How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument (page 8)

PSacramento

So what evidence exactly would convence an athiest that God exists?

A.Fenderson

So what evidence exactly would convence an athiest that God exists?

Define "God." And I'm not being intentionally antagonistic, I'm attempting to answer your question.

superpunk

So what evidence exactly would convence an athiest that God exists?

The same thing he apparently provides to every believer on the face of the earth (or so they claim). Unmistakable Personal Revelation. Nothing else will do it. And I certainly won't go around insisting to people who haven't shared my UPR that it REALLY occurred and therefore they should believe h.e. REALLY exists.

If that happened to me, I would hold the only defensible theistic position;

Yes, I know God exists.

No, I can't prove it.

Leave me alone.

Psychotic Parrot

So what evidence exactly would convence an athiest that God exists?

If by God you mean the creator of the universe, then i guess it would have to be a one to one meeting with Him, during which He could demonstrate (in a practical way) how He created the universe & possibly give a demonstration of His creative powers.

Anything less than that would leave open the possibility of trickery.

hooberus

So Darkyl, I guess then if creationists make the argument that: "electronic DVD equipment requires a designer", then they can be legitimately charged with "special pleading" by atheists for not also including God in the same argument (even thought the theists don't even believe that God is "electronic DVD equipment" to begin with).

And the atheists have no burden of proof whatsoever to back up their charge of special pleading, -such as to try to substantiate that God for rational reasons should also himself be included in the category of "electronic DVD equipment".

Psychotic Parrot

My biggest hang-up these days are anti-atheists (i.e. Theists or even deists who believe that atheists have something to prove). For example, imagine if 90% of the world believed in the tooth fairy, sighting the existence of teeth as evidence for her existence, & making the claim that since so many people believe it, it's unlikely to be false. Would the 10% who don't believe in the tooth fairy need to prove she doesn't exist? Would they even need to provide any evidence at all that she doesn't exist?

Suppose the believers accepted that most of the time when a tooth under the pillow is replaced by money, that it is indeed the parents of the child who are responsible (this being analogous to theists accepting that most of the world's religions, belief systems, doctrines, & ideas of God are incorrect). BUT that sometimes, it really is the tooth fairy who does it (in other words, their religion is the correct one). Now with that in mind, should the 10% who don't believe in the tooth fairy honestly be expected to provide evidence that every single occasion where a tooth becomes cash is facilitated by a parent, & not by the tooth fairy? Particularly if it was being claimed by believers that only 1% of tooth fairy visits are genuine to begin with.

The people making the claim could cite all sorts of anecdotal evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy. They could claim that the tooth fairy is no longer active, but that she once was & there is documented evidence of her being active. They could claim that it's unlikely that the myth of the tooth fairy could have come out of a vacuum, & that it must have been based on a once living real fairy. But ultimately, the only thing that would satisfy the non-believer would be to catch the tooth fairy in the act. Anything less than that, even video evidence, could ultimately be a fraud. And it would be common sense to call it a fraud, an assertion yes, but an assertion founded in reason & rationality.

As an atheist, i will say this. Yes, the universe could have been created by an intelligence. It could have been created by God. And God may well have a personality profile that matches that of Yahweh, or Jesus, or Zeus, or Baphomet, or the tooth fairy, etc. Or it may be a God purely in the deistic sense, a prime mover, a first cause, an eternal uncaused being. Are any of those options possible? Yes. Is there any evidence (beyond the anecdotal & speculative) for any of them? No. Should i believe any of them, purely on faith? No, i don't think so. Do i believe any of them? No. Would i believe any of them if one of them was proven to me beyond any reasonable doubt? Yes, however it wouldn't be belief, it would simply be the acceptance of a fact. I don't believe in water, i just accept that it exists because i have seen it, felt it, tasted it, & not to mention the fact that i am almost entirely composed of it. Were it not for those things, i certainly wouldn't accept the existence of water on faith.

If the universe as we know it really was created. Then it's just as likely to have been created by a committee of beings rather than just a single being. For all we know, God is an organisation. That would really please the Watchtower wouldn't it. And as for who or what created God, or the God committee, or if they are simply eternal beings, who knows. We don't even know if they exist, so we certainly can't make any claims about their nature, we can only make semi-informed guesses as to what their nature might be, but even that doesn't tell us a whole lot, & ultimately there are far too many variables to consider when trying to make any kind of guess, & quite honestly, i don't think we have even half of those variables in place yet.

Still, i don't think the bible is the place to find answers, if for no other reason than the fact that it makes the following assertion. God is love. Love is not jealous. Yahweh is a jealous God. You'll have to figure that one out, because i sure as hell can't.

BurnTheShips

My biggest hang-up these days are anti-atheists

And mine are anti-theists, of which you clearly are.

BTS

Psychotic Parrot

BTS (may i just called BS?), if you'd actually read the statement which you just quoted, you'd see that my hang up is anti-atheists, not theists. I have no problem with theists who keep their religion to themselves. It's those who look down on me for rejecting their beliefs which i (as i stated) have a problem with. And you are 'clearly' one of them.

mindmelda

I've always thought both believers in God and atheists both make interesting and valid points.

The good news is, I don't have to decide either way, as I can't see anything forcing me to. But, it's an interesting ongoing discussion and I keep looking forward to even the parts I have yet to understand.

Psychotic Parrot

There are valid points from all who debate this subject, i agree. The only difference is that SOME theists seem to be under the impression that their points carry more weight than they actually do. Most atheists know that they can't prove God doesn't exist. But SOME theists seem to think that atheists are at fault for not being able to do so. And a minority (well, i hope for the sake of human sanity that it's a minority) seem to think that the inablity of atheists to disprove God's existence is in & of itself evidence that He exists.

How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument

Share this