of a creator.

You might have wondered, why do sceptics peruse forums such as this one to inquire of believer for proof of something they don't believe in themselves ?
For me: it isn't that I expect that any theist I talk to will have some argument or evidence to make me a believer. It's to steer me away from contempt.

It's not that I think you might actually have proof of God. It's that I hope - perhaps wrongly - that you and other theists arrived at your belief in your gods by a path that's at least halfway rational.

If I can find at least a few examples of theists who really did think through their positions properly - not necessarily to my standard, but properly enough - this will allow me to have respect for their positions. It will mean that when I find out someone is a theist, I can hold out hope that they used at least some sense when arriving at their beliefs.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Perhaps the reason atheist seek to question believer is the lack of foundation thus lack of conviction for their own belief ?

Could be. Sometimes I am also uncertain whether things like gods, mother goose, the blue fairy, and all things that have no evidence, could in fact exist :)

Nope. I see belief in god equivalent to superstition. Praying is like avoiding black cats, for instance. It has the same rational basis. And as such, it is like a disease of the thinking we would like to help cure.

Could be benign, if the believer just believes that stuff in her house.

But it could degenerate if the believer starts influence public policy, and therefore, also people who do not believe that stuff. Like whether we should allow gay marriages, abortion, euthanasia, etc. just because an imaginary being told them so.

It would not be surprising considering the alternatives.

Lets analyze them.

For example: some scientific theories require even more faith than belief in an almighty creator.
For instance?

Another hypothesis is that aliens put humans on the earth, but who created the aliens ?
Correct. That is nonsense.

Does 'random chance events' give atheist a firm basis to reject an intelligent creator?
Creationists love that. Random chance. Is there a not random one, by the way? The question, of course, is whether they understand statistics. They do not, so they talk of things they ignore.

Fact is: a posteriori, the probability is always one. Assuming that Universe are generated randomly. So, the probability that this Universe could generate humans is one. 100%.

What was the probability, in your opinion, that you were born, and not one of the possible billions of siblings of yours? The same for your parents, their parents, etc.

You will find that this probability was next to zero. Yet, it happened. Does that entail a creator of yourself?

Look. I threw 100 times a coin. Amazing. The sequence I got had 2 at the power of -100 to happen. It was basically zero. And yet, it happened!

Scientific facts like the 'third law of thermodynamics' tells us that this is not even a consideration.

The third law?

On the other hand we know why believers talk to others, in most cases it's to share their hope with them.

Of course. Hope springs eternal. And sharing absurdities with people believing the same absurdities might give the illusion that they might not be so absurd after all.

"A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet,...
The one who spent the weekend in the belly of a whale, right?

Just as in Jesus days, our time has more than enough signs if we look for them in the right place.

Yawn. You have been saying that for two thousand years. And nothing happens. For obvious reasons.

Ciao

- viole
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
For me: it isn't that I expect that any theist I talk to will have some argument or evidence to make me a believer. It's to steer me away from contempt.

It's not that I think you might actually have proof of God. It's that I hope - perhaps wrongly - that you and other theists arrived at your belief in your gods by a path that's at least halfway rational.

If I can find at least a few examples of theists who really did think through their positions properly - not necessarily to my standard, but properly enough - this will allow me to have respect for their positions. It will mean that when I find out someone is a theist, I can hold out hope that they used at least some sense when arriving at their beliefs.
Hmm...try me maybe? :)
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
has anyone undone the notion of cause and effect?

if so......so much for science

and all we have is thought experiment and
you can say anything
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
has anyone undone the notion of cause and effect?

if so......so much for science

and all we have is thought experiment and
you can say anything

There is no such formal rule in the sciences. But if you believe in that what caused your God? No special pleading allowed.
 
Top