Atheists: What `proof` are you looking for?

Good point.... evidence is all around but atheists insist all these came about 'by accident'... eyes are 'accidentally' sensitive to light waves; ears are 'accidentally' sensitive to sound waves etc etc.

You name spelled out in lightning in the sky?

- Words floating in mid-air "Believe Me! Read My Bible Mr John Smith of 22 Egerton Court Basingstoke"

- The Hubble telescope to spot a giant billboard "Hey this is MY creation pal !"

- God in a test-tube or in a CT scan?

-An amputee re growing a limb at a faith healing event

- An instantaneous and miraculous end to war and world hunger.

- An instantaneous and miraculous end of pain and disease

Any or all of these would make me that their is evidence of a god.

The next 2 questions would be Which god is it and Why should I worship such a deity ?

If I saw any of those signs I would seriously consider the next 2 questions.

OK, to be precise about it, what's needed is evidence that:

a) can be used to definitively determine between a god existing and a god not existing, i.e. rule out all possibility of non-existence. Stating "a god exists" is a falsifiable claim with a yes/no answer, and the evidence must rule out the "no" answer.

b) is independently testable, so that separate groups can scrutinise it, minimising the chance of misconception, error or even fraud.

Your questions:

1. Because that's the same standard we apply to every other claim about the nature of the universe. As we have no innate ability to just "know" reality, we have to be detectives to best figure it out. Only real-world evidence can distinguish between a fantasy and reality.

2. Nobody has presented me with any evidence whatsoever. The point about evidence is that it CAN be tested. How it is tested will depend on the nature of the evidence, e.g. I personally have no access to a massive particle accelerator, but others do. If evidence is made available, the *community* will be able to examine it.

Most significantly, the fact that *anyone* can feel their claim of a god is based on evidence means *they* must have access to it, and the ability to examine it. Otherwise they're not in a position to make such a claim in the first place. Well, not a meaningful one.

If I claim I have evidence of Martians, but only *I* can detect and measure it, then I will be laughed at, and rightly so. Evidence must be independently detectable and measurable, otherwise it isn't actually evidence. Evidence is for convincing "everyone*, not just yourself.

Something that can't just as easily be a natural occurrence would be proof.

Plane crashes and one person survives? Not proof of a god because that's perfectly consistent with what happens naturally. Plane is going down and a giant hand comes out of the sky to stop its fall and gently set it on the ground? That would be more like proof of a god.

Existence of galaxies? Not proof of a god because we have a pretty good idea of how they would form naturally.

Is it reasonable? You're not actually saying that God is limited and can only offer vague, easily misinterpreted proof, are you? Or do you really worship a god that is limited to acting in ways that strongly resemble natural occurrences?

#2 is a backhanded way of saying that "evidence" is whatever you decide to call evidence and if I find it unconvincing, you'll just say I can't properly interpret it because of my own shortcomings. However, a real god wouldn't be limited to evidence that had to be interpreted or could only be perceived by those who already believe.

Essentially what you're probably saying is that only those who already believe can see the evidence, which is quite convenient, to say the least.

Um, I'd want something reasonable. God made man in his own image, so God can have a form. If He could just show Himself in an unmistakeable way, like appearing in the sky and perform some miracles that clearly have no other explanation then I would believe.

I am confident this is reasonable as these are things the Bible describes. However, who knows if the Bible God is the God that would appear? It would need to be the Bible God for me to believe in the Bible God, otherwise well.... then I would have another belief.

PS: You are sick for only believing in God because he will punish 95% of the human population for eternity of torture in a lake of fire.

purpose/empirical information that God exists or has interacted with this international. this may well be a dazzling finding that evolution does not happen for sure, information of a international huge flood around 4000 or so years in the past, finding the ruins of the tower of Babel or information of the Exodus. of direction finding a eyewitness checklist of Jesus latest and preforming miracles, fairly if it grew to become into written by using a disinterested/purpose celebration, might help to boot. those issues, all at the same time, might substantiate the Bible's declare to be infallible. although, all of us know that evolution is a actuality and a organic technique, that abiogenesis, in step with recent findings, is extremely probable, that human beings have been roaming the earth for over 60,000 years and the the earth grew to become into no longer destroyed, ever, by using a flood. Moses and the exodus did no longer happen, and the OT is extremely probable the manufactured from a mix of four or 5 separate writings.

There will never be any proof because it's not real.

You have no proof no one does, no matter what you have convinced yourself. No one in the whole history of man kind has been able to show any evidence for the existence of any of the gods that people have worshipped.

1/ This is supposedly a supreme being that can do anything

2/ Because your a person just like me and have no special abilities that I don't

I'm not looking for any.

The believers have to provide it if they want to try and persuade me. I think it was Mr Hitchens who said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I think he has a point.

I am not expecting anything.

But in any other walk of life most people would expect evidence rather than just accepting something on faith.You too, I suspect.

Why should religion be treated differently? What is unreasonable about that?

Anything scientifically verifiable, at all, for a start.

1. In respect to Christianity, they're concept of a god, is an all-powerful all-knowing deity. Being all powerful, it should be utterly simplistic for him to provide sufficient evidence for his existence. Since he's all knowing, he'd obviously know what it would take to convince me.

2. If I completely lack the ability, I have nothing to worry about. Christians say they're god is loving, and compassionate. Without the ability to determine, I would be justified in my stance, and therefore unworthy of hell. Either way, I'm fairly certain I have this ability, since I know how scientific discovery works, and how to apply its findings to my understanding of the world.

Absolutely, literally anything will do, no matter how big or small. Considering there has not been a single shred of evidence since the bible etc was 'written' 2000 years ago, I won't hold my breath.

By the way, wheres your evidence god does exist? The burden of proof lies with you.

I'm waiting............

1/ what makes you supremely confident that what you are expecting is reasonable?

When did wanting proof become unreasonable?

2/ how do you know you have the ability to determine if you have or haven't seen this `evidence`?

Well I imagine that "God" being so perfect would be able to simply prove his existence to me with a packet of potato chips if such was his will. If god provides purposely faulty evidence and red herrings then it really reflects more on him then me.