Your observations are quite correct. Consequently the reason why Christians push back when an atheists specifies what he would consider supportive evidence is because it puts them in the performance chair and they know deep down inside that their prayer wont work... much like all claimers of psi fail demonstration in a controlled environment.
Yorda, If the universe didn’t exist then there would be no space. The concept of entropy is only applicable to a closed system, something infinite has no boundaries so can’t be considered closed. For something infinite there can be no cause. You need to read what I said more carefully. Something infinite is a necessity. Something infinite cannot have a cause/beginning. Whether that is the universe or something else is not determined here. That’s just a simple contradiction. If it always existed then it had no beginning and hence no cause. Why does it have to have a purpose or meaning? That is also not a necessity.
I believe that amongst atheists and theists there is much prejudice and stereotyping, myself included. Though I am not schooled in various religous theory, I imagine that most mainstream religions at their core expouse that the mind of God can not be known completely by Humans. I imagine that most religions speak to how to conduct yourself as a human and how to get closer to God. That being said, my belief as such, christianity aside, how could a test be developed to establish "proof" inside our reality testing something outside of it (this reality)? To answer the question posed about what would make me not(?) believe in a deity. The absence of my spirit, consciousness, soul or that which is of me that is God's.
If you're asking about how to prove your specific 'God' (which I am assuming is not the christian 'God') then you have to tell me the details about what you are claiming. What is it? How has it interacted with reality? How will it interact with reality? What has it claimed? etc. etc. etc.
specific details of deity aside, the question remains if atheist responding to thread hold their views because of lack of proof of a deity. If so what proof are they lacking?
An instance of a deity, instances of a deity omnipotently interacting with reality, instances of a deity omnipresently interacting with reality, and instances of a deity omnisciently interacting with reality would be good starters. That's why I chose prayer as a 'best case' demonstration of a particular deity's existence. The most popular religions claim their respective deities will grant humans pretty spectacular miracles via prayer. Praying amputee's limbs back, severly retarded people intelligent, or the statue of liberty into solid diamond are pretty spectacular manipulations of reality that humans cannot perform or fake; hence, they are perfect demonstrations of a deity's existence. As I mentioned earlier, no theist is going to do this because they know it will fail. Several on this board have tried and failed; thus, demonstrating they are liars.
Why wouldn't someone's arm growing back not be thrown into the category of "yet unexplained by science"? Even if it were being prayed for?
To Crunchy: As stupid as it sounds, say for instance the situations you described began happening. Everyone in the world became believers and then there was a "dark age" so to speak. These "miracles" are forgotten and they become "reality" -accepted-, though unexplained they are observed, tested, peer reviewed--but unexplained. What then would be needed to prove the existence of a deity?
It would have to be prayed for and the results would have to be more or less instantaenous and perfect. That would show a strong correspondence between prayer and some omnipotent life form's intervention. As far as scientific categorization is concerned, it would likely result in a branch of study for omnipotent life.
Why would there have to be a "dark age"? I would bet the farm that science would help devise improved methods of communication with omnipotent life and benefit from knowledge gained from it. Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.
The basis of the thread is that there are many unexplained phenomena in the world, why would your specific case(s) make the existence of a deity true to you and/or the majority of unbelievers? Why would this proof not just become "reality"?
Because they are part of a specific claimed cause and effect chain: Claim->An omnipotent life form exists that grants fantastic miracles through prayers. Knowledge->Humans lack the ability to spontaenously manipulate reality via thought. Demonstration->A theist prays for one of the aformentioned items. Results->Achieved Observation->The claim corresponds to reality. I think you know this already and you're intentionally acting stupid about it. Regardless, atheists have given their criteria. The onus is on theists to demonstrate.
and lo and behold there is also criteria regarding issues of qualification that have to be met before one can even begin to look at issues of evidence :shrug:
The thread states "proof of a deity". Actual details of this deity, how it interacts with this world etc... was not ascribed. The thread was created in an attempt to understand that if atheists required proof of a "supreme being" what would that proof entail? Testable supernatural spontaneous results from prayer was your answer (paraphrased), and that is a very good answer. But this thread is not attempting to discuss religion, just existence of a deity.
Not with the prayer demonstration that was outlined. It's quite self-evident when an amputee magically has a limb in the blink of an eye. In other words, the average adult is quite over-qualified to make such an observation.
It seems to me that the argument from mathematics alone establishes the necessity of a deity. Notice that I don't say 'existence of a deity'. God does not exist; He is, which is something entirely different. Exist is from the Latin prefix ex meaning from or out of. We exist. The universe exists. God does not.
