If any non-falsifiable evidence of a god's existing came to light, I would be persuaded to change my mind.
Is what many atheists claim and the basis for the Agnostic Atheist position. But have have they ever thought about what criteria said non-falsifiable evidence would have to take for them to accept it?
(EDIT: the evidence need not only be non-falsifiable; this post was based off a quote from a member and I should have been more careful with paraphrasing them)
See if you've not thought about this prior, then you will never accept any evidence since you've no standard by which to judge good vs. bad evidence.
Consider I turn water into wine in front of you.
Is that enough?
After all, you could claim that it's merely a chemical reaction and not divinity.
Consider I walk on water in front of you.
Is that enough?
After all, you could claim that it's merely a new form of propulsion or special shoes that allow me to do that.
Consider I die and come back from the dead.
Is that enough?
After all, you could claim that it's merely a great advance in medical technology.
So my point, and question, is if you are atheist and carry the a priori viewpoint, be it belief or knowledge, that gods dont' exist, how do you combat the bias inherent in that viewpoint in order to objectively, dispassionately, and fairly evaluate any evidence that claims to speak about gods?
And as a follow up, as an atheist how do you combat scientism? The belief that science can and will explain everything makes any evidence of godhood just science not yet understood and thus there can never be any evidence to change your mind away from atheism.
I was born without a knowledge or belief in god...it is in fact my default position. The only information I have on the existence of god/gods is in the books I have read, i.e. bible, koran, mythogies (Greek etc)., and I have never been persuaded by anything therein as sounding remotely believable. I have also read the Arabian Nights and Grimm’s Fairy Tales and find them in much the same vein...the only difference being that nobody expects anyone to believe than any of their fantastic tales are factual. Credulity and logic prevent me from treating any of the so called “holy books” with any more seriousness. Maybe science will never prove the existence of god because god doesn’t actually exist...that is much more likely in my estimation, but I suppose there is always always a possibility. I’m afraid David Copperfield, Uri Geller and others have spoiled us for accepting magic tricks as proof of divinity, that is true, but who knows what other proof the “second coming” could bring, we’ll just have to reserve judgement until that happens!
@jlynn37 Yes but Uri & David never claimed to be god. The so called miracles cited by the poster were performed by Jesus in the bible, he did claim divinity. If he came back again and repeated the same, it wouldn’t convince us, as we have seen conjurers and magicians do much the same and know they are a form of deception. The poster is asking what would it take if not miracles like those in the bible. The answer to his question must be, we don’t know what proof we’d need until we see it!
Just to answer the initial question in your post, I'd apply the same standard to it that I apply to literally EVERY OTHER SUBJECT in my life. I assert that there's no such thing as a Bigfoot either but if someone hauls one out of the forest and it's not a bear or other large mammal we already know about it, that will change. Bigfoot, God, Ghosts. All the same level of evidentiary support.
Are u describing a god with whatever purpose / reasons , or the opening of a new circus attraction .
The water turns to wine and someone walks on water , ok , I am not 5 yr old . Tell me when the clowns and the monkeys are arriving , I will not want to miss that !
U really think atheists care to prove miracles wrong ? if that’s the best evidence a god can give me for his existence and purpose , well , what can I say , it’s a market for everyone out there congrats ! U should lead that thought to greatest even thoughts
My atheism is not based solely on the argument that there is no verifiable, falsifiable, evidence for a god. It is also based on the fact that science shows us that one is not necessary in order to explain the workings of the universe. So, why insert one?
If one inserts a god/universal consciousness they then have to explain how it came into existence.
Following Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is eternal energy (energy becomes matter, matter becomes energy). Once one gives this energy consciousness, will/volition it complicates it; and, as I said, is not necessary.
I used to wonder as a kid how people could see all the miracles and acts of their god but still turn away from him/question him or turn to false gods (such as the plagues unleashed on Egypt, the sea parting, manna from heaven etc).
And, how could people see all those miracles of Jesus and not know that he was God, or at least "a god?" Well, now I know it is because none of it ever happened.
As far as what evidence would it take? I guess it is kind of like what Justice Stewart said about recognizing pornography: "I will know it when I see it."
@TheMiddleWay The thing is: I don't expect to ever see it. And, my criteria for evidence is much higher than a theist. It has to be because I can see the same "evidence" that they do and I don't see it as evidence.
I don't accept holy book stories and so called fulfilled prophesies as evidence.
I don't accept so-called miracles, that defy the laws of science, even if people claim they saw them or it happened to them as evidence. If I were to have some sort of experience, how would I know that I wasn't having a psychotic episode? And, what we tend to call "miracles" (someone somehow surviving a horrid car crash, for example) is simply the lesser, or least likely, of multiple possibilities playing out.
I don't accept "personal feelings of peace and joy or of god(s) or Jesus in my heart etc." as evidence.
I don't accept made-up science that supposedly supports intelligent design/creationism as evidence.
I don't accept the "everything is so orderly there has to be some sort of god/consciousness" argument as evidence.
I suppose if I, along with a whole bunch of other people/doctors, witnessed, first-hand, the regrowth of an arm or a leg on a person while praying for that to happen, that would make me think that some sort of being, that we would likely call a god, was involved.
Now, would that make it a creator being? Not necessarily. It could be that it was caused by some cloaked alien with super alien technology. But, to us it would certainly seem "godlike."
As I said. I don't base my atheism on the lack of evidence for a god--but on the lack of the need for one to explain things.
When it comes to debunking specific gods, that is a different story. I think evidence can be presented that they do not, or cannot, exist.
I think the person you quoted meant "definitive evidence", not "non-fasifiable". Non-falsifiable (unfalsifiable) claims leave the realm of rational discourse because they are untestable. Such claims are often faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason. Such claims are often deliberately constructed so they cannot be falsified in any way. Therefore, they should not be seriously considered barring significant evidence.
Second, you make 2 false premises in assuming that if one doesn't commit to a particular standard of evidence beforehand, then (1) one will NEVER accept any evidence because (2) one has no standard. Can you understand how annoyingly deceiptful it is of you to require of someone to lay out the virtually ENDLESS considerations one would have to make in order to commit to an answer? The honest answer is that one doesn't know what it would require. And even if one could DEFINITIVELY confirm some sort of super-human powers in some being, that would not automatically lead to the conclusion they are divine or a god.
And lastly, concerning scientism: I can't help it if there is scant evidence of a "god". Not my fault. I understand that science has limitations and cannot test everything. But what else is there? It's certainly way better than faith.
@TheMiddleWay In science you have can have either a controlled laboratory environment, which others can attempt to replicate. Or you can analyze multiple longitudinal studies in which the environment is less controlled. In both instances, you TRY to control for as many variables as possible. But one can NEVER be certain they are all accounted for. Conclusions are working theories in progress, and only continue to be held so long as exceptions don't continually appear which you can't explain. So if by "change" ones mind, you mean move from a hard atheist position to an agnostic position, then I feel I could conceivably come up with various scenarios which might do that. And I feel others, too, might be better able to do so as well if "change of mind" is clarified to be defined in this way.
One such example might be some personal experience that was confirmed independently worldwide, which then would still require consultation with expert opinion on the matter, and then a significant consensus was achieved. Again, it is an extremely laborious task to try to detail all the the factors such a phenomenon might entail , but, in all intellectual honesty, I think that would weaken my resolve in an atheist as opposed to agnostic position.
Of course science is very rigorous about definitions, and this is something which is notoriously poorly achieved by religion, thereby further confounding the issue. And also, a single incident which positively argued for a divinity, would leave one still to contend with the mountains of evidence which has accumulated which runs counter to such a belief. A if that isn't enough, the contradictory nature of various supernatural claims makes the argument even more difficult to swallow. The standards of evidence put forward to date don''t even come close to achieving a claim of the supernatural. So I don't feel it's necessarily vacuous to say one will change with evidence. Evidence is the key thing. It just would require so much of it that it's ALMOST impossible to conceive, especially if it's not clear you're talking atheist to agnostic, not atheist to theist.
@TheMiddleWay You surely can't be suggesting that science has never been in need of revising itself. Of course it has. Why? Either all known variables were not adequately accounted for, or there were variables that were unknown, or, some other error was involved. Medications are recalled, dietary recommendations change. It's a mark of good science if a discipline has a growing list of superseded theories. That's basic knowledge.
LOL, I thought I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on the "change of mind" question. If you mean from atheist to theist, that would almost require me to write a book to detail all that. That's why an answer is so hard to come by. How about religion be in line with science, religion not vary by geography, and there be evidence of a worldwide revelation instead of a local event which takes thousands of years to reach all parts of world, just for starters? Something like that could have made me a believer, but it's a bit late now! The cat's out of the bag.
And then we're back to clarity and definitions again. If you're not speaking of pantheism or deism, then I gather you mean some hypothetical religion which hasn't been invented. Take ALL the false claims, contradictions, corruptions of any religion, and overturn them. That's what it would take. Sound virtually impossible. Not my fault.
@TheMiddleWay I'll have to read through the comments, which I've yet to do. But I'll admit that I don't yet understand those who claim 100% certainty of belief or knowledge there is no "supreme being". I wonder if it's just semantics, or whether they mean literally, and HOW they arrive at that conclusion.
But I still must take you up on a point or two. Though I'm not a scientist by profession, I know enough to know that the most accurate body fat calculation methods are expensive. So I know you aren't doing those for free. But even more to the point, deciding whether there is a "god" is a lot less like taking measurements and building things, and much more like determining the effects of a medication or food. Do calcium channel blocking BP meds increase or decrease cardiac events? Does the consumption of soy products reduce or increase the increase the incidence of breast cancer. Despite trying, the scientific consensus is on each is inconclusive.
Given your premise that a Supreme Being were to appear physically on Earth, would I accept it and worship it as a god? I am not certain that I would fall down on my knees and worship but I would almost certainly respect the superior nature of this being and accept its guidance if it seemed superior to the current human system. (not a very high bar to pass but still an improvement would be nice)
I am pretty independent and freedom loving by nature and I would hope that this superior being would be accepting of freedom and love and kindness, if not I don't know what I could do to resist such a creature but something tells me I would die trying.
Thank you for hitting this topic square on the head. Even if it were proven that an immensely superior entity had set in motion the circumstances for our being, would that require kowtowing? Were such an entity to reveal itself, the inclination I would have is to demand, "WTF?!" And, "Where the hell have you been, asshole?!!" And "Hath not the potter power over the clay" my ass, you son of a bitch!
But to worship? That word should be eliminated from the lexicon. No human being should ever degrade themselves by the act of worship, whether it be toward another person or an idealized deity. We should all remember that it is an unnatural act to kneel or bow, so let's keep our heads raised, and our knees free of dust! Let's determine to worship nothing, and no-one.
Exactly the reason why I have always been anti-religion, even before I stopped believing in the idea of a supreme being. Religions all claim to uplift a person's spirit when in actuality they are focused only upon making you bow down to them and to subjugate your freedom to them. Religions are about establishing control over people, never about empowering them.
I go with facts and evidence, not just blind faith in mythology. If anyone can show me valid evidence that gods are real, I'll consider them real. If not (and nobody in my 60 years has, though many have tried), I will continue in atheism. I will follow the truth where it leads.
@TheMiddleWay I don't just take people's opinions as true. I've got to have evidence and proof. I was raised by my parents to be a Moron (oops, Mormon). In my late 20's I decided to prove that the church was true, so I could convince my friends, who wanted evidence. To my shock and dismay, the more I studied Moronism scientifically, the more convinced I became that Joseph Smith (the founding prophet of the Moron church) was a false prophet. He made predictions that, when compared to historical facts, did NOT come true. Based on that evidence, I left Moronism, and was excommunicated for apostasy, the best thing the church ever did for me. Later, I studied the Bible in the same way I studied Moron scriptures. I discovered that all the major prophets were false prophets, that there are many contradictions, and that many stories are very unscientific. Now, whenever a missionary of any church tries to convert me, I demand facts and evidence to back up their claims. So far, nobody has been able to do so. Until I see such facts and evidence, I am convinced that religion is nothing but mythology.
There is no evidence nor can there be. One species, ours, is not the center of the universe and there is no such thing as magic. Everything has an underlying cause.
@TheMiddleWay The planet not the little, 2 legged, self-absorbed, creatures living on it.
@TheMiddleWay I would say the center of ones own universe. Besides, what does being in the 'center' mean??
The Goddess would have to appear before me and grant me three wishes... So that I would have the opportunity to test her divinity...
The question I have is "Why does it matter so much to you"? For if it cannot be established that this entity has revealed dogma or doctrine that we may know it's mind, then it's existence simply becomes another interesting but impersonal aspect of nature. And that's an enormous "if" on top of an exponentially more enormous "if". It brings you only to Pantheism, or at best, Deism. And to add anything to the belief beyond indifference puts one down the road of mere speculative confirmation-biased woo.
There is always a possibility for trickery. But just as in a court of law, we have to weigh the evidence. What's the alternative? Faith? That's what children use to believe Santa Claus is real. Adults should not rely on faith either.
I might have to accept the possibility that your god is real if you turned water into wine, walked on water or came back from the dead. But I would have my head examined first.
And what's wrong with scientism? Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science (Shermer 2002). The alternative for that is faith. Belief in the supernatural and paranormal means the world is chaotic and unexplainable without regular, reliable order. We could never know anything for certain.
The overarching observation is that religion has just too many unreconciled conflicting beliefs and cognitive dissonance involved to be believable.
... Your last paragraph - "The overarching observation is that religion has just too many unreconciled conflicting beliefs and cognitive dissonance involved to be believable".
...and new religions (businesses) ride on the backs of the old one's and so it continues. ...because the old one's got away for that long (and govt backed) to hold control of the vulnerable and brainwashed. GIVING YOU A NEW PRODUCT YOU STILL CANNOT SEE, RAKING IN THE MONEY!
Pretty sure none of those "parlor tricks" would be enough to convince me. It would have to be an occurrence that could be universally and indisputably verified by thousands for its authenticity and godlike magnitude. End world hunger. Radically divert a hurtling asteroid. Reverse global warming. Simultaneously stop the beating hearts of all the cruel, despotic dictators on the planet. Then we'll talk.
@TheMiddleWay You two are talking about the"God of the Gaps". We can always explain the unknown as magic.
TheMiddleWay, the reason an atheist would view a grand mysterious event as something we don't yet understand and science has not yet explained is because that is the reality. The god of the gaps is bad logic.
This is fascinating stuff... But I'm over here just wondering what kind of proof I need to believe in myself...
I was raised to believe in God. I lost that faith over the course of many years. I can't imagine any proof that would undo the years of unsatisfying answers I got to all the questions I had as I matured. I'd like to believe that, if given proof, I'd be able to change my mind, but I couldn't give a single example of what proof I would actually accept. Much like pornography, I suppose I'll recognize it when I see it, but you won't catch me holding my breath while I wait for it.
Maybe I am a dyed in the wool atheist. Thanks for clearing that up for me so succinctly; I would not have come to that conclusion on my own.
@TheMiddleWay I certainly admire your intellectual curiosity. And I find myself oddly reassured that we're in the same boat, at least when it comes to the requirements of evidence.
"So my point, and question, is if you are atheist and carry the a priori viewpoint, be it belief or knowledge, that gods dont' exist"
As an Atheist I do not carry the "a priori viewpoint, be it belief or knowledge, that gods dont' exist"
I ask you, "What is God? Can you demonstrate it? Is it a mystery beyond human understanding?"
I have no need for any a priori belief or understanding, I am still waiting for ANY person of faith to demonstrate their God's actual, physical existence. In most cases believers will willingly assert their own ignorance, as God is the great mystery, and somehow see that itself as a reason to believe in their own idea, their conception of that God, which will not match that of friend, family or neighbor, and which is not demonstrable in any real way.
When someone tells they they believe, I always wonder in what that is beyond their own imaginings.
"All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream."
The criteria laid down for the identification of the Christian/Jewish/Islamic god as laid down in their holy books posits a being that
A) would be a logical contradiction and
B) therefore the existence of which would be impossible
C) would be impossible to prove the existence of
D) if proven to exist would no longer meet the criteria for he she or it being the god of those religions
As for your "point and question". You Christians have trouble understanding that as an atheist I must believe in something else if I don't except your god. Atheism is not something to believe in. Put simply (even though atheists and agnostics love to bicker over terminology) In the absence of belief you end up an atheist.
@TheMiddleWay Sorry, I assumed you a christian on the basis of your logic. You side step the real issues. The miracles you sight are insignificant compared to the proof I would require because its the whole point of the new testament.
@TheMiddleWay Ok. Since its the whole point of the bible show me how the sacrifice of one man atones for the transgressions of all mankind.
Apparently some believers need to think of science as a form of religion. As if Religion was a natural phenomenon and Science is one kind of religion. The exact reciprocal of observable reality.
I could spend my whole life writing about the difference between observational, repeatable, objective practice ("Science" ), and mystic, superstitious, fear-based practice ("Religion" ). But I have better things to do.
As Arthur C. Clarke (sort of) wrote.
Any sufficiently advanced civilisation will appear to be magicians or gods to an inferior society.
Hence, if gods existed in our society, would these gods have their (even more afvanced) gods?
@Novelty 100 years ago, nuclear energy was "not yet known" science, but a New Zealander, Rutherford, had split the nucleus of a nitrogen atom in 1917. It wasn't until 1937 that atomic energy, from splitting the atom, became "known" science.
More recently, the "unlnown science' of bio chemistry has most decidedly become useful. It's merely a matter of degree.
If I'm presented with credible, verifiable evidence, I'll rethink my position.
As far as "scientism" goes, I really don't engage in it, at least as far as the
negative connotation goes. To me, it's just thoughts or expressions regarded as characteristic of scientists (per Oxford).
Science is always changing. When one explanation of anything is proved faulty or
new information becomes available, science generally changes to reflect the new
information. There is always flexibility to update.
I'm an atheist because I don't believe gods exist now, or ever have.
I've never seen any credible, verifiable evidence to the contrary.
Unless and until something changes to alter that, I have no problem remaining
That's very much like theists insisting the evolution is still just a "theory", despite
it having been repeatedly proved as a real process.
They're resisting the facts.
@TheMiddleWay Credible and verifiable is pretty self-explanatory.
I'm not going to engage in semantics.
Trust, but verify.
Besides, if god were real, why all the stupid mystery?
Why can't god just be upfront with it's existence?
Why must I believe without proof?
Yeah, I'd have questions.
As well I should.
First, you have it terribly WRONG. All evidence must be potentially falsifiable, thus it must be repeatable and testable over time. Second, it must be unambiguous and have no other potential causation so that the single cause cannot be disputed.
Lots of people come back from the dead. Their hearts stop and are restarted. Not an uncommon thing.
When speaking of 'existence', the default is that nothing exists unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. This applies to any god or gods as well as an Abominable Snowman, Bigfoot, ghosts, or a truly honest politician. Please don't try the 'you can't prove it doesn't exist' argument. It's a fallacy and thus intellectually dishonest at best.
Finally, science is a METHOD of studying observed facts to try to determine the underlying causality for those observed facts. It's not a god, it's not a philosophy. That said, the burden of proof is on the individual making the positive assertion of a proposition, not the skeptic who demands evidence. Until you can, as noted, demonstrate the validity of your assertion with potentially falsifiable, testable, repeatable, unambiguous factual evidence, there's no reason for anyone to assume it is valid. You're trying to use the 'We don't know, therefore God' argument that fails from the outset by assuming the existence of something not yet demonstrated. As a trial attorney would say, assuming facts not in evidence.
Your entire diatribe is riddled with mistakes and logical fallacies that show a lack of understanding about science and the meaning of evidence.
Oh, and I've walked on water a lot. It was frozen and we call that ice. Please stop with the 'what if' and perhaps actually find a way to demonstrate your assertion or stop trying to force your illogical and unsupported beliefs on others.
@TheMiddleWay Agreed, you did correct that in the edit.
The default is always negative. That's why, if someone told you there was a leprechaun in his back yard, living under a toadstool, and that he would grant wishes if you asked him just right but he was invisible and you couldn't see him, YOU WOULD DEMAND EVIDENCE. It's not much of leap.
"And as a follow up, as an atheist how do you combat scientism? The belief that science can and will explain everything makes any evidence of godhood just science not yet understood and thus there can never be any evidence to change your mind away from atheism." Implicit "We don't understand therefore God" argument in the very concept of 'scientism'.
Yes, I lack your level of education, but I also lack your obvious bias toward the existence of something you cannot prove in any meaningful way. Your constant assertion that somehow science has replaced god demonstrates that bias. You're obviously able to compartmentalize that baseless belief from the scientific rigor your training and education require. That does NOT instantly make you right.
So, here's My challenge. First, Define God with all the parameters of existence that you would demand of any claim such as the invisible leprechaun I posited earlier. Second, present your evidence that the being you have defined exists. Third, design an experiment that would tend to support your assertion, if it is valid. The experiment must be something that is possible in the realm of our current understanding of the nature of the universe. I'll be most interested to see your response.
Oh, would you be so kind as to specify the awards you have won and the titles of the papers you have written? I'd like to look at them as well, if you don't mind.
"The default is always negative. That's why, if someone told you there was a leprechaun in his back yard, living under a toadstool, and that he would grant wishes if you asked him just right but he was invisible and you couldn't see him, YOU WOULD DEMAND EVIDENCE. It's not much of leap."
Who set's this default? Why can't the default be positive or null?
With reference to the existence of some agency that can affect the world in some real way, the default must be negative since the choice is binary, it is or is not. You did not refute your need for evidence to prove the contrary.
"Your constant assertion that somehow science has replaced god demonstrates that bias"
Never said that so how can it be a constant assertion or a bias?
I reiterate. "And as a follow up, as an atheist how do you combat scientism? The belief that science can and will explain everything makes any evidence of godhood just science not yet understood and thus there can never be any evidence to change your mind away from atheism." These are your words, implyng that somehow God is a valid explanation for things we do not understand. That is a bias, whether you wish to call it one or not.
"That does NOT instantly make you right."
Never claimed to be right. Merely sharing my opinion as everyone else is.
If you defend your opinion, you assume is right. If you did not, you would not defend it. QED.
"With all my knowledge, I'm unable to design said experiment regardless of definition. This is a foundation of my agnosticism for like in physics, if I can't design an experiment to test the existence of a particle, I don't DEFAULT to that particle not existing (which is why I'm harping so much on this notion that there is a default given that we don't use said default in physics.)"
In physics, you observe the universe then try to determine the why behind the actions and interactions you observer. The Higgs boson was hypothesized for a long time before it was experimentally demonstrated. The existence of Helium was hypothesized and it's properties extrapolated from its appearance as a line in a spectrograph of the sun. There were REASONS that it was believed these things existed and what they would look like when we could find a way to view them. You don't just assume an element exists or that a particle exists or a god exists without a reason to hypothesize it and you certainly don't make a claim until it's been well tested, documented, and peer reviewed. This is how I define the default as negative until evidence is presented. No hypothesis is valid without some support and no theory will be accepted until it fits all the known facts after rigorous testing.
You are challenging the open mindedness of atheists without providing any reason for them to be skeptical of their standpoint. Can you offer ANY valid reason for this challenge? Do you have ANY convincing evidence to the contrary? If not, please don't cast aspersions on people you don't know.
@TheMiddleWay I am an atheist 'of that cloth' and I take offense. There has been literally millennia that have passed with zero evidence of the existence of any god or gods. I feel quite justified in saying there is no such thing but, should one suddenly appear I'd obviously be convinced. I would not automatically reject any valid, demonstrable, testable evidence you can provide but it would have to meet that criteria before I would accept it, just as any serious skeptic would. I cannot appreciate the idea of agnosticism in this regard considering that not a single scintilla of actual evidence has been presented at this time.
@TheMiddleWay Question: Are you also agnostic about the assertions of the existence of ghosts, Bigfoot, the Chupacabra, Yeti?
You apply your own prejudices to me. I am quite capable of holding a position rather firmly but not being 'wedded to it.
"But no evidence has been presented that their god doesn't exist, hence the atheist cannot be right."
How do you prove non-existence? How you prove a negative? That in itself makes your stance, in My view, untenable. You've set an impossible bar to meet while the bar for existence is quite reasonable.
As a scientist, I'd expect you to reject a hypothesis that is not supported by any observation, any measurements, or any kind of physical evidence. This is particularly true if that assertion violates the rules and laws of the universe that you use to support your own view and demonstrate the validity of your work.
Why are you not agnostic about unicorns? They have EXACTLY the same level of evidentiary standing as God. How do you dismiss their existence out of hand but not god or gods?
@TheMiddleWay The Higgs is NOT an analog for God. There is NO model by which God, or gods, must exist or something else that does that job. There is no model for anything supernatural so you're talking apples and oranges.
@TheMiddleWay But the model needed SOMETHING to account for gravity and the way it functions, no? Else there would have been no search at all. Please tell me how any supernatural agency, since that is what god is, is necessary?
@TheMiddleWay First, theists do NOT use the same process. They are told what to believe and must take it on faith without question. That alone should invalidate any model they propose. I see we will not have a meeting of the minds so I will bid you good day,.
I know many of you guys have difficulty in overcoming religious indoctrination but really trying to justify the existence of the Jewish/Christian god by quoting silly supposed supernatural acts attributed to Jesus is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Acts that any competent illusionist could easily perform.
Have you read or listened to Richard Carrier re the actual existence of Jesus ?
Whoever wrote the gospels was totally lacking in imagination if that's the best they could do.
@TheMiddleWay "But by now it was midday and a darkness fell over the whole land which lasted until three in the afternoon; The sun's light failed" From the new English bible at the time of the crucifiction.
I'm sure more than one biblical scholar has tried to tie this great event in with a total eclipse in the area but for three hours ?. That's stretching it a bit.
I have watched a young English illusionist who calls himself Dynamo and two young guys from Aberdeen who's names I forget re enact all those so called miracles including bringing the dead back to life. Very entertaining but not exactly novel.
The bible is entertaining reading but to put any credence on it being factual or truthfull beggars belief.
It seems to me that you don't understand falsifiability.
In science, falsifiability is good (and necessary). "Non-falsifiable" is bad.
If evidence is non-falsifiable, it wouldn't convince me of anything.
Do you recognize that that's not what you asked in the original post?
In the original post, you talked about non-falsifiable evidence.
All you're doing is making unwarranted assumptions about atheists that are probably gratifying to you, but are mostly untrue.
David Copperfield, Uri Geller nor any other human is capable of proving god's existence. Only god is capable of doing that, at least for me.