This is meant to be a hysterical thread for any jokes you want to make about this topic but also to serve as a serious place for me to understand further how Atheists think...

I considered myself an Atheist for quite a while but it just never felt right. I wasn't really being "me," but I was trying to please someone I'm being me. I DO think there is a TON of evidence and proof that God does in fact exist.

But this thread is not about me. It's about you. I want to know what would it take for you to say, "YES that's it!" What "evidence" or "proof" are you looking for? What EXACTLY would you need to see to be able to say, "Wow yes, there is a God..."....A scientific journal article? A scientific experiment? Richard Dawkins saying it? lol...What? What could possibly persuade you to suddenly believe that there is a God.

And because I know it's probably going to happen there are some rules for participation

Rule #1. No spinning this back on me. I'm asking YOU what YOU think. If you want to ask me what i think start a different thread for that.

Rule #2. No ducking the question. Saying, "the "onus" is on you to prove." No. That's not going to fly here. We're not discussing the "on us" argument. We're discussing what would it take for you to be convinced. A lightning bolt up your ass on a sunny day? A surfer Jesus knock on your door? lol...OK I'm being sarcastic. But seriously WHAT?

Have at it!

Views: 4321

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Physeter, I am not sure why but I began thinking of a line in a poem by the great Syrian poet Adonis as I read your excellent post above. I will paraphrase it and take it a little out of its original context.

When the poet asks “how can a head be imprisoned in the cellar of the words that it invented”, I think of people who have not become empowered to be freethinkers. Once you find the key to unlock it there is no going back in. A little cryptic but I know you know what I mean ;-)

Agreed.  You can't unring the bell.

giving an exact specific thing that would be 'proof' is a silly, and pointless excercise - as it does not and cannot exist.

Science is accomplished by gathering evidence from as many sources that are as reliable as possible.  The evidence can be both direct and circumstantial.  But circumstantial evidence by it's self means nothing - it has to combine with other evidence to create a situation where it becomes direct evidence.

Any evidence that is going to be accepted, must be reliable, repeatable and verifyable.

I once heard a response to this described in terms of.

If an all knowing god exists, he or she or it knows exactly what it would take to convince me (it is all knowing after all) and could provide such.

Your question actually begs the question.

For your question to have meaning, there first needs to be a compelling necessity to even postulate the existence of gods.

Until that compelling necessity is demonstrated, your question remains trivial... a pointless version of 'I'm thinking of a number... can you guess that number?'

As the god in question could be many different ones, depending on WHICH god is in question, its even worse than "can you guess the number I'm thinking of..."

...and its closer to "A few billion people are individually thinking of a number between 0 and infinity, without knowing what each other chose...what number are they thinking of?"

Each says "god" means something else, and, when pressed with information that their definition includes some gods they say DON'T exist...forget PROOF, even EVIDENCE that "god" doesn't exist, is like nailing jello to a tree.

If they claim the god is all knowing and all powerful and all good, sure, its fairly simple to show evidence that THAT version doesn't seem to be there...

...but SOME do not have "uber claims" and, the god can be as effed up a psycho/loser as they want...which is harder to show is NOT the case, and so forth.

So, until theists agree upon what or who god IS, yes, there is no "god" you can argue DOESN'T exist per se...only on a case by case basis.

The frustrating thing is that, basically, their OWN god is the ONLY "god" that they are not in agreement with you about.......albeit what that SHOULD mean to them....never seems to sink in.


For me it would have to be something that defies the laws of physics as I know them. If time around me froze and I found myself face to face with a person claiming they were god, it would be pretty hard to dispute. Of course it could be a hallucination or some type of technology. If he/she/it let me walk around freely as we talked (to decide if it is worthy of any respect) and either drop peoples' pants or tie shoe laces together in a widespread enough area (media coverage of it once time resumed) would prove it really happened. I might be inclined to believe it actually happened. Whether it was some level of tech or an actual god is still debatable, but that would go farther than anything the bible has to say as proof.

 Of course it could be a hallucination or some type of technology.

That's why instantly bringing people back from the dead (especially those who were cremated) is a lot more in line with the incredible powers of God/Jesus and very hard to attribute to technology or hallucinations if everyone else is as flabberghasted as you.


Something that defies the laws of physics is simply something standing in need of a scientific explanation. If one believes in science and using facts and evidence to understand the world, a metaphysical explanation is a non-starter and won't be taken seriously.

If I were to see God, or see solid, empirical evidence for the existence of God, I would either believe it or wonder if I were having a mental breakdown. So far, fortunately, I’ve not seen either, and I’m not holding my breath.

Does personal experience carry any weight in this thread. I had a heart attack years ago and discovered I could live outside my body and feel great. This doesn't mean that a God of some kind exists, or does it? I have come to believe in something greater. This is my personal experience only.

The most logical explanation (which has been proven at times in similar cases) is that lack of oxygen in the brain can cause out of body experiences (obe). Never has it been proven that someone who has had an obe could actually see anything that was hidden from one's physical location, e.g. an item or a note on top of a theater theater light or other apparatus.

By the way, I also "believe in something greater", but feel strongly that it's built into all pack and social animals, and is especially highly evolved because of our advanced social circuits in our human brain. Many people also have a strong need to follow (say) a charismatic leader, or even an authoritarian leader, which I feel evolution-wise probably led us to work together and compete with other tribes. That's not to say that it's a "good" quality to evolve, because there are also negative results and (e.g.) terrible results that can come about when a group of people toss logic and reason out the window in order to execute some supposedly grand plan from 'above'--which of course is just a grand plan made up by one or a bunch of powerful and/or charismatic men.

In many obe's or nde's there would be a lack of brain oxygen. However, there are those who left the body and traveled a great distance. It is true that nothing can be "proven" except to the experiencer. This proof is not the most important aspect. It is the change that takes place in one's life after the experience. One of those changes is the need to follow, replaced by the need to know.


© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service