I think this is a good question, and honestly, I don't know how I could be converted to theism (or deism). If god came down from the sky and opened up the heavens to me... I would think I was going insane/hallucinating/on something. If it were more subtle, then I don't know what would actually convince me. I think it's silly when someone says 'show me ONE fossil in the wrong rock layer' since it would obviously take more than ONE fossil, but I don't know what convincing evidence would actually look like. I'm interested to hear some ideas here.

(March 7, 2016 at 1:13 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Wow...both of those are terrifying.  

Terrifying ?

Or does it indicate the time is ripe to bring out the serpents and poison ??

I have, time and time again, personally extended an invitation to join me for lunch to talk about things. So far I've received no response.

1. Any logically sound argument against God.
2.  If I did not see God.
3. If I did not see my soul.
4. If I did not see the divine link between praise and God.
5. If I was shown I have no good reason to believe in God.

Any of these five, and I would be Atheist.

(March 8, 2016 at 1:34 am)MysticKnight Wrote: 1. Any logically sound argument against God.
2.  If I did not see God.
3. If I did not see my soul.
4. If I did not see the divine link between praise and God.
5. If I was shown I have no good reason to believe in God.

Any of these five, and I would be Atheist.

1.There is no logically sound argument FOR god in the first place
2.If only you can see god and no one else can then it's most likely a hallucination or perhaps a disease of the brain
3.Same as a above
4.Same as a above
5.What are the "good" reasons to believe in a god so far? As far as we know, gods were invented by primitive man to explain the world around them and was later used to manipulate the masses.

Man fears what he does not know. In the past he would make up assumptions to bring himself peace of mind, today we have the knowledge to thoroughly test the things we do not know.

(March 7, 2016 at 6:41 pm)Old Baby Wrote: I never really understood the argument that God must be supernatural or he's not God.

How many phenomena were once believed to be supernatural before they were properly understood?

When I believed, I thought that God was natural but beyond human comprehension.  I've read that scientists believe there may be more than 10 dimensions, despite the fact that we humans can only function in three.  I just assumed that God could function in every dimension, making him natural but too complex for us to understand.

To this day I have no problem imagining that an infinitely more complex being could exist who would be to us like we are to the single celled organism.  I just don't find any compelling reason to believe that any particular world religion knows anything about him or that he could be known or that he is a "he".

Yep. This is why I insist the word "God" is meaningless. "Supernatural" is meaningless. They are the stuff of fantasy.

I've asked many times what the difference is between a "God" and an arbitrarily powerful non-God. What does it actually mean? I've received no sensible answer.

The nearest I've had is that it's something that can create realities. If that's the case, we may well be gods. My brain is a god, as it creates a VR based (probably) on an objective reality. I don't live in that reality, I live in my simulation of it. My brain creates dreams when I'm asleep. They are self contained realities which I am transported to, and are as real as this one when I'm in them. We may be inadvertently creating realities all the time, as emergent processes manifesting themselves somehow.

I've decided on this:

Almost all the time God is split into two parts.

"Intelligent being that was responsible for creating this reality" + "Meaningless nonsense that no one could possibly know even if it made sense"

Note I say responsible. It wasn't necessarily intentional. Why would we assume that?

If people would just stop after part 1, we could have a sensible (although very short) discussion. But except for straight-edge deists, people can't help themselves. They pile on extra rubbish, and it makes the conversation ludicrous. I highly suspect they don't understand what they are even saying most of the time. It's neat phrases they have heard. Because people generally agree on part 1, they think their personal gibberish in part 2 is the same thing other people mean by "God". Hardly.

Of course, sometimes "God" is used in other ways, such as to label something that already exists like the universe. So I can't be sure what any person means by the word, and can't rule this pointless possibility out either until they clarify.

(March 7, 2016 at 4:54 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: William Lane Craig -

"The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit"

Talk about confirmation bias!

Not to mention, an intellectually dishonest debater.

Call me a loony old reactionary if you wish, but I'm awfully glad that the people who built the bridge I cross several times a week didn't use a 'self-authenticating means' of construction: 'Nah, Tony, we're always using steel for these things. But the Holy Spirit has come into my heart and told me that we should build this one out of cheese.'

Boru

(March 7, 2016 at 1:16 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: God has been made too big for his britches.  It would be impossible to prove that a being was omniscient or omnipotent.

And to the corollary, it's facile to prove that 'omni' gods can not exist as 'omni' attributes are logically contradictory. His britches simply can't be that big!

(March 8, 2016 at 1:34 am)MysticKnight Wrote: 1. Any logically sound argument against God.
2.  If I did not see God.
3. If I did not see my soul.
4. If I did not see the divine link between praise and God.
5. If I was shown I have no good reason to believe in God.

Any of these five, and I would be Atheist.

Thank you for being the only theist so far to actually consider my questions! How do you know you are seeing God, or your soul? How do you differentiate between feelings/hallucinations, and reality? Where does that confidence come from?

P.s., I do think you have been shown that there is no good reason to believe in God. But many people continue to believe for a lot of bad reasons.

(March 7, 2016 at 11:26 pm)Meandering Atheist -J- Wrote: I think this is a good question, and honestly, I don't know how I could be converted to theism (or deism). If god came down from the sky and opened up the heavens to me... I would think I was going insane/hallucinating/on something. If it were more subtle, then I don't know what would actually convince me. I think it's silly when someone says 'show me ONE fossil in the wrong rock layer' since it would obviously take more than ONE fossil, but I don't know what convincing evidence would actually look like. I'm interested to hear some ideas here.

And this is where the ignostic position helps frame the conversation. There really aren't any reasonable definitions of what god is, what its attributes are or how it functions. Consequently it's nigh on impossible to define what would convince you of the existence of something that's so badly defined as to be indistinguishable from things that don't exist. The best answers, like Bill Nye's, are generic (e.g. 'Evidence') and push the onus back on to the believer to properly define their position.