What would it take?

[eyemixer]

Why should you have to tell them what type of evidence to ask for? Let them show you the best evidence they have. If it's not good enough for you, explain why, so they can try to come up with something different that won't have the same flaw. Just make sure your reasons are logical.

But really, I can't imagine what it would take to convince me. Something big and obvious, unlike any of the "evidence" (and I use the term loosely) that Christians usually present.

I'm not trying to refute what they are presenting. I have no issues in dismantling the assertions of god(s) I come across, I'm trying to be able to give an answer to them (and more importantly myself) about what my standard of evidence really is, at a low (threshold) level for my lack of belief.

---

The question is asked out of frustration by who? The believer or me?

The believer. I don't approach discussion with theists as if they need to convince me; I am simply interested in hearing why they believe what they believe. If their presentation is not convincing, the question "what would it take" can legitimately be answered with "more than you've presented so far."

To elaborate on that, keep in mind that we're not just talking about a few bits of evidence that might be relevant and a few objections that can be explained away. Nor is the theist presenting the justifications for his belief and being met with "nuh uh" as a response. In some cases we're talking about laughably poor rationalizations for very difficult questions or circumstances (to be charitable). I think that most of the time, the question "what would it take" is designed to set up a situation where the theist can simply exit the discussion without conceding the weakness of his argument. And I think it's important to consider this before attempting to make a sincere attempt at answering that question.

Valid point, but then I can't in any fairness ask "What would it take for you to no longer believe in {insert god(s)}?" which is my usual quick check at the start of an argument (in the conversational sense) about religion to see if I can just save myself the hassle. They say nothing, no reason to go any further. Also, I ask myself the question to make sure I'm not letting the fact it's not currently reasonable to believe in god(s) turn into a bias and preclude me from accepting evidence that other rational unbiased people might.

[max-greece]

I only ever answer this question one way these days:

What would it take to convince me of your version of an omniscient God?

God, by definition, must know.

[tommynba]

If a god manifests himself / interacts with our world (and most christians say he does) it should be really easy to get proper evidence. We live in a 21st century. If a christian says he believes cause of presonal experience such as... god spoke to him or he had an epiphany, just get the camcorder or your iphone and record it

People post pictures on facebook of what they had for breakfast, lunch, dinner and what colour their poo is. So why not take a pic or make a movie of a god revelation maybe he's just simply shy

[CapnAwesome]

If God appeared to me and others simultaneously, that would be enough for me. I don't know why this is impossible for an all powerful deity even though chipmunks can handle it. I can never grasp why the almighty would go out of his way to hide his existence.

So something like multiple geographic locations, auditory and/or visual, same message/event for all people. I'm guessing the smaller the group that experiences the more it's personal belief, and the larger the group the more it's a convincing for others belief.

I'm sure you have your own idea of what you mean by 'appear', but am I reading you right?

Yeah, more or less that would be good enough for me. I know some Atheists who are critical of this and maintain that perhaps any demonstration of God-like power could be replicated by advanced technology and thus they could never be convinced of Gods existence. I think that is ridiculous over skepticism and also that such people are not being honest. If such a standard were applied to say, giraffes then we could never believe in them either because how do we know they aren't holograms and advanced technology designed to fool us into thinking they exist. Skepticism is healthy, over-skepticism can border on the absurd at times.

I also think I present a relatively low threshold of evidence that we all know (theist and atheist alike) will never be met. Theists offer all kinds of ridiculous, nonsensical explanations for why God doesn't just appear or reveal himself. Of course if you are an Atheist the answer is both straight forward and simple. He doesn't exist.

---

I only ever answer this question one way these days:

What would it take to convince me of your version of an omniscient God?

God, by definition, must know.

Ha. That's great.

[Fromper]

Valid point, but then I can't in any fairness ask "What would it take for you to no longer believe in {insert god(s)}?" which is my usual quick check at the start of an argument (in the conversational sense) about religion to see if I can just save myself the hassle. They say nothing, no reason to go any further. Also, I ask myself the question to make sure I'm not letting the fact it's not currently reasonable to believe in god(s) turn into a bias and preclude me from accepting evidence that other rational unbiased people might.

Well, there's your problem. You shouldn't be asking them what it would take to convince them. The answer is that if they truly believe, you won't change their mind in one conversation, any more than they'll change yours in one conversation. The reason the conversation is worth having is either to learn what they believe, or else to plant a small seed of doubt that might some day convince them. But trying to convince them all at once, and asking them what it would take to do so, is just ridiculous.

[truthBtold]

Jesus would have to show himself and feed all the hungry.. hell if he fed 5000...he can feed more.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Jesus would have to show himself and feed all the hungry.. hell if he fed 5000...he can feed more.

Jesus didn't feed the hungry. They fed themselves with the food that they had brought with them. Jesus and his pals had a few bites for their own lunch. The custom was that they had to offer it to others first. So they took their grub and walked out into the crowd, telling the folks that it was time to eat. That broke the ice and everyone started pulling out their own lunches from beneath their dirty robes. The people would have rather gone hungry than to take a chance that others would take their lunch. SO they simply kept them hidden until Jesus showed that it was OK to reveal what they had hidden.

That happened on two occasions. The stories are about not being afraid to share what you have with your neighbors. After all, how can you love your neighbors if you refuse to share your food with them when they are hungry? The stories also reinforce the ideas expressed in Matthew 7:9-12, Matthew 10:9-14, Matthew 25:35-46, as well as all of the other passages about hospitality and feeding strangers.

[Ryantology]

If gay marriage is ever Legalized in Louisiana, I'll know that hell has frozen over. If hell exists, then God exists.

It was (partially) legalized in Kentucky as of two days ago, so as odd as it might have sounded in the far-off yesteryear of, well, yesteryear, it could happen in Louisiana by this time next week, for all we know.

[truthBtold]

If god could save me money on my car insurance. . Or was that gieco. .. now im confused. ..