Change our minds about the existence of God?

[Gawen]

This was taken from Richard Dawkins site:

It seems like a reasonable statement that we atheists would change our minds about the existence of God if presented with the right kind of evidence. I'm going to propose that this position is actually not reasonable at all.

First, It's useful to consider what God, this thing that evidence is supposed to be able to reveal, isn't.

God isn't like a mythical beast. God isn't a dragon, a unicorn, a hippogriff. Such a beast could potentially be seen, examined, and proclaimed real. Its mythical status lost, the biologists could get to work. They would be surprised, but would have something to deal with. They would have evidence: scales, wings and flames do indeed mean dragon. That's clear enough.

God isn't an alien. Arthur C Clarke said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” What he did not say is that such technology actually is magic. What Clarke said has great power, as it implies that we are almost certainly unable to recognise magic, as we have no understanding of the limits of technology. And now we start to see the problem: with such ignorance, what evidence could there be that we are seeing the supernatural and not the unknown natural?

But for now, back to God. The words used to describe the deity seem at first sight to make sense. He (for it's almost always “he”) is all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing. He is the source of morality, and will punish the wicked and reward the deserving for all eternity.

However, when unpacked, these phrases have no more meaning than Lewis Caroll's Jabberwocky. An all-knowing deity has no freedom, and therefore can't be all-powerful. Like Paul Atreides in Frank Herbert's novel Dune, God would be trapped within his own prophecy. A God that is all-knowing (especially one supposedly outside of time) can't help but know his own future actions. God can do no more than gyre and gimble in the wabe, and he has no freedom to do otherwise.

The words are said, they are believed, because of how they make people feel. God has to be perfect, loving, all-powerful, because any lack of these characteristics would make God fragile, and that would never do, at least not for the Abrahamic religions.

Gods weren't always so perfect. The Greek/Roman gods were remarkably (or perhaps not remarkably) human. But they were still isolated from the mundane world, looking down from the tops of mountains (it's quite amusing to see how the domain of the gods hasshifted from high altitudes to some invisible place “outside of time and space” or “beneath the quantum”. Truly the gods are shy).

Knowing the meaninglessness of the words, knowing the inconsistencies, there is a trick that some believers play: it is to put God beyond logic. Why should theists concern themselves with inconsistencies when God can bend the rules? But how can we non-believers accept something as evidence when that “evidence” is supposed to point to something which is beyond logic, beyond rules? What does “evidence” even mean in such a situation?

I've long considered "God" to be an incoherent nonconcept. I've seen this attitude (for changing minds if evidence supports it) in the forms of presuppositionalism, transcendentalism, and postmodernist theology. It's always irritating and always a complete inappropriate use of language. And...you have to abandon logic in order to identify something as beyond comprehension and then claim to have specific knowledge of its will. Although God, it is sometimes said, to be beyond comprehension, if it actually did or do something in this universe, that effect can be studied. The effect is in principle within our comprehension.

Reminds me of when someone says that God cannot reasonably be said to exist, because if God exists, that means that God is subject to Being. If that were the best defense of theism, I'd be an atheist (oh wait - I am!). So far, we have not found any such effect. Therefore, the only sort of "God" that we can reasonably expect to exist is one that doesn't do anything at all in the universe. As such, there's not really much to talk about. Of course, I wouldn't partake of any religion that needs to posit a being outside of time or logic anyway. And it doesn't make much sense to have created the universe (which includes time) if you're already in it. No one has any idea what God being outside time means.

In the end, all apologetics plummet to God moves in a mysterious way…and that just ain't good enough for me.

Thoughts?

[fazFwQo83]

For me there is no "evidence" strong enough. If there is such a god, and he were to "send us a sign", that sign would have to manifest itself in some physical way in order for us to perceive it and any physical manifestation can be explained away. For example, to get "Jesus" to "float down from the heavens", all you need is some anti-gravity technology ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MwxVAZuFOs ). In the context of such technology, "levitation" is a real physical possibility - like when magicians do the floating trick and they use hoolahoops to "prove" there are no strings attached.

[Asmodean]

I'm easy to convert in theory.

Present solid scientific bases for your god and all the properties you assign to it, and, if it holds water, I will accept it. That does ot mean, however, that I will worship that thing as I don't feel the need for worshipping something or someone just because it or (s)he appears greater than me. Scratching my egocentristic back, however, can make one worshipped a little  :pop:

[Tom62]

I'm easy to convert in theory.

Present solid scientific bases for your god and all the properties you assign to it, and, if it holds water, I will accept it. That does ot mean, however, that I will worship that thing as I don't feel the need for worshipping something or someone just because it or (s)he appears greater than me. Scratching my egocentristic back, however, can make one worshipped a little  :pop:

And I would not allow you to worship any one else but me  

[karadan]

I'm easy to convert in theory.

Present solid scientific bases for your god and all the properties you assign to it, and, if it holds water, I will accept it. That does ot mean, however, that I will worship that thing as I don't feel the need for worshipping something or someone just because it or (s)he appears greater than me. Scratching my egocentristic back, however, can make one worshipped a little  :pop:

And I would not allow you to worship any one else but me  

[bandit4god]

What would you have to experience (see, feel, hear, learn) to believe in the existence of God?

One plea before you reply: this topic drew an avalanche of snarky responses on the ol' Dawkins site.  Some gems:
- "He'd have to come into my English lit class and create a rock so big he couldn't carry it!  Mwa ha ha!"
- "Hmmm, I don't know, maybe go back through history and undo all the PAIN he let happen???"
- "NOTHING could convince me, so scram troll!!!!  Blwalalaaaaa!!!"
I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea.  

If, instead, we came this time at the question with a calm, rational, respectful approach, what would your answer be?  Thanks in advance!

[McQ]

What would you have to experience (see, feel, hear, learn) to believe in the existence of God?

One plea before you reply: this topic drew an avalanche of snarky responses on the ol' Dawkins site.  Some gems:
- "He'd have to come into my English lit class and create a rock so big he couldn't carry it!  Mwa ha ha!"
- "Hmmm, I don't know, maybe go back through history and undo all the PAIN he let happen???"
- "NOTHING could convince me, so scram troll!!!!  Blwalalaaaaa!!!"
I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea.  

If, instead, we came this time at the question with a calm, rational, respectful approach, what would your answer be?  Thanks in advance!

How about this instead. Don't post new threads before at least trying to find out whether or not there is already an existing thread for the same topic? In this case, there is, and it has been heavily discussed. I suggest you read it first, and then comment on it.

[bandit4god]

Yuck, that's what long-standing moderators like you are around for.  Direct me to the thread and I'll gladly shift over to it--until then, this m&m-cookie-eating-dude is going to exploit the wondrous ease of making new topics!

[McQ]

Yuck, that's what long-standing moderators like you are around for.  Direct me to the thread and I'll gladly shift over to it--until then, this m&m-cookie-eating-dude is going to exploit the wondrous ease of making new topics!

Until then, no you won't. Use the search function.

[Will]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rqUsC2KsiI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qmcOG-na4E

[bandit4god]

Thanks, Will, these are the items I took away:
- Prophesies fulfilled
- Scientific knowledge in holy books
- Miraculous occurances, especially brought about by prayer
- Direct manifestation of the divine
- Aliens who believe in the exact same religion
- Flawless and consistent holy book
- Religion whose followers have never taken part in atrocities

Do you agree with the video producer that any one of these would provide sufficient evidence in the existence of God?

[Will]

Thanks, Will, these are the items I took away:
- Prophesies fulfilled
- Scientific knowledge in holy books
- Miraculous occurances, especially brought about by prayer
- Direct manifestation of the divine
- Aliens who believe in the exact same religion
- Flawless and consistent holy book
- Religion whose followers have never taken part in atrocities

Do you agree with the video producer that any one of these would provide sufficient evidence in the existence of God?

I believe it was Carl Sagan that said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The evidence would have to be as astounding as the claim, but if such evidence existed and could be verified beyond doubt, sure. Several of these are already out for all known religions, though, such as prophesies fulfilled and a flawless and consistent holy book. The Torah, Bible, and Qur'an are all internally contradictory and all of them make prophesies which have not come to pass in the time provided by the prophesy.

[Sophus]

To believe in Yahweh? Evolution would necessarily had to have been false, prayers would have to proved to be beneficial, God would have to be intervening in the universe still today  and "all things" would have to be "possible through God", meaning pious amputees could get new limbs. Also there would have had to be an overwhelming amount of historical evidence for Jesus' existence and his miracles, and the Bible would have to had been contradiction free. Yes I am speaking in paste tense because it is too late. Religion failed.

[hackenslash]

Actually, there is one thing that would convince me of the existence of the divine:

Nothing!

No, I really mean that. Show me nothing, and I'll be convinced. All I need to see is absolutely nothing, in a stable and unchanging state, and I will believe that your god exists. Of course, I'll still be an atheist, but there you go. I have no god, regardless of the actual existence of deities. Whatever god exists, it isn't mine, and I have no want or need of it.

Still, I'd be interested in seeing nothing, because that would really be something.

[Whirling Moat]

Peace....


How certain of a thing should one be before they cross the threshold of uncertainty and become a believer?  

If everyone sitting at a blackjack table in Vegas was dealt 21 at the same time in every Casino,  would there be any room to doubt that was an explanation beside chance?  Of course mathematically it is probable that such an event could occur, however would this probabilty alone justify rejecting the idea there MUST be another explanation...?