Atheists Only: Would this be proof?

[Katzpur]

A theist may already understand the nature of their god, but the evidence they see may contradict their understanding of his nature.

I just think the theist might have a harder time.

Possibly. I can really only speak for myself in that regard, since my own beliefs are not necessarily in line with other theists.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

That would require a direct not indirect venue as it leaves still too much for speculation.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Possibly. I can really only speak for myself in that regard, since my own beliefs are not necessarily in line with other theists.

Would love to hear your thoughts, or perhaps your speculations, on scope of potential theistic interpretation of such a hypothetical event, but I don't expect you would share them.

Self-described Atheists and Agnostics make up 4% of the US population, as opposed to some 80% of self-described Abrahamic theists. A hypothetical event, such as you propose, could speculatively reduce the number of US Non-believers to half that or more, but it honestly seems inconsequential to the larger story of theistic interpretations of such an event.

And that's just the US, which is just small potatoes. What about the Muslim world? Israel? The Catholics and evangelicals in South America?

Again, I don't expect you to share anything, but perhaps as a good thought exercise with your husband tonight, you could explore the possibilities of global theist reactions to this same event. How would the LDS church fare in a world with actual evidence of an Abrahamic God? If your specific religious beliefs are not the norm, then how would you fare?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I would say that this would prove that their is some kind of higher power.

That is after i examined for funny business.

That would of course not be the end of the examination.

First i would then experiment to see which one of the religions was getting the results.

Then i would experiment to see which is the best way to pray, which conditions prayer works for etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course you do and that's because it's important to you to be right.

I think you're misreading my motives. It's important to me to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. It isn't important to me to just be confident about the beliefs I already hold.

If it's a strike against theism, so be it. It's not a strike against my theism because it doesn't challenge it in the slightest and because I'm not looking for any kind of a "victory."

Neither am I. My point is that when theism fails where it ought to succeed if it was based in truth, this points to theism being incorrect.

Okay, so let's go with this analogy. Why do some people like chocolate and some don't? (Chocolate may not be the best example. Do some people really not like chocolate?) I'm looking for an actual explanation.

I'm not sure how this is relevant.

And this is why I don't like to get into discussions of this sort with atheists. When I debate someone, it's important to me that we at least have some common ground. If I'm debating other Christians, for example, we can start by what we agree on and then move to what we disagree on. If we're talking about the Trinity (or the supposed three-in-one nature of God believed by most Christians), we can both draw from the same sources of information to make our arguments.

Atheists can do that, too. We just take the premises as given for argument's sake.

I just thought it was funny how, in the same thread, you jumped from "I can't prove God" and "none of us is playing with a full deck" to suddenly knowing God's plans.

I find these conversations difficult, too. It's like we're dealing with a Peekaboo God: he's conveniently solid and certain when you need to support some point of doctrine, but when you look at him directly, he disappears.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The uncertainty in the conclusion "God exists and is planning 'X'" can't be any greater than the uncertainty in the conclusion "God exists". If "God exists" is uncertain enough that you don't just dismiss atheists as irrational, how can the answer to any question that relies on God be reliable at all?

And how would my life be any better if I were not to devote it to a claim I very strongly believe in?

If your conclusions really are as tentative and uncertain as your last post suggested, why would you have very strong beliefs?

It seems like you're trying to have it both ways.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm not sure how this is relevant.

As far as I'm concerned, it's extremely relevant.

I just thought it was funny how, in the same thread, you jumped from "I can't prove God" and "none of us is playing with a full deck" to suddenly knowing God's plans.

If I came across as knowing God's plans, I apologize. That wasn't my intention. I don't think it's possible to know for sure one way or the other if there's a God.

If your conclusions really are as tentative and uncertain as your last post suggested, why would you have very strong beliefs?

It's something I can't explain. Sorry.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As far as I'm concerned, it's extremely relevant.

Wait... so you're asking why I think people arrive at such different conclusions? I think I explained that: both theist and atheist mental models of the world generally agree very closely with reality. People tend to interpret this as meaning that the whole model is sound even if only parts of it are actually being tested.

If I came across as knowing God's plans, I apologize. That wasn't my intention. I don't think it's possible to know for sure one way or the other if there's a God.

It's something I can't explain. Sorry.

And it's something I can't understand.

As an analogy, if I wasn't sure a particular car model existed, I might give someone the benefit of the doubt when they say that they'd seen it on the street, but I wouldn't put a deposit down on one until I was sure it was real.