I don't believe that there is a God, but I would like to be convinced that I am wrong. (The inverse of minkymurph's thread.)

[Vera_Ljuba]

To all the responders. I am simply looking for ideas, how do you think I could be convinced of God’s existence.

I think you should try asking God himself that question. But since right now you don’t believe in him, maybe you should just say, ‘if you exist please show me.’ Then if you’re sincere and keep seeking, God himself will reveal his existence to your heart.

Sure. I tried it and nothing happened. Does that mean that I was not “sincere” enough? Of course I don’t complain. Why should God fulfill such an irrelevant request, when he turns a deaf ear on the millions of people who beg for much more important issues? Just look at the images here: google.com/search?q=famine+in+africa&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjIuIrGrenUAhUCRyYKHaSSC-UQ_AUIBigB&biw=1536&bih=783 and see how much more important prayers are unsuccessful.

 

[reggieM]

Sure. I tried it and nothing happened.

It’s good that you tried. Many atheists will not do that.

Does that mean that I was not “sincere” enough?

It could be, but not necessarily.
As you seek God, it’s good to pray - but it’s also important to have some guidance as you embark on this search.
With that, you will see that yes – attitude and sincerity are important.
Also, you will see that what, precisely, you ask for in prayer is important.
Finally, you can learn how to recognize results and answers to prayer.
We want to know these things because one big benefit of prayer is that God uses it to change ourselves. He will show us our own flaws of character - so we can improve. That is why He will withhold his response - to incite us to look at ourselves and become more like Him.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It’s good that you tried. Many atheists will not do that.

I used to be a believer. When I started to examine reality, my “faith” gradually disappeared. And no prayer could remedy that. A very poor analogy: “if you realize that a pebble will fall “down” once you release it, no amount of prayer can countermand it”.

Also, you will see that what, precisely, you ask for in prayer is important.

I never asked for anything just for myself. When I was still young (about 10-12 years old and extremely naïve), I did ask for some extraordinary powers, but only because I wanted to help people in need. Later, when I realized the futility of such prayers, but was still a believer (went to some Bible study groups and prayer groups), I asked for general “stuff”, healing the sick, feed the hungry, and so on… and, of course nothing happened. It may be a significant difference between me and other believers that I am willing to learn from the negative feedback. If I drop a pebble a hundred times, and every time it falls down, I will accept that dropping the pebble will never fall “up” - analogically speaking, of course. Hardcore believers will never acknowledge a negative outcome, they will always explain away the bad results, by “it was not God’s will”, or something equally inane. Let me ask you: “how many negative outcomes would shake your faith”?

Finally, you can learn how to recognize results and answers to prayer.

Sure, and the result is almost always “negative”. Once in a “double blue moon” something seemingly positive happens, but you can never count on it.

We want to know these things because one big benefit of prayer is that God uses it to change ourselves. He will show us our own flaws of character - so we can improve. That is why He will withhold his response - to incite us to look at ourselves and become more like Him.

That does not apply to a devout and honest young’un.

 

[John_Martin_1]

Why should God fulfill such an irrelevant request, when he turns a deaf ear on the millions of people who beg for much more important issues?

I do not think that the existence of suffering is a good argument against the existence of a kind God. Although I have certainly never gone through suffering like that of the starving in Africa, I will say that I have always seen my suffering as a great dignity.

As a Catholic, I believe that my suffering has value, and can be offered up as a sacrifice of love. If suffering can have value and bring a chance to love, I would say that a God who allows suffering is not necessarily at fault.

Is the so-called “problem of evil” a reason you don’t believe in God? If so it is a place we could start on this discussion.

If I am at fault in any of my reasoning, I trust someone will point this out.

God bless.

 

[Thom18]

My personal “favorite” for the proof of God (not necessarily the Christian God, but a higher power in general) is the proof from causation. Everything that we can experience has a cause. A ball rolling down a track had something that caused it to roll. Friction (if I remember my middle school science classes correctly) will eventually cause the ball to stop.

But maybe it hits another ball before it comes to its stop. The first ball stops, then that ball goes along and touches another ball, and so on and so forth. Eventually one of the balls rolls past us (and let’s imagine that we’re in a building, and this track is wrapped around the walls). We look up at it and both acknowledge that the ball didn’t move on its own. From our limited perspectives (we didn’t see the beginning), we don’t fully understand what really happened, but we both have an idea.

Maybe my first thought is that someone put a ball on the track on purpose. Maybe you believe that the ball is there by chance (perhaps an animal dropped it in the track, and an open door let in the violent wind outside, causing it to start moving). It’s also possible that we both consider the possibility that this is only one of many balls. Regardless of how we think it came to pass us, we acknowledge that someone or something had to have caused its movement.

That “something” was itself caused by another “something”. But this can’t go on forever, can it? Something or someone, itself or themselves uncaused, had to have “gotten the ball rolling”.

 

[Thom18]

Sure. I tried it and nothing happened. Does that mean that I was not “sincere” enough?

Unless you’re extremely lucky, God, or the Supreme Ultimate, or the forces that may be, aren’t going to directly speak to you. It has little to do with how sincere you are in desiring an answer. Most of us are going to reach our conclusions (right or wrong) based on how strong an argument someone presents to us. It’s a two way street. You both have to listen to people with ideas different than your own, and study your own opinion to determine whose is more convincing.

 

[truetofaith]

Convince me, please.

If the miracles that people witnessed in the Bible & Jesus rising from the dead didn’t convince you…no one here can!

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I do not think that the existence of suffering is a good argument against the existence of a kind God. Although I have certainly never gone through suffering like that of the starving in Africa, I will say that I have always seen my suffering as a great dignity.

Inapplicable to a teething infant. They just suffer, horribly.

As a Catholic, I believe that my suffering has value, and can be offered up as a sacrifice of love. If suffering can have value and bring a chance to love, I would say that a God who allows suffering is not necessarily at fault.

The problem is not “can be”, rather “is it”?. Suffering is not a problem per se. Unnecessary suffering is the problem. Now, if you ask, how would I know from my limited perspective if some instance of suffering is “necessary” or not, I will answer with the duck principle. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and tastes like a duck, then it is very probably a duck. If no one… but NO ONE can offer a rational explanation, then I will stick to my “guns”. And to say: “well, MAYBE there is a good reason for it, and IF only we knew what it is, we would accept that it was not gratuitous, unnecessary suffering”. My answer to that is the colloquial version of “baloney”.

Is the so-called “problem of evil” a reason you don’t believe in God? If so it is a place we could start on this discussion.

One of them, for sure.

 

[JMartyr73340]

I used to be a believer. When I started to examine reality, my “faith” gradually disappeared. And no prayer could remedy that. A very poor analogy: “if you realize that a pebble will fall “down” once you release it, no amount of prayer can countermand it”.

I find that most young atheists believe in some form of the Strong Verification Principle. They say things like, “Only statements that can be empirically or scientifically verified are true” or “Statements that cannot be scientifically/empirically verified are unknowable”. This is why they refuse to believe in God.

Philosophically, a huge problem arises because these statements themselves cannot be verified. “Only statements that can be empirically or scientifically verified are true” is itself a statement that cannot be scientifically or empirically verified. Hence, it is self-contradicting. I have found the same problem exists with many skeptical statements:

“Private revelations are meaningless”.

But this is a private revelation.

“All truth is subjective.”

But this is an objective statement (universal, absolute). If you claim it’s a subjective statement then it follows that objective truth is possible, since it’s just your opinion.

 

[John_Martin_1]

The problem is not “can be”, rather “is it?”

But you concur that it “can be?” This is all I need to know. If such suffering can have value, then your argument does not say that a kind God can’t exist. From this we can step on to other arguments.

 

[Thom18]

If the miracles that people witnessed in the Bible & Jesus rising from the dead didn’t convince you…no one here can!

That sounds true enough. It’s just as Abraham said to the rich man in Jesus’ parable, “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.”

 

[Bradski]

If the miracles that people witnessed in the Bible & Jesus rising from the dead didn’t convince you…no one here can!

If you read that someone 2,000 years ago was convinced that he had seen a UFO, would that mean you are more likely to believe in UFOs yourself?

 

[JMartyr73340]

Suffering becomes more understandable if you stop seeing God as an equal. Babies cannot comprehend why their cruel parents imprison them in a playpen and do not allow them to leave it; or why they slap their hand every time they reach for an electrical outlet; or why they force them to eat this horrible stuff called broccoli when they could be eating chocolate all the time. All of this is cruel torture from the baby’s limited perspective. If the baby just understood that the playpen is there for his protection; that the electrical outlet can kill him; that eating chocolate all the time leads to poor health; then the baby wouldn’t complain all the time when his parents force him to endure these limitations and sufferings.

The same is true for our pets. We do all sorts of horrible things to our pets, even though we love them. We keep them on leashes all the time. We have them neutered. Now, from the pets perspective none of this suffering makes any sense. Only the owner understands that these things are for the pet’s greater good.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Philosophically, a huge problem arises because these statements themselves cannot be verified.

There is no problem at all. The verification principle is applicable to the metaphysical (or physical) reality. The principle of verification is applicable to the epistemological process. Apples vs. oranges.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

But you concur that it “can be?” This is all I need to know. If such suffering can have value, then your argument does not say that a kind God can’t exist. From this we can step on to other arguments.

Yes, it can be. I am not asserting that the God which allows suffering is logically incoherent. What I am saying is that a LOVING, and KIND God, which allows UNNECESSARY suffering is logically incoherent.

And to argue against that you need to show that EVERY instance of suffering is LOGICALLY necessary (to achieve some greater good). Not just say that it MAY be.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Suffering becomes more understandable if you stop seeing God as an equal.

Yes, I have seen this objection before. But it holds no water. Please read post #30 for details.

 

[JMartyr73340]

If you read that someone 2,000 years ago was convinced that he had seen a UFO, would that mean you are more likely to believe in UFOs yourself?

“…Any one addicted to the antiquated mystery of Logic, so much studied by the superstitious School-men of the Middle Ages…will naturally answer: ‘Well, I suppose you will draw the line where the evidence fails.** You will naturally believe less where there is less evidence; and not at all where there is no evidence [in regard to historical or fantastical claims]** There is really no need for you to draw abstract a priori distinctions between a Seven-headed Dragon in Persia and a Nine-headed Dragon in Japan.’ The truth is that the critic is misled from the first by that vague idea that, in accepting any story, he is stepping across the border of fairyland, where any fantastic thing may happen. This is a fallacy even about preternatural things. A man may believe one miracle and not another miracle; knowing there are true and false miracles, as there are true and false banknotes… But a man might as well say that millers and cats and princesses are fabulous animals, because they appear side by side with goblins and mermaids in the stories of the nursery.”

• G.K. Chesterton

 

[JMartyr73340]

Yes, I have seen this objection before. But it holds no water. Please read post #30 for details.

Well then please move on to my next post about the verification principle.

 

[JMartyr73340]

There is no problem at all. The verification principle is applicable to the metaphysical (or physical) reality. The principle of verification is applicable to the epistemological process. Apples vs. oranges.

Please explain further. The principle does not apply to itself? It is a philosophical claim.

 

[JMartyr73340]

Yes, I have seen this objection before. But it holds no water. Please read post #30 for details.

The idea that there are reasons for suffering that only God knows is itself a rational argument.