Atheism/Can you prove to me that God is not watching us.
Since you are an atheist can you prove to me that s God is not watching us or is even with us at all? Thank you so much.
Also, I get that there is no proof a lot for my answers please give like an answer with better proof thanks.
Also I would appreciate if you point out contradictions in the bible and why it doesn't make sense please thanks.
Hey Nana, thanks for the questions.
You also phrased the question this way:
“Is there really a God watching over us? Is he really with everyone?
Please don't say you don't have any proof, thanks.
Are there any contradictions in the bible? Is the bible all a lie?“
and I will try to address all those concerns in this post.
Is God everywhere watching over us? :
You asked for proof that God isn't watching over us? How about proof by contradiction? If I can make basic assumptions about God and I find that this leads to a contradiction it shows either that God doesn't exist or that one of the assumptions are wrong. If these assumptions are truly fundamental attributes of God (ie he wouldn't be God without them) than it can only mean that such a God doesn't exist. Since you expressed interest in the God of the Bible, I'll try to tie these attributes to God by referencing Biblical scripture whenever possible.
So for the proof by contradiction I'll go with The Logical Problem of Evil, this is an old argument against God so you might know it. The arguments that try to counter the Logical Problem of Evil are called theodicies. I've written about it on AllExperts a lot, and I'd especially refer you here and here for some of my better past-writings on it. There is also an entire website devoted to “Why won't God heal amputees?” a specific case of the Logical Problem of Evil, which I highly recommend. If you're not satisfied with my treatment of it, feel free to bring up an objection in a follow-up question.
So what does it mean for God to be with someone, watching over something, or to be somewhere? At the very least I would think it means awareness and control. God knows about what is happening on his planet and can make sure nothing bad happens to it. God is the definition of good, and if he really is the kind of God that has a personal relationship with people than his goodness should relate to what people (when they are at their best) think is good. But we know there are bad things everywhere, so how can God be watching over them?
Let me write this out more formally, since you asked for a proof.
Premise 1: God is an entity that exists.
Premise 2: God is an entity that knows about everything in The World
Premise 3: God is an entity that has control over everything in The World
Premise 4: God is Good.
Premise 5: Good entities eliminate any Evil contained in things they a) know about and b) have control over.
Premise 6: The World contains Evil.
Conclusion: One of the premises is wrong.
I think it is fair to say though that Premise 2, 3, & 4 are necessary prerequisites for God and moreover these attributes are supported by the Bible (perfectly good, powerful, knows everything). Notice that if you wanted to envision a God that is some places but not others, replace “The World” with an appropriate substitute like “The lives of God-fearing Christians”, “Christian Churches”, or “Jerusalem”. Another comment about definitions is that we can already see a conflict between Evil as man would recognize it (suffering, confusion, ignorance, oppression, restrictions) and Evil that can be safely eliminated by God (Evil man recognizes that does not violation free will, tests of characters, etc). I think that no matter how you define Evil, there are things in the world that a good God should want to eliminate would want to eliminate. That leaves us to reject the first premise, because the God of the Bible can't exist.
Now let me write this out more concretely, so I can provide undeniable examples Evil in the real world. I imagine you try to eat right and live right, but yet still time to time you feel sick from disease. You're in pain, you can't concentrate, your coordination is off, you have to worry about getting other people sick, you don't look your best, and you worry about getting worse. Is God there watching over you in that moment? Does it make it better if God were manipulating you into depending on him? Does it make it better God was laying down a heavy-handed punishment? Any being like that isn't the God of the Bible, isn't a being likely to exist, and isn't a being worthy of worship.
Not only is it you getting sick from the occasional disease. But everyone. The saintliest person on the planet, the weakest and most vulnerable person on the planet, people afflicted with birth defects before they are even born, people who have never heard of God or Jesus, people who can't understand what's happening to them, people (like me) who won't believe it God one way or another. Is there any way God could be watching over all those people, judging them individually yet punishing them indiscriminately?
And people get hungry, so that the poorest and loneliest of us are starving. People feel pain, not just enough to protect us from injuring ourselves, but unnecessarily so. People get tired after hard work or after a long day, and they need to rest before they continue. People don't enjoy doing hard work, even though its necessary to survive for most people for most of human history. Death, which God requires all people to go through, is almost always painful if not for the victim (the right word here) then for the grieving friends and family.
Back to the formal proof of the Problem of Evil, I don't know of any theodicy that can handle all of these cases. Most of these examples of evil can be fixed without violating anyone's free will (in fact, some of them violate free will to occur), can be fixed without changing the negative consequences of anyone's actions, aren't allocated according to anyone's sins, and aren't necessary to test anyone's soul. To make the case stronger, the evil used for this argument doesn't have to be something appalling for an intelligent agent to occur, it only requires that something that is not completely perfect or something that there is a better way to do. If God's reason for evil is free will, we should live in a world which maximizes the expression of free will. If God's reason for evil is to test the soul, we should live in a world of perfect tests for souls. Beyond the problem of good and evil, it seems clear that our world isn't the maximization of any value or the culmination of any design, so this seems wholly incompatible with any description of the world as completely the product of an all-controlling and highly opinionated superbeing. So I think the proof is valid.
Contradictions in the Bible:
Very long lists of contradictions in the Bible are easy to produce (and as the last one notes, even if you think there is a nuanced explanation for all of these it still makes the Bible an unnecessarily unclear document). That by itself doesn't mean that the Bible is all untrue, just that it isn't a perfect book. I mean most paperback books can accomplish to tell a story without continuity errors, but it is a lot to expect from a ancient books with so many of the parts initially communicated by word of mouth, cobbled together from many different authors, edited by committee, and then translated.
But is the Bible a lie? For my purposes I think it suffices to show that the Bible is an unreliable source of information. How it got to contain so many untrue pieces on information is not entirely clear to me, but I don't think deliberate deception is the only possible explanation. For example, in this AllExperts post I explain how fiction can be retold as nonfiction in propagating supernatural beliefs about the Pentecostal experience of “speaking in tongues”.
To show the Bible is an unrealiable source of information I'd want to talk about the events of the Bible that are completely incompatible with the historical record, the major inconsistencies in the most important part of the Bible (The Gospels), and the things that happen in the Bible which are physically impossible (to state the obvious). I give a pretty comprehensive overview of this in a previous AllExperts Atheism post here, so I'd refer you there.
Proof vs. Evidence:
You stated a preference for a proof over a preference for an evidence-based argument. This makes sense, after all, a proof is something one can be absolutely certain about whereas evidence can only provide an indication of what is most likely true. But there is something missing here- how does a proof relate to reality? At some point one has to make an evidence-based argument that the contents of the proof are actually relevant to real life. In the real world there are degrees of certainty, limited knowledge, and fallible senses. Consequently, statements about reality have to include a measure of uncertainty to be realistic. If anyone tells you that there is something about which you can be 100% certain, they are either missing the uncertainties or are asking you to ignore them. This is why I prefer an argument that is outright evidenced-based – the limits of knowledge are included in the argument more explicitly. Evidence-based arguments ask “What should I conclude is true from the limited knowledge we have?” whereas the proof-based argument doesn't attempt to handle any situation with limited information, it assumes perfect information. Skeptics you've talked to in the past probably shied away from making proofs and ending the conversation at that, because they want to give you the reasons they don't believe in God, not present to you an atheist's version of religious dogma.
For instance, let's revisit the Logical Problem of Evil. I write out this neat proof that would appear to shut out any possibility of the God of the Bible existing and show that the notion is fundamentally incoherent. But then I start anticipating all these theodicies, things that people say when they aren't satisfied with the proof. But how can there be anything else to say? What these theodicies are doing are questioning the definition of Evil, whether or not it is in The World, and whether or not God eliminates it. Those theodicies attack the gap between the abstract proof about the world and the reality which it is supposed to represent. And even if you accept, as I do, that none of the known theodicies solve the Logical Problem of Evil and allow for a God, than there would still be nothing either of us could say to prove there wasn't a hypothetical unknown theodicy that does solve the problem. If I want to persuade you to accept the proof conclusively (and if anyone wants to persuade anyone of anything), I have to appeal to your judgement and experience of the real world – or in philosophy words, a rational examination of the empirical evidence. For the evidence-based argument about the Problem of Evil that I prefer, see the Evidential Problem of Evil contrasted with the Logical Problem of Evil discussed in these AllExperts posts.