How much evidence do Atheists and Angnostics need to accept God of the bible?
God would need to physically come down here and talk with me directly in a totally undeniable and indisputable way. None of this "hearing the voice" or "feeling the spirit" baloney that's just so much brainwashed mental-masturbation. If he could walk freely around Earth a few thousand years ago then he could pop down for an hour or two to chat it up and let me know what's the real deal, maybe cure all the innocent children from cancer while he's at it. Amazingly he limited sharing his direct physical presence to simply riding chariots and turning water into wine amongst barbaric nomadic desert tribes in the Iron Age Middle East, fancy that, makes one wonder why he didn't visit China or the Indus Valley region where they actually had, you know, literature, city-planning or something vaguely approximating civilization. You might almost think it's a baseless, primitive mythology that survived history by brute force, systematic indoctrination or political control.
Atheists : Why dont you believe in God ?
Evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. That's the definition of proof, but any evidence whatsoever would be a good start. I've studied Christianity since I was baptized and for a very long time I defended that position, but eventually I realized that I was wrong and finally decided to be honest with myself and challenge my beliefs by trying to see the other side of the argument. Now I'm agnostic and since my convictions connected with reason, they've never been stronger. I've studied the Bible, not only in context, but also in the context of its own history. It's been changed since people first started writing and several of the ideas were taken from other religions that predated it, especially the story of Christ. If you haven't been told this, or haven't studied it for yourself, there's simply no way you could understand why we don't believe what you do. It's not that I reject God. I merely reject your definition of Him, because it simply doesn't make any sense to even begin to apply definitions to something I can never hope to actually verify in the first place. You put faith, not in God, but in the people who have given you a suggestion of what God is.
TL;DR I am an atheist. No I don’t believe there is undenial proof god doesn’t exist (nor do I think any other sensible atheist does). The idea of such proof is non-sensical. Athiesm is simply lack of belief. The default position.As others before have said you don’t prove non-existence, it’s logically nonsensical. As others have already tackled this I’ll try to address what is a common misconception about atheists.“Atheist”, by definition, mean lack of theism. Similar to symmetric, vs asymmetric. Nothing else, just absense of a belief in a deity.This is not a statement that god doesn’t exist. I repeat this is not a statement that god doesn’t exist.Some people do assert that god doesn’t exist. These people while also atheist, assert this belief on top of being atheist. In the same way you most likely do not believe in Thor or Zeus or unicorns or fairies though you probably don’t have a strong feeling either way. Until someone shows you a fairy or gives you strong reason to believe they exist you remain in the default position of lacking belief. That is what athiesm is the defaul position. The I haven’t been convince of the existence of a god yet.This is sometimes referred to as soft atheism or agnostic athiesm but I think that just confuses things further. It does not need a clarifying adjective. It should also be noted that athiesm as a word shouldn’t exist. We don’t have a word for people who lack belief in astrology or don’t believe in the suggested benefits of homeopathy. The default position for anything is lack of belief until you are convinced otherwise.This all being said we can still talk in likelyhoods. I cannot state with certainty that a god doesn’t exist but from current knowledge it seems unlikely. I cannot assert this to be true any more than I can assert with certainty there are no aliens living on the sun. But to the best of our knowledge that would be impossible and so I can say it’s highly unlikely. I can do the same thing with a god. While I wouldn’t call this a belief in the same sense as it requires no faith, it is my opinion based on current evidence.So no atheists don’t believe there’s proof of no god cause that doesn’t make sense. Imo there is a lot to suggest a all living all powerful creator with a specific interest in us, is unlikely. But all athiesm is is the statement that I have yet to see a reason to believe in a god.
I went through a phase where I thought agnosticism was true. Atheism seemed, to me, to be an unprovable claim just as all the various theisms are. I even convinced a friend or two of the rightness of this view. But I was wrong about that. And what led me into error was the definition of atheism I was using--the only one I was aware of--was strong atheism, the assertion "no gods exist." That's a positive claim and an unprovable one. But strong atheism of this sort can generally only be found in Christian apologetics. Atheists, the real rather than straw man sort, are generally weak atheists. And weak atheism boils down to a lack of belief in gods, generally due to a lack of credible evidence of any actually existing.This is a sound view. It simply applies the pragmatic skepticism that you likely already apply to everything else of which you have no proof to the god hypothesis. Agnostics, curiously, are only agnostic when it comes to religious questions. They do not, as a rule, take an agnostic position vis-a-vis Russell's Teapot (Russell's teapot), the Norse pantheon, the Greek and Roman pantheons, or myriad other things that are possible but extremely unlikely to exist. Why are you so sure? . . . There is always a possibility.Mere possibility isn't enough reason to believe in anything, certainly not anything as grand as a "supernatural creator and overseer of humans and the universe" (your phrase). The possibility of something doesn't entail it being true. Isn't it pretty immature if not arrogant to strictly assume that there is a god / there isn't a god ?There's nothing arrogant or immature about thinking. It's not arrogant to use your mind to judge the value of things, even long-cherished cultural assumptions. If our ideas were not subject to scrutiny, our ideas would never have the opportunity to change. And history shows you that people have been wrong--seriously, grievously wrong--about a vast number of things. Leveling charges of arrogance against people for using their minds is just a rhetorical attempt to close off discussion. You won't get any traction with that tactic here.
So, you want us to prove something does NOT exist? The ONLY way to do so is to prove something else that is mutually exclusive from it exists.To prove God exists is much easier logically, all you need to do is show an undoctored photo, credible eyewitness testimony, traces of the supreme being’s DNA… Not available? Now who’s the one with an unproven dubious hypothesis here?To prove God does NOT exist is much trickier logically. Say, if your little cousin believes that Superman is real because he has read about him, watched films about him and seen many figurines of him, how do you go about proving beyond reasonable doubt that Superman does not exist? You would have to conclusively show him nothing travels faster than light, no one’s skin is bulletproof… Even then, Superman can still exist, just not up to full spec’s as people claim.(Now, you see why our courts require prosecutors to prove the existence of a crime instead of defendants proving something did NOT happen.)Now, even though it is difficult to conclusively prove that God, or anyone or anything for that matter, does NOT exist, I would like to present some points that strongly suggest that he/she doesn’t…Infants who die soon after birth. Would a perfect God bring a new soul into this world and then instantly does a recall?Since those kids never had a chance to believe in him/her, they would be condemned for all eternity? What had they done? Original sin? Really?What about the pain and suffering of the would-be parents? Does that sound like a loving God to you?If suffering like this is considered a test of faith, why is there even a test? Wouldn’t a omniscient God know the test results already? Why, just to make sure? So there was a doubt?For a truly all-knowing God, no one would need to pray. He/she would already know what you want and need.Allowing free will and then using Hell and suffering for all eternity to coerce you into believing just seem hypocritical. Free will should mean freedom to truly choose. Fear mongering just seems so below a supreme and enlightened being.…Again, the logic required to conclusively prove something has never existed is difficult compared to proving its existence — think black swan. Yet, no theists have come up with any real proof, only conjectures (often emotional and suggestive at best.) I would say logic actually suggests otherwise.
There is one, and only one, type of proof that I would accept as evidence of a monotheistic God.Now, there’s an important distinction between monotheistic gods (YHWH, Allah) and polytheistic gods (Hades, Thor). All I’d require from a polytheistic god is a simple display of power. Hades could raise the dead and I’d be, “Yup, this guy’s legit.” But if a supposedly omnipotent god did the same? Well… eh.Polytheistic gods never pretended not to be human, never pretended to be infallible. God has always, and continues to, pretend to be some inhuman, perfect being. That’s called ego. I don’t expect ego from a god. I expect it from a mortal. I expect that from Joel Osteen and Ken Ham, not God. If some being descended on a pillar of light, destroyed half the moon with a wave of the hand, put it back together, and said, “I am God,” I’d immediately think, “Sufficiently advanced aliens exist, and they’re full of hot air.”What evidence, then, would I require to know of God?Math.Yes, math. That thing you got an F in. The thing religious people never use. The power of the universe itself. A kind of magic that lets us predict the world around us with startling accuracy.Give me a mathematical proof, and I will accept that there is a sentient driving force behind everything. There are, however, two criteria:The equation must be compatible with our current understanding of the universe (including special and general relativity and quantum mechanics).The equation must prove that God is necessary for our universe to work, much like how the value we know for the electromagnetic force is necessary for us to be here as we are. Merely being possible, or probable, is not sufficient.Then, and only then, will I accept that there is a God. But will I believe in him? No. I can’t believe in God any more than I can believe in Trump. Too much misery in the world. Too much misery in my world. I’ve always walked alone. Life may be a test, but God’s the one who’s failed, not us.
Do you believe that all free group factors are pairwise nonisomorphic?I assume you have no idea what I’m talking about, because free group factors are mathematical objects that are so obscure, they don’t even have a Wiki page. (If you happen to know what a free group factor is, pretend you don’t.)Even if you don’t know what I’m talking about, you can still answer the question. Do you believe all free group factors are pairwise non-isomorphic? The answer is probably “no.” Not because you have special insights into free group factors, but precisely because you have no useful insight whatsoever.It’s not like you have a default position as to whether all free group factors are pairwise nonisomorphic. Neither that proposition nor its negation seems to be required by anything else you know or believe. So you simply have no opinion on that question.So it would seem incredibly foolish and annoying if, hearing that, I were to challenge you: “Oh yeah? You don’t believe that? Okay, smart guy, go ahead! SHOW ME A PAIR OF ISOMORPHIC FREE GROUP FACTORS!!!”That’s the deal with many (though not all) atheists. They just don’t have an opinion on the existence of god. They haven’t seen enough evidence to believe in god, the way most theists haven’t seen enough evidence to believe in a nonisomorphic pair of free group factors.