Since I initially wrote this article, I have created a truncated version on Quora which you may find a bit easier to follow. That can be found here.

So, I have talked a lot on the importance on knowing what would convince you that you are wrong. In light of that, I decided

Seems about right

that its probably a good idea for me to lay out here what I have done in the past — what would convince me that a “God” — meaning any sort of definition that involves some entity with the aspects of a “deity” — exists. So here it is, these are the pillars my bias rests on. Invalidate any pillar and I will have to seriously reconsider my position. However, if you can’t invalidate the pillar, you just don’t have an argument I care about. If you think you do, ask me, but it will likely just point back to one of these pillars.

Step 1 — Define God

“To BE, is to be SOMETHING, and to be something, is to be something SPECIFIC.” If someone is going to convince me that their religion is true, or that their “god” exists, the question “What IS God” must first be answered. Think about it, knowing the definition of ANYTHING comes logically prior to any discussion about its actual existence, or merits. After all, if you don’t know what something is, how do you talk about it.

Of course, to be specific, a definition has to contain certain elements which are necessary. You cannot simply define something by using another word to define it. For example, to say that God is Love, is not a definition at all. Love is already its own unique concept with its own definition.

To say that God is Love makes the word God irrelevant. If God is Love, then why not just use Love instead of God, since everyone already understands what Love is. In short, a definition must be specific, and it must include the unique characteristics which distinguish what is being defined from anything else. Otherwise, if the definition is ambivalent, and so is what is being discussed.

Step 2 — Provide Evidence

Once you have established a coherent definition that we can both agree on, we are ready to start talking about whether what you are talking about exists.

For example, a unicorn is a horse-like creature with a single horn protruding from its head that is often regarded as a protector of the forest. It’s horn has the ability to heal and it can communicate via telepathy. This definition allows us to ask to say, “Now that I know what you are talking about, what evidence do you have that such a creature exists?”

You might bring in pictures of unicorns, provide stories that talk about one-horned horses driving poachers from the forest, or if possible you might even tell me where I can see a real unicorn for myself.

Spiderman has waaaaay more books too. And his own float in the Macy’s parade.

This is what I expect you to do with god, once you’ve defined what god is. Those primary attributes, those things which make god unique, all you have to do is point to them.

My job will be to evaluate the evidence you provide, and see if it meets with the standards I have set. To be fair, I have some fairly high standards for evidence. Personal stories, for example, aren’t evidence. They are personal stories about experiences, and while your sincere belief that they are true is understandable, so is my skepticism. There are plenty of examples where someone’s personal experience does not match up at all with what was recorded on film, and countless other examples which emphasize an important fact of life.

Human beings are flawed, and our brains can trick us into believing something that isn’t true. Just look at how optical illusions and magic tricks work and you can understand how this happens more frequently than any of us care to admit.

Scientific studies however, those are more than just personal stories. They have measurements, a peer review process, and they are repeatable. If you repeat an experiment from a study and you don’t get the same results, then the study was bad. That’s great, because predictive reliability is very important.

Likewise, anything that isn’t subject to interpretation is considered good evidence. A photograph, video, something which defies the laws of physics with god’s signature on it… these would all be perfectly valid.

Scripture itself is not evidence. In order to prove scripture valid, we would have to first determine that the bible is a credible source, that it is unambiguous, not subject to interpretation, and that passages which claim prophecy are specific and also not subject to interpretation. After all, if something is going to claim divine inspiration, it should have more credibility than a horoscope from the Sunday morning paper.

Step 3 — Adequately Defend Criticisms Of Provided Evidence Directly

It will be inevitable if we get this far, that at least a few of the things which you believe is “compelling evidence” is going to be labeled as something which doesn’t meet what I consider to be reasonable standards of evidence. That is understandable, because I’m not immune to bias either.

And neither are you.

Click this image for a great article on levels of evidence.[/caption]

Which is why its important to consider the criticisms carefully. Am I pointing out a logical fallacy? If I am mistaken, understand why the logical fallacy doesn’t apply but might SEEM like it applies, and reword your explanation.

If I point out that an inconsistent standard is being presented, then either you are arguing that god is an exception to the rule, or I am failing to see how you are applying the same standard of evidence universally. I have often found that arguments about the existence of god are often between people with different standards of evidence. What some might call a miracle, others call coincidence. For folks like myself, unless you can prove it is IMPOSSIBLE, coincidence is a simpler and more likely explanation.

Scientists call this parsimony, and non-parsimonious explanations have a way of deviating from reality in unfortunate ways. If your point requires an assumption, and the other point doesn’t, then the other point is simpler and more logically cohesive. After all, if one idea builds fact upon fact without assumptions, and another idea requires an assumption to make the facts fit, there is always the possibility that the assumption is wrong.

Facts, are generally NOT wrong, and if the facts change, so do the ideas that they are built on.

Step 4 — These Are Not Arguments That God Exists

Occasionally, conversations about god will devolve into arguments about the nature of morality, or how god is a necessary concept for civilization. These are not arguments that prove that god exists. These are arguments on why belief is important, but believing in something doesn’t make it true. The importance of belief is something we can talk about, but it does nothing to prove that god exists.

Other times, conversations will turn to the idea that god is good. This is only important if it is necessary for your definition of god. If that is the case, if god is shown to be “not good”, it will invalidate your definition, but all by itself does not prove or disprove that god exists. After all, from a secular perspective, you can be good without god.

Likewise telling someone the answers are within them, that if they simply have faith or earnestly ask god for proof they will receive it, these are not arguments that god exists. These are attempts to make someone experience something after you have implanted a suggestion into their head. This is not an argument, its a parlor trick at best, and a distraction from a rational discussion in all other instances.

I want this book so badly…

Besides, I went to Sunday School. I’ve done all of that stuff and I still don’t believe. I’ve met countless theists that have told me the same thing. The chances that YOU will somehow be the catalyst for an experience with the divine in spite of 33 plus years of silence are pretty slim, and also a bit arrogant.

Telling me that I don’t believe because I don’t want to believe or because I “hate god”, or that I’m “angry” with god also are not arguments that god exist. Those are your opinions on why I don’t believe, and if you use these tactics then you haven’t been paying attention to anything I’ve said, and you haven’t understood this article at all. Do you hate Santa Claus? Are you angry at Big Bird? Do you disbelieve in Never Never Land because you don’t WANT to believe there is a place where you never grow up?

Of course not, and to imply otherwise is not just silly, its insulting.

You have in all likelihood some pretty good reasons why you don’t believe in characters from stories, myths and fairy tales. I do too. If I’m not treating you like an idiot or a child for believing in something that you DO believe in, you should give me that same respect. I don’t believe for good reasons collected over a lifetime.

The same goes for saying “Satan” or evil forces are tricking me. In fact, this entire article applies to those things too. If you want to convince me that god exists and that satan is tricking me into believing he doesn’t, then you need to prove that satan exists too. This pretty much applies to anything and everything that I can’t experience for myself.

Finally, claiming that god is “self-evident” is not an argument that god exists. If god is “self evident” then everyone would be dumb to not believe him. Maybe you’ve had experiences that are convincing, but those experiences are not evidence. I had a pretty convincing dream once about how my mom teased me about their being orange juice for breakfast. When I woke up, there was no more orange juice. To this day I’m still ticked off about that, because I REALLY wanted that orange juice, but the fact is that the experience was manufactured by my brain.

Still, it seemed pretty real to me.

Step 5 — Did You Play Fair

I ❤ this chart!

In all of this, there is one thing above all others that will make me take you more seriously than any other Christian I’ve ever talked to. I have laid out what would convince me that I’m wrong. Heck, I wrote it down, and if I missed anything I’ll add it here.

Have you done the same? Are you WILLING to consider that you might be wrong?

I have yet to meet a believer that is willing to do this. This is EVIDENCE of their dogmatism and intellectual dishonesty. We are ALL playing by the same rules on this planet, and that is true especially with our beliefs. If you are going to challenge someone else’s beliefs, you must be prepared to have your beliefs challenged in turn. If you expect someone to consider they might be wrong, you must FIRST consider that YOU might be wrong. If you are certain, and wish people to respect your certainty, you must also respect their certainty.

Fairness. Balance. These are virtues everywhere in the world, even in places that delude themselves into believing that they are “fair and balanced” when by any standard they are not. The reason they are virtues is because fairness and balance, equitable exchanges, these are the spokes on which the wheel of society turns. We are social creatures, and unequal and unfair exchanges breed competition, not cooperation. Cooperation is how we as a people thrive, but if you are unwilling to apply those same virtues to your intellectual discourse, then your dogmatism is what closes off your mind to the universe of possibilities that exist.

Reality awaits for those that are willing to admit they were wrong.