Does anyone have a strong argument against God?

[OldTrees]

What sufficient conditions would be demonstrable? Are they truly sufficient conditions?

I submit for disproving the claim that skepticism is powerful enough in the modern atheist that  no sufficient conditions for the existence of a deity are demonstrable.

I submit that god talk is nothing but talk, with no substance behind it. Your faith is insufficient for you to move into the realm of demonstrative action. Start shitting gold bricks on TV or bring Pat Tillman back from the dead. Stop worrying about the "conclusive" part. Miracles will give me pause that my world view is insufficient. You can dot the i's and cross the t's later. Get the ball rolling by doing something that cannot be explained by natural science. If you have enough faith, that is.
[/quote]
I am an Agnostic. I am worried about both sides' biases.

I am also a student of science and know that Science can explain all falsifiable knowledge. Our current theories may be incorrect (or correct). If something repeatable occurs that disagrees with your theory of how the world works then science discards the old and makes a new theory. I would be extremely worried if a miracle like spontaneous transmutation of water into wine convinced anyone of anything more than water can spontaneously turn into wine.
Is your disbelief still attached to a rational discussion or have you become skeptical enough that nothing could exist that would change your mind regardless if a god existed or not? If not please take my challenge and present a demonstrable sufficient condition of the existence of a god.

@Neopergoss
I have assumed that all the Atheists in this thread concede that a god is possible. I am wondering if they are still able to be convinced that a god exists if a god exists. Your example of the auras is close to what I am looking for but for god not auras. A sufficient condition for the ability to track individuals on the other sides of walls would be someone able to describe the number and location of people on the other side of a wall. However note that this is not a sufficient condition for the existence of auras.

[Belthus]

I have presented my criteria. They are sufficiently flexible to deal with multiple conceptions of god. Someone who wants to proceed to the next step would have to give me his/her definition of god, and then we could construct specific tests of godly powers and properties. I assume that under most conceptions, such powers and properties would include immortality, invulnerability, creation ex nihilo, transmutation, unaided destruction on a huge scale, resurrection, and omniscience. However, I am open to other conceptions, as long as they aren't trivial or mundane. Then a being would have to present itself to demonstrate the specified powers and properties. Is anyone ready to take up the challenge? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

[Astrocyte]

(Ninja'd by Belthus, but I'm gonna post this anyway 'cause I worked on it for a while and I like it. )

I think one reason it's hard to answer the question about necessary and sufficient evidence is that no one -- theist or atheist -- agrees on what is a necessary and sufficient condition for Godhood. This isn't necessarily skepticism. How does anyone explain what God is or what separates God from humans?

Modern Western religion generally depends on the idea of a single, supernaturally powerful force that acts with intention. (Older Western religions might've had more than one such force.) To define this, we generally focus on these acts -- things God does that humans and nature can't do.

Taking another perspective of spiritual belief... some traditions of Hindu thought put forth the idea of Brahman -- the universal spirit that pervades all existence and transcends human concepts of space, time, and causation. It is not "God" in the aforementioned sense (believers in Brahman generally see our idea of "God" or "Gods" as an anthropomorphized characterization); however, nothing would exist without it. I can hardly start to think of how you would prove Brahman exists. It is by definition beyond human comprehension, so you can't simply go looking for it. You can't ask it if it's there, because it wouldn't respond. Fully understanding the true nature of Brahman instantly leads to freedom from material existence (including life and death), so I suppose Brahman could be proven if we witnessed someone who'd achieved this -- but we'd have no way of knowing what this looks like, since Brahman is beyond human comprehension.

I guess my point is that telling atheists that no evidence will ever be enough for them isn't much different from telling theists that they're too easy to convince.
But I could be limiting myself in scope. Do we need a definition of God before we can go looking for God? Alternately, if you claim to have found God or to know God, but you cannot define what God is, are you wrong?

[Neopergoss]

@Neopergoss
I have assumed that all the Atheists in this thread concede that a god is possible. I am wondering if they are still able to be convinced that a god exists if a god exists. Your example of the auras is close to what I am looking for but for god not auras. A sufficient condition for the ability to track individuals on the other sides of walls would be someone able to describe the number and location of people on the other side of a wall. However note that this is not a sufficient condition for the existence of auras.

Of course they are. I think that Belthus, as usual, put it quite well when he said that we would have to be able to observe a deity directly to learn about its existence. A person going around performing true miracles would certainly prove that a power exists outside of what we understand, which is a start.

I'm not saying you could prove God beyond a shadow of a doubt, but definitely you can make God's existence believable quite easily. The burden of proof for personal belief for me would be much lower than the burden of proof for proving God in a way that I would expect others to take seriously. My keyboard turning into cheese right now would probably be enough for me, in fact. Not because the event is so bizarre, but because I was just typing about it in a discussion about God's existence. Not holding my breath 

[OldTrees]

I have presented my criteria. They are sufficiently flexible to deal with multiple conceptions of god. Someone who wants to proceed to the next step would have to give me his/her definition of god, and then we could construct specific tests of godly powers and properties. I assume that under most conceptions, such powers and properties would include immortality, invulnerability, creation ex nihilo, transmutation, unaided destruction on a huge scale, resurrection, and omniscience. However, I am open to other conceptions, as long as they aren't trivial or mundane. Then a being would have to present itself to demonstrate the specified powers and properties. Is anyone ready to take up the challenge? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

And I have demonstrated that your 2 criteria would not be sufficient. It could mistake a person with future technology for a God.
You use the word God so you have a definition of what would be sufficient and necessary conditions of something being a God. Lets us your definition since it is the most applicable to the topic of your skepticism. Are any of the sufficient conditions demonstrable if such a God existed?
So far you listed
Immortality, Invulnerability, Creation ex nihilo, Transmutation, unaided destruction on a huge scale, resurrection and omniscience.
Are any of these Sufficient conditions of Godhood using your definition? Are any of those demonstrable if such a being existed?

@Astrocyte
Indeed people disagree about what defines a god. That I why I am asking each atheist or fellow agnostic to use their definition of god.
I actually do criticize Theists that do not look for falsifiable necessary conditions of their definitions of god.
Atheists need to identify demonstrable sufficient conditions, Theists need to identify falsifiable necessary conditions and Agnostic need to try to do both.

@Neopergoss
I think that the test of answered prayers which you did would not be sufficient evidence for many. Most would rationally attribute spontaneous keyboard to cheese correlated with a challenge to be possible evidence for a link between making a such a challenge and it being fulfilled. I hope few would make the unsupported leap to assume that a God did it. For all you would have known it could have been a mortal on this thread that caused that.

[Neopergoss]

@Neopergoss
I think that the test of answered prayers which you did would not be sufficient evidence for many. Most would rationally attribute spontaneous keyboard to cheese correlated with a challenge to be possible evidence for a link between making a such a challenge and it being fulfilled. I hope few would make the unsupported leap to assume that a God did it. For all you would have known it could have been a mortal on this thread that caused that.

No mortal I know of can turn keyboards into cheese. Interesting theory, though, OldTrees. Moreover, the idea was originally for it to happen before I had a chance to mention the cheese on here. Since I've mentioned the cheese several times, it would be less impressive, but I'd probably still believe if it did.

[Belthus]

And I have demonstrated that your 2 criteria would not be sufficient. It could mistake a person with future technology for a God.

That is an indictment of the sacred stories as well. Not my problem. It's a problem embedded in religions. All I am saying is that if we define a word, and we have a concrete being before us, we can see whether there is a match. Given the lack of agreement among religious believers, even within a religion, someone somewhere will niggle. But I personally could say, yes or no, this being does/doesn't fit this word.

You use the word God so you have a definition of what would be sufficient and necessary conditions of something being a God.

No. I use it in a generic way that refers to beliefs of people of many different faiths, which contradict each other. In order to construct a test, we would have to have a specific definition.

Lets us your definition since it is the most applicable to the topic of your skepticism. Are any of the sufficient conditions demonstrable if such a God existed?
So far you listed
Immortality, Invulnerability, Creation ex nihilo, Transmutation, unaided destruction on a huge scale, resurrection and omniscience.
Are any of these Sufficient conditions of Godhood using your definition? Are any of those demonstrable if such a being existed?

I haven't provided a definition. I listed features that various sacred stories have mentioned. However, any one of those features might be missing or even contradicted in any particular religious tradition.

This methodology does not validate or invalidate all conceptions of gods in one fell swoop. It takes one conception at a time and one candidate at a time and sees whether there is a fit.

To answer your last question, yes, I do think that we can test for those properties/powers. Science comes to tentative conclusions, so someone might think of an improved test somewhere down the line. But we could come up with tests that would rule out all but the most impressive pretenders. That is why religions got out of the miracle game a long time ago. The pretenders can't hack it any more.

[OldTrees]

Since you will not give your definition of the category titled gods then I will use Wikipedia's and hope it is sufficient.
"A deity is a recognised preternatural or supernatural immortal being." (yes a generic definition of the category is needed. The definition of Allah would be useless.)
Based on this definition what would be a sufficient condition of being a deity that could be demonstrated if such a deity existed (provided the deity decided to participate)?

You also seem to miss the point of why I asked this question. This question was in part a response to BloodShadow's comment about God not converting him and in part a desire to see if atheist is falsifiable or not.

[Belthus]

Since you will not give your definition of the category titled gods then I will use Wikipedia's and hope it is sufficient.
"A deity is a recognised preternatural or supernatural immortal being." (yes a generic definition of the category is needed. The definition of Allah would be useless.)

Why is a generic definition of god necessary? People don't believe in generic gods. There are specific religions with specific definitions. If you want to use the category definition as a minimum to screen out the absurd and trivial, fine. Immortality is something I can test. I am not sure what to do with "supernatural" - that seems too vague.

Based on this definition what would be a sufficient condition of being a deity that could be demonstrated if such a deity existed (provided the deity decided to participate)?

That description doesn't fit anyone's deity. It is a generalization of many specific descriptions. It doesn't give me much to work with, though immortality is easy enough to test.

You also seem to miss the point of why I asked this question. This question was in part a response to BloodShadow's comment about God not converting him and in part a desire to see if atheist is falsifiable or not.

Atheism is the null hypothesis. It is not a claim. It is the default. If some being shows up, performs some miracles along the lines of some sacred text, these miracles are examined by skeptics for tricks and turn out clean, etc., then I would be willing to reject the null hypothesis and say that this being fits the description of a god in such-and-such tradition. Science is not a one-off process, so that tentative conclusion would be retested again and again by independent minds, just as, say, the principles of evolution have been tested repeatedly since Darwin.

[OldTrees]

Why is a generic definition necessary?
Short answer: Because I am asking about sufficient conditions of godhood not sufficient conditions of Allahood.
Long answer: Because all gods/deities are classified as Gods because they share the traits of the generic category god. This is similar to how Rectangles and Kites are examples of Quadrilaterals. Using the definition of a rectangle would give sufficient conditions of being a quadrilateral but it would also exclude other sufficient conditions of Quadrilateralness from consideration. That is why a definition of the category 'gods' is useful while a definition of Allah isn't.
However if you do not like the definition I provided you could always provide your definition of the category gods.
How would you test Immortality such that it would only return true if it were true?

Atheism is not a claim. That does not mean that identifying if it is falsifiable is not worthwhile.
"Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown to be false by a particular observation ..."
I am merely interested if such a logical possibility exists for Atheism or if it would be strictly irrational for them to change their mind.

I am also repeatably surprised at your willingness to hypothetically believe a religion based on its repeated correlation with a hypothetical unexplained phenomenon despite the large risk of a false/misattributed positive.

PS: Most nulls in science are falsifiable. That is what permits scientists to use nulls as a means to ensure rigor.

[Belthus]

Why is a generic definition necessary?
Short answer: Because I am asking about sufficient conditions of godhood not sufficient conditions of Allahood.

Then your inquiry lies in a domain such as comparative religion or sociology of religion or anthropology. The concepts of god vary a great deal. It's a very fuzzy definition. As someone mentioned above, the Eastern conceptions of god are radically different from the anthropomorphic Old Man with a Beard Who Shoots Lightning.

I am also repeatably surprised at your willingness to hypothetically believe a religion based on its repeated correlation with a hypothetical unexplained phenomenon despite the large risk of a false/misattributed positive.

Large risk? Like what? I will have to look back at your posts, but I believe that the only possibility you mentioned was some science fantasy being with advanced technology. That's hardly unique to the issue of testing gods. Maybe some alien is shooting a pink laser beam into your brain, and your whole life as you know it is a dream. Our ability to investigate the world is only as good as our tools, which are and always will be imperfect. Nevertheless, we do the best we can.

[Neopergoss]

I am also repeatably surprised at your willingness to hypothetically believe a religion based on its repeated correlation with a hypothetical unexplained phenomenon despite the large risk of a false/misattributed positive.

Large risk? Like what? I will have to look back at your posts, but I believe that the only possibility you mentioned was some science fantasy being with advanced technology. That's hardly unique to the issue of testing gods. Maybe some alien is shooting a pink laser beam into your brain, and your whole life as you know it is a dream. Our ability to investigate the world is only as good as our tools, which are and always will be imperfect. Nevertheless, we do the best we can.

Depending on your definition, such aliens could be considered gods.