Yes, yes, another thread about YHWH’s existence, or lack thereof. I’m pretty confident in stating that most atheists/agnostics probably came to their position through the consideration that there was not enough evidence to support a Judeo-Christian God. Secondary reasons might be the notion that such a deity is not worthy of fawning praise, or hostility against the practices of religion/the religious in general.
What would make you change your mind on the first point? Assuming (for sake of argument) the existence of God, what evidence would you accept as incontrovertible proof for his existence? Or, to put it another way, if you were God what would you do to make sure there was no doubt whatsoever in your existence?
It’s quite a tricky one, as a lot of divine ‘miracles’ could be written off as hoaxes, phenomena not yet explained by science, aliens screwing with us etc.
To believers - is there any circumstance in which you would reject your faith, any discovery or event (no matter how far-fetched) that would cause belief to falter?
Well, I assume we’re talking about either the Judeo-Christian god or something close, and eliminating possibilities like god as an universal force, which I don’t think could ever satisfiably be proven for me.
But for the good ol’ J-C type one, I’d settle for a huge booming voice from the heavens, that everyone on Earth heard, and was able to react/respond to human inquiries. (I.e., stuff like “well if you really are God, why don’t you set this pile of rocks on fire?” followed by God saying “kay” and the rocks exploding into flame). Now, there might still be discussions of HOW powerful/godly this creature is, but it would certainly create belief in some sort of ultra-powerful being up there.
What version of God? Your standard tri-omni God is simply logically impossible; no evidence would convince me. If nothing else, it’s possible I am insane; but such a God is not possible. On the other hand if an alien named Gee-Oh-Veh shows up with recordings of him screwing with the primitive humans with his pillar of fire hologram and wired-for-sound burning bush, I’d find that more believable. Or for something in between, how about a “god” that is just a really powerful alien being that created the universe? Is that “God” or not?
And as I said elsewhere, it would be irrational to ever go past agnostic with any claimed “God” who is powerful enough to fool you. Professor X if he existed could convince me he’s God by screwing with my head, but that wouldn’t make him one.
Well, I’m an agnostic, so it might be marginally easier to convince me than a hard core atheist. What would it take? Probably a personal visit from the Big Guy would do the trick…along with some kind of corroborating proof in the form of something miraculous. It’s hard to say what, exactly, as I’m fairly skeptical along with being an agnostic.
I’m probably not worth the effort to convince. Personally, I’m taking a wait and see attitude when I finally shuffle off this mortal coil…and hoping fervently for scientific miracles that will forestall that sad event for a few centuries or a millennium or two.
Good question…if no circumstances or events whatsoever could convince you of the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, is there any distinction to be made with anything else we could describe as ‘God’? Say, the deist proposition, or simply some vague ‘benevolent higher force’ idea some subscribe too.
If there is, I suppose the question would be what evidence would you accept for the existence of any entity that you you could call ‘God’?
Well, if I met an ultrapowerful extraterrestrial being who could perform miracles, I’d acknowledge the existence of an ultrapowerful extraterrestrial alien being who could perform miracles. I don’t offhand know what would convince me that this being created the universe, Earth and humanity, or that I need to worship it.
I guess it could reprogram my brain if it wanted to.
Assuming (as many others have) that for purposes of this thread “believers” means “believers in the Judeo-Christian God as conventionally interpreted and described”, such that a very unorthodox concept of God such as a pantheistic pagan semi-eastern kinda thing would be counted as “unbelievers”:
• “God” (that one) would have to do a lot more than convince me that He exists as described. All that does is establish that such an entity exists; it doesn’t make that entity truly God. If Superman shows up tomorrow with all the abilities ascribed to him by DC Comics, that doesn’t make HIM God either.
• “God” (that one) would either have to magically change my perceptions of ethical beauty, right & wrong, and how things oughta be, or else convince me by showing me and telling me so that I see for myself that I was wrong.
• No, actually, I am not channelling John McCain here.
All knowledge is contextual; it would not be possible for me to change my belief on this subject and still integrate it with the rest of my beliefs. I would have to change my entire way of thinking in order to make allowances for such a being. That’s not likely to happen, unless I someday become insane.
What would change my mind? As others have hinted, this is a difficult question absent coherent and clear description of what god is. But lets say that we are talking about a god that is the maker of all, the prime mover and knower of all.
Just about anything I can think of could also be explained as some phenomenon that I don’t understand, or a hallucination. After all people go crazy all the time and see things that aren’t there. And humane kind has had a long history of phenomenon that was thought to be divine intervention only to be explained by science later on. So I really can’t think of anything that would pass the test of extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim.
What if someone found in a cave somewhere the code book to the Bible that when applied to the Bible gave a detailed, in depth description of DNA and named the scientist associated with the discovery. That would be good, but once again we are back to the “is it god or just a really advanced civilization for somewhere else.” This I think would be less than perfect conclusive evidence for the existence of god.
Perhaps we beg the question. If we are talking about the god that created everything and knows everything, certainly he would be able to provide the evidence that is clear, concise and would prove without a doubt that he exist. So the question is why has he not done this? Is it because he’s a god size asshole, or because he doesn’t exist?
I think he’d simply have to submit to rigorous scientific testing. He can’t just show up when and where he feels like it and perform some half-assed miracles and expect to be taken seriously. If he really can break the laws of physics, and if he wants to be believed in, then we shouldn’t have a problem. If he can’t, then he can’t be god either. If he can, but won’t… ok he obviously doesn’t want me to believe in him.
I don’t think any arguments could turn my faith. The only thing that I can imagine is waking up some day and my faith is just gone from me. It could be taken by some mental illness or brain damage to one hemisphere of the brain. Just as some people can be struck blind or go deaf, I suppose that I could lose my sense of faith.
That would seem to me to be very much like losing my sense of self or my sense of balance or time. It’s hard for me to imagine.
As an atheist I would want everyone on the planet to instantly know and understand the true nature of God, or I’d want him to appear and answer questions for all of humanity.
Literally nothing, I’m afraid. I would always consider any sensory input (God appearing before my eyes and whisking me off back to a childhood memory, or something) to more likely come from a simulation than a supernatural source.
That’s easy - just physically change my brain such that it believes. People have small strokes and aneurysms which do this all the time. Of course, this is really God changing ‘me’ into someone else - conversion by force, if you like - and I would never be able to demonstrate that the stroke was caused by God (since Ockham’s Razor would say, hey, a stroke’s just a stroke). But it’s so easy (and so plausibly deniable!) that I wonder why He doesn’t do it more often.
An entity I would call “God” would be the same Judeo-Christian which I consider impossible; it’s a Judeo-Christian created concept in the first place. Or, some entity that showed up and presented evidence that it created the myth in the first place; in that case “God” is real, but a fake. And no that’s not a contradiction; it’s the difference between a counterfeit coin, and a report of a counterfeit coin that never actually existed at all.
As for more vague versions, at what point do you stop calling them God? I wouldn’t call a superpowerful alien that made the universe God. And I’d call a “benevolent higher force” incompetent, considering how less-than-benevolent the world is. Not much of a God.
Simulations are natural, physical - you know, made of the same stuff and processes as the universe. Gods are (apparently) supernatural, nonphysical entities. I literally can’t conceive of a more important difference.
I am antitheist as well as atheist. Even if I could be convinced that a being like the common conception of God existed, I would have to be against such a being or abandon my own morality. Priests and princes, man, priests and princes. We bow to no one.
Oh, someone already said Babelfish before me. But then again, D.N.A. already wrote that.
I change my mind. I’ll believe when I have been touched by His Noodle Appendage, the FSM.
Miracles would not. Miracles are by defenition exceptions to what is possible and impossible. If god created the universe then why would he break his own rules??
But seriously, what would convince me was a decent theory that does not look like men making something up to feel better about. All the little errors seem to reveal that it’s really man who creates god in his own image.
It all reminds me very much of the experiment once conducted by Skinner, “Superstition in pigeons”. Skinner is the inventor of animal testing (only behavioural AFAIK) where they are in a box and get rewards (food) for certain kinds of behaviour.
Once, pigeons simply got food with a certain interval no matter what they did. Pigeons in this test develloped superstitions of silly actions they had to perform in order to receive the reward. That begs the question: how do we know we’re not doing exactly the same but with bigger stakes?
