Member-only story
What Would Constitute A Scientifically Acceptable Proof Of God?
So let’s say, by “God,” we mean the creator and the first mover. An omnipotent being with immeasurable power to create worlds. For this speculation let’s leave out “all good.” One may argue that God must necessarily be good as he is the creator of morality and hence all goodness flows out of him. Let’s say this is so, it can still mean that our knowledge of good and evil is on a need to know basis, and there are levels that our beyond our pay grade. So for the simplicity of this endeavor, I’m leaving out “all good.”
So what would constitute viable proof?
To believers, proof surrounds them. They feel God.
Atheists claim that anything they “feel” is a product of their brain which evolved through processes that did not involve an omnipotent prime mover. They just happened. If you ask them how they can conceive of something “just happening,” they can easily ask back, “well who created God?”
Moving on. The dictionary defines atheism as:
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
There are different levels and layers and substrates of atheism.
For example, there is soft atheism where a person doesn’t necessarily believe in deities but doesn’t totally deny the possibility of them existing. The hardest of atheism holds that not only God does not exist, but that there cannot be a God.
There is also agnosticism. Which is a “meh” position.
The versions of theism and atheism you find on Twitter are poor and often absurd representations of philosophical positions that philosophers debated throughout the ages. Some are infused with spite against a particular religion. Some people are unable to contemplate God apart from the religion they detest. Spite blinds you and cuts you off from higher thinking.
For example you will have atheists who hate Christianity and/or other Abrahamic religions say things like “I don’t believe in a Sky Daddy.” “I don’t believe someone is watching me jerk off.”
