Atheists: You say you do not believe because there is not sufficient evidence that God exists...?

No - this atheist does not say that. I use the Epicurean paradox of evil as one of the bases for my non-belief.

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to

Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing

Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing

Then whence cometh evil?

If He is neither able nor willing

Then why call Him God?

Oh yes and the complete lack of proof. Nothing short of testable, repeatable empirical evidence would persuade me otherwise.

I would think that anything that verified that the miracles recorded in the Bible would be an obvious and reasonable start.

Here's a short list:

1. Evidence of Creation (not likely as evolution is a done deal)

2. Evidence of a flood (None exists.)

3. Evidence of the tower of Babel or that civilizations spread out from a single point as described by the Bible.

4. Evidence of people living 200+ years as the Bible describes

5. Evidence of the Exodus (From Joseph tthrough Moses and the entry into the holy land - this evidence does not currently exist).

6. Records from other literate civilizations that document the sun stopping and/or the next event where it moved backwards.

In short, proving that the Bible is actually supported by objective, empirical evidence.

Edit:

You assert and I assume believe that there have been many miracles, however, as we understand more about both medicine and the nature of the world, I'd submit that there have not been any real miracles. However, amputees regaining their limbs while being observed by qualified, objective Doctors could be classified as a miracle.

Dude. Don't you think that after all this time if there was definitive evidence the world would already know about it and we'd all believe? I mean regardless of whether you think it's 6500 years or if you understand that it's actually more like 65 million years that beings have habitated this planet, that if there was actual proof of the existence of a god or gods that we might have HEARD about it? You think because YOU believe that means there's actual evidence? You don't believe because of evidence, you believe DESPITE THE LACK OF EVIDENCE. Really, let's be clear, ok?

P.S. Jasmine didn't say she didn't want to "be convinced", she said "stop TRYING to convince me". If you don't see the difference, you're too far gone to argue with.

P.P.S. Farien, you friggin' rule. Great answer.

If I were to witness a series of expiriments that supported a credible and falsifiable theory of the suernatural, that would shake me up. Of course, such an expiriment would have to be repeatable with measurable and quantifiable results.

A second series of expiriments that supported a credible, falsifiable, and above all scientific theory of the existence of a god that exists within this supernatural realm that also proved that this god resembled us that also proved that this god cared about us and proved that this god created everything... of course we would have to have a solid scientific understanding of how everything tangible could be created from a supernatural perspective, but....

Yeah, that would pretty much do it. I've done enough drugs not to trust hallucinations, so even a personal visitation ain't gonna do it. Unless it's a really convincing one. I can trust the repeatable, the verifiable, the falsifiable, the measurable. I can't trust with any measure of faith things that aren't.

L

I can think of many things. Miracles with no other explanation. A verifiable and recordable manifestation before many witnesses. These would be the best choices. But, just to be clear, it isn't that there isn't sufficient evidence that god exists, it is that there is absolutely no evidence at all that god exists.

You right on target with this question. Any "evidence" that God could give would be explained away. Most evidence that they seek has already been given anyway.

It all goes back to art...if I possess a painting, I know there must be an artist. We have a creation, therefore, it must be concluded there is a Creator.

First off, let me say that I am NOT an atheist, but a firm believer in our Lord Jesus Christ.

It is ridiculous to say that if we saw him we would believe in him because the Bible directly states that "Even if they did see Him yet they would NOT believe!"

Let me add to your question - you cannot see cold. It does not exist scientifically. It is the absence of warmth. Therefore we must surmise that cold does not exist.....?

(Einstein)

Sufficient evidence? The simplest, easiest thing in the world: If a god showed up, and I knew it was a god, I'd believe. You'd imagine that a being who actually WANTED people to believe in him because he LOVED them would be able and willing to perform this unutterably simple act.

None of this "But faith" blah or "BUT HE'S TESTING" blah or "ITS TOO EASY" blah or "GODS PLAN" blah or "SENT HIS SON" blah, blah blah-de-freaking-blah.

Just show up. That's all. Make it unequivocal for the entire world. End the issue. Put up or shut up. Habeus Corpus. Either present God, or admit you can't and END THE BLAH!

Given the evidence, the only possible "God" I can see "existing" is one that is transcendental, unfalsifiable, omnipotent, etc.

In short, a logical paradox. So, no there is nothing that could be sufficient evidence since, by definition, no such evidence could "exist."

This poses the question "If something is construed as a miracle, and then is given a scientific explanation, does it cease to be a miracle?" I think people are overlooking the miracles in everyday life.