Evidence for the Christian God?

[IBSpify]

What I'm curious about is why are so many atheists/agnostics looking for proof of a Christian god,....when they should be buffering up their proof of no god?

What I'm curious about is why so many Christians can not grasp the concept that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist.

For example, can you prove that pixies do not exist (and I don't mean the punk rock band)

Since it is possible to have evidence of the lack of something, the only thing we can go with is the lack of evidence for something, there is no evidence for a god, just as there is no evidence for pixies, therefor as with pixies there is no reason we should believe in a god.

That is the null Hypothesis, until evidence for something is presented, the default position is that it is false.

 

[Vanlavak]

I have been thinking about the type of 'evidence' that I would accept for the existence of a god (specifically the Christian one).

I think this is a good mental exercise for most atheists/agnostics. Perhaps so/Perhaps not.

Mine would go something like this:

A god would have to change every single holy bible ever written at some designated time so that all would read exactly the same thing (character for character). And then change that text back to the original forms on some other designated date (I'm thinking a solar calender year would be long enough between changes). It gives people enough time to check sources, cross reference notes and so on.

I realize that some things could go wrong and this is not a fool proof method but I feel that getting a good sample size could be preformed.



Criteria:

I would have to own 10 different 'bibles' all written in different languages so that I could personally check these.

Anyway have a little fun with this and present your own 'ideas' for possible debunking.

Remember that the bible was written by man, not god. Your making an impossible demand that wouldn't even help you or anyone else. You could prove anything you wanted to with evidence, but I'll tell you that a book that has almost the same credibility as wikipedia (anyone could edit the bible for god's sakes!) wouldn't prove or disprove anything, it just might have some useful information on the past and mankind's interpretation of this world.

Hope this helps!

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Remember that the bible was written by man, not god. Your making an impossible demand that wouldn't even help you or anyone else. You could prove anything you wanted to with evidence, but I'll tell you that a book that has almost the same credibility as wikipedia (anyone could edit the bible for god's sakes!) wouldn't prove or disprove anything, it just might have some useful information on the past and mankind's interpretation of this world.

Hope this helps!

How is that my problem, that the Bibble is a book of myths written by people? That's just more lack of evidence for the invisible sky daddy that Christians believe in.

BTW, you can't prove ANYTHING with evidence, just the things that the evidence supports. Glad to see you're willing to throw reason and evidence under the bus to defend a delusion.

 

[nefariousvirtuoso]

I think the ship has sailed for evidence of that particular myth.

 

[Unwardil]

You know, if you really want to start splitting hairs, you don't even really have evidence. You have facts which are undisputed or indisputable phenomenon or events which occur and then you have hypothesis. The more facts your hypothesis can account for, the more accurate it is. So in a sense, yes, you can use any set of facts to prove anything you like, just so long as the person you're arguing against doesn't know about all the ones which outright contradict your hypothesis and that, I'm afraid, is where all theistic claims always fall flat.

 

[nemesiss]

Remember that the bible was written by man, not god. Your making an impossible demand that wouldn't even help you or anyone else. You could prove anything you wanted to with evidence, but I'll tell you that a book that has almost the same credibility as wikipedia (anyone could edit the bible for god's sakes!) wouldn't prove or disprove anything, it just might have some useful information on the past and mankind's interpretation of this world.

Hope this helps!

why you try to lump the bible with wikipedia is weird, its not even on the same level.
here are some bulletpoints:
- wikipedia is a group project where people work together to have the most accurate and up-to-date material present
- not any person can just go and edit wikipedia (not anymore)
- people who do write articles on wikipedia, uctually know what their writing down and have facts to back up those claims.
- wikipedia is more (scientically) accurate then the bible ever was.
- wikipedia has a wider range of information than the bible.
note: if the bible had anything close to the amount of information on wikipedia, it wouldn't be a little book... it would be a small village filled with millions of books.
- people don't revolve their lives on what they can read on wikipedia.
- people don't go killing other people by what's written on wikipedia.
- wikipedia isn't the basis/foundation of any religion.

 

[RedYellow]

Remember that the bible was written by man, not god. Your making an impossible demand that wouldn't even help you or anyone else.

It depends on how much you think people are responsible for knowing god exists. If I am really taking part in this invisible legal system wherein the fate of my eternal soul is at stake, then for me to be fairly judged I need proof that this is the case. Otherwise I'd basically be getting punished for not knowing I was even guilty. Sure, I know that Christians claim that I'm part of this, but as it stands I don't actually know it to be true because every aspect of my experience can't tell it apart from a bunch of made up crap. It's not my or anyone's responsibility to assume it's true, it's god's responsibility to make it known to us in a way that can't be misinterpreted and the bible is far, far far from any such proof. It is not the best god can do, period. And admitting that it was written by man is admirable for honesty, yet still doesn't help the case given what's supposedly at stake, again making it indistinguishable from being made up.

 

[nefariousvirtuoso]

I wish Christians could realize their arguments for god are much better without the Bible.

 

[Andiferous]

Evidence for an Xian god? Of what manner of evidence do we speak? Evidence is a big can of worms. All anyone can share here is their own opinion based on preceived notions of 'evidence.'

As for my own personal biases: I find those who argue best for a Christian god don't depend on the bible to do so, and those who argue against don't use science to do so. When there is a fundamental difference in viewpoint entering the discussion, the debate seems pointless. The only way to communicate with one another is to meet somewhere in the middle (or it is otherwise affectionately seen as 'wanking.' ) This means trying to avoid scientific theory and biblical reference and communicating with the other person.

I do that all the time, because I suck at remembering scientific facts.

I don't like arguing people who barrage me with biblical quotes, because this misdirects the topic and forces the discussion back. Instead of arguing about the philosophical idea of god, we argue about the reliability of the bible as a resource (another topic entirely). It's endless. I'm sure the same is true for someone arguing for a god without using science and physical principle to measure evidence.

So in all, empirical? What does it mean? Let's start there.

Does it matter if no one communicates anyway?

My two cents (-1).

 

[Thomas Doubting]

What god needs to do to prove his existence?
Apologize to every single one of us in person and make the world a better place for EVERYONE AND EVERY LIVING THING. even the ones we eat :mrgreen:
"i spaced out for few billion years" would do as explanation.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Show me 'nothing' in a stable, unchanging state. This 'nothing' must take the form of the absolute absence of any fields, including gravity, and the absolute absence of anything like quantum fluctuations.

That would be a start.

 

[Gramarye]

What I'm curious about is why are so many atheists/agnostics looking for proof of a Christian god,....when they should be buffering up their proof of no god?

If someone doesn't believe a god exists, then why even use a word, for example 'god', to define something they don't believe in? By using the word, a definition and meaning of that word exist within the user's mind and so there is a measure of belief. If something doesn't exist, then it cannot be discussed as it's not in the lexicon. Therefore why atheists debate the god issue at all has always seemed odd.

 

[Prolescum]

What I'm curious about is why are so many atheists/agnostics looking for proof of a Christian god,....when they should be buffering up their proof of no god?

If someone doesn't believe a god exists, then why even use a word, for example 'god', to define something they don't believe in? By using the word, a definition and meaning of that word exist within the user's mind and so there is a measure of belief. If something doesn't exist, then it cannot be discussed as it's not in the lexicon. Therefore why atheists debate the god issue at all has always seemed odd.

Unicorns and djinn don't exist, does that mean one cannot define or discuss them, or if we can, one must have some measure of belief in them? What about Klingons or Pan-Galactic gargleblasters, Death Stars or Eloi?

This is so monumentally wrong, I'm really struggling to come to terms with the fact that, not only has someone actually thought this, but that they took the time to write it down in a public forum.

Also, atheists "debate" the god issue for the same reasons they might discuss cheese, linen, or poker.

 

[Gramarye]

Another ad hominem; I'm sensing a hint of 'only child'.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Another ad hominem; I'm sensing a hint of 'only child'.

I'm sensing "another ignorant child who doesn't know what 'ad hominem' means"... we get one of you every couple of weeks.

 

[Dean]

Another ad hominem; I'm sensing a hint of 'only child'.

I'm sensing "another ignorant child who doesn't know what 'ad hominem' means"... we get one of you every couple of weeks.

Argumentum Ad Homenim means disparaging or impugning the character of the person making the claim, AS some sort of argument. In other words, using derision or insult in place of an actual argument.

Now to be honest, I have yet to see this anywhere (directed at Gramarye at least) -- in this thread. Prolescum's comments seemed perfectly valuable. Indeed, even if one insults another alongside argument, it still doesn't count as an argument ad homenim. But anyway, (just my opinion) > insult isn't a productive exercise in and of itself. It's just a vain waste of mental energy.

 

[Prolescum]

Another ad hominem; I'm sensing a hint of 'only child'.

:lol:

I have three sisters and two brothers. Is this supposed to be a rebuttal? If not, would you care to explain your meaning here:

If someone doesn't believe a god exists, then why even use a word, for example 'god', to define something they don't believe in? By using the word, a definition and meaning of that word exist within the user's mind and so there is a measure of belief. If something doesn't exist, then it cannot be discussed as it's not in the lexicon.

Thanks.

 

[Leçi]

I can accept there might be an organism in space somewhere that has capabilities we do not understand yet, wether it be because of advanced technology or just natural capabilities. There might even be a small chance that organism played part in creating life on earth (perhaps it took a crap on eart). But I doubt it's likely to be a large bearded man and since we haven't seen any proof of any superiour organism playing part in the history of earth it probably didn't happen.