Bongmaster wrote:
It seems to me that the more people (think they) know, the less they are prone to believe in Him. I find it interesting that you suggested that He program intellectual knowledge, rather than moral goodness, into people. Maybe you and I mean two different things by “God”.
Tiltowait wrote:
I’m afraid you have me confused with someone else. Welcome to Straight Dope Great Debates.
Thanks for the welcome 
Have I mistaken a deist for a fundamentalist? I AM sorry, I should not have assumed.
Well, if you don’t accept the bible as being literally true, what do you base your belief in a god on? 'cause without any evidence I have no way of telling an imaginary being from a real one.
Nah, that was the O.T. God. We apparently have a kinder, gentler God now - one who doesn’t meddle, although noone has ever explained why that is the case, or at what point in history it happened.
Oh, here is what I would like to convince me that a god exists:
-an explanation of the purpose of evil, that will convince me there is some use for it. And it should be a lot better than those explanations offered by human apologists.
-an explanation why a god who desires worship goes to such enormous lengths to hide any evidence for his own existence. And then reveals himself to a couple unreliable sources thousands of years ago. An omnipotent being is by definition capable of revealing himself to everyone without violating anyone’s ideas about free will. Irrational belief (faith) is defiantly NOT a good trait in humans, look at how many people have been tortured and killed over misplaced faith (if you are a believer, look at the misplaced faith of people who believe in the wrong god and the atrocities they commit in the name of that faith). Faith without reason is neutral at best, evil at worst. Why would a god seek to cultivate this trait in men?
-a reason why the ‘true religion’ (whichever one it is) is indistinguishable to a non-believer from the myriad other false religions which are mutually exclusive.
-an explanation why an omnipotent being is concerned with being worshiped.
-evidence that an all-powerful being exits (I am easy, that re-arranging the stars thing should do the trick.)
Things that won’t work:
-Stuff that we don’t understand. People don’t understand lots of things, this is not evidence for anything other than ignorance.
-word games like Pascal’s wager
-personal stories of conversion
Tiltowait wrote:
You’ve come to the premier venue on the Internet for debate. These people are the best and the brightest. The intellectual strength here is staggering.
You will at times be frustrated, but if you love a challenge, you’ve come to the right place. I will pass on the excellent advice that I was given by DavidB shortly after my arrival here nearly three years ago: develop a thick skin.
You’re right that you shouldn’t have assumed, but I’m not a deist. I’m a renegade.
My personal, subjective experience.
We each have our own unique moral journey. I would never presume upon yours.
Many of us, Tiltowait, claim to have had an experience* that convinced us of the reality of God, do not believe that He is the vengeful tyrant whom fundamentalists fear but preach, and are quite capable of looking critically at the melange of writings about Him without assuming that it is somehow all literally true.
It should in addition be added that some people believe, period. Not because of anything they can point to in their lives in the way of experience. Not because of rational arguement or evidence. Not necessarily even because of deliberate faith. It’s a part of their character, it’s just there. So no one necessarily needs justification for their own belief: justification is something necessary to convince others of the truth of their belief. This thread may be about justification, but it’s important not to lose sight of that.
It certainly is a conversation stopper. Identical to my claim ‘the moon is made of green cheese and nothing you can say will make me believe differently, and I have no reason to believe it is true.’ Silly.
Not to mention a conversion stopper. Someone tells you to believe something they can’t prove, shows a complete and utter disregard for reason, and then tells you you’ll be burned for eternity if you disagree with them. This is supposed to sound appealing?
It’s a very good point you make, Apos. Believe what ever you want, just keep it to yourself if you’re just going to plug your ears when people respond with anything except agreement. If you want to convince people other then yourself, then know that “I believe no matter what you say!” is a pretty poor tactic. It makes you look stubborn and closed minded if you dismiss what people say before they even get the words out of their mouths.
If your goal is to convert others you must listen to what they say and address their concerns. If you are not trying to convert others then do us a favor and keep such sentiments to yourself. They accomplish nothing other then making your own worldview look pigheaded and ignorant. IMO, anyhow.
DaLovin’ Dj
—Believe what ever you want, just keep it to yourself if you’re just going to plug your ears when people respond with anything except agreement.—
I don’t think people should keep it to themselves. I LIKE hearing about the beliefs that make other people’s lives meaningful. They should just understand that if they are going to treat them as truth claims to be asserted, sharing time is over, and justification time has begun.
—Identical to my claim ‘the moon is made of green cheese and nothing you can say will make me believe differently, and I have no reason to believe it is true.’ Silly.—
Maybe. I believe that I have a coherent individual consciousness, even though just about everything in medical science and even some delving into my own mind, suggest otherwise, even though I find the idea itself to be unintelligible: despite the fact that I think it’s probably wrong! However, I really don’t seem to be able to stop believing it: it’s just there. Silly? Maybe: but then I’m not trying to convince anyone of it. It’s just something to know about me.
A short quote from a quite orthodox Christian source that might provide a lot of perspective on the point of view I’ve been expressing:
In short, if you want a miracle, take me.
I was born ten months after my mother’s last-ever menstrual cycle.
The day she went into labor for me, the Chicago Tribune announced the election of President Dewey in a headline they’d much rather everybody forgot.
I’ve already noted Jay being sent to save my life when I had my heart attack.
Then he and his best friend became the sons I had resigned myself to never being able to have. And in doing so they unlocked the recesses of my heart, and made me an integral, whole human being for the first time.
He’s not going to “r’ar back and pass a miracle” – the people He’s made and called to be His witnesses are the miracles you’re looking for.
Because that’s how He operates.
If you want to know how a main sequence star functions, no amount of studying supernovas or neutron stars – fascinating as these unusual objects are – will tell you.
If human experiences are admissible as evidence, how about all the millions of people who die horribly with prayers on their lips? Ever been inside a children’s hospital? Why is your god playing games with menstrual cycles when people are burning to death right now?
Happy stories and rainbows are not proof of a gods existence, they are happy stories and rainbows.
I think the movie “Contact” displayed this problem very well. Jodie Foster’s character has a life-changing experience but cannot convince anyone else that it actually happened. I would think there’s really 2 questions:
What experience/evidence might be provided to make me personally believe in a higher being? Does the fact that this experience/evidence mean something only to me change the fact that I now have convincing personal evidence in a god (whatever form it takes)?
Is there any experience/evidence that would convince everybody in the entire world that there is a god? Since there are still people who believe in a flat earth and that the moon landing is a hoax, I think the answer to this is a definite no. I don’t believe there will ever be an experience/evidence that will convince everybody.
You have every right to believe whatever you want, but as far as YOUR personal evidence convincing ME, I would have to evalute it on my own. And the vast majority of this “personal evidence” that I have heard takes one of 3 forms:
a.) Some sort of coincidence that the believer interprets as a sign from God. These events may or may not be unlikely, but are always within the realm of possibility. For example (not to pick on Polycarp, but just to illustrate): Being born on the same day that Dewey was elected is not meaningful in any objective way. On the contrary, it would have been quite astounding if NO babies had been born that day. These experiences may have great meaning for the believer, but are seen by the skeptic as being coincidence at best.
b.) This generally occurs with members of “charismatic” churches: Some type of unusual behavior on the part of the believer that is seen as being caused by God, like speaking in tongues, etc. This isn’t really convincing in any objective way either, since a person’s behavior can just as easily be attributed to the religious fervor of that person. And in my opinion, this type of evidence is further weakened by the fact that its validity is questioned even within other denominations of Christianity.
c.) Flashes of “insight”, where a believer suddenly has an inner revelation, ostensibly coming from God. These revelations almost always happen to people who already believe. If God were really zapping insight into people’s brains, wouldn’t He be doing it to non-believers, since they would arguably be the ones who need it the most? Objectively, this type of evidence is the least convincing, since the experience is wholly inside the mind of the believer.
To be honest, I’m a little bothered by the term “personal evidence” itself. It almost seems like an oxymoron. What you have is belief, plain and simple.
I think you’re probably right in that even something really extraordinary wouldn’t convince EVERY SINGLE person on the planet. But in this thread, we’ve come up with some possibilities that would convince A LOT of people, so it’s still unfair to say “You wouldn’t believe no matter what”.
—Flashes of “insight”, where a believer suddenly has an inner revelation, ostensibly coming from God. These revelations almost always happen to people who already believe.—
Not necessarily. I would guess that they happen most significantly to people who have been considering the idea of god, but aren’t really sure or interested: and especially if they have some strong emotional situation that drives home the feeling of importance to an experience. All that has to happen is that something odd be attributed to god. The mind is a funny thing, but its very hard for most people to admit that to themselves: so anything truly odd is treated as inexplicable and requiring outside explanation.
Except I would argue that if a person is “considering the idea of god”, then they ARE interested.
Well, not necessarily “interested” in the sense that you seem to be using it as in “interested in there being a god.” Someone might be indifferent or even set against the idea: what probably matters is how deeply ingrained the idea is to begin with, how much of a psychological fallback it is for the inexplicable inside one’s own consciousness.
Well, I have to disagree here. Many great scientists, Einstein included, have a firm belief in God. Also, I only suggested that God inject imagery and knowledge into people’s minds in order to prove his existence, it wasn’t a good vs. evil thing. I’m pretty sure we are both talking about the same “god,” (ie creator of existence).
not quite. Einstein on “God” :
And he went on to say:
Sorry for the nitpick but it seemed relevant.