Putting God to the Test

[LastPoet]

And for alcoholism, I guess some people have faith in that. Prove to me that there is no alcohol! Oh wait...

[Minimalist]

Prove to me that there is no alcohol!

That would be HELL.

[Angrboda]

Ok, here's fun. Statistically, I believe that alcoholics are more likely to stay on the wagon if they have a religious element to their recovery.

Now I think that's nothing more than psychology, would work just as well if they were directed toward Vishnu, or Thor. However it can't be denied that they were healed, in part, by religion.

Of course it can be denied. It was the belief in religion, most likely, that increased the chances of improvement, and any associated behaviors, not the religion itself, nor any of the things believed in. At best, it's unclear that the religion itself was involved in any way. It's entirely possible that non-religious behaviors associated with religious belief were responsible (such as more, regular social activities).

Moreover, it's not clear that religion is responsible in the case of chemical dependency. (I presume you're referring to 12 step groups, among other things.) I was in a twelve step group for nicotine dependence. Much of the group chose non-spiritual things to represent their "higher power" (the group, a loved one, an inanimate object). Would these people's recovery have been attributed to "religion" by true believers? Quite likely. And then there's the element of fraud to be factored in. Christian chemical dependency programs are known to misrepresent their success rates. Were they counted? Religiously motivated research has a clear conflict of interest which warrants greater scrutiny of their results, scrutiny which often reveals serious methodological errors if not outright fraud. (e.g. Paul Cameron's representation of the results of the ISIS survey.)

Yes, I indeed can deny that religion healed these people of their chemical dependency issues, since 'religion' did nothing to heal them, and the evidence that the people heal at a higher rate due to their involvement with religion is equivocal. (Studies on specific measures may indicate greater well-being among the religious than the non-religious, yet studies of nations indicate that on measures of prosperity and well-being, the more secular nations fare better than the more religious nations. You could just as easily say that it can't be denied that religion is harming the people in these nations, by that standard.)

[Mister Agenda]

What is so strange about a God who can raise the dead. In the circles I frequent this sort of thing happens often, not with me personally but with pastors I know of. If a person truely believes in God they believe he can raise the dead. Jesus said in the bible we would do the same works he did one of the things Jesus did was raise the dead. I hope one day you come to your senses, and look at the evidence rather than express your opinions on facts. What more can a Christian do than record miracles, you say they should be struck of the register because they say they have a recorded example of a dead raising. Why don't you start to believe facts rather than sprout of your atheist opinions on people. What sins do you commit that are so great you are prepared to ignore facts. Christians are people too with brains and an interlect we just know what God has done in our lives, and the lives of others. What evidence do you have to support your claims that these people are crazy, it is just your opinion, nothing more.

My experience with fundamentalist churches is that they are rife with outlandish rumors. It's considered impolite not to take a brother or sister at their word, mix in Chinese Whispers and confirmation bias, and you get plenty of third-hand hearsay 'evidence' of whatever their particular denomination espouses.

If there's a God with the attributes usually attributed, it could raise the dead. That doesn't mean that it does raise the dead. Whether or not there is a God, we should only believe the dead are being resurrected if it is verifiable. That it never is, however, is an indication that there is no God that actually raises the dead, or that if there is, it covers its tracks.

Christians are perfectly capable of understanding what would constitute verifiable, scientific evidence. The only reason for them not to be able to produce such for their miracles would be that they can't. They don't want their 'miracles' scientifically scrutinized, because they know in their hearts that their reports can't survive that kind of examination.

That's why this Christian has to resort to poisoning the well with accusations of great sin as the explanation for why we don't find him convincing instead of bringing evidence where the scientific method has been used to eliminate the effect of bias and errors of perception. Our proneness to such is one of the main reasons we need the scientific method to figure out what's really most likely to be true.

A Christian who was secure in their faith would be comfortable with the fact that they have nothing but their faith to support their claim that their particular God exists and is the 'real one'. A Chrisitian of intellect would understand what would actually constitute evidence for a miracle and why the bar needs to be set high.

Perhaps the essential difference there would logically be between a Christian and a rational skeptic is that they believe faith is a virtue and we do not. If it's a virtue, why grasp for evidence?

---

Hi,

I really hope that God answers your prayer. It will be interesting to see how things go. I have never really challenged people to put God to the test before. But he has done so many things for me that I can't see why he would not do them for others like yourself.

Thank you. I know if this happens it would not be convincing to another skeptic, I haven't eliminated coincidence from the equation, but if I've learned anything, it's that if there is a God, it does not provide evidence you can show another skeptic.

Really??? Don't you want to live forever?

I'm not sure. I wouldn't want to read a book I knew would never end, or see a movie that would never end. I can't think of anything that would make this life more meaningless than that it is mere momentariy prelude, a mere instant before an endless existence that has infinitely far to go after a trillion trillion years, after all the stars have died and particles have decayed and the universe filled only with photons endlessly flying farther apart, and THAT being only an instant compared with the existence still to come. Certainly whatever was still existing then would not be something the current me would recognize as still being me.

Would you trust a God who could not raise the dead.

A God who does not raise the dead is not the same thing as a God who cannot raise the dead. And if I got to pick Gods, I would trust one less powerful (maybe even unable to raise the dead) and doing its best to one that's all powerful but doesn't do better than this.

---

Hi,

what I am suggesting is if there is a God, as I know there is, what is so strange about the claim that the dead can be raised. It is 100% logical that God can raise the dead.

It's 100% logical that God can turn the sun blue with pink polkadots. That it would be within the realm of power ascribed to God doesn't mean that it is something that God does, or should, do.

---

I am sorry you think what God does is absurd.

You are not God. Thinking your claims about what God does are absurd is not the same thing as thinking that what God, if there is one, does is absurd.

Well you are living on shaky ground, one day the flood of death will come, and will you be ready for it's journey, you can ignore what people tell you for perfect evidence, but you may never get what you demand.

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I am no fool, I know who I am, I know what I have experienced. I trust others who have experienced the same.

But you don't trust others who have different experiences. All religions that claim their deity or deities perform miracles have similar evidence that miracles actually happen for them, but other religions say your religion is false or incomplete. On what basis do you dismiss them other than you were raised to believe a different religion?

What do you want me to become a drinking, porno loving, fool?

You would only become a drinking, porno loving fool if that is what you really want to be and it is only the religious tenets you hold that are keeping you from being one.

Or should I remain a God fearing husband, who experiences the miraculous often. I choose to stay with what I have.

We didn't come to a Christian site, looking for you. You came to us. Don't make out like we're the ones pursuing to make you change your mind. You are more than welcome to believe what you want, which is a courtesy you have not extended to us.

You can go to hell if you want, ignoring all the facts for your precious double blind studies, but I choose to live in the truth, and respect God's law and rule.

There is no more unjust an idea than that someone should endure infinite suffering for finite offenses...OR that they should be rewarded with infinite pleasure for finite obedience. If there were a hell, I would not want to go there, but it's clearly a device used to scare believers into being afraid to think outside their box. I'm sure you sincerely believe that you are choosing to live in the truth, but your sincerity doesn't make it so.

2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.

Another example of injustice, if it were true. A God powerful enough to just make all the troublemakers disappear, instead chooses to destroy all but a handful of living things in a painful way. It sounds like what it is: A big flood with a few survivors that affected the world they knew but not the whole world, interpreted as an act of God in exactly the same way Pat Robertson interprets a destructive hurricane as God's punishment for women's rights and not punishing gay people.

[FutureAndAHope]

Christians are perfectly capable of understanding what would constitute verifiable, scientific evidence. The only reason for them not to be able to produce such for their miracles would be that they can't. They don't want their 'miracles' scientifically scrutinized, because they know in their hearts that their reports can't survive that kind of examination.

Hi this is not actually the case. As I posted earlier, there is a group of Christian doctors who document cases of divine healing. You are welcome to contact them for the proof you seek. They have a Website where they list cases they have investigated. It is at http://www.wcdn.org/wcdn_eng/case/divine_case_e.asp

Also in regard to the other posts regarding religion helping to reform alcoholics, it has also been shown that Christianity helps reform criminals. We had a court case in Australia where an Athiest was trying to remove Christian chaplins from schools. During that period I came across some studies that had been done to prove the effectivness of religion in reforming prisioners. One study found that there was a 15% reoffence rates to people who completed the bible study to 42.2% for those that did not. Two studies done had results like that. A further study found the following, it found that the religion-trained ones had an 11 percentage point lower recidivism rate than the control group. Forty percent of the religion-schooled group committed new offenses, while 51 percent of the others did so. The religiously trained group also had a longer crime-free period following release, and when they did commit new crimes, the crimes were less severe compared to past offenses. The control group had increased crime-severity. The recidivism rate for women who took religious training was even lower, only 19 percent, compared to 47 percent among the control group of women. With all three studies combined the average rates are around 18% for religion to 45% for no religious training.

Also as a note for the poster who said that secular societies are more prosperous than religious ones, all the secular societies have a Christian history, and also larger Christian populations, it could be argued that it is the church not the very small group of atheists who benefit society. As an example the country where I live Australia is very prosperous and the census put the population to be 61.14% Christian. One of the most prosperous countries the USA puts it at 73% Christian. So the richest nations have more Christians than secular people. I believe that the reason Christian nations prosper is Christian religion is more open to prosperity, where as Buddhist nation encourage poverty by promoting self denial.

[Cyberman]

I have nothing but admiration for those of you who actually took the time to pick through SwingAndAMiss's diatribe. Once he and his friends go into full-on god-squad mode, I usually just switch off. I don't need to be told by someone who needs imaginary friends to get through the day that I'm little more than human shit that deserves to burn and suffer forever, simply because I don't share their fantasy.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Secularism is not the antithesis to religion, it is the guarantee of religious freedom. Please don't conflate western secularism to 'atheism', because this is a false association.

When I joined the national secular society in the UK, I knew more Christian secularists than atheist ones, on virtue that there were more Christians per % of the population (not as true today).

Also, it is demonstrably false to say that all secular countries have a Christian background. Eg Turkey & India.

Look up: peace of Westphalia and the Westphalian synthesis for the actual history of contemporary secularism.

[Justtristo]

Hi,

God is very gracious, and will often answer a prayer for proof of his existance if we are genuine in wanting to know how we should live our lives. That said I don't believe God does, or has to answer ever request we make. I have found out from my personal walk with God that he answers some of my prayers very very clearly so I can not doubt the answer has come from God. Other times I will try the same prayer and nothing will happen. As an example the first person I prayed for for healing was healed instantly, and spread the story widely, but many other people I have prayed for have not been healed instantly. Many times God has spoken to me, one time he showed me a person I could marry, and it turned out great we got married. Other times he has revealed to me future events. God does many things for a Christian. But what I am proposing on this post is to offer prayer for any request that you may have. You are as important to God as any of his children, and I can't see why he would not work on your behalf. I am not going to set down any rules for things you can and can't ask, but one thing I will say in advance regarding my experiences, I have had God speak to me in the past but I can't at this point in my life distinguish his voice well enough for you to ask me to get a message from God for you. But if you have any needs, any desires that are unfulfilled feel free to ask. You may also ask for proof from God I don't mind this, but I am not sure how to go about it. One thing that I will say in advance is God does not answer every prayer, even though to the natural mind the answer would be good. There are many things God has not answered for me even though they are good prayers. Just be open minded. Ask what ever you want but don't lock God out if you don't get the answer. So you get some idea of the prayers God has answered for me in the past read http://www.futureandahope.net

Welcome to the Atheist Forums,

Anyway Victor Stenger wrote a book a few years back entitled God: The Failed Hypothesis, which had the aim of testing the hypothesis scientifically that god of the Christian Bible existed. Stenger concluded that such an entity does not exist.