Why are atheists confused as per a question posted earlier today?

Question

The following quetion was posted earlier.

I'm confused.?
On these boards, religious types often say things like "Science cant "prove" evolution, therefore god must have created the world".

Along side that, they will say "You cannot prove the existence of god, you must have faith. God created the world"

IS IT ME? WHAT AM I MISSING HERE?


I think the problem relates to how each group makes its decisions. Atheists do not believe in God. They only believe in what they can touch, smell, observe, etc. Therefore, since an atheist reasons only by what they can PROVE the normal response of a Christian to the argument of evolution is that atheists cannot indeed do what they claim they can do. And that is to PROVE there is no God and to PROVE that evolution is a fact. "Religious types" then are only responding to the basis of your argument. If atheist rely on physical proof then they must be held to that in their arguments. Atheists have set the agenda on their part around PROOF.

Now, "Religious types" never make claims about PROVING anything by means of what one can touch, smell, direct observation, etc. We have always based our convictions on faith which we have arrived at by personal conviction related to eye witness accounts in scripture. We have never set the agenda on our part around PROVING anything by touch, smell, direct observation, etc. So Christians are not held to defend our position based upon touch, smell, direct observation, etc. The position was not arrived at through this modality.

So, it would be very normal for a "religious type" to respond to an atheists position by saying they can't prove anything and be perfectly comfortable with the idea that we cannot prove anything by touch, smell, observation, etc. We are simply exposing that atheists are not able to prove God does not exist when the basis for all their positions is based upon physical proof. We do not base our position on physical proof. Atheists do. We are simply exposing an inconsistency in their reasoning. If an atheist wants to expose an inconsistency in Christian reasoning he must expose inconsistencies other than whether God can be proven by touch, smell, physical observation, etc. We do not arrive at our positions based upon these demands.

What I have said is not meant to answer whether or not God exists. Hopefully, after reading this, at least atheists won't be confused anymore about us crazy God people.

To J T

You weren't listening. I do not feel the need to prove anything to you. That's what you atheists do.

To A HI AZ T

I didnt' say Christians blindly believe. I said we base our belief on eye witness accounts of what people saw God and Jesus do throughout history.

To eantaelor

If you will look again at the last paragraph I wasn't trying to prove anything at all. Just explaining why atheists don't understand us and we don't understand atheists. Everybody seems a little bit testy today now don't they.

Nora 22000

Testy too huh?

Answer 1

I hear you trying to be profound. What you are saying is that people with religious faith do not require physical proofs to establish and maintain their beliefs, while people without that faith do. That is the nature of faith, belief without proof. It has nothing to do with reason.

It is not possible to prove a negative proposition, such as, "God does not exist", because by the construction of the proposition, there would be no evidence for God's non-existence. There is no "inconsistency in the reasoning". Prove the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. Prove that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist. Prove that all the sensory information and perceived memories that you use to construct your reality and your sense of self aren't just an alien brain experiment (assuming you even know what a "brain" really is). It can't be done. And aetheists are comfortable with that. What they are waiting for is proof that God DOES exist.

It might be possible to prove God's existence except for the fact that God has no current material manifestation or any remaining evidence of prior manifestations. The only "evidence" is what lawyers would call "hearsay", the testimony of "witnesses". Accepting the testimony of a "witness" does not make the testimony true. The witness could be lying or deluded or could be quoting some other "witness" who could be lying or deluded. There are no directly linked facts involved so there is no proof, only opinion.

Logic is the only valid, non-physical proof of a proposition. If one cannot argue from available facts to the desired conclusion, there is no proof. And "facts", such as "miracles" that could be dismissed as coincidences are not proof either. Philosophers have tried for centuries to construct logical proofs for the existence of God. Some have gotten very close, but there is always an unproven assumption, however small, that ruins the whole thing.

God may indeed exist, but God has seen fit not to provide any irrefutable evidence of that existence. You can use your belief in God as a guiding principle in your life but you cannot PROVE that you are not imagining God exists. Can a theist live with the understanding that their belief in God is an opinion, not a proven fact? Then there's no problem.

Answer 2

I'm not an atheist, but your arguments are specious.

What about Occam's Razor? This is the concept that the most reasonable explanation is the one to be accepted, and not the one that most people like.

For example, if a small child tells you that a bird swooped in and upset all the things on your table, that is less believable than that the child (or even your dog or cat) did it. Especially if the window is closed.

By this method, the entire bible joins Greek, Roman and Norse mythology, and evolution remains what it is, a theory that reasonably explains the diversity of life we see, at least until another, simpler explanation comes along.

What I have said is not meant to answer whether or not God exists. If there is a God, more power to him! Hopefully, after reading this, at least religionists won't accept the stories and folklore passed down from thousands of years ago that makes no sense in terms of reasonable explanations.

Answer 3

Can you prove that atheists have set themselves some kind of agenda?
Can you prove that that particular atheist holds to that 'proof' agenda?
Do you think that you proved anything by this 'question'?
If something is not physically real, is it really real or just subjectively real?
I have no doubt that God is in your heart (mind), but is He out in the real world or not?

Answer 4

To clarify one point in your question, atheists deny the existence of god, it is not a belief (at least for me it isn't)

Answer 5

think about what you just wrote, the part that christians don't need proof but blindly believe......THAT is why us atheists are confused

Answer 6

Well, that cleared that up.

Now, where is your proof that your God exists?