Proof Doesn't Matter

[Xenocidius]

I neither believe or disbelieve in God as a whole. I simply disbelieve in the form in which most religions interpret him. For one thing, this whole 'him' business. Why is God male? Furthermore, how can God have the genitalia required to define him as male? That's one of the reasons I'm not a Christian.

[Naesala]

Okay so essentially: Atheists do not believe in God because there is no proof. there is no proof because God is not well enough defined. Since God in nature is essentially undefinable because he (or she since we're getting caught up on articles when many people just use "he" when unsure of a gender, but thats a whole other fight) is a being that exists on faith. Therefore the original point of this thread is more or less correct. Proof doesn't matter because there is no way we could find proof that would satisfy an atheist because we cannot even create a test to prove God's existence.

Therefore the only way to try convert atheists to a religion is a discussion focused around Pascal's wager and discussions of the type where we try to prove it's in there best instance to try to believe, or some kind of major life-altering event (near-death, etc.) occurring in his or her life.

Yes?

[OldTrees]

Okay so essentially: Atheists do not believe in God because there is no proof. there is no proof because God is not well enough defined. Since God in nature is essentially undefinable because he (or she since we're getting caught up on articles when many people just use "he" when unsure of a gender, but thats a whole other fight) is a being that exists on faith. Therefore the original point of this thread is more or less correct. Proof doesn't matter because there is no way we could find proof that would satisfy an atheist because we cannot even create a test to prove God's existence.

Therefore the only way to try convert atheists to a religion is a discussion focused around Pascal's wager and discussions of the type where we try to prove it's in there best instance to try to believe, or some kind of major life-altering event (near-death, etc.) occurring in his or her life.

Yes?

No.
Atheists on average do not believe in God because they have not encountered evidence for a God.

As an Agnostic I have laid out a foundation that can be used to identify if something can qualify as evidence or whether it cannot. The foundation includes a question to you as to what evidence can you think of that would satisfy the criteria relative to what you consider God to mean.

Since selfishness should not influence the pursuit of truth, only evidence of this nature will ever be convincing. Proof not only matters, it is the only thing that matters aside from morality.

[BluePriest]

Anything that is impossible is impossible. How can any God do an impossible thing when it goes against the very definition of the word?

Impossible to man does not mean impossible to God.

It is impossible for man to breath underwater without the use of some outside device. It is not impossible for a fish to.

I neither believe or disbelieve in God as a whole. I simply disbelieve in the form in which most religions interpret him. For one thing, this whole 'him' business. Why is God male? Furthermore, how can God have the genitalia required to define him as male? That's one of the reasons I'm not a Christian.

This is honestly has nothing to do with the topic itself. The question is not about the Christian God, it is about a god in general. I have a tendency to speak about the specific Christian God so I take part of the blame for that one.

It is about a god existing in general.

@Oldtrees, How would you define a god, or even divine being.

[OldTrees]

@Oldtrees, How would you define a god, or even divine being.

A definition of God has more meaning coming from a Theist. Even an Atheist will have more conviction in their definition of God than me. I will still make an attempt.

Gods are typically given specific traits:
Preternatural/Supernatural: Both terms describe our ignorance not any true characteristic of God. Supernatural in particular uses the scientific laws of nature instead of the in fact physical laws of nature. The physical laws are defined by what can and cannot happen. That includes what a God could or could not do.
Immortal: Not so significant a trait since immortal microbes exist.
First Cause: This is not useful to our discussion unless an action was known to be predetermined from the beginning of time. However this trait cannot be tested at the same time as Immortal.
Origin of Morality: Most definitions of God either have an objective morality that acts identical to secular sources for objective morality or it has morality subjective to Gods will. Since morality is not observable this trait is also useless.
Free Will: Many religions would ascribe free will to a God.

[darkrobe]

my 200th post came and went while i was arguing here. lol

[Naesala]

Old trees, one thing I'm trying to get and I think BP may also be after is not what your or anyone else is really providing. Rather than what you are saying, give us an example of what would have to be proof. Not a standard for the test or anything else. Finish the sentence "If I saw or was given credible evidence that ________ happened, I would begin to believe in a god." As an agnostic this question may not be the best suited for you though, so if an atheist could answer it it would be preferred.

[darkrobe]

Old trees, one thing I'm trying to get and I think BP may also be after is not what your or anyone else is really providing. Rather than what you are saying, give us an example of what would have to be proof. Not a standard for the test or anything else. Finish the sentence "If I saw or was given credible evidence that ________ happened, I would begin to believe in a god." As an agnostic this question may not be the best suited for you though, so if an atheist could answer it it would be preferred.

Im not sure who in this thread is atheist, so while we are waiting it might be helpful for you to finish the statement "If I saw or was given credible evidence that _______ happened (or did not happen, whichever case), I would begin to believe god did not exist."

That might help point people in the right direction.

[CCCombobreaker]

If someone described some event X which violates any number of natural laws, and said "if that event X occurs at exactly time T", and it X occurred at T, that individual could just as rationally claim there is some other explanation they had not previously considered that explains X than admit that God performed X.

God cannot be proved to those who would not accept Him.  The Bible says this both explicitly ("they will have eyes but not see, ears but not hear... [reference coming]") and implicitly through the example of the pharasees and Jesus.  Those who best knew the law and prophecies still did not accept his divinity.

Those who do not know God and refuse to give him a chance will only ever believe if they encounter Him in a real way through a truly divine encounter or through the divine nature of  a seemingly natural encounter.  This second case is often one person acting on God's leading to bless the other person in some way.

Confirmation bias is a very powerful cognitive filter, and so when you have strong feelings about things you WILL ignore obvious evidence against that belief.  This affects both a theists view of atheistic evidence and arguments and an athiests view of theist evidence and arguments.

Given all that, I will close with a simple challenge: if you do not think prayer works, find someone who does and let them pray with you for something that will benefit someone else.  Then you will have personal evidence when it happens and it is on you to accept or deny it.

[russianspy1234]

If someone described some event X which violates any number of natural laws, and said "if that event X occurs at exactly time T", and it X occurred at T, that individual could just as rationally claim there is some other explanation they had not previously considered that explains X than admit that God performed X.

God cannot be proved to those who would not accept Him.  The Bible says this both explicitly ("they will have eyes but not see, ears but not hear... [reference coming]") and implicitly through the example of the pharasees and Jesus.  Those who best knew the law and prophecies still did not accept his divinity.

Those who do not know God and refuse to give him a chance will only ever believe if they encounter Him in a real way through a truly divine encounter or through the divine nature of  a seemingly natural encounter.  This second case is often one person acting on God's leading to bless the other person in some way.

Confirmation bias is a very powerful cognitive filter, and so when you have strong feelings about things you WILL ignore obvious evidence against that belief.  This affects both a theists view of atheistic evidence and arguments and an athiests view of theist evidence and arguments.

Given all that, I will close with a simple challenge: if you do not think prayer works, find someone who does and let them pray with you for something that will benefit someone else.  Then you will have personal evidence when it happens and it is on you to accept or deny it.

ive had, on two separate occasions, had a christian stop me randomly on campus and ask to pray over my leg to heal it.  nothing happened.  did that prove to them that GOD does not exist?  no.  you cannot cherry pick examples of random things happening and say it happened because someone prayed for it, when prayer fails 10000 times as often as it succeeds.

[OldTrees]

Old trees, one thing I'm trying to get and I think BP may also be after is not what your or anyone else is really providing. Rather than what you are saying, give us an example of what would have to be proof. Not a standard for the test or anything else. Finish the sentence "If I saw or was given credible evidence that ________ happened, I would begin to believe in a god." As an agnostic this question may not be the best suited for you though, so if an atheist could answer it it would be preferred.

I understand what you want (a concrete example that would work as evidence). However due to my ignorance and my awareness of my ignorance, the closest I can give is an abstract criteria that would confirm or deny if the example would work as evidence.

The first thing that is needed is a list of sufficient conditions for Divinity/Godhood/Deity status. (Merely necessary conditions are insufficient for the test)
Next examine each condition for any traits left on actions done by beings with the sufficient condition. If any of those traits are sufficient conditions of a sufficient condition of the actor being a God then you have found a viable test.

The major problem is I do not know if there exist sufficient conditions of godhood much less traits that are sufficient conditions of an action only being done by beings with a sufficient condition for being a god.

So the answer is:
If I saw or was given credible evidence that an action occurred with a trait that was a sufficient condition for the actor having a sufficient condition for being a god, I would begin have a rational belief in a god.

A test that would cause me to believe god does not exist would be much more stringent than that.

Note: This is my reason talking. Obviously we are all burdened with irrational beliefs. My reason looks down on those beliefs of mine for good reason and as such they are mostly irrelevant.

[Naesala]

Alright, that works for me. Though I'd still like an atheist response, if possible.