Mageth

theophilus:

But that assumes He hasn't and not that you're just unwilling to see the evidence. In fact, that's exactly the case, according to the Bible. So, unless you know that he hasn't given sufficient and compelling evidence, it seems like you're in a bind.

HRG gave an excellent reply to this! :notworthy

For clarity, I'll repeat my post to which the above response was made:

My answer to this question - which comes up quite frequently around here - is that God, if it exists, would know the answer, i.e. would know what particular evidence would convince me of its existence.

So if I don't see evidence to convince me of God's existence, I'm left with the question: is it the case that God exists but does not wish to provide the evidence that would convince me, or is it the case that God doesn't exist?

First, I know that I'm not "willingly blind." If a god exists, I certainly would like to know about it. Since I lack belief in god, I obviously do know that god has not given "sufficient and compelling evidence" to me, at least so far; otherwise, I would believe in that god. That much should be trivially obvious to anyone but the "willingly blind."

So we're still left with the dilemma I stated in my original post, and I still lack belief in god.

You said:

In fact, that's exactly the case, according to the Bible.

A side effect of god not providing "sufficient and compelling evidence" happens to be that I take what the bible says with a big dose of salt. And my point about god knowing what evidence would be necessary still stands, but I'll add this: even if I am "willingly blind", god would know what particular evidence would convince me of its existence in spite of my blindness. I.e., god could convince anyone of its existence if it wanted to. To deny this, one would have to put a limit on god's power. So we're back to god not existing or god not wanting to prove himself.

Mageth

That may be how you prove the existence of a "material" being, but since the Christian God is, by definition, an immaterial being, this test is meaningless.

For an immaterial being, god made an awful lot of appearances "on the material stage" in the OT. Adam and Eve were reported to hang about with the old guy for a bit, weren't they?

Besides, I offer the Bible as the definition.

OK. Then we can ask Adam and Eve what god looked like when he came strolling through the garden. Maybe he did have blue eyes, and was 6 feet tall?

Mageth

You see, it is not ultimately God's existence that atheists deny, it is His right to rule over them.

In the first place, I don't deny god's existence; I lack belief in god. But you are correct, I don't think non-existence has the right to rule over me.

Jamie_L

I'm very squarely in the camp of: It wouldn't take much evidence, just convincing evidence.

The Bible is rife with overt miracles and direct commincations from God. Direct divine interaction with worldy affairs. When I am asked to believe in this, my first question is: why don't I see this now?

I've yet to encounter anything in my life that isn't better explained in terms of the natural than the supernatural. If there was some regular occurance of things that just completely defied natural explanation, then I'd be more prone to believe in the supernatural - God included.

The notion that atheists decide to be atheists first seems just erroneous to me. Most atheists started as theists, and eventually found they just couldn't believe anymore. I was trying the hardest I ever had to believe when I had my "atheist revelation". I knew Christians that I genuinely admired as people. I was starting my adult life and wanted to believe. I was reading the New Testament throroughly for the first time in my life. And one day I happened across some skeptical articles on religion and it just "clicked". The light went on, in a way it hadn't yet while reading the NT. "Yes," I said to myself. "This is the way the world really works."

So that's where the evidence needs to come. The world needs to behave in a way that seems consistent with the idea of the Christian God, and it doesn't.

And like someone else said, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then he knows exactly what it would take to convince me. I can only assume that he either doesn't want me to believe, he doesn't care if I believe (which really wouldn't be the Christian God), or that he doesn't exist at all.

Jamie

xian

" I was trying the hardest I ever had to believe when I had my "atheist revelation". I knew Christians that I genuinely admired as people. I was starting my adult life and wanted to believe. I was reading the New Testament throroughly for the first time in my life. And one day I happened across some skeptical articles on religion and it just "clicked". The light went on, in a way it hadn't yet while reading the NT. "Yes," I said to myself. "This is the way the world really works." "



Fascinating. Thank you for sharing that. "atheist revelation" is an interesting concept. So indeed it was a sudden realization then? Did you not already have many questions and doubts swimming in your mind?

Kvalhion

I would prefer to start at the basics. Why jump straight to what would prove the Christian God when the most fundamental, basic "supernatural" event has not been shown?

What would convince me that a supernatural deity is even possible? Why not start with proving that there exists in reality that which is defined as supernatural. I do not mean arguments from ignorance. I mean actual evidence of a supernatural event, even the most utterly basic one.

Why is it, do you think, that the James Randi million dollar challenge has yet to be met? Is it that those with supernatural ability simply do not want one million dollars?

Evidence of the supernatural is easy. Simply predict a specific outcome where the probability of predicting said outcome without supernatural ability or interference would be infinitesimally small.

A simple example would be something like this: I write down an alphanumeric number out to 25 digits. The probability of guessing this number would be basically impossible. You, the one "proving" the supernatural, would recite back to me what the number is.

Before you go on to say "god doesn't work that way" ad neaseum, let me tell you that I don't care what your excuses are. You asked what evidence would convince me that the supernatural even exists, and I gave you an easy example. Accurately supply an answer to something that literally has no possibility of being predicted or resolved by chance.

What I conclude out of the utter lack of such examples is not that 'god doesn't exist'; its much simpler than that. That which is 'supernatural' does not exist and therefore has literally no impact upon our lives. That is the way I choose to live, and it works quite well for me.

Dargo

It's inevitable in these sorts of debates that theists will ignore or misinterpret any statements from atheists that don't fit into their world view. If they were to admit that someone sincerely once believed in god and stopped believing due to a legitimate lack of evidence, they would be admitting that something was seriously wrong with their faith. It's much simpler for them to claim we don't want to submit to god, so we willfully ignore any "evidence" which supports his existance. Never mind the fact that this "evidence" consists of nothing more than ramblings in an ancient "holy" book and dubious personal testimonies of believers. Other religions can produce the same amount of evidence and often have a similar contempt for ex-believers.

HaysooChreesto!

This is easy. I thought of this question just yesterday while driving home.

God could show up in several locations at one time in different key parts of the world at one time and speak to us all in a language we could understand.
Then, he could tell us that to prove to us that it's really him and not some mass hallucination he would cure all forms of cancer and that that disease would never again manifest itself in another human being. Then all cancers would have to disappear-forever.

That'd do it for me. Without a doubt. I'd be a Bible thumpin', livin' my life for Jebus, street preachin' man. Gladly.

However, this will never happen. But it does the refute the argument that says "there is no standard of evidence that atheists will accept for the existence of a god".

Clutch

Sorry, I must have missed the bit where you answered my question.

Once more, then: Please explain to me just what evidential standards I should adopt, according to which some body of evidence Y would support the existence of Yahweh, while excluding bodies of evidence A supporting the existence of Allah, S supporting the existence of Shiva... and so forth.

If you want to admit that you have no evidence for your theism, and if you want to continue admitting that whenever the topic comes up, and counsel all other Christians you know to admit that there is no such evidence... then this is the last you'll hear from this atheist about evidence.

But as long as I hear the claim that evidence supports the exist of a deity, then a satisfactory answer to my question is owed. Nor can I suggest what sort of evidence I should find persuasive, in the absence of such standards. If you know such standards, enlighten me! If you don't...

... admit it.

Jayhawker Soule

God has, in fact, given us Unicorn poop to fertilize Pixie crops. Now, you'd have to know that there is neither Unicorns nor Pixies to deny this. How would you know that?

Your position is inane.