What Would It Take To Be Convinced?

[Mental Outlaw]

An interesting question to ponder is what would qualify as substantial enough evidence to convince atheists like us of the existence of something 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; thus, this leads to the question: what would be enough to convince us non-believers? I think it's a difficult but interesting thought.

God would have to come down to earth himself and buy me a beer.

[JesusHChrist]

The fuck am I looking at?? 

God would have to get a whole lot less "mysterious".

Zeus was fond of swan-on-girl sexy time. Kinky he was.

[John V]

If only we had the technical means to somehow record unusual -- perhaps miraculous -- events and share them throughout the world for scrutiny.

It's odd how shy God has become about permitting us glimpses of his divine power since certain inventions became commonplace.  It's almost as if . . . oh, perish the thought!

What's odd? In the Bible hundreds of years go by with no mention of miracles.

[emjay]

Here's the problem with miracles.

Suppose you see an amputee's limb grow back, and you believe. What's special about you? Shouldn't all people in all times have the same opportunity as you? So, all people would need to see a limb grow back. 

But, if limbs have been growing back as far back as anyone remembers, and are still growing back now...there's nothing miraculous about limbs growing back. People would just label it as spontaneous regrowth. 

You could say that it doesn't have to be a limb growing back each time. It could be different signs for different people. But imagine such a world - nothing could be miraculous, as there wouldn't be supposedly inviolable physical laws to begin with.

Miraculous signs must necessarily be seen by few and communicated by mundane means to the masses.

Good point, as always. I think that's roughly what CS Lewis said in the book Miracles.

But it doesn't change the fact that I'm just wired to doubt anything I don't see with my own eyes. I really can't help that.

If it has to be communicated to me I will always doubt it. A case in point, a Christian friend of mine who's been a friend of the family all my life, told me a story about her son - who's a missionary - he was living in some sort of commune. They needed petrol for their car and the story goes that the tank miraculously filled up including the gauge going up before his very eyes. Now the thing is I trust her and I trust her son, because I've grown up with them and I care about them very much. I know they're not lying to me in their own eyes, but I still don't believe it. There's something wrong somewhere but I don't know what and don't feel the need to know what either.

[Crossless2.0]

An interesting question to ponder is what would qualify as substantial enough evidence to convince atheists like us of the existence of something 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; thus, this leads to the question: what would be enough to convince us non-believers? I think it's a difficult but interesting thought.

God would have to come down to earth himself and buy me a beer.

God would have to come down to earth himself and turn a Budweiser into a beer before I would believe.  You know, something really difficult to imagine.

[John V]

Good point, as always. I think that's roughly what CS Lewis said in the book Miracles.

But it doesn't change the fact that I'm just wired to doubt anything I don't see with my own eyes. I really can't help that.

Of course you doubt. Jesus said a person with faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains, but I don't see any mountains moving. Apparently, even the most devout Christians doubt. Those who claim unshakable faith annoy me, and they're frequently in store for a comeuppance.

As far as I can tell, you're not unique, or even unusual. It would be interesting to find that a certain type of person was hard-wired so that they can't believe, but I've never seen it. If perhaps a certain Myers-Briggs or Predictive Index personality type couldn't believe, you'd have a point. But among any such classification, there are both believers and unbelievers.

At the first atheist site I posted at, a long-time atheist converted. He put it more in terms of commitment to belief, than intellectual assent.

[Esquilax]

Here's the problem with miracles.

Suppose you see an amputee's limb grow back, and you believe. What's special about you? Shouldn't all people in all times have the same opportunity as you? So, all people would need to see a limb grow back. 

But, if limbs have been growing back as far back as anyone remembers, and are still growing back now...there's nothing miraculous about limbs growing back. People would just label it as spontaneous regrowth. 

You could say that it doesn't have to be a limb growing back each time. It could be different signs for different people. But imagine such a world - nothing could be miraculous, as there wouldn't be supposedly inviolable physical laws to begin with.

Miraculous signs must necessarily be seen by few and communicated by mundane means to the masses.

See, I tend to disagree, just because I don't think rarity is the key factor in determining what a miracle is; winning the lottery is rare, for example, and that isn't miraculous. No, miracles require a divine source too, in fact they depend on that more than their rarity, given that you can have a miracle without rarity, but not without a divine cause.

And people couldn't label common limb-regrowth miracles as spontaneous regrowth except if that divine source is unclear, which is the key point of any potential confusion there; an unambiguous miracle could happen every day and still be miraculous. The problem is that theists tend to see miracles in highly ambiguous natural events, and so the bar for miracles is set there, when it needn't be.

[emjay]

Good point, as always. I think that's roughly what CS Lewis said in the book Miracles.

But it doesn't change the fact that I'm just wired to doubt anything I don't see with my own eyes. I really can't help that.

Of course you doubt. Jesus said a person with faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains, but I don't see any mountains moving. Apparently, even the most devout Christians doubt. Those who claim unshakable faith annoy me, and they're frequently in store for a comeuppance.

As far as I can tell, you're not unique, or even unusual. It would be interesting to find that a certain type of person was hard-wired so that they can't believe, but I've never seen it. If perhaps a certain Myers-Briggs or Predictive Index personality type couldn't believe, you'd have a point. But among any such classification, there are both believers and unbelievers.

At the first atheist site I posted at, a long-time atheist converted. He put it more in terms of commitment to belief, than intellectual assent.

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

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.

[Mudhammam]

God would have to come down in human form, perform miracles, and fulfill prophecy.

Oh wait a minute...he did that already. And you still dont believe. Never mind.

Yeah, and the Sumerians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans left tons of records which you willfully reject too.

---

In regards to the OP, I don't view it as a meaningful question really. It's like asking, "What would it take for you to believe that incorporeal hippocentaurs exist?" The best answer I can come up with is "Nothing and everything," because I have no idea what that means in the context of possible existence, let alone actuality.

[Pyrrho]

Here's the problem with miracles.

Suppose you see an amputee's limb grow back, and you believe. What's special about you? Shouldn't all people in all times have the same opportunity as you? So, all people would need to see a limb grow back. 

But, if limbs have been growing back as far back as anyone remembers, and are still growing back now...there's nothing miraculous about limbs growing back. People would just label it as spontaneous regrowth. 

You could say that it doesn't have to be a limb growing back each time. It could be different signs for different people. But imagine such a world - nothing could be miraculous, as there wouldn't be supposedly inviolable physical laws to begin with.

Miraculous signs must necessarily be seen by few and communicated by mundane means to the masses.

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.


Also, that description is very far from how things go with actual stories of miracles, which has already been stated in this thread:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-33158-po...#pid934903

Basically, all actual stories of miracles are silly to believe.  You yourself reject countless such stories.  After all, you don't believe the miracle of Zeus converting into a swan, do you?  The stories in the Bible are equally silly and unreasonable to believe.  The difference is that you were raised to believe the one set of stories, and to disbelieve the others.  Consequently, you feel strongly about which ones to believe, but it has nothing whatever to do with reason.