There are several intelligents atheists and skeptics who have responded to posts on this blog in recent weeks. I appreciate the spirited and mostly respectful debate, as well as the contribution of several theists and Christians. I’d like to pose a question to the atheists and skeptics and ask everyone to comment. Here it is:
What evidence would you need to see for you to be reasonably convinced that a theistic God exists?
I look forward to your responses.
haha, I am reminded of this comic. That example would probably go along way towards convincing me.
Also, we hear about all these faith healings, but why is it always something internal, or something that could be explained by natural means. Paralyzed people are supposedly all of sudden able to walk after faith healings, blind people can suddenly see, cancer patients sometimes make “miraculous” recoveries that are attributed to prayer (never mind the people who are not prayed for that make “miraculous” recoveries, or the countless thousands that are prayed for that die anyways), but why doesn’t god ever heal amputees? In humans it is physically impossible for this to happen. Any such event, while I’m not sure it could be considered scientific evidence (because frankly, anything supernatural lies outside the realm of science), it would be a damn convincing argument for belief in a philosophical system that included a supreme being of some sort. Belief in your particular God would take a little more. The return of Jesus and demonstration of miracles would probably do it. Or Rudis’s above comic I linked to with a slight variation that read something like “I am the Judeo-Christian God and I am real” would probably do the job as well.
Ok, I admit it, the last part was a bit of a joke, but I think you get the idea.
The problem is – it would have to be “scientific” evidence. Perhaps even stars re-arranging into a pattern could be the trick of an alien species. So it would have to be repeatable. There would have to be some kind of repeatable effect that seems to be due to a supernatural cause. A repeatable “miracle”. But then if there really does seem to be some kind of natural effect, how do we know that it does not have a natural cause? Perhaps it’s simply a new scientific law that we have not discovered yet. After all, the old saying “advanced technology would seem like a miracle” might still apply. If the supernatural can be studied by natural science, does it now become natural?
But when lightning bolts really do come out of a clear blue sky and selectively kill only the “unbelievers”, then I will start to wonder. Or maybe it’s just the Ori enforcing their religion. Now that’s advanced technology. (Stargate SG-1)
jj and one in 6B, have you ever just done the math? I’m talking about the probabilities involving the…”natural” laws; cosmos; solar system; earth; ‘simple’ cells; and dna.
You may also want to check out the discovery by Mary Schweitzer of an intact blood vessel in the leg bone of a “70 million year old” t-rex. Further studies have established that the protein is collagen, and not algael, as some scientist hack having laundry issues had hoped. I can’t wait to see the tests on what appear to be INTACT RED BLOOD CELLS. But, just like your cartoon, a committed atheist won’t see what any child would.
p.s. re healings…I’m working on docs(x-rays and all) of a friend who walked out of an ER carrying her crutches after being wheeled in w/ a compound fx of the fibula….would that qualify?
How about an amputee who grows a new limb?
Better yet, a handshake and a brief “word of prayer” face to face would go a long way.
Don’t think I’ll hold my breath waiting on either, tho..
I don’t know what evcidence would 100% convince me, but if, for arguments sake, God exists and is all knowing, then he would know what evidence would convince me and since he is all powerfuil he would be able to easily provide that evidence (whatever it is). Since that evidence has not yet presented itself there are only 2 options
a) he exists, but doens’t want me to believe in him (and who am I to go against god’s will?)
b) he doesn’t exist
eithe way, not believing is the best course of action for me.
(BTW, the whole ‘not interefering with freewill’ argument doens’t work because there are many people who claim god has spoken to them directly and that made them believe, so he clearly has no problem interfereing with their freewill)
Over at the internet infidels web site this is a common question from believers. I have said the following a few times. Here’s a list that I would find interesting. Some things that come to my mind are having some of the grand miracles of the Hebrew canon having a historical basis. That is…
(1) The Deluge recorded in geology and other sciences. There is very excellent science that can accurately look at the records of the ice caps in Antarctica going back 740,000 years; and coral reef records from the Australian Great Barrier Reef and others, going back almost 100,000 years. Dendrochronology takes us back 10,000 years without a Deluge. And these records would be devastated by anything approaching a world wide flood. It would not be missed, overlooked, or misunderstood. So not only could in not happen when the Bible claims due to human records, but it could not have happened at all in any way resembling the tale as told, due to the earths records. So I think it is reasonable to ask that the geological record match the Tankah’s timeline in which Noah’s Deluge happened circa 2100-2400 BCE, or equally having the tale not contradict the geology.
(2) How about the languages fanning out from Mesopotamia as a result from the Babel tale, vice the reality of a much more complex and ancient language history.
(3) God could have helped the Egyptians record a few phrases about the Exodus vice it again happening in a virtual vacuum.
(4) Maybe Chinese astronomers recording the day the earth stood still via Joshua’s invisible solar object demands. Funny how all the empires of the world circa 1200 BCE never noticed this and recorded it as a major event.
(5) How about finding some dateable clay tablets that demonstrate that Daniel was written circa 600BCE showing a real prophetic prediction.
(6) It would be nice if the Deluge/Babel tales actually preceded the ancient empires of Sumeria, Egypt and China, vice trailing them by a thousand years.
Some NT thoughts:
(a) How about the blood red sky and earthquake of the Gospels getting recorded by Greeks, Egyptians, or others?
(b) A report by Pilate surviving in Roman records, that recorded this very odd execution, and showing some sign that Pilate was something other than a blood thirsty ruler/functionary (recorded in Roman history) that the Gospels suggest.
(c) A 1st century copy of Flavious’s Antiquities surviving in an Egyptian find, that is obviously not a Christian forgery. And maybe even toss in Herod’s killing of all the Children of Bethlehem.
(d) How about a coherent description of Jesus’ early years (aka Bethlehem, Nazareth, Egypt, wise men, houses, and stables) vice Matthew and Luke.
(e) Iimagine such a phrase as “Satan took Jesus up into the clouds, and showed him an apple with the world upon it and all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them”. Sounds kind of cool doesn’t it? Vice too that rather odd mountain top reference, and hey hints of a spherical planet.
Well, there’s a few thoughts on holes that don’t have be there, and some things that I don’t think would be too hard on your God to do; and shouldn’t really give away the free will farm. Heck maybe the hell bound would be down to just 1 or 2 billion of the currently living that way vice about 4+ billion. Plenty of people left that would get their free choice of hell… Now how would that be “unfair”? Did not the Israeli’s get pillars of fire and walls of water (and many other amazing shows), and still have the free will to walk away from their God? So what could possibly be wrong with expecting this purported God, to leave a modest paper trail outside of the writings of a small society in the land of Palestine? And it might even convince me to believe once again, or I might have never de-converted from Christianity.
“You may also want to check out the discovery by Mary Schweitzer of an intact blood vessel in the leg bone of a “70 million year old” t-rex.”
And it clearly shows that the DNA of modern birds is related to this dinosaur. Now that’s evidence!
Atheists seem very eager to claim Einstein for one of their own. Richard Dawkins devotes a whole section to Einstein in The God Delusion and Christopher Hitchens’ Portable Atheist is peppered with Einstein quotations seemingly rejecting all belief in God. Recently an Einstein letter surfaced which showed the great scientist scorning the idea that the Jews were in any sense God’s chosen people.
But all that these quotations prove is that Einstein was not an orthodox believer. He rejected the idea of a personal God “who would directly influence the actions of individuals or would sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation.” Einstein also rejeted the immortality of the soul, noting that “one life is enough for me.”
At the same time, Walter Isaacson in his celebrated new biography Einstein provides ample evidence that Einstein not only believed in a higher or transcendent power, but also that Einstein despised atheists. Here are some quotations, drawn from Isaacson’s book with full documentation, that I offer as a needed counterbalance to the one-sided list provided by Dawkins, Hitchens and the others.
On whether he considered himself religious: “Yes, you could call it that. Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this foce beyond anything we can comprehend is my religion.”
On whether he accepted the historical existence of Christ: “Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”
On whether he considered himself an atheist: “I’m not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what that is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the most intelligent human toward God.”
On the nature of God: “That deeply emotional conviction of a presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”
On whether science leads to religion: “Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of nature–a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort.”
On how religion motivates scientific inquiry: “The cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research.”
On whether science and religion are at odds: “The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
On how he feels about atheist efforts to claim him as an ally: “There are people who say there is no God, but what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.”
On how he regards atheists: “The fanatical atheists…are creatures who cannot her the music of the spheres. I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist. What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.”
Assembled by Dinesh D’Souza
I believe I am what is called a “strict” or “strong” agnostic. Or, simply put: I believe absolute, objective truth is unknowable.
In response to the post: No evidence exists that would make me “see”/know. I would only discredit any form of evidence. Where is the evidence that the evidence of emotional conviction is the correct form of evidence to know absolute truth, for example? The same would also apply for logic and reason. Or how does one know that truth is derived through empirical or any other means? I guess what I’m saying is – what is your evidence for your evidence? That’s a bit of a circular argument, I know, but if anyone has any ideas to get out of that circle, believe me, I’d sure like to hear them. And don’t tell me to take a leap of faith. I believe faith to be weak and unstable as it will not stand up to my many doubts.
Now if by “see” it is meant only to believe, then I’m not sure how I respond. I am cautious in what I believe, but I DO believe things (or else I’d probably be totally insane
) . And yet I am unsure why I believe some things and not others. For example: I am also a weak atheist in addition to being a strong agnostic. I wonder why I won’t positively believe that there is or isn’t a god, but that I will believe that truth is unknowable (I can’t obviously KNOW that truth is unknowable, else I’d be entertaining an extremely self-defeating idea) through the form of logical evidence. So perhaps there is another reason behind my lack of belief – perhaps there is some other factor that really determines what I personally will or will not believe.
Well, I really don’t know. Sometimes I honestly make no sense even to myself. Any thoughts out there to help sort out my confusion?
I’d like to know what evidence would convince:
a) a creationist that evolution is true.
b) a Christian there is NO God and
Generally the answer to a) will be a strawman that would in reality DISPROVE evolution (eg “a dog giving birth to a cat”). The answer to b) is generally “Nothing”. At least atheists can say SOMETHING that might convince them. For me it would be: evolution falsified, my dad appearing to me as a ghost, a big-scale miracle happening right in front of me.
Haha, I read NZskep’s comment and I find it funny that at the end he says “(BTW, the whole ‘not interefering with freewill’ argument doens’t work because there are many people who claim god has spoken to them directly and that made them believe, so he clearly has no problem interfereing with their freewill)”. It’s funny that he says he doesn’t believe in God, but yet believes those people when they say that God spoke to them. Haha. Anyway, I am a Christian already, so, ya. I just had to reply to that cuz I thought it was real weird how people are like that. They require so much evidence for people’s beliefs in God, yet, I’m sure 3/4 of them can’t even provide evidence for their own beliefs. I’m a big time fan of the show “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” and watching that show and many others has made me one the best defenders of my beliefs as I can be. My friends know not to mess with me when it comes to God because they know whatever they say I will have an answer for. I really like to think logically, which, if most people do, should provide a proof of God in itself. I guess it’s like you always mention on your show, people just don’t wanna accept it. And I think it’s sad to walk down my hallways at school and see the handfuls of people who have all these secret lives, that aren’t so secret from their actions, knowing that one day, I won’t see them. It’s sad how many of those people I used to know as on-fire Christians. I really wish I could buy a ton of copies of your book (after I first get one for myself) and pass them out all over campus. I feel like God has most definitely called me to do sort of like what your doing when I get older. I always keep a bible in my backpack along with a copy of C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity”. Those two are the best books ever written (once again, I have not yet read yours because I lack one). But anyway, I just wanted to comment to that response up there. I mean, the whole things lacks so much, but that last part made me laugh. So, keep up the good work, God Bless! =]