Atheists say all the time that the burden of proof is on theists, they demand proof/evidence yet it isn't quite clear what kind of proof they are looking for. I'm not entirely sure if atheists ask this because they genuinely want proof or because they think that asking that question will immediately shut the theist down. It is also interesting how the same reasons/logic they use for believing their love for their spouse, their knowledge of historical figures like caesar, alexander the great, socrates etc are real, does not apply to God or Jesus.

Christopher Hitchens once said that if he saw god he would immediately pass it off as some kind of hallucination and assume he had gone mad. I hate to say it but I'm afraid there is no proof sufficient to make any man believe in god. So atheists please stop asking for something that doesn't exist.

Yet, you seem to believe so that is quite the paradoxical statement.

It is true that there is no objective proof...it's all experiential imo, which is the opinion a former agnostic/atheist fwiw.

The burden of proof exists for whoever is making a claim. Anyone who says 'god doesn't exist' would be held to this as well.

As to the bolded, if you saw a vision of the prophet Muhammed would you then become a Muslim? If the answer is no, why not? This just sounds like a special pleading argument to me. A vision of your god must be true, because of course, he's the one who exists.

Also, there is a difference between a personal truth and an objective one. I (and you, and everyone) am the only one who needs to decide what is sufficient for me to decide I am in love with someone. I'm not trying to convince anyone else of this. The reason people demand proof for god claims (or, I do, anyway) is because people attempt to use their religion to dictate public policy in this country and around the world

I need a burning bush to talk to me or something similar. If I saw God I would not pass it off as an hallucination since I've never had one before. Unless I was on drugs of course lol. Proof is proof and is needed for me to believe something 100%

What makes you think I believe there is proof for god? We might be dealing with a semantic issue here. Either way I don't believe in god because of proof. There was no mathematical formula or scientific theory or fossil record that has proven gods existence in which i was shown that made me believe. There is no theist who has ever said God was proven to me therefore I believe in him. Also I would like to know what you mean by proof for god being all experiential. Personal experience is a reason someone might believe in god but its not the only reason. Yet you are saying the only proof one has is through personal experience and that isn't true because there are other reasons a person believes in god, I also don't think any of these can be classified as proof.

I want a case of single-malt scotch to appear under my bed first day of next month.
I want a vivacious blonde bombshell babe to appear in my bed first day of next month.
I want DS to stop making silly posts on 2+2 by the first day of next month.

If all those things happen simultaneously on Nov 1, I will believe that I am God and we can all move on to better things.

Seriously, I don't think about it much. It is a quixotic question.

The only time this would apply is if something else has already been proven. For instance if I can prove that man has landed on the moon, and you claim he has not, then you need to provide some kind of proof that he has not, i.e. proof in the negative. Since there has been no proof of a God, there is no burden to atheists to prove otherwise.

Anyway, I never met Henry the 8th. How can I be certain he ever existed? Because I have "faith" there is sufficient evidence already out there that proves his existence, and that if I were to try really hard and research his existence I would inevitably come to the conclusion that he was real.

There are plenty of reproducible scientific experiments to come that will prove one thing or the other that wont get perpetually questioned. If someone builds a teleportation device the whole world wont go bat**** insane. We'll just want to see a few hands on demo's from some reputable journalists and accept that the alternative of this being some elaborate hoax is unlikely. If someone builds a food replicator that can rearrange subatomic particles to make me a steak and then lets me use this machine, or I see video evidence if it in action supported by hundreds of unbiased sources claiming this is real then I will accept it.

Just because it's God does not mean that there can never be any satisfying proof.

Reason dictates there is no invisible dude playing puppet master with us.

You know that mental illness is real.

If God appeared and everyone saw him, I guess we could all sit down and have a chat.

But if no one remembers the chat next day except you....

I would not, but not for the same reasons atheists would pass off seeing god as a hallucination. My belief in Christianity is not based off of what I see or hear or any of my senses. Yet atheists seem to think that unless you can observe something in the physical world there is no reason to believe it exists. Yet they believe many things that they can't observe in the physical world. But when it comes to believing in god they want observable physical evidence. Yet if they were to get that, they would still not believe.

The issue here is atheists say they don't believe in god because there is no proof. Yet if they had proof, say albert einstein came up with some theory proving god exists, atheists would still not believe in god. Simply because the reasons they don't believe in god aren't based on science,logic or proof but on a personal decision to reject god.

If an atheist says he does not believe in god because he has the right to do so. I can respect that, and clearly that is honest. However when he says things like because there's no proof, no evidence, because of science, because the world is so evil, these are just rationalizations for him to justify his atheism. These aren't reasons not to believe in god.

Not all of us are asking for evidence. Some will settle for a falsifiable theory at the least.

Like what? Electrons? Gamma rays? Distant nebulas? Whatever unobservable factoids you think atheists believe in probably actually does have observable evidence, you are just ignorant of the science behind it proving so. Regardless, the difference between what an atheist believes is that their beliefs are extended to those who have credibility. I dont have "faith" that my car will start in the morning just because I dont understand the inner workings of an internal combustion engine, I have credible reason to believe it will because it is backed by engineers and scientists who have earned the right to tell me so through repeated demonstrations backed by irrefutable evidence of their own.

Yes they would.

Yes they would.

No it isn't.

Requiring proof of something isnt some random rationalization to make someone feel better. Prove to me that invisible unicorns DONT exist. If you cant, then are you just choosing not to because you reject the idea on personal reasons.

The fact that some atheists wouldn't believe in God even in the face of what appears to be almost conclusive evidence that the laws of physics are being broken is not important at this point in time. One reason is that plenty of atheists would in fact be convinced by incredibly astonishing scientifically unexplainable events.

But the more important reason is because there is no credible evidence that even mildly astonishing examples of physics laws being broken has ever happened.

This statement is not true for most atheists. But most theists think it is. And that is the atheists fault. Because they spend so much time talking about how bad religion is or how bad God, if he exists is. Even though those things have nothing to do with the reasons they don't believe in him.

Magicians routinely appear to break the laws of physics. Because illusions are readily possible an atheist must first assume any display of God is somehow a magic trick no matter how elaborate the display, hence the whole "i must be insane" concept if you were to witness God. Even if there is worldwide media coverage and 100% scientific consensus that some miraculous event is occurring, how can I know I havent just suffered a schizophrenic break and might possibly by sitting in a padded room right now unbeknownst to myself? I cant, so whatever reality I choose to accept I would have to accept whatever comes along with it. If I can live completely insane for the rest of my life but enjoy it at the same time then **** it, God exists and I'll just deal with that.

But for the sake of simplicity lets assume I'm not insane. With enough peer review and personal examination based upon how highly I rate my own intelligence I would absolutely believe in god under any number of examples. To date, there have been none even close. And for those who do believe in god, they dont have anything that even they consider proof either. They just believe it because they want to. If a devout worshiper claims he literally heard/saw God tell him to do something and he is the only one to be witness to this and it is not repeatable, then he is most likely insane.

Romans 1:20New International Version (NIV)

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.


God would disagree their isn't proof of him. As long as thats the case seems fair to ask about it.




As to the OP. Being alone in the universe would make me think...

Pretty much comparable to what I would need to believe in Superman. Reliable, objective (not to be confused with philosophical objectivity) and sound evidence. I'd also expect to see ripple effects that can't be explained simply by people believing.

A specific example (but not necessarily the only acceptable evidence) would have been if religious rituals had comparable power to that of engineering, medicine or research.

From a utility perspective I think it would also be handy to have some evidence that 'believing in God' is better for me (mentally, physically or financially) than not believing in God. If it's not significantly better for me - which it was not since I was Catholic for 10 years - then I see little reason to keep such beliefs.

You'd probably smirk and think "what a selfish perspective" but I certainly have evidence of the fact that one day I will die and if my short and fragile life is not enhanced by particular beliefs then there's no reason to fill it with them. To all those who find emotional solace in holding such beliefs, keep it up - all the power to you. My requirements for happiness are just a little different.

Some theists believe that there will never be evidence because god is deliberately withholding it from us.

I think the argument goes something like this:
P1) God exists
P2) God withholds the evidence that would prove he exists
C1) Therefore God exists.

I hesitate to use the word 'Circular' because I feel that I've been using it a lot lately, but......

Completely disingenuous.

Use the scientific method, of course. An atheist could run his own experiment where he alternates believing and not believing in a personal, benevolent God ever year (or every month if they are impatient) or so. Keep track of which period of time makes him feel best and go with it.

I doubt that you have outlined anything like the scientific method here. And even if you have, how you feel when you hold a certain belief is not proof of the existence or non existence of god.

Being a experienced scientist, I guarantee it is the scientific method. Proof of existence is of lesser importance than proof of efficacy. If something works it, you use it.

How so?