I have a question ...
What would get you to change your outlook on a supreme being? That is, if you are Atheist, what would convince you that there is a God. If you are a believer in a God, what would it take to convince that there is not one?
I have heard this question be asked many times, and it always seems that the Atheist answer is far more reasonable than the Christian one ... but who am I to judge, that is God's department.
Anyways, the point is that the Christians always seem to say that there is nothing that could actually convince them there is no God ... kind of sad, really ... but what can you do.
Hmm ... ok ... so the first few answer were a little disappointing ... I would kind of hope for people to be more specific about it ... more in depth. I mean, "proof that God exists" would of course prove that God exists, but the question is, what is that proof to you. Christians already believe that there is suffeciant proof for God. Atheist clearly do not.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
What would it take to convince me? Simple. If one tiny shred of evidence pointed toward god's existence, I would begin to consider it. If, through that consideration, more evidence was revealed, my belief would grow stronger. The question, of course, would be, what god?
OK, I have to elaborate on this. No matter how much evidence I see that might point to the existence of a god, I will not accept that unless it is the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation because I believe that the existence of god is so improbable that it is close to impossible.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
"What would it take to convince me? Simple. If one tiny shred of evidence pointed toward god's existence, I would begin to consider it."
Ditto...
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Nothing short of God proving his existance to me, because without first hand proof that he exists, I really couldn't care less.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
what would convince me that there is no God is proof that life spontaneously evolved, or proof that life on earth was brought here by extra-terrestrials, proof that life is the result of a series of random mutations and not a creation designed with intelligence and purpose by a Merciful God.
I believe God exists. I have firm faith that he exists. To disprove it, well, you would have to kill me, then kill yourself, and somehow force our spirits/energies/minds/beings/essences/souls/whatever to meet up, and then you would have to tell me "I told you so." In all honesty, that's what the atheists are asking to be done as well though...
One of you asks God to reveal himself personally to you, okay, but have you heard what happens to people when God comes to Earth or when he directly interacts with humans...generally a lot of people die, or the individual being talked to is given an insane task. Do you actually want that? No, you don't. You just want to rationalize your reasons for not believing. Which is just fine, because that's all anyone does. We rationalize whether we believe or not.
Another asks for only one small shred of evidence. I can accept that answer, but what will you accept as evidence? God himself? His son? What? There are several very lengthy books which talk about the works and words of one God or another, but that isn't evidence enough. There are prophets who walk the Earth today, but that isn't enough. You can walk the sun rise in the morning, set in the evening. You can feel your body, the wind, the rain, the warmth of the sun, but none of that is enough. What counts as evidence to you, if anything?
The real question, what does salt taste like? Describe it to me, and I'll prove to you that God exists.
"Even after all this time, the Sun never says to the Earth 'you owe me!' Look what happens with a love like that, it lights up the whole sky."
-Hafiz
I've read about what people consider proof in those books. It's all flawed logic or flawed science. As for the so-called prophets, they are only right if god exists. If god doesn't exist, they are liars, madmen or just plain wrong.
Religious people talk about miracles. If I had evidence that a miracle happened, that would get me thinking about god existing. And, by a miracle, I mean something that could not naturally occur in the circumstnaces in which they occured.
Salt has a sort of tangy bitter-sweeting taste.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
> The real question, what does salt
> taste like? Describe it to me, and
> I'll prove to you that God exists.
This is a disingenous question. The experience of tasting salt is an objectively measureable physiological event. We can strap various empirical devices up to your tongue and brain, and objectively observe the electrochemical responses of your body when a salty substance is introduced into your mouth. The precise nature of the "taste" however is subjective, because not everyone interprets the same electrochemical responses the same way in their brains. You question attempts to equate the wholly subjective nature of theistic belief with the objective and subjective experiece of taste. The lack of any objective component is what renders your "tasting" of "god" to be suspect.
In order for something to be considered "evidence" in the context of this discussion, whatever you offer needs to be objective, meaning that your "evidence" needs to exist independantly from any mental construction.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
How did you come to be, who made you, everything and everybody has a creator,
who created you?
His parents. Duh.
Also, while this is kind of clichè, can I point out that you don't truely believe that "everything has a creator." Because, if you did, you couldn't believe in God.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
> > If God does not exist who made you?
>
> His parents. Duh.
Thanks for saving me the trouble of responding to that tiresome platitude, Nick.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
It was the only rational response.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I just realized my last posts title may come off as insulting. I was joking around, not meaning to cause any offense. I laugh because...well because I'm uncomfortable. You see, I cannot be scared or angry, so I laugh...a lot.
"Even after all this time, the Sun never says to the Earth 'you owe me!' Look what happens with a love like that, it lights up the whole sky."
-Hafiz
I agree that before people can prove anything, they must first establish what proof is. If the atheist needs God to pop out in front of him and say, "I exist", then sorry. I can't provide that for you. But, if we can all establish that proof is when someone has demonstrated something to be true to the point that it is more absurd to believe the contrary, then we can go somewhere. Then, I can offer proof for God's existence.
OK, let's hear your proof.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Oh, your most majestic holiness, I apologize for my impudence and my wrongness and will now dedicate my life to serving you.... Just, which god are you anyway?
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I'm pretty sure that impersonating God isn't going to get you very far. Just a thought.
Tabias-
Notice how each were quoted material? I wasn't impersonating God, merely reporting his message. Also, that was ALL sarcastic. If I actually believed in God, I might find it kind of blasphemous, but since I don't, oh well. It's amusing, and I'm sure Jsaj will agree with me on that point.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Tabias-
You- funny, BAH. :-)
Your god should dcondemn you to hell for such blasphemous behavior...
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
How could my god condemn jack shit? He doesn't exist! I figure that if he, nonexistant as he is, didn't want to be quoted, he wouldn't make it so damn easy.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Ah, but you see by invoking on his non-existence you've pissed him off. Why? Well, he's angry about not existing and all...
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
Appearently. Fuck, look! He created an account to tell me to stop calling him nonexistant.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I know. It's a heavenly sign. We must repent! The end of days draws nigh!
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
Why would I condemn my greatest prophet! I really said those things. Shame on you for doubting his word!
God
Oh, and I didn't write the bible, there are no angels, and hell isn't real.
Holy shit...And I always thought I was making it up.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Wow...
I always thought he was making it up too.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
There are for arguments for God's existence. I think I will use the cosmological argument. The premises of this argument are as follows:
1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Anything that has a beginning must have been caused by something else.
3 Therefore, the universe was caused by something else, and this cause was God.
"Some people say that the universe is eternal. However, the consensus of scientists studying the origin of the universe if that it came into being through the Big Bang. The evidence for this is the second law of thermodynamics which states that the universe is running out of usable energy. But, if it is running down, the universe can't be eternal. There is also a philosophical reason to believe in a starting point. This argument demonstrates that time cannot go back into the past forever. It is impossible to pass through an infinite series of moments. You could imagine passing through an infinite number of dimensionless points on a line, by moving from one end to a nother, but time is not dimensionless of imaginary. It is real, and each moment that passes uses up real time that we can't go back to. It is more like moving your finger across an endless number of books in a library. You would never get to the last book. If you thought you had found the last book, there would always be another and another...You can't finish an infinite series. So, if the past is infinite (the universe did not have a beginning), then we could never have passed through time to get to today. If the past is an infinite series of moments, and right now is where that series stops, then we would have passed through an infinite series, and that is impossible. If the world never had a beginning, then we could not have reached today. But we have, so time must have begun at a particular point in the past, and it needs a cause for its beginning.
The next argument demonstrates that the universe needs a cause for its existence right now.
The world needs both an originating cause and a conserving cause. In other words, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" These are the premises:
1. Finite, changing things exist. (I am an example. I must exist to deny that I exist. Therefore, I must really exist.)
2. Every finite changing thing must be caused by something else. (If it is limited and it changes, then it cannot be something that exists independently. If it existed independently, or necessarily, then it would have always existed without any kind of change.)
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of these causes. (You can't go on explaining how this finite thing causes this finite thing, which causes another finite thing, and so on. This puts off the explanation because it doesn't explain anything. Besides, if we are talking about why finite things are existing right now, then no matter how many finite causes you line up, eventually you will have one that would be both causing its existence and be an effect of that cause at that same moment. That is nonsence. So no infinite regress can explain why I am existing right now.)
4. Therefore, there must be a first uncaused cause of every finite, changing thing that exists.
The conclusion is that there must be a present, conserving cause of the world" (Geisler 16-20). However, how doe we know that this is really the God of the Bible?
That brings me to the second argument for God's existence. I'll post that when I have time.
Geisler, Normal, and Ron Brooks. When Skeptics Ask. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996. 16-19.
I didn't ask you for proof ... only what would prove to you that there was no God ... i
Smile Like You Care
I posted my argument in response to Jsaj 's(I think?) demand for it. Sorry. What would prove to me that there is no God? As I stated earlier, I would need someone to have demonstrated something to be true to the point that it is more absurd to believe the contrary. In other words, I would need arguments in atheism to be more rational than arguments in theism.
>1. The universe had a beginning.
>2. Anything that has a beginning must have been caused by something else.
Ok, I'm with you so far.
>3 Therefore, the universe was caused by something else, and this cause was God.
...So what caused God? Can he cause himself? That seems like it would be cheating...
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
As I stated above, God is the first cause. Something had to have always been there, because there is no infinite past. If you say that something caused God, then you would have to say that something caused that, and so on into infinity...which I proved to be impossible with the library book analogy.
I refuse to accept that as truth because I believe that the universe is far more complex than your book. No, I think that there was a point in time where "nothing" (meaning everything as we know it didn't exist) existed. From this "nothing" there was "something" that changed, be it a collision of sorts or whatever, but something changed. From this change, "something" was created and from this something came everything.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I think that there was a point in time where "nothing" (meaning everything as we know it didn't exist) existed. From this "nothing" there was "something" that changed, be it a collision of sorts or whatever, but something changed. From this change, "something" was created and from this something came everything.
I think you and I agree so far. The argument that I posted has not officially established THE God as the first cause yet. So as of now, you can call the first cause "nothing". Because, that is what you are saying. You are saying that, "From this "nothing" there was "something" that changed, be it a collision of sorts or whatever, but something changed. From this change, "something" was created and from this something came everything." So you do believe in a first cause. The purpose of Part One was to establish that there was a beginning, and a first cause that has always been there. This is what you refer to as "nothing". The argument from design (next argument I post when I have time, hopefully) will give this "nothing" more explanation.
There are a lot of flaws in this post, and I will try to limit myself to just the most aggregious misapplications of logic and misstatements concerning various aspects of scientific theories.
First let's turn to the basic prongs of the "cosmological argument"...
> 1. The universe had a beginning.
First of all, I think it is important to define the term "universe." In simple (and for the sake of all our sanity, I will try to keep this simple) terms, "the Universe is defined as the summation of all particles and energy that exist and the space-time in which all events occur."
> 2. Anything that has a beginning
> must have been caused by something
> else.
I emphasized the last part of this definition for a reason. Many of the theories and principles you cite are only valid whithin the boundaries of space-time. In the context of the physics behind the theoretical origins of the universe, causality is an observational principle the correlates events in a temporal, as well as spacial relationship. Once you step "out" of space-time, the normal rules of cause and effect do not necessarily apply.
> 3 Therefore, the universe was caused
> by something else, and this cause was
> God.
You are making a rather wild leap, here. Even if we were to accept that there was a "first cause," that doesn't actually offer any evidence as to the actual qualities of that cause other than (perhaps) that this cause existed outside of space-time. The normal characteristics associated with "god" as a sentient, governing being is wholly speculative, and represent a pre-conceived projection rather than an observationally based understanding of the theory you suggest.
> the consensus of scientists studying
> the origin of the universe if that it came
> into being through the Big Bang.
I think that the Big Bang respresents less of a consensus these days that you seem to think, but we'll stick to it now for the sake convenience. The Big Bang does not need a "cause" to explain it, because it was not an "event" in the normal sense of the word, and anything that happened "before" the beginning of space-time does not necessarily require (and logically cannot have) any causal relationships, since such relationships require both space and time to exist.
> The evidence for this is the second law
> of thermodynamics which states that the
> universe is running out of usable energy.
> But, if it is running down, the universe
> can't be eternal.
This is a gross misstatement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. What the Second Law actually states is that, "the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."
There is actually signficant evidence today that indicates that the universe is not an isolated system. Quantum mechanics especially has challenged the idea that the universe is isolated. Quantum particles wink in and out of existence, and move about randomly without any apparent "cause." The phenomenon of quantum entanglement even seems to reverse the normal order of cause and effect in space-time, and suggests that at this level the causes of events may actually occur after the events themselves.
> Every finite changing thing must be
> caused by something else.
Not necessarily. "In physics, a virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space, introducing uncertainty in their energy and momentum due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle...There are many observable physical phenomena resulting from interactions involving virtual particles."
> 3. There cannot be an infinite regress
> of these causes.
Why not? One can coherently overcome the argument of infinite regression by noting the curved nature of space-time. In fact, this is closely related to the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, previously mentioned.
> 4. Therefore, there must be a first
> uncaused cause of every finite,
> changing thing that exists.
We can demonstrate mathematically that space-time represents an infinite quantity, which of course is not the same as stating that space-time is boundless (a common point of confusion). So, it really isn't unreasonable to presume that an infinite quantity could in fact contain an infinite number of causes and effects.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Reading your comments some days makes me feel really stupid.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Here are two blogs I did that discuss aspects of the cosmological argument and show why I believe that the argument is ridiculous:
http://www.progressiveu.org/235659-why-i-think-christianity-is-ridiculou...
http://www.progressiveu.org/165114-so-tell-me-my-friend-how-did-the-univ...
I will also address your points as well.
(1) We do NOT know whether the universe had a beginning or not. We know that our universe expanded from a very small space to what it is now and that EXPANSION had a beginning. But we don't even have a clue about what the universe was like before that expansion. We cannot say that there was nothing nor can we say that there was something. We simply do not know.
(2a) The statement , "Anything that has a beginning must have been caused by something else" is flawed on several levels. In this paragraph I will address a flaw in your attempted logic. The way you use it the argument here amounts to special pleading to avoid having to explain God. You are going to say that God doesn't need explaining because he has always been. But what else has always been? ... Nothing. In your worldview the only thing that has always been is God. So then your statement above is no different than saying "Everything except God must have been caused by something else". This (a) presupposes God's existence, which nullifies your argument altogether, and (b) sets up an artificial condition for the specific purpose to avoing having to explain logical problem of God existence. If anything doesn't need an explanation, then why not make that thing the universe itself? This is especially true since we cannot rule out the universe having an infinite existence.
(2b) The second flaw in that statement is that it is factually incorrect. Virtual particles have a beginning and an end. Furthermore, they are the uncaused product of statistical uncerties in the vacuum energy of free space. That means that we cannot, even in theory, ascribe a cause to them. In one of my blogs above I discuss the Casimir Effect as experimental confirmation of the existence of virtual particles. I would highly recommend you read that.
(3) Since your premises are not valid, your conclusion is not as well.
This is a common misperception. The Big Bang Theory is not a theory of the origin of the universe. It is a theory ot its expansion. And it is not even a theory of the origin of the expansion. Present versions of the Big Bang take us back to planck's time constant (10^-45 sec) after the initial expansion. That is a very short time but until we have a solid theory that unifies gravity with the other three forces of nature, we cannot go back to the moment of the expansion (which may or may not be the moment the universe originated).
Er ... no. The second law of thermodynamics is not supporting evidence for the Big Bang theory at all. It has nothing to do with the Big Bang
Nor does the 2nd law of thermodynamics present any problem what-so-ever for an eternal universe. To see that, however, requires a better understanding of the universe and the 2nd law of thermodynamics than you have presented. First, the second law does not say that usable enery is always running lower. What it says is that within any close system the disorder is either increasing or staying the same.
It has been shown by Jacob Beckenstein and confirmed by Stephen Hawking that the event horizon of a black hole is proportional to the maximal amount of disorder the black hole can contain. That means that black holes are in a state of maximal entropy. But black holes are very small ... sort of like our universe was when it began. The maximal amount of entropy that very small things can contain is significantly less than the maximal amount of entropy that very large things can contain. It is this fact that allows our universe to have been in a state of maximal entropy at the beginning of expansion, but because of expansion be able to increase its total entropy even more.
Also if as our theory suggests the moment of the Big Bang the universe was in a state of maximal entropy (for the volume it occupied) then it could have been in that state for an infinite amount of time without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics at all. The total entropy would have been staying the same
Two things to point out the ridiculous of this argument:
(1) If we picture time as a number line and you set now as time t=0, then the present can easily be represented as the origin of the number line. If your argument held then we should be unable to specify that point since the mental construct of a number line is infinite.
(2) If your argument held then it would apply to the eternity of God as well. God could not have come to the point 13.7 billion years ago of setting up the Big Bang.
I have already addressed fallacies of this argument above. It amounts to special pleading for God's existence and it is factually incorrect. But I do not want to leave it there. Let's look at causation. Let's also assume that the universe had a beginning at the moment of the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago.
In physics when we ascribe an ultimate cause for something we are ascribing an interaction of particles. That takes place at a certain point in space and at a certain time. If we mentally go back in time and try to think of what could have caused an event then we must restrict ourselves to what is called a backwards light cone.
What is a backwards light cone? If we go back to some time "t" units before the moment whatever event we are interested in actually happened then, whatever will cause that event must be within a sphere with a radius of t X c (the t units of time before the event multiplied by the speed of light). We know this since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. As we make t greater and greater that volume of space grows larger and larger. If we were to represent that on a time line then we would be going backwards in time with a circle (since we cannot represent a sphere if we use one axis for time) that grows larger and larger. This looks sort of like a cone. That is what is meant by a backwards light cone
In other words what ever is going to cause an event must be somewher in that backward light cone. Now if we are going to say that the universe had a beginning, then whatever caused that event must have been in its backward light cone ... but, here is problem. If we say the universe had a beginning then we set up TIME with a beginning. We have an absolute zero point with respect to time. There can be no backward light cone for such a universe because there is no time for the light cone to go back into. Therefore it is meaningless to talk about the cause of a universe with an actual beginning.
You have just shown the problem of using evangelical theologians as a authorities on physics problems. They do not understand what they are talking about. That is not a conclusion that anyone need draw.
I doubt if it will do any better than this one does. I would encourage you to read my blog on why I think this is a ridiculous argument.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
How about this, what do you have to lose believing there is a God, why take
the chance there is a God, because if he does, you will spend eternity(think about how many years that is) in hell. What in your life would change if you believe in God.
What would change, your a good person, dont steal, lie or cheat. whats the biggie?
The only thing that matters ... precious moments of the only life I will ever have. What will change is that instead of spending time doing something of real value I will be praying to a non-existent god. Instead of proactively taking steps to solve whatever problems may occur, I would be wasting those precious moments asking some non-existent sky daddy to intervene in the laws of nature to make things happen that will help me out.
I do not fear spending eternity in hell. First, I consider that the chances of your God actually existing as being so slim as to not warrent serious consideration. However, If he were to exist and he allowed such things to happen, then he is an asshole. I would not want to spend an eternity with him either.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I must say that we (Wiccans) can't prove anything, nor do we claim that we can. That is one of the great differences between Wicca and Christianity. Wiccans never claim that any of their beliefs are the "truth". Sure it's what we believe in, but we can't prove it. We are ok with that. We have our beliefs and we are perfectly fine with keeping those beliefs to ourselves and not proselytizing. I work at the Air Force Academy and I run a Neo-Pagan group here for the cadets and I was invited to give a presentation to the Freethinker's group last night about Paganism. The presentation went very well. It was great that someone (me) who believes in Deity talking to a bunch of people who don't, yet we had a great time, great discussion, and not once did I impose my beliefs on them nor did they totally bash my beliefs. I'm finding that the Freethinkers (Atheist) and I are going to be able to get along just fine. Anyway, take this for whatever it's worth.
Blessed Be,
Tabias-
At least you are honest about you beliefs.
I can not see how people like you believe that though ... I mean if I were to follow that I would fee as if I was making up everything that I believed in, and as such, how could I ever believe in something that I knew that I made up ...
That is not to say that I am trying to argue with you at all ... just explaining why I have not joined.
Smile Like You Care
I don't take your comments in a negative way at all. You have your beliefs and I have mine, that's fair. I do believe in something greater than myself. Like I said above, I can't prove it, but I "feel" that it's there. I just feel that if you do believe in something greater than yourself, then why not make stuff up? And BTW, I'm seaking for myself here. I can't say that all Wiccans share my view on this one. I just believe that if making stuff up works for you and makes you feel more spiritual and you're not hurting yourself or others, then why not?
The same can be said for all religions to tell you the truth. Yes, I believe that Jesus was a real man who walked on this earth, but do I believe all the things that have been written about him in the bible? No, absolutely not. Nor do I believe 90% of what you read in the bible. But a Christian can say the same (and they do openly) about my beliefs.
Do you remember how free you felt when you were a child? And maybe even a time when you might have believed in the easter bunny, the tooty fairy, santa clause, etc... The way I see it, why shouldn't we still believe in those magical beings? We lost all the fun when we grew up. Technology didn't help much either. I really don't know any other way to explain it other than we just love to "believe". We aren't hurting anyone, we don't proselytize to others about out faith; we just like to escape from this reality a bit sometimes. It's much more fun on the other side (hehe). Anyway, thanks for the comments.
Blessed Be,
Tabias-
Haha, I never believed in Santa Clause et al. My parents were very Fundamental Christains and believed that those things were evil. They never told me about them, and when I asked about them (After hearing about them ... somewhere ...) They told me that those were lies that bad parents told their children.
Smile Like You Care
Bull. Santa is real. Don't you make up stories about how he's not.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Yeah, tell it like it is!
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
The Fundamental (insert religions) will be the end of us.
I am an atheist and often get accused of being closed-minded. But I think if God existed and really wanted me to believe in his existence then it would be fairly easy for him to do so.
He could convince me the same way other people convince me they exist. He could appear. Make his claim. And then produce enough evidence to make the claim reasonable.
Now claiming to be the supernatural creator of the universe is what we call an "extraordinary claim", and as Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". But let's suppose he appeared on national TV and magiced up the World Trade Center on the same spot it once was intact and functional. That would go a long way towards convincing me that God existed.
If he also came up with a logical explanation for why he has done things the way he has done them then it would even go to the point of worship.
But God doesn't work that way ... He prefers to remain hidden ... why, I don't know? But that is what theists say. Then is there anything that can get me to believe in his existence? Sure. Multiple unexplained violations of natural law. Suppose that DNA was isolated from the Shroud of Turin. Cells there contained 24 chromosomes -- 23 of them normal human chromosomes including an X chromosome (from Mary) and the other containing no "junk" DNA but all the genes that one needs to survive.This is theoretically possible since about 95 -98% of our DNA is non-coding DNA. Suppose that this finding was confirmed in numerous labs. That would go a long way to not only convincing me that God existed but that an ordinary woman was supernaturally impregnated and gave birth to Jesus. Of course it is always possible that a group of space aliens with fantastic technology caused it, but given the supporting cultural evidence I would lean toward God.
Suppose we found a naturally occurring bacterium that had every gene humans normally have except those genes were turned off, ie not expressed. Then suppose we found other bacteria with genes of other metazoan animals turned off. And suppose we found a mechanism by which the genes could be activated. Suppose we used this mechanism to turn on the genes in one of these bacteria and it developed into a new species of mammal never before seen. This could overturn evolutionary theory. Perhaps then new species came into existence by bacteria spontaneously becoming new species. There are any number of possible things that could be found in the future that would force a reconsideration of my atheistic beliefs. But the fact that nothing like that has ever been noted and every new finding seems to show that naturalistic explanations that do not include God are sufficient for explaining virtually everything that we can confirm we see, makes me not want to hold my breath waiting for the evidence to pour in.
Yes, the evidence would have to be extraordinary but that is only because ALL the evidence so far points to the sufficiency of naturalistic explanations. It is going to take a lot to overcome it.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
You are God. I am God. We are God!
YES! I like it!
And this coming from a Wiccan! I totally believe that everyone is filled with the Divine.
Tabias-
Would you (Christians) agree that the bible covers everything? Anything and everything you need in life can be found in the bible correct? From our Genesis to our Revelation, right?
Tabias-
Has anyone ever thought about the fact that "God" couldn't keep the only two people in the universe under control in the Garden of Eden? What in the world would make you think that he could manage the universe after that little mess up?
I mean really...there were only two people in the entire universe and God didn't notice that there was a freaking snake in the Garden. God destroyed cities, talked through burning bushes, flooded the entire earth, but he couldn't keep that dang snake out of the Garden and help out the first two people ever just a little?
Tabias-