In an effort to correct a hijack of the “Rapture” thread (sorry, Dreamer), I’m interested in hearing what believers (particularly christians)think would be adequate proof that god doesn’t exist. Some have said that they would probably only be swayed by other christians who believed they were wrong. Obviously, if there is no god, you’re not going to get a divine message, so tell me, what would prove to you that god doesn’t exist?
Nothing would convince me that God doesn’t exist.
you can’t prove something doesn’t exist. For instance show me proof that there is no easter bunny or santa claus…I bet you can’t do it.
What would it take to prove to you that God DOES exist?
I think it is a fair question to ask, particularly of Dreamer since she asked the obverse question back to us. We answered that fairly honestly and thoroughly, and it was appropriate to know where she was coming from.
The problem is that the answer is not going to be logical. Belief is based on faith and “personal experience”*. The only thing that challenges the belief will be a personal experience which is interpreted to contravene the belief.
[sub]* As opposed to objective evidence, though philosophical nitpickers can argue those terms[/sub]
It is not a level playing field. Rational debate will not change the mind of a believer any more than WV_Woman witnessing her faith to me will change my ‘rationalist’ mindset.
It is like asking who would win a game between the San Francisco Giants and the New York Giants. It depends on whether they are playing baseball or football.
Which is not to say that we shouldn’t talk about it. Discussion and debate is good, but it helps to keep the underlying structure in mind.
I suspect that despite her universal statement, WV_Woman has her moments of doubt as befits a living human being. What experiences would increase or decrease those moments, I don’t know, since it is a personal thing, but I am sure there are some. If she is willing to share, the better question might be “What kind of experiences test your faith the most?”
Rhapsody falls back on logical sophistry. Yes, you can’t conclusively prove non-existence. But it is still reasonable to ask “What evidence would it take for you to accept non-existence as true?”
In the other thread, most rationalists said they would accept objective evidence of God’s existence. Until that is presented, the evidence pretty solidly points to a distant or non-existent God. If you want to debate that further, go there.
Anything that could be seen or heard would be sufficient. A god sighting has never been documented. I never said I could prove that god doesn’t exist. All I’m saying is that I’m not going to behave as though something exists when in fact I don’t know that it does. And, by the way, Rhapsody, this thread was started because there is already a thread about what it would take non-believers to believe that god exists. It’s the “rapture” thread. My question (should you choose to answer) is what would make you believe that there is no god?
I doubt that anything will. The question of the existence of God, like so many others, is one of those where the evidence falls down squarely in favor of whatever side you already believe in. If a person does change their beliefs, it’s due to a change of heart, not because some particular fact comes up.
The above, of course, is a generalization, and is probably wrong.
Can you give me some examples (obviously hypothetical) of what you think could bring doubt, test our faith etc? Obviously there is evolution and scientific theory, but what circumstances would you envision happening to a believer in order for them to change their faith?
I am a Christian, and nothing would change my mind. I think faith should be independent of evidence. My faith is independent of evidence (as it should be IMHO) and I think that it is important for faith to stand on it’s on legs.
If their was proof of God, what good would faith be?
Rhapsody makes a great point.
The General Theory of “God” is non-falsifiable: we cannot fashion an objective scientific experiment or logical theorem that constitutes negative proof. Attempting to “disprove God” is pointless.
Now, demonstrating, experimentally and logically, that for any number of natural and social phenomena a divine intervention is undetectable, unnecessary, not logically consistent with objective observation, indistinguishable from material processes, or just plain not the best explanation – and that thus, by preponderance of evidence, a reasonable person should conclude that the naturalist, materialist explanation is the correct one – that is not a disproof of God. It’s just a proof of the causes of (depending on the case: some/many/most/all) worldly phenomena. The most that can manage is to provide evidence to convince believers that their interpretation of what god(s) may be like, or may be up to, needs to be reevaluated.
um… when we die, and we aren’t at the gates or in the pits…
Geeze, that’s a tough one…although WV Woman phrased it a little too bluntly, I think the point is that it’s hard for a believer to “undo” something they’ve come to accept as a regular part of their lives. A lot of people have been genuinely “touched” by God to an extent that isn’t easy to put into words, but I think is observable through a marked change in their behavior and outlook on life. (I went through a conversion experience myself in college; most people who knew me at the time were astonished that my teenage angst and suicidal tendencies had suddenly disappeared in such a short time.)
Which is not to say that we don’t go through periods of personal doubt, although experience has taught me that doubt usually comes from a desire to simplify things in order to escape some hardship, rather than from objective, impirical evidence. (I.e., I had a really hard semester once in college where everything went seriously wrong, including two deaths in my family. I was tempted to take the athiestic route for awhile, as I didn’t want to reconcile my pain with the concept of a loving God. Eventually, I just realized that I was making excuses so I wouldn’t have to deal with my suffering. In other words, I wasn’t really making a rational analysis of God’s existence: I just wanted the hurt to go away.)
It probably comes down to one of those “I’ll find out when I die” things. My $0.02.
No, I can’t prove that they don’t exist. But how many of us believe that they do? I don’t, and for pretty much the same reasons, I don’t believe that God exists.
Thinking critically about why you don’t believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus (assuming that you don’t believe in them) would probably do it. But that, as you say, is obviously hypothetical.
You can prove that something doesn’t exist. All you have to do is show that it’s logically impossible.
There have been stories (no cites) of preachers / ministers losing their faith in God due to enduring incredible emotional hardships where they felt the God they believed in so strongly had abandoned them.
( Although, logically, even if their God had left them, it shows they still had a strong belief in His existance to think He had abondoned them. )
Maybe the loss of faith is an (almost necessary) temporary hiccup on a greater, longer spiritual journey which will later reinforce your beliefs to yourself.
But I’m just guessing really.
Maybe I should have worded the OP differently, as I know that the proof thing is impossible (from a negative standpoint). But, you don’t have proof that a god exists, either. So what would make you reevaluate your stance? For instance, god is supposed to be good and powerful, yet we see pain, disease, famine, floods, suffering of all kinds, put on many of the world’s innocents. To me, the reality of the situation is that there is no powerful being that can control or judge, because, plainly, he doesn’t do it. You say that only the believers get help. But then he’s not a very good diety, is he? He’s credited for all these things, yet he doesn’t really let anyone know in any tangible form that he’s there. It’s all faith. Strictly a hopeful, wishful thought process that draws the believers to god. Which is fine, if you draw comfort from the delusion. If you think your life is worth more than the next guy’s, that’s your perogative.
These are precisely the things that make it clear to me that a god doesn’t exist (at least, not in the christian, controlling, judgmental form). To me it is very obvious. How many prayers would have to be ignored before you would think that there’s nobody listening at the other end of the line? How many innocent children would have to be beaten or starved before you would say to yourself that divine intervention is long overdue, and probably not on the way?
Something that might test your faith? Loss of a close relative? Particularly if it was in a painful or futile way.
The question of what would get someone to believe in god isn’t as interesting to me as this question:
What would it take for you to give up your religion?
I am curious if this actual (not hypothetical) example causes a Christian a moment of doubt.
You may have heard this on the news a couple of months ago. A group of Christian teenagers were leaving on a bus trip from their church in the Dallas area to travel to a church camp 250 miles away. The teenagers prayed for a safe trip before departing. Sadly, not too far from Dallas the bus driver fell asleep and the bus crashed into a bridge support killing four or five of the kids and injuring many more.
Does this trouble a Christian at all (not the tragedy itself, but from a theological perspective)?
Mr. Visible, what would it take to GIVE UP YOUR RELIGION, or give up on religion ALTOGETHER? I’ve seen many people change faiths, but I think there are fewer that give it up altogether. I’d like to hear from both camps. What does it feel like when you realize that your belief system is no longer believable? Do you feel stupid? Betrayed? Disillusioned?
Re the Santa/Easter Bunny issue:
We can’t disprove the existence of two-sided triangles. But, because they are logically inconsistent (triangle == 3sides, two-sided == 2sides, 3sides != 2sides) they can be said to have been disproved.