So you just died and...

[Sandra Craft]

But here we are talking about evidence again, which I still honestly doubt to be the real issue.

And frankly, I think that doubt that evidence is the real issue is a theist dodge around presenting "evidence" that isn't self-referential ("the bible says so") or based on unproven claims ("Jesus did whatever"). 

If there were evidence for the sort of god you're claiming exists, like there's evidence for the laws of physics, then I would accept the existence of this god the same way I accept the laws of physics.  Which is not to say that I would worship your god any more than I worship the laws of physics, but I would accept its existence.

[CAlden]

Yes, but...you do know that evolutionary theory is just about once life got started, right? If you're confusing abiogenesis (how life came from non life), cosmological evolution (how the universe came to be) and chemical evolution (how heavier elements came from lighter elements) with modern biological evolutionary theory you're bound to make a mess of things. Creationists use that tactic often - create a strawman of evolutionary theory, attack it and dismiss the strawman as ridiculous.

Yes, I am well aware of the differences. However, life coming from non-life and these other theories are really only speculation, are they not? Without a real explanation for the origins of the universe, none of your other theories or hypotheses even matter. Something has to be before it can evolve, be it elements or whatever. To quote my prof again, "There either has to be a self-existent designer or a self-existent nature." That's one of the primary reasons why I believe in God. There is no other explanation for how nothing could come from nothing other than by divine fiat. It was supernatural.

Also, and I know I'll take flack for this, but I believe the biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. For example, take the account in 1 Corinthians 15:6 where the Apostle Paul states that the resurrected Jesus appeared to more than five hundred people at once (most of whom were still living at the time of the letter). Who can honestly call five hundred people who saw the exact same thing liars? We believe countless other accounts of historical events. Why not this one? Those who have sought to discredit such accounts do not believe in the veracity of Scripture, so they permit themselves to disbelieve and discredit whatever they choose there. I understand that. They don't believe in God. Why would they trust the Bible? I disagree with them, but I understand that. And this really seems to be why atheists and theists constantly butt heads and can rarely even have a conversation about these issues--our starting points are completely opposite.

[xSilverPhinx]

Yes, but...you do know that evolutionary theory is just about once life got started, right? If you're confusing abiogenesis (how life came from non life), cosmological evolution (how the universe came to be) and chemical evolution (how heavier elements came from lighter elements) with modern biological evolutionary theory you're bound to make a mess of things. Creationists use that tactic often - create a strawman of evolutionary theory, attack it and dismiss the strawman as ridiculous.

Yes, I am well aware of the differences. However, life coming from non-life and these other theories are really only speculation, are they not? Without a real explanation for the origins of the universe, none of your other theories or hypotheses even matter. Something has to be before it can evolve, be it elements or whatever. To quote my prof again, "There either has to be a self-existent designer or a self-existent nature." That's one of the primary reasons why I believe in God. There is no other explanation for how nothing could come from nothing other than by divine fiat. It was supernatural.

Well, theory in science is a collection of facts. The word that in the colloquial context is eqivalent to hypothesis, and no evolutionary theory is not a hypothesis. It's actually quite solid. It's easy to falsify (show me a crocoduck and there's something wrong or missing in the theory) but has been confirmed by observation and experiment time and again. The pesky thing! Damn theory that won't falsify itself!

As for abiogenesis, there is no theory yet. As far as I know, just hypothesis still undergoing scientific experimentation and facts, but they haven't been joined into anything cohesive enough yet.  

Now you're going into cosmogeny, and there's no reason why the universe couldn't have always existed either. I know the universe exists, but that fact is not enough to take the leap of faith that is saying that if the universe exists, then a god must exist, much less one described in any sacred holy book...

Also, and I know I'll take flack for this, but I believe the biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. For example, take the account in 1 Corinthians 15:6 where the Apostle Paul states that the resurrected Jesus appeared to more than five hundred people at once (most of whom were still living at the time of the letter). Who can honestly call five hundred people who saw the exact same thing liars? We believe countless other accounts of historical events. Why not this one? Those who have sought to discredit such accounts do not believe in the veracity of Scripture, so they permit themselves to disbelieve and discredit whatever they choose there. I understand that. They don't believe in God. Why would they trust the Bible? I disagree with them, but I understand that. And this really seems to be why atheists and theists constantly butt heads and can rarely even have a conversation about these issues--our starting points are completely opposite.

I'll leave this to those who are more knowledgeable (plenty on this forum), but...the bible just isn't that convincing for reasons I'm too tired to go into now (it's almost 5 in the morning)

[Sandra Craft]

Yes, I am well aware of the differences. However, life coming from non-life and these other theories are really only speculation, are they not?

As are the biblical stories of creation.

"There either has to be a self-existent designer or a self-existent nature." That's one of the primary reasons why I believe in God.

So what's your reason for dismissing the possiblity of self-existent nature?

For example, take the account in 1 Corinthians 15:6 where the Apostle Paul states that the resurrected Jesus appeared to more than five hundred people at once (most of whom were still living at the time of the letter). Who can honestly call five hundred people who saw the exact same thing liars?

But we aren't calling 500 people liars, we're calling one person a liar -- Paul.  And maybe not even a liar, maybe just passing along a story he heard and believed which nevertheless was not true.  To quote Thomas Paine on miracles: "Which is more likely, that nature should go out of its course, or that a man should lie?"

[CAlden]

If there were evidence for the sort of god you're claiming exists, like there's evidence for the laws of physics, then I would accept the existence of this god the same way I accept the laws of physics.  Which is not to say that I would worship your god any more than I worship the laws of physics, but I would accept its existence.

In The Garden of Epicurus (p.176-177), the French atheist Anatole France said that a genuine atheist would not even call it a miracle if he/she witnessed the spontaneous restoration of an amputee's limb. France said that the atheist would still not be convinced and would attribute the event to some undetermined naturalistic conditions. So I do truly doubt what you claim with your request for evidence. Enough evidence for God's existence has been given.

The very last sentence of your post captures the essence of what I see to be the real issue in why so many atheists reject the existence of God. I really don't believe that the issue is a lack of evidence or superior intellect that makes belief in God an impossibility for an atheist or that atheists have such inner fortitude that it makes belief in God unnecessary. What appears to make belief in God an impossibility or unnecessary for many atheists is an aspiration or desire to subject God to his/her own standards, to force him to operate on his/her own terms. But what kind of god would that be? It wouldn't be a god at all. If your standards or my standards were those that God or the world had to live by, wouldn't we be drifting toward exalting ourselves as God? It sounds as though many of you believe that a real god and/or a good god would be a lot more like you than the God found in the Bible. I understand that. The same issue is at the root for all of us, theists and atheists. Human beings are naturally prideful in heart. We think more highly of ourselves that we should, and all too often it blinds us from our real needs and the truth.

[CAlden]

...I'm too tired to go into now (it's almost 5 in the morning)

Agreed. I have enjoyed to interaction. Good night all!

[Tom62]

In The Garden of Epicurus (p.176-177), the French atheist Anatole France said that a genuine atheist would not even call it a miracle if he/she witnessed the spontaneous restoration of an amputee's limb. France said that the atheist would still not be convinced and would attribute the event to some undetermined naturalistic conditions. So I do truly doubt what you claim with your request for evidence. Enough evidence for God's existence has been given.

If I'd see a miracle then my first reactions would be "Wow, is this real?" and "How is that done?", because lots of the so called miracles fall in the categories of parlor tricks, optical illusions or plain fraud, etc. When I can't figure that miracle out (like in a case of spontaneous restoration of an amputee's limb) then I would like to know who done it. If that person, creature of whatever doesn't present it/him/herself then I cannot be sure that the miracle comes from the God of the Bible, or Q of Startrek TNG, or Wotan, or Shiva, or IT, or, or....

[Sandra Craft]

In The Garden of Epicurus (p.176-177), the French atheist Anatole France said that a genuine atheist would not even call it a miracle if he/she witnessed the spontaneous restoration of an amputee's limb. France said that the atheist would still not be convinced and would attribute the event to some undetermined naturalistic conditions. So I do truly doubt what you claim with your request for evidence. Enough evidence for God's existence has been given.

If by evidence of god's existence you mean suppositions based on a desire for a god of some kind to exist, then yes.  Actual evidence, however, no -- unless you'd like to call the laws of physics god, and some people do (Einstein among them), in which case there is plenty of evidence and I believe in that god.  Any other kind of god tho, you've still got a lot of work to do to provide proof.

And you know, I think it's interesting that you and Mr. France should use an example that has never ever come close to happening, so that you can't be disproven in your assumptions.

The very last sentence of your post captures the essence of what I see to be the real issue in why so many atheists reject the existence of God. I really don't believe that the issue is a lack of evidence or superior intellect that makes belief in God an impossibility for an atheist or that atheists have such inner fortitude that it makes belief in God unnecessary. What appears to make belief in God an impossibility or unnecessary for many atheists is an aspiration or desire to subject God to his/her own standards, to force him to operate on his/her own terms. But what kind of god would that be? It wouldn't be a god at all. If your standards or my standards were those that God or the world had to live by, wouldn't we be drifting toward exalting ourselves as God? It sounds as though many of you believe that a real god and/or a good god would be a lot more like you than the God found in the Bible. I understand that. The same issue is at the root for all of us, theists and atheists. Human beings are naturally prideful in heart. We think more highly of ourselves that we should, and all too often it blinds us from our real needs and the truth.

What does "superior intellect" or "inner fortitude", or assumptions that we atheists think we have a lot of that, have to do with the laws of physics being easily provable?  I don't accept the existence of a god such as you and most other Xtians propose because I see no evidence for the existence of such a being, any more than I see evidence for the existence of Odin, Kwan Yin, Trickster Coyote, etc.  That's the first problem, proof of existence for your god.

On to the second problem, deciding whether or not to worship this god if it can be proven to exist.  I think what many here have suggested is not that the Xtian god, to be worthy of worship, should be as good as us but better than us.  That doesn't seem to me a great deal to expect of a god, and the god presented by Xtians really falls very far short of that.  Would you seriously consider worshipping a god you considered morally inferior to yourself -- Zeus, for instance?  Just for the sake of argument, if Zeus were proven to exist would you really worship a being that was, let's be honest, that much of an asshole?

[Tank]

I don't deny natural selection necessarily. I recently heard a professor of mine say, "Natural Selection can explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest." He's right. Scientists can and will speculate to no end about how the earth and the universe came to be, but with a naturalistic and intentionally limited perspective they will never have a solid answer for the origins.

He's not right. NS does explain the 'arrival of the fittest' even the language used is ambiguous and abused. And he's not a professor of biology either is he?

At any given point in the evolution of a gene pool there will be a range of physical/behavioural characteristics across the population. Some of these combinations will be best suited to the environment the organism currently occupies. However some of these combinations will suit an adjacent environment better. Consider a mountain range with its base at sea level and its peaks above the snow line. This is a perfect evolutionary environment with continuous variation in habitats based on rainfall and temperature. So plants and animals better suited to wetter/drier and hotter/colder conditions will appear and in due course speciate. Sorry your 'Professor' hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.

The naturalistic view is not limited, except by the requirement for evidence, believing in something without evidence is meaningless wishful thinking.

[Tank]

Regarding Paul's letter. While Paul may claim to have seen something and sent a letter about it, his testimony is that of a witness, while those who read the letter and repeated it would be considered 'hear say'. They are simply repeating what they have read/heard. Witness testimony is permitted in a court of law while 'hear say' is not. The 500 people are irrelevant, only Paul's testimony would be valid for presentation in a court of law. And then what Paul said he saw would have to be assessed by the jury. Now, if today I said I had seen a dead man get up and walk around, but could provide no physical corroborative evidence, would you believe me? If the answer to that is 'no' then you have no reason to believe Paul's testimony either do you?

[xSilverPhinx]

I'm going to use the amputee example because it's a good one.

Actually if I saw an amputee spontaneously regenerate a whole functional limb, it would certainly peak my interest, and I think I'm safe in saying that it would do the same to most other atheists. Assuming it was proven that it was not some sort of trick, then even more. I would first look for naturalistic explanations because, so far in my experience, those are the ones with higher chances of working in explaining what goes on in the natural world. Ruling out all known possible answers, then I would seriously contemplate what could've caused that.

Now, to go from that to there being someone capable of manipulating biology like that, a conscious and intelligent god, isn't easy, especially if there isn't a good evidential link. It has nothing to do with pride, my standards of evidence are much higher for things that I haven't seen any reason for in my experience so far. You would have an equally high standard if i came to you claiming that I had a dragon in my garage (to use Carl Sagan's example, in his book Demon Haunted World). If I told you that you didn't accept my 'evidence' because you're too proud, you would find that very silly, to be sure.

Step two. Supposing I, after much contemplation, reached the conclusion that I believed in a god or gods. Next step would be to determine which god or gods. The one culturally prevalent? There's just as much evidence for one as there is for any other...

As for Paul, Tank practically nailed it. A combination of circular reasoning with the account of someone claiming to have been an eye witness. Yeah...

[Sandra Craft]

Actually if I saw an amputee spontaneously regenerate a whole functional limb, it would certainly peak my interest, and I think I'm safe in saying that it would do the same to most other atheists. Assuming it was proven that it was not some sort of trick, then even more. I would first look for naturalistic explanations because, so far in my experience, those are the ones with higher chances of working in explaining what goes on in the natural world.

Isn't that also what the Catholic Church does when someone claims a miracle, before they agree that it is one?  Not sure why atheists should be less skeptical than the Catholic Church.

[Too Few Lions]

Actually many ancients did know that the earth wasn't flat. In the Bible, Isaiah 40:22 speaks of God "sitting above the circle of the earth." Most intelligent people recognize that there is much we can learn from the ancients of cultures worldwide. We really owe much to their genius.

You obviously don't know the difference between a circle and a sphere. A circle is flat, like a plate, and that is what is referred to in Isaiah. The whole verse reads;

'He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.'

the heavens spread out like a canopy or tent over a flat circular Earth.  

The Greeks were the first people to realise that the earth was spherical, they were far more advanced in their knowledge of the universe than the Jews or Christians. Indeed early Christians rejected the idea of the Earth being spherical because it was considered a pagan Greek idea, therefore something inspired by devils and not 'God'. Plus the Bible stated it was flat, hence we still had medieval Christians believing the earth was flat 1500 years after the Greeks had first realised it was spherical!

Enough evidence for God's existence has been given.

Really, if your god or any other existed, all they would have to do is appear to us all tomorrow and then there'd be no doubts. Pretty simple really, and far easier than playing some pathetic little game of hide and seek. I get the feeling that if your god exists, he doesn't want us to believe in him! All you've provided as 'evidence' could equally apply to Zeus, Mithras, Asclepius, Krishna or any other number of deities. Do you also believe that they exist?

Also, and I know I'll take flack for this, but I believe the biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. For example, take the account in 1 Corinthians 15:6 where the Apostle Paul states that the resurrected Jesus appeared to more than five hundred people at once (most of whom were still living at the time of the letter). Who can honestly call five hundred people who saw the exact same thing liars? We believe countless other accounts of historical events.

Maybe you could argue this if we had testimony from 500 different individuals claiming they'd seen the resurrected Christ, but we don't. What we have is a Christian propagandist making something up, and claiming that 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus, which is something wholly different. This doesn't appear in the gospels, which suggests it's a fabrication wholly of Paul's making, and Paul was prone to making things up in his letters.

[xSilverPhinx]

Actually if I saw an amputee spontaneously regenerate a whole functional limb, it would certainly peak my interest, and I think I'm safe in saying that it would do the same to most other atheists. Assuming it was proven that it was not some sort of trick, then even more. I would first look for naturalistic explanations because, so far in my experience, those are the ones with higher chances of working in explaining what goes on in the natural world.

Isn't that also what the Catholic Church does when someone claims a miracle, before they agree that it is one?  Not sure why atheists should be less skeptical than the Catholic Church.

Yes, and they're wise to do so, I'll give them that

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Maybe you could argue this if we had testimony from 500 different individuals claiming they'd seen the resurrected Christ, but we don't. What we have is a Christian propagandist making something up, and claiming that 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus, which is something wholly different. This doesn't appear in the gospels, which suggests it's a fabrication wholly of Paul's making, and Paul was prone to making things up in his letters.

Actually, since Paul wrote first, it suggests that the gospels just neglected to mention the 500.  Allusions to the 500 might be found in Matthew's account of disciples seeing Jesus in Galilee, but it's unclear.  Paul wrote earlier than the gospels, so he might have mentioned the 500 since most of them were still alive.  This might not have been the case when the gospels were written.