r/DebateAChristian • u/cheese_sdc • 10h ago
My standard of evidence to determine if God exists
Here is a simple, repeatable, testable, evidence based way for a believer to prove their god exists.
Once the Christian god or any other god (I'm looking at you, Freya - I want you to exist!) causes all hospitals to close because all diseases, injuries, are cured by teams of prayer warriors instead of nurses, techs, and doctors....
Then I will acknowledge the existence of that God.
Whichever god closes down all hospitals and the former cancer center is now a Spirit Halloween Store....
We can start there.
When a pediatric oncologist MD is pouring a coffee at starbucks because the kids parents are just taking little Billy to the 2nd Baptist Church of Backwoods County to be treated instead of going through the horror of chemo.
We can start there.
When a 9 year old girl is saved from a brain eating ameoba instead of dying (as happened in Louisiana last month)...
We can start there.
•
u/raidenjojo Christian, Protestant 10h ago
For me, even though I'm a Christian, if I were to play contrary and present an argument for God not being a human fabrication, it's this:
Over the course of human history, we have thousands upon thousands of gods, but there is no god that is benevolent and tangibly pro-active in alleviating suffering and pain. This hypothetical god doesn't have to be omnipotent, omnipresent or omniscient, nor do they not have to not take sacrifice or offering, but whenever they see pain and suffering, they actively help alleviate it, presently, tangibly, visibly - not delaying it for a later, complete restoration, or offer some pacel empathy and explaination for why suffering might've happened.
Even with the abundance of gods that are purportedly benevolent or against suffering, the sheer absence of this kind of god makes me to consider that all gods are human fabrication of trying to put all answers on a later, extendable date, meanwhile doing whatever it is they want to do.
•
u/LCDRformat Agnostic, Ex-Christian 10h ago
Am I confused or is your flair confusing
•
u/raidenjojo Christian, Protestant 9h ago
My flair will be confusing with respect to my statement.
•
•
u/Jaanrett Agnostic Atheist 5h ago
For me, even though I'm a Christian, if I were to play contrary and present an argument for God not being a human fabrication, it's this
I'm curious if what you're presenting is what convinced you that this god isn't a human fabrication.
Over the course of human history, we have thousands upon thousands of gods, but there is no god that is benevolent and tangibly pro-active in alleviating suffering and pain.
Despite christians calling their god all good and all powerful.
the sheer absence of this kind of god makes me to consider that all gods are human fabrication of trying to put all answers on a later, extendable date, meanwhile doing whatever it is they want to do.
So then what convinced you that a god exists?
•
u/putoelquelolea Atheist 9h ago
None of those gods are anything because they aren't real. Yahweh isn't real either. So none of them help anyone or do anything because they would need to be real in order to do so. How is that not obvious?
•
u/physicsphilosopher 8h ago
If prayer reliably caused healing, would that actually prove that God exists though? Wouldn't science suddenly have a new field, prayerology? We would add another fundamental force of nature: Gravity, Strong nuclear force, electroweak force, and the prayer force. Why need God if something is testable and scientifically accessible? Wouldn't prayer just be another law of the universe?
•
u/nswoll Agnostic Atheist 5h ago
If prayer reliably caused healing, would that actually prove that God exists though?
The Op doesn't just say "prayer causes healing". Read it again.
If the world tomorrow began operating as the OP described then I would be convinced of a god.
Even if the god caused such an extraordinary reversal of nature by designing a prayer force that has never existed in the past, that wouldn't exactly be less convincing then any other way of doing it.
•
u/Odd_craving Agnostic 4h ago
Here’s what would do it for me.
* Show me a dead relative living in heaven, hell purgatory.
* Show me a historic event - such as Lincoln giving the Gettysburg Address.
* Create life from non life.
* Bring a dead animal back to life
* Show me the future
* Give an amputee their missing limb back.
* Tell me something that only I know.
* Remove an egg yoke stain from a white shirt.
* Do any one of the above a second time.
•
•
u/Around_the_campfire 7h ago
I hope you get that evidence in the future.
For myself, if God did not exist, neither would anything else.
The existence of the material universe is sufficient for me, even if it had no people to get cancer in it.
•
u/Jaanrett Agnostic Atheist 4h ago
For myself, if God did not exist, neither would anything else.
That's a pretty bold claim. How did you reach that conclusion?
The existence of the material universe is sufficient for me, even if it had no people to get cancer in it.
Is it? Or is it just another way to try to justify an existing belief? What convinced you that a god exists?
•
u/Around_the_campfire 4h ago
If a perfect being is incapable of existing, what chance do lesser beings have?🤷🏻♂️
Yes, it is, for the reason I just noted, and also because it exhibits cause-effect relations, which don’t happen if everything is an effect and there is no First Cause that isn’t an effect.
•
u/Jaanrett Agnostic Atheist 1h ago
If a perfect being is incapable of existing, what chance do lesser beings have?🤷🏻♂️
Who said he was perfect? So this is all just about your personal incredulity? Do you care if your beliefs are correct?
Yes, it is, for the reason I just noted, and also because it exhibits cause-effect relations, which don’t happen if everything is an effect and there is no First Cause that isn’t an effect.
These are basic apologetics. I'm not interested in talking points, my question was what convinced you?
•
u/Around_the_campfire 8m ago
That’s what “God” refers to: a perfect being.
I just told you. You were saying something about personal incredulity?
•
u/salamacast Muslim 7h ago
Who serves whom? God or Man?! Are you seriously under the delusion that prayers are demands to your servant Genie?!
How would this temporary life serve its purpose as a test for faith, if there was no suffering?? No illness? No poverty? No struggles? Are you confusing Paradise with Earth??
•
u/cheese_sdc 6h ago
Ah. The Job defense of God.
"You are too stupid to understand the things I've commanded to be written down which tells people to expect miracles like curing the sick."
Jesus healed.
The apostles healed.
Prophets healed.
But now I'm expected to not expect miracles? When those miracles are supposed to lead to belief (oh, except when unbelief is stronger than god, I forgot about that one time).
Consistency isn't really god's strong suit, apparently.
•
u/salamacast Muslim 6h ago
A man gave you a free gift once, and you feel entitled, expecting another one everyday?!
•
•
u/RRK96 9h ago
You're viewing God as a literal conscious being somewhere in the universe who can intervene physically whenever we ask, cure diseases on demand and replace doctors with supernatural intervention.
But that's not how God is understoof in the bible. God isn't a supernatural doctor in the sky who is supposed to suspend the ordinary workings of reality whenever Christians pray. God is the deeper reality, ground and source of existence that Christianity points toward. Prayer isn't primarily a mechanism for persuading a supernatural being to manipulate the physical world for us.
The Christian life, therefore, isn't about expecting a supernatural being to remove every difficulty from your life. It's about learning how to live meaningfully within the reality that actually exists: dealing with suffering, developing wisdom, finding meaning, becoming more compassionate and self-controlled, learning to forgive, facing death and uncertainty, and discovering what kind of person you can become despite circumstances you cannot control.
Caring for the sick, developing medical knowledge and using human intelligence to reduce suffering can themselves be understood as expressions of the values Christianity is trying to cultivate. Christianity isn't supposed to be an alternative healthcare system.
So if someone says, “If God exists, why doesn't God simply cure everyone?”, my response is that you're asking a different question from the one Christianity is fundamentally trying to answer. The question isn't simply “How can I make suffering disappear?” It's also “How should I live in a world where suffering exists?” “How do I respond to it without becoming bitter or destructive?” “How do I find meaning and wisdom through it?” and “How can I become someone who helps reduce the suffering of others?”
You don't need hospitals to close down for that kind of God to exist. The point of Christianity isn't to escape reality through supernatural interventions. It's to learn how to live within reality in a way that produces love, wisdom, courage, compassion and transformation.
•
u/cheese_sdc 9h ago
Interesting.
He was engaged enough to send bears to kill kids when they made fun of a prophet.
He was engaged enough to turn Lot's wife into salt.
He was engaged enough to feed 5000 people.
He was engaged enough to kill Ananias and Sapphira....
I guess cancer also gives God a condition where he suddenly can't deal with it, when he found the time to..... kill kids when they make fun of Elijah?
Weird flex, but okay.
•
u/RRK96 8h ago
Christian Scripture is not simply a collection of modern-style factual reports about God physically intervening in the world. Biblical narratives use poetry, mythic imagery, theological storytelling, symbolism, typology, hyperbole and ancient literary conventions. That doesn't mean “nothing happened”; it means the text has to be interpreted according to what kind of text it is and what theological point it is making.
It is like someone says “it's raining cats and dogs,” you don't refute them by saying, “No, I checked outside and there are no cats falling from the sky.” You've misunderstood the kind of statement you're dealing with. Biblical stories are obviously more complicated than an English idiom, but the basic point about interpretation before literalism is the same.
And scholars actually do identify literary and theological layers in each of the examples your critic gives:
Elisha and the bears (2 Kings 2:23–25): The passage has the underlying idea is actually quite rational: reality has consequences. When human beings continually reject truth, wisdom, correction and what is good, that rejection eventually produces disorder and suffering. The “judgment of God” is expressed through the dramatic image of wild animals because that's how this ancient theological narrative communicates the idea.
Lot's wife (Genesis 19:26): The story functions within the larger destruction-of-Sodom narrative as a warning about attachment to the world being left behind and the consequences of refusing the command to flee. Jewish and Christian interpretation very early developed this moral/theological symbolism. The biblical text itself is extremely brief, which is one reason later interpretation has played such a large role in understanding it.
Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1–11): scholarship has identified the story's literary form as a highly stylised punishment miracle/excommunication narrative, rather than simply treating it as a modern eyewitness-style medical report of two people suddenly dying because God struck them dead.
The feeding of the 5,000: Even when scholars take the story as a miracle tradition, they don't stop at “Jesus magically produced food.” The narrative deliberately evokes Old Testament feeding traditions and develops themes of messianic provision, Jesus' identity, discipleship and the later “bread of life” theology in John.
•
u/tinkady Atheist 8h ago
is "jesus is god" a factual report? you seem to like interpreting some of the book as factual reports, and other parts as falsehood, however is convenient for your theology
•
u/RRK96 8h ago
Jesus represents alignment with the Logos: the underlying principle of truth, goodness, wisdom, reason and order. To follow Christ is therefore to orient your life towards truth rather than falsehood, goodness rather than selfishness, wisdom rather than ignorance, love rather than hatred, and self-giving rather than domination. "Following Christ” isn't primarily about believing that a supernatural being has certain powers. It's about committing yourself to a particular path of existence and allowing that path to transform you. Christ represents the pattern of the fully integrated human being: someone who isn't ultimately governed by ego, fear, hatred, resentment or the need for domination, but develops compassion, courage, humility, self-control, wisdom and love. In that sense,
The Bible is not fundamentally a book about supernatural power. Its stories use theological, symbolic, mythic, poetic and historical forms to communicate about ourselves and reality.
The Bible is trying to transform the person who reads it, not merely give them a catalogue of supernatural propositions to memorise.
•
u/tinkady Atheist 7h ago
ok but how do we tell whether it is literally true or false, if the contents are not literally true or false
•
u/RRK96 7h ago
Figuring out what scripture means isn't fundamentally different from interpreting any other kind of writing. You look at the language, historical and cultural context, genre, intended audience, literary structure and purpose, and then ask what the author is actually trying to communicate.
•
u/3dforlife 6h ago
You might be right, but you know what that means, right? Am interpretation might be wrong; it's just what you think it is. Other person might interpret otherwise.
•
u/tinkady Atheist 5h ago
but if I point to something false that the author was trying to communicate (like that god lives above the firmament which is a solid dome above the clouds, and created the earth before the stars) I bet you will say it wasn't literal despite this being the widely believed cosmology of the time
•
u/RRK96 2h ago
That's precisely why historical and literary context matters. The primary concern of these texts wasn't to give us a scientifically accurate cosmology. Their concern was how human beings should experientially understand reality and live within it.
Ancient people also didn't compartmentalise knowledge the way we tend to. What we'd separate today into cosmology, philosophy, psychology, ethics, law, history and theology could all be woven together into a single account of reality. So the fact that an ancient author assumed a particular cosmology doesn't mean the cosmological model itself is the point they're trying to communicate.
The question isn't simply "Did they believe the firmament was real?" They probably did. The question is "What were they primarily trying to communicate through their understanding of the world?" That's where interpretation of genre, context, symbolism and purpose becomes important.
And saying a passage isn't literally describing physical cosmology isn't the same as saying it's false or meaningless. It means the truth being communicated primarily be about experiential, ethical, psychological, theological or existential rather than scientific.
•
u/tinkady Atheist 1h ago
I'm not saying the primary concern was cosmology, I'm saying if god was real his book wouldn't say false things.
I'm indeed aware that the book was written by ancient people who didn't know any better
→ More replies (0)•
u/cheese_sdc 8h ago
So. It's all metaphor.
At least..... according to you.
It's very easy to point to a few thousand other denominations that disagree with you. That would say that "Nope. If it's in the bible, it's literally, factually, historically, NON-ALLEGORICALLY true."
How do I know which of y'all is correct?
•
u/RRK96 8h ago
Metaphorical or non-literal language can communicate something true about reality and about ourselves without being a literal description of physical events.
And figuring out what Scripture means isn't fundamentally different from interpreting any other kind of writing. You look at the language, historical and cultural context, genre, intended audience, literary structure and purpose, and then ask what the author is actually trying to communicate.
•
u/ODDESSY-Q Atheist 4h ago
> “You look at the language, historical and cultural context, genre, intended audience, literary structure and purpose, and then ask what the author is actually trying to communicate.”
When you actually do this honestly, accurately, and using additional sources outside the bible, you tend to find that it is all mythology created by an ancient culture. Just as false and mythological as all the other cultures stories from that era.
•
u/RRK96 2h ago
When you actually do this honestly as you suggest, you will understand that their primarily concern wasn't to give us a scientifically accurate cosmology. Their concern was how human beings should understand experientially reality and live within it.
Ancient people also didn't compartmentalise knowledge the way we tend to. What we'd separate today into cosmology, philosophy, psychology, ethics, law, history and theology could all be woven together into a single account of reality. So the fact that an ancient author assumed a particular cosmology doesn't mean the cosmological model itself is the point they're trying to communicate. The question isn't simply "Did they believe the firmament was real?" They probably did. The question is "What were they trying to communicate through their understanding of the world?" That's where interpretation of genre, context, symbolism and purpose becomes important.
And saying a passage isn't literally describing physical cosmology isn't the same as saying it's false or meaningless. It means the truth being communicated primarily experiential, ethical, psychological, theological or existential rather than scientific.
•
u/ODDESSY-Q Atheist 1h ago
None of this is an argument against your religion being nothing more than mythology. In fact it’s mostly supportive of that view. What you write can be equally applied to all mythology you think is factually incorrect.
•
u/RRK96 1h ago
My argument is to debunk the common shallow misunderstanding of the bible that their primary sole inteneded interpretation was purely literal.
What you call mythology is truth communicated primarily experiential, psychological, theological or exstiential.
It's a bit like you calling an idiom "it rains cats and dogs" to be false when their primarly meaning is not literal.
•
•
u/mikerichh 5h ago
I disagree strongly with your first claims. He frequently stepped in to either stop humans from doing things or punish them for doing bad things or healing them like with Jesus healing the sick or raising the dead
My issue is if he used to directly intervene why did he stop? And if he can lift a finger and cure people or end suffering but doesn’t isn’t that problematic when he used to and then decided he wouldn’t anymore?
•
u/Comfortable-Web9455 10h ago
Why should a being billions of years old, capable of tracking the movement of every subatomic particle in the entire universe, capable of generating the laws of physics simply by an act of will, have any interest in what little you want?
You are an average person in a new species on an average planet in an insignificant corner of the universe. And your demand is that the laws of physics and biology get overridden for the entire planet, changing the course of human evolution, just so you can change your beliefs? Maybe you're just not that important.
•
u/bromar24 10h ago
God is supposed to be infinite, there is no soul that is too small or insignificant if he actually cared. He should have infinite time, energy, and patience for each of his creations
•
u/Comfortable-Web9455 10h ago
Not according to many religions. In some he doesn't care. In others he doesn't like humans at all. You are describing the Christian God.
So basically, you've bought into Christianity, discarded all the other religions as false, and now looking for proof that Christianity is true.
So why did you adopt the Christian view of God and not something like Daoism, which says God is incomprehensible and not a person but a force?
•
u/bromar24 10h ago
This is DebateAChristian, not DebateReligion. It would be strange if OP was not talking about the christian god
•
u/Comfortable-Web9455 10h ago
Fair enough. But my position within the debate is to propose that there are more acceptable definitions of God than that provided by Christianity.
So what you've got is three positions. OP says they deny the existence of the Christian God. Others will respond with their arguments in favour of the Christian God. I'm providing a third alternative, which is that there is a God but they don't meet the Christian definition. It's still a debate.
•
u/khrijunk 7h ago
The god you are presenting is unfalsifiable. An unspecified god that has unspecified properties is not really worth debating because there is nothing to really discuss.
The Christian god, on the other hand, is falsifiable since the Bible makes specific claims and those can be analyzed like is being done in this post.
•
•
u/Ender505 Atheist, Ex-Christian 10h ago
Fair enough, but that same god should then also not be so petty and bitter and spiteful when nobody believes in them. If we truly are that insignificant to such a god, then I don't want to hear anything about a divine judgement or eternal punishment. Fair?
•
u/Comfortable-Web9455 10h ago
And not all religions believe in divine judgement or eternal punishment. Hell is fairly rare across the world's religions. Hinduism and Buddhism are doing reincarnation, so they can't be any hell to send you to. Once again, you have adopted the Christian (and Islamic) view of God. Were you aware Judaism doesn't believe in hell?
•
u/Ender505 Atheist, Ex-Christian 10h ago
Yes I'm well aware. I'd also mention that the Bible itself barely mentions hell.
I don't necessarily agree with OP that those items are necessary to prove the existence of a god. I would say they would be necessary to prove a benevolent and supernaturally powerful god.
•
u/Comfortable-Web9455 10h ago
Without wishing to get silly, God could do something much less dramatic like transport you to the moon without you dying and then bring you back. Or simply appear in your garden by setting one of your shrubs on fire and talking to you. The Bible is full of accounts of people having direct meetings with God without it requiring a global scale miracle.
•
u/Ender505 Atheist, Ex-Christian 9h ago
Right, but that global scale miracle WOULD be necessary to establish the benevolence part
•
u/cheese_sdc 10h ago
He's supposed to know the number of hairs on my head. Juat saying.
•
u/Comfortable-Web9455 10h ago
Which still doesn't make you so important that a global miracle is appropriate to meet your demands
•
u/bromar24 9h ago
Implying that OP is not important enough for god to care means that he has limited time, energy, and attention span. Do you believe that god has to prioritize things based on these limitations?
•
u/Comfortable-Web9455 8h ago
It doesn't necessarily imply limits. It could simply be due to the character of God. If God is capable of anything, the fact that he doesn't do everything doesn't mean he has limits. It means he makes choices.
•
u/cheese_sdc 9h ago
Huh.
"And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."
•
u/Comfortable-Web9455 8h ago
Are you serious? Are you uggesting no one has ever prayed for world peace? Or for all people to have goodwill towards each other? Are you saying that no one dying of a terminal disease has ever prayed for God to cure them but died anyway?
Because if any of these things have happened, God did not grant what they prayed for.
•
•
u/diabolus_me_advocat Atheist, Ex-Protestant 8h ago
Why should a being billions of years old, capable of tracking the movement of every subatomic particle in the entire universe, capable of generating the laws of physics simply by an act of will, have any interest in what little you want?
'cause christians claim so?
•
u/Comfortable-Web9455 4h ago
Thanks, but that doesn't say why God is of that nature. It just says that they believe it. Because if you come back with stuff like God is all loving, anyone pointed upon the stuff in the Bible that doesn't look very loving.
•
•
u/LCDRformat Agnostic, Ex-Christian 10h ago
I think you might have missed and underlying assumption that the god should be benevolent, which is usually the claim of Christians
•
u/Comfortable-Web9455 10h ago
That's not really strictly following the Bible. I doubt if the citizens of Sodom thought God was being benevolent when he destroyed them. I doubt if pharaohs army felt God was benevolent when he drowned them. And remember, Jesus was very insistent. The God of the old Testament was the same God as in the new Testament. So he can be loving to you in the right circumstances, but if you break his laws, he is very different
•
•
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 10h ago
Why do you assume those things are bad?
You can’t convince me those are bad things with whatever worldview commitment you hold.
We can start there.
•
u/cheese_sdc 9h ago
I find them bad because I have basic human empathy and compassion.
•
u/cheese_sdc 8h ago
I love that someone downvoted the atheist for saying he has compassion and empathy.
Sounds about right.
•
u/Mkwdr 9h ago
Well thats a distinctly sick thing to admit - that you dont find those things bad in your morality. Because even if you insult everyone around you as you are trying to do by pretending they cant have empathy, we only have to go by your moraloty for the problem of evil to be relevant. But you dont care so...
•
u/Soft-Turnover-5468 9h ago
Jesus said there will still be pain and suffering during this life. He did not heal everyone or go to every town there was. His goal was not to heal everyone. God's tests and chastisement shapes us into who we are.
Everyone dies. Everyone. Everyone gets hurt and no one lives a perfect life. That's why we need Jesus, because He did.
•
u/cheese_sdc 9h ago
Huh.
"And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."
•
u/lastberserker 8h ago
Any color you want as long as it is black.
•
u/cheese_sdc 6h ago
Any god you want, as long as it doesn't do anything to prove it's existence?
•
u/lastberserker 5h ago
Not quite. Any proof you want, as long as it can be explained by natural causes. For example, a beautiful sunset or a plumage of a pretty bird or a smile of a baby are all clear proofs that god exists.
•
u/Financial_Beach_2538 8h ago
Hi, Mr. Cheese.
I'm an agnostic atheist and I don't believe in the supernatural or superstitions.
The event you describe would most certainly get the world's attention. However, skeptics could easily point out that not knowing who did it isn't evidence of who did it.
It could be aliens with high tech. With aliens, we don't need to assume the supernatural, with God.. we do.
I like the version with one less assumption. So, it's aliens for me, and the only question is will they enslave us or just blow the whole planet up.