ATHEISM: The Necessary Proof

It is common knowledge that atheists do not believe in God because there is a lack of empirical evidence. What is interesting is that it is nearly impossible to dictate the kind of evidence that would need to be discovered.

Assuming that God was absolutely real and exceptionally present, it may still be literally impossible to prove it to an atheist regardless.

• If all diseases were suddenly abolished, atheists would say that humans somehow developed natural immunities.
• If the word, "God" was carved into the Moon, atheists would claim it as an enormous hoax.
• If beautiful figures appeared for the entire world to see, atheists would label them as aliens from another universe.
• If God spoke directly to a group of people, atheists would label those people as crazy or schizophrenic.
• If every dead human was suddenly resurrected, atheists would consider them zombies and grab their chainsaws and shotguns.

Atheists claim that a God is improbable but demand believing in Him only through the impossible. Excluding the fact that such an attitude is completely hypocritical, such logic would dictate that it takes far more faith to believe in atheism than anything else anyway.

And many thiests have ignored the actual evidence that has arisen that has disproven countless sections of the Bible and the Christian faith, the Old Testament, the Koran and Hinduism and Scientology.

Now, I'm sure many atheists would stubbornly deny any evidence of God if it did emerge. The difference however, is that no credible evidence has ever been given proving the existence of God. Immeasurable evidence has been given defying the religious tenets of many major religions.

May God should do those things then?

A true atheist wouldn't care about evidence.. they simply lack belief..

.

Or you know, God could, if he hypothetically existed, announce his presence to everybody. That way there wouldn't be an unfair labelling of the minority.super_mario_128

That would be a hoax, or aliens, or people believing they were dreaming, or being brainwashed, or some strange form of propaganda. Also, what language would God speak in, to speak to everyone on the planet? Every language simultaneously?

Perhaps God thought that creating the Sun and the Universe would be proof enough for his existence, but perhaps he actually isn't perfect and never thought that humans would attempt explain them through Science.

May God should do those things then?

Overrated_Hero

Yes, maybe he should.

gratz OT on going on my list of people who's posts i wont read anymore because i know it wont matter.nimatoad2000

That there is the definition of the word, "Judgmental."

That's why the very first thing you ask in these debates is "What in your mind constitutes evidence and how can I go about retrieving it?"

A true atheist wouldn't care about evidence.. they simply lack belief..

EMOEVOLUTION

I thought that was agnostics?

Perhaps God thought that creating the Sun and the Universe would be proof enough for his existence, but perhaps he actually isn't perfect and never thought that humans would attempt explain them through Science.

Turtlecream

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]

A true atheist wouldn't care about evidence.. they simply lack belief..

coolbeans90

I thought that was agnostics?

I'm pretty sure anyone presented with the "evidence" of God coming down out of the sky and proving in fact that he is God (by breaking the laws of the universe, or some similar miracle, not one bound by rational understanding), that everyone would believe... but I don't doubt that many would refuse to worship.

But of course... I personally do not think that would ever happen. Given how the "concept" of God not only makes no sense to me, but defies rational understanding.

Not to mention the fact that their are hundred upon hundred of possible gods, even if you got everyone to believe in a deity, who is to say it would be the correct one/ones? Darth-Caedus

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]

A true atheist wouldn't care about evidence.. they simply lack belief..

coolbeans90

I thought that was agnostics?

gnostic-atheist = say god doesn't exist 'cause it is impossible :?

ignostic = say "god" doesn't have a good definition.

Ok, here's what I'll take as proof. Please show me something in nature that is irreducibly complex. Something whose psrts have no function, except when they are all working together. Something that must have a designer. That would be good proof for God.

The whole question of 'proof' in relation to god is a moot point; it's called a 'faith' for a reason. The whole point is it cannot be proven. Doctor-McNinja

[QUOTE="Turtlecream"]

Perhaps God thought that creating the Sun and the Universe would be proof enough for his existence, but perhaps he actually isn't perfect and never thought that humans would attempt explain them through Science.

super_mario_128

I don't think you could be more wrong if you even tried, at least according to Christianity. Also, don't assume that I am actually attempting to prove the existence of God.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]

A true atheist wouldn't care about evidence.. they simply lack belief..

EMOEVOLUTION

I thought that was agnostics?

Ok. I thought that atheists believe that there is no god, whereas agnostics believe neither, and igtheists believe it is a logical jump to believe either. Now I'm confused again :?

It would require more then something that could easily be explained in a much more rational way to get people to believe in an incredibly illogical being?! Imagine that... Not to mention the fact that their are hundred upon hundred of possible gods, even if you got everyone to believe in a deity, who is to say it would be the correct one/ones? Darth-Caedus

I saw Zeus at Starbucks yesterday. He's not looking good.

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"][QUOTE="Turtlecream"]

Perhaps God thought that creating the Sun and the Universe would be proof enough for his existence, but perhaps he actually isn't perfect and never thought that humans would attempt explain them through Science.

Turtlecream

I don't think you could be more wrong if you even tried, at least according to Christianity. Also, don't assume that I am actually attempting to prove the existence of God.

Ok, here's what I'll take as proof. Please show me something in nature that is irreducibly complex. Something whose psrts have no function, except when they are all working together. Something that must have a designer. That would be good proof for God.

BuryMe

There's no such thing, since life evolved.

Ok, here's what I'll take as proof. Please show me something in nature that is irreducibly complex. Something whose psrts have no function, except when they are all working together. Something that must have a designer. That would be good proof for God.

BuryMe

A common cell?

Ok, here's what I'll take as proof. Please show me something in nature that is irreducibly complex. Something whose psrts have no function, except when they are all working together. Something that must have a designer. That would be good proof for God.

BuryMe

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Ok, here's what I'll take as proof. Please show me something in nature that is irreducibly complex. Something whose psrts have no function, except when they are all working together. Something that must have a designer. That would be good proof for God.

Theokhoth

There's no such thing, since life evolved.

[QUOTE="Turtlecream"]

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"] Yeh, it was foolish of him to expect us not to strive for answers. ... :| Also, don't assume what you think would happen in hypothetical scenarios is correct.Danm_999

I don't think you could be more wrong if you even tried, at least according to Christianity. Also, don't assume that I am actually attempting to prove the existence of God.

Except that the strawman fallacy completely depends on something that can be proven or disproven, or tangible, at least.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Ok, here's what I'll take as proof. Please show me something in nature that is irreducibly complex. Something whose psrts have no function, except when they are all working together. Something that must have a designer. That would be good proof for God.

foxhound_fox

Yes.

agnostic-atheist = have belief of god 'cause of a lack of evidence

gnostic-atheist = say god doesn't exist 'cause it is impossible :?

ignostic = say "god" doesn't have a good definition.

smc91352

Atheist: the theory or belief that God does not exist.

Gnostic: of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge. • ( Gnostic) of or relating to Gnosticism .

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Ok, here's what I'll take as proof. Please show me something in nature that is irreducibly complex. Something whose psrts have no function, except when they are all working together. Something that must have a designer. That would be good proof for God.

BuryMe

There's no such thing, since life evolved.

Evolution takes place in all living organisms: plants, animals. If you want something non-living, then there are those who claim the Ark of the Covenant have holy origins, as well as the Black Stone of Mecca.

But what defines "natural"? Every time something unnatural was ever discovered, something would later happen to extend the definition of "natural" to include that object. God Himself could be labelled "natural," theoretically.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Turtlecream"]

I don't think you could be more wrong if you even tried, at least according to Christianity. Also, don't assume that I am actually attempting to prove the existence of God.

Turtlecream

Except that the strawman fallacy completely depends on something that can be proven or disproven, or tangible, at least.

[QUOTE="Turtlecream"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] Really, you shouldn't set up a hypothetical, assume how people will react, and then condemn them for it as though it's evidence. That's a pretty basic logical fallacy, the strawman.Danm_999

Except that the strawman fallacy completely depends on something that can be proven or disproven, or tangible, at least.

A strawman is addressing an argument that was never made. What you are bringing up resembles a Homunculus Fallacy.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Turtlecream"]

Except that the strawman fallacy completely depends on something that can be proven or disproven, or tangible, at least.

Theokhoth

A strawman is addressing an argument that was never made. What you are bringing up resembles a Homunculus Fallacy.

[QUOTE="Turtlecream"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] Really, you shouldn't set up a hypothetical, assume how people will react, and then condemn them for it as though it's evidence. That's a pretty basic logical fallacy, the strawman.Danm_999

Except that the strawman fallacy completely depends on something that can be proven or disproven, or tangible, at least.

It cannot be a strawman because such hypothetical scenarios cannot be used as evidence in the first place. Atheists state that there is a lack of empirical evidence when such empirical evidence is impossible: that is why believers revolve around faith.

The point is that it seems far more logical to simply believe in some form of intelligent design, if not a God, than to hope for a zombie apocalypse.

It cannot be a strawman because such hypothetical scenarios cannot be used as evidence in the first place. Turtlecream

The point is that it seems far more logical to simply believe in some form of intelligent design, if not a God, than to hope for a zombie apocalypse.

Turtlecream

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] No it doesn't. In fact, something remaining unproven or intangible is what makes it a strawman. You conjure up a scenario, and use it as evidence. If an event like this really occured, and atheists reacted as you say they would, it would cease to be a strawman. You've assumed atheists would deny any proof of God, and thus call them hypocritical and more faith based than theists.Danm_999

A strawman is addressing an argument that was never made. What you are bringing up resembles a Homunculus Fallacy.

That's not necessarily a fallacy. He could just be clarifying his point, like Socrates would do with his students. "Imagine we are in this scenario. Would you behave this way? If not, then why behave that way in this, a similar scenario?"

Or he could just show Himself.Maqda7

[QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"]It would require more then something that could easily be explained in a much more rational way to get people to believe in an incredibly illogical being?! Imagine that... Not to mention the fact that their are hundred upon hundred of possible gods, even if you got everyone to believe in a deity, who is to say it would be the correct one/ones? Turtlecream

I saw Zeus at Starbucks yesterday. He's not looking good.

[QUOTE="nimatoad2000"]gratz OT on going on my list of people who's posts i wont read anymore because i know it wont matter.Turtlecream

That there is the definition of the word, "Judgmental."

[QUOTE="Maqda7"]Or he could just show Himself.lightleggy

God shouldn't be expected to do anything. Assuming an omnipotent and omniscient thing like God exists, it would already have plans set in store for revealing its existence and such a plan would, by the nature of omniscience, be far more appropriate than anything people could come up with.

dont you get the point? the thing is that no matter what God does, atheist will always say that he doesnt exist, so even if he comes shows himself, atheist would say "it must be a hoax"lightleggy

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Actually, a strawman is also inventing a fictitious argument or scenario as a means to further your own, which is exactly what has been done here. The term itself is thought to have originated as a slang for men who would hang around courthouses with straw stuffed in their shoes, as an indication they were willing to sell themselves as false witnesses for court cases.Theokhoth

That's not necessarily a fallacy. He could just be clarifying his point, like Socrates would do with his students. "Imagine we are in this scenario. Would you behave this way? If not, then why behave that way in this, a similar scenario?"

Atheists claim that a God is improbable but demand believing in Him only through the impossible. Excluding the fact that such an attitude is completely hypocritical, such logic would dictate that it takes far more faith to believe in atheism than anything else anyway.

Turtlecream

[QUOTE="Maqda7"]Or he could just show Himself.lightleggy

That could be true, until the final paragraph where he concludes: [QUOTE="Turtlecream"]Atheists claim that a God is improbable but demand believing in Him only through the impossible. Excluding the fact that such an attitude is completely hypocritical, such logic would dictate that it takes far more faith to believe in atheism than anything else anyway.Danm_999

The above does not appear a hypothetical, or a scenario, he is concluding based on his imagination.

Which, again, isn't necessarily a fallacy. Logic takes place in your head and every conclusion you have ever made or ever will make will come from your head; not from evidence or anything else. Using a hypothetical scenario to clarify a real-world issue isn't necessarily a fallacy unless the hypothetical situation has no bearing on the real situation at hand (e.g. saying that a chipmunk driving would be absurd therefore you can't say God exists is a fallacy).

You used your hypotheticals to demonstrate why atheists are hypocritical and faith-based though.Danm_999

Wait, you're not trying to suggest that atheists are not faith-based, are you?

I'm sorry, you lost me here. Why does one have to believe in either?Danmn_999

Did I say that a person was forced to believe in either? Why can't a person just decide to believe in nothing at all?