(May 3, 2015 at 5:05 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: God would have to come down in human form, perform miracles, and fulfill prophecy.

Oh wait a minute...he did that already. And you still dont believe. Never mind.

Zeus would have to come down in the form of a swan, have sex with a human female, and spawn a  few children.

Oh wait a minute....he did that already. And you still dont believe. Never mind.

We even have friggin' paintings of the event! And you still dont believe!

Haha, some of these posts really gave me a chuckle (:

If there is a god, how can he prove to us he exists? Maybe he wouldn't have to, because he could have created us with an inner knowledge of his existence. Some people would call this faith. But in reality, if this god exists he created us in a very flawed manner (or allowed us to become flawed) because logic and reason seem to thump that faith.

So maybe I could never believe in god, because I simply don't want to. I don't want to believe in a god who is cruel and hateful, but who calls himself loving. Maybe I'm the one in denial. I don't think so. Science seems to support the notion that the bible and the idea of a god is flawed. In the end it's a bet we're all making. If there is a god, then I'm damned either way because I do not want to submit to him. If that's because I am "fallen", then whose fault is that? God would be the creator, and we would be his responsibility as his children. If you're child dies and you can do something about it, you're the guilty. Ask any parent who has lost a child, if they feel like they could, in anyway, save him/her there is almost always some guilt involved (even when there shouldn't be). God would be responsible because he created humanity, knowing they'd become corrupt and choose not to follow him. And then he decided he was going to damn them because they didn't submit to him anymore. Is this love? Would you burn your child because he chose to leave you or because he didn't respect you anymore?

(May 4, 2015 at 3:03 pm)dahrling Wrote: God would be responsible because he created humanity, knowing they'd become corrupt and choose not to follow him. And then he decided he was going to damn them because they didn't submit to him anymore. Is this love? Would you burn your child because he chose to leave you or because he didn't respect you anymore?

This is the singlemost used statement when I have debates with theists. If their god is going to damn me for all of eternity in a raging flamepit just because I wasn't gullible enough to believe in his fairy book, is he really a loving god? The look they get on their faces is priceless...

(May 3, 2015 at 3:20 pm)PhilosophicalZebra Wrote: An interesting question to ponder is what would qualify as substantial enough evidence to convince atheists like us of the existence of something greater?

I believe the Earth exists and it's "greater" than me in size.  I believe that Stephen Hawking exists and that he's "greater" than me in terms of knowledge about physics.  I believe that crocodiles exist and are "greater" than me in terms of jaw strength, and that lions exist and are "greater" hunters than I am.  I believe fruit flies exist and are "greater" than me at flying.  In what way, exactly, are we to define "greater"?

Quote:If the very simplistic scenario of a big man with a white beard appearing before us was contemplated, most of us would probably still believe it to be more rational to attribute this to some sort of hallucination

Because that is the more probable explanation for that event.  Millions upon millions of people hallucinate or have psychotic breaks, so to have a dude simply appear in front of you and conclude upon that evidence alone that it's anything other than a hallucination or psychotic break is unreasonable - pending further investigation.  If, upon further investigation you are able to demonstrate that that dude is an actual physical person (you can touch him, draw blood from him, take pictures of him, other people are able to see him, touch him, draw blood, take pictures etc.) then the most reasonable explanation of his sudden appearance is that he is some kind of magician akin to Chris Angel or Penn and Teller because it's resoundingly more probable that this guy is a magician than that he's a deity.  (Again, there are millions of magicians in the world, and even some not so great ones could probably pull off an appearing/disappearing act if the viewer isn't prepared for it.)  And so on and so forth...

You have to go down the entire list of possible explanations for this dude's actions, behavior and knowledge before it's at all even remotely reasonable to think that he might possibly be some kind of deity-like entity.

Quote:thus, this leads to the question: what would be enough to convince us non-believers? I think it's a difficult but interesting thought.

The same sorts of things it would take to convince me that unicorns exist.  Or that ghosts exist.  Or dragons, or leprechauns, or the chupacabra.

(May 5, 2015 at 1:56 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(May 3, 2015 at 3:20 pm)PhilosophicalZebra Wrote: thus, this leads to the question: what would be enough to convince us non-believers? I think it's a difficult but interesting thought.

The same sorts of things it would take to convince me that unicorns exist.  Or that ghosts exist.  Or dragons, or leprechauns, or the chupacabra.

I personally don't see how you could draw blood from a ghost, but I agree with the rest of your logic.

(May 3, 2015 at 5:05 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: God would have to come down in human form, perform miracles, and fulfill prophecy.

Oh wait a minute...he did that already. And you still dont believe. Never mind.

Besides that, He appeared in a film in which He did an uncanny impersonation of George Burns and performed a card trick in a court scene in front of an astonished judge, played by an angel who looked strikingly like Barnard Hughes.

Fuck, people, what more do you need?

(May 3, 2015 at 3:20 pm)PhilosophicalZebra Wrote: An interesting question to ponder is what would qualify as substantial enough evidence to convince atheists like us of the existence of something greater? If the very simplistic scenario of a big man with a white beard appearing before us was contemplated, most of us would probably still believe it to be more rational to attribute this to some sort of hallucination; thus, this leads to the question: what would be enough to convince us non-believers? I think it's a difficult but interesting thought.

For me all it would take was for me to personally witness (as opposed to hearsay or on TV say where it could be faked) a real miracle. One that could not be attributed to psychology (i.e. faith healing does not count at all as a miracle to me) and one that involved some inexplicable visual change i.e. a limb growing back before my very eyes rather than some internal healing that I'd have to take on trust.

Rightly or wrongly I would probably trust my own vision if something like that did occur because as far as I know I have never had a hallucination. So that would make me easier to convince than you guys cos I'd be happy with my own senses rather than needing external verification. That said, I read somewhere about a curious effect for sailors at sea where somehow due to the bending of light it looked, in certain places, like the sea was rising up in walls all around them. If early sailors saw that I'm not surprised they'd think they had seen the end of the world or a miracle. So there can be a rational explanation even for something like that (i.e. the bending of the light) but intuitively I still think I would trust my own senses first and foremost.

Here's the problem with miracles.

Suppose you see an amputee's limb grow back, and you believe. What's special about you? Shouldn't all people in all times have the same opportunity as you? So, all people would need to see a limb grow back. 

But, if limbs have been growing back as far back as anyone remembers, and are still growing back now...there's nothing miraculous about limbs growing back. People would just label it as spontaneous regrowth. 

You could say that it doesn't have to be a limb growing back each time. It could be different signs for different people. But imagine such a world - nothing could be miraculous, as there wouldn't be supposedly inviolable physical laws to begin with.

Miraculous signs must necessarily be seen by few and communicated by mundane means to the masses.

(May 5, 2015 at 2:50 pm)alpha male Wrote: Miraculous signs must necessarily be seen by few and communicated by mundane means to the masses.

If only we had the technical means to somehow record unusual -- perhaps miraculous -- events and share them throughout the world for scrutiny.

It's odd how shy God has become about permitting us glimpses of his divine power since certain inventions became commonplace.  It's almost as if . . . oh, perish the thought!

(May 4, 2015 at 2:13 pm)JesusHChrist Wrote:

(May 3, 2015 at 5:05 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: God would have to come down in human form, perform miracles, and fulfill prophecy.

Oh wait a minute...he did that already. And you still dont believe. Never mind.

Zeus would have to come down in the form of a swan, have sex with a human female, and spawn a  few children.

Oh wait a minute....he did that already. And you still dont believe. Never mind.

We even have friggin' paintings of the event! And you still dont believe!

The fuck am I looking at?? 


God would have to get a whole lot less "mysterious".