Atheist objections to evidence for God's existence

[BlueGreenEarth]

I apologize in advance if someone has already posted something similar to what I'm about to articulate, but I don't have a lot of time to read through every response in this thread:

I don't profess to speak for everyone who identifies as an atheist, but it would be inaccurate to describe me as a person who stubbornly or unreasonably rejects the "evidence" for the existence of God. I can't claim to know God does not exist either. If there is a reliable reason to believe God does or does not exist, I would like to discover that knowledge. The difficulty is that the evidence I've received thus far has simply been insufficient to convince me this extraordinary claim is true or false. Therefore, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to pretend I believe God does exist or doesn't exist even though I'm not convinced either way by the available evidence. As such, I'm left with a lack of belief in the existence of God.

Atheism, as I define it, is a lack of belief in the existence of God. This is not the same thing as Agnosticism. The difference between atheism and Agnosticism is the difference between between belief and knowledge. Agnosticism describes an inability to "know" if God exists. As such, I can identify as an agnostic atheist. An atheists who claims to "know" God does not exist would be identified as a Gnostic atheist. Intellectually honest Christians who acknowledge their inability to to know if God actually exists despite their belief that God does exist can identify themselves as being agnostic theists. Intellectually dishonest Christians who claim to know that God does exist are identified as Gnostic Christians.

While some Christians assert that we must choose to believe in the existence of God despite the inability to prove the claim is true, I contend that we are incapable of choosing what will or will not convince us to believe. Consider the following thought experiment: If you don't currently believe in the claims about extra-terrestrial aliens visiting Earth, try choosing to be convinced by the available evidence that the UFOs people claim to observe are actually advanced spacecrafts containing intelligent creatures from another solar system. If you aren't convinced by the available evidence, then it will not be possible for you to choose to sincerely believe the extraordinary claims about extra-terrestrial aliens are true. I realize that example isn't a perfect analogy, but it doesn't need to be perfect to sufficiently to illustrate my point. Anyway, I hope that helped to answer your question.

 

[Berserk]

BlueGreen Earth,

Theistic arguments are only as sound as their underlying assumptions. But core assumptions derive from our experience. Therefore, theistic (or nontheistic) arguments depend for their merits on the spiritual significance of our experience, especially on experiences of a self-authenticating type.
How would you assess this summation?
(1) If you could discover by self-authenticating experience that a loving God exists, would you even want to know that and what would you be prepared to do about it in terms of living out your newfound faith?
(2) What might it take to convince you of a loving God's existence? Would you consider:
(a) a solid case for Jesus' resurrection;
(b) convincing evidence of modern miraculous healings (such the ones we see in our weekly prayer group)?
(c) paranormal evidence from NDEs (near-death experiences) and ADCs (after-death contact)?
I'm asking these questions to determine whether there is any basis for a follow-up discussion of new evidence.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

BlueGreen Earth,

Theistic arguments are only as sound as their underlying assumptions. But core assumptions derive from our experience. Therefore, theistic (or nontheistic) arguments depend for their merits on the spiritual significance of our experience, especially on experiences of a self-authenticating type.
How would you assess this summation?
(1) If you could discover by self-authenticating experience that a loving God exists, would you even want to know that and what would you be prepared to do about it in terms of living out your newfound faith?
(2) What might it take to convince you of a loving God's existence? Would you consider:
(a) a solid case for Jesus' resurrection;
(b) convincing evidence of modern miraculous healings (such the ones we see in our weekly prayer group)?
(c) paranormal evidence from NDEs (near-death experiences) and ADCs (after-death contact)?
I'm asking these questions to determine whether there is any basis for a follow-up discussion of new evidence.

A claim can be either falsifiable or unfalsifiable. Falsifiable claims that have an implicit empirical basis and survive every test designed to disprove them are provisionally accepted as the most reasonable explanations for observed phenomena. Unfalsifiable claims cannot be tested because the information that would be needed to demonstrate they are false is either impossible to obtain or has no implicit empirical basis. The claim "God exists" appears to be an unfalsifiable claim because there isn't any information we could obtain that would demonstrate the claim is false. For instance, if it could be demonstrated to your satisfaction that every one of those items in the list you described was a completely invalid reason to believe in God, it still wouldn't falsify the claim that a God exists. At the same time, if the items in your list were demonstrated to be valid reasons to believe God exists, it would still be possible for the claim to be false. The only way to justify belief in the existence of God is to describe what would be required to demonstrate the claim is false, conduct tests designed to try and falsify the claim, and demonstrate where the claim survives every test designed falsify it. So, what evidence would be required to disprove your claim? Can you describe how we could test if your claim is false?

 

[Berserk]

The claim "God exists" appears to be an unfalsifiable claim because there isn't any information we could obtain that would demonstrate the claim is false. For instance, if it could be demonstrated to your satisfaction that every one of those items in the list you described was a completely invalid reason to believe in God, it still wouldn't falsify the claim that a God exists. At the same time, if the items in your list were demonstrated to be valid reasons to believe God exists, it would still be possible for the claim to be false. The only way to justify belief in the existence of God is to describe what would be required to demonstrate the claim is false, conduct tests designed to try and falsify the claim, and demonstrate where the claim survives every test designed falsify it. So, what evidence would be required to disprove your claim? Can you describe how we could test if your claim is false?

We can all set up our spiritual quest for God in a way that is in principle unfalsifiable and therefore epistemologically meaningless. To do so makes meaningful efforts at persuasion futile. But my faith in God is indeed falsifiable in principle in several ways:
(a) If I could be convinced that Jesus never rose from the dead, I would give up my faith in the Christian God. For example, I have seriously considered the possibility that Roman guards removed Jesus' corpse on the Saturday night prior to Easter Sunday and that the disciples, upon finding the empty tomb, believed Jesus had risen from the dead and then they either lied or hallucinated their reported resurrection appearances of Jesus to keep His message alive.
(b) If I could be convinced that no modern miraculous healings ever occur, then I would conclude that New Testament reports of such miracles are most likely legends that express wishful thinking to convince the faithful, and would give up my faith in the interventionist God of the Bible.
(c) If I could be convinced that NDEs are merely hallucinations created by a dying brain and that ADCs are never more than hallucinations generated by wishful thinking of grieving family members, I'd give up my faith in the Christian God because I'd then assume that visionary experiences of biblical saints cannot reasonably be attributed to interventions from the spiritual realm.
(d) If I could be convinced that my self-authenticating experiences of the Holy Spirit were delusory products of my imagination, I would give up my faith in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and would therefore give up my Christian faith.

So the tests involved in (a)-(d) are in principle falsifiable for me, but are in fact the source of my well verified and vibrant Christian faith. What I'm in effect saying is that I'd consider you worth talking to on such matters, if you had a spiritual quest that was honest and open-minded enough to be in principle psychologically capable of spiritual conversion, even as I am psychologically capable of rejecting my Christian faith on the basis of the specified falsification tests.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

We can all set up our spiritual quest for God in a way that is in principle unfalsifiable and therefore epistemologically meaningless. To do so makes meaningful efforts at persuasion futile. But my faith in God is indeed falsifiable in principle in several ways:
(a) If I could be convinced that Jesus never rose from the dead, I would give up my faith in the Christian God. For example, I have seriously considered the possibility that Roman guards removed Jesus' corpse on the Saturday night prior to Easter Sunday and that the disciples, upon finding the empty tomb, believed Jesus had risen from the dead and then they either lied or hallucinated their reported resurrection appearances of Jesus to keep His message alive.
(b) If I could be convinced that no modern miraculous healings ever occur, then I would conclude that New Testament reports of such miracles are most likely legends that express wishful thinking to convince the faithful, and would give up my faith in the interventionist God of the Bible.
(c) If I could be convinced that NDEs are merely hallucinations created by a dying brain and that ADCs are never more than hallucinations generated by wishful thinking of grieving family members, I'd give up my faith in the Christian God because I'd then assume that visionary experiences of biblical saints cannot reasonably be attributed to interventions from the spiritual realm.
(d) If I could be convinced that my self-authenticating experiences of the Holy Spirit were delusory products of my imagination, I would give up my faith in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and would therefore give up my Christian faith.

So the tests involved in (a)-(d) are in principle falsifiable for me, but are in fact the source of my well verified and vibrant Christian faith. What I'm in effect saying is that I'd consider you worth talking to on such matters, if you had a spiritual quest that was honest and open-minded enough to be in principle psychologically capable of spiritual conversion, even as I am psychologically capable of rejecting my Christian faith on the basis of the specified falsification tests.

(a) What information or evidence would falsify the resurrection claim? How do you propose to test this claim?
(b) What information or evidence would falsify the faith healing claim? How do you propose to test this claim?
(c) What information or evidence would falsify the NDE claim? How do you propose to test this claim?
(d) What information or evidence would falsify the Holy Spirit claim? How do you propose to test this claim?

 

[OzSpen]

it would be inaccurate to describe me as a person who stubbornly or unreasonably rejects the "evidence" for the existence of God. I can't claim to know God does not exist either. If there is a reliable reason to believe God does or does not exist, I would like to discover that knowledge. The difficulty is that the evidence I've received thus far has simply been insufficient to convince me this extraordinary claim is true or false.

BGE,

What kind of evidence would you accept? Which evidence would you reject?

Oz

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

BGE,

What kind of evidence would you accept? Which evidence would you reject?

Oz

I will consider and not reject any evidence that demonstrates the claim can survive every test designed to falsify it. However, I am unable to think of way to test if this claim is false. Do you know of a way this claim could be tested to determine if it is false?

 

[Berserk]

(a) What information or evidence would falsify the resurrection claim? How do you propose to test this claim?
(b) What information or evidence would falsify the faith healing claim? How do you propose to test this claim?
(c) What information or evidence would falsify the NDE claim? How do you propose to test this claim?
(d) What information or evidence would falsify the Holy Spirit claim? How do you propose to test this claim?

Each of these issues would take its own lengthy thread. What we need to find is the right starting point that might prompt you to change your mind on Christian theism. Let's get started with NDEs and ADCs. If you could be convinced, that some of these experiences demonstrate postmortem survival, would that make you a theist? How could we survive death, fully conscious in a glorious state, if there were no God to make this possible? Please read the link posted below and then watch the video on Shared Death Experiences that cannot be explained as the hallucinations of a dying brain because the spectators are healthy mourners:

www.shareddeathstudy.org/

Then watch Dr. Scott Taylor's short Shared Death Experience testimony on how he launched his academic career of studying this awesome phenomenon:

shared death experience - Bing video

I'm confident that these 2 videos will launch your new spiritual quest. Once you have watched and digested these 2 videos, I will provide you much more compelling testimonial evidence.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

Each of these issues would take its own lengthy thread. What we need to find is the right starting point that might prompt you to change your mind on Christian theism. Let's get started with NDEs and ADCs. If you could be convinced, that some of these experiences demonstrate postmortem survival, would that make you a theist? How could we survive death, fully conscious in a glorious state, if there were no God to make this possible?

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but there have been experiments conducted to test some NDE claims. Many NDE claims commonly describe a sensation of being able to observe your own body, other people, and objects in the hospital operating room as if you are hovering above everything. So, without informing anyone, NDE researchers placed written messages high on top cabinets and and other tall objects out of sight in various hospital operating rooms. Whenever someone claimed to have a NDE, the researchers would ask these patients to describe the operating room as they perceived it during their NDEs. None of the patients ever reported observing the written messages. This demonstrates these NDEs were more likely to be mental delusions.

Now, I'll acknowledge that these experiments do not disprove every NDE claim. For the sake of argument, let's consider the possibility that some NDEs could be genuine. Would an experience of observing yourself from outside your own body during an NDE validate theism? Not necessarily. There could still be some unknown natural explanation we aren't aware of that could explain an NDE. To assert that God must be responsible because we can't yet identify a natural explanation for NDEs is a "God of the gaps" fallacy. Granted, the claim that an unknown natural explanation exists for NDEs is just as unfalsifiable as the claim that the existence of God is the valid explanation. Therefore, we would still need a way to rule-out multiple competing unfalsifiable explanations. The only method I'm aware of for accomplishing that task is to try and falsify explanations that are not true, but this is not possible for unfalsifiable claims. So, we are back to square one again.

 

[DoveSpirit05]

I apologize in advance if someone has already posted something similar to what I'm about to articulate, but I don't have a lot of time to read through every response in this thread:

I don't profess to speak for everyone who identifies as an atheist, but it would be inaccurate to describe me as a person who stubbornly or unreasonably rejects the "evidence" for the existence of God. I can't claim to know God does not exist either. If there is a reliable reason to believe God does or does not exist, I would like to discover that knowledge. The difficulty is that the evidence I've received thus far has simply been insufficient to convince me this extraordinary claim is true or false. Therefore, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to pretend I believe God does exist or doesn't exist even though I'm not convinced either way by the available evidence. As such, I'm left with a lack of belief in the existence of God.

Atheism, as I define it, is a lack of belief in the existence of God. This is not the same thing as Agnosticism. The difference between atheism and Agnosticism is the difference between between belief and knowledge. Agnosticism describes an inability to "know" if God exists. As such, I can identify as an agnostic atheist. An atheists who claims to "know" God does not exist would be identified as a Gnostic atheist. Intellectually honest Christians who acknowledge their inability to to know if God actually exists despite their belief that God does exist can identify themselves as being agnostic theists. Intellectually dishonest Christians who claim to know that God does exist are identified as Gnostic Christians.

While some Christians assert that we must choose to believe in the existence of God despite the inability to prove the claim is true, I contend that we are incapable of choosing what will or will not convince us to believe. Consider the following thought experiment: If you don't currently believe in the claims about extra-terrestrial aliens visiting Earth, try choosing to be convinced by the available evidence that the UFOs people claim to observe are actually advanced spacecrafts containing intelligent creatures from another solar system. If you aren't convinced by the available evidence, then it will not be possible for you to choose to sincerely believe the extraordinary claims about extra-terrestrial aliens are true. I realize that example isn't a perfect analogy, but it doesn't need to be perfect to sufficiently to illustrate my point. Anyway, I hope that helped to answer your question.

Hi there

just wanna make dis quick point. and im not trying 2 impose more thoughts onto you, just trinna reason with you!! excuse the graphics but when u 1st herd of a girl or youngen being raped i'm assuming u fort immediately dat it was wrong correct?

 

[Berserk]

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but there have been experiments conducted to test some NDE claims. Many NDE claims commonly describe a sensation of being able to observe your own body, other people, and objects in the hospital operating room as if you are hovering above everything. So, without informing anyone, NDE researchers placed written messages high on top cabinets and and other tall objects out of sight in various hospital operating rooms. Whenever someone claimed to have a NDE, the researchers would ask these patients to describe the operating room as they perceived it during their NDEs. None of the patients ever reported observing the written messages. This demonstrates these NDEs were more likely to be mental delusions.

If you tack the integrity to watch the 2 short posted videos on Shared NDEs, there is no point in talking with you.
NDEers have little control over their floating positions with out of body. But In a related OBE research experiment, a research subject Miss Z was able to float above her body and read a random 5-digit number on a shelf near the ceiling. NDErs have often verified their OBEs by describing conversations and objects (e.g. a red running shoe on a ledge outside a distant hospital room from which it was not visible) on other rooms and places.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

If you tack the integrity to watch the 2 short posted videos on Shared NDEs, there is no point in talking with you.

I did not deliberately ignore the two video links from your post, but I don't recall noticing them the first time I read it. Did you subsequently edit your post to add those links after I had already read it the first time?

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

NDEers have little control over their floating positions with out of body. But In a related OBE research experiment, a research subject Miss Z was able to float above her body and read a random 5-digit number on a shelf near the ceiling. NDErs have often verified their OBEs by describing conversations and objects (e.g. a red running shoe on a ledge outside a distant hospital room from which it was not visible) on other rooms and places.

A detailed refutation of NDE research (including the red running shoe example) is available for your review at the following link:
Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

Hi there

just wanna make dis quick point. and im not trying 2 impose more thoughts onto you, just trinna reason with you!! excuse the graphics but when u 1st herd of a girl or youngen being raped i'm assuming u fort immediately dat it was wrong correct?

Was your post intended for someone else? Your question doesn't seem at all relevant to anything I've posted.

 

[ScottA]

I apologize in advance if someone has already posted something similar to what I'm about to articulate, but I don't have a lot of time to read through every response in this thread:

I don't profess to speak for everyone who identifies as an atheist, but it would be inaccurate to describe me as a person who stubbornly or unreasonably rejects the "evidence" for the existence of God. I can't claim to know God does not exist either. If there is a reliable reason to believe God does or does not exist, I would like to discover that knowledge. The difficulty is that the evidence I've received thus far has simply been insufficient to convince me this extraordinary claim is true or false. Therefore, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to pretend I believe God does exist or doesn't exist even though I'm not convinced either way by the available evidence. As such, I'm left with a lack of belief in the existence of God.

Atheism, as I define it, is a lack of belief in the existence of God. This is not the same thing as Agnosticism. The difference between atheism and Agnosticism is the difference between between belief and knowledge. Agnosticism describes an inability to "know" if God exists. As such, I can identify as an agnostic atheist. An atheists who claims to "know" God does not exist would be identified as a Gnostic atheist. Intellectually honest Christians who acknowledge their inability to to know if God actually exists despite their belief that God does exist can identify themselves as being agnostic theists. Intellectually dishonest Christians who claim to know that God does exist are identified as Gnostic Christians.

While some Christians assert that we must choose to believe in the existence of God despite the inability to prove the claim is true, I contend that we are incapable of choosing what will or will not convince us to believe. Consider the following thought experiment: If you don't currently believe in the claims about extra-terrestrial aliens visiting Earth, try choosing to be convinced by the available evidence that the UFOs people claim to observe are actually advanced spacecrafts containing intelligent creatures from another solar system. If you aren't convinced by the available evidence, then it will not be possible for you to choose to sincerely believe the extraordinary claims about extra-terrestrial aliens are true. I realize that example isn't a perfect analogy, but it doesn't need to be perfect to sufficiently to illustrate my point. Anyway, I hope that helped to answer your question.

BlueGreenEarth,

I am not sure I fall into one of the groups you stated, but I am an honest Christian who "knows" there is a God.

I came to know there is a God before ever "believing" anything either way: I had a storybook childhood (not easy, but good and wonderful). Then after experiencing growing up, marriage, children, my own business, achieving award winning accomplishments in my career...I was a victim of crime, and my wonderful life came tumbling down like a house of cards. After knocking on all other doors, I came to open the god door, calling out to Him...and lo and behold--He answered. I was caught up in the spirit above the earth and shown many things, and then in an instant I was back in my body and experienced a great sense of peace. Life changed--I was changed. Within a couple of weeks I came to be in my brother's spare room, where I found a bible. I was drawn to it. I picked it up and started reading and couldn't put it down. I read if from cover to cover, barely stopping for food, or sleep; because what I found was that the Author of that book I had never known, without a doubt was also the Author of my experience. The One confirmed the other, and vice versa.

So...I know. I also know by that experience that the Bible is not just a literary book written by men, but rather a compilation of written witnesses just like myself down through the ages, not by the providence of men, but by God.

But, I will caution you, short of the same happening to you--that is all the proof you are going to get in this lifetime. After that, it will be too late. The point being...is that we are not suppose to be deflected by the lack of proof, but gravitate toward that which we will choose. As it is written: "I have placed before you life and death, therefore, choose life."

So--the damage is done. Now you must choose.

As for the varying answers you may hear: If you listen to all from any school of thought or belief, hearing from the most elementary to the most learned...Yes, indeed, the variations will seem endless. But that only speaks of those individuals and their place, not of the truth. If you have not liked all the variations and it give you consider it part of the reason for not believing, there is a reason why these things are so. All in due time.

All the best to you!

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

BlueGreenEarth,

I am not sure I fall into one of the groups you stated, but I am an honest Christian who "knows" there is a God.

I came to know there is a God before ever "believing" anything either way: I had a storybook childhood (not easy, but good and wonderful). Then after experiencing growing up, marriage, children, my own business, achieving award winning accomplishments in my career...I was a victim of crime, and my wonderful life came tumbling down like a house of cards. After knocking on all other doors, I came to open the god door, calling out to Him...and lo and behold--He answered. I was caught up in the spirit above the earth and shown many things, and then in an instant I was back in my body and experienced a great sense of peace. Life changed--I was changed. Within a couple of weeks I came to be in my brother's spare room, where I found a bible. I was drawn to it. I picked it up and started reading and couldn't put it down. I read if from cover to cover, barely stopping for food, or sleep; because what I found was that the Author of that book I had never known, without a doubt was also the Author of my experience. The One confirmed the other, and vice versa.

So...I know. I also know by that experience that the Bible is not just a literary book written by men, but rather a compilation of written witnesses just like myself down through the ages, not by the providence of men, but by God.

But, I will caution you, short of the same happening to you--that is all the proof you are going to get in this lifetime. After that, it will be too late. The point being...is that we are not suppose to be deflected by the lack of proof, but gravitate toward that which we will choose. As it is written: "I have placed before you life and death, therefore, choose life."

So--the damage is done. Now you must choose.

As for the varying answers you may hear: If you listen to all from any school of thought or belief, hearing from the most elementary to the most learned...Yes, indeed, the variations will seem endless. But that only speaks of those individuals and their place, not of the truth. If you have not liked all the variations and it give you consider it part of the reason for not believing, there is a reason why these things are so. All in due time.

All the best to you!

Thanks for sharing your articulate yet nonetheless anecdotal testimony. It is obvious you have very passionate feelings about this issue and have a strong emotional attachment to your belief. However, in case you're not already aware, an argument that attempts to be convincing by appealing to the recipient's emotions must be rejected as logically fallacious. Now, the fact that your argument is logically fallacious does not necessarily mean your belief is false, though it could be false. Therefore, this only suggests you need to discover a more reliable reason to justify your belief.

 

[farouk]

BGE,

What kind of evidence would you accept? Which evidence would you reject?

Oz

Hebrews 11.6 is a good principle... :)

 

[ScottA]

Thanks for sharing your articulate yet nonetheless anecdotal testimony. It is obvious you have very passionate feelings about this issue and have a strong emotional attachment to your belief. However, in case you're not already aware, an argument that attempts to be convincing by appealing to the recipient's emotions must be rejected as logically fallacious. Now, the fact that your argument is logically fallacious does not necessarily mean your belief is false, though it could be false. Therefore, this only suggests you need to discover a more reliable reason to justify your belief.

You'll get more information if you pay more attention. I never said "belief." On the contrary, I said NOT belief. I said I "know."

Then, you assumed I meant to present an "argument", "appeal to your emotions", or "justify my belief." I did not, nor do I have any need to. It is you who are in need, not me; and this I can say, because I "know" what you are missing. Nonetheless, I was merely answering your question and sharing the truth.

You have walked through the desert...and this is how you search for water?

 

[OzSpen]

I will consider and not reject any evidence that demonstrates the claim can survive every test designed to falsify it. However, I am unable to think of way to test if this claim is false. Do you know of a way this claim could be tested to determine if it is false?

BGE,

Do you accept the evidence from historical science or will you accept only empirical science as evidence of substance?

God has provided us with evidence of his existence. Are you open to consider it seriously or must the evidence be according to your presuppositions?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Hebrews 11.6 is a good principle... :)

farouk,

It is true that we must have belief in the existence of God before we come to Him for his salvation.

However, is this faith a leap of faith or is it founded on facts/evidence?

We need to marry Heb 11:6 with Romans 1:18-20. It is faith based on evidence that God has provided.

Oz