atheists, how willing and open would you be to accept proof for God's existence on a scale 1-10?

Question

If there was a proof that truly did prove God's existence, would the atheist be able to accept it, given that his presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God? In other words, given that the atheist has a presuppositional base that there is no God, in order for him to accept a proof for God's existence, he would have to change his presuppositional base. This is not easy to do, and would involve a major paradigm shift in the belief structure of the atheist. Therefore, an atheist is presuppositionally hostile to any proofs for God's existence, and is less likely to be objective about such attempted proofs.

Answer 1

I can only answer that if any such proof is presented. And I wonder if it's just as reasonable to adjust what you say to "... given that the theist has a presuppositional base that there is a God, in order for him to accept that there's no proof for God's existence, he would have to change his presuppositional base."



I don't expect evidence of God's existence to be presented, because I’ve looked for it myself, having considered the matter in some depth in my teenage. And believers wouldn't want to prove it in any case, because that would deny faith, although Paul says that faith is itself proof - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1); this seems to be a way to convince people that faith is itself proof of what they believe in.



I was religious from childhood, and have always been interested in religions, mythology and science; I was a devout, practising Catholic; I read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, several times; and was taught about it in school.



After studying and thinking deeply about faith, I realised in mid-teenage that faith was based upon nothing but itself, that science explained nature satisfactorily without needing supernatural beings, and that religious beliefs were no different to those of ancient beliefs in gods and goddesses.



When I first had doubts about my faith I thought that maybe this was a test of it, which was an idea planted in my mind by those teaching us about our faith. So I made the effort to accept it even more so. But the doubts came again, and I wondered what would happen if we took faith out of the equation; the world and nature still made sense, so I saw no reason to get back into it. And my understanding is that there's no theoretical or mathematical need for a god or gods, and there's no valid evidence of it or them; so there's no reason to believe. At the time this was difficult intellectually and emotionally (I was a teenager, after all).



That was over 45 years ago, and my escape from faith has freed me to embrace what science has to offer, which I consider far more plausible than belief in the supernatural, and is the nearest we can get to the truth about how nature and the universe work. I've felt a sense of freedom ever since, and am happy and at peace with this. And I've found the humility to admit that I don't know everything, rather than masking this by invoking a deity.



I still have an interest in religions, mythology, folklore and related matters, and am fascinated that people still believe in things that to me are clearly just not true.

Answer 2

Do you have anything new? You do not, for if you did it would be in your question instead of the dubious arguments that you present.



We have seen the claims that there is evidence for the existence of some god or other on here every day. These claims, when they are presented clearly (and they frequently are not) are without exception, wrong. They just repeat the same old junk that has been trotted out hundreds of times before and refuted hundreds of times before. Some people on here are well aware of the false arguments used by people like Craig too.



Assertions are not evidence, modern or ancient opinions are not evidence, false arguments are not evidence and lies are not evidence. That about covers it, so far.



While I don't know about ALL others, rejection of belief in gods is not presupposition. It is a conclusion reached by many who started off believing as a child, teenager or adult. At some stage they begin to realise that the evidence for the existence of Brahma is the same as the evidence fore the existence of Yahweh, Zeus and all the rest. None at all.

Answer 3

If there was any evidence of a God, I wouldn't be an Atheist. There is no presupposition to my disbelief. I'm simply not convinced that a God exists. I can logically show that no benevolent Gods exist but I do not make the same claim with regard to malevolent Gods.



I am not hostile to any proofs but I do have a high threshold for what I accept as evidence. Anything that falls into the category of a logical fallacy cannot be accepted as evidence.

Answer 4

If you ask people to give a rating on a scale of 1-10 you should indicate which end of the scale means what.



Assuming that 10 means that I would definitely accept proof, then the answer would be 10.



At present there has been no verifiable evidence offered for the existence of any god, let alone anything that I would class as proof.

Answer 5

10 man! I am not against a god if he exists!

the trouble is he doesn't!



Ontological argument for god....fails

Philosophical argument for god ...fails

Cosmological argument....fails

empirical argument...fails

logical argument ...fails



by definition the concept of a perfect god ultimately fails as asserted by people like Kant, Hume, Russell

etc...



no matter how you slice it - higher disciplines of reason and logic make god a virtual impossibility

but don't take my word for it - go do the research yourself....



study evolution deeply (like spend a year studying it obsessively )



and then come back here and act like you know something ...



k?



Everything else is an emotional response.



my presuppositional base is that I tried to believe in god for many years

and after all those years something was wrong....



everything in life does not point to a creator god unless you presuppose it.



you can either go with your emotional faith based paradigm or you can look for truth

in an objective way....



I looked for the truth....and studied data well outside of my religious paradigm

compared what I learned with what I had been taught from religion ....



and as depressing as it might sound the truth is : there is no hard evidence for god

you are forced to accept it on faith and that is where my intellect takes over and I say NO!

if a thing is real it makes itself obviously known as real by our observation...or can be deduced by the action or effect this "thing" has on surrounding elements that can be observed.



god fails this test miserably and we're giving him all the benefit of the doubt!



However, if the moment came about where god revealed himself or some new knowledge

about our universe or biology completely turns the scientific world upside down....



well lets just say...I am not holding my breath...



now go and study hard my friend - the truth will set you free.



break out of the paradigm - I did and it was wonderful in ways I cannot even explain....



Life is more real, the depth of my being far surpasses what I was before

I love more, I care more, I feel more....



I was awakened to the bright sunlight of truth and reality and it IS beautiful.

freed from the insanity of baseless claims and the psychological burden

of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole...



forget about proof, you'll never find it

but there is a ton of knowledge out there that could change your life

if you dare shift your paradigm

Answer 6

FAIL



You said "given that the atheist has a presuppositional base that there is no God"



Given? SAYS WHO? I say NO SUCH THING. Cite reverences, name sources!



My lack of a belief in a deity has nothing to do with the existence of a god. I merely lack a belief in a deity! How do you interpret "lack of belief in a deity" into "there is no god"? I presuppose nothing. Which means YOU LIE when YOU claim that I DO with your "in other words" misinterpretation! And then, based on this FALSE notion of yours, you want me to believe YOU when you claim "there is a god". Sorry charlie, but my definition of evidence is in the dictionary. It can't be quantified by some silly 1 to 10 scale. It either stands up in court or it does not. I have YET to see ANY evidence that will stand up in court. Show me the smoking gun of god, so to speak, and THEN I will reconsider my lack of belief in a deity based on the merits of the evidence provided by religion that makes the case for there to BE a god as claimed by religion. The name of the game is put up or shut up. Don't bother me with preaching and silly 1 to 10 scales on EVIDENCE, a word that YOU apparently do not know the meaning of.

Answer 7

If there was any sort of proof of any god not just the one the christians are putting forward we would learn that in childhood and therefor growing up believing there is a god. A 1-10 scale is pointless as it would either be proof or it would not there cannot be any scale. There is no way you have a halfway proof

Answer 8

Asking us to accept such 'proof' prior to any being presented is dishonest.



The record shows that EVERY claim of a proof for a deity being real has NOT been such.



There is no reason to believe that that record will change any time soon.



Face it, sparky. The REASON why we are so skeptical to your side's claims of having any proofs of a deity being real is that your side has a *record* of being 100% WRONG about that claim, as well.



EVERY so called proof of god, when presented, FAILED the most basic test of such a proof.



Thus, we have REASON to call such offerings as being evidence that supports our saying that you guys Lie For Jeezus.



And, the actual word that you are apparently too ignorant to know to use is -evidence-. Proof is for mathematics.

Answer 9

Which god? The Bible god? In all honesty, I would not be very open to proof that this monster existed. On a scale of 1 to 10, a 1. Unless you'd consider expanding the scale to negative numbers.

Answer 10

Well, guess what though?



We scientists figured out The Secret of Life, so if God is responsible for The Secret of Life, then God knew that in order to get people (if that was his goal) he would need a planet like ours and a few billions of years evolution, starting with some accidentally cleverly dividing replicator molecules (DNA and RNA), because DNA and RNA is in every single cell of every single living being or plant life on this fricken planet and we can prove all of this is the lab, and God must've known this, because it is true.



What do you have by way of proof?



You've got some ancient collections of myths, fables, and legends, all published in books.



We win. DNA is the Secret of Life, and the mindlessly random Laws of Physics and our planet created DNA.



What else you got?

Answer 11

It has to be proof that is pretty much unanimous within the scientific community for starters. It has to be analyzed logically, rationally, it should ideally be repeatable and pretty much undeniable.



But without such type of proof, there is no reason to even think there is a God. A universe does not appear to require a creator even.

Answer 12

Accepaefore, an atheist is presuppositionally hostile to any proofs for God's existence " not sure if you're joking or not. ? The same empirical evidence it takes to accept any other claim! What would it take to accept zeus

Answer 13

That is difficult to say. I would certainly look at any evidence presented and try to evaluate it, but I have to admit that what I have seen so far has made me more confident that there is no god. I acknowledge that I do have some bias and the evidence would have to be quite strong, but I don't really think it is something on which I could put a figure.

Answer 14

Well since we take the logical path that since your fantasy has no evidence and exists only in your mind, and therefore we don't believe it, if it turned out we were wrong and there was some new evidence, then we would be able to believe because it would be logical.



You are asking "what if there was" evidence of something which has no evidence. You do realize how ridiculous that sounds right? What if there was evidence that you were the murderer in the Jody Arias case, how much would it take for me to believe it?

Answer 15

If you had such a proof I'd be very open-10. However, given the historical attempts and failures, I'm very pessimistic of any that you might produce.

Answer 16

Not that simple I'm afraid. Just like in a Court of Law, we may accept a piece of evidence. But then we would test, scrutinise, verify and question the validity and authenticity of your evidence. It would then be concluded upon and a verdict would be given.

So, willing to share your evidence?

There a 6 billion people in the world, about half of them religious. So maybe with your evidence, the other 3 billion people will be convinced, you'll be super rich and your God will be extremely pleased. If he doesn't think it would be easier to just let us all know himself of course.

Answer 17

In religionland that "scale" of proof works.

In reality the truth is more concrete. Either 0 or 10.

Answer 18

10, obviously.







"Therefore, an atheist is presuppositionally hostile to any proofs for God's existence". Well, that's clearly untrue.

Answer 19

I am completely open for tangible and verifiable evidence supporting the existence of god...so 10 i guess. Notice how I said "evidence." Proof belongs in the realms of logic and mathematics.

Answer 20

10



I am not pre-supposing that there is no god. You and the other theists of the world simply cannot provide any evidence. I see no reason to accept things for which there is no evidence and I would be a fool to reject evidence once presented. Keep in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Answer 21

Why would atheists deny proof? 10 obviously

Answer 22

If God came down and was like here I am, I exist and did some cool stuff to prove it, then I would believe it. Until then, nope not buying it, sorry.

Answer 23

Common sense and inteligent reasoning should be enough.

Woops nothing did an accident and the world is here.

"In the beginning God created by His word".

Answer 24

Sure, if it's non-fallacious reasoning that points conclusively to a deity I will accept it. You don't have that, the closest Christians can come is an argument from ignorance; aka "Intelligent Design".

Answer 25

I'm giving myself a ten.... solely for the reason that there is nothing else that empirical evidence shows to exist.... that I do not believe exists.



Your trouble is.... and has always been..... providing an iota of empirical evidence.

Answer 26

Ive seen a thousand proofs my sister talks to the angles every day and they talk back

but i like being an atheist

Answer 27

First, we would have to agree on what would constitute as evidence, and once you gathered enough, you would be able to present it as proof.

Answer 28

10 if it is solid proof, not something like, how else could things like this happen.

Answer 29

Provide proof and I will accept it...



Never claimed anything else...



Sooooo, where is it?



IMHO

Answer 30

You show me proof I'll start believing.

Answer 31

10





do I think they will ever produce any...0

Answer 32

Sorry, my willingness wouldn't even rate 1.

Answer 33

0.1





Edit:what do you want to say indirectly that atheists are less open minded when religious people are those who do not believe in proved theories like evolution!

Answer 34

Show the proof.

Answer 35

I never deny evidence.

Answer 36

if there was proof, atheists would believe, but there is not one iota of proof, is there?

Answer 37

If there was proof, I would accept it...But there is no proof

Answer 38

'If...'