Would you cite the appearance of things in nature having been designed as evidence, or the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies in our modern age?
As this thread does not seem to get any other answer I will reiterate that you can’t convince somebody with arguments when that person has reached their conclusions by means not based on arguments. I believe you can see that clearly when you examine the evident weakness of all the attempts to demonstrate the existence of god, for instance the unmoved mover argument, the first cause argument, the argument from beauty, the argument from design, the ontological argument, the cosmological argument and so on. All this “demonstrations” are tautological at best, bordering the ridiculous at worst and have never convinced anyone that was not already convinced that god exists.
So this I can tell you for sure: whatever great argument you come up with at the end of this thread, however convincing, no, compelling you think it is, you will not convince me with it. Because I know deep in my heart that god does not exist and the argument is false.
But if you believe in god I am sure that this will not convince you of the non-existence of god, nor would any other properly worked out argument. I see no way out of this impasse.
I’d use the arguments that have convinced me, although it’s not going to be Yahweh that I’m arguing in favor of. I’d argue in favor of a deistic clockwork god. My best guess is that in reality such a god (which would not be considered a god by a lot of people, but that’s a definitional problem) is probably something that a physicist would call a black hole in another universe and a white hole in ours.
I’ve thought about this for a long time and my conclusion is that nothing short of something supernatural or miraculous will do. Everything else can be chalked up as coincidence or randomness or natural cause and effect. And in an era of 15-second attention spans, nobody is going to want to listen to some hour-long apologetics lecture.
You can’t use the Bible as evidence to convince someone of God’s existence, because without belief in God, the Bible is just another ancient text. There are hundreds, many speaking of gods. Why take the Bible more seriously than the Enuma Elish or Rig Veda unless you believe in God?
For me, what it would take is actual evidence. Not some third party’s mystical revelation, but testable evidence. When somebody comes up with that, it will be front-page news worldwide. Until then, I think you’re just going to have to leave people to their disbelief.
What Pardel-Lux said. Since there is no scientific proof of the existence of God, those of us who trust the scientific method, as opposed to religious dogma, will never be convinced of something that can’t be proven scientifically.
You can talk about miracles, prophets, and divine inspiration, but inevitably they can’t be proven to exist, and can often be explained by what we already know about the human body and mind, and by the physical world.
As far as “Then how was the Universe created?” goes, just because science can’t explain everything doesn’t mean it’s not knowable. We learn new things about the Universe every day.
And how do you know it is something supernatural or miraculous, as opposed to very advanced technology? I would believe something was caused by aliens, or human super-villain scientists inside a volcano, before I would believe it was caused by deities.
You can’t reason yourself (or anyone else) into a position that reason itself rebels against.
Which god are you referring to?
At some point there are things that violate physics and couldn’t be explained as advanced technology, or would be too much to explain as something done by humans or aliens. Sure, it would be subjective but at some point it couldn’t be explained as that.
Right. Or at least that they violate the laws of physics as they apply to our universe as it currently is. Whether or not some thing, some place, or some when that operates under different laws of physics could be considered a god of some sort is, as I mentioned, a matter of how one chooses to define the term.
To start with a mass of super heated quarks and gravity, throw in evolution, and then end up with a universe of unimaginable complexity that actually works as a cohesive system is nothing less than a totally fabulous feat of engineering! That’s my argument.
Can’t be explained yet. Nobody knows what we will learn in the future that may explain whatever phenomenon appears to defy physics today. Maybe today’s physics is wrong. Science can change. Science isn’t dogma (a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.) Science can be wrong and adapts to new validated information.
Neil deGrasse Tyson said it best. “The good thing about Science is that it’s true, whether or not you believe in it.” He also said “The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.”
I agree with you, but I think you should be careful here, as questions like this are something of a “gotcha” intended to show that atheists are (equally) biased or whatever, whether the op intended this or not.
So I would say I never believe empirical claims on the basis of arguments alone. I always need to see some evidence. Arguing things into existence has a long and embarrassing history of error.
At this point we’ll probably derail this thread if we go on much further so I will try not to sidetrack too much. But, if, say, the events of Revelation happened as written (such as, say, two prophets who show up who nobody can kill and can strike the Earth with as many plagues as they want by their mere command and order (“tomorrow, 200,000 people in Chicago will die of smallpox despite there being zero smallpox today!”), and anyone who tries to harm them is consumed by flames right away,) that would be pretty hard to explain scientifically.
Or, if the Rapture happened and literally 1,000,000,000 people in the Earth (Christians) vanished from all 191 nations in the blink of an eye with absolutely no explanation - hard to explain that scientifically either.
At a certain point, a miracle would not be able to be hand-waved away as “Aw shucks, it’s just un-explained science.”
I don’t expect either the Revelation or Rapture events to happen, but if they did, there’d be no scientific “out” - it would have to be accepted as something in violation of science.
According to 1 Kings 18:21-39, you can prove that your god beats your neighbors’ god by praying to bring down fire to a proper sacrifice.
And just because we don’t know something, that doesn’t prove that any particular god exists.
Sounds like a riff on what Niels Bohr supposedly said when asked why he carried a good-luck charm: “They say it works even if you don’t believe in it.”
Hid hijacking post
He also said Pluto is not a planet and he’s totally wrong about that. You should find more credible sources to quote.
Why would you want to do so anyway?
This topic has been hashed out for many hundreds of years, and the conclusion is that you can’t “argue something into existence” by verbal tricks or ‘armchair philosophy’.
I think my favorite is, “Imagine the most perfect thing. Well, God is better than that, ergo God” or something to that effect.
Maybe if He stopped hating amputees? That might be some evidence. All of His medical cures seem to be of the hidden, hard-to-prove variety for some reason (probably something like, “can’t undermine free will” or some other silly thing).
My standard response when someone says they are an athiest or otherwise “don’t believe in God” is:
A person saying they don’t believe in God is like a fish saying it doesn’t believe in water.
IOW believe, don’t believe, argue, don’t argue, have “faith,” don’t have faith-- it’s all the same and your take on the matter is 100% irrelevant because it doesn’t change reality.