Atheists: Is that your final answer?

[ImmortalFlame]

In short, I can say "There is no God" with the same degree of certainty that I would say "There is no father Christmas", since I do not believe in either for the exact same reasons: lack of evidence.

If evidence were presented, I would naturally change my mind. But such evidence does not exist, and since there is no shortage of people looking or time in which they have looked, I can say with some degree of certainty that the complete absence of any kind of evidence that is able to convince me of the existence of God is sufficient reason for me to conclude that such a God does not exist.

Okay, that kind of ended up being a longer answer than I expected.

 

[Katzpur]

In short, I can say "There is no God" with the same degree of certainty that I would say "There is no father Christmas", since I do not believe in either for the exact same reasons: lack of evidence.

Just out of curiosity... what kind of evidence would convince you? I'm trying to imagine some kind of evidence that an atheist would say, "Wow!" to, and not just try to come up with some kind of reason why it couldn't possibly be real evidence.

Welcome to RF, by the way!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Just out of curiosity... what kind of evidence would convince you? I'm trying to imagine some kind of evidence that an atheist would say, "Wow!" to, and not just try to come up with some kind of reason why it couldn't possibly be real evidence.

Non-anecdotal, repeatedly verifiable observation of a supposed act of God (any God would do, any religion would do) or miracle. Appearance of said God. Predictions of holy books coming true, accurately. Sudden and inexplicable occurrences (that are also repeatedly verifiable) that goes against all understanding of physics, biology, etc. in line with said predictions or supposed intentions of a God or particular Gods.

To be honest, most of the above is highly subjective. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and considering that these types of things happen with surprising regularity in practically all religious texts in all religions, I do not think it entirely unreasonable to require them before accepting the notion of a particular religion's idea of God. Of course, then you enter into the whole "evidence of God" versus "evidence of religion" debate, so there's practically no clean-cut way around it.

Truth is, I won't really know what the evidence is until it's presented to me and I cannot find any other explanation for it. It's a hard thing to do.

Welcome to RF, by the way!

Thank you very much.

 

[Copernicus]

Just out of curiosity... what kind of evidence would convince you? I'm trying to imagine some kind of evidence that an atheist would say, "Wow!" to, and not just try to come up with some kind of reason why it couldn't possibly be real evidence.

Of course, I wouldn't pretend to answer for ImmortalFlame. As for myself, my thread on "Peekaboo gods" laid it out. Direct communication with more than a single individual in a public setting would go a long way towards convincing me of the existence of God. Or even something less direct could help--e.g. a "miracle cure" in which limbs would be regenerated rather than, say, a remission of cancer. Since the "evidence" is always so subtle, or not accessible to verification, it is fairly easy to dismiss. We require evidence that cannot be easily dismissed as unverifiable.

 

[Katzpur]

"miracle cure" in which limbs would be regenerated rather than, say, a remission of cancer

Oh come on! You'd come up for a scientific explanation for that, and you know you would.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just out of curiosity... what kind of evidence would convince you? I'm trying to imagine some kind of evidence that an atheist would say, "Wow!" to, and not just try to come up with some kind of reason why it couldn't possibly be real evidence.

Also speaking for myself and not ImmortalFlame, I'm not sure if there's any one piece of evidence that would do it.

For instance, if an apparition of God, Jesus, an angel or something like that appeared before me, I'd probably be more likely to assume that it was some sort of hallucination than believe that it was real.

For me, it's a question of what sort of mental model of the universe fits the facts best. My current mental model doesn't include any gods and seems to fit the facts very well. It would take a lot for me to get to the point where I thought a theistic mental model would work better.

However, there's also always the cop-out answer: that I don't know what it would take to convince me, but an all-knowing God would know it.

 

[Alceste]

I think I said it earlier, but I can't recall, so I'll say it again. All it would take for me to believe in god would be to wake up one day with a belief in god. I'm not a die-hard rationalist. I have deep faith in the things I feel to be true regardless of the "evidence" for or against. I do not feel the existence of the god described by the religions I am familiar with to be true. Evidence for the existence of such a god might wobble me in my convictions, but if there were any naturalistic explanation for the phenomena attributed to this god I would prefer it.

So here is the question - since all your hypothetically omnipotent god would need to do to recruit me as a believer is implant belief, why doesn't she?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Just out of curiosity... what kind of evidence would convince you?

The same kind of evidence that convinces me Barack Obama exists. The same kind of evidence that would convince me Earthlings have been abducted by alien spaceships. Just regular, ordinary evidence.

It seems to me you either have "faith" God exists OR the evidence by itself is convincing, and yet believers often try to have it both ways. Very interesting.

 

[Autodidact]

Just out of curiosity... what kind of evidence would convince you? I'm trying to imagine some kind of evidence that an atheist would say, "Wow!" to, and not just try to come up with some kind of reason why it couldn't possibly be real evidence.

Welcome to RF, by the way!

Speaking for myself, for one instance, had it turned out that intercessory prayer worked, I would probably not be an atheist today. The fact that it doesn't confirmed my hypothesis that there is no God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems to me you either have "faith" God exists OR the evidence by itself is convincing, and yet believers often try to have it both ways. Very interesting.

It strikes me that when many people say "I have faith in God", they mean something more like "I believe God is trustworthy", not "I believe in God despite a lack of evidence".

However, when we're talking about the sorts of people who say things like "if God gave evidence for his existence, then we couldn't have faith", then I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

[Willamena]

So here is the question - since all your hypothetically omnipotent god would need to do to recruit me as a believer is implant belief, why doesn't she?

Truly, if god is omnipotent, then he already is doing that?

 

[Alceste]

Truly, if god is omnipotent, then he already is doing that?

Nope. No belief here. So either I am more powerful than god, god is not omnipotent, or god does not desire that I believe in her.

 

[Copernicus]

Oh come on! You'd come up for a scientific explanation for that, and you know you would.

If one were available, Katzpur. But consider the fact that those kinds of miracle cures never happen, whereas the ones that do could much more easily be explained scientifically. If God existed, I would expect there to be more easily verifiable reports that the laws of nature as we know them were being violated. Hence, it appears that God, if he exists, is trying to make his existence look questionable. Either that, or he doesn't exist. The latter strikes me as the greater likelihood.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It's amazing how much easier it is to demonstrate an extraordinary claim when the claim is actually true.

Some Scottish guy claimed he could make a substance called penicillin with antibiotic properties. What evidence would convince the skeptics?

Ancient astronomers "prophesied" about the timing of eclipses hundreds of years into the future. Again, without divine help, how could they possibly convince the skeptics?

We have simultaneous video footage from multiple observers at different angles of the most exotic atmospheric phenomena. And yet we can't confirm a SINGLE Virgin Mary sighting, of the hundreds that are reported? Imagine if reports of the Northern Lights were mainly from the 1st century AD and if most of the reports today came from the least literate societies with the highest concentrations of "Northern Lights worshippers". Wouldn't that be peculiar?

Religious claims *should* be easily proved if they are true. And yet, we need faith in order to see the evidence. No modern miracles or prophesies allowed -- especially not ones verified by technology (video/sound recording). It's a lot like a magic act, the tricks look more convincing if you want them to be real magic, no peeking behind the stage, and the good magician only performs a trick once, and you can't interrupt and examine it the one time it is being performed.

And then there are so many documented cases of fraud, delusion, or misapprehension nearly every time we are able to examine a religious claim properly. At some point the question must be posed to the *believer*, "What kind of evidence would convince you?"

But really the question of God is a much more respectable and interesting philosophical question, to me, and much more difficult to answer, than the question of "What kind of evidence would convince you Mormonism is true?" (Just an example -- apologies to Katz! ) Plenty of brilliant minds have concluded there is a God or at least some sort of designer. I have a different opinion. But thankfully the question about specific religions is much easier to answer than the question of God/a designer. I would not say Mormonism (for example) lacks evidence for its truth, I would say there is a mountain of evidence that demonstrates it is a complete forgery. Again, the question must be posed to the believer, "What kind of evidence would convince you?"

 

[Sententia]

Also speaking for myself and not ImmortalFlame, I'm not sure if there's any one piece of evidence that would do it.

For instance, if an apparition of God, Jesus, an angel or something like that appeared before me, I'd probably be more likely to assume that it was some sort of hallucination than believe that it was real.

For me, it's a question of what sort of mental model of the universe fits the facts best. My current mental model doesn't include any gods and seems to fit the facts very well. It would take a lot for me to get to the point where I thought a theistic mental model would work better.

However, there's also always the cop-out answer: that I don't know what it would take to convince me, but an all-knowing God would know it.

Thats the point though. Many believers who claim to have seen such an apparition say they knew for reasons unexplainable that what they were witnessing was god.

Once I heard the argument that such miracles are accompanied with the divine power to override free will and only by letting go of freewill is the truth then known.

An all powerful god could let all know of said god's existence in no uncertain terms. Such is the case with things like oxygen or gravity and even dirt.

Yet our most majestic and humbling lord prefers to be known only through myth and superstition. The lord god is like the number 13 with true triskaidekaphobians being his right arm of zealots that argue with the left of the atriskaidekaphobians who think 13 is nothing more then a bakers dozen. The majority are neither triskaidekaphobians or atriskaidekaphobians but lean more towards one way or the other...

Its like lifting a lost penny from the ground to place in your pocket and brushing away the small pang of guilt by telling yourself you will now have good luck. hee hee.