Atheists Only: Would this be proof?

[Ouroboros]

Actually, someone else resurrected the thread.
It was kinda spammy post. I didn't even read it. Apparently the staff agreed.
Tom

Oh, that's why.

I responded, and then I realized there were pages and pages of responses. Then I looked at the original date... dang! This is old. Why did I see it all of a sudden now? It was a spammeresurrection! X'splains it all.

 

[suncowiam]

I think I can suggest a better experiment: get every religious person who prays to pray for the regrowth of a single amputee's lost limb, or for the lost limbs of several amputees. If a limb regrows, you've got proof, if it doesn't you got proof. The issue is settled, one way or the other.

This means they are a lizard race like those from V. They're out to conquer our planet, pillage our resouces and eat our mice.

 

[Katzpur]

Then why believe? I mean, I could understand why someone would leave philosophical room for God if he was unsure, but why devote your entire life to something if you don't have good reason to think it's real?

I have absolutely zero interest in trying to justify my belief in God. Suffice it to say that I believe because, to me,belief is the only logical option. I couldn't stop believing no matter how hard I were to try. Furthermore, I have no reason to stop believing, and can see no advantages in not believing. I don't feel as if my life would be better if I were to deny my belief in God. For me personally, life without a belief in a Higher Power of some sort would not be worth living. Are my reasons for thinking God is real good ones? To me they are; to you they wouldn't be. As I said in my OP, I did not start this thread for the purpose of debating the advantages of theism over atheism. I sincerely hope this puts an end to that line of questioning.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not really. Unless I'm mistaken, atheists who are even willing to consider the existence of God say that they're looking for absolute proof.

I wonder if I fit that description. The idea of proving God's existence just seems weird to me - perhaps it would just make him not truly God. Or maybe it would give deism or pantheism quite a boost?

Then again, I don't think I much care one way or the other whether God exists, either.

The way I see it, it is just not an idea I have an affinity to - and that is not at all a problem.

Most theists, such as myself, believe in Him despite the fact that His existence cannot be scientifically proven. Of course the scenario was hypothetical. It couldn't be otherwise. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that God's existence can neither be proven nor disproven.

I agree. I don't think that is particularly significant, though.

 

[Katzpur]

The way I see it, it is just not an idea I have an affinity to - and that is not at all a problem.

When it gets right down to it, it's an idea I do have an affinity to. I wish people would just leave it at that. I don't recall ever having tried to convince you that God exists, nor can I recall you ever having tried to convince me that He doesn't. Maybe some people think this thread was some kind of a veiled attempt at proselytizing, but I know you don't, and I appreciate that.

 

[Ouroboros]

I wonder if I fit that description. The idea of proving God's existence just seems weird to me - perhaps it would just make him not truly God. Or maybe it would give deism or pantheism quite a boost?

Yup.

If you have to prove God, one way or another, or even argue for God's existence, then something is wrong with God.

So far, I haven't met a single person who is a-ourobors-wife, i.e. someone who disbeliefs in the existence of my wife, which leads to that I have to give some kind of philosophical argument to why perhaps, in most likelihood, my wife exists, according to my belief, but against any other observable facts. The thing is, I am married. I have a wife. She exists. I haven't doubted her existence a single minute in all the years we've been married. No one I know has doubted her existence either. How come she's more real than God? The only true God that can exist must be the one we don't have to prove. The need to prove God only proves that God isn't God.

 

[LuisDantas]

When it gets right down to it, it's an idea I do have an affinity to. I wish people would just leave it at that.

You and me both. If it works for you (and I have seen plenty of evidence that it does), then that is it.

I don't recall ever having tried to convince you that God exists, nor can I recall you ever having tried to convince me that He doesn't.

That is mainly because you have consistently been respectful towards me and I have attempted to retribute in a proper way. I have no particular need to prove you wrong, and you seem to be wiser than you would have to be to much need to prove me wrong by your turn.

Attempting to reach common understandings about things that have meaning beyond the strictly personal sphere - such as LGBT rights, to mention one subject of our mutual interest - is way more productive.

At the end of the day, I am simply not interested in purposefully alienating people who are both well-meaning, compassionate and respectful. I am not that much of a fool.

Maybe some people think this thread was some kind of a veiled attempt at proselytizing, but I know you don't, and I appreciate that.

I gauge people by what they do and what they pursue, Katzpur. If you see God's will as supporting your values goals, for all I know you may be right. How could I ever know otherwise?

I just don't agree on that little matter of whether God exists, and that is IMO is just a matter of diverging tastes in personal esthetics. It is not all that different from divergent tastes about music, clothing or body art: important from one's own perspective, certainly. But not at all worth bullying other people about.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Maybe some people think this thread was some kind of a veiled attempt at proselytizing. . .

I, for one, am agnostic about the reasons behind the creation of this thread.

It was certainly an interesting thought experiment, so thanks for the thread. I know I would certainty welcome direct evidence or a specific argument that would lead me to a reasonable conclusion for god. Why not. Knowledge is knowledge. It will always affect what I think and how I feel about this issue.

Alas, I do not see logical justification for God, as I think the idea of God is always a premise rather than a conclusion. But if someone showed me the evidence to reasonably justify that premise as a premise, then everything would flow from there.

I'm skeptical for a reason. I used to have that premise when I was little. I went to Sunday school. Many of us did. I think it's rarer for atheists to never have had the premise of god than to have once had it and then given it up. That's why it's hard to convince an atheist with potential evidence. Most of us have "been there, done that," and had to go through all the redefinition and rejection of the initial premise already.

It's hard work, really. We're a minority. All of us have earned Atheism, and some of us have paid a price for it. If it weren't for the internet, some of us would unable to interact with one another at all.

 

[columbus]

What a spectacularly over-the-top compliment. I'm speechless.

I'm sorry if you're less than thrilled by the reappearance of this thread.
It just appeared by some spam which was quickly poofed by the mods. I found that post utterly forgetable. But the quote from your OP is about a subject I find interesting.
Theists seem commonly to believe that folks like me are atheists by choice. That simply isn't true. I would prefer having a reason to see God as a rational conclusion to reach. It would really take very little to convince me. But I am not free to do that.
The usual explanation for this is that it would impede my free will. But it is really just the opposite. Only by having some information is a person free to choose the correct goals and methods. Otherwise it's just a crapshoot.

Tom

 

[Katzpur]

I'm sorry if you're less than thrilled by the reappearance of this thread.

Actually, I don't mind that it's been resurrected, and I sincerely did appreciate your unorthodox compliment. My only complaint is that I did not want this to become a "prove there's a God or admit that you're stupid" thread.

It just appeared by some spam which was quickly poofed by the mods.

That's funny. I was wondering what prompted your response. Yesterday, I responded to a question on another thread (link) that I thought might have been the reason. It appears it was merely a coincidence.

Theists seem commonly to believe that folks like me are atheists by choice. That simply isn't true. I would prefer having a reason to see God as a rational conclusion to reach. It would really take very little to convince me. But I am not free to do that.
The usual explanation for this is that it would impede my free will. But it is really just the opposite. Only by having some information is a person free to choose the correct goals and methods. Otherwise it's just a crapshoot.

Yeah, I'm sure that does seem to be the prevailing opinion of theists. In my opinion, though, people are born with either a tendency to believe in God or a tendency not to. Some are probably born pretty much neutral on the subject. Just as I cannot (and I really have given it some serious thought) convince myself that there is no God, I have to concede that there are a lot of people who simply cannot convince themselves that there is a God. In retrospect, my OP was probably for agnostics more than for hard-core atheists. By the way, how much do you know about the Myers-Briggs personality tests? I know that certain personality types are much more predisposed to be believers than others are. I found that to be quite interesting, but I'd have to go back and research it out again to provide you with any specifics.

 

[Katzpur]

At the end of the day, I am simply not interested in purposefully alienating people who are both well-meaning, compassionate and respectful. I am not that much of a fool.

And that is exactly how I feel! Exactly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When it gets right down to it, it's an idea I do have an affinity to. I wish people would just leave it at that. I don't recall ever having tried to convince you that God exists, nor can I recall you ever having tried to convince me that He doesn't. Maybe some people think this thread was some kind of a veiled attempt at proselytizing, but I know you don't, and I appreciate that.

I didn't mean to offend you. I just find it strange how these sorts of debates end up with something like "let's just agree to disagree" as if accepting God's existence is just an aesthetic preference like wanting chocolate ice cream.

The question of God's existence is a factual matter. One conclusion is right and one is wrong. When we come to different conclusions, there are only a few possibilities:

- one side has access to different evidence from the other.
- one side (at least) has made a mistake in their reasoning.
- both sides really are equally supported by the evidence (which would mean that neither side has enough information to accept it conclusively).

I think that this speaks to the OP of this thread. Unless there's evidence out there that theists are keeping from atheists (and if there is, please share), if there is a reasonable, rational argument that conclusively establishes that theism is true, then atheism must be irrational.

This is why I'm now puzzled by your thread. If you have a solid argument for God - even if you aren't sharing it - then you should already know that there's a mistake of logic in every atheist position.

Edit: this is why I'm a bit frustrated here. When you say things like how for you "belief is the only logical option", this says to me that you may have found something illogical in my own position, but you're not saying what it is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

At the end of the day, I am simply not interested in purposefully alienating people who are both well-meaning, compassionate and respectful. I am not that much of a fool.

When the message is "I'm convinced you're wrong, but I don't trust you to be able to discuss the matter reasonably", alienation can be expected. I also question how much compassion and respect there is in that position.

 

[Marisa]

Calling all atheists! :shout Okay, first off, I am not proselytizing, so don't bother getting out the boxing gloves. I couldn't care less that you don't believe in God (for the sake of argument, let's say the Abrahamic God). So, let's get that straight for starters. It's just that I've heard so many atheists say, "Give me proof and I'll believe in God." I don't even bother trying, because I know I can't prove that God exists. Whenever a theist does attempt to come up with proof, you guys refuse to accept it. I can't say that I blame you since I don't find their proof particularly compelling myself. Today, my husband and I were having a conversation that made me think about starting this thread. Basically, it had to do with prayer and with God's will.

I started wondering about a hypothetical, although impossible, situation that, in my opinion, could -- if it were feasible -- be considered proof of God's existence. Let's say we had a group of 500,000 people, all of whom were terminally ill and none of whom were in any way religious. They could be either agnostic or atheist, I suppose, but they definitely would not be the kind of people who would ever pray, asking that God heal them, nor would they solicit the prayers of others on their behalf. Let's assume that they were all close to death and resigned to the fact that the end was near. Now, let's say that these people were split into two groups of 250,000 each. The prayers of all Christians, Muslims and Jews throughout the world were offered up to God, pleading with Him to heal the dying individuals within the first of these two groups. No one, however would pray for anyone in the second group. Within a relatively short period of time (let's say two weeks), every single one of the 250,000 individuals for whom prayers were offered were "miraculously" healed. Without a single exception, all of them were as healthy as they'd been at any time in their lives. On the other hand, during this same period of time, every last one of the 250,000 who had not had anyone pray for them (and had not prayed for themselves) died, as had been expected.

Would these results, if they were exactly as I described them, possibly cause you to re-think you lack of belief in God? Would they, in other words, be sufficient to make you to believe in God? If not, to what would you attribute the results of the experiment? (Please don't start by telling me that such an experiment would be impossible to perform. I may be a theist, but I'm honestly not quite that stupid! Just pretend that we actually could do this experiment and come up with the results I stated and take it from there.)

Since this is not a debate forum, I'm just looking for answers. I may or may not come back with further thoughts of my own.

Admitting the existence of any god would never, ever be a difficult thing for me to do, it's the underlying "and therefore this god is worthy of our worship" that I separate from merely accepting a thing's existence, but I've yet to meet a theist who does. But I don't think this would be enough for me to admit that any god exists. Too many unknown medical values: what disease and it's rate of spontaneous remission, for example. But, I can play along with the thought experiment and say that if this were enough to prove to me that a god exists and was responsible for the cured, that it's no god I'd care to worship. Because a god that is what christians describe him/her as (loving, kind, forgiving, merciful) would not have cared much who was being prayed for, all would be cured. If I were god, and I was loving and merciful, I would cure all sick people, and I'd wager most people would do the same.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Well, there are many degrees of atheism. For those at the milder end of the spectrum, such evidence may be considered. For those at the more adamant end of the spectrum, you're going to need Jesus striding the Earth 100 feet tall, and parting the Atlantic Ocean on his way to Europe.

That would be pretty awesome, you have to admit...

"Yo dudes. You wanna see something cool?"

 

[Jumi]

No. If it was about God, don't you think one prayer would be enough and it would not be about the amount of humans? Would a God do what humans wanted, even if they were a large group?

Billions praying for the same thing would point to there being a human capability instead of a god. That would be a reason to investigate for what would cause them to survive. I think it would make parapsychologists very happy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, I'm sure that does seem to be the prevailing opinion of theists. In my opinion, though, people are born with either a tendency to believe in God or a tendency not to. Some are probably born pretty much neutral on the subject. Just as I cannot (and I really have given it some serious thought) convince myself that there is no God, I have to concede that there are a lot of people who simply cannot convince themselves that there is a God.

I've noticed this, too.

I do transportation network modelling for a living, so I approach this in terms of mental models: we all have a mental model of how the world works, and we're constantly testing it: when the expectations of our model agree with reality, we take this as a sign that our model is sound. When reality disagrees with our expectations, we take this as a sign that our model has a problem (and hopefully look for ways to fix it).

As you point out, theists and atheists often can't reconcile what they see and experience with the other's point of view. For both of them, their mental models agree extremely closely with reality.

How can this be? If the two models have different basic assumptions and those differences matter, the two models should be very different in terms of how closely they agree with reality... but they aren't.

I can only see one conclusion to draw from this: that the difference - i.e. the assumption of God's existence - is rarely if ever actually tested. IOW, God is irrelevant.

... and in my line of work, if a factor is irrelevant to the model, it gets ignored.

In retrospect, my OP was probably for agnostics more than for hard-core atheists. By the way, how much do you know about the Myers-Briggs personality tests? I know that certain personality types are much more predisposed to be believers than others are. I found that to be quite interesting, but I'd have to go back and research it out again to provide you with any specifics.

I've read enough about them to know that they're unreliable. A person's "personality type" will vary depending on the person's mood and who's doing the test.

 

[LuisDantas]

When the message is "I'm convinced you're wrong, but I don't trust you to be able to discuss the matter reasonably", alienation can be expected. I also question how much compassion and respect there is in that position.

Not a lot, and for that reason it does not deserve a lot in return either.

All the more reason to attempt to tell those who have that attitude from those who do not. We both know where Katzpur stands in that spectrum.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not a lot, and for that reason it does not deserve a lot in return either.

All the more reason to attempt to tell those who have that attitude from those who do not. We both know where Katzpur stands in that spectrum.

I think that attitude is a fair re-phrasing of the position that you and Katzpur have both argued.

 

[LuisDantas]

I can only see one conclusion to draw from this: that the difference - i.e. the assumption of God's existence - is rarely if ever actually tested. IOW, God is irrelevant.

... and in my line of work, if a factor is irrelevant to the model, it gets ignored.

Fair enough, Penguin. But your line of work is very much targeted towards consensual reality, while god beliefs are far, far more personal.

The trouble is that there are so many people who insist that it is a Big Deal that others share their beliefs in what is, from a communal standpoint, indeed irrelevant.