What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-01-2014, 01:45 PM (This post was last modified: 28-01-2014 01:53 PM by Deltabravo.)
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 01:48 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_the_Impossible


Anything is possible, but why would that lead back to a "creating" force or cause which one would describe as "Him"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 01:51 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
Here is what Deltabravo wrote:

(28-01-2014 01:44 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Remember the words of the great theologian and philosopher Brother Doobie, "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away
What seems to be is always better than nothing".

And then there is what this pop singer called Michio Kako says, although one has to take it with grain of salt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_the_Impossible

People believe in things. It is hard to dissuade them. Better to think there is a God than nothing. It is a human failing perhaps. Kako says that anything may be possibie. But why would that lead one back to a concept of a force of some kind that caused or brought about this whole "place" that we are in which is "anthropomorphic" and is a "him" as you call it?

Anyway, yes, the universe, cosmos etc was caused by something? So what? How does that impinge on my day to day life? What has that got to do with how I behave, whether I break the speed limit on the way to work or how I talk to people? We can have morality and enjoy life without knowing how the universe was created and hanging on to a belief which stems from an age when people thought God were real and lived in the heavens which was the sky.

He messed up one of the quote tags. Smartass

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
28-01-2014, 01:52 PM
Re: RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 01:48 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_the_Impossible


Anything is possible, but why would that lead back to a "creating" force or cause which one would describe as "Him"?

Really? I mean seriously? Ok, explain how it's possible for two electrons to be in the exact same quantum state. Then tell us how electron degeneracy pressure is a false concept.

Using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 01:54 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 11:36 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  This is a curiosity question. I've been having some interesting discussions with some people in these forums and the comment that I seem to get the most often is, "there is no proof of a creator's existence."

Now, first of all, I'm not using the term "God" as I have been advised that it is loaded. All I mean, by the term creator is some sort of "first cause" for the existence of the universe who created the universe purposefully (an "agent").

Anyways, I came on this site to try to understand the atheist viewpoint better, as I just recently got engaged to an atheist. In doing so, I have had some lengthy discussions with some of the regulars on these forums. I have tried discussing some of the arguments and philosophical 'proofs' for the existence of a creator, but I keep coming up against the statement of "there is no proof/evidence for the existence of a creator". Instead of simply being annoyed by the fact that the comment seemed to ignore my arguments and philosophical 'proofs', I figured that I would ask this question of the atheists on this page:

What sort of proof or evidence would you require to believe in a creator?

The question was raised in my head when an atheist said to me, "if God wanted to settle this argument he could easily do so." So, I thought to myself, "Is that actually true?"

If a creator did care what humankind thought of him, I suppose he could just come down and tell us that he exists, but I wonder how many of us would believe him if he did. After all, any number of people claim to have heard the voice of God. Even as a believer in a creator (I'm told by people on this page I either fall into the category of a deist or an agnostic theist), I find the accounts of those people to be highly questionable. I'm just not willing to take someone else's word for it.

I have been listening to The God Delusion by Dawkins recently, and he explains away a lot of claims of hearing the voice of God through multiple means, whether it be our brain tricking us into believing that a naturally created sound (ie. the wind hitting something in a certain way) is actually the voice of God, or simple hallucinations. Even if the creator spoke directly to me, I tend to think that I might consider it to be a hallucination or trick of some kind.

Well, so what about miracles? Miracles (defined as an event that violates the laws of nature) have been used throughout history in support of one religion or the other. While they do provide sufficient proof for some people, I believe that the atheist perspective (and, for the most part, my own) is encapsulated by David Hume's Argument Against Miracles:

Hume's first and primary argument is:
1) Miracles are of necessity very rare and improbable.
2) It is much more probable that the historical testimony is false than that the miracle actually occurred.
3) Therefore a wise man will not believe the historical testimony to the miracle since no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle.

So, if that's the case, then miracles can't convince a "wise man" of anything.

Imagine someone coming up to you and claiming to be God personified. Imagine that they performed crazy miracles for you, what would your reaction be? Would it be, "Oh, that's just a magic trick I don't understand"? What if an alien creator came down claiming to have created the universe and performed incredible miraculous feats? Would the response simply be, "Well, his technology must just be more advanced than ours"? And, what if someone actually changed the laws of nature permanently in a way that allowed science to repeat experiments that proved the new law of nature? Would your response be, "Well, I guess our previous law of nature must have simply been wrong"?

So, how about science? Could science ever solve the problem?

The primary problem with this is that if a creator created the universe, then everything that we study in science is also created by that same creator (unless you believe in polytheism). The consequence of this is that we have no point of comparison. It's not like we can look at other universes and say "this one demonstrates qualities of a created universe while this one does not." We only have one universe for science to analyze, and if the only options are 1. a creator made everything, or 2. a creator created nothing, then neither option is scientifically testable because we lack a comparitor.

So, if philosophical 'proofs' and arguments are dismissed as not being scientific or providing no "evidence" of the existence of a creator, what is it that atheists are looking for that would convince them? And, I suppose, the corollary to that would be:

Is it reasonable to hold any belief (atheism included) when no "evidence" could possibly exist that would change your mind, and how is that any different than having blind faith?

Don't take that last question as being an attack, it is simply meant as a friendly challenge. I hope that you guys will be willing to either take up the challenge of my first question (what evidence it would take) or my last question. I look forward to hearing the answers and am ready and prepared to be convinced.

There is no amount of evidence that could ever be presented that will scientifically prove to an atheist God exist. All "proofs" could be written off as either....

Advanced Technology
Mind Control
Forced Mass Hallucinations

An alien race with advanced technology could possibly create a planet in a nano second using something like quantum Mechanics. In fact, it may even just be a copy of a planet but we would never know.

Since what we feel hear think etc, is all controlled by our brains, if an alien race could intercept our brain functions they could plug in any emotion or thought they wanted.

Different drugs create different effects on the mind. If an alien race injected us with a certain kind of drug its possible we could see whatever the alien race wanted us to see.

There are only 3 reasons that I can think of why an atheist would say they would believe God exist...

1. They want to sound reasonable.
2. They haven't thought their response through.
3. They're just lying.

They also love to hide behind the phrase "They do not believe God exist". They say this because they do not wish to say "I believe there is no God." To say the latter implies a kind of faith which they wish to avoid.

The truth is, if they say they do not believe God exists because of lack of evidence then they are simply lying to themselves. Evidence of an existing God wouldn't be enough. What they really want is proof. Look at all of their responses. Those responses are not rooted in mere evidence, its rooted in proof.

so, Its not that atheist do not believe God exists, They "know" he doesn't exist. They "know" this barring anything disproving the existence of God. If they were truly honest they would say I don't know one way or the other like Agnostics.

This "knowing" that they have is indeed a belief and it is indeed blind faith.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 01:56 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
If this creator revealed itself in some clear and unambiguous way that cannot just as easily be explained by science, nature, chance, or coincidence.

One of my favorites is - heal an amputee - if a limb miraculously grew back - that would be hard to refute.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 01:58 PM
Re: RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 01:54 PM)anidominus Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 11:36 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  This is a curiosity question. I've been having some interesting discussions with some people in these forums and the comment that I seem to get the most often is, "there is no proof of a creator's existence."

Now, first of all, I'm not using the term "God" as I have been advised that it is loaded. All I mean, by the term creator is some sort of "first cause" for the existence of the universe who created the universe purposefully (an "agent").

Anyways, I came on this site to try to understand the atheist viewpoint better, as I just recently got engaged to an atheist. In doing so, I have had some lengthy discussions with some of the regulars on these forums. I have tried discussing some of the arguments and philosophical 'proofs' for the existence of a creator, but I keep coming up against the statement of "there is no proof/evidence for the existence of a creator". Instead of simply being annoyed by the fact that the comment seemed to ignore my arguments and philosophical 'proofs', I figured that I would ask this question of the atheists on this page:

What sort of proof or evidence would you require to believe in a creator?

The question was raised in my head when an atheist said to me, "if God wanted to settle this argument he could easily do so." So, I thought to myself, "Is that actually true?"

If a creator did care what humankind thought of him, I suppose he could just come down and tell us that he exists, but I wonder how many of us would believe him if he did. After all, any number of people claim to have heard the voice of God. Even as a believer in a creator (I'm told by people on this page I either fall into the category of a deist or an agnostic theist), I find the accounts of those people to be highly questionable. I'm just not willing to take someone else's word for it.

I have been listening to The God Delusion by Dawkins recently, and he explains away a lot of claims of hearing the voice of God through multiple means, whether it be our brain tricking us into believing that a naturally created sound (ie. the wind hitting something in a certain way) is actually the voice of God, or simple hallucinations. Even if the creator spoke directly to me, I tend to think that I might consider it to be a hallucination or trick of some kind.

Well, so what about miracles? Miracles (defined as an event that violates the laws of nature) have been used throughout history in support of one religion or the other. While they do provide sufficient proof for some people, I believe that the atheist perspective (and, for the most part, my own) is encapsulated by David Hume's Argument Against Miracles:

Hume's first and primary argument is:
1) Miracles are of necessity very rare and improbable.
2) It is much more probable that the historical testimony is false than that the miracle actually occurred.
3) Therefore a wise man will not believe the historical testimony to the miracle since no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle.

So, if that's the case, then miracles can't convince a "wise man" of anything.

Imagine someone coming up to you and claiming to be God personified. Imagine that they performed crazy miracles for you, what would your reaction be? Would it be, "Oh, that's just a magic trick I don't understand"? What if an alien creator came down claiming to have created the universe and performed incredible miraculous feats? Would the response simply be, "Well, his technology must just be more advanced than ours"? And, what if someone actually changed the laws of nature permanently in a way that allowed science to repeat experiments that proved the new law of nature? Would your response be, "Well, I guess our previous law of nature must have simply been wrong"?

So, how about science? Could science ever solve the problem?

The primary problem with this is that if a creator created the universe, then everything that we study in science is also created by that same creator (unless you believe in polytheism). The consequence of this is that we have no point of comparison. It's not like we can look at other universes and say "this one demonstrates qualities of a created universe while this one does not." We only have one universe for science to analyze, and if the only options are 1. a creator made everything, or 2. a creator created nothing, then neither option is scientifically testable because we lack a comparitor.

So, if philosophical 'proofs' and arguments are dismissed as not being scientific or providing no "evidence" of the existence of a creator, what is it that atheists are looking for that would convince them? And, I suppose, the corollary to that would be:

Is it reasonable to hold any belief (atheism included) when no "evidence" could possibly exist that would change your mind, and how is that any different than having blind faith?

Don't take that last question as being an attack, it is simply meant as a friendly challenge. I hope that you guys will be willing to either take up the challenge of my first question (what evidence it would take) or my last question. I look forward to hearing the answers and am ready and prepared to be convinced.

There is no amount of evidence that could ever be presented that will scientifically prove to an atheist God exist. All "proofs" could be written off as either....

Advanced Technology
Mind Control
Forced Mass Hallucinations

An alien race with advanced technology could possibly create a planet in a nano second using something like quantum Mechanics. In fact, it may even just be a copy of a planet but we would never know.

Since what we feel hear think etc, is all controlled by our brains, if an alien race could intercept our brain functions they could plug in any emotion or thought they wanted.

Different drugs create different effects on the mind. If an alien race injected us with a certain kind of drug its possible we could see whatever the alien race wanted us to see.

There are only 3 reasons that I can think of why an atheist would say they would believe God exist...

1. They want to sound reasonable.
2. They haven't thought their response through.
3. They're just lying.

They also love to hide behind the phrase "They do not believe God exist". They say this because they do not wish to say "I believe there is no God." To say the latter implies a kind of faith which they wish to avoid.

The truth is, if they say they do not believe God exists because of lack of evidence then they are simply lying to themselves. Evidence of an existing God wouldn't be enough. What they really want is proof. Look at all of their responses. Those responses are not rooted in mere evidence, its rooted in proof.

so, Its not that atheist do not believe God exists, They "know" he doesn't exist. They "know" this barring anything disproving the existence of God. If they were truly honest they would say I don't know one way or the other like Agnostics.

This "knowing" that they have is indeed a belief and it is indeed blind faith.

What are you talking about? Read post #10 where I have seven reasons.

Using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 01:59 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 01:44 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Thirdly, the difference between the above and blind faith is that the latter can, in theory, be changed by evidence.

Did you mean the former, as in that which is NOT blind faith (which seems to be the latter of the two in your sentence)?

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 01:59 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 01:54 PM)anidominus Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 11:36 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  This is a curiosity question. I've been having some interesting discussions with some people in these forums and the comment that I seem to get the most often is, "there is no proof of a creator's existence."

Now, first of all, I'm not using the term "God" as I have been advised that it is loaded. All I mean, by the term creator is some sort of "first cause" for the existence of the universe who created the universe purposefully (an "agent").

Anyways, I came on this site to try to understand the atheist viewpoint better, as I just recently got engaged to an atheist. In doing so, I have had some lengthy discussions with some of the regulars on these forums. I have tried discussing some of the arguments and philosophical 'proofs' for the existence of a creator, but I keep coming up against the statement of "there is no proof/evidence for the existence of a creator". Instead of simply being annoyed by the fact that the comment seemed to ignore my arguments and philosophical 'proofs', I figured that I would ask this question of the atheists on this page:

What sort of proof or evidence would you require to believe in a creator?

The question was raised in my head when an atheist said to me, "if God wanted to settle this argument he could easily do so." So, I thought to myself, "Is that actually true?"

If a creator did care what humankind thought of him, I suppose he could just come down and tell us that he exists, but I wonder how many of us would believe him if he did. After all, any number of people claim to have heard the voice of God. Even as a believer in a creator (I'm told by people on this page I either fall into the category of a deist or an agnostic theist), I find the accounts of those people to be highly questionable. I'm just not willing to take someone else's word for it.

I have been listening to The God Delusion by Dawkins recently, and he explains away a lot of claims of hearing the voice of God through multiple means, whether it be our brain tricking us into believing that a naturally created sound (ie. the wind hitting something in a certain way) is actually the voice of God, or simple hallucinations. Even if the creator spoke directly to me, I tend to think that I might consider it to be a hallucination or trick of some kind.

Well, so what about miracles? Miracles (defined as an event that violates the laws of nature) have been used throughout history in support of one religion or the other. While they do provide sufficient proof for some people, I believe that the atheist perspective (and, for the most part, my own) is encapsulated by David Hume's Argument Against Miracles:

Hume's first and primary argument is:
1) Miracles are of necessity very rare and improbable.
2) It is much more probable that the historical testimony is false than that the miracle actually occurred.
3) Therefore a wise man will not believe the historical testimony to the miracle since no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle.

So, if that's the case, then miracles can't convince a "wise man" of anything.

Imagine someone coming up to you and claiming to be God personified. Imagine that they performed crazy miracles for you, what would your reaction be? Would it be, "Oh, that's just a magic trick I don't understand"? What if an alien creator came down claiming to have created the universe and performed incredible miraculous feats? Would the response simply be, "Well, his technology must just be more advanced than ours"? And, what if someone actually changed the laws of nature permanently in a way that allowed science to repeat experiments that proved the new law of nature? Would your response be, "Well, I guess our previous law of nature must have simply been wrong"?

So, how about science? Could science ever solve the problem?

The primary problem with this is that if a creator created the universe, then everything that we study in science is also created by that same creator (unless you believe in polytheism). The consequence of this is that we have no point of comparison. It's not like we can look at other universes and say "this one demonstrates qualities of a created universe while this one does not." We only have one universe for science to analyze, and if the only options are 1. a creator made everything, or 2. a creator created nothing, then neither option is scientifically testable because we lack a comparitor.

So, if philosophical 'proofs' and arguments are dismissed as not being scientific or providing no "evidence" of the existence of a creator, what is it that atheists are looking for that would convince them? And, I suppose, the corollary to that would be:

Is it reasonable to hold any belief (atheism included) when no "evidence" could possibly exist that would change your mind, and how is that any different than having blind faith?

Don't take that last question as being an attack, it is simply meant as a friendly challenge. I hope that you guys will be willing to either take up the challenge of my first question (what evidence it would take) or my last question. I look forward to hearing the answers and am ready and prepared to be convinced.

There is no amount of evidence that could ever be presented that will scientifically prove to an atheist God exist. All "proofs" could be written off as either....

Advanced Technology
Mind Control
Forced Mass Hallucinations

An alien race with advanced technology could possibly create a planet in a nano second using something like quantum Mechanics. In fact, it may even just be a copy of a planet but we would never know.

Since what we feel hear think etc, is all controlled by our brains, if an alien race could intercept our brain functions they could plug in any emotion or thought they wanted.

Different drugs create different effects on the mind. If an alien race injected us with a certain kind of drug its possible we could see whatever the alien race wanted us to see.

There are only 3 reasons that I can think of why an atheist would say they would believe God exist...

1. They want to sound reasonable.
2. They haven't thought their response through.
3. They're just lying.

They also love to hide behind the phrase "They do not believe God exist". They say this because they do not wish to say "I believe there is no God." To say the latter implies a kind of faith which they wish to avoid.

The truth is, if they say they do not believe God exists because of lack of evidence then they are simply lying to themselves. Evidence of an existing God wouldn't be enough. What they really want is proof. Look at all of their responses. Those responses are not rooted in mere evidence, its rooted in proof.

so, Its not that atheist do not believe God exists, They "know" he doesn't exist. They "know" this barring anything disproving the existence of God. If they were truly honest they would say I don't know one way or the other like Agnostics.

This "knowing" that they have is indeed a belief and it is indeed blind faith.

I personally do not claim to "know" that any sort of god or deity does not exist positively. I do, however, claim that I "know" that the bible god as presented by christianity does not exist, because the claims they make about said deity and the bible are demonstrably false.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like meremortal's post
28-01-2014, 02:04 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 01:23 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  My original answer to this question still seems appropriate:

The only way for me to be certain would be for such a entity to bestow me with omniscience. Otherwise there will always be doubt.

This is good. I like it. Thumbsup

*For the record, I acknowledge that Vosur first posted in the spirit of my original response in this thread. I didn't read the entire thread before responding*

"If you're going my way, I'll go with you."- Jim Croce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: