(February 28, 2014 at 4:19 pm)eyemixer Wrote: 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.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould
