(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?People ask this question from time to time, but for me it's pretty simple. What does it take to convince you of anything in particular? There are things we believe and disbelieve with varying degrees of certainty. How did we come to those beliefs/disbeliefs? Think about it, and then consider how a god might be able to convince you that he's real. It's honestly that simple IMO.
I find that often the question is posed by theists as a way to imply that the atheist would refuse to believe in god no matter what evidence --or even proof-- was presented to him. But I find that to be a way to cover for the fact that god has not presented himself, and that they've reached a level of certainty based on what they would consider flimsy evidence in any other facet of their lives. I am not an atheist in spite of evidence of god. I am an atheist because of the lack of that evidence. If we were to apply some of the arguments in favor of god to any other part of our everyday life, I doubt it would be very convincing at all. I think it would sound a lot like the words of a con man. Give it a try! I think you'll find it pretty amusing.
"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
