What would it take?

[eyemixer]

[Tonus]

It seems to me that the question is asked out of frustration over the lack of any convincing evidence. Which is the religion with the most followers, Christianity? And it has managed to provide enough evidence to convince about 40% of the population of the planet, if we're being charitable?

Maybe they're asking the wrong question. Maybe the right question is "how could you be convinced by such meager, shoddy evidence?"

[ThePinsir]

If he ripped open the heavens and dangled his cock from the sky, I'd believe.

If I witnessed stigmata occur on a Christian in front of my face, at the right points, simultaneously, and knew it wasn't some skin disease, I'd probably believe. Or be hella tempted to.

If we found some sort of binary in the genetic code that spelled out "I am here. I designed this." I'd probably believe.

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

[eyemixer]

It seems to me that the question is asked out of frustration over the lack of any convincing evidence. Which is the religion with the most followers, Christianity? And it has managed to provide enough evidence to convince about 40% of the population of the planet, if we're being charitable?

Maybe they're asking the wrong question. Maybe the right question is "how could you be convinced by such meager, shoddy evidence?"

The question is asked out of frustration by who? The believer or me? They might be frustrated, I'm just trying to come up with a threshold where I can tell them 'this' is what it would take for me to believe you.

If someone asks me what I would need to believe, and my answer is just 'well your evidence sucks' I'm not answering their question. I'd prefer to give an honest answer in response to a polite question.

[truthBtold]

If M & Ms would melt in my hands... I would believe. .

[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.

[eyemixer]

If M & Ms would melt in my hands... I would believe. .

Um, Did I accidentally convert someone?

Who knew God worked at Wallmart?

[Fromper]

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.

[eyemixer]

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?

[Tonus]

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.