"You have set the bar too high."

soldier4242

This weekend I found myself engaged in a conversation with a friend of mine about the existence of God or gods. The conversation quickly became a debate but it never became an argument. We had a very civil discourse and at first he simply gave me the same arguments for the existence of God that I had already head a thousand times.

I explained why each of the arguments were not convincing to me. Eventually he concluded that I have set the bar too high. I have not accepted the existence of trees, the birth of a baby or the laughter of a child as proof of God's existence. He said if I would just lower the bar and accept all of these things as proof of God's existence then he would be revealed to me.

As if to say that the evidence that God's can or will provide for us is only able to be so convincing and it is up to us to be conceivable enough to see it. Because God either cannot or will not provide evidence that will not reach past a certain threshold and it is up to us to not require so much convincing.

Do any of you think I have set the bar too high? Is it even possible to set the bar too high?

k8blujay2

I didn't realize there was a bar to be set. In my opinion, you either have faith or you don't. For me it's easy to see God in all things because I already believe with little doubt (not going to say I don't doubt because that would be a lie)... But then there are some people that just don't believe and they wouldn't/won't unless God came up to them personally and slapped them in the face.


It's just something so personal.

mank32

nope. 'proof' is not personal. 'proof' is actually the OPPOSITE of personal: it is something that has nothing at all to do with us, and this is why it is something on which we can all agree. if we can't agree on it, it's not 'proof.'

this dude doesn't know what 'proof' is. i'd respond by telling him that.

ETA: i used to believe in God (quite a lot) until i was tortured by chronic pain for so long, and so badly, that i wanted (and tried) to die. prior to that point i believed everything had a reason. after that point i couldn't find any sense at all in what happened to me: why would an omnipotent being that cares about me and predetermines everything that's going to happen to me torture me like that, to the point that i not only wanted to stop living but stopped believing too? that don't make sense. that's my personal story of how i LOST 'God'.

SemperAnticus1643

I believe in God. And like k8blujay2 said, either you do or you don't. Sometimes it takes a near death experience to believe. This happened to my mother-in-law. Car wreck that broke her back and both legs made her believe in God. Before that she was an agnostic. My husband believes in God but questions a lot of things Bible related. He has said on more than one occasion that he has seen the MANY blessings that God has given him. Some would say this is a coincidence and others believe it was the hand of God. My husband and I both believe that it was God that brought us together. Too many factors for it all just to be a coincidence. Too each his own I suppose. There are books of coming back from death. (e.g. Heaven is for Real, 23 Minutes in Hell, etc.)

Dragonwolf

"To the skeptic, no evidence is enough. To the believer, no evidence is necessary."

SteelySunshine

Really you set the bar too high for an omnipotent being? That is mind bobbling.

SemperAnticus1643

"To the skeptic, no evidence is enough. To the believer, no evidence is necessary."

^^^^This!

k8blujay2

"To the skeptic, no evidence is enough. To the believer, no evidence is necessary."

This is what I was trying to get at.

soldier4242

"To the skeptic, no evidence is enough. To the believer, no evidence is necessary."

As a skeptic let me assure you that this is not true with regard to me. I can see why you would want to believe this. It would be comforting to simply think of me as a willful and stubborn man that is rejecting all of the evidence for God's existence. That way you could simply dismiss me all together. If no evidence will ever be enough for me than it would be a complete waste of time to even bother talking to me. This would alleviate the believer from any and all burden of proof for their claims.

TLDR: If I believe you then I am a believer if I don't believe you then you can just ignore me because no amount of evidence will ever be enough.

tross0924

***oops

tross0924

"To the skeptic, no evidence is enough. To the believer, no evidence is necessary."

As a skeptic let me assure you that this is not true with regard to me. I can see why you would want to believe this. It would be comforting to simply think of me as a willful and stubborn man that is rejecting all of the evidence for God's existence. That way you could simply dismiss me all together. If no evidence will ever be enough for me than it would be a complete waste of time to even bother talking to me. This would alleviate the believer from any and all burden of proof for their claims.

TLDR: If I believe you then I am a believer if I don't believe you then you can just ignore me because no amount of evidence will ever be enough.

That's not really true. The point is that given a certain event a skeptic will choose to follow their base biases and believe what they choose to believe and a believer will do the same.

Take for example a completely hypothetical situation. - John is driving home from work and he hears a voice clearly that says "Stop!!" John slams on the breaks, wondering where that voice came from. And narrowly misses being plastered into a crater left by a meteorite. If John is a believer than he believes that the voice of God just spoke to him and saved his life. If John is not a believer he believes that some subconscious part of his brain saw the falling rock, and his will to live manifested itself as a "voice" in his head.

There is no way to prove he is right one way or the other. Just as there is no way to prove that there is a God. Either you believe or you don't.

soldier4242

So does the believer assume that God is incapable of providing evidence that would convince the skeptic or that he is simply choosing not to convince the skeptic?

Also I think your hypothetical was extremely forgiving to the believer because in reality the stories that I am told people accept as proof are not nearly so dramatic. I am told that people cannot find their car keys so they pray and then they find their car keys. Why is it that the conclusion is always that the skeptic is simply too hard to convince? I think it is more likely the case that the believer is too easy to convince.

There are some rare exceptions but the majority of believers that I have encountered in my life seem to think that the religion that was prevalent in the region where they were born and the religion that was taught to them by their parents just happens to be the one religion that is true. Which is lucky for them since so many of the religions that exist in this world seem to claim that hell is the fate that awaits anyone who does not believe in their religion.

Dragonwolf

So does the believer assume that God is incapable of providing evidence that would convince the skeptic or that he is simply choosing not to convince the skeptic?

Also I think your hypothetical was extremely forgiving to the believer because in reality the stories that I am told people accept as proof are not nearly so dramatic. I am told that people cannot find their car keys so they pray and then they find their car keys. Why is it that the conclusion is always that the skeptic is simply too hard to convince? I think it is more likely the case that the believer is too easy to convince.

There are some rare exceptions but the majority of believers that I have encountered in my life seem to think that the religion that was prevalent in the region where they were born and the religion that was taught to them by their parents just happens to be the one religion that is true. Which is lucky for them since so many of the religions that exist in this world seem to claim that hell is the fate that awaits anyone who does not believe in their religion.

Another common one - death or near-death experiences. See also: "The boy who talked to God" and other such stories of people who have died and come back, and believe they actually went to heaven or otherwise saw God while they were dead. Many/most skeptics will dismiss it as hallucinations of a dying brain, even in the face of what believers would argue was the most blatant show of existence short of actually being at the death and resurrection of Jesus or being there for the Rapture (or any other significant religious event).

Of course, there's also the fact that a skeptic who is convinced is no longer a skeptic, but a believer.

That said, you're right, they're not always so dramatic. Many people believe they've interacted with various gods, demigods, or angels or whathaveyou.

When I was a kid, my mom and I lived with a man who was emotionally abusive. I was about 10 when she'd finally had enough and started working to get out of there. We went and looked at two different trailers in a particular park. The first one wasn't great, but seemed alright (particularly for what we could afford). I happened to be walking around the living room portion and I swear I felt the floor give (I've never been one to get dizzy or feel faint, so that can easily be ruled out), but when I walked around it again, I couldn't find any soft spot. I told my mom about it and that something didn't feel right, so we moved on to the other place. This one was quite a bit nicer, but also more likely out of my mom's price range. She prayed about it, anyway, and she was able to start working with a man at the real estate company. He was able to get us an affordable rate for the place and we moved in as soon as school let out. Over the course of the following year, my mom met and married my stepdad. He lived a few hours away, so they decided to sell the place and move in to his. When my mom called the real estate company she bought the trailer through to try to get the same agent that helped her buy the house, they told her that they have no record of a man by that name having ever worked there. I don't think the first trailer was ever bought, or if it was, the buyer moved it out.

A couple of quite a bit more subtle things going on in that story, but possibly more realistic for you. Keep in mind that I didn't tell it to try to convince you of anything, I just think it's a good example. Could I have hallucinated the caving floor? Sure. Could my mom have been mistaken about the agent? Possibly (though I recall her having his business card, and worked too extensively with him to have forgotten his name that easily). She believes it was God at work, and that the agent was an angel sent to help us get out of a bad situation. For her, this was one of many, many things that has convinced her over the years of God's existence.

tross0924

Incapable? No. Lets just say God is an eternal optimist and wish to bless those who have not seem and believed. He could present to you Jesus with the wounds in his hands and side and his divine presence, but He chooses to allow you to find your own way. That sounds much nicer than the way you put it doesn't it? But it amounts to the same thing, choosing not to convince the skeptic. Maybe you could tell me why He should choose to convince the skeptic.

Yes, it was forgiving to the believer. Praying for keys is just the other end of the spectrum though and just as forgiving to the skeptic. The believer will believe God sent them the keys, and the skeptic will believe it was a coincidence. Wherever in the spectrum the example or story falls, people will believe what they believe.

The "my religion is right and yours is wrong" thing drives me bat **** crazy. There is no way that a run of the mill Joe believer is going to be elevated above a priest, rabbi, or imam who has spent their entire life dedicated to the God that they were raised with, trying with every breath they take to make the world a better place.

soldier4242

Can I tell you why he should convince the skeptic? Yes I can. Hypothetically if God is real then some facts become indisputable:

1. God would not be at a loss as to what it would take to convince me. You said yourself that he is capable of doing it.

2. God established a punitive system of punishment and reward which hinges entirely upon belief.

3. The punishment and reward are eternal and infinite while we are finite beings.

4. We had no choice about whether or not we were created.

You can try to make it sound nicer than it actually is all that you like but these facts are pretty much set in stone especially if you want to follow the christian mythology.

My freewill would become irrelevant if I were never given evidence sufficient enough to convince me. In this scenario my freewill would be like a goldfish in a bowl. I would be able to freely move about all I like but it would be unreasonable to expect the fish to swim outside the bowl.

This is all compounded by the fact that my fate would be a result of God's choice. In premise one I point out that we both agree that the evidence required to convince me is not outside of his grasp. Since there isn't anything outside of God's control any ration mind is forced to conclude that the lack of convincing evidence manifesting in my life is a result of the conscience choice of the mind of God.

So basically I am just reprobate. For me to believe all of you is for me to believe that I am beneath your merit. I was built for burning but you are built for glory.

The bible actually addresses this concept. In Romans 9:21

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?

I just don't think of myself as a lump of clay and if your god were real and he built me for the purpose of burning me for eternity then there is nothing I would be able to do about it anyways. So I would simply say to that god that such an act would be wrong and such a god would be evil.

The good news there is no reason to believe it is more than just a story.

I realize this might sound a bit harsh but I want you to realize exactly what it is that you are saying to me when you make the claim that this God not only exists but that he is talking to you. It isn't all sunshine and roses.

As for the personal level I only really take offense when a believer tells me that I deserve hell.

SemperAnticus1643

Ah, but we were also given "free-will" to do and believe as we choose. With that being said, it's not His job to convince us that He is real. It's ours to make that decision for ourselves.

soldier4242

Ah, but we were also given "free-will" to do and believe as we choose. With that being said, it's not His job to convince us that He is real. It's ours to make that decision for ourselves.

My freewill would become irrelevant if I were never given evidence sufficient enough to convince me. In this scenario my freewill would be like a goldfish in a bowl. I would be able to freely move about all I like but it would be unreasonable to expect the fish to swim outside the bowl.

tross0924

I've seen fish jump out of bowls. Happens all the time.

What happens to your free will if you are presented with enough evidence to convince you? You still don't have belief in God, you'd have knowledge. You'd be unable to not believe.

And lastly, I never said God was talking to me. Or for that matter that I even believe in God.

soldier4242

I've seen fish jump out of bowls. Happens all the time.

What happens to your free will if you are presented with enough evidence to convince you? You still don't have belief in God, you'd have knowledge. You'd be unable to not believe.

And lastly, I never said God was talking to me. Or for that matter that I even believe in God.

Even if you have seen a fish jump out of a bowl you have never seen a fish "swim" out of the bowl the second it left the water it would be in an environment that it is incapable of surviving in.

I would agree that if I had the evidence of God's existence I would be unable to not believe in just the same way that I am unable to believe now in the absence of it.

Sure I could say that I believe but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about actually believing. A real genuine honest belief. It would be dishonest for me to go around claiming to believe in God without the evidence. The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before. It would not benefit me in the slightest to simply say that I believe to win the approval of believers because I would expect such a god if it existed to be capable of seeing through such a lie. Meaning my fate would be the same.

And lastly I would like to say of course god is responsible for providing evidence for his existence. It makes no sense to put the responsibility for finding god upon a being that is completely incapable of doing anything without his allowing it. If he is going to insist that believing in him and Jesus are prerequisites to avoiding eternal torment. What sort of a sick monster would he be if he did not present the evidence sufficient to prove his existence to everyone?

Dragonwolf

Can I tell you why he should convince the skeptic? Yes I can. Hypothetically if God is real then some facts become indisputable:

1. God would not be at a loss as to what it would take to convince me. You said yourself that he is capable of doing it.

2. God established a punitive system of punishment and reward which hinges entirely upon belief.

3. The punishment and reward are eternal and infinite while we are finite beings.

4. We had no choice about whether or not we were created.

One giant assumption here - that the god that exists is the modern Christian god, that Christianity has taught its followers he knows and cares about every minute detail that goes on with every single person's life.

What if that's not true? What if there is, in fact, a omnipotent god, but he really doesn't give that much of a *kitten* about people? In other words, a "watchmaker god." Sets everything into motion, then leaves it to its own devices. Maybe makes some tweaks here and there.

Or maybe god's just an *kitten* or a kid with a magnifying glass over an anthill? Ever see the movie (or read the comic books) Constantine? That's actually not far off from the depictions of Jehovah in the Old Testament. Jehovah basically made a bet with Lucifer that Abraham would do anything for Jehovah, even sacrifice his own son.

Or, perhaps what we perceive as one or more gods are, in fact, beings that exist just beyond our comprehension. Either in a parallel universe (see also: multiverse theory) or as a 5+ dimensional being (see also: dimensional theory). Theoretically, parallel universes could intertwine just enough to cause certain anomalies that would lead a simple race to believe in gods. Likewise, because we're 3-4 dimensional beings (up/down, left/right, forward/back, time (sort of)), we can comprehend up to 4 dimensions (well, time in one direction, at least). Science postulates that there are more dimensions, which then stands to reason that there could be beings that exist capable of comprehending those dimensions, but since they live beyond what we can comprehend, we only experience them when they interact with us. This could be interpreted as divine. Given the abundance of "other world" concepts throughout both time and geography (Olympus/Hades, the Norse 9 worlds, Heaven/Hell, etc), the idea really isn't that far-fetched.

In any of these, though, the "gods" just don't care that much about us, particularly as individuals. Sure, they might do something for someone, but it's entirely their choice. Just as you might choose to take in a stray cat or leave it to its own devices. Doesn't mean they don't exist. Just means that the details of one theory or another don't have to be true in order for one being or another to exist.

SemperAnticus1643

What type of PROOF would be required?

soldier4242

The short answer is regardless of what proof would be required it would fall within the ability of an omnipotent being to provide it.

This is an interesting question however and I do not have time to delve in to it properly at the moment. I will provide a more qualified answer later.

tross0924

Well then in answer to your original question, yes. You have set the bar too high. If you require irrefutable proof of God's existence before you can or will believe then you will never truly have faith.

Faith comes when you can leap out of your fish bowl and discover that you were never a fish, but a tadpole that can now hop about outside as freely as he wishes.

The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before.

Also ^^^ that is self delusional at best. You have a hundred things that you believe in without sufficient evidence to back it up.

Opinion - 1) a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

You have absolutely no problem with having your own opinions. Even in this realm in your life you have an opinion. As it is logical impossible to conclude that something doesn't exist just because you haven't found it, you can not possibly have enough evidence to support your opinion, yet you still hold a belief.

Unless I'm misreading you, and you are actual agnostic rather than atheistic.

kit_katty

Personally I wouldn't mind believing in God. Which is partially why I don't think he exists. I've tried to leave myself open to Him. And yet here I am. Not believing. I've found nothing to convince me that a higher power exists.

And I also agree that finding one's car keys isn't enough. Nor a sunset. Just my opinion.

soldier4242

Well then in answer to your original question, yes. You have set the bar too high. If you require irrefutable proof of God's existence before you can or will believe then you will never truly have faith.

Faith comes when you can leap out of your fish bowl and discover that you were never a fish, but a tadpole that can now hop about outside as freely as he wishes.

The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before.

Also ^^^ that is self delusional at best. You have a hundred things that you believe in without sufficient evidence to back it up.

Opinion - 1) a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

You have absolutely no problem with having your own opinions. Even in this realm in your life you have an opinion. As it is logical impossible to conclude that something doesn't exist just because you haven't found it, you can not possibly have enough evidence to support your opinion, yet you still hold a belief.

Unless I'm misreading you, and you are actual agnostic rather than atheistic.

Knowledge and belief are not the same things. Knowledge is a subset of belief. You can believe something that you don't know and you can also not believe something that you don't know. You cannot not believe something that you do know. Once a thing becomes knowledge you would have no choice about whether or not you believe in it. So assuming you can understand what I am typing here because the wording is a bit convoluted. Atheist and Agnostic are not mutually exclusive terms.

This might be a better way of explaining it:

Gnostic Theist= I know that god does exist!
Agnostic Theist= I don't know if there is a god but I do believe in god.
Agnostic Atheist= I don't know if there is a god but I do not believe in god. <= This is the category I would be in.
Gnostic Atheist= I know that god does not exist.

More to follow I have to go at the moment.

LuckyLeprechaun

What type of PROOF would be required?

I know you were asking him, but for me, seeing justice in the world, seeing good things happen to good people and seeing bad people get caught and justice served would be a huge first step.

Also, an amputee regrowing their limb after having prayed for it would be a huge one.

Basically, if there were a omnipotent/all loving deity running things, I'd expect things to be very very different.

UsedToBeHusky

Honestly, no. But I think when something occurs in your life that you know would not have occurred without divine intervention, then you will know it. That experience is different for everyone. I have no idea when it will happen or how it will happen. It's possible you might have already seen it but refused to believe it for fear of what the existence of God might mean to you. You may choose to never see it, and you are entitled to that choice. But if you were more open-minded to the concept, I think you might find the proof you are looking for.

In other words, you are demanding concrete proof, but God doesn't work that way. The old testament (and I'm not good at quoting verses) tells a story of people who came face to face with God and were utterly obliterated. God intervenes, but not directly.

In my personal experience, I became convinced when I went to church, and the preacher spoke of things that had been weighing heavily on my heart. He didn't say anything directly to me, but the more he spoke, the more he described my every heartache. I was saved that day. Maybe something like this will happen to you, or maybe it will be something else. But the more you deny, even so much as the possibility of God, the less likely you are to ever recognize his intervention in your life.

whierd

"To the skeptic, no evidence is enough. To the believer, no evidence is necessary."

I am a skeptic, but I am by no means "unconvincable". Provide me with the right facts or a logical argument and I will gladly set my ego aside and accept an argument.

I do not believe in a deity or Supreme Being in the theological sense, accept that there is no way to know for sure either way unless that type of being chooses to make itself known, and quite frankly I believe that if such a Being did exist that it would not give a hoot whether or not I believe in it anyway.

The idea that something that is all-powerful enough to create matter and existence cares whether or not I believe is incredibly arrogant.

soldier4242

Well then in answer to your original question, yes. You have set the bar too high. If you require irrefutable proof of God's existence before you can or will believe then you will never truly have faith.

Faith comes when you can leap out of your fish bowl and discover that you were never a fish, but a tadpole that can now hop about outside as freely as he wishes.

The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before.

Also ^^^ that is self delusional at best. You have a hundred things that you believe in without sufficient evidence to back it up.

Opinion - 1) a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

You have absolutely no problem with having your own opinions. Even in this realm in your life you have an opinion. As it is logical impossible to conclude that something doesn't exist just because you haven't found it, you can not possibly have enough evidence to support your opinion, yet you still hold a belief.

Unless I'm misreading you, and you are actual agnostic rather than atheistic.

I think you have not understood my position. I am not claiming that God does not exist. I am saying that we do not yet have sufficient evidence to believe that he does exist. Until we have that proof we are not rationally justified in believing in his existence. This is why believers have to invoke faith because then you are just believing in the absence of rational justification.

If you want to just believe that is your right but if you want your belief to be something that others should agree with then your belief should be able to stand up to scrutiny. By invoking faith you are side stepping the process that makes it possible to support the belief.

The existence of Opinions does not lend one bit of credibility to your claim that a God exists. Just because opinions are entirely subjective and therefore not subject to the same level of scrutiny as other claims does not mean that all claims are given the same blank check of credibility.

Consider this:
Person A: "The Loch Ness monster is real."
Person B: "I don't think we have enough proof to draw that conclusion"
Person A: "Last week you said you liked chocolate and we had to just take your word for it. Why do you get to challenge my claim? That is not fair!"
[sarcasm]Person B: "I guess your right the Loch Ness monster must be real."[/sarcasm]

I have not concluded that "God does not exist." like Person B in the example above I am saying that the claim has not met the burden of proof and you are basically saying that I have set the bar too high. Which is like saying if I were simply easier to convince I would believe you by now. Well that may be true but it does not lend any credibility to the claim you are trying to champion.

tross0924

Well then in answer to your original question, yes. You have set the bar too high. If you require irrefutable proof of God's existence before you can or will believe then you will never truly have faith.

Faith comes when you can leap out of your fish bowl and discover that you were never a fish, but a tadpole that can now hop about outside as freely as he wishes.

The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before.

Also ^^^ that is self delusional at best. You have a hundred things that you believe in without sufficient evidence to back it up.

Opinion - 1) a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

You have absolutely no problem with having your own opinions. Even in this realm in your life you have an opinion. As it is logical impossible to conclude that something doesn't exist just because you haven't found it, you can not possibly have enough evidence to support your opinion, yet you still hold a belief.

Unless I'm misreading you, and you are actual agnostic rather than atheistic.

I think you have not understood my position. I am not claiming that God does not exist. I am saying that we do not yet have sufficient evidence to believe that he does exist. Until we have that proof we are not rationally justified in believing in his existence. This is why believers have to invoke faith because then you are just believing in the absence of rational justification.

If you want to just believe that is your right but if you want your belief to be something that others should agree with then your belief should be able to stand up to scrutiny. By invoking faith you are side stepping the process that makes it possible to support the belief.

The existence of Opinions does not lend one bit of credibility to your claim that a God exists. Just because opinions are entirely subjective and therefore not subject to the same level of scrutiny as other claims does not mean that all claims are given the same blank check of credibility.

Consider this:
Person A: "The Loch Ness monster is real."
Person B: "I don't think we have enough proof to draw that conclusion"
Person A: "Last week you said you liked chocolate and we had to just take your word for it. Why do you get to challenge my claim? That is not fair!"
[sarcasm]Person B: "I guess your right the Loch Ness monster must be real."[/sarcasm]

I have not concluded that "God does not exist." like Person B in the example above I am saying that the claim has not met the burden of proof and you are basically saying that I have set the bar too high. Which is like saying if I were simply easier to convince I would believe you by now. Well that may be true but it does not lend any credibility to the claim you are trying to champion.

Ok, I think we're having a problem with the word believe. You're saying we have to have absolute proof to "believe", but "believe" means to have confidence in something without absolute proof. You can not "believe" in a fact.

What you're saying is that God's existence must be proven to the point of fact before you will believe. The problem then is that once it is proven for you, you can no longer believe, you will know. Given that, the answer is that yes you have set the bar too high. You will never be able to believe that God exists.

And I think you're misunderstanding my example. First liking chocolate isn't an opinion is a preference. Second the conversation would go more along the lines of -

Person A: "The Loch Ness monster is real."
Person B: "I don't think we have enough proof to draw that conclusion"
Person A: "Maybe not, but I believe that it exists"
Person B: "You are not allowed to logically believe anything without absolute proof of it's truth"
Person A: "Do you believe that Obama is a better president than Mcain could have been?"
Person B: "Yes" or "No" (it doesn't really matter what the answer is because if you have an opinion either way you have a belief without absolute proof one way or the other)
Person A: "Why are you allowed to believe in a multitude of things without absolute proof while I'm not allowed to?"

The bottom line is that belief can not exist without faith. I'm not asking you to believe, I'm not declaring as fact that "God exists", and personally, I don't think you get a one way ticket to hell for not believing either. All I'm really saying is that

The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before.

is false. The time to believe is, in fact and by definition, before you have evidence not after.

UsedToBeHusky

Well then in answer to your original question, yes. You have set the bar too high. If you require irrefutable proof of God's existence before you can or will believe then you will never truly have faith.

Faith comes when you can leap out of your fish bowl and discover that you were never a fish, but a tadpole that can now hop about outside as freely as he wishes.

The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before.

Also ^^^ that is self delusional at best. You have a hundred things that you believe in without sufficient evidence to back it up.

Opinion - 1) a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

You have absolutely no problem with having your own opinions. Even in this realm in your life you have an opinion. As it is logical impossible to conclude that something doesn't exist just because you haven't found it, you can not possibly have enough evidence to support your opinion, yet you still hold a belief.

Unless I'm misreading you, and you are actual agnostic rather than atheistic.

I think you have not understood my position. I am not claiming that God does not exist. I am saying that we do not yet have sufficient evidence to believe that he does exist. Until we have that proof we are not rationally justified in believing in his existence. This is why believers have to invoke faith because then you are just believing in the absence of rational justification.

If you want to just believe that is your right but if you want your belief to be something that others should agree with then your belief should be able to stand up to scrutiny. By invoking faith you are side stepping the process that makes it possible to support the belief.

The existence of Opinions does not lend one bit of credibility to your claim that a God exists. Just because opinions are entirely subjective and therefore not subject to the same level of scrutiny as other claims does not mean that all claims are given the same blank check of credibility.

Consider this:
Person A: "The Loch Ness monster is real."
Person B: "I don't think we have enough proof to draw that conclusion"
Person A: "Last week you said you liked chocolate and we had to just take your word for it. Why do you get to challenge my claim? That is not fair!"
[sarcasm]Person B: "I guess your right the Loch Ness monster must be real."[/sarcasm]

I have not concluded that "God does not exist." like Person B in the example above I am saying that the claim has not met the burden of proof and you are basically saying that I have set the bar too high. Which is like saying if I were simply easier to convince I would believe you by now. Well that may be true but it does not lend any credibility to the claim you are trying to champion.

Ok, I think we're having a problem with the word believe. You're saying we have to have absolute proof to "believe", but "believe" means to have confidence in something without absolute proof. You can not "believe" in a fact.

What you're saying is that God's existence must be proven to the point of fact before you will believe. The problem then is that once it is proven for you, you can no longer believe, you will know. Given that, the answer is that yes you have set the bar too high. You will never be able to believe that God exists.

And I think you're misunderstanding my example. First liking chocolate isn't an opinion is a preference. Second the conversation would go more along the lines of -

Person A: "The Loch Ness monster is real."
Person B: "I don't think we have enough proof to draw that conclusion"
Person A: "Maybe not, but I believe that it exists"
Person B: "You are not allowed to logically believe anything without absolute proof of it's truth"
Person A: "Do you believe that Obama is a better president than Mcain could have been?"
Person B: "Yes" or "No" (it doesn't really matter what the answer is because if you have an opinion either way you have a belief without absolute proof one way or the other)
Person A: "Why are you allowed to believe in a multitude of things without absolute proof while I'm not allowed to?"

The bottom line is that belief can not exist without faith. I'm not asking you to believe, I'm not declaring as fact that "God exists", and personally, I don't think you get a one way ticket to hell for not believing either. All I'm really saying is that

The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before.

is false. The time to believe is, in fact and by definition, before you have evidence not after.

Soldier, I've made this point with you before. Belief comes before fact. Even in science, a scientist must hypothesize the possibilities before he can generate an experiment that might prove his hypothesis. Faith works the same way as a hypothesis.

No one is aking you to have faith in God in order for it to be proven to you. But you do have to have faith that the existence of God is a possibility before evidence of His existence will become apparent to you.