1. no proof exists.
2. a proof might exist, but I'm not personally aware of any.
3. I've heard "the proof", but I don't personally believe the proof is valid.
4. a proof is impossible, and I can prove it.
5. a proof is impossible, but I can't prove that.
6. a proof is possible, but none has been discovered yet.
2007-11-27 04:01:43 · 16 answers · asked by I'm an Atheist 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Great question.
I agree with all except #2. I do not believe proof exists.
Is proof ever going to be possible? I can't rule it out.
2007-11-27 04:07:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Many religions claim that their deities are omnipotent, so it must be possible for them to provide a proof.
So if, for a moment, we assume such a deity exists, then 4 and 5 must be false. 3 is also on a rather weak footing.
1 is a poor argument and is effectively a subset of 2, which in turn is a subset of 6 given that any proof that was discovered would be rapidly publicized. (Unless you want to claim that the pope has proof of Vishnu that the Hindus are unaware of.)
So we are left with 6.
This come in two forms:
A proof exists.
If it exists presumably it can be discovered, and eventually will. In that case the people who lived before the proof was discovered are at a severe disadvantage compared to those who live after. This seems a bit tough.
A proof could be performed by the deity, but it choses not to. Back to option 1.
This is what the Abrahamic faiths believe. The argument is that people need free will to believe in God or not. Providing a proof would remove this free will. Gravity is proven, how many people do not 'believe' in it?
Quite how people who have had a personal revelation, a personal proof, balance this out I do not know. Maybe they all think that they are prophets of god.
Quite why we need this free will is not explained so well. It seems like giving your kids a car when they are born. They could chose to wait until they are 16, have taken a driving course and are responsible enough to drive. Or they could just get in the car as soon as they can reach the pedals. It is their Free Will. Who are we (their creators) to physically deny them this choice?
2007-11-27 12:23:54 · answer #2 · answered by Simon T 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The biggest problem with any debate or discussion is that those who believe and those who do not speak entirely different languages.
I see questions here every day that are asked by those who believe that use religious jargon that outside of religion mean nothing. It's fairly clear that we're speak past each other the majority of the time.
An example was just yesterday someone asked,
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjpQvXILuHBjJ9uMb_r_nWzty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071126171146AAjtvIP&show=7#profile-info-hbCs2X7Eaa
While the asker tried to explain what they meant they explained it also in the jargon and language of religiosity. Sadly YA is not a forum where dialog is even possible. I've had discussion about religion in real time even with hardcore fundamentalists that have gone better than most discussions here. Because we can dialog and and question what the other means by the terminology they're using. And in the end while we may have different opinions we almost always agree.
This question is impossible to answer without asking what you mean by proof?
I suspect that if dialog were possible you would find that the primary disagreement was the definition of proof.
2007-11-27 12:06:56 · answer #3 · answered by tamyp 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It can vary:
Clearly 1 would be an option.
2 would depend on the person being questioned.
3 is really more of a second-hand variety and would not constitute sufficient proof.
4 is nonsense.
5 is a possibillity.
6 is also a possibility.
2007-11-27 12:11:14 · answer #4 · answered by Todd 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As far as I'm concerned, it;s somewhere between two and five. If there is proof of a god, I'm not aware of it, and really, I don't believe it is possible for the existance of a god to be proved one way or the other.
2007-11-27 12:04:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
As far as I'm concerned, (when I say "proof") I mean meaningful evidence. Something concrete. (Not "look at the beautiful rainbow") Something that would show the existence of God, that can only be "God".
(I think that if there *is* a God, then he's not stupid, and he knows EXACTLY what it would take for me to believe in him. And if he's all-powerful, then it would take virtually NO effort on his part to show me. So if he's so concerned about my "believing" in him, why doesn't he just show me?)
2007-11-27 12:06:57 · answer #6 · answered by Jess H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd go with 2 and 6
2007-11-27 12:04:49 · answer #7 · answered by Blackacre 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
they have no proof to give.
i like all those though. i think there are some true to everyone.
in my case, #1, #2 and/or #3
2007-11-27 12:09:17 · answer #8 · answered by Chippy v1.0.0.3b 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
All six are options so it might be prudent to establish the definitions of terms at the beginning of any discussion.
2007-11-27 12:15:25 · answer #9 · answered by Mike B 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It means I have to touch His hands and feet to feel the nail-prints in order to believe what millions of other people believe by faith.
2007-11-27 12:05:31 · answer #10 · answered by Fish <>< 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋