Why do atheists ask for evidence for God?

Pre-text note: I'm going to ignore your childish ad-hominems for the most part. So don't be "surprised" that I've not wasted my typing rebuking them, as there's nothing to rebuke.

Quoted below, and clarified:

That is avoiding my above point. My above point, is that the waiting time is futile, since god already knows who will live, who will go to hell, etc. This defies the entire purpose of even kicking "Adam and Eve" out of heaven.

In fact, using omnipotence/omniscience, he couldn't easily prevented everything. No death, no pain, no harm, no nothing. Creation is perfectly fine.

Morality wise, even by the bible, to watch as someone suffers while you have the capability to help...is kinda hell worthy.

Omniscience means you know everything. He knows before we make them. This is the imprint of Fate, therefore automated beings.

Okay. So let me throw up this hypothetical situation: If you were going to be shot, and I could save you, it would be a contradiction of free will if I did.

Therefore, I should let you die. Is that moral? Is that a kind or loving God? And is that a contradiction of free will? Especially when you already know what's going to take place.

Another point I'd like to make, is that thousands of cultures, and billions of people, never knew of a God. Their beliefs sometimes didn't even center around a God, as much as it did other things (like the earth itself).

So are these people, who've never heard of God, going to hell?

On the other side of the coin, how did people get from Europe, the original "Holy Lands", all the way to the other side of the globe? The continents were already drifted apart, as continental drift can't happen in under 11,000 years (not to that significance anyway).

So do explain how these people got to the other side of the globe?

This isn't even my point. You claimed those people would be accurate, I state that it's a fallacy to assume they're accurate because of their position.

Similarly, I could point out that the majority of people in those fields don't believe in god, but that would be an Appeal to numbers fallacy.

So I hope you know why this is a bad road to go down.

I've had debates with you before. Each time I've given you mountains of links and evidence (all of which you've ignored). You have also read numerous other debates I've been in (I do believe you were in that debate regarding the Authenticity of Jesus Christ).

You have absolutely no excuse for ignoring that evidence.

So tell me, whose fault is it you've not received such goods? Certainly isn't the large masses of people that have given you links before.

Circular logic. You're using something someone supposedly wrote to prove his existence.

I request that you prove that God is not an idea, and that his existence is not dependent on those who worship him.
Examples: The God(s) of every civilization that no longer exists today. Those God(s) depend upon people to worship them, for once they're no longer believed in/known to exist, what happens?

They die, just like every other idea that's forgotten. You have to prove, without using scripture, that God isn't an idea.

If you do base it upon the scriptures, then you've already proven yourself wrong. For you cannot prove that the scriptures were not written by the ideas of man (sans what the scriptures say, but that's a circular fallacy).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

SnakeLord,

It can be.

What advise did the snake give her?

What does good or evil have to do with being disobedient to God, and her husband?

Have you heard the expression "once bitten twice shy"?

They did die.

huh!!

Eyes can become "open" when you first snort cocaine, as well.
So they tell me. :bugeye:

How do you know, knowing "good and evil" is beneficial as opposed to knowing only good?

It depends how you look at it snakelord, and as such I see no real debate here, only personal opinions. On top of that it doesn't really have anything to do with the topic of the thread.

She reasoned with the snake, and came to a decision. She knew what she was doing. She may not have had physical experience of the material world, but she knew who and what God was, and she knew she was the wife of Adam, and the role for which she was created. Therefore she must have had a spiritual sence of kinship.

We're human beings, snake lord, not dogs. There is a world of difference.

They had no knowledge of "good and evil", not "good or evil".

Jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jeremyhfht,

I take it your referring to the ; "You act like an arrogant fool. I sincerely hope this is not the extent of your everyday character."
That wasn't an attack, it was a factual observation, based on a particular sstatement you made, not on your character.

Actually you said " If god knows everything, he then knows who will live, die, how they will, etc. My response was correct.
God knows who will go to hell, not because they were born to go to hell, but because he is witness to every action and thought to the living entity, throughout all time. Your understanding is based on a poor fund of scriptoral knowledge.l

Did you mean "...he could have easily prevented..."?

The help is there, but do we accept it?
And what is suffering, from God's point of view?
A lifetime to us may be less than what we would call a fleeting moment, to God. Maybe, suffering is being without God, but due to our ignorance we think this life is all there is. If that is the case, then it is safe to say, we induce our own suffering.

To make something that acts exactly as you want it to, and then claim that know everything about them, is not knowledge, outside your creation. God knows what you are going to do, because he knows your thoughts and actions, because he is with you. That is why Jesus said "love the lord thy God with all your heart". Otherwise that statement would have no meaning.

Why would you save me?
Through some sense of moral duty?
For your own gratification?
Maybe I deserverd to be shot?
Maybe "I", the soul, would spiritualy benefit from my body being shot, the thing is, God knows exactly what is to be done, and how it will impact in the future. You only know what you know in this life, and that's not alot is it.

How many living entities do we kill everyday, knowingly and unknowingly?
Is killing inocent animals, for the pleasure of our selfish consumption, moral? Or is morality a luxory only afforded to SOME human beings and animals?

Before we go into this, I would like you to explain why you think people go to hell, because they have never heard of God.

No idea.
Not even sure what you're talking about.

No. I claimed these people would state the opposite of what you claimed.
Read carefully.

Nope. I find those debates pointless. I have no reason to doubt that Jesus existed.

If you evidence is; you don't believe Jesus existed, or the scriptures were written by ill-educated nit-wits, passing the time away until some bright spark invented science, etc, etc. Then it deserves to be ignored, with bells on.

I'm not try to prove his existence. The thread is entitled "why do atheists ask for evidence of God". You're trying to prove his non-existence. I already believe he exists, and I accept there is no proof of evidence that would satisfy atheists, especially those, like you, who are hell-bent (pun not intended) on proving his non-existence.

Those aren't even legitimate requests.
Why don't you just say, "I don't believe God exists" and leave it at that.

I'm not talking about gods, If worshiping gods is a religion, then I am an atheist with regards to that religion. I am talking about God, "the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't have to prove anything. I'm ok with my belief, and I have no intention to try and convince you are any atheist to agree with me.

There is a conspiracy theory which states that Shakespeare wasn't the acual author of his plays and sonets. If this is true, or not, do the quality of the plays and sonets diminish. I don't think so. It is the quality of the scripture which convince me of the truth, not who the authors were.

Jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Uhh, that eating the fruit would open her eyes and give her knowledge of good and evil. Have you just woken up?

Everything.

Yeah, it's relevance in this specific discussion?

Certainly. They were going to anyway - but as explained, the statement made by the snake in context meant then and there.

Gen 3:22 '..he must not be allowed to reach out his hand and pick from the tree of life too, and eat and live forever!'

If Adam was an eternal being, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference whether he ate that fruit or not. god, in all his wisdom, wouldn't have made such an idiotic statement.

Explained above.

Fascinating but irrelevant. I have shown beyond any doubt that the snake did not deceive them. It's no surprise I guess that a theist would waffle on about cocaine instead.

An interesting question, but irrelevant. Whether knowing good and evil is ultimately beneficial or not is of no consequence to the actual discussion here. The snake told them that upon eating the fruit they would have knowledge of good and evil. His statement was factual. Now, I would contend that having knowledge of good and evil is beneficial to not having that knowledge because it separates man from animals. I suppose whether you see that as good or not is subjective. Without the knowledge of evil, you would be in the same position that you would regard Adam and Eve as being in.. ergo an evil being, (satan), tempting them to do something evil. With no knowledge of evil you wouldn't know satan was evil or that your actions were evil and thus you would be more prone to commit them.

Do you have some scientific evidence for the fruit of knowledge of good and evil? What do you mean only opinions?

However, the difference between us is that I have at least used that book, that source of the discussion to support my case. You on the other hand decided to waffle on about cocaine instead.

What was it you were saying about personal opinions and how bad they are? Btw, is there anything in Genesis that supports your claim?

 

SnakeLord,

In what way did he advise her.

eloborate.

God said if they ate of the tree, they would surely die, meaning, if they didn't, they wouldn't.

The king james version states.."...and live for ever". "Ever" has different meanings depending of the context.

Man is separate from animals, we don't need knowledge of evil to understand that.

Eve was tempted, she wasn't ignorant. She chose to satisfy her lustful desire.
We are still in that position today.

It doesn't matter whether we know evil or not. In the case of Eve she succumbed to her desire.

Are you suggesting she didn't know who God was, and she didn't understand what being a wife meant?

Jan.

 

If god is not a physical being, then god must have physical effects. If god has no physical effects in this universe, then the universe was not created by god. Because the universe is a physical place. A physical place cannot exist without physical 'clues' to its creation. And the creation of a physical place can only occur with physical elements. There are only two types of existence, physical (matter/energy) and relative. The latter are the inherent relationships between all things--i.e. the constants that maintain the natural forces that rule this universe.

Perhaps there is something immaterial and wholly invisible to observation (science is simply detailed observation), but it would require being outside of our universe and having no effect whatsoever with our universe (or its creation/destruction). This seems very unlikely.

You're starting to learn moral relativism. Morality is based on cause and effect, as you state here.

 

Very well, then by using the same logic I'll say this:

You're egotistical, arrogant, and blinded by your faith. You refuse to adhere to factual evidence, and will gladly supplement scientific and logical facts in order to keep what you want to believe.

You'll also refuse any evidence I provide you on the premise that it's "not evidence" or "it's a lie". Simply because you'd much prefer to use the bible to prove itself. Therefore, this discussion is meaningless because you'll never even consider what I say.

The above can be said to be a "factual observation" based on your particular statements. I hope the sarcasm and obvious point conveyed isn't lost to you. Similarly, I'd like to question how your "factual observation" holds any weight to my statement. Said statement was:

And it holds true. Many people that go to college, or boast a good education, simply don't hold much true intelligence. Similarly, there's also the fact that the majority agree's with me. If you want to play the numbers game, prepare to lose.

Otherwise, if you want to walk down Logic Lane, examining the arguments of those few that disagree (I've read a few books from some of them) is more important. These arguments, as I've found, are highly lacking. So I don't see how that's arrogant of me at all.

Unlike my factual observations, yours appear to have no premise.
--------------------------------

Now if we can IGNORE that, I'd like to continue down a less moronic route.

Nay, it was not. I said:

Therefore, it's fate. As he knows everything, and knows it all the time. Before you're born, and before humans existed. Your response does not respond to my statement in any way.

Interestingly enough, this leads to a paradox. Does he know all of his actions, and is therefore bound by a fate he cannot escape? That's something to ponder, you need not reply to it.

He knows they will go to hell before they're born. Therefore, they're born into hell. That's fate.

Baseless opinion. Care to throw more of them out?

yes -.-....it's a typo.

Begging the argument. He has the power to have stopped it all before it began.

Therefore, the weight is on his shoulders. So is the sin. I could just as easily say "my God the Flying Spaghetti Monster can help you!".

 

RoyLennigan,

Or he can affect matter.
Matter is never described as being created, and to add to that, matter can neither be created not destroyed. It is therefore eternal.

For me, the clues lie in the complex arrangement of matter, not matter itself.

What about consciousness, aka spiritual energy by some quaters?
Consciousness has the ability to arrange matter in a way that contradicts the natural order of things.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you of the opinion that God created matter?
If yes, why?

Jan.

 

But matter can be obliterated into energy. And if god affects matter, then he is the latter type of existence, which is inherent relationship among physical aspects--such as universal constants and natural forces.

Yes, this "complex arrangement" is a structure dependant (or composed of) the inherent forces maintaining the universe as we know it.

Again, since consciousness is not a physical thing, then it is a relative thing. Its existence is dependant upon physical things that give it value. Much like a graph depending on individual points in order for it to create anything of meaning.

No. I would rather not have an opinion on the matter, but if I were pressed I would say that energy (not matter, since matter is simply a structure of energy) has existed eternally and will continue to do so.

 

Yes, I often find myself doubting that the idea that an invisible guy lives in the sky and runs the universe, is asinine and deluded.

We ask for evidence for a God because we are asked to 'respect' people's belief that there is one, and the rectitude of those beliefs.

 

And the clues are...? I fear this is nothing more than your incredulity at the alternative.

There is no evidence to suggest that consciousness is anything BUT natural - i.e. it obeys the same laws and rules as the rest of the universe.
It might be a level of complexity higher than most other things, but so what?

If you have evidence to suggest otherwise...?

 

Sarkus,

I am waiting a response from my last post to you.
Thanks.



RoyLennigan,

obliterate
- destroy utterly: to destroy something so that nothing remains
- erase or obscure: to erase or obscure something completely, leaving no trace

Obliteration requires force, which requires energy, which requires a source of energy. What is the source of energy?

Forces require energy, again, what is the source of this energy?

What does that mean exactly?

So consciousness is born out of matter, in your opinion?

Jan.

Jeremyhfht,

What you regard as facts, has yet to be proven, or contextually explained.

I don't see the need to erect a strawman god, when there is a perfectly adequate description of God, in any of the scriptures, the most comprehensive and detailed being vedic literature.
And please don't waste my time with the diversion of "which God".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your perception is so because of your lack of understanding of God.

I have already considered what you say. What you say, is all that can be said. The trouble is, your atheism has already set the ground rules (in your mind) as to whether God exists or not, and what you don't understand you make up. I will not accept such an infantile argument, when, as I said before, there is a perfectly good premise to work from, in the form of scripture. The argument therefore becomes meaningless, because of your dictates.

The idea that your right, and others in that field are wrong, simply because they do not agree with your ideas. And the fact that you argue from a premise which is contextually out of sync with the subject matter, thinking you have a point.

I agree.
It is the same for theist and non-theist.

The fact that you think your arguments are correct, when quite clearly they are highly lacking, as explained above?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Jan.

 

Atheists look to prove things through logic and reason rather than heartfelt belief. While it s not necesarily a bad thing it makes it a bit difficult for those who have this soulful or heartfelt connection. they ask for evidence to show that proof is impossible to obain, thus the idea is to make the theist feel silly because their faith is being based on nothing more than a feeling.

Personally, I am a christian. I have a connection with god on a soulful level. I can still see the ways that an athesit views things. Trouble is, most can't see mine. I really can't blame them though because i can't imagine how hard it must be to beleive in something that seems so radical and illogical to them.

 

Perhaps not the best word choice, but I think you understood it nonetheless. The forces are inherent in the universe. Energy is also inherent in the universe, as it has always been. If something cannot come from nothing, then all energy has existed eternally. There is no source of energy because of this. If you are asking for the source of the motivating force, then it is the inherent structure of the universe--that which creates the force.

The energy has always been here, like I said. It is there for the taking. The motivation you are searching for is the structure of the universe--a structure which formed by fundamental relationships between all things (such as pi being the motivation for the structure of a circle). If it makes you feel any better, we really don't have much of an idea where or how these constants came to be. Some say that evidence shows they are slowly changing, though (despite their label as 'constants').

Either something is physical, i.e. it is made of energy (such as matter), or it is relative. If it is relative, then it is a concept that relates to an actual thing, though this thing is not tangible, though its effects are. Something that is relative is an inherent relationship between physical things. Consciousness is a relative thing because it is based upon the physical state of other things and it has physical effects, but it itself is not physical.

In a sense, yes. But it is also dependant upon every other relationship in the universe, just as they are dependant upon it (in however small or large way). There is a certain structure of any one thing that causes a certain reaction in any other thing. We can explain that one leads inevitably to another because of our experience with them, but we can't explain why. It just is that way. It is this way because of the fundamental relationships between all things. We may be able to break the relationship down through action and reaction, but inevitably we end up with chaos and indeterminancy.

 

Yes they do - and without evidence that choice is irrational.

The scientific method can probably be applied to anything - matter or non-matter. It just so happens that nothing non-material has ever been evidenced that enables use by the scientific method.

If the evidence is nature, then your claim that this is evidence of God fails Occam's Razor.
However, I would really like to know what exactly in nature leads you to the conclusion, or reason, that there is a God?

I merely choose not to be irrational.

You are the one making the claim - YOU provide evidence that life ONLY comes from life.

The assumption is not proven.

We know that - you just continue to misinterpret the explanations atheists give for their lack of belief - interpreting their lack of belief as belief in non-existence.
If you continue to do that then further discussion on this matter is pointless.

I have no reason to believe that god exists, due to lack of evidence.
I do not go so far as to say that I believe that god does NOT exist.

Your God of the Gaps doesn't justify your belief in God - but the gaps give rise to your belief in God.

Anyone who claims that others can not understand is acting in an elitist manner - putting themselves on a pedestal of no-one else's making.

In the aspect of "lack of evidence" they are identical. If you wish to stay ignorant on this and amuse yourself with cheap shots, so be it.

The non-material.

To start with, the same way that you claim to?

Did science set itself up to deal only with matter - or is the fact that it only deals with matter because there is NO EVIDENCE FOR THE NON-MATERIAL?

Now you're beginning to understand.

Please point to where the scientific method states that it is only concerned with the material?

So God is nothing but a sense?

Ludicrous - you have all the scientific evidence you could possibly want. Are you telling me that you have never seen anyone paint before? Or that you are unaware, through direct observations of the physical, that people are able to paint?

It is merely a choice of whether to be rational or irrational in the face of zero evidence. And that choice is not necessarily in the conclusion but in the interpretation of the so-called "evidence".

You have exercised your right to be irrational.

 

I am Athiest and have NEVER asked for evidence of that which does not exist. ..................................

 

I've studied Christianity for years, but then I stopped, because I came to this conclusion :

Religion isn't a sole belief as it is a style of living, most religions promote charity, trust, good mannerisms, hope, etc. Anybody who lives this way is respected, however, anybody preaching "God will smite thee for your sins" is completely out-of-line, because everyone will sin in their life, no choice.

For those who live religiously, they see it as a security blanket, they find by doing good deeds, charity, and other things of the sort they are pleasing an astral being and for this, they believe when they die, they will have eternal bliss in "heaven" or whatever you will call it. Basically it's just hope to keep living, I think.

Anyone who really believes this stuff really needs to do some research. There's more fact than faith, when it comes to Christianity.

 

Sarkus, it is an accepted and obvious fact that the scientific method only deals with the material. For that reason scientists, referred to a scientific materialists, have made the leap that only material exists. This is an assumption. The lack of evidence for the immaterial can mean either that
1) scientific materialists are right and that only material exists, or;
2) the scientific method deosn't not apply to investigation of the immaterial
--------------------------------------------
Let's take a real-life example of a phenomenon we know exists but can't provide evidence for - consciousness. You and I both know this phenomenon exists because we have direct experience of it. But, here is my challenge to you - provide evidence of consciousness. You can't. This means one of three things;
1) Consciousness doesn't exist because no evidence can be provided for it.
2) Consciousness does exist but there is something about its nature that makes it so that evidence can not be provided for it.
3) Evidence can be provided for consciousness but we currently lack the technology to provide evidence for it.
---------------------
I don't think you'd say 1 is true which leaves us wth doors number 2 and 3.
There is only one word for door number three - Faith.
So, what we are left with then, unless we want to resort to blind faith, is option number 2 - which could also be stated as: There is at least one phenomenon that we know exists but we can provide no evidence for.

 

Logical Fallacies abound within this example, I'm afraid.

Firstly, you do not define consciousness at all, let alone sufficiently for debate.

Secondly - your assumption is wrong. There IS evidence for consciousness (and I am assuming a definition, given your lack of one). We display it whenever we are "conscious".
We also know that it's core functioning is limited to the brain: remove brain from a patient - remove consciousness.
We also have evidence of its materiality: damage brain - damage consciousness.
Inhibit certain chemicals in brain - inhibit consciousness.

Thirdly, there are more alternatives than the ones you posit - even using the inaccurate assumptions you make:
(4) It is not yet known whether consciousness is material or non-material;
(5) Consciousness is not yet fully understood to be able to ascertain what it actually is to then be able to obtain evidence for it;
(6) Evidence exists but we are just unable to appreciate it for what it is.
etc.

Fourthly, your conclusions are all making positive statements - which is logically flawed in the absence of evidence (your assumption).

Define consciousness and then we can decide which option is closest to my view.

Again - this is only your conclusion due to the logically flawed way in which you have worded your argument.

Nice try though.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I suggest you redo this but start with an actual definition for consciousness. And we'll go from there.

And please no definitions that have in-built assumptions that have yet been proven - as to accept that definition is to accept the unproven assumption.

 

My question still stands: please point to where the scientific method says that it can and does only apply to the material world?

If it is such an "accepted and obvious fact" then it shouldn't be too hard for you to detail it to me, surely!