What Would It Take To Be Convinced?

[PhilosophicalZebra]

An interesting question to ponder is what would qualify as substantial enough evidence to convince atheists like us of the existence of something greater?

I believe the Earth exists and it's "greater" than me in size.  I believe that Stephen Hawking exists and that he's "greater" than me in terms of knowledge about physics.  I believe that crocodiles exist and are "greater" than me in terms of jaw strength, and that lions exist and are "greater" hunters than I am.  I believe fruit flies exist and are "greater" than me at flying.  In what way, exactly, are we to define "greater"?

If the very simplistic scenario of a big man with a white beard appearing before us was contemplated, most of us would probably still believe it to be more rational to attribute this to some sort of hallucination

Because that is the more probable explanation for that event.  Millions upon millions of people hallucinate or have psychotic breaks, so to have a dude simply appear in front of you and conclude upon that evidence alone that it's anything other than a hallucination or psychotic break is unreasonable - pending further investigation.  If, upon further investigation you are able to demonstrate that that dude is an actual physical person (you can touch him, draw blood from him, take pictures of him, other people are able to see him, touch him, draw blood, take pictures etc.) then the most reasonable explanation of his sudden appearance is that he is some kind of magician akin to Chris Angel or Penn and Teller because it's resoundingly more probable that this guy is a magician than that he's a deity.  (Again, there are millions of magicians in the world, and even some not so great ones could probably pull off an appearing/disappearing act if the viewer isn't prepared for it.)  And so on and so forth...

You have to go down the entire list of possible explanations for this dude's actions, behavior and knowledge before it's at all even remotely reasonable to think that he might possibly be some kind of deity-like entity.

thus, this leads to the question: what would be enough to convince us non-believers? I think it's a difficult but interesting thought.

The same sorts of things it would take to convince me that unicorns exist.  Or that ghosts exist.  Or dragons, or leprechauns, or the chupacabra.

My apologies for the ambiguous use of "something greater"; by this, I was referring to a god or creator-like figure.
Also, I completely agree with all of what you said about the likelihood of a big man appearing from the clouds being a hallucination. I'm also an atheist and so I was just reiterating the view that the majority of atheists would probably hold towards the idea of that scenario serving as evidence of a god.

[IATIA]

The same sorts of things it would take to convince me that unicorns exist.  Or that ghosts exist.  Or dragons, or leprechauns, or the chupacabra.

These are easy, just find one and look at it, nothing special. A large lizard that breathes fire, a dragon and so on. A god, on the other hand, is much more difficult to ascertain. Even if the god unmade the whole of reality except for it and I, there is no way that I can determine that the experience is not hallucinatory.

[John V]

Was the guy who converted new to Christianity or an ex-believer?

New. His blog's still up. Here's his first post on conversion:

http://hittingbedrock.blogspot.com/2006/...ut_17.html

He was possibly the smartest atheist I've come across in 15 years of doing this.

Cos that would be my first hurdle in becoming a Christian - I've already been there. I was a Christian up until I was eighteen - my intro thread explains it all. It was my homosexuality that made me question my faith in the first place. Now as time has passed I've built up a lot of skeptical knowledge that I can't just unlearn and which serves to make it even harder for me to believe again and I am certain that the Bible cannot be taken literally - that belief will not change, ever.

I'll bet I've come across most every bit of "skeptical knowledge" that you have and then some, yet I still believe.

By 'commitment to belief' I presume you mean something along the lines of if you tell yourself something long enough you'll come to believe it? I don't know about that - not in my own personal experience. That's the basis of self-hypnosis but I could never do that either. Just can't let go, at all, of my doubt.

I believe. I'm not sure exactly how to explain his commitment. Neither was he.

---

The first problem with your idea can be explained quite simply.  Imagine the world, exactly as it is, but with this difference:  One man, who lives forever, goes around healing people with lost limbs.  He just touches the stump and it instantly grows back, perfectly recovered.  He does this publicly, and lets scientists and others examine everything carefully beforehand and while he is doing it.  This man tells you he is god.

Well, we would certainly know that something was very special about this man, even though him healing people was an everyday occurrence.  So your idea that miracles have to be rare to be recognized as miracles is just wrong.

One man out of all of humanity is indeed rare. You haven't removed rarity, you've just changed the nature of it.

[Pyrrho]

...

The first problem with your idea can be explained quite simply.  Imagine the world, exactly as it is, but with this difference:  One man, who lives forever, goes around healing people with lost limbs.  He just touches the stump and it instantly grows back, perfectly recovered.  He does this publicly, and lets scientists and others examine everything carefully beforehand and while he is doing it.  This man tells you he is god.

Well, we would certainly know that something was very special about this man, even though him healing people was an everyday occurrence.  So your idea that miracles have to be rare to be recognized as miracles is just wrong.

One man out of all of humanity is indeed rare. You haven't removed rarity, you've just changed the nature of it.

I have demonstrated that if there were a god who wanted to convince people of its existence, it would be possible to do a vastly better job of it than any god has done.  The fact that stories of miracles are typically done in remote regions, or in private, or among primitive savages, strongly suggests that the stories are just bullshit.  And so when we conclude that the miracle stories of the Bible are bullshit, we are reasoning well.  And we are reasoning as you do for other religions, as you dismiss their miracles and do not regard their miracle stories as proving that Islam is true or that Hinduism is true or etc.  The simple fact is, you are inconsistent about these matters, which means that you are not only wrong, but are necessarily wrong.

[Cephus]

Was the guy who converted new to Christianity or an ex-believer?

New. His blog's still up. Here's his first post on conversion:

http://hittingbedrock.blogspot.com/2006/...ut_17.html

He was possibly the smartest atheist I've come across in 15 years of doing this.

Apparently not, I went and read that post and found it to be wholly irrational.  If that's the smartest atheist you've come across, I think you need to get out more.

[robvalue]

That guy seems to be saying, "I suddenly decided to believe in God and Christianity". Well belief isn't a choice, so he's just professing belief. He is saying there is no reason for his conversion. I highly doubt that, he is at least taking a pragmatic approach by joining a certain cult, presumably for some gain. If he actually believes now, there is a reason. If he doesn't, then this is just bluster. Actually this all sounds a bit like a very weak Pascal's wager.

And it appears he thinks God and Yahweh are interchangeable.

What the hell does "committed to God" mean? Committed to pretending/assuming God exists?

Apologies if I missed something important.

[John V]

I have demonstrated that if there were a god who wanted to convince people of its existence, it would be possible to do a vastly better job of it than any god has done.  The fact that stories of miracles are typically done in remote regions, or in private, or among primitive savages, strongly suggests that the stories are just bullshit.  And so when we conclude that the miracle stories of the Bible are bullshit, we are reasoning well.

You might be if all the miracles of the Bible were done in remote regions, or in private, or among primitive savages. But, that's not the case.

And we are reasoning as you do for other religions, as you dismiss their miracles and do not regard their miracle stories as proving that Islam is true or that Hinduism is true or etc.  The simple fact is, you are inconsistent about these matters, which means that you are not only wrong, but are necessarily wrong.

Muhammed didn't claim any miracles while alive, except the koran itself, which is clearly circular.

[emjay]

Was the guy who converted new to Christianity or an ex-believer?

New. His blog's still up. Here's his first post on conversion:

http://hittingbedrock.blogspot.com/2006/...ut_17.html

Having read that I really don't know what to make of the guy, but he doesn't come across as someone you could use as a role model. He says he can give no reason at all for his conversion - no philosophical argument swayed him, it fulfilled no inner need, his opinions haven't changed on anything... he still believes in evolution and the big bang, he's still happy to make jokes about Jesus. And as for his new found faith (then) he doesn't believe in hell and is not sure he believes in heaven. How can you be a Christian and not believe in hell? This just comes across to me as someone who has created his own hybrid religion on a whim, perhaps just as an experiment or for a laugh.

Are you still in contact with him? Does he seem like a serious Christian now?

I'll bet I've come across most every bit of "skeptical knowledge" that you have and then some, yet I still believe.

There's a book I'm reading called "The Christ Conundrum: The Skeptic's Guide to Jesus" by Andrew Carruth. If you look it up is that the sort of book you'd feel comfortable reading, and still keep your faith? I love my dad but he will not give that sort of book the time of day and it's very frustrating. He'd never dare come on a site like this to debate with atheists. That's one of the reasons I respect you.

[Pyrrho]

I have demonstrated that if there were a god who wanted to convince people of its existence, it would be possible to do a vastly better job of it than any god has done.  The fact that stories of miracles are typically done in remote regions, or in private, or among primitive savages, strongly suggests that the stories are just bullshit.  And so when we conclude that the miracle stories of the Bible are bullshit, we are reasoning well.

You might be if all the miracles of the Bible were done in remote regions, or in private, or among primitive savages. But, that's not the case.
...

Israel was a primitive, barbaric backwater.  So all of the miracle stories happened among savages.  (As for the supposed Old Testament miracles among the Egyptians, the archaeological evidence tells us that the Israelites were never enslaved en mass by them, nor did the many thousands of Israelites wander the desert for 40 years.  So even parts of the Bible that are not miraculous are known to be pure bullshit.)

Also, think about the various stories.  For example, Jesus' appearances after he came back from the dead.  Even according to the story, he hid from the authorities.  If it had been a real resurrection, going public with the Romans would have been much more convincing, than just appearing to his followers, who had a motive to lie and make up such a story.  So what we have is an unsubstantiated story, from interested parties who have a motive for spreading such tales, with no independent corroboration.  No reasonable person believes such tales.  You don't, under the same conditions for any other religion, toward which you are not favorably biassed.

[John V]

Israel was a primitive, barbaric backwater.  

Got it!