What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2014, 09:17 AM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2014 10:29 AM by Im_Ryan.)
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 02:47 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  If you don't know what the evidence is, stating that the lack of evidence is an invalid premise, as you don't know what you're lacking.

As I've stated earlier, which I believe you ignored (correct me if I'm wrong), if you believe that your God is all powerful, all knowing, everywhere and anywhere, etc... etc... then pointing out that we don't know of any evidence is a valid point. If he can do anything and knows everything, then he would not be limited by human intelligence. After all, you believe he designed it right?
I remember someone comparing God to a programmer, the universe as a program and humans as the subject in said program. So I'll use this analogy to, once again, explain my concept:
Any good programmer can make the subjects of his program do whatever he wants. He is never limited by the script in which he made. He can always edit or revise any parameters (aka our "intellect") as he chooses.
Now, in order for it to be "perfect", he wouldn't need to edit or revise anything. So he would've preprogrammed a "back door" so to speak to where he undeniable.
So the fact that no one person can wholly agree on everything in the Bible, or if there is actually any evidence at all, shows that your version of God is not real.

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 09:39 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
Just for the record, I believe the proper phrasing of this question should be - What sort of evidence would it take for an atheist to believe in a creator?

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
30-01-2014, 09:40 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
Wow, I miss a day on this forum and all of a sudden have 10 pages of comments to catch up on.

Here are a couple that I saw and wanted to reply to, but I definitely haven't been able to catch up on the whole thread, yet, so if I miss something important I apologize.

(28-01-2014 05:07 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Yes, you gave me props, and thank you. But my answer wasn't clever; it was true, given the parameters of your question. You presupposed that there is a creator who made everything, including me. If that creator made me, it would know what it would take for me to believe in it. Also, by asking a hypothetical question that includes "god" (since you are now calling the creator that), then I am 100% in my rights to say "God knows." You, on the other hand, are not because your "God knows" is still unproved. My "God knows" is purely hypothetical and the entire premise of your query.

If you want me to give you a more tangible ABC answer, then how about this: The act performed by this creator would have to be on a global scale, something no one could deny, such as turning the sky to night everywhere at once, then rearrange the stars to spell out, "This is god, please forgive me for being so cryptic and stupid. I would really appreciate it if you would all get along and believe in me. By the way, of course there's no hell, and lookingforanswers is correct."

Mind you, these stars would have to spell this out so that every person simultaneously looking up would be able to read it in their native language.

Let's start with that. No one could deny it, because the entire world would have to be on one gigantic acid trip, and that isn't happening. No amount of free will could change the fact what six billion people just witnessed.

Thank you, WillHop, I was looking for a tangible ABC answer and I must concede that I think you have found one. While any individual might see something like that and question it, the scale of people seeing and acknowledging the event would likely convince all but the most stubborn of skeptics.

I did notice a common theme among the responses, whether they were good ones or bad ones, which raises a related question in my mind. I have conceded that an interventionist creator who wanted to prove his existence to mankind could do so, but what about a non-interventionist creator?

What evidence would an atheist require to believe in the existence of a non-interventionist creator (or alternatively, a creator who didn't want to spoon-feed the world the answer to the question of his existence)?

(28-01-2014 08:22 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 07:28 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  What evidence would it take to convince you that God does NOT exist?
Or even better still: Why do you (lookingforanswers) believe in God when the evidence you have isn't strong enough to convince other people (your wife, for instance) of his existence?

(28-01-2014 04:40 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  What evidence might convince you that you have received an answer?

I figured I'd respond to these together, as they are related.

My philosophy is to believe in whatever position seems most likely based on the evidence, philosophical arguments, etc, that exists combined with my own use of logic and reason. Sure, my fiancee disagrees with me, but she also disagrees with me on appropriate attire to wear for dinner.

The most important thing for me is that my fiancee accepts that I have my own beliefs, which she does. We have had long talks about it and she has admitted that while she doesn't agree with me, she acknowledges that I have reasons for my beliefs and that I have rationally thought them through (it might be much more of an issue if I were a blind faith believer). I love her whether she believes the same as I do, or not, and I am realistic. She comes from an atheist family and her sister classifies herself as a militant atheist (despite the fact that she approves of me, lol), so the fact that my fiancee now classifies herself as an agnostic atheist is better than I could have realistically expected when we started dating.

As far as myself, I don't know what it will take for me to be fully convinced that I have found the answers. It may not be in my nature. I have changed a lot of my religious beliefs since my youth, and I try to always keep an open mind when it comes to any of the beliefs that I currently hold.

I think the answer is that I will likely always be looking for answers, I will likely never be 100% sure of any truth, but I will accept the best answer I have at any point in time based on my best use of logic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like lookingforanswers's post
30-01-2014, 09:46 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 09:40 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Wow, I miss a day on this forum and all of a sudden have 10 pages of comments to catch up on.

Here are a couple that I saw and wanted to reply to, but I definitely haven't been able to catch up on the whole thread, yet, so if I miss something important I apologize.

(28-01-2014 05:07 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Yes, you gave me props, and thank you. But my answer wasn't clever; it was true, given the parameters of your question. You presupposed that there is a creator who made everything, including me. If that creator made me, it would know what it would take for me to believe in it. Also, by asking a hypothetical question that includes "god" (since you are now calling the creator that), then I am 100% in my rights to say "God knows." You, on the other hand, are not because your "God knows" is still unproved. My "God knows" is purely hypothetical and the entire premise of your query.

If you want me to give you a more tangible ABC answer, then how about this: The act performed by this creator would have to be on a global scale, something no one could deny, such as turning the sky to night everywhere at once, then rearrange the stars to spell out, "This is god, please forgive me for being so cryptic and stupid. I would really appreciate it if you would all get along and believe in me. By the way, of course there's no hell, and lookingforanswers is correct."

Mind you, these stars would have to spell this out so that every person simultaneously looking up would be able to read it in their native language.

Let's start with that. No one could deny it, because the entire world would have to be on one gigantic acid trip, and that isn't happening. No amount of free will could change the fact what six billion people just witnessed.

Thank you, WillHop, I was looking for a tangible ABC answer and I must concede that I think you have found one. While any individual might see something like that and question it, the scale of people seeing and acknowledging the event would likely convince all but the most stubborn of skeptics.

I did notice a common theme among the responses, whether they were good ones or bad ones, which raises a related question in my mind. I have conceded that an interventionist creator who wanted to prove his existence to mankind could do so, but what about a non-interventionist creator?

What evidence would an atheist require to believe in the existence of a non-interventionist creator (or alternatively, a creator who didn't want to spoon-feed the world the answer to the question of his existence)?

(28-01-2014 08:22 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Or even better still: Why do you (lookingforanswers) believe in God when the evidence you have isn't strong enough to convince other people (your wife, for instance) of his existence?

(28-01-2014 04:40 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  What evidence might convince you that you have received an answer?

I figured I'd respond to these together, as they are related.

My philosophy is to believe in whatever position seems most likely based on the evidence, philosophical arguments, etc, that exists combined with my own use of logic and reason. Sure, my fiancee disagrees with me, but she also disagrees with me on appropriate attire to wear for dinner.

The most important thing for me is that my fiancee accepts that I have my own beliefs, which she does. We have had long talks about it and she has admitted that while she doesn't agree with me, she acknowledges that I have reasons for my beliefs and that I have rationally thought them through (it might be much more of an issue if I were a blind faith believer). I love her whether she believes the same as I do, or not, and I am realistic. She comes from an atheist family and her sister classifies herself as a militant atheist (despite the fact that she approves of me, lol), so the fact that my fiancee now classifies herself as an agnostic atheist is better than I could have realistically expected when we started dating.

As far as myself, I don't know what it will take for me to be fully convinced that I have found the answers. It may not be in my nature. I have changed a lot of my religious beliefs since my youth, and I try to always keep an open mind when it comes to any of the beliefs that I currently hold.

I think the answer is that I will likely always be looking for answers, I will likely never be 100% sure of any truth, but I will accept the best answer I have at any point in time based on my best use of logic.

Just be careful of "the God of the Gaps" argument as well as facetious logic.
If what you say is true, then you should be fine.

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 09:50 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 09:40 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  What evidence would an atheist require to believe in the existence of a non-interventionist creator (or alternatively, a creator who didn't want to spoon-feed the world the answer to the question of his existence)?

There would be no evidence, and would be arguable that such a God would not be worthy of worshiping since he doesn't care about us particularly.

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Im_Ryan's post
30-01-2014, 09:50 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 09:40 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  What evidence would an atheist require to believe in the existence of a non-interventionist creator (or alternatively, a creator who didn't want to spoon-feed the world the answer to the question of his existence)?

Looking,
Your revised question is moot. Why would I want to even begin looking for evidence for a non-interventionist creator since it will make not the slightest difference to it or to me what I decide? I could safely ignore it. Only an interventionist deity is worth looking for or worshiping.

I like your last reply. Keep that mind open. Some bad stuff may fall out and some good stuff may fall in!

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like docskeptic's post
30-01-2014, 10:00 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 09:17 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  ...
After all, you believe he designed it right?
...

I think you must have missed a key point... Brownsy is NOT a theist.

OK. Carry on.

Drinking Beverage

(30-01-2014 07:33 AM)sporehux Wrote:  If there wasn't so much evidence for common ancestor genetics, that would be pseudo evidence.
[video]

I can't watch this kind of stuff with the volume up. Those 'anthropomorphic' sound effects! Jeez!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 10:04 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 09:40 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  What evidence would an atheist require to believe in the existence of a non-interventionist creator (or alternatively, a creator who didn't want to spoon-feed the world the answer to the question of his existence)?

The question can also be asked of you:

What evidence would a theist require to accept the nonexistence of a creator?

What you ask, in my opinion, is meaningless. You want that I, as an atheist, conjure up a scenario where the creator of the universe, one who doesn't want to be known, slips up and leaves some sort of evidence that gives it away.

"Hey guys look what I found! It's a giant thumbprint on the dark side of Io" Consider

Yes that's flippant and even though you do sound sincere the question begs it.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 10:26 AM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2014 10:32 AM by Im_Ryan.)
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 10:00 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 09:17 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  ...
After all, you believe he designed it right?
...

I think you must have missed a key point... Brownsy is NOT a theist.

OK. Carry on.

Drinking Beverage

The word "you" is ambiguous, more of an example. Not meant to single out any one.
Replace "you" with "someone" and you'll get the idea.

Also, I know it seemed like I limited God in my original statement to that of a religious sense, but that was just an example.
I also said "your version of God", meaning really any interpretation. Everyone's version is different, even if they believe in the same God.
Hence the "back door" I mentioned would only be known to the "programmer"

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 10:35 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 09:09 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Lookingforanswers,

Well, I'm awake now and catching up.

You don't seem too happy with / convinced by the responses you have received.

I gave a response in post #13. I didn't see a reply from you (sorry if I missed it in my sleepy state).
Perhaps you thought I was only being flippant. Well, OK, fair enough but not 'only' ... I was hoping that it would lead you towards a little critical thinking.

Doc and Vos were getting close to what I was getting at.

For reference:
(28-01-2014 07:28 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  Lookingforanswers,
You asked a question and then you snuck in a statement about the Jewish dietary laws saving the entire race, a non sequitur if I ever heard one. What was your reason for asking the question in the first place? Mere curiosity would not explain your eagerness to throw in the extra bone.

What evidence would it take to convince you that God does NOT exist?

Doc

(28-01-2014 08:22 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Or even better still: Why do you (lookingforanswers) believe in God when the evidence you have isn't strong enough to convince other people (your wife, for instance) of his existence?

But I will attempt to make it less flippant and more obvious as to the way in which you can find your own answers.

Since you mentioned the Jewish framework in particular, try this question:
What sort of proof or evidence would you require to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Or, if you write that one off as being too flippant, let's go back to your original question...

What sort of proof or evidence would you require to believe in a different creator i.e. not the one in which you already believe?

Most (in fact all, I think) believers with whom I am personally acquainted would give me something like the following:
Faith
Authority
Revelation
Tradition

I'll give you the benefit of doubt and accept that you are truly looking for answers, so please answer this too...

Do you understand why non-believers reject those 4 'evidences' above (FART) as merely ... Big Grin
... proof by hot air!

Hey DLJ, yeah, I did take your previous answer as being a bit flippant, but more than anything, there are just more responses than I have time to address.

I personally think those 4 "evidences" are terrible ways of figuring anything out.

As for what it would take for me to believe in a "different" creator, I don't think it would take more than a good argument that I couldn't refute. You probably didn't read either of the other threads that I posted, but my personal view of a creator is somewhat different than any of the modern organized religions. My view of the creator is informed by my own use of logic as to the traits that I believe such a creator would likely have (as probably my most core belief if that the creator gave me intelligence and reason so that I could figure things out for myself). I don't claim to have all the answers, I'm just going with the best theory that I have at the moment (I find it to be internally consistent and, so far, have not been presented with a better one).

(28-01-2014 05:26 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  For that matter, why create such pathetic subordinates? If one possessed the capability to easily propagate oneself, why not do so? Why not make peers?

Interesting question, the real answer is that I'm not sure, but I'll throw out a couple of thoughts on it.

First of all, for all we know, he may have. I don't believe in polytheism because I think that Occam's Razor is a rational approach to the problem. Only one creator is necessary to explain creation, but theoretically, I suppose he might have propagated himself. It would even be possible that one of those other creator-offsprings created our Universe. We don't really know enough about anything beyond our Universe to be able to say.

The other options are, maybe 1. he doesn't want peers, for whatever reason or 2. it is also possible that the creator can't actually propagate himself. Many religions perceive the creator as being omnipotent, but I don't know that it necessarily true. It is necessary that he be unimaginably powerful, but not necessarily omnipotent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: