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
28-01-2014, 03:19 PM
Re: RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 03:12 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 12:45 PM)Phil Hill Wrote:  The first thing would be any direct manifestation of the divine to me and not to another that I was not there to witness. As long as I was neither drugged, drunk or hallucinating and there was no natural explanation then I would believe in god on the spot.The second would be if their holy book [any religion] had any verifiable scientific knowledge that was not available at the time it was written. This would serve not only as evidence of god to me but evidence that a specific religious text was correct and therefore the correct religion. This would have to be pretty specific. For instance if there was a concrete description of  Special or General Relativity or a description of Quantum Mechanics then I would have to believe that a god was responsible for the knowledge. To date, not one religious text has that though.The third would be verified genuine miracles. Not anything that can be explained by natural means nor do I mean things like the Virgin Mary appearing in a grilled cheese sandwich. A true miracle would definitely serve as a sign there is a god.The fourth conclusive evidence to me would be any verified, specific and unambiguous prophecies written in a religious text or even spoken [not in tongues for you Pentecostals reading]. To be fair this rules out vague, trivial, contrived, self-fulfilling or past prophecies. Also I must mention that throwing out many predictions in the hope that one of them may be true is an automatic disqualification from consideration that a prophecy may be true.

Here are three more for you only this time they point to a specific religion.

The first would be if a religion’s holy book [notice I am not restricting this to any specific religion] was totally flawless and consistent with itself. This rules out all three of the monotheistic religions immediately.The second would be if the followers of the religion [again not specific to any religion] never committed or have taken part in any atrocities and attributed it to their faith. For example just look at the genocides in the bible, the inquisitions, 9/11 and other Muslim terrorist acts, etc.Last would be no internal disputes that show themselves as factions or sects. For example inJudaism we have Orthodox, Conservative and reform. In Islam we have Shia and Sunni and in Christianity we have the over 33,000 different denominations.

You have seven reasons. Four for god and three for specific religions. That is skeptical, atheist, critical thinking, etc. IOW an evidence based view. Now what would change faith? Nothing - so keep it to yourself and shove your lies up your ass.

For your first sentence you say, "as long as I wasn't drugged, drunk or hallucinating, etc"...how would you know that you weren't hallucinating? If the creator actually did appear to you, are you honestly telling me that you would accept it and not write it off as a hallucination?

As for the holy book thing, that's why I added the disclaimer, I'm not talking about any particular creator, so the holy book issue really doesn't come into play. That having been said, let's think about that for a second. If the holy text had any verifiable scientific information in it, then it would have been known at the time. It's not like these are long lost texts, they have been available to the world at large for ages. If anything in any of those texts did meet your test, the scientists of the time would have taken it and implemented it along with the science of the time. By now, it would be scientific fact that had been generally accepted for thousands of years, and you would consider it far too basic to be considered proof of a creator's existence.

Conversely, imagine that nowadays someone came out with a scientific theory more advanced than anything we currently have a basis for in science, but turned out to be true and verifiable. If the scientist said the theory was given to him by God, would you believe him?

Interestingly enough, I remember hearing a talk a little while ago about the nutritional edicts in the Bible. Apparently, if the Jews hadn't abided by the nutritional rules laid down in the Old Testament they likely would have died off. Medical science has since proven that these edicts were necessary in order to avoid outbreaks of disease, etc, but at the time their medical science was not nearly advanced enough to understand why those edicts were necessary.They did it because God said so, and survived because of it. Like I say, just something I heard at a talk, but I thought it may be of interest to you on the point that you raised.

On your third point, what would it require for you to believe that a miracle was true and verifiable? I listed Hume's theory about it in my first post. A miracle, by definition, is a one time event that defies the laws of nature. What would you need to accept something as a verifiable miracle? If Hume's theory is right, miracles are impossible to verify.

For your fourth point, that one is interesting. Essentially, you seem to be saying that you would believe in the existence of a creator if someone claiming to be a prophet was able to make a correct prophecy? I guess this would have to be a modern day event, because I'm assuming you wouldn't accept events that happened in ancient texts and were predicted in earlier texts (presumably because you would doubt the veracity of the historical event proving the prophecy, such as Jesus rising from the dead after his own prediction). So, I'm intrigued, what future event prediction would you have to see come true to change your mind? Is there anything that you not would write off as being a fluke, trick, self-fulfilling prophecy, etc? My assistant's 3 year old son correctly predicted the colour of gumballs from a store machine 6 times in a row (with about 10 possible colours). If someone said he did it because he was given the gift of prophecy by God would you believe it?

As for your last 3 religion specific issues, are you saying that you disbelieve in the existence of any particular religion's deity because his human followers are idiots? That seems like the ultimate ad hominem fallacy to me (rejecting an argument because of the person who made it). If someone bombed a church in the name of atheism would you stop using this site?

(28-01-2014 01:30 PM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  Anything which is observable,testable and falsifiable.Drinking Beverage

Yeah, so I'm asking you, what would you consider to be observable, testable and falsifiable evidence of a creator's existence? Your signature talks about all the stuff that you don't consider evidence, so give me a solid example of what you would consider evidence.

Your a fucking idiot. Either you don't know how to read correctly or you are the world dumbest troll. How do you not drown when you take a shower?

Using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 03:19 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 03:12 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Interestingly enough, I remember hearing a talk a little while ago about the nutritional edicts in the Bible. Apparently, if the Jews hadn't abided by the nutritional rules laid down in the Old Testament they likely would have died off. Medical science has since proven that these edicts were necessary in order to avoid outbreaks of disease, etc, but at the time their medical science was not nearly advanced enough to understand why those edicts were necessary.They did it because God said so, and survived because of it. Like I say, just something I heard at a talk, but I thought it may be of interest to you on the point that you raised.

Since you raised the point, please explain how encouraging the Israelites to eat or avoid certain four-legged insects prevented them from dying out. In Lev. 11 we read,

"All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you. Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth. These you may eat: the locust after its kind, the destroying locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind. But all other flying insects which have four feet shall be an abomination to you"

If there is a God, he better be a better entomologist than YHWH, who does not seem to remember exactly how many legs he gave some insects.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like docskeptic's post
28-01-2014, 03:23 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 01:54 PM)anidominus Wrote:  There are only 3 reasons that I can think of why an atheist would say they would believe God exist...

*exists

[Image: GrammarNaziTiny.jpg]

Quote:1. They want to sound reasonable.
2. They haven't thought their response through.
3. They're just lying.

Or 4. They have been shown sufficient evidence to support such a belief.

Quote:They also love to hide behind the phrase "They do not believe God exist".

You really are an idiot. You don't believe in Santa Claus, do you? You don't believe in fucking pink unicorns, do you? You don't believe in leprechauns, do you?


Quote: They say this because they do not wish to say "I believe there is no God." To say the latter implies a kind of faith which they wish to avoid.

The latter would overreach the extent of our knowledge. However, "I know your bullshit fairy tales are bullshit fairy tales" is a different story.


Quote:The truth is, if they say they do not believe God exists because of lack of evidence then they are simply lying to themselves.

Hobo

Quote: Evidence of an existing God wouldn't be enough. What they really want is proof. Look at all of their responses. Those responses are not rooted in mere evidence, its rooted in proof.

You don't even know what you are blathering on about. Your disdain for both proof and evidence (however you want to make this distinction) indicates that you would simply believe anything anyone told you if they made themselves sound "sincere" enough. Good luck with that.


Quote:so, Its not that atheist do not believe God exists, They "know" he doesn't exist.

[Image: the-Wicker-Man-6.jpg]


Quote: They "know" this barring anything disproving the existence of God.

Barring the presentation of sufficient evidence to prove the existence of such a thing.


Quote: If they were truly honest they would say I don't know one way or the other like Agnostics.

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.


Quote:This "knowing" that they have is indeed a belief and it is indeed blind faith.

That's the problem with believing in anything that anyone tells you, and anything that pops up in your little pea brain. You open up your mouth and prove yourself a fool.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 03:32 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 02:24 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 01:17 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Ok, props, that's a better answer than I thought I would get, lol.

So, what if the creator knows that the answer is "as long as people have the free will to be able to choose not to believe, some will use that free will and choose not to believe."?

First, I give you the best possible, most complete answer you could ask for, something that even shocked you, and yet you still have to modify. TM is most correct, you are NOTlookingforanswers.

And how do you modify? By giving me an answer (inside another answer) from a creator to a question that wasn't asked? You're begging the question with a question you didn't even ask!

Free will, whether anyone believes we have it or not, wouldn't even come into play when the creator knows what would convince even the most staunch pessimist or skeptic. Your reply is rendered moot by my first answer. So I'm apparently clairvoyant, which now means I have to believe in the supernatural and therefore your creator really does exist! Wink

Seriously, what's the deal? Why aren't you satisfied with the perfect response? You said you were open to being convinced, so acquiesce and just move on to your next question to which you're not really looking for answers.

Looks like it's time to pull this one out again:


[Image: i-451f5356ad30f214361cd29fda6a4963-debatingrules.jpeg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
28-01-2014, 04:02 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 02:24 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 01:17 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Ok, props, that's a better answer than I thought I would get, lol.

So, what if the creator knows that the answer is "as long as people have the free will to be able to choose not to believe, some will use that free will and choose not to believe."?

First, I give you the best possible, most complete answer you could ask for, something that even shocked you, and yet you still have to modify. TM is most correct, you are NOTlookingforanswers.

And how do you modify? By giving me an answer (inside another answer) from a creator to a question that wasn't asked? You're begging the question with a question you didn't even ask!

Free will, whether anyone believes we have it or not, wouldn't even come into play when the creator knows what would convince even the most staunch pessimist or skeptic. Your reply is rendered moot by my first answer. So I'm apparently clairvoyant, which now means I have to believe in the supernatural and therefore your creator really does exist! Wink

Seriously, what's the deal? Why aren't you satisfied with the perfect response? You said you were open to being convinced, so acquiesce and just move on to your next question to which you're not really looking for answers.

Hey, I gave you props, I conceded that it was an excellent answer. Don't let it go to your head, though.

The point was that your answer still presupposes that there is something that would convince the staunchest pessimist. That was the point of the response. You gave a clever answer, but it still assumes your conclusion (that there is something that would convince the staunchest atheist). My challenge was for a concrete example of evidence that you would consider convincing.

You wouldn't accept the answer of "God knows" from me, so you shouldn't expect me to accept it from you, either ;-p
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 04:09 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 03:12 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Interestingly enough, I remember hearing a talk a little while ago about the nutritional edicts in the Bible. Apparently, if the Jews hadn't abided by the nutritional rules laid down in the Old Testament they likely would have died off. Medical science has since proven that these edicts were necessary in order to avoid outbreaks of disease, etc, but at the time their medical science was not nearly advanced enough to understand why those edicts were necessary.They did it because God said so, and survived because of it. Like I say, just something I heard at a talk, but I thought it may be of interest to you on the point that you raised.

Correction: They claimed to have done it because God said so. Wasn't the deity concept used to provide authority to the recommendations of the rabbinical order (to legitimize their claims)?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 04:12 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 03:19 PM)Phil Hill Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 03:12 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  For your first sentence you say, "as long as I wasn't drugged, drunk or hallucinating, etc"...how would you know that you weren't hallucinating? If the creator actually did appear to you, are you honestly telling me that you would accept it and not write it off as a hallucination?

As for the holy book thing, that's why I added the disclaimer, I'm not talking about any particular creator, so the holy book issue really doesn't come into play. That having been said, let's think about that for a second. If the holy text had any verifiable scientific information in it, then it would have been known at the time. It's not like these are long lost texts, they have been available to the world at large for ages. If anything in any of those texts did meet your test, the scientists of the time would have taken it and implemented it along with the science of the time. By now, it would be scientific fact that had been generally accepted for thousands of years, and you would consider it far too basic to be considered proof of a creator's existence.

Conversely, imagine that nowadays someone came out with a scientific theory more advanced than anything we currently have a basis for in science, but turned out to be true and verifiable. If the scientist said the theory was given to him by God, would you believe him?

Interestingly enough, I remember hearing a talk a little while ago about the nutritional edicts in the Bible. Apparently, if the Jews hadn't abided by the nutritional rules laid down in the Old Testament they likely would have died off. Medical science has since proven that these edicts were necessary in order to avoid outbreaks of disease, etc, but at the time their medical science was not nearly advanced enough to understand why those edicts were necessary.They did it because God said so, and survived because of it. Like I say, just something I heard at a talk, but I thought it may be of interest to you on the point that you raised.

On your third point, what would it require for you to believe that a miracle was true and verifiable? I listed Hume's theory about it in my first post. A miracle, by definition, is a one time event that defies the laws of nature. What would you need to accept something as a verifiable miracle? If Hume's theory is right, miracles are impossible to verify.

For your fourth point, that one is interesting. Essentially, you seem to be saying that you would believe in the existence of a creator if someone claiming to be a prophet was able to make a correct prophecy? I guess this would have to be a modern day event, because I'm assuming you wouldn't accept events that happened in ancient texts and were predicted in earlier texts (presumably because you would doubt the veracity of the historical event proving the prophecy, such as Jesus rising from the dead after his own prediction). So, I'm intrigued, what future event prediction would you have to see come true to change your mind? Is there anything that you not would write off as being a fluke, trick, self-fulfilling prophecy, etc? My assistant's 3 year old son correctly predicted the colour of gumballs from a store machine 6 times in a row (with about 10 possible colours). If someone said he did it because he was given the gift of prophecy by God would you believe it?

As for your last 3 religion specific issues, are you saying that you disbelieve in the existence of any particular religion's deity because his human followers are idiots? That seems like the ultimate ad hominem fallacy to me (rejecting an argument because of the person who made it). If someone bombed a church in the name of atheism would you stop using this site?


Yeah, so I'm asking you, what would you consider to be observable, testable and falsifiable evidence of a creator's existence? Your signature talks about all the stuff that you don't consider evidence, so give me a solid example of what you would consider evidence.

Your a fucking idiot. Either you don't know how to read correctly or you are the world dumbest troll. How do you not drown when you take a shower?

Wow, that went downhill quickly.

My answer must have been even better than I thought if it rendered you so incapable of a rational response that you had to resort to throwing out insults, lol Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 04:12 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 04:02 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 02:24 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  First, I give you the best possible, most complete answer you could ask for, something that even shocked you, and yet you still have to modify. TM is most correct, you are NOTlookingforanswers.

And how do you modify? By giving me an answer (inside another answer) from a creator to a question that wasn't asked? You're begging the question with a question you didn't even ask!

Free will, whether anyone believes we have it or not, wouldn't even come into play when the creator knows what would convince even the most staunch pessimist or skeptic. Your reply is rendered moot by my first answer. So I'm apparently clairvoyant, which now means I have to believe in the supernatural and therefore your creator really does exist! Wink

Seriously, what's the deal? Why aren't you satisfied with the perfect response? You said you were open to being convinced, so acquiesce and just move on to your next question to which you're not really looking for answers.

Hey, I gave you props, I conceded that it was an excellent answer. Don't let it go to your head, though.

The point was that your answer still presupposes that there is something that would convince the staunchest pessimist. That was the point of the response. You gave a clever answer, but it still assumes your conclusion (that there is something that would convince the staunchest atheist). My challenge was for a concrete example of evidence that you would consider convincing.

You wouldn't accept the answer of "God knows" from me, so you shouldn't expect me to accept it from you, either ;-p

And you are pre-supposing that there is nothing that would convince an atheist. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
28-01-2014, 04:18 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
Oh and Taqiyya Mockingbird, I had stopped reading or responding to your posts because of what an obvious troll you are, but I just had to respond to your image there about how to debate a Christian.

I find it awesome to read that the first thing on there is exactly what I asked you guys, "Can you envision anything that would change your mind on this topic?" and simply asking the question seems to have sent you, TwoCultSurvivor and Phil Hill into rage-quitting a rational discussion (ok, to be fair, you rage-quit on the other threads too, but my point still remains).

For any of you guys who don't think that I am looking for answers, you can feel free to think what you want. But, just because you haven't been able to provide me with any reason to accept the answers that you are giving me, doesn't mean that I'm not looking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 04:20 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 04:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  And you are pre-supposing that there is nothing that would convince an atheist. Drinking Beverage

No, I am not. I asked the question of what would convince an atheist. I was genuinely curious. Feel free to provide me with your answer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: