God is not a theory to anyone, at least not to anyone who understands what a theory is. For an idea to be a theory there must be a predictive model that is testable "testable theory" but nobody has ever presented a testable theory for the existence of god.

I can't get you to stop agreeing with me! Like I said, Descartes and Pascal were metaphysical proofs, not physical proofs. They are logical proofs (Pascal not so much, his is more of an argument), and based on that, I can agree that for some folks, God is a theory, not a fact. But the answer always comes back to, "What do you have to lose vice what you have to gain?" That's what Pascal said: in the casino of life, there is only one sure way to win. I am telling you as a former unbeliever that when I shut my mouth long enough to listen to my heart, I was overwhelmed...and I have lived a remarkable life...even more remarkable since then! Even God told us to "test everything, and throw out the unreliable." Seems like pretty darn good advice to me. And I suggest to you, as a thinking person: give it a try. Go on, I dare you. I double dog dare you. What are you afraid of? Some of the most beautiful minds ever have had a belief in one god, in fact, the God: Aristotle, Augustine, Confucius, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Copernicus, Bruno, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Descartes, Newton, Bach, Mendel, Bohr, Einstein, hey, I could do this all day. So I ask again, what do you have to lose? And you have everything to gain.

But you cannot prove a theory, you can only disprove a theory. You can test theories, get more and more examples of when the theory correctly predicted the outcome, but you cannot prove a theory. You can do mathematical proofs, but these are very different than proving a physical theory. A mathematical proof is only a proof of the logical consistency not of any underlying physical reality.

Descartes le method and Pascal's wager have no connection with science, they are philosophical arguements, not proofs or theories.

I do not deny god, or the Easter Bunny or any other idea presented by people with no evidence or theory, I just have no reason to believe on blind faith that some highly improbably thing exists.

Actually, Strato, I do buy 90% of what you wrote. I didn't say you could not prove atomic theory, I said you can't see it. But we are not discussing the physical, but the metaphysical, a bit tougher proposition. But there are proofs. Go back to Descartes' Le Method. Go to Pascal's wager. These admittedly are metaphysical proofs, but still proofs. And as far as what God does, or will do, or how he did it, you are correct, no one knows how he did most of it, but you cannot deny he did it. That would be foolish, and beyond the evidence. Good luck to you. I sorted this out about 18 years ago by challenging God to prove to me he exists. I was 46 years old. And God stepped up to the plate and hit it out of the park. I would hope, and I will pray, something similar happens to you. "And you can't stop me, and that's the truth. Pfffft." (so says Edith Ann).

I didn't come to any conclusion, other than the fact that no testable theory of the existence of god has even been put forth. In science we understand that nothing can be proved, only that one can objectively test theories to see if they are predictive. So there have been billions of experimental tests of the theory of existence of atoms, all of which have confirmed the existence of atoms. We test these theories everyday, billions of times, and we have never found a case where atomic theory has been demonstrated to not correctly predict behavior. Similarly with relativistic theory, Newtonian mechanics, etc, it these theories have never failed to predict the outcome.

GPS works, everyday, billions of times a day, which is constantly adding to our confidence that the theory behind it is correct. Without quantum mechanics working as predicted the electronics wouldn't work as design. Without relativistic theory working as predicted the GPS wouldn't give a correct position or velocity. Without the chemical theories working the battery wouldn't work as designed.

But nobody has ever come up with any testable theory of the existence of god. Many people have hypothesized about the existence of god. Perhaps god is this or god is that, perhaps god does this perhaps god does that, perhaps god reacts this way to our behavior, perhaps god does not react that way. But nobody has ever come up with anything resembling a theory that could predict what god will do, why god has done what it did, how god has done what it did, it's all simply a belief in something that could possibly exist.

This is not anything like atoms existing, because we don't believe atoms exist, we test to see if atoms exist, and the tests always return the expected results (they do exist). We only "believe" god exists because we cannot test to see if god exists, no test has ever worked.

Interesting, but a false conclusion. I hear this all the time from my fellows at the University: you cannot prove God exists so therefore there is no God. I can't prove that atoms exist, but they do. I can prove God exists (to me) because I have heard him speak. So even if that is a false perception, it is true to me. And my perception is my reality. Maybe atheists, if they are so doggone smart (and just for reference, my IQ is 146) should work a bit harder to disprove God exists. Oops, can't do that either, can you? Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And that, friends, is a logical proof.

Atheists cannot discern that God does not exist. But they can claim they do not discern that He exists.

Virtually 100% of the atheists with whom I deal on discussion groups are extremely pompous, and airily (and often earthily) dismiss believers in God as being unintelligent. Of course, these tend also to be left-wing political zealots,mostly quite young, who hold as an article of faith that those who disagree with them do so out of ignorance or incapacity. So, that, rather than atheism itself, might be the cause. I am so sorry you have moved away from belief in God. If it was caused by anything done by someone in church, please accept my apology on his/her/their behalf. I'd be delighted to talk about it with you, if you care to do so. You can reach me at: frjames@arimatheachurch.com

I'm an atheist & I disagree. I think the trait that influences belief, is skepticism.

He may believe he won because theists fail to recognize what constitutes a winning argument.