Atheists: Are you open to the possibility of the existence of God if someone tries

[Thomas]

to introduce scientific? Atheists: Are you open to the possibility of the existence of God if someone tries to introduce scientific evidence proving the existence of God, or would you reject it on the principle of your belief that God/gods/goddesses do not exist? I would like to see your answers, as well as invite you to e-mail me to ask me for this truth, ask and you shall receive.

If you cherish truth above all human conjecture and all human culture and fashionable human views, even fashionable skepticism, then I invite you to come research the immense knowledge and proof of the existence of God with me.

 

[Nowpower]

I'm ready to embrace the truth.

But I will not worship idiots, even if they turn out to be powerful.

 

[Lefty]

Yeah, scientific evidence of any god would be interesting to here. Don't waste my time with non-scientific stuff, or false logic, but my email is open.

Most importantly, be sure you state how the jump from "any god" to "God" is both scientifically viable and logical.

Thank you,
Commander General Viceroy in Charge of Special Operations
Atheist Anti-Theist Alliance of Earth
www.wtfdude.org

 

[Acid Zebra]

Which god?

Also, if you propose to demonstrate a direct unambiguous effect on this universe this supposed god(s) have, sure. But if you had it, it would be common knowledge already. There would be peer-reviewed scientific papers. Instead you ask people to email you.

 

[Eloisement]

To be honest, I'm not really interested in abstract scientific formulas proving that there could be a god. That doesn't really mean anything to me, by itself, because it doesn't tell me what he wants from me, or what I can expect from him. I'm only interested in the existence of a god when it relates to me, in the form of divine revelation. And I've never seen convincing evidence for divine revelation. If you have any of that, I'll consider it. But I warn you, I've seen a lot of it so far and I'm still not convinced.

 

[XaurreauX]

We don't owe it to you to make you feel more secure by accepting your superstition.

 

[Ha ha ha!]

To my knowledge, there exists no compelling evidence that gods of any kind exist. If you have any evidence, you are welcome to offer it.

 

[Love. Learn. Live.]

Of course I would, because it'd be proven. That's like saying, "would you believe the earth was round if science proves it". I would believe, but why would I worship? To create beings and then ask them to worship you is the most egotistical thing basically anyone, god or not, could do.

 

[chairmanlmao]

I would accept empirical, verifiable evidence. There is none so far. The closest you could probably come to it is an appeal to historicity, as the ontological, cosmological, moral, and teleological arguments, as well as the argument from personal experience fall completely flat from a logical perspective.

The historical argument for the existence of God (i.e. that the various holy books contain some manner of evidence for his existence) is riddled with fallacies. The most pronounced error here is that even if unambiguous historical evidence existed for the life of jesus, and even IF you accepted eye witness testimony of his resurrection, or his miracles, none of that proves the existence of the christian God...primarily because you're relying on the eye witness testimony of bronze age nomads with very little to guide them other than a superstitious and mystical understanding of their environment. It would be like me asking you to rely on a 5 year old child's testimony that alien spaceships landed in his backyard. It might be true, but his witnessing it lends no weight.

 

[monger999]

The problem is that 'belief' and 'science' are opposing view-points. But best of luck !

 

[motodiary]

by its nature, God could never be proven by science. Belief in God is an act of faith and science goes by empirical evidence. if you truly understand what God and science represents, you wont even be bringing up this question.