Question of the Day:
If you don’t believe in God, what would it take for you to believe?
If you do believe in God, what would it take for you not to believe?
Recent Comments
- Donny Pauling: Pay attention to the sign, gentlemen. The part where my name is... on Let’s Talk About …
- UrsaMinor: Practically anything that is covered in beer batter and deep-fried is... on Night Swimming with Sea Monsters
- Lashaunda Reginaldo: I appreciate an amazing publish, can examine your... on The Bible Argues Against Blind Faith
- FO: Awesome animals. Also, they apparently taste good and I’d be curious... on Night Swimming with Sea Monsters
- PamBG: Facetious. No, there is no free will in heaven, because everyone knows that... on John Piper and Divine Command
- Len: So you’ve met my ex. on Can I hear an Amen?
Funny $&#!@ From 9 Laughs
I'm one of the contributors to 9 Laughs:
Subscribe by Email
Archives
If you don’t believe in God, what would it take for you to believe?
Evidence and an explanation that makes sense.
Evidence.
this is about the most and the least that i could say as well. evidence it is.
Show himself, and fix this world,
Honestly, I can’t think of any single piece of evidence that would be convincing, but if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then he knows what would convince me, and would be able to present that evidence. So I figure the ball’s in his court.
More seriously, the first thing would be to settle on a single definition of “God”.
Unfortunately Satan also knows what it would take to convince you that he is God. So, for that matter, would any super-intelligent alien, or the designer of the sophisticated quantum computer simulation that we are all (possibly) living in.
In short, you could never be certain of the existence of God, no matter what the apparent evidence. Unless we broaden the definition of gods to include super-intelligent aliens… or computer geeks.
True, my conviction might be wrong, but I would be convinced, which is the point of the question, right?
In that case, my answer is; a lobotomy, then re-programming.
I think if god were god, the evidence would not be counterfeitable. Fakeable. Some word that is actually a word. This type of argument tends to add more pointers to “no god” for me. The people who are convinced there is a god seem to be easily swayed by the merest coincidences, or anecdotal evidence. A god who is a god would have the best, most convincing evidence of himself that could not be mistaken for satan, and that’s if there really were a satan also. A real god does not for me include the existence of satan, so he would have to provide his own evidence, as well do the aliens. Computer geeks are evidenced by the technology we use and by smell. JUST JOKING! A god who is a god would have to have superior intelligence and materials and abilities to circumvent the possibility of being counterfeited by some other agent. I can’t say that some people would not be convinced by these agents, but that again points to “no god” for me.
I probably won’t believe until I’m either standing in front of the sky fairy in heaven or roasting for all eternity in hell. I believe the chances for either to be infinitismally small. If I did believe in God, I’d be a disthiest.
Actual, verifiable interaction with God. When I was a Christian I experienced God through parts of scripture that jumped out and suddenly made more sense to me — warm fuzzy feelings during worship or while viewing something visually inspiring to me — Good ideas popping into my head or suddenly finding the right thing to say. Of course all those things happen to me today too, I don’t worship, but music is just as moving now as it was then and texts I read frequently become more clear.
Basically I want to experience God in a way that could not be coincidence.
“Actual, verifiable interaction with God.” ~ Monolith Mike
‘Same here. I recently had a Christian apologist, who simply goes by “cl”, tell me that the day is coming that I, “WILL believe”—meaning, on “Judgement Day”, I will meet biblegod face-to-face, and at which time, I will adopt belief in said deity.
Well, it is this same type of encounter that would make a believer out of me right now, right here on earth. It’s noteworthy to point out, though, that just because I believe that “God” exists, doesn’t necessarily mean that I have to accept the policies of said “God”(unless “God” magically removes my free will and makes me into a robot).
IOW, the “God’s Divine Hiddeness” argument is a non-argument(and quite silly)
I will never “believe”. If gods existed, you wouldn’t have to believe in them anymore than you have to believe in the mailman. Belief is acceptance without proof.
If you change ‘believe’ to ‘worship’, then basically it’d take what Caroline said. If a god uses its omnipotence to stop war, heal amputees, eradicate disease, eliminate greed, etc. and show itself to the world while doing so that’d work. I’m a sort of anti-theist: based on evidence, either gods don’t exist, or they are such bastards they don’t deserve worship. So, if a god stops being a bastard, then we’ll talk.
Evidence.
Independent, objectively-verified evidence.
A hammer to the head.
Few months ago I had a dream which went like this:
I was walking through very dense, dark and cold forest. Then there was a huge thunder, the ground started shaking (almost like earthquake) and then I heard loud thundering voice “I am god, listen to me!” I just thought to myself – “Oh, bugger off, this is someone’s idea of a bad joke, but that loudspeaker is really good”.
Lol, I remember every time my drama group would go to the theater to practice, someone would ALWAYS have to get on the intercom at some point and pretend to be either a king or God.
Oddly enough, I was still a Christian then.
#1, for god to exist. I don’t foresee becoming convinced the same wishful-thinking way everyone else does.
Evidence and I am not going to be happy wit poor magic tricks like colouring water into something red. I want some evidence on universal scale. Maybe meet The Doctor and his TARDIS and be a companion for a time.
Death.
If/when there is a resurrection/afterlife, belief will be validated (in some way).
If there is no resurrection/afterlife, I will no longer believe — because I will be dead, and dead people don’t do anything.
I would qualify that answer by saying that what I said above could change, but so far, I haven’t been compelled to give up my faith. It could happen, but I think that’s unlikely. So death is probably the best answer I can give.
Sad.
Are you saying you are any less intransigent in your beliefs?
You’re like a walking thesaurus, Elemenope! Had to look that one up, too :)
I wouldn’t say that I’m uncompromising in my beliefs, but I’m sure I’m biased! I don’t claim to be an expert in atheist thought (not that there is one atheism or something), but I have read a lot of atheists, from existential philosophers up through today’s “new atheism.”
I would never call an atheist “sad,” because that’s arrogant, condescending and betrays an ironic sort of fundamentalism, but also because I’ve taken the time to read what you all have to say. You just haven’t convinced me!
I would be interested to know why you believe in Jesus, but remain skeptical about Buddah, or Allah? Why is your religion any better than any other religion from a reasoable/rational standpoint? I came to agnosticism precisely because I couldn’t answer these questions with any satisfactory rational answer. If you don’t have one either (presumably– but you may), then why remain a Christian?
LRA,
Preface: this is bound to be short and hurried, lots to do =)
There are several reasons why I remain a Christian and not something else. But admittedly, probably the biggest one is simply that I was born into a Christian home and family. I don’t mean that in a, “My parents brainwashed me into Christianity” way — someone is bound to say that — but rather, all of the subjective experiences I’ve had that lead me to believe have happened within the context of Christianity.
As I see it, people who are religious have reasons for being so (I do). Sometimes they’re purely emotional. Sometimes they are partly emotional, partly philosophical. Sometimes they are purely Philosophical. Sometimes they’re well thought out and other times they are a bunch of ad hoc assumptions. I don’t think I’ve chosen to remain Christian because I think I’m more rational than other religious people, although I’ve honestly never thought about that in any detail.
One last thing — why Jesus? I don’t know how to put this exactly; I’ve struggled to find a way to articulate it clearly but never quite found one. The Christian story just makes sense to me, or at least the big picture anyway, and especially Jesus. As I read the Jesus of the Gospels as the revealer of what human life can be (and was intended to be, I think), the call to non-violence, love others before self, the call to pursue kindness, compassion and service before money, etc. — that resonates very deeply with me. That is what living should be about — it’s true.
Admittedly, other people find those same things elsewhere — I’m glad for that!! As I read Jesus, he was pretty concerned with the way people conducted their lives, so I’m glad when people discover that life, even when it’s completely outside of Christianity in particular or religion in general.
Okay, now I’m just rambling =) And I gotta go… work to be done!
“all of the subjective experiences I’ve had that lead me to believe have happened within the context of Christianity.”
Does this mean that had all of your experiences been in the context of (insert any religion here) you’d be a (insert believer identifier here)? What does that say about the validity of Christianity? I notice that MP Turner gave a similar reason for believing.
Ok- That makes sense, but what about the fact that the Bible condemns anyone that is not a believer? Sure- I want to live a good life, and I find inspiration from many great people, but I just can’t stick with a person or a group of people who put forward the idea that if I don’t conform to them, I’ll spend an eternity being tortured and abused with no way out. If Christianity was a “live and let live” kind of religion, I would be wayyyyyyyy less hostile toward it, but, unfortunately it is not. How do you reconcile this problem with your (very respectable) views on non-violence and call to kindness??? How can you stand by a God that condemns… anyone? Especially when the punishment is way, way, more severe than the “crime”? No one, not even Hitler, deserves an eternity of torture (maybe he deserves a long time but not eternity!) Doesn’t this disturb you?
nomad,
I’m not sure. If I were born into Islam, would I be a Muslim? It’s hard to say. It’s purely hypothetical. I would guess that if I were born into Islam, and I chose to believe, I’d probably choose some form of Islam (although it would have to be of the most “liberal” kind). I think what that might say about religion is what Karl Barth said about it — religion is humanity’s way of trying to get to/understand God. All religion is by very definition fully human and therefore flawed.
LRA,
I don’t think the bible unequivocally, univocally states that “nonbelievers go to hell.” I think it’s quiet possible to be an orthodox Christian and reject the doctrine of hell and eternal damnation entirely — in fact, there’s a small but growing group of Evangelical Christians in America who are arguing for that very type of Christianity (as well as plenty of other liberal groups).
FWIW, The “punishment fitting the crime” argument is one of the really good yet really simple ones, IMO =)
Ok, BRG. That’s cool, but really, here is what the Bible says about non-believers and Hell:
“Whosoever … abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.”
2 John 9
“For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”
2 John 7
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? … Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord.”
2 Cor.6:14-17
“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you … Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.”
Dt.13:6-10
“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
John 3:5
“Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.”
John 3:3
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
Mark 16:16
“The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
Matthew 13:41-42
“If thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.”
Matthew 18:8-9
“Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” Matthew 25:41
“…hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”
Mark 9:43-48
“And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.”
Luke 16:22-24
“The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.”
Revelation 14:10-11
BRG- how would you respond to these verses? They seem pretty clear to me, but perhaps you know something about it that I do not. You mentioned Christians who reject the notion of Hell. How do they do that with these verses clearly given in the Bible?
LRA,
Don’t take this as a cop-out. Here are two great books on the topic that I’ve worked through in the past year.
Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? That one’s actually written by a Catholic who was a “disciple” of Karl Barth, a German Protestant (and arguably the most influential theologian of the 20th C).
Universal Salvation? The Current Debate is both a Philosophical and exegetical treatment of these broader issues. Several authors contributed; all self-identify as Evangelical.
Here’s the critical point — most of American Christians don’t know that theology has always been bigger than bible verses (or a long list of proof texts, in this case). Uncomfortable passages exist. Some passages contradict others — heck, entire books contradict others (Job vs. Proverbs, e.g.). The books to which I linked above are an attempt to go beyond the kind of proof texting that happens all the time.
Now, if I wanted to, I could post a list of bible verses that say something other than the list you’ve give, but where would that get us? Neither of us would defend an inerrant bible in the first place, so I suggest it gets us nowhere.
Tonight, I’ll see if I can’t find some synopses of the books I just linked to (I don’t expect you to order and read them!!!! =) ) so that you can have a more concrete idea of what I’m saying.
BRG- Nice. I appreciate that. Well, I have to say that if we’re all saved then what you and I believe ultimately does not matter. If that’s the case, then there’s no need to spread the Gospel because we’d all be saved regardless. I’d love to live in that world– one where people could believe what they want and let others believe what they want and no one fights about it or tries to enforce their beliefs on other people (of course, in this world, people wouldn’t reject facts either).
So what to do with the passages LRA mentions? Just ignore them? How do you know which parts of the Bible to ignore and which to take seriously? That approach weakens the credibility of the Bible as a whole. The authority shifts from the so-called Word of God to the to the various interpreters of the Bible. What is it about those who claim universal salvation that makes their view more authoritative than those who say sinners and (and this is an important category) nonbelievers go to hell?
Even if you are right, BR, and that whole Hell thing is a result of misreading and “proof texting”, the fact remains that most Christians believe in Hell and divine punishment for those who do not believe Jesus is God. A lot of people have suffered and been killed because of this very prevalent belief. Okay, so there are a couple of recent books that attempt to correct this error. I wonder why an interactive and benevolent and loving God can allow so much horror to be mistakenly perpetrated on His behalf? Also, how recent is this “no Hell” doctrine?
Origen was the first church father I’m aware of to be a universalist. He was born in 154. So, not at all a recent doctrine.
LRA, I haven’t forgot about our conversation. I’m just swamped right now with a lot of personal and professional things.
No worries! When you’re less busy, perhaps we could chat again. I’d love to put to you some of the hard questions I have asked others in the past that I never got satisfactory answers to. Perhaps you have a perspective I’ve not encountered yet.
Origen, OK. He was however writing in the formative period of Christianity and a lot of what he wrote was later rejected by “traditional” Christianity. Any early believers in “No Hell” after Constantine?
If the utter lack of evidence can’t convince you, then a few ramblings about that lack of evidence surely won’t.
That’s the first time I’ve heard anyone other than a fundamentalist Christian call atheistic existential philosophy or the new atheists “ramblings.” I’m confused, wouldn’t reading that type of literature be something you’d actually want someone like me to do?
Eh, I personally can usually take it or leave it.
Look, I tend to fall into the camp that believes it is impossible to prove anything using philosophy. We can generate some interesting thought exercises, and we can definitely create a hypothesis or two, but philosophy is by its very nature incapable of proof.
When dealing with something like supernaturalism, the complete lack of any compelling evidence speaks with a thunderous voice. Talking about the implications of that lack tends to be pretty quiet in comparison. All of this is IMO only, of course.
Now, books on science or history that directly contradict the teachings or beliefs of various religions are another matter, and I personally found those things to be the nails in the coffin of my own belief. But they are not about atheism per se. And, people like yourself are able to hold both things in your head without exploding from the cognitive dissonance, something I was incapable of.
But really, atheistic philosophizing is like Christian apologetics. It’s preaching to the choir. No amount of philosophical word games will ever count as evidence of Christian correctness to me, and I would expect the same to be true coming from the other side. Certainly, when I was a Christian, reading a philosophical treatise on why Atheism made more sense wouldn’t have made a dent in me.
Which is my point. If the lack of evidence doesn’t do it for you, people talking about that lack of evidence won’t either.
The notion of proof itself rests on philosophy, or more specifically, epistemology.
So?
The notion of the scientific method comes from philosophy. Philosophy will not be accepted as a valid means of demonstrating your hypothesis.
Ty,
I’ve yet to meet someone who left religion on their own, i.e., without engaging different types of thinking and thinkers.
No disrespect (mean that sincerely), but the brief comment you initially left felt kinda like a reverse creationist tactic of the “If the creation doesn’t convince you of a Creator, nothing will” stripe.
It’s just not as simple as that, in my experience. I’m sort of guessing here, but it would seem to me that, as a former religious person, someone exposed you to a new way of thinking, and the end result was atheism — right?
I’ve said this a number of times, but I did in fact come to atheism pretty much on my own.
My primary sources for the information that led me away from Christianity and toward atheism were science textbooks and history books. All of this occurred while I was attending five hours of church meetings each week.
The switch that flipped for me is the one talked about further down the comment thread. The universe makes complete sense without god, and almost no sense with him.
As soon as a Christian can demonstrate that ‘creation’ makes more sense with god in the equation than without him, I will consider ‘creation’ as evidence for god. And by sense, I don’t mean common sense. I mean, as soon as god becomes a hypothesis that answers open questions and leads to interesting new ones, leads to theories that can be tested, and provides useful predictability.
Until then, ‘creation’ is still firmly in the win column for science.
So? The notion of the scientific method comes from philosophy. Philosophy will not be accepted as a valid means of demonstrating your hypothesis.
It shouldn’t be, I agree. I was reacting to the general theme of the comment that philosophy is comparable to apologetics or word games. In a metaphorical trial, philosophy would be akin to rules of evidence; the rules of the game.
Well, that was the intention of my comment, but it may have been badly worded.
He has to die to disprove his beliefs, yet I’m the fundy.
Laughable and sad.
A key behavioral aspect of fundamentalism is contempt or disregard for opposing points of view. Only one of you is exhibiting that right now.
I have a great many points of view I hold nothing but contempt for.
I think that definition makes all of us fundamentalists.
Let me clarify: contempt or disregard for opposing points of view merely because they are opposing, and not for any merit factor. And in point of fact, if you are the guy we all know you to be, you did not disregard but rather regarded and scrutinized those opposing points of view and then came to condemn them on the merits, e.g. This position tends to turn people into dicks. That position has dodgy empirical support. Etc. No?
Yes. I like to think so.
But can we assume Sunny has contempt for religious belief simply because it is in opposition to his own beliefs? Are you saying it is not possible to come to a feeling of contempt regarding religious thought using your two examples?
I have contempt for several of the beliefs of my former religion because I think they are actively detrimental to the people that hold them, not because I am no longer a member.
I would say, conversely, that there is nothing laughable or sad in pointing out that the empirical source of data for the validity (or not) of religious beliefs would be accessible only after death, if that status or mode of being is even reflective of a coherent concept, and so while living its hard to imagine something that would dislodge what seems to be subjectively apodictic, the personal, existential experience of God.
It’s not that Sunny Day has or doesn’t have contempt for religious beliefs in general. I think that’s well established and entirely legitimate. But Brgulker was making an epistemological point to answer a question about epistemology, and in that context, Sunny Day’s response was hard to defend.
Ah. I missed that.
“Are you saying you are any less intransigent in your beliefs?”
Absofuckinglutely.
He said he would have to die to change his beliefs. I am stunned. I find this ascendancy of ignorance to a virtue abhorrent and totally close minded. He can’t form into words what it would take to consider his utter faith incorrect, yet he knows we haven’t convinced him yet.
Ultimately he has positioned himself and stated that he can Never be wrong. That is screwed up and sad.
Whats worse is he somehow tries to hang a fundamentalist sign around my neck all the while ignoring his own words.
I am nowhere near any mindset where I would have to die to force a change in my beliefs.
Let me ask you, do you think it likely that, short of dying, you will ever be exposed to evidence that could possibly convince you that you are wrong in your Atheism?
Come on, if it was ‘likely’ he wouldn’t be an atheist.
I can say, for myself only, that there are a number of things that would change my mind that do not include death. I think they are all vanishingly unlikely to happen. If I didn’t, I’d be religious.
I don’t mean likely as in probability of occurring. I mean likely as in probability of prevailing over current (I would imagine, like us all, extremely high) evidential standards. What type of evidence or demonstration or experience, if it occurred, would be likely to convince you? I’m having a really hard time coming up with a source of data that would be persuasive in that sort of arena, short of a complete shift in perspective currently inaccessible to living people.
Well, to be completely honest, the evidences I would accept would not prevail over current evidential standards, they would in fact be validated by those standards.
“I am stunned.” How are you stunned Sunny?
Let’s just take a glance at some other comments in this thread:
What would it take for various atheist commenters to believe?
“A hammer to the head.”
“I will never “believe”.”
“I probably won’t believe until I’m either standing in front of the sky fairy in heaven or roasting for all eternity in hell.”
“my answer is; a lobotomy, then re-programming.”
1) How are these answers substantively different from BRG’s?
2) Is it fair to hold BRG to a standard of empiricism that is strongly associated with atheism and not hold atheists to that standard?
3) Is it bad that BRG is admitting that some of his decision is culturally based, and that he’s not willing to give it up? BRG knows the implications of that position as well as you do. He’s being honest about it. Is it bad to be honest about how strongly you hold a given position?
Allow me to use the standard of evidence that the bulk of the atheists posting have used:
I will stop believing in the existence of God when God himself comes down out of the sky, does some magic tricks, and tells me he doesn’t exist. (Yes, I am using the noble arts of sarcasm and hyperbole.)
Disregarding, for a moment, the impossible contradiction, allow me to ask if this is in fact an appropriate standard of evidence. If it is, why? It may well be, but I can’t think of a good justification for it right now. If there is one, let me know. I wouldn’t want to be uninformed.
1) This can be easily illustrated with an exercise. Let’s just replace one word in the original questions:
If you don’t believe in SpoungeBob, what would it take for you to believe?
If you do believe in SpoungeBob, what would it take for you not to believe?
2) Yes, since the burden of proof is on him.
3) Maybe not bad, but definatelly irrational, and intellectually dishonest.
Maybe not bad, but definatelly irrational, and intellectually dishonest.
I think even he pointed out it was irrational (as in, not provable by syllogism or empiricism). As for intellectually dishonest, that I do not buy. There are many ways of knowing, and many situations in which it is important to act despite not having access to deductive proof or compelling evidence.
The unexamined belief is intellectually dishonest.
I have to agree. I don’t find brgulker to be at all intellectually dishonest. In fact, quite the opposite.
Thanks, Elemenope and Ty. The “intellectual dishonesty” argument is a puzzler to me.
He said he would have to die to change his beliefs. I am stunned. I find this ascendancy of ignorance to a virtue abhorrent and totally close minded. He can’t form into words what it would take to consider his utter faith incorrect, yet he knows we haven’t convinced him yet.
No, I didn’t say that. That’s how you interpreted it. In the first place, I said that I’ve considered the alternatives and not found them compelling — that was my qualifier.
What I did offer was an honest response to the question. All of us will die. Christianity holds that death is not the end of existence, that there is some type of resurrection, new life, new creation that happens through Jesus. That either will happen, or it will not happen. If/when it does, I will know, not believe. If it does, I will be dead, and dead people don’t know or believe.
That statement is not a testament to my stubbornness or ignorance. It is an honest assessment of epistemology — what is it that would finally, ultimately convince me that my belief is true or not?
Maybe there are things other than death that would change my mind — I don’t know and said as much! Thus far, I haven’t found any.
You can do better than “sad” Sunny Day.
my comment is awaiting moderation. must have been one of the naughty words that hung it up. :)
I permit and encourage your imagination to run riot over what I could have said.
I just think you should stick to your guns. You don’t like me. There’s no need to hide it. “Sad” doesn’t do your feelings to me justice.
(I’m waiting to see how many comments it will take for the “play the victim” card)
Hmmmm…
I don’t dislike you, brgulker, which I hope is evident in our interactions.
But you just played the victim in your above post. :)
Your god has indeed imparted you some special power to enable you to see into my heart and know my feelings. – I’m convinced and am now a believer.
or
You have a puffed up sense of self importance to think I have a specific stake in liking or disliking you. – I forgot Occam’s razor doesn’t apply to god.
recursive victim ploy: Ingenious!
You don’t have to have a specific stake in anything in order to dislike someone.
:D
Indeed.
I dislike any number of people a great deal, some of whom interact with my existence in only the most superficial ways.
I can dislike someone *at will*. It’s like a superpower.
I exercise this superpower quite often.
I wear a big red frowny emoticon on my chest, looks like this:
>:(
Still looking for a cape.
No capes.
>:(
Do you remember Thunderhead? Tall, storm powers? Nice man, good with kids. November 15th of ’58! All was well, another day saved, when… his cape snagged on a missile fin! Stratogale! April 23rd, ’57! Cape caught in a jet turbine! Metaman, express elevator! Dynaguy, snagged on takeoff! Splashdown, sucked into a vortex! No capes!
I think you must be/will be a fantastic parent.
Nope. No kids for me.
But I am fairly awesome with my friend’s kid.
I introduced her to Futurama (she is four) and she has conceived a love of Bender that worries her father.
I tell people that I’ve always been an atheist, but that’s not entirely true. As a student, I believed in God for about 45 minutes after a particularly bad acid trip. So I guess the answer to your question is LSD.
LOL!!!!
It was always Joe the Camels Cigarettes Camel when I was tripping. Oh, and Inspector Gadget. The cartoon version.
If God appeared before me he would need to explain the physics of his existence, in way that could be scientifically tested, so I know I’m not hallucinating him or being tricked by optical illusions.
J. Allen: “If God appeared before me he would need to explain the physics of his existence, in way that could be scientifically tested, so I know I’m not hallucinating him or being tricked by optical illusions.”
If ‘God’ appeared to you? Seriously? ‘He’ huh? Male? Would need to ‘talk’ to ya huh like some guy you met at a bar? “What up I’m God let me splain some physics for ya…”
This entire conversation is like a group of retarded cavemen conversing with one another about the divinity of the north star. Silly, stupid and retarded. The human race has a long way to go. Wow – just wow!
Q:If you don’t believe in God, what would it take for you to believe?
A:Evidence
Q:If you do believe in God, what would it take for you not to believe?
A: Evidence
The thing is, the entirety of the universe behaves EXACTLY as we would expect it to WITHOUT any god(s). ;)
Are you saying that you have been able to observe the universe without any gods?
Yep, every day.
Have you been able to observe it with gods? Cuz that would be quite something.
Then my friend you have the answer that all mankind has been looking for for millions of years…how did you do you to, for example, go all the way to the other side of the universe and observe the universe and confirm that god wasn’t there?
My answer to your question is I don’t know, but my answer is irrelevant at this point.
No, you have the answer that all humankind has been looking for for millions of years… how did you , for example, go all the way to the other side of the universe and observe the universe and confirm that god was there?
Anyone who gives it 50/50 odds really hasn’t put a lot of thought into it. Even someone who mostly or really thinks god is real at least puts some effort into cramming all the things that wouldn’t otherwise make sense into a batch of semi-consistency as if they’d put a little thought into it. The possibility of god gets vanishingly small if you have to go to the other side of the universe to find evidence of it, or you see god’s evidence everywhere in ordinary things because that’s what you believe. There’s “I don’t know for sure either way” and then there’s “I’m not even going to think about what I mostly think is probably true.”
I’m pretty certain there’s been no evidence of god because there’s no god, and that there are non-supernatural explanations for everything even if mankind has not or is incapable of discovering them. That’s so far not shown me evidence of god, and no necessity for any possible beings one might consider to be a god. Others, people who do believe in god, use their feelings to draw other conclusions, and see evidence where I see nothing of the sort, or just a core, even, some sense of “higher being” who coordinates your fortune or turns ordinary people into artists and the reason why the mountains are so pretty, a safety blanket of some kind. I don’t consider agnosticism a bad thing, but saying it could go either way and shrug it off is really not an answer either. Are you looking into it, or are you just chilling with the fence?
It would have to communicate with me in a dramatic way and provide a flawless explanation of it’s existence.
Or maybe if I could just experience the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Jasowah: “It would have to communicate with me in a dramatic way and provide a flawless explanation of it’s existence.”
There is no “IT”
It is incredible to me how much people imagine ‘God’ as a person, thing or being. ‘He’ needs to do this or explain that or prove something. He loves you when YOU are in pain. ‘HE’ saved your dying daughter. Of course ‘God’ surely must be just like us right? A man up in the sky…watching…….
Some proof that comes not from men.
I am a person that was raised in a cult (JW) then became a born-again… and now I don’t know what I am, other than someone searching and the last few years I have wanted some proof and haven’t found it yet… If he can create the world and people, certainly he can give us a sign other than the bible. So… at this point, I need some proof.like him right in front of me doing magic tricks.
If an apparently omnipotent being were to appear, I’m afraid I’d just assume (1) that I was going crazy, or (2) alien life had arrived with superior technology which I, as a mere human, was interpreting as magic. How would that being differ from a god?
“If you don’t believe in God, what would it take for you to believe?”
I’d have to suffer from a serious bout of animistic paranoia – or be presented with tangible evidence.
Usually I go along the lines of ‘Solipsism, blah, blah…’, but I just had a revelation:
GOD actually does exist! Here’s my proof:
It is sufficient for me to accept the truth of any religious writing as long as it contains
knowledge not possible to be known to mankind at the time of its creation. Hence
P1: Jesus was the son of God was God himself (Trinity principle)
P2: After the crucifiction, Jesus was dead for some time.
P3: Since we have no available data on the vitality of God (or the Holy Spirit),
it is safe to assume that God (and/or the Holy Ghost) were alive at that time.
C1: God managed to achieve something logially impossible, namely to be dead
and alive at the same time.
C2: Therefore, the bible predates Schrödinger’s thought experiment involving a certain
feline species by at least 1,900 years.
Thus, God exists, and it is the God of the Holy Bible!!!
[And now I'm going to weasle off to the next patent office. If any apologetic uses this line
of argumentation ever, I want to make sure I'll be ready to sue their sorry asses off :D ]
I’m just a lurker here (and Christian, if you were wondering, hello guys *wave*), and I rarely post comments on anything. But this is hilarious! Kudos to you mate, you made me laugh.
I won’t believe in a god until I’ve had a chance to inspect his source code for the universe.
He/she/it would have to engage in an extensive and exhaustive interview with me, personally, as well as providing verifiable demonstration of its claim to being the source of all things, physical and etherial.
For me, god would have to demonstrate how the universe makes more sense with him in it. Something no religious person has ever been able to do.
The thing is, the entirety of the universe behaves EXACTLY as we would expect it to WITHOUT any god(s). ;)
Indeed. Which is the primary reason I am an atheist.
For some reason the (supposedly) most important being in the universe has to be shoe-horned into the cracks of the universe.
This statement makes two very big assumptions. 1) We understand the ENTIRETY of the universe….which is a pretty bold and non-sensical statement as scientific theories are being proven incorrect all the time and new things are found out about the universe every day. 2) It assumes that we is a clearly understand the effect God would have on the universe. And I would argue that we could not understand that if we didn’t know how the universe worked as a whole. Also, how would you know what parts of the universe were due to the presence (or lack of) God without something to compare it to?
Parsimony.
‘God’ adds nothing to any of our theories about how the universe works, and in fact only raises additional questions. The big bang, macro and quantum physics, stellar and galactic formation, planetary formation, and evolution all reliably describe the formation of our universe using only natural processes. These models are so useful, that they are the underpinnings of all of our technology, which also works. None of these models requires god.
So the only place for god/s in this is if they designed the universe to look like it arose entirely without their help. In which case, what exactly is the reason to believe in them?
I am a non believer so i am asnwering this question: If you don’t believe in God, what would it take for you to believe?
Well first i would need a clear concise definition of this god, it seems there are as many different interpretations of god as there are theists. Lets just assume for the sake of argument we are talking about a personal god, a god that takes interest in human affairs, answers prayers, performs miracles, levies post mortem judgement, and created everything.
To this i would want evidence, evidence of some miraculous thing. Miraculous as defined by that which defies all known laws of nature. Something like an amputee regrowing a limb spontaneously. That woudl be pretty convincing.
What would make me believe?
If God showed up at my door, instantly restored limbs to an amputee and presented 3 pieces of id I might consider it.
Do they have to be picture ID, or would a JC Penny card count?
Or perhaps an AARP card?? LOL!
I think I’d stop believing in God if I were convinced by a philosophical argument. There are philosophical arguments for the nonexistence of God, but to be honest I don’t find them particularly compelling.
It would be tough to come up with a compelling philosophical argument about the nonexistence of invisible unicorns too. You are asking philosophy to do something which, in my largely uneducated opinion, it is not designed for.
Has anyone ever proved a negative with philosophy?
Not so far as I know. Then again, deduction isn’t really an appropriate tool to approach a null hypothesis. What might be possible is proving the logical impossibility of an entity, though I don’t think any philosophical argument regarding the coherence or lack thereof of the concept of God has been decisively fatal.
I very carefully avoided the word “proof.”
I don’t think I would need to be provided with solid proof to be convinced one way or another. There are other ways of being convincing. As you pointed out above, parsimony can serve this function: it can be convincing that one theory is more parsimonious than another.
There are philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God. I am not convinced by philosophical arguments against the existence of God (at the present time.) I think in order for me to stop believing in God, I would have to be convinced by an argument like this. I recognize this is somewhat vague, but I obviously haven’t found an argument that convinces me, so I don’t know exactly what it would look like.
It also seems like a, forgive me, poor reason to begin or stop believing in something.
But maybe I attach less value to philosophical arguments as they pertain to deciding what is real and isn’t.
Fair enough. For reasons that still elude me, I can’t seem to get behind a strict materialistic empiricism. Perhaps that’s our largest point of departure.
And I can’t get past the idea that we are creatures that imagine things. Someone thought up Lord of the Rings. Someone imagined Mars striding the battlefield at Troy. Someone dreamed up Star Wars. Some of the things we dream up are startlingly internally consistent.
The fact that we can imagine a thing, even an internally consistent one, doesn’t strike me as a good reason to believe that that thing actually exists. We need to add another step there.
Which philosophical arguments compel you to believe?
It is hard for me to come to terms with the existence of the universe as merely a brute fact, that is, something that merely is. The existence of the universe is something I have relatively good evidence for, and am convinced of, but I haven’t been satisfied with many accounts for that existence. The existence of a causal entity makes sense to me; I find it convincing that in most of our experience something cannot come from nothing. There are obvious problems with positing a God behind the universe, but there are also problems with the “next best” theory I’ve heard which is that the universe simply exists, having begun at a given point and continuing on to a presumed ending without a mechanism to explain that process.
I have heard there is some relatively new modal logic to try and make the ontological argument work again. I have also heard there are some pretty good maths backing up the proposition that the existence of the universe is more stable than its non-existence, but I don’t have the math necessary to even understand these arguments, much less come to any sort of conclusion about them. In other words, I’m not certain that I’m right, but I find the existence of God more convincing given what arguments I am familiar with.
(Compel would be the wrong word. I’m fairly certain that belief or non-belief in something is relatively fluid, and that individuals often “decide” to live according to one set of principles either consciously or subconsciously. This doesn’t change the validity or non-validity of their beliefs, but it does inform my approach to belief as a human phenomenon.)
I always wonder why people who are uncomfortable with “something from nothing” are not uncomfortable with the infinite regression a creator presents.
I’m confused by which infinite regression you’re talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress
I think he is referring to the idea that if God HAD to create US, then something must have created God. This would then continue to infinity… and beyond.
Philosophy can provide an answer to that problem, but I have trouble seeing how science can. I don’t want to spark a debate about the respective merits of philosophy versus science, but I feel like infinite regress or arbitrariness are the only two “outs” *besides* some kind of creator that doesn’t depend on a cause. These are all really antique arguments, but it boils down to the fact that philosophy is capable of positing an entity that doesn’t require an infinite regression. That’s the whole point of that whole “uncaused cause” business. Without some kind of uncaused cause, you are left with either arbitrary brute facts or an infinite regression. I feel like these are as much of a cop out as positing a creator that gets around these problems, and at least with a creator you have something non-arbitrary and non-regressive to work with.
I feel like I’m not stating my objection very well.
But an ‘uncaused cause’ is exactly as unobserved as something from nothing. What makes one a better answer than the other?
And something from nothing is making real headway toward observation and falsifiability, while uncaused cause will never be anything but a philosophical construct.
You don’t find that. . . unsatisfying?
I may have partially addressed this below. Maybe. Let me know if I haven’t explained well.
Well, your explanation doesn’t really address my problems with this particular philosophical point.
Which is that if the universe is the uncaused cause, or it exists because it is easier for something to exist than not exist, or any of the other potential reasons the universe might come to be using the laws of physics, then we will eventually be able to (probably) figure them out. They will become part of our body of knowledge about how the universe (and whatever it exists in, if indeed it does exist in some larger medium) works.
A philosophically constructed excuse for an omniscient superbeing who created the universe really adds nothing that isn’t also a philosophical construct.
That is deeply unsatisfying.
Ah, I see. I don’t find it unsatisfying, which again might be because i’m not a strict materialist/empiricist, but I do understand why you feel that it is. I think it is more satisfying than an infinite regression or something completely arbitrary, and I’m not certain of science’s ability to ever get much beyond those two things. If that were possible, I could definitely see your argument.
We are making great progress in that direction. This is a golden age for theoretical physics.
For the first time, people are starting to think even the Big Bang is not an uncrossable barrier.
I’d rather search for answers (even ones that may be impossible to find) than select an arbitrary answer that ends the discussion, and adds nothing to our store of useful knowledge.
But I’ve been accused of being an empiricist, and it’s probably not something I should argue against.
Well, the problem is that the universe needs a creator. So you create a creator. Which is now something that needs a creator.
Why is moving the something that came from nothing just one level up the chain a satisfying answer to the problem?
If philosophical arguments for a creator suggested that such an entity would have to be created, then this kind of infinite regression would be inevitable. I don’t think that kind of regression *is* necessary in philosophy, although in science it certainly is.
Really, you wouldn’t even need to move things back a step. You could simply say that the universe itself is an uncaused cause, or something like that. Then you end up with a universe that meets some of the definitions of God, which isn’t even that disagreeable to many religious people. You could certainly build a theology out of it; many have.
I feel like I’m somehow playing up a kind of arbitrariness now, but I do think there is a difference between saying “the universe just is this way,” and “since the universe is this way, something caused it.” Even if the universe self-created, and we removed the need for pushing things back one step, we are talking about things in a different order. Working from evidence (the universe exists) toward a conclusion (something caused it) seems preferable to the almost non-existent scope of saying “the universe is a certain way for no apparent reason.” I find scope, like parsimony, to be convincing.
“Without some kind of uncaused cause, you are left with either arbitrary brute facts or an infinite regression. I feel like these are as much of a cop out as positing a creator that gets around these problems, and at least with a creator you have something non-arbitrary and non-regressive to work with.”
You keep saying things like “arbitrary brute facts”. Does the idea of a Godless Universe seem to cold and meaningless for you to accept? (I don’t expect a yes from this question, a maybe at best. I’m also not being condescending, or not meaning to be).
I can understand that pretty well. As I Christian I found it one of the biggest barriers to me to overcome.
I am not speaking for Jonjon, but I have yet to meet a religious person for whom that answer is not a resounding ‘yes’.
I mean, as far as I can tell the answer to that question is the fundamental difference between religious people and non-religious people.
I think I could accept a “cold and meaningless” universe; although I don’t think the universe is fundamentally a meaningless place, I don’t think it would bother me too much if I did. What I mean by brute fact is “things just are this way,” or “the universe exists, and it doesn’t really matter why or even how it does.”
I admit I don’t particularly like arbitrariness, but I feel like that’s an aesthetic preference: I like for there to be a reason, or if not a reason then at least a reasonable explanation for any sort of observation.
“I always wonder why people who are uncomfortable with ‘something from nothing’ are not uncomfortable with the infinite regression a creator presents.”
Moreover, why would anyone *expect* there to BE “nothing”???
I have been thinking a lot about humans and faith and simple minds for a few days. I think as many people are not too knowledgeable about the sciences, it is as easy for me to believe in a “big bang” without a god, without really knowing scientific terms. Like, maybe a coloring book caption version, really simple. I know I’m hanging myself when I say that I don’t know how that would work, but as most things so far don’t seem to need a god, I don’t see why that should, and someone is studying it.
What I think is that when people around or below my knowledge of the subject have a difficulty picturing anything like this. When they think how could nothing create the universe, there had to be a creator!, I imagine they are setting the scene something like a baseball batter. No matter how hard they try, they can’t take away the batter, or else there is nothing there to swing at the ball, no home run, no universe. Who is pitching the ball is another matter, but I think the real problem is they are stuck on one puzzling image of a “big bang” that just can’t happen if you take away the batter, while failing to consider other scenarios away from anything resembling the baseball metaphor. I can at least consider other scenarios, including a batter who isn’t god, but I’m finding it tough to grab an example of an alternate simulation that doesn’t resemble the baseball batter.
I think also as god is allegedly “eternal,” that excuses all oppositions to the infinite regress problem. Since he has super powers and exists outside of time (as if that is completely plausible in a way a godless big bang isn’t), that doesn’t leave any holes. God is too great and mysterious so it doesn’t have to line up properly, and we’re too small to know or worry about things like this that confuse us — all that matters is god knows. Similarly, as an atheist, I don’t know all the ways and works, but as sure as I’m here, it has all worked out somehow. I just don’t place god in the big inning, because there’s no necessity of him and a great improbability that he exists as far as I have ever been able to tell.
“I think also as god is allegedly “eternal,”[...] — all that matters is god knows.”
That is a good summary of almost exactly the kind of thinking that I used to have as a Christian. That combined with the guilt and faith ideas make it a pretty solid trap for a lot of people. Which I believe is why I know so many very smart people who are still Christians.
(Of course, in my search to be a better Christian… I became an Agnostic.)
“(Of course, in my search to be a better Christian… I became an Agnostic.)”
That is *exactly* what happened to me!!! :) I wanted to be an “A+” Christian– I wanted to know all of the apologetics, read the whole Bible cover-to-cover, and “Love the Lord with my heart, *mind*, soul, and strength”. In the process, I became agnostic. (There were some other reasons as well, but this was the final nail in my Christian coffin.)
‘in my search to be a better Christian’
That’s impossible, is an oxymoron and demonstrates an all too common misunderstanding of the gospel message. One can not improve upon the truth, what already is, can only be entered into, Christ being Christianity Himself, is a performance trap, a dead religious pursuit and will inevitably end in just that…unbelief (which it is supposed to do). All the best.
By which you mean, if you think too hard about it, you find out that Jesus is just a storybook character and has no effect on your life after all.
That’s true Kodie, if he is merely a fictional ‘storybook character’ to you, then he will have no effect on your life after all. Or does he? Ha, all the best Kodie.
If he’s designed to disappear the harder you look for him or the better you try to please him, then yes, I would suspect that of a fictional character. Imaginary beings don’t withstand investigations into their reality very well, that’s why they’re imaginary. Basically, just sit in your Jesus hammock and shut off the brain – that’s the only way he stays real.
For me, the real question would be: If there is some entity that fits the concept of an all-powerful, sentient, omniscient and eternal being (ie: God), what would convince me that he’s aware we exist and cares about us?
Answer: If this being interfered in measurable, quantifiable ways to make life better for everyone on earth.
Pingback: What would convince an atheist to believe? « Christ the Truth
Evidence of such quality that I’d need to be institutionalized if I didn’t believe.
I haven’t read through all the replies, but I’d have to side with Carl Sagan when he suggests some proofs that might make him believe:
- A set of ancient holy books in all cultures with the same statements, enigmatic at the time they were set down, that turn out to be discoverable scientific truths. “The Sun is a star.” “Mars is a rusty world with volcanoes.” “Thou shalt not travel faster than light.” “Two strands entwined is the secret of life.” Etc.
- The Ten Commandments engraved on the surface of the Moon, ten kilometers across per commandment.
- A hundred-kilometer crucifix in Earth orbit.
“Put another way,” Sagan says, “why should God be so clear in the Bible and so obscure in the world?”
I don’t believe in God (any of them). What would it take for me to believe? Brain damage or some chemical imbalance.
Any sort of physical evidence, no matter how unlikely, would still be more likely than the existence of gods so that leaves only perception. Perception is from the brain and the only way I can conceive of believing in god is explained as brain damage.
So long as there is nothing wrong with my brain, there is nothing that can convince me of the existence of God(s).
I’ve heard of people going from believing to unbelieving after brain trauma, I wonder if it works the other way? I wonder if the same arguments that made then not believe anymore would still work?
I think many people are ready to be pushed over the edge into faith at the significance of any sign they put significance to. It probably depends on the type of brain trauma, and well even if that wasn’t too bad, a lot of people think when their life is spared, that “means” something.
Imagine being in a car accident thinking you were about to die, and where you should have died, say a large piece of broken windshield stopped an immeasurable smidge before piercing your sternum, or a load fell off a freight truck and as time slowed down, you are watching a trick where things ought to have bounced out and came down and crushed your roof in, but bent space and went off to the side, defying your expectation of physics to act normal. People might even tell you there’s no way you could have survived, this reinforces for a lot of people that they themselves have defied physics.
Without a brain injury, you were still dangerously close to trauma, your eyes were tricked by illusion, adrenaline and such pumping, memories and everything in your brain firing at once to protect you (not sure how that works, life flashing before you kind of deal), did make survival seem infinitely unlikely that there must have been something. People are very susceptible to the persuasion of a personal coincidence especially as close to death and not dying. Top that with actual brain injury and you might believe anything anymore.
Well, I don’t know about head wounds, but my grandfather was non-religious until he had what he described as religious experience when he had a heart attack during prostate cancer surgery. After that he was born-again, and stuck with it until he died twenty years later.
Ah, yes. The NDE. It sure seems like a religious experience when your brain is deprived of oxygen and CO2 starts to build up…
And it was reinforced by the trippy visions his post-op kappa-opiates gave him.
“God” is an abstract and artificial term that is merely defined into existence, and is nowhere found outside the realm of language. In the absence of language, religion disappears because there are no longer any words that can be quoted as “proof” of the veracity of the religion in question.
What would it take for me to start believing in “God?” Probably the same thing that would cause me to start believing in “Thremaluki,” “Shambolalogon,” or “Kleeverhookus,” all abstract and artificial terms that are still awaiting definition.
I think I can answer both questions, because before becoming an atheist, I was a theist.
Study and information helped me realize that there is no evidence for any of the gods that have been argued about. The more you know about the history of a people, the more you understand where their notions about gods come from.
To believe again, would require the actions of a god doing something that only a god could do. I suspect that any real god could figure out what that would be, but even then, there would always be that .05 doubt that would linger about whether this was a real god or something superior enough to play the part.
That doubt exists both ways.
If a cow could draw and think like us – its god would no doubt be a cow like figure. We create our gods in our own image. Why would ‘God’ be a being like us or get angry? Why would ‘God’ smite down or kill us? It is silly! We are stuck in a caveman mentality that portrays ‘God’ as some sort of human up in the sky. A male – he gets mad, sad, offended etc. I sincerely wish I was born 1 or 2 hundred years from now. If you want my opinion – we are all part of ‘God’ – ‘God’ is the word for everything that there is. We are a part of all – we are a part of ‘God’. There is no sense in arguing about the nature of some sort of being when we are it! IT is us!
To believe there is a deity, I’d need evidence of said deity’s existence. Objective, verifiable evidence. Not just someone’s claim. Not just my own experience. But something that can be tested and confirmed.
But even then — and beyond merely “believing” in said being — before I actually worshipped a deity, I would need to understand the deity and see in him/her/it something that makes him/her/it worthy of my worship. Just because a deity exists, and his/her/its existence can be demonstrated with evidence, is not sufficient reason to worship that deity.
Unfortunately for Christians — and other followers of the Abrahamic God — this means that, even if they could produce sufficiently-compelling evidence for their God’s existence, I could not worship him, since he is a reprehensible, malevolent being whom no morally-upright person can or should worship.
Outside of some sort of proof of all events in the bible, I cannot imagine a scenario where I would believe in the Christian god.
If I witnessed some sort of miracle or if I were able to ask a Godly being to do something Godly and he put his money where his mouth is, I suppose I would be forced to believe him.
The thing that could REALLY do it… Ooops! Too late! God fucked up and didn’t do it!
He could have put in the bible explanations of chemistry, and explained atoms, molecules, electron shells, compounds, isotopes, electron ground states and excited states, nuclear fission and radioactive decay. And microbiology, knowledge of bacteria and viruses. He could have put in Bernoulli’s principle for later use in aircraft wings, turbine blades and so many things. And electromagnetism, with the explanation that it covers light His people could see, and light they couldn’t see but would soon discover, like X-rays and infrared, because He would explain it to them! And plastic, and rubber bands. And microfibers. And manufacturing and technology.
Yes, even when people didn’t have the capacity or technology for making what we have now, with pictures or graphic descriptions of, um, anything: an aircraft with turbofan engines; a camera; a microscope.
All with the promise that His people would advance with all the knowledge He gave them, and use it to soon come to understand the rest. Because He’s God, and He could show people anything!
But he didn’t, did he? He really fucked up.
ARTICLES WE WILL NEVER SEE
But Might Have if God Were Real
By Jacob bar Jesus and Shimon the Apostolic
Advances in battery technology foreseen by a Biblical scholar in 1100 B.C. have been not merely been made possible, but made obsolete, by Leonardo da Vinci’s insights into string theory.
Matter can not be created or destroyed; we obtain our energy by changing its form. Leonardo da Vinci has used string theory to discover ways of changing the from of energy that will not require the old-fashioned chemical battery. Instead of changing chemical energy into electrical energy, as a lead-acid battery does by changing lead and sulfuric acid to lead sulfate. free protons and electrons and water, da Vinci’s converter will convert so-called “string” energy to electrical and magnetic energy without requiring moving parts. “God told us how He made the universe and electromagnetic energy,” da Vinci told Holy Land Today. “I just used what He told us in His science manual to create the technology.”
I’d probably be inclined to believe in a god again if I could see any evidence that believing in a god somehow influenced the events of my life for better or for worse–for example, by making me more or less prone to illness, injury, or strokes of fate; by making me more or less able to cope with life events; or by making me more or less able to affect the course of my life through focused thinking (“prayer”).
I’m not referring to specific decisions that could be traced to adherence to some religious values. Rather, I’m thinking about it more generally as life evidence that God gives a damn about me in any way at all, whether by affecting things that happen to me, by providing some sort of support system that has no substitute, or by showing any sign of answering (or even listening to) my prayers.
At it doesn’t have to be in the form of some silver bullet that proves everything in one fell swoop (although that’d be nice). Simply a non-random trend over time that could not reasonably be attributed to personal choice or dumb luck would be fine.
I saw a wonderful answer to this question I have to share even though no one is following this thread any more.
Speaking as an atheist, what would it take for me to believe? Some one to fully explain where God came from.
When that can be done, I’ll change my mind but not before.
“where God came from”??? Your tiny little brain is thinking in the 3 dimensional world. There is no ‘came from’. You dwell in the realm of time and the physical and thus are a prisoner to your own little brain’s reasoning. Rather than ‘wonderful’ as you put it, you sound silly and ignorant.