NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, atheists, agnostics, secularists, and nonbelievers of all sorts:

What would it take? What would have to occur for you to believe in God/god/gods?


And for the believers (so you guys don't feel left out):

What did it take? What occured that lead to your belief in God/god/gods? What do you think it should take to convince nonbelievers?

EDIT: In the interests of clarity on this topic, God/god/gods refer to a being or beings, not the sort of "God" described by Einstein, the amorphous "God-force" concept, or the "god is everything" model. For the sake of this discussion, God is not a state of mind, a feeling or set of feelings in a human being, the sound of a baby's laughter, et cetera.

Okay, atheists, agnostics, secularists, and nonbelievers of all sorts:

What would it take? What would have to occur for you to believe in God/god/gods?


And for the believers (so you guys don't feel left out):

What did it take? What occured that lead to your belief in God/god/gods? What do you think it should take to convince nonbelievers?
Immortality

I think a tornado, mysterious fireball, giant hailstone, glowing crucifix/other religious symbol falling from the sky and earthquake all inexplicably occuring within a 4 hour timeframe and centered upon my house would probably do the trick. No promises, though.

Not much probably. If I did believe in a god (which occasionally I almost lean towards) it wouldn't be any of the ones on offer from any religion I've seen so far.

I think a tornado, mysterious fireball, giant hailstone, glowing crucifix/other religious symbol falling from the sky and earthquake all inexplicably occuring within a 4 hour timeframe and centered upon my house would probably do the trick. No promises, though.

Yeah pretty much that. In keeping with my Hindu upbringing it would have to a be Shiva, stoned, riding a bull past my window or something...

And if I thought I heard god speaking to me I'd just assume I was going crazy, so that ain't gonna work. :p

Immortality

Wittngenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus:

6.4312 ... Is a riddle solved by the fact that I survive for ever? Is this eternal life not as enigmatic as our present one? The solution of the riddle of life in space and time lies outside space and time.

Yeah pretty much that. In keeping with my Hindu upbringing it would have to a be Shiva, stoned, riding a bull past my window or something...

That would be so cool. But i'd probably wonder what the hell I took the night before instead of believing in a God/Gods :p

Not much probably. If I did believe in a god (which occasionally I almost lean towards) it wouldn't be any of the ones on offer from any religion I've seen so far.
but that's the point of this question:

what would it take to get you to believe in a God? would that being have to show that it lines up with your proconceived notion of what God is or should be? or is there evidence that could convince you that one of the Gods you don't like is actually real?

seeing God with my own eyes would do it.

seeing God with my own eyes would do it.
how would you recognize God?

I'm an agnostic, and I refuse to accept any proof in this life as authentic. I'll believe in the supernatural if I'm dead and still have consciousness. Anything before that can be faked.

Nothing would make me believe in a deity, I know they don't exist, that's what being atheist is all about.

By this point, it would take something extremely obvious and blatant...

As in, seeing the sky on fire, with giant letters writing out a message to me from God...

Heck, I bet I could even write that off with some explanation...

So basically, it would take a face to face meeting with the guy, on His turf...

I'm an agnostic, and I refuse to accept any proof in this life as authentic. I'll believe in the supernatural if I'm dead and still have consciousness. Anything before that can be faked.

Surely, if we invoke Clarke's third law, then the condition of apparently being dead and maintaining consciousness can also be faked?

I'll believe in the supernatural if I'm dead and still have consciousness. Anything before that can be faked.
hope you aren't offended by this question, but have you ever experimented with PCP, or known somebody who has? i've never used it (i'm terrified of the stuff) but i knew a kid who used to take it; he said PCP would make him feel like he was already dead, but was still moving around through the world.

if there is a chemical way to convince a person they are already dead, while still having them be quite alive and active, would that change your standard for what it would take for you to believe in the supernatural?

but that's the point of this question:

what would it take to get you to believe in a God? would that being have to show that it lines up with your proconceived notion of what God is or should be? or is there evidence that could convince you that one of the Gods you don't like is actually real?

I could be convinced of the latter perhaps. It would probably take an appearence by said god or apocalypse-style event to make it happen. Saying that 'science can't explain this' is nowhere near enough. 600 years ago we thought the world was flat. 200 years ago we thought leaches cured everything. 70 years ago we thought smoking was safe.

600 years ago we thought the world was flat.

Here we go again... no we didn't. Eratosthenes had even measured the size of the Earth in about 200BC.

a miracle :(

Here we go again... no we didn't. Eratosthenes had even measured the size of the Earth in about 200BC.
i think it depends on who you define as "we." for example, the majority of living humans in Europe during the Dark Ages believed the world was flat (according to what pitiful information we have from that period), but the majority of EDUCATED human beings in Europe knew that it could be demonstrated to be round.

Here we go again... no we didn't. Eratosthenes had even measured the size of the Earth in about 200BC.

How come it wasn't common knowledge when the first voyages from Europe to the Americas happened? I'm not disputing what you said, I have heard of stories about people who had theories about the world that were very close to the truth, however I'm simply asking.

Ahhh, good question... How would one be able to recognize God as being God?

Well, that's up to God to figure out...lol If He's anything like they say He is, He shouldn't have any problem...

I suppose He would have to show me something that only God can do... How do I know what that is? I suppose I'd only know it if I saw it...

a miracle :(

You're the man, FC.

I suppose He would have to show me something that only God can do...
interesting notion; you cannot know what proof you might need, but God would know...i'm going to have to let that spin around in my head for a bit.

A personal appearance.

You're the man, FC.
lol its not one of my best

How come it wasn't common knowledge when the first voyages from Europe to the Americas happened? I'm not disputing what you said, I have heard of stories about people who had theories about the world that were very close to the truth, however I'm simply asking.

The issue at stake when Columbus sailed to the Americas was not whether the world was a sphere or not, instead the debate was over how large a one it was - Columbus believed he had proved it to be a certain size because he believed he had sailed to the eastern fringes of Asia.

It was common knowledge: the Catholic church themselves taught of a spheroid Earth throughout all the middle-ages. It wasn't the case that 'spheroid' believers were the minority or weren't widely believed, in fact the reverse is true - that those who believed in a flat earth had little following, and even then that was mostly in the first millenia in Europe.

several people have stated that they would need God to appear personally in order to believe in him, and so my question to them is:

how would you recognize God? how would you know the being appearing before you was God? how would you distinguish God from some other extremely powerful being? or even from some other non-powerful but very manipulative being?

after all, i can shake your hand and inform you that i am God, but that personal encounter will (probably) not satisfy you. so what would i have to do to convince you that i am God? clearly, a personal encounter ALONE is not sufficient.

Okay, atheists, agnostics, secularists, and nonbelievers of all sorts: What would it take? What would have to occur for you to believe in God/god/gods?Personal encounter, of course.

The issue at stake when Columbus sailed to the Americas was not whether the world was a sphere or not, instead the debate was over how large a one it was - Columbus believed he had proved it to be a certain size because he believed he had sailed to the eastern fringes of Asia.

It was common knowledge: the Catholic church themselves taught of a spheroid Earth throughout all the middle-ages. It wasn't the case that 'spheroid' believers were the minority or weren't widely believed, in fact the reverse is true - that those who believed in a flat earth had little following, and even then that was mostly in the first millenia in Europe.

After promsing the spanish royal family great riches, slavery, corruption, collumbus day etcetcetc. Touche, anyway. The point I was making first up still stands, though. There are some things science can't explain, but there have always been things science couldn't explain that it can now.

several people have stated that they would need God to appear personally in order to believe in him, and so my question to them is:

how would you recognize God? how would you know the being appearing before you was God? how would you distinguish God from some other extremely powerful being? or even from some other non-powerful but very manipulative being?

after all, i can shake your hand and inform you that i am God, but that personal encounter will (probably) not satisfy you. so what would i have to do to convince you that i am God? clearly, a personal encounter ALONE is not sufficient.

"Hey, I'm god."
"no you're not"
"see that mountain?"
"yeah.."
*mountain blows up*
"I see. Hello God"



maybe :(

"Hey, I'm god."
"no you're not"
"see that mountain?"
"yeah.."
*mountain blows up*
"I see. Hello God"



maybe :(
a fairly stupid and powerless being can level a mountain, with the help of carefully placed explosives.

of course, if some nutter walked up to me, told me he was God, and blew up a mountain, i would probably start calling him God anyhow...i mean, who wants to mess with that kind of weirdo?

If he came round for tea, that would be just delightful!

We'd have fairy cakes, and tea, and then we could talk about my future...

What did it take? What occured that lead to your belief in God/god/gods? What do you think it should take to convince nonbelievers?

Proof. That's what it took me. Simple proof.

Absolutely nothing. Stupid question, there is no god!

As Arthur C Clarke once said, technology sufficiently advanced would be inseparable from magic.

Therefore any miracle could be the act of unknown technology.

So say if a 'miracle' did occur I'd more likely believe in highly advanced aliens than a god.

After all, aliens if they exist would have evolved, like us, so the question to the origin of life and the universe still stays the same.

If you believe in a god you've still got to ask yourself, where did god come from. What was there before this god and the universe. Belief in god solves nothing.

Proof. That's what it took me. Simple proof.
that is a pretty poor answer. please specify.

a fairly stupid and powerless being can level a mountain, with the help of carefully placed explosives.

of course, if some nutter walked up to me, told me he was God, and blew up a mountain, i would probably start calling him God anyhow...i mean, who wants to mess with that kind of weirdo?

Hm, I guess. Maybe I should change it to 'mountain disolves in a pink mist and is replaced by a starbucks'.

I guess the best way for me to believe in God, would be to have my memory erased or to be druged and then have it drilled into me straight away that there was a god.

Hm, I guess. Maybe I should change it to 'mountain disolves in a pink mist and is replaced by a starbucks'.
wouldn't that constitute proof that the being in question is actually the Devil?

I guess the best way for me to believe in God, would be to have my memory erased or to be druged and then have it drilled into me straight away that there was a god.
and now we enter the philosophical muddle...would you still be YOU, if that were to happen?

The point I was making first up still stands, though. There are some things science can't explain, but there have always been things science couldn't explain that it can now.

Indeed, the post is incorrect only in so far as the amount of years you stated. Sorry about this, but it is just a hobby-horse of mine. I have bashed it out in detail several times and don't really have the energy right now to keep raking over it all.

Examples of my earlier rants on this subject can be found here, for example...
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6690122&postcount=27


Anyhow, your point remains.

wouldn't that constitute proof that the being in question is actually the Devil?

and now we enter the philosophical muddle...would you still be YOU, if that were to happen?


Define what the devil is.

...

Well it would still be my physically and legally and in this modern age that's what counts.

Define what the devil is.

anything that would make a perfectly nice mountain into a Starbucks has got to be some kind of evil.


Well it would still be my physically and legally and in this modern age that's what counts.
ok. for me, that's not enough, but if you would be satisfied then you have answered my question.

More tea god?

*pours tea and hands over delightful pink Tea cake*

Okay, atheists, agnostics, secularists, and nonbelievers of all sorts:

What would it take? What would have to occur for you to believe in God/god/gods?

If he existed he would know.. and if he wanted me to believe in him he would do it. That leaves me with one of two options.

1. He doesn't exist.
2. He does exist but doesn't want me to believe in him, and who am I to argue the issue with an omnipotent being?

But, if you really want an example... he could bloody well at least stop by and say 'hi' and introduce himself. I don't think that's asking for too much exertion from someone(thing) that supposedly created an entire universe through an act of will. I issued an open invitation to any all-powerful deity types quite a few years ago to pop in any time they wanted a convert, I'm quite sure they would be able to have some kind of convincing ID on them when they did. Invitation's still open...

Nobody's taken me up on the offer. Surprise, surprise.

anything that would make a perfectly nice mountain into a Starbucks has got to be some kind of evil.


ok. for me, that's not enough, but if you would be satisfied then you have answered my question.

Sorry, my brain goes funny when I start thinking about these things too hard.
:( Its like when I think about how if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? What its expanding into doesn't exist until the universe expands into it and arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggg my mind..

For the skies to open up and see him/her/it come floating down on a surf board playing "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" by the Rolling Stones. Oh, and curing Cancer in a day! I still may have my doubts, but it would be a start.

For the skies to open up and see him/her/it come floating down on a surf board playing "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" by the Rolling Stones. Oh, and curing Cancer in a day! I still may have my doubts, but it would be a start.
I dunno, I think god would be more of a "Jumping Jack Flash" kinda guy myself. :p

I dunno, I think god would be more of a "Jumping Jack Flash" kinda guy myself. :p
i always envisioned some keen pyrotechnics and an ear-shattering rendition of "Rock You Like A Hurricane."

If someone could give me his phone number, and then he could explain all the various inconsistencies in Christianity AND explain on paper the Grand Unified Theory (TM) then I'd be pretty impressed. As it stands, theres too much crap going on in the world and too many flaws in Christianity or any other major religion for me to hold theview that there is a God; even if there is one, he isn't deserving of my gratitude, or anyone else's.

that is a pretty poor answer. please specify.

I can't. The proof is personal and different for everybody. However, that doesn't make it any less proof. Faith, whether you like it or not, is a form of evidence.

You asked for an answer, you got one. Now, if you don't like the answer, I'm sorry, but that's my answer: Proof.

I think God is a relative term, I believe in a creator. I came to this conclusion through reason. More information can always come that I may change my belief.

When boiling down existence to its base a few things rise to the surface.

Eternity exists either in the form of a creator or God or that elements and matter are eternal or both are eternal and have always existed.

Something sprang from nothing.

I hold to the eternity theory and I happen to think that a creator and elements have always existed. The creator simply put things in motion so to speak. I think people want to "humanize" God when it may be that it may be nothing like us at all.

The creator may be an energy force and not the "personal god" told about in the bible.

I think through reason and intuition combined more "mysteries" will unfold.

At this time there are many things not known by man but eventually through reason man will figure out many things.

I cannot prove a creator exists the same as someone cannot prove it does not.

Matter cannot be destroyed or created so I think that we as humans are no different we will go on perhaps changed?

I can't. The proof is personal and different for everybody. However, that doesn't make it any less proof. Faith, whether you like it or not, is a form of evidence.

You asked for an answer, you got one. Now, if you don't like the answer, I'm sorry, but that's my answer: Proof.

How is faith evidence of anything? People had faith in the existence of phlogiston and the earth's flatness; the fact they had faith is not evidence for either supposition's veracity, and I can't see why the existence of an unproven and theoretical omnipotent deity is any different.

The major world religions getting together and actually doing something with their combined ridiculous wealth to alleviate suffering and misery.

Either that or direct and explicit intervention in my life by a God.

Faith, whether you like it or not, is a form of evidence..

Seriously, no it's not.

How is faith evidence of anything?

Evidence:
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign.
3. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

Faith:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance
4. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

While it may not hold up in a court of law, the Universe is not a court of law. Faith is a form of evidence and, thus, is a form of proof.

Proof:
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

Keruvalia, I'd re-read your Faith point 2) if I were you.

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

I.e. Faith is not proof or evidence.

Proof:
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

So what are you saying? Because for generation after generation people have been socially conditioned into believing what the generation before did, this blind faith is evidence? That's a stretch, a huge stretch in my opinion. I also think it's a little manipulative.

Keruvalia, I'd re-read your Faith point 2) if I were you.

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

I.e. Faith is not proof or evidence.

Some proof is illogical, such as proving you love your mother, but nobody would dispute that you love your mother.

Some evidence does not require the material, such as if I were to say I have a voice. You don't know, you have no material evidence, but you have no reason not to believe it.

So what are you saying? Because for generation after generation people have been socially conditioned into believing what the generation before did, this blind faith is evidence? That's a stretch, a huge stretch in my opinion. I also think it's a little manipulative.


I didn't say anything about blind faith, I just said faith. Blind faith is a whole different thing and is best reserved for small children and animals. I have faith that you love Zeppistan, but you could never prove it in any material or logical way.

Some proof is illogical, such as proving you love your mother, but nobody would dispute that you love your mother.

Ah, but I know my mother exists. ;)

I dunno, I think god would be more of a "Jumping Jack Flash" kinda guy myself. :p

Hmmm, if God were a Stones fan, I think he'd be into "Sympathy for the Devil"...

I didn't say anything about blind faith, I just said faith. Blind faith is a whole different thing and is best reserved for small children and animals. I have faith that you love Zeppistan, but you could never prove it in any material or logical way.

Well a belief in any God is blind faith. Because there is nothing to prove that God even exists.

However I can prove I love Zeppistan in my actions and we can prove that Zeppistan exists.

I don't agree with your reasoning.

Set your phasers to "smite."

*Smites thee*

Ah, but I know my mother exists. ;)

Incidental. We're not talking about proving your mother exists, we're talking about proving you love her. We all know she exists - even without material evidence.

Well a belief in any God is blind faith. Because there is nothing to prove that God even exists.

However I can prove I love Zeppistan in my actions and we can prove that Zeppistan exists.

I don't agree with your reasoning.

Keruvalia can prove that he has faith in God, by his actions. And, no, you can not actually prove that Zeppistan exists.

You can only prove that you believe that he exists.

Okay, atheists, agnostics, secularists, and nonbelievers of all sorts:

What would it take? What would have to occur for you to believe in God/god/gods?


And for the believers (so you guys don't feel left out):

What did it take? What occured that lead to your belief in God/god/gods? What do you think it should take to convince nonbelievers?

absolute proof or positive evidence that isn't just foolish and illogical.

Well a belief in any God is blind faith. Because there is nothing to prove that God even exists.

That's an opinion. There is a lot of proof of the exitence of God, but none of it would hold up in court. Then again, any proof you could give on these forums of your mother's existence would not hold up in a court of law.

However I can prove I love Zeppistan in my actions and we can prove that Zeppistan exists.

You can prove it to him in your actions, yes, easily enough. Proving it to the outside world is something else all together. Those of us who don't rely so heavily on imperical evidence, though, have no problem believing you love him. However, there is no actual imperical evidence of Love. It is an unseen emotion that cannot be isolated scientifically or quantified in a lab.

Yet ... to those who feel it and know it is there, Love is real. Now ... go ask a self-denegrating goth teenager if Love is real. They will sound to you much like Atheists sound to me when it comes to God.

I don't agree with your reasoning.

That's ok. You're not required to. :)

I can't. The proof is personal and different for everybody. However, that doesn't make it any less proof. Faith, whether you like it or not, is a form of evidence.

If the proof is personal and different for everybody, then how is your internal proof any better than that possessed by, for example, Peter Sutcliffe?

Okay, atheists, agnostics, secularists, and nonbelievers of all sorts:

What would it take? What would have to occur for you to believe in God/god/gods?


It would probably take something along the line of a god/gods appearing at my desk and apologising for the constant uninvited spamming/doorstopping/evangelising of their followers.

If the proof is personal and different for everybody, then how is your internal proof any better than that possessed by, for example, Peter Sutcliffe?

I wouldn't know. There's no lab for such experimentation except for the prattlings of philosophy majors in smoke-filled university basements. All indications, though, by looking at every major religious text ever written, is that willy-nilly slaughtering random people is quite wrong.

If the proof is personal and different for everybody, then how is your internal proof any better than that possessed by, for example, Peter Sutcliffe?

Technically it isn't. But how is your internal proof that there is a reality out there any better than that possessed by the Yorkshire Ripper. It isn't either. What matters is how your faith affects your actions. Here, I would like to believe, there is a considerable difference between yourself and Keruvalia on one side and Peter Sutcliffe on the other.

I wouldn't know. There's no lab for such experimentation except for the prattlings of philosophy majors in smoke-filled university basements. All indications, though, by looking at every major religious text ever written, is that willy-nilly slaughtering random people is quite wrong.

It is however not only okay, but actually a good thing, to be prepared to slaughter your own son, yes?

It is however not only okay, but actually a good thing, to be prepared to slaughter your own son, yes?

No ... not at all. Why would you ask?

No ... not at all. Why would you ask?

Chap called Abraham. Ring any bells?

Q: What would it take for you to believe in God?
A: A lobotomy

Chap called Abraham. Ring any bells?
Isn't he from one of those old middle-eastern works of fiction and plagiarism?

Isn't he from one of those old middle-eastern works of fiction and plagiarism?

Now, now, lets at least keep a modicum of respectfulness.

The truths that we hold require no further proof than our belief, or faith in them to be true...

Simply believing something, for whatever reason, and based on whatever evidence, is proof enough...

The caveat here is that this undeniable proof only applies in our own minds... It is meaningless to anyone else... And if it is shared by someone else, then that is because they have their own "copy"... Our proof is not their proof, even if the two are the same concept...

Basically, we believe what we believe for our own reasons, and nothing more, even if those reasons match those of someone else, and even if they are completely unique to us...

Even an opinion is as good as fact in the mind of the one that holds it... Otherwise, that person would not hold that opinion...

So yes, faith is as good as proof... But again, it is only valid proof to the person who holds it... It is meaningless to everyone else...

I think this difference is where Stephistan and Keruvalia are not seeing eye to eye... She's looking for proof that can be given to others, Keruvalia is speaking of his own, personal proof...

Chap called Abraham. Ring any bells?

It's quite simple.

It's ok to kill people if God told you to do it, but it isn't ok to kill people if you only think that God told you to do it.

;)

I will start caring whether or God exists when it starts to make any difference to anything.

Oh and while we're on the subject of sending our sons to the slaughter, didn't God do that too?

absolute proof or positive evidence that isn't just foolish and illogical.

since noone seems to be able to provide that i guess i won't be believing in a god(or possibly many). i do believe in nature spirits though.

Q: What would it take for you to believe in God?
A: A lobotomy


LMAO

Oh and while we're on the subject of sending our sons to the slaughter, didn't God do that too?

Well - Jesus had a choice.

Chap called Abraham. Ring any bells?

I see no indication that either A) Abraham was prepared for such an event or B) that God has ever asked anyone except Abraham to do such a thing.

another question, i'm not shure if it's already been asked in this thread
what would it take for theists not to believe in god?

what would it take for theists not to believe in god?

A lobotomy. :D

The truths that we hold require no further proof than our belief, or faith in them to be true...

Simply believing something, for whatever reason, and based on whatever evidence, is proof enough...

The caveat here is that this undeniable proof only applies in our own minds... It is meaningless to anyone else... And if it is shared by someone else, then that is because they have their own "copy"... Our proof is not their proof, even if the two are the same concept...



If you can't distinguish between faith and proof, I wouldn't like to be a passenger in your car. All of the above is new-age crystally waffle with no actual substance.


Basically, we believe what we believe for our own reasons, and nothing more, even if those reasons match those of someone else, and even if they are completely unique to us...

My thoughts are in my head and not in anyone else's head. well pointed out.


Even an opinion is as good as fact in the mind of the one that holds it... Otherwise, that person would not hold that opinion...


If you can't distinguish between opinion and fact you must have a hard time voting. I know which of my beliefs are opinions.


So yes, faith is as good as proof... But again, it is only valid proof to the person who holds it... It is meaningless to everyone else...


very lamaistic but not very helpful. faith is as good as proof to those people for whom faith is as good as proof. And you know what, tall people are tall.


I think this difference is where Stephistan and Keruvalia are not seeing eye to eye... She's looking for proof that can be given to others, Keruvalia is speaking of his own, personal proof...

Well spotted. Proof is shared experience, faith is personal experience. Some people think their personal experience is proof enough. Which is why Peter Sutcliffe is dead right when he claims that god told him to murder whores.

A lobotomy. :D

hahahhahahahahaha! so everyone's just stuck on their views, heh?

I see no indication that either A) Abraham was prepared for such an event or B) that God has ever asked anyone except Abraham to do such a thing.

As far as A goes:

KJV: Genesis 22:9
And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

KJV: Genesis 22:10
And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

As far as B goes: one of the imponderables there, but we certainly have people who believe strongly that they have been told by God to do such things (frex, Sutcliffe).

hahahhahahahahaha! so everyone's just stuck on their views, heh?

Nah ... just a harmelss poke at an earlier response in the thread.

As far as A goes:

KJV: Genesis 22:9
And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

KJV: Genesis 22:10
And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.


Mmkay ... I meant prepared as in Abraham saying to himself when his son was born, "Alright, Abby (he called himself Abby), I have a son now. I best be prepared to slaughter him at any possible moment!"

As far as B goes: one of the imponderables there, but we certainly have people who believe strongly that they have been told by God to do such things (frex, Sutcliffe).

Difference: God stopped Abraham.

Nah ... just a harmelss poke at an earlier response in the thread.

i ment that in both atheists and theists require a lobotomy, so everyone must be stuck on their views.

i ment that in both atheists and theists require a lobotomy, so everyone must be stuck on their views.

Maybe we should all just be lobotomized. :D

Or ... maybe we already have been .... :shiftyeyedemoticonthingy:

Now, now, lets at least keep a modicum of respectfulness.

How was I not respectful?
The whole point of this thread is that it was asking what it would take to make us non-believers into believers, ie: people who might view religious texts as fiction.

The bible is full of plagiarisations of work previously written in Hebrew and Aramaic texts, even biblical scholars are normally prepared to admit to that...

My laughing my arse off at the lobotomy post might be more disrespectful.

Mmkay ... I meant prepared as in Abraham saying to himself when his son was born, "Alright, Abby (he called himself Abby), I have a son now. I best be prepared to slaughter him at any possible moment!"

True, I would think, but pretty much irrelevant unless I am missing something.



Difference: God stopped Abraham.

Definitely, but Abraham had no indication that his hand would be stayed, and so we see that he was apparently prepared to carry out the sacrifice if there was no intervention.

Okay, atheists, agnostics, secularists, and nonbelievers of all sorts:

What would it take? What would have to occur for you to believe in God/god/gods?


And for the believers (so you guys don't feel left out):

What did it take? What occured that lead to your belief in God/god/gods? What do you think it should take to convince nonbelievers?

If started going to church, reading the bible with the pre-fixed idea that it's god's writing, started hanging out with religious nuts and tried really really hard to convince myself that, contrary to all evidence, there is a god... Then I would probably start believing in god.

True, I would think, but pretty much irrelevant unless I am missing something.

Possibly. I don't know. Honestly, for this part of it, we'd probably have to go back and define "prepared".

Definitely, but Abraham had no indication that his hand would be stayed, and so we see that he was apparently prepared to carry out the sacrifice if there was no intervention.

Oh there's always indication. Since you're using KJV, so will I.

Gen 21:12-13 "And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed. "

This was before the incident at Moriah, hence, Abraham knew that through both of his sons great nations would arise. So, obviously, Abraham would have known that God would allow no harm to befall either Isaac or Ishmael.

What would it take to make be beleave in a god? If a god would come dirrectly to me and we have a chat. I don't much care for this blind faith or flaming bush stuff. Now, the christian god is a relatively new god on the block. There have been many other gods and godesses worshiped before this one.

Difference: God stopped Abraham.

The OT is full of people that God didn't stop from killing people. Aren't there bings of jewish armies? like with david and jonathon, and the battle of jericho, and poor lil goliath getting a stone in his head etc?

And hasn't just about every war with white people in it since about 500AD had at least one side that thought god was on it?

If you can't distinguish between faith and proof, I wouldn't like to be a passenger in your car. All of the above is new-age crystally waffle with no actual substance.

So go ahead, prove something other than an abstract logical or mathematical theorem. Oh and it had better not have any belief based assumptions in it.
What is the difference in practical terms?


If you can't distinguish between opinion and fact you must have a hard time voting. I know which of my beliefs are opinions.

Really? And the other beliefs are not opinions? They are factual beliefs? Actually I agree with this, facts are just beliefs, but I doubt that you do.


Well spotted. Proof is shared experience, faith is personal experience. Some people think their personal experience is proof enough. Which is why Peter Sutcliffe is dead right when he claims that god told him to murder whores.

I have yet to share someone elses experience. I may be limited or deficient in some way, but all my experiences to date have been purely and exclusively mine.

As I stated above, Peter Sutcliffe was shown to be wrong by his actions. He was right, for him, when he said God told him to murder prostitutes. His actions were not right by societies standards, nor by religious ones.

You can not prove anything, let alone God existing.
Coda: I am an atheist

Possibly. I don't know. Honestly, for this part of it, we'd probably have to go back and define "prepared".



Oh there's always indication. Since you're using KJV, so will I.

Gen 21:12-13 "And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed. "

This was before the incident at Moriah, hence, Abraham knew that through both of his sons great nations would arise. So, obviously, Abraham would have known that God would allow no harm to befall either Isaac or Ishmael.


well spotted. so when in the KJV abraham says to isaac, on the way up the mountain, "god will provide a lamb for the sacrifice", he isn't kidding isaac along, he's reassuring him that he knows god won't really let him do isaac in.

It would take a series of miracles (I.E. Flaming skies, followed by barely being missed by blue bolts from heaven, followed by my room being cleaned within the space of ten minutes by anything, followed by a pillar of earth rising out of the grround in front of my house... Perhaps even a large pile of money too.) to convince me I was crazy, and in that case, it really wouldn't matter to me whether or not I beleived in god.

Phenominal Cosmic P0wahrs! Under my control.

Barring that, a shotgun blast to my head, destroying all of my higher brain functions, and leaving me that little 5 year old that was still trying to walk on water. (Yes, even that little I was questioning what the people in my preschool told me)

Oh there's always indication. Since you're using KJV, so will I.

Gen 21:12-13 "And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed. "

This was before the incident at Moriah, hence, Abraham knew that through both of his sons great nations would arise. So, obviously, Abraham would have known that God would allow no harm to befall either Isaac or Ishmael.

This depends upon the belief that God is unwavering in his plans - the creation of new covenants shows that this is not always the case. The question is whether Abraham had any reason to firmly belief that Gods earlier statment would over-ride his latter one. Abraham must at least suspect that it is not a wise thing to take all of God's words at face value... so why should he suspect the command to sacrifice more than the prophecy/promise of the new nations?

Secondly, the fact that a Abraham has been told that a nation will be based upon/will arise from Isaac does not preclude the possibility that such a nation would come into being in memory of the sacrifice - a memorial nation, if you will.

EDIT: somewhat scrambled writing there, but I'm in the middle of doing something else right now.

A lobotomy. :D
heh heh

So go ahead, prove something other than an abstract logical or mathematical theorem. Oh and it had better not have any belief based assumptions in it.
What is the difference in practical terms?

The difference in practical terms is that proof is replicable and communicable. In logical terms, there's very little you can prove, granted. In practical terms, lots of things rely on practical proof which has standards lower than true logical proof, but which works enough to allow to us to eg build buildings, make computers, take rockets into space, invent medicines yada yada.


Really? And the other beliefs are not opinions? They are factual beliefs? Actually I agree with this, facts are just beliefs, but I doubt that you do.

I believe that my car will fit through a gap of a certain size, and that I can perceive what size that gap is, to an acceptable tolerance, by looking. I can't prove this very easily, but I accept it as fact that the width of my car isn't going to change, and that the width of the carriageway isn't going to change. This is practical fact, even though it can't be proven.

I also think my car is pretty cool. This is my opinion.

I wouldn't like to be a passenger in a car whose driver thought that the size of the car was as much an opinion issue as the coolness of the car, for fear that said driver might decide that his belief/opinion about the size of the car was about to change, and given that his belief is as good as proof, and that facts and opinions are all the same blah blah, he is going to drive the car through a 12 inch gap in a wall that, in his opinion, doesn't exist anyway.


I have yet to share someone elses experience. I may be limited or deficient in some way, but all my experiences to date have been purely and exclusively mine.

You've never had a shared experience? Look up in the sky. You may be able to see a big orange ball. It's called the sun. It's likely that someone else is also seeing that sun at the same time.

If you define "shared experience" as "someone else getting the experience that you are getting by pulling it out of your head" you've probably never had a shared experience. But why would you define it like that? You don't define a shared cake as a cake where you eat it and them someone else gets it out of your guts and eats it too. A shared cake is when you get a cake and let someone else have a bit. Like a shared experience is when you look at something and someone else looks at it too.


As I stated above, Peter Sutcliffe was shown to be wrong by his actions. He was right, for him, when he said God told him to murder prostitutes. His actions were not right by societies standards, nor by religious ones.


Who says? Who says that society and all religions haven't got it wrong and Peter Sutcliffe got it right, particularly if as you say you can't prove anything?


You can not prove anything, let alone God existing.
Coda: I am an atheist

I think that some things can be proven to the satisfaction of some people, and some things can be proven to the satisfaction of all people, and almost nothing can be proven to the satisfaction of formal logic.

I'm an apathist.

so what would i have to do to convince you that i am God?

*gasp*!!!

you are... GOD?!?!
[/sarcasm]

note: quote taken out of context

This depends upon the belief that God is unwavering in his plans - the creation of new covenants shows that this is not always the case. The question is whether Abraham had any reason to firmly belief that Gods earlier statment would over-ride his latter one. Abraham must at least suspect that it is not a wise thing to take all of God's words at face value... so why should he suspect the command to sacrifice more than the prophecy/promise of the new nations?

Because of the previous discussion Abraham had with God concerning the fate of Sodom. God said to Abraham that He was going to destroy it completely and Abraham said, "Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?"

After some discussion, Abraham got God to change His mind. Read Genesis 18: 17-33. God is more fluid than the Calvinists and Baptists would have you believe.

Secondly, the fact that a Abraham has been told that a nation will be based upon/will arise from Isaac does not preclude the possibility that such a nation would come into being in memory of the sacrifice - a memorial nation, if you will.

A valid point, to be sure! I do concede the possibility God may have meant a memorial nation if it weren't for the words "of your seed". It's a little more clear in Hebrew, but the idea is that the nations will be his children's children and so on down through the generations. Unfortunately, since we've elected to use the KJV, I can't really back that up.

You win this round, Dr. Mafesto, but I will be back! *wrings hands and laughs maniacly*

After some discussion, Abraham got God to change His mind. Read Genesis 18: 17-33. God is more fluid than the Calvinists and Baptists would have you believe.

If we accept that God is in fact more fluid than certain parties would hold, then we are again faced with the dilemma of whether Abraham should place more trust in the promise of nations or the instruction to sacrifice.

You win this round, Dr. Mafesto, but I will be back! *wrings hands and laughs maniacly*

I would like to thank my parents and Soren Kierkegaard, without whom none of this would be possible.

If you can't distinguish between faith and proof, I wouldn't like to be a passenger in your car. All of the above is new-age crystally waffle with no actual substance.

I never said I couldn't distinguish between the two... There is a very large difference between them when viewed from the outside... But in a single mind, they are as good as equals...

Proof is merely evidence that something is correct... Faith is a belief that something is correct, and therefore, is evidence enough to the one that believes that idea...

My thoughts are in my head and not in anyone else's head. well pointed out.

Heh, nice play... However, stating that painfully obvious fact is not exactly what I'm getting at, even if it really sounds like it...lol

If you can't distinguish between opinion and fact you must have a hard time voting. I know which of my beliefs are opinions.

Again, I can distinguish between them perfectly fine... An opinion is a belief that has little or no proof outside of one's mind... A fact is a belief that has proof on a universal level... My argument is that inside of one's mind, there is no real difference between the two outside of the semantic...

Do you believe your opinions to be false? Of course not, if you did, they wouldn't be your opinions... So, then, if they are not false, they must be true, correct?

Sure, you are perfectly capable of reminding yourself that certain thoughts are only "opinions" and that you have no "proof" for their validity (and therefore, need to prepare yourself to adjust or completely change them when presented with sufficient reason to)... But as far as you're concerned, they really are valid, right? Thus, they are no less than actual truths...

very lamaistic but not very helpful. faith is as good as proof to those people for whom faith is as good as proof. And you know what, tall people are tall.

Again, not exactly what I mean... I'm basically saying that any belief, regardless of proof, evidence, fact, or opinion, essentially lies on nothing but faith... Faith is the equivalent of truth on the individual level...

Sure, gravity is a "fact" because it has tangible evidence, that can be shared universally... But, it is still an act of faith to trust that evidence, and that universal acceptance...

Your car-through-gap-in-wall analogy also hinges on nothing but faith... You have faith that your car will not fit through that 12 inch gap, so you would never try... As far as you're concerned, that is a fact... As far as most are concerned, that is a fact... As far as logic is concerned, that is a fact... But, is there really any undeniable proof to make this a true fact? For all intents and purposes, yes, there is (dense objects do not go through each other, cars and walls do not change size very readily, etc)... But there's always the possiblity that it is all wrong... And to cover this possiblity, you must take it on faith that your truth is correct...

Well spotted. Proof is shared experience, faith is personal experience. Some people think their personal experience is proof enough. Which is why Peter Sutcliffe is dead right when he claims that god told him to murder whores.

And he is... As far as he is concerned...

Something does not have to be universally correct to be correct to a single person... I guess you have to be able to handle two concepts of truth, or rather, two "layers" of truth... Universal truth is much stronger than personal truth, simply because of majority rule... And this difference is only apparent from an outside observation, looking at the whole of the population...

You can still be wrong, but it doesn't matter in your own mind... Anything you believe to be right, is right, as far as you're concerned (again, if it were anything otherwise, you wouldn't have the thought in the first place)...

I know that everything I hold to be true really is true... Regardless of what it is... Any belief I have is the correct one, otherwise, I would not believe it... When you get right down to it, it doesn't really matter what truth it holds to everyone else...

And again, you can entertain the possiblity that your beliefs are incorrect, and this is a healthy state of mind... However, if you are honest with yourself, you know that they are, in fact, not incorrect...

[Edit:] My apologies for basically repeating myself numerous times up there... I'd fix it, but meh...

If we accept that God is in fact more fluid than certain parties would hold, then we are again faced with the dilemma of whether Abraham should place more trust in the promise of nations or the instruction to sacrifice.


In Abraham's case, I'd say he placed equal trust in both. He had indication that no harm would befall his children, but we often ask ourselves that if he didn't have that indication, would he have still taken his son up to that mountain?

My opinion? No, he would not have. Abraham was no psychopath. Hence, your original question concerning preparedness to slaughter one's own son still lends itself to my answer.

Right back on subject, even if god appeared right before me and said "Hello I'm God" and I said "Hello God, which one?" and he said "Any one you want." and I say "Ok, I'll have Odin, he was a proper god" and God says "yup, that's me I'm omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, I can be any god I want".
"Wow that's cool, can you prove it?" and he says "Sure" and produces a few lighning bolts and stuff, right here in my office, which is a pretty unlikely natural occurance. "That was pretty nifty" says I "but it could be a magic trick or some super technology thingamy-bob. I want you to convince me".
God says to me "So how do you think I can convince you?"
"Well," says I "show me in rough laymans terms how life evolved, then show me what the start of the Universe was like, then show me where you came from and what was around before you. And make it believable."
"That's a pretty tall order" says God. " I can show you the origins of life, and the birth of the universe but I'm afraid I can't show you what was around before me because I wasn't there to see it".
"Can you throw in a few alien species as well?"
"Yes of course"
"You know what" Says I, "I still wouldn't think you were God, I reckon you're just a very clever alien"
"Well, of course to you I am a very clever alien, afterall I'm not human am I?"
"Bugger, I've just sussed it, you're a hacker and I'm just living in a computer simulation that's why you can do anything you want"
"Well that's one way to think about it, but you never see the blue screen of death in real life do you?"

Right back on subject, even if god appeared right before me and said "Hello I'm God" and I said "Hello God, which one?" and he said "Any one you want." and I say "Ok, I'll have Odin, he was a proper god" and God says "yup, that's me I'm omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, I can be any god I want".
"Wow that's cool, can you prove it?" and he says "Sure" and produces a few lighning bolts and stuff, right here in my office, which is a pretty unlikely natural occurance. "That was pretty nifty" says I "but it could be a magic trick or some super technology thingamy-bob. I want you to convince me".
God says to me "So how do you think I can convince you?"
"Well," says I "show me in rough laymans terms how life evolved, then show me what the start of the Universe was like, then show me where you came from and what was around before you. And make it believable."
"That's a pretty tall order" says God. " I can show you the origins of life, and the birth of the universe but I'm afraid I can't show you what was around before me because I wasn't there to see it".
"Can you throw in a few alien species as well?"
"Yes of course"
"You know what" Says I, "I still wouldn't think you were God, I reckon you're just a very clever alien"
"Well, of course to you I am a very clever alien, afterall I'm not human am I?"
"Bugger, I've just sussed it, you're a hacker and I'm just living in a computer simulation that's why you can do anything you want"
"Well that's one way to think about it, but you never see the blue screen of death in real life do you?"

nice post ;)

I'm not entirely sure what it'd take for me to believe in a God... probably not much, considering that I most likely do. I believe in some higher power, though whether that is a God that has been established in any mythos or religion I couldn't say. I believe in a soul, but that might just be because I have a fear of oblivion more than anything. The level of activity that a God could display is also beyond me, for example... God might not even be aware of a corporeal existence, and might not even be sentient, or (s)he might be Aphrodite... I dunno. But I also hold to certain Neo-daoist teachings that tell me that everything is unique and that our singularity is our own God... God is in everything, as the cliche goes (though the philosophy itself does not espouse a God in itself, I interpreted it according to what I believe.)
I don't even believe that an afterlife necessitates a God, just a spirit.

My argument is that inside of one's mind, there is no real difference between the two outside of the semantic...

Do you believe your opinions to be false? Of course not, if you did, they wouldn't be your opinions... So, then, if they are not false, they must be true, correct?


My argument is that inside my mind, there is a world of difference. I believe my opinions to be opinions, and therefore neither true nor false.

My argument is that inside my mind, there is a world of difference. I believe my opinions to be opinions, and therefore neither true nor false.

Then you are not being honest with yourself... Pure and simple...

The things we believe are our beliefs for a reason... If we do not think of them as fact, there is no point in having them...

What would it take? What would have to occur for you to believe in God/god/gods?




Well, aslong as there are so called "christians" such as Bush that go on and starts war that results in the killings of houndreds of thousand civillians I wont feal the urge to take a closer look at the whole religion thingy. How can he as a "christain" claim that he is doing the bidding of god? Sure, 3000 americans died during the 911 attacks, over 100.000 Iraqis died because of the war. As a "Christain" does he think that American lives are more worth that Iraqi lives?
And aslong as there are cunts like Benny Hinn and other evangelists that in a blasphemic way claim to "cure" people on TV, organized religion makes me wanna puke my guts out.

Religious people can go fuck themselves.

Then you are not being honest with yourself... Pure and simple...

The things we believe are our beliefs for a reason... If we do not think of them as fact, there is no point in having them...

I think that you're not being honest to yourself. Even though you claim to know that your opinions are not the same as facts, you think of them as facts. How screwed up is that?

Me, I know that my opinions are opinions. That's how i can discuss stuff rationally. Do you really think that most people treat as fact beliefs like "My car is cool" and "Cinnamon bagels are delicious"? No wonder there are so many assholes in the world.

My opinion? No, he would not have. Abraham was no psychopath. Hence, your original question concerning preparedness to slaughter one's own son still lends itself to my answer.

I'm not claiming that Abraham was a psychopath - instead that acting under the direct instruction of God he was prepared to do what appeared contrary to all* Earthly ethical systems - howver it is not the case that he would have been doing something unethical, instead those systems would have been temporarily suspended due to the fact that he was acting under the direct command of God (AKA: the teleological suspension of the ethical).



*well, not all, but you know what I mean

(AKA: the teleological suspension of the ethical).

It's the teleological suspension that makes my car so cool.

On this occasion I'm going for the "abraham had reasonable grounds for faith that god didn't mean it" argument. I've never heard it before and it's pretty cool. I mean convincing based on the text.

But I still think that even though he might have been convinced God wasn't going to make him go through with it, he was prepared to go through with it if it came to it.

Rapture.

god him self would have to come down its self to convince me...eve then id be sceptical :p

On this occasion I'm going for the "abraham had reasonable grounds for faith that god didn't mean it" argument. I've never heard it before and it's pretty cool. I mean convincing based on the text.

What kind of basis for a religion is it if a worshipper is able to say 'God tells us to do certain things, and not to do others, but I know better than He what He really means?'

Rapture.

yeah, i often find blondie a religious experience

What kind of basis for a religion is it if a worshipper is able to say 'God tells us to do certain things, and not to do others, but I know better than He what He really means?'

This is how so many of those terrible sermons start: "What's really being said is..." where the preacher/priest etc. takes the supposed words of god and then interprets/twists them how they see fit.

What kind of basis for a religion is it if a worshipper is able to say 'God tells us to do certain things, and not to do others, but I know better than He what He really means?'

It is human nature to question, and I think it's a fine basis for a religion for Abraham to say something like "I'm prepared to do exactly what god says, but I've got faith he's going to change his mind and not make me do this, even though I will do it if he keeps on insisting".

Bargaining with god is quite a theme in the OT, i'm told.

This is how so many of those terrible sermons start: "What's really being said is..." where the preacher/priest etc. takes the supposed words of god and then interprets/twists them how they see fit.

I'm not ruling out the whole field of hermeneutic interpretation, but when we see here that Abraham is being argued to have thought 'God doesn't want me to sacrifice my son' after being told by God 'I want you to to sacrifice your son', then we get into extremely dubious territory. What we see here is the presentation of God's word 'X' as 'not-X'.

It is human nature to question, and I think it's a fine basis for a religion for Abraham to say something like "I'm prepared to do exactly what god says, but I've got faith he's going to change his mind and not make me do this, even though I will do it if he keeps on insisting".

Bargaining with god is quite a theme in the OT, i'm told.

So, even if Abraham's faith in God is disproved (ie. God doesn't stay his hand), then Abraham's faith in God remains? (and vice-versa)

I'm not ruling out the whole field of hermeneutic interpretation, but when we see here that Abraham is being argued to have thought 'God doesn't want me to sacrifice my son' after being told by God 'I want you to to sacrifice your son', then we get into extremely dubious territory. What we see here is the presentation of God's word 'X' as 'not-X'.

I'm not really talking about hermeneutics, I'm talking about human nature and inner dialogue.

1. God told Abraham to sacrifice his son.
2. Abraham took his son up the mountain and told him God would provide a lamb for the sacrifice.
3. Abraham was about to sacrifice his son when God stopped him.

I think that it is a reasonable interpretation that at point 2, Abraham's statement to his son is an expression of faith that God would not force him to do something so abhorrent, and that his action at 3 is an expression of his faith that even though it was abhorrent he would do it because God said so.

It isn't a reading of the text that contradicts the text, rather it is a reading of the text that allows one of the actors to disagree with, and yet go along with, another.

So, even if Abraham's faith in God is disproved (ie. God doesn't stay his hand), then Abraham's faith in God remains? (and vice-versa)

yep. because in the end, if you're into that sort of thing, god's always right, even if you don't know why.

yep. because in the end, if you're into that sort of thing, god's always right, even if you don't know why.

Which brings us back to Peter Sutcliffe. I think this is where I came in.

Which brings us back to Peter Sutcliffe. I think this is where I came in.

9 pages of posts and no conclusions yet? tsk...

I dunno, I think god would be more of a "Jumping Jack Flash" kinda guy myself. :p

Personally, I'd vote for "Sympathy for the Devil" but that's assuming G-d is still a Stones fan after their last couple disasters.

Hmmm, if God were a Stones fan, I think he'd be into "Sympathy for the Devil"...

I should have known someone would have beat me to the joke.

I think that you're not being honest to yourself. Even though you claim to know that your opinions are not the same as facts, you think of them as facts. How screwed up is that?

Me, I know that my opinions are opinions. That's how i can discuss stuff rationally. Do you really think that most people treat as fact beliefs like "My car is cool" and "Cinnamon bagels are delicious"? No wonder there are so many assholes in the world.

Right now, and this very moment, you have an opinion of this subject, and I have an opinion of this subject...

We can both admit that our stance on this matter is truly an opinion, right? (if I'm wrong on your count, then I'm wasting my time, I suppose) There is a chance that either of us is wrong (or perhaps even that both of us are wrong)

But, knowing full well that our stance on this matter is an opinion, and acknowledging that in our minds, are we not both thinking of our side as fact? Are you not 100% positive that what you are trying to tell me is true, and that I am incorrect? Do you think that I'm not 100% positive that I am correct, and that you are wrong?

If it were not so, then what's the point?

Right now, and this very moment, you have an opinion of this subject, and I have an opinion of this subject...

We can both admit that our stance on this matter is truly an opinion, right? (if I'm wrong on your count, then I'm wasting my time, I suppose) There is a chance that either of us is wrong (or perhaps even that both of us are wrong)

But, knowing full well that our stance on this matter is an opinion, and acknowledging that in our minds, are we not both thinking of our side as fact? Are you not 100% positive that what you are trying to tell me is true, and that I am incorrect? Do you think that I'm not 100% positive that I am correct, and that you are wrong?

If it were not so, then what's the point?

I'm 100% positive of the factuality of my belief in the fact that my opinions are opinions. I'm not 100% positive of the factual truth that my car is cool. That's just my opinion.

The point of opinions is that we can all have em and share em and not have to attack each other over them. If you think that the only things that have a point are the things that can be known 100% for sure, how come you don't spend your life sat still in a dark room?

How can I possibly be expected to think that it is a fact that cinnamon bagels are delicious?

And for the believers (so you guys don't feel left out):

What did it take? What occured that lead to your belief in God/god/gods? What do you think it should take to convince nonbelievers?

What did it take?

Don't exactly remember any single significant occurance.

I think it's mostly the preaching about Grace when I entered into a church in Singapore. I've been a Christian mostly my whole life, then kinda agnostic, then Christian again.

I always know there's proof that God existed living in a very multi-cultural and multi-religious nation with lots of spiritual problems, from spiritual possessions, bomohs (witches), curses and lots of magic and weird shit. Even during Thaipusam (Indian Day of light), you'll see the people would suddenly be possessed and carry the kavadi.. which is freaking heavy, beyond any human can carry, and they'll act like wild animals. Plus my near family has quite some experiences with the supernatural, like aunty getting possessed and after we prayed for her, she vomited something and then she was fine after that.

But the message of Grace, that God isn't some far away God and isn't a strict disciplinarian really took over me. Made me realise that New Testament was written for people like us, and the Old testament for the Jews. Hence, we don't have to follow the mosaic laws, like no eating crabs and stuff.

Hence he sent Jesus as a token of love, that all who believe, All sins are totally washed away. I can do whatever I want now and still be saved. But I won't commit sin because there's so much more to experience than doing bad things.

Plus, lots of benefits being Christian.. I believe God gives healing, blessings and prosperity. Healed my dad's left eye which was totally blind, and currently blessing my dad's business beyond what we imagined.

Could be coincidence? Some sort of self healing by having faith in nothing but the mental attitude is the cure? Or other probable explainable reason for it?

I honestly don't know.. However what I do know, is that Believing in Jesus is helping me ALOT. Why get rid of something good? What isn't broken doesn't need fixing.

I try and research on other people and religions and others when I have the time, good to keep on searching. But so far, Christianity is working for me, and I'll stick to it.

Okay, atheists, agnostics, secularists, and nonbelievers of all sorts:

What would it take? What would have to occur for you to believe in God/god/gods?


And for the believers (so you guys don't feel left out):

What did it take? What occured that lead to your belief in God/god/gods? What do you think it should take to convince nonbelievers?

A demonstrable and scientifically valid revolution in physics explaining the phenomenon.

I'm not really talking about hermeneutics, I'm talking about human nature and inner dialogue.

1. God told Abraham to sacrifice his son.
2. Abraham took his son up the mountain and told him God would provide a lamb for the sacrifice.
3. Abraham was about to sacrifice his son when God stopped him.

I think that it is a reasonable interpretation that at point 2, Abraham's statement to his son is an expression of faith that God would not force him to do something so abhorrent, and that his action at 3 is an expression of his faith that even though it was abhorrent he would do it because God said so.

It isn't a reading of the text that contradicts the text, rather it is a reading of the text that allows one of the actors to disagree with, and yet go along with, another.
I know I'm coming in part-way through this discussion, of which I've only read the latter half (anything from page 6, really!), but I have a possibly relevant point.

In Hebrews 11 (that's a New Testament letter), there's a list of Old Testament people who are commended for their faith. Abraham is one of them. Hebrews 11:17-19 says:
"By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; it was he to whom it was said, "In Isaac your descendents shall be called." He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back figuratively speaking."

This is the view that the New Testament gives concerning Abraham's state of mind when he was travelling to Moriah. God had said to Abraham that Isaac would be the link between Abraham and the promised nation of descendents, then God tells him to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham, believing that he must obey God, but also that God is trustworthy, concludes that if he does sacrifice Isaac, God will bring him back to life, and, in a manner of speaking, that is what happened. Isaac was tied up on the altar on top of the wood, Abraham had the knife in his hand. God sees that Abraham is obedient, even if he doesn't understand God's ways completely.

This might have come up already, if so, sorry for the needless repetition.

I'm 100% positive of the factuality of my belief in the fact that my opinions are opinions. I'm not 100% positive of the factual truth that my car is cool. That's just my opinion.

But you believe that your car is cool, right? Is there a chance that your car is not cool? Perhaps to someone else it isn't, perhaps to everyone else it isn't, but in your mind, is your car cool?

Yup, it sure is... You've already told us as much... So then, isn't this belief as good as a fact to you? You might not be willing to say it, but it is... You firmly believe that your car is cool, and will continue to do so until proven otherwise...

Yes, on a semantic level, this belief is an opinion... But for practical purposes, it is a fact...to you...

Or, at the very least, your mind gives it the same validity as it would give to a fact... You believe that your car is cool just as strongly as you believe that gravity will pull you to your floor if you roll out of bed...

Again, if you don't, then why bother believing it?

The point of opinions is that we can all have em and share em and not have to attack each other over them. If you think that the only things that have a point are the things that can be known 100% for sure, how come you don't spend your life sat still in a dark room?

That's not what I mean... I mean that if you do not consider your beliefs to be 100% true, there is no point in having them... They are no longer beliefs...they are just thoughts with no relevance or bearing in your reality... If you say "my car is cool", but you don't believe that to be 100% true, then you are just saying it... It is meaningless... Nothing but some words floating around...

Even if your belief is something that isn't a universal fact, it can still be considered a personal fact... And inside of one's mind, it is just as powerful, and just as valid...

How can I possibly be expected to think that it is a fact that cinnamon bagels are delicious?

Again, do you think that they are delicious? Then it is a fact to you... You do not believe otherwise, and in fact, you probably believe that the opposite is false... You probably believe that the statement "bagels are not delicious" is incorrect... You disagree with that... It is wrong...

Your "opinion" is the only one you hold to be correct, therefore, it is about as factual as you can get...

It might not be a fact for everyone, but that doesn't matter... Only if you're arguing semantics...

What would it take to make me believe?

Factual, undisputable, flawless evidence.

But you believe that your car is cool, right? Is there a chance that your car is not cool? Perhaps to someone else it isn't, perhaps to everyone else it isn't, but in your mind, is your car cool?

Yup, it sure is... You've already told us as much... So then, isn't this belief as good as a fact to you? You might not be willing to say it, but it is... You firmly believe that your car is cool, and will continue to do so until proven otherwise...

Yes, on a semantic level, this belief is an opinion... But for practical purposes, it is a fact...to you...

Or, at the very least, your mind gives it the same validity as it would give to a fact... You believe that your car is cool just as strongly as you believe that gravity will pull you to your floor if you roll out of bed...

Again, if you don't, then why bother believing it?



That's not what I mean... I mean that if you do not consider your beliefs to be 100% true, there is no point in having them... They are no longer beliefs...they are just thoughts with no relevance or bearing in your reality... If you say "my car is cool", but you don't believe that to be 100% true, then you are just saying it... It is meaningless... Nothing but some words floating around...

Even if your belief is something that isn't a universal fact, it can still be considered a personal fact... And inside of one's mind, it is just as powerful, and just as valid...



Again, do you think that they are delicious? Then it is a fact to you... You do not believe otherwise, and in fact, you probably believe that the opposite is false... You probably believe that the statement "bagels are not delicious" is incorrect... You disagree with that... It is wrong...

Your "opinion" is the only one you hold to be correct, therefore, it is about as factual as you can get...

It might not be a fact for everyone, but that doesn't matter... Only if you're arguing semantics...
if i know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that i believe bagels are delicious, that is a knowledge of my own opinion. it is NOT knowledge of any objective fact about the bagel, other than the fact that i find bagels delicious. the objective deliciousness of the bagel is not determined by my enjoyment of the bagel, and thus my 100% certainty about my own enjoyment of the bagel does not in any way translate to a fact about the bagel's objective nature.

the problem is that you are dealing with things that exist only in the subjective realm; "objective" deliciousness doesn't have much meaning for human beings, for instance. however, if God is a being that OBJECTIVELY exists, then you can see the parallel much more directly. if i believe i find a bagel delicious then that is the only "fact" which is relavent to the universe; i am describing my subjective experience of a subjective feature. however, if i believe i see a purple unicorn physically manefest in the room with me, my subjective experience is of something i am claiming is objectively present, and my subjective experience of the purple unicorn is not going to be enough to establish the objective reality of the unicorn.

Okay, atheists, agnostics, secularists, and nonbelievers of all sorts:

What would it take? What would have to occur for you to believe in God/god/gods?
Some sort of magical appearance and demonstration of special abilities...

However, if anyone has seen that one enpside of star trek: the next generation... it would also be possible that there's some being from a more advances species that has holograms and transporter beams and is trying to trick people into believing its story....

Not much probably. If I did believe in a god (which occasionally I almost lean towards) it wouldn't be any of the ones on offer from any religion I've seen so far.
Same here ... but something clear and objective

Some sort of magical appearance and demonstration of special abilities...

However, if anyone has seen that one enpside of star trek: the next generation... it would also be possible that there's some being from a more advances species that has holograms and transporter beams and is trying to trick people into believing its story....
that's the key, for me. i cannot think of any way at all that God could possibly prove His existence to me, due to the limitations of my human perceptions and awarness; i could never be certain that a being claiming to be God actually IS God, because it could just as easily be a very powerful yet non-God being. it could be God's rival. it could even be a not-so-powerful being with a trick of messing with the human brain.

i think pretty much everybody must admit that, in this sense, there is no possible way to PROVE that God exists. what it comes down to, then, is how you decide you are going to respond to this situation. will you assume there is no God because you cannot ever have a positive experience of God? will you decide to assume God exists, and shape God's image as your psyche dictates? will you shop through the catalogue of world religions and choose the group to which you would most like to belong? will you simply roll your eyes in disgust at the whole issue, and retreat to your couch with a beer?

Okay, atheists, agnostics, secularists, and nonbelievers of all sorts:

What would it take? What would have to occur for you to believe in God/god/gods?


And for the believers (so you guys don't feel left out):

What did it take? What occured that lead to your belief in God/god/gods? What do you think it should take to convince nonbelievers?
Short of actually meeting a deity...not much.

And even then, I might suspect I was a victim of hallucinogenic experimentation...

I honestly don't think there is anything that could convince me that a supreme deity exists.

I could believe in one with less than total omnipotence however, for I have no doubt that there are beings with powers far superiour to our own. But you could never have me believe that one supreme being (or many supreme beings) creates something out of nothing. Something had to have created them first...and so on...

Edit: By the way, being an atheist does not mean I am not spiritual in any way...I simply do not attribute the unknowable to some phantom deity.

What would it take? What would have to occur for you to believe in God/god/gods?
A cool, genuine wonder would work.
If i witness it myself, not read about it in a book that is several centuries old, that is.

A cool, genuine wonder would work.
If i witness it myself, not read about it in a book that is several centuries old, that is.
many people consider the birth of a child to be a cool, genuine wonder. many people point to a rainbow as a cool, genuine wonder. others see a cool, genuine wonder in each sunrise. all of these, and more, have been cited as "proof" of God. are they sufficient? if not, why not? what would be sufficient for you?

Edit: By the way, being an atheist does not mean I am not spiritual in any way...I simply do not attribute the unknowable to some phantom deity.

i'm also extremely spiritual, but refuse to believe in something with no proof or that has any sence to it at all.

many people consider the birth of a child to be a cool, genuine wonder. many people point to a rainbow as a cool, genuine wonder. others see a cool, genuine wonder in each sunrise. all of these, and more, have been cited as "proof" of God. are they sufficient? if not, why not? what would be sufficient for you?
I suppose a more direct causal relationship established between the wonder and the purposed deity

I suppose a more direct causal relationship established between the wonder and the purposed deity
so if a being could generate a rainbow with the wave of its hand, you would consider it God?

(i'm hoping you're about to say "yes," because in that case i can prove to you that i am God. and i really could use a good goat sacrifice right about now.)

so if a being could generate a rainbow with the wave of its hand, you would consider it God?

(i'm hoping you're about to say "yes," because in that case i can prove to you that i am God. and i really could use a good goat sacrifice right about now.)
Not for me no … it would have to be something uncommon statistically something that really is out of place. (though like argued before if the being proved such not really god , rather just an advanced being but with limits)

Not for me no … it would have to be something uncommon statistically something that really is out of place. (though like argued before if the being proved such not really god , rather just an advanced being but with limits)

How are you to know that this rare phenomenon is not just a simple natural one which is at present unexplained by our scientific knowledge? ... for example we'll drag out that old cliche about impressing the natives by ppredicting the coming solar equinox.

Let's say god came down and took me by the hand and gave me a personal tour of heaven. We walked around and he introduced me to Jesus, Moses and a couple of Popes. Then we took a tour of hell and I met Ghengis Khan, Einstein and Ghandi. He made seas part and rained fire and brimstone on Las Vegas and LA. What would I do? I'd ask my doctor to adjust my medication.

I'd have to say that only one out of uncountably infinite scenarios could prove to me that a god exists. And I don't know what that one scenario would be. Most things could be put under suspicion by merely happening. Maybe I'd have to be given super powers by a god, be able to demonstrate these super powers, be able to demonstrate that I wasn't asleep, or that I wouldn't wake up, such that I'd keep the powers for the rest of my existence. That might prove that the god that gave me the powers existed. But that's just speculation.

How are you to know that this rare phenomenon is not just a simple natural one which is at present unexplained by our scientific knowledge? ... for example we'll drag out that old cliche about impressing the natives by ppredicting the coming solar equinox.
Wouldn’t (hence my agnosticism)

For me, it was seeing the reality of Biblical truth playing out in my life. I've experienced "miracles", but those aren't really the things that convince me as much as seeing how life is supposed to fit together in peace, love and harmony and that the only way for that to work is for all to love God with all their hearts and their fellow man as much as they love themselves.

As for what it should take to convince someone there is a God, I don't think there is really any good answer to that. I think that is between God and any given individual. Give that we are all different, it makes sense that we all would come to God is somewhat different ways.

Let's say god came down and took me by the hand and gave me a personal tour of heaven. We walked around and he introduced me to Jesus, Moses and a couple of Popes. Then we took a tour of hell and I met Ghengis Khan, Einstein and Ghandi. He made seas part and rained fire and brimstone on Las Vegas and LA. What would I do? I'd ask my doctor to adjust my medication.

Chingiss Khan was a great man. same as einstein. the popes are evil, jesus and moses never existed, and those places didn't either. i don't see your point?

that's the key, for me. i cannot think of any way at all that God could possibly prove His existence to me, due to the limitations of my human perceptions and awarness; i could never be certain that a being claiming to be God actually IS God, because it could just as easily be a very powerful yet non-God being. it could be God's rival. it could even be a not-so-powerful being with a trick of messing with the human brain.

i think pretty much everybody must admit that, in this sense, there is no possible way to PROVE that God exists. what it comes down to, then, is how you decide you are going to respond to this situation. will you assume there is no God because you cannot ever have a positive experience of God? will you decide to assume God exists, and shape God's image as your psyche dictates? will you shop through the catalogue of world religions and choose the group to which you would most like to belong? will you simply roll your eyes in disgust at the whole issue, and retreat to your couch with a beer?
Hey, Bottle, I posted something on the "pseudo-christian" thread in response to a similar post to this, also by you.
Dunno if you read it . . .

I can repost here, it's the same theme.

All features of any entity described would have to be evidenced in a thorough scientific manner.

While the Christian deity is logically impossible, and thus can't even in theory be shown to exist, if any such powerful organism proved to be anything like that deific concept, I would quickly have to start hunting down a way to kill it to stop its evil activities.

Hey, Bottle, I posted something on the "pseudo-christian" thread in response to a similar post to this, also by you.
Dunno if you read it . . .

I can repost here, it's the same theme.
okay, i will go look...

Let's say god came down and took me by the hand and gave me a personal tour of heaven. We walked around and he introduced me to Jesus, Moses and a couple of Popes. Then we took a tour of hell and I met Ghengis Khan, Einstein and Ghandi. He made seas part and rained fire and brimstone on Las Vegas and LA. What would I do? I'd ask my doctor to adjust my medication.

oh, i get it now! i didn't realize you ment a medication that fixed a mental problem or something. i was only thinking physical illness.

Okay, atheists, agnostics, secularists, and nonbelievers of all sorts:

What would it take? What would have to occur for you to believe in God/god/gods?


And for the believers (so you guys don't feel left out):

What did it take? What occured that lead to your belief in God/god/gods? What do you think it should take to convince nonbelievers?

I'd need to...

1. See him/her
2. Have him/her say he/she is "God".
3. Watch him/her do something only "God" could do.

Then I'll believe. Until then, God does not exist.

okay, FE, here's my response to your post on the other thread. i posted it there, as well, so anybody who wants can view it in either context.

EDIT: i changed a few things in this post from the one in the other thread (because i made that one first and didn't edit it on the spot). just soes you all know.
Bottle, do you realise what you said in your last sentence of the above quoted post?

You said that you have a bias against believing in the existence of God, even if He does exist. You seem to be comfortable in this bias, as your smiley indicates.

it's not a bias, it's a simple awareness of my human limitations. i cannot conceive of any way that a God could prove it exists to me, because my human form has too many perceptual and cognitive limitations. you could say that the reality is biased, in this instance, which is what i was smiling about.


What's God supposed to do, supposing that he wants a relationship with you based on mutual love, as I believe He does? You actively refuse to believe he's there, and if He did demonstrate His existence and power with various mighty signs and wonders, that would not lead you to love Him.

i'm not "actively refusing" to believe in God, because i have no way to do that. i am saying that i cannot possibly know, one way or the other, if God exists. i do not "refuse" to believe, i simply must remain agnostic because there is no information i can use to reach a conclusion on the subject.

as for "loving" God, that goes beyond proof of God's existence. i can prove my boss exists, but that does not suffice to make me love her. it is entirely possible that there is a being which created all existence, and that such a being is also not something worthy of love or worship; it could be an evil, albeit extremely powerful, entity. who and what we choose to love is based on far more than what exists and does not exist.


The Israelites that came out of Egypt KNEW that God existed; they'd just seen some very selective calamities hit their Egyptian overlords, while they were "passed over".

what they may or may not have known is a subject for another debate.

even IF some all-powerful being demonstrated its power in the way you describe, how could they possibly know it was God, and not merely some extremely powerful being that is NOT God? how would they be able to prove it wasn't God's archnemesis, Eddy the Evil Magic Troll?

human science still cannot fully explain how a cat purrs...if an animal that is lower on the evolutionary scale than humans can possess an ability that confounds our understanding, how much easier would it be for an extremely advanced species to have abilities beyond our comprehension?


They were following a big smoke column around the desert, which turned to fire at night, food was literally appearing in the middle of the desert to sustain them, but do they love God? No, they're terrified of Him, they complain, moan and grumble, they even start pagan sacrifices when Moses leaves them alone for a few days.

even IF any of this truly occured (which we have absolutely no evidence to support), that would not be proof of God in any way, shape, or form. it would be proof of some very powerful force, forces, being, or beings at work in ways that human beings cannot fully comprehend or perceive.


You're insisting on believing in, worshipping, and following God on YOUR terms. That misses the point. If my worship of God is on my terms and not God's, I'm not worshipping God, I'm worshipping myself.
you seem to be telling me that i should blindly choose to believe one of many possibly accounts of God, yet you give no reason why i should accept that particular account over all others. you give no reason why that account establishes God at all, rather than simply describing mysterious and unexplained events of indeterminate cause. yet you accuse me of picking and choosing how i will "worship" God? it seems that you are the one who is making decisions based purely on your personal opinions, and you are the one choosing which form of God best suits you. you have chosen to worship the God of the Bible, and thus have chosen to worship God on your terms (or, even worse, the terms somebody else tells you to use) rather than on the terms dictated by empirical reality.

3. Watch him/her do something only "God" could do.

this is the important bit, the part i was getting at with the original question.

NAME SOMETHING ONLY "GOD" COULD DO.

this is the important bit, the part i was getting at with the original question.

NAME SOMETHING ONLY "GOD" COULD DO.
Well the whole judgment going to heaven thing (bringing you to heaven the action that you were looking for)

But at that point what good is it … we are dead

Well the whole judgment going to heaven thing (bringing you to heaven the action that you were looking for)

But at that point what good is it … we are dead
even if you are dead, it seems like there isn't enough there for the proof...what if your post-death Self (soul, or whatever) is just being deceived or manipulated by a non-God being?

Okay, atheists, agnostics, secularists, and nonbelievers of all sorts:

What would it take? What would have to occur for you to believe in God/god/gods?


And for the believers (so you guys don't feel left out):

What did it take? What occured that lead to your belief in God/god/gods? What do you think it should take to convince nonbelievers?
It would take a miracle. Something that couldn't be explained any other way than god. Preferably something that states his/her/it's goals and what it wants with humans.

It would take a miracle. Something that couldn't be explained any other way than god.

such as...?

Preferably something that states his/her/it's goals and what it wants with humans.
what if it has none?

such as...?

what if it has none?
Such as a message written in a modern language buried under a mile of solid, untouched granite. No human could put such a thing there. God would be a good explanation of how it got there.

If it has no goals and doesn't care about humans it probably wouldn't leave evidence of it's existance for us, so the question is moot. If it left evidence inadvertantly, then I would accept it exists and go on with my life as normal.

how do we know that we arent god? maybe I'm the only one here and being delusional created the world and all of you. Wouldnt that make me god?

If I suddenly, without warning, developed elephantitus of the genitals and had my home flattened by a hurricane, all in the same day; I may begin to doubt His presence......... :D

Nothing short of seeing the Supreme Being Itself. Then I'd present my list of grievances and tie It up in the courts for a few millennia with an infernal host of barristers and solicitors.

I'm an agnostic, and I refuse to accept any proof in this life as authentic. I'll believe in the supernatural if I'm dead and still have consciousness. Anything before that can be faked.

You're obviously faking being alive this very instant.

Such as a message written in a modern language buried under a mile of solid, untouched granite. No human could put such a thing there. God would be a good explanation of how it got there.

i promise you, human beings could put a message in a modern language under a mile of solid, untouched granite. the kids at MIT get problems like that on their midterms.

even if they couldn't, how would you know God was the one to do that, and not just some amazingly powerful yet non-God being?

If it has no goals and doesn't care about humans it probably wouldn't leave evidence of it's existance for us, so the question is moot.

i don't see how your conclusion follows from your premise at all. dinosaurs had no goals or plans for humans, yet left a great deal of evidence of their existence.


If it left evidence inadvertantly, then I would accept it exists and go on with my life as normal.
so your personal values and morality are not impacted by whether or not there is a God? i'm not criticizing that (my values are of that sort), i'm just trying to make sure i am understanding you correctly.

You're obviously faking being alive this very instant.
nuh uh, the magic gnomes in my computer are faking his being alive this very instant!

i promise you, human beings could put a message in a modern language under a mile of solid, untouched granite. the kids at MIT get problems like that on their midterms.

even if they couldn't, how would you know God was the one to do that, and not just some amazingly powerful yet non-God being?

i don't see how your conclusion follows from your premise at all. dinosaurs had no goals or plans for humans, yet left a great deal of evidence of their existence.


so your personal values and morality are not impacted by whether or not there is a God? i'm not criticizing that (my values are of that sort), i'm just trying to make sure i am understanding you correctly.
1 Ok, let's just say that it would take something that was more than likely done by a god.
2 I did provide for evidence left inadvertantly in the third part of my previous post.
3 If god didn't have goals and had no plans for humans, why should it influence my personal morality?

I would believe in god if it, and all of the other gods of all of the other world religions were able to appear from the sky, tell me who they are, demonstrate some kind of powerful ability that cannot be done by human technology or special effects, (maybe blow up the moon right in front of my eyes for example) and then take me to see the people that apparently reside in the different heavens or hells that these gods come from. If these gods cannot show me and let me experience the above mentioned events, then I still will not believe in these foolish things that people blindly follow.

Okay, atheists, agnostics, secularists, and nonbelievers of all sorts:

What would it take? What would have to occur for you to believe in God/god/gods?


And for the believers (so you guys don't feel left out):

What did it take? What occured that lead to your belief in God/god/gods? What do you think it should take to convince nonbelievers?

One word- Beauty. The old grandmother cuddling her grandchild. The young couple happily in love. The birds in the air. The fish in the sea. Ordinary miracles I believe I once heard them called.

I would believe in god if it, and all of the other gods of all of the other world religions were able to appear from the sky, tell me who they are, demonstrate some kind of powerful ability that cannot be done by human technology or special effects, (maybe blow up the moon right in front of my eyes for example) and then take me to see the people that apparently reside in the different heavens or hells that these gods come from. If these gods cannot show me and let me experience the above mentioned events, then I still will not believe in these foolish things that people blindly follow.

if you take enough LSD i can do those things for you :cool:

1 Ok, let's just say that it would take something that was more than likely done by a god.

such as...?

i'm not trying to be a jerk about this, really. i simply cannot think of ANYTHING that would fit that bill for me...there is nothing i can think of that could ONLY be explained as the work of God. if somebody can come up with something, i would love to hear it.

2 I did provide for evidence left inadvertantly in the third part of my previous post.

well, there you go, then.


3 If god didn't have goals and had no plans for humans, why should it influence my personal morality?
don't ask me; even if God exists, has goals, and has plans for humanity, my personal morality will not change. because i can never know if God exists, and can never know what goals or plans God may or may not have, my personal morality cannot be determined or influenced by those things.

One word- Beauty. The old grandmother cuddling her grandchild. The young couple happily in love. The birds in the air. The fish in the sea. Ordinary miracles I believe I once heard them called.
why attribute those to God? or are you saying "God is beauty" or something like that?

why attribute those to God? or are you saying "God is beauty" or something like that?

God is the music to which the strings of time have been strummed.

God is the music to which the strings of time have been strummed.
poetic, but essentially useless for this discussion. thanks anyhow, though, it's a very pretty turn of phrase :).

God is the music to which the strings of time have been strummed.

cute........... or something

Yes, he is but is not limited to beauty. People get caught up on the details of religion, but often lose the spirit. Find the spirit, and that is all it will take.

Yes, he is but is not limited to beauty. People get caught up on the details of religion, but often lose the spirit. Find the spirit, and that is all it will take.
again, very poetic, but lacking in substance. please provide some meat for us to sink our teeth into.

*agrees with Bottle* :headbang: I begin to wonder if he has more than mere blind faith in a diety with no tangible proof beyond cute poetic sayings ...which aren't so much tangible being eletronic emissions

again, very poetic, but lacking in substance. please provide some meat for us to sink our teeth into.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you are trying to come to a logical conclsion about God, then what the heck is the point really? Why bother? That's make God just another factor. An equation. I could present various logical and scientific arguements on why God exists and have done so on many occasions but really that doesn't matter. My apologies about the poetry, you've caught me at one of my more whimsicaltimes. I flash back and forth between this and extreme bitter cynicism.

For me it would be a case of a truly genuine good example from a religious community, but one that can't be seen by the example set by atheists etc. Atheists and other non-believers are perfectly capable of doing good acts without the guidance of a religion. I believe that I can lead a good and happy life without the necessary reward of heaven at the end of it.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you are trying to come to a logical conclsion about God, then what the heck is the point really? Why bother?

what is the point in discussing anything? why bother communicating with other humans on any topic?

I could present various logical and scientific arguements on why God exists and have done so on many occasions but really that doesn't matter.

i'd say it matters a lot if you think you have empirical proof of God, because i don't believe it is possible for such proof to exist. if you can prove me wrong, please do...that's what this thread is all about.

if you are not inclined to do so that's fine too, but if that's the case then i would ask you to please not hijack the thread.


My apologies about the poetry, you've caught me at one of my more whimsicaltimes. I flash back and forth between this and extreme bitter cynicism.
no need to apologize, i was just pointing out that while it is aesthetically pleasing it is not relavent or useful in this discussion. many pretty things are also useless, but that does not make them worthless :).

it's not a bias, it's a simple awareness of my human limitations. i cannot conceive of any way that a God could prove it exists to me, because my human form has too many perceptual and cognitive limitations. you could say that the reality is biased, in this instance, which is what i was smiling about.
OK, I tried replying to your post on the other thread, but it didn't go through. I'll have another go here.

I don't believe that your limitations as a human are as you describe. I believe that you, Bottle, can know God enough to be able to love Him and follow Him in this life and forever.


i'm not "actively refusing" to believe in God, because i have no way to do that. i am saying that i cannot possibly know, one way or the other, if God exists. i do not "refuse" to believe, i simply must remain agnostic because there is no information i can use to reach a conclusion on the subject.
If you have as one of your fundamental beliefs the belief that it is impossible for you to know whether or not God exists, that belief is a perceptual filter for every experience in your life through which God might try to reach you. I know, because I used to believe that. Can you admit that you may be prejudging the question if you say that judgement on the question can never be reached?


as for "loving" God, that goes beyond proof of God's existence. i can prove my boss exists, but that does not suffice to make me love her. it is entirely possible that there is a being which created all existence, and that such a being is also not something worthy of love or worship; it could be an evil, albeit extremely powerful, entity. who and what we choose to love is based on far more than what exists and does not exist.

I'm not especially interested in persuading you that God exists if such a belief never leads you to love God, trust Him, and accept His authority over your life. My desire is that you would follow Him, because I believe that following the God described in the Bible, who lived, died, and rose again as Jesus Christ, is the best thing anyone can do with their life, and that doing so gives access to an eternal life that never ends.


you seem to be telling me that i should blindly choose to believe one of many possibly accounts of God, yet you give no reason why i should accept that particular account over all others. you give no reason why that account establishes God at all, rather than simply describing mysterious and unexplained events of indeterminate cause. yet you accuse me of picking and choosing how i will "worship" God? it seems that you are the one who is making decisions based purely on your personal opinions, and you are the one choosing which form of God best suits you. you have chosen to worship the God of the Bible, and thus have chosen to worship God on your terms (or, even worse, the terms somebody else tells you to use) rather than on the terms dictated by empirical reality.
I didn't especially choose Christianity; I believe that God used various factors in my life, and direct influence in my mind, to break down the anti-Christian bias that existed in me. I found myself presented with the choice between accepting the Bible as true, or refusing to accept it as true, and I decided to accept it, but I'm not sure I'd describe it as an entirely free-will choice, because God was encouraging me to make it, and He can provide influence that no-one else can.

I know that I haven't provided any evidence that the God that I follow, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is the true God that you should follow, all of you that read this post. I deliberately haven't quoted the Bible here, just mentioned some of my experiences and raised some philosophical questions. I do really want all of you to become Christians and start a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ, not because I get "brownie points" with God for so doing, but just because I believe that whether or not a person accepts God's authority over them has near-infinite consequences for them, and is the central issue in everybody's life, whether or not they realise it.

Thanks for reading this.

:)

I know that I haven't provided any evidence that the God that I follow, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is the true God that you should follow, all of you that read this post. I deliberately haven't quoted the Bible here, just mentioned some of my experiences and raised some philosophical questions. I do really want all of you to become Christians and start a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ, not because I get "brownie points" with God for so doing, but just because I believe that whether or not a person accepts God's authority over them has near-infinite consequences for them, and is the central issue in everybody's life, whether or not they realise it.

Thanks for reading this.

:)

I tried that once, but after retching every time I walked into any church or christian bookstore (which have excellent books btw) I decided Christianity wasn't my calling and am now much happier the way I am

OK, I tried replying to your post on the other thread, but it didn't go through. I'll have another go here.

I don't believe that your limitations as a human are as you describe. I believe that you, Bottle, can know God enough to be able to love Him and follow Him in this life and forever.

i disagree, obviously. i've spent the past 8 years or so studying human neurobiology, and the biggest lesson i have learned from it all is that our brains are amazing, powerful, beautiful...and limited.


If you have as one of your fundamental beliefs the belief that it is impossible for you to know whether or not God exists, that belief is a peceptual filter for every experience in your life through which God might try to reach you.

i believe i cannot perceive the sound of a bat's echolocation signal with my naked ear. is that a "perceptual filter"? i believe i cannot perceive the infrared light spectrum with my naked eye. is that a "perceptual filter"?


I know, because I used to believe that. Can you admit that you may be prejudging the question if you say that judgement on the question can never be reached?

i am not "prejudging" the question, i am simply answering it. the question is "can a human being experience proof of the existence of God." my answer, based on my efforts to address that question, is "no." this thread is one of my efforts to find out if i have overlooked possible sources of proof. so far, the answer is still "no."


I'm not especially interested in persuading you that God exists if such a belief never leads you to love God, trust Him, and accept His authority over your life. My desire is that you would follow Him, because I believe that following the God described in the Bible, who lived, died, and rose again as Jesus Christ, is the best thing anyone can do with their life, and that doing so gives access to an eternal life that never ends.

that's nice, but not really relavent.


I didn't especially choose Christianity; I believe that God used various factors in my life, and direct influence in my mind, to break down the anti-Christian bias that existed in me. I found myself presented with the choice between accepting the Bible as true, or refusing to accept it as true, and I decided to accept it, but I'm not sure I'd describe it as an entirely free-will choice, because God was encouraging me to make it, and He can provide influence that no-one else can.

how do you know the force "encouraging" you was God? is it not possible that some other force was at work? how did you know the factors in your life were all being influenced by a single being, or that they were being directed at all?

more importantly, why did your choice come down to "Bible or Not Bible"? have you read all the religious texts with God-models? have you explored all the possible options? have you given each possibility equal time, study, and consideration? have you even read the Bible in its original language, to see if it corresponds to the form of its current translations? if not, why not? why do you feel secure in your arbitrary decision to believe in one particular God model, based on many-times-removed accounts that have been translated and modified for many centuries?


I know that I haven't provided any evidence that the God that I follow, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is the true God that you should follow, all of you that read this post.

right. and that is the subject of this discussion. whether or not God exists is not the question right now. the question is whether a human can have the existence of God empirically established for him, or if there are other means by which God's existence can/should be "proven."


I deliberately haven't quoted the Bible here, just mentioned some of my experiences and raised some philosophical questions. I do really want all of you to become Christians and start a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ, not because I get "brownie points" with God for so doing, but just because I believe that whether or not a person accepts God's authority over them has near-infinite consequences for them, and is the central issue in everybody's life, whether or not they realise it.

again, nice to know, but not relavent.

Thanks for reading this.

welcome. thanks for participating.
:)

Okay, atheists, agnostics, secularists, and nonbelievers of all sorts:

What would it take? What would have to occur for you to believe in God/god/gods?

what would it take? For God to present himself DIRECTLY.......or an injection of some sort ;)

Give me a puff of that before you throw it away!

I saw Jesus 2 years ago on ash wednesday when me and a friend were stoned. We decided we shouldnt get so high again

I saw Jesus 2 years ago on ash wednesday when me and a friend were stoned. We decided we shouldnt get so high again
case in point. silly as it sounds, this sort of experience is actually quite pertinant to what i am talking about. i participated in a religious ceremony that involved the use of halucinogens, and i had a vivid "spiritual" experience in which a water spirit explained the moral import of ice crystals to me. of course, this water spirit looked like a topless mermaid version of Angelina Jolie, and the moral import of ice crystals was "chill out" (which seemed like a brilliant notion to me rather than like the horrid pun i now know it is), but it was very real and meaningful to me at the time.

i disagree, obviously. i've spent the past 8 years or so studying human neurobiology, and the biggest lesson i have learned from it all is that our brains are amazing, powerful, beautiful...and limited.
I know our brains are limited; I am positing that God can overcome those limitations in ways you currently cannot imagine.


i believe i cannot perceive the sound of a bat's echolocation signal with my naked ear. is that a "perceptual filter"? i believe i cannot perceive UV light with my naked eye. is that a "perceptual filter"?
If you believe that you cannot perceive God with your limited human mind, then yes, I believe that is a perceptual (sorry for the poor spelling earlier!) filter that will affect the way you perceive and interpret every event in your life, including your analysis of your own thoughts.


i am not "prejudging" the question, i am simply answering it. the question is "can a human being experience proof of the existence of God." my answer, based on my efforts to address that question, is "no." this thread is one of my efforts to find out if i have overlooked possible sources of proof. so far, the answer is still "no."
Absolute logical proof is impossible, so I assume you're not seeking that. If you're seeking proof beyond all reasonable doubt, then I can tell you that I have experienced that proof to a standard that satisfies me. The proof is not solely empirical; it is also internal and subjective, but it satisfies me.


how do you know the force "encouraging" you was God? is it not possible that some other force was at work? how did you know the factors in your life were all being influenced by a single being, or that they were being directed at all?
I don't KNOW in an absolute sense; as mentioned above, absolute knowledge is impossible for humans to have. I have faith in God.
The factors were not all influenced solely by God; the Devil was (and is) also an influence in my life, as were (and are) many different people, some of whom follow Jesus, some of whom don't.


more importantly, why did your choice come down to "Bible or Not Bible"? have you read all the religious texts with God-models? have you explored all the possible options? have you given each possibility equal time, study, and consideration? have you even read the Bible in its original language, to see if it corresponds to the form of its current translations? if not, why not? why do you feel secure in your arbitrary decision to believe in one particular God model, based on many-times-removed accounts that have been translated and modified for many centuries?
No, I haven't examined each option equally, because I wasn't really examining any of the options at the time I first believed. I knew the basics of Christianity, as I knew the basics of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, humanism, and other belief systems. I believe God short-circuited the process by directly leading me to believe that Christianity is true.


whether or not God exists is not the question right now. the question is whether a human can have the existence of God empirically established for him, or if there are other means by which God's existence can/should be "proven."
I don't claim to have any empirical proof, but I didn't think you were looking for empirical proof. I thought you were looking for something that would convince you. I think that the other means that you mention exist, and are personal, residing within a person's consciousness. I am asking that you be open to God revealing Himself to you in a personal, non-empirical way.

I know our brains are limited; I am positing that God can overcome those limitations in ways you currently cannot imagine.

quite possible. however, i would never be able to know if it was God overcoming those limitations or not.


If you believe that you cannot perceive God with your limited human mind, then yes, I believe that is a perceptual (sorry for the poor spelling earlier!) filter that will affect the way you perceive and interpret every event in your life, including your analysis of your own thoughts.

you didn't answer me at all. i believe my perceptions are limited in many other ways, yet you don't seem inclined to disagree with me. on what basis do you assert that i am able to perceive proof of God?


Absolute logical proof is impossible, so I assume you're not seeking that. If you're seeking proof beyond all reasonable doubt, then I can tell you that I have experienced that proof to a standard that satisfies me. The proof is not solely empirical; it is also internal and subjective, but it satisfies me.

you have not presented that proof. i am not interested in convincing you on the subject of God's existence, nor do i especially care if you believe in God. all i am interested in is examination of the "proof" you claim to have, and whether it constitutes actual evidence of the God you claim to believe in. so far, you have not given any reason why you believe in your particular God, other than your subjective opinion that you are right...that isn't proof of anything, other than that you believe you are right.


I don't KNOW in an absolute sense; as mentioned above, absolute knowledge is impossible for humans to have. I have faith in God.
The factors were not all influenced solely by God; the Devil was (and is) also an influence in my life, as were (and are) many different people, some of whom follow Jesus, some of whom don't.

you don't seem to KNOW in any sense at all. you also didn't respond to my question at all; how do you know which things were influenced by Jesus, which by the Devil, which by God, and which by none of the above? on what criterion do you evaluate such influences?


No, I haven't examined each option equally, because I wasn't really examining any of the options at the time I first believed. I knew the basics of Christianity, as I knew the basics of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, humanism, and other belief systems. I believe God short-circuited the process by directly leading me to believe that Christianity is true.

so, essentially, you have a "perceptual filter" in place? you choose to believe in the Christian God and interpret all input that reaches you through that particular filter. you do not give equal credance to alternate theories (such as that Vishnu may be responsible for a given event, or that Hades may be manefest in a given action). yet you suggested in your original post that i am the one operating with unfair bias...interesting.


I don't claim to have any empirical proof, but I didn't think you were looking for empirical proof. I thought you were looking for something that would convince you. I think that the other means that you mention exist, and are personal, residing within a person's consciousness. I am asking that you be open to God revealing Himself to you in a personal, non-empirical way.
i realize you may not have intended it this way, but you should be aware that it is extremely insulting when believers imply that nonbelievers are not "open" to God revealing himself. i have personally spent all of my conscious life "open" to God, and i have spent nearly a decade actively investigating this issue. just because somebody doesn't agree with you does not mean they are not "open" to God; on the contrary, i think it would be impossible for any person to agree with you on this topic if they were truly "open" to God.

i would wager i have read more religious texts in more original translations than you, and definitely more than most religious persons. i have probably visited a wider variety of religious ceremonies than 99% of people. i have read more philosophical and theological works than you or most religious persons. i have studied the neurobiological components of spirituality as much as current science and my own research limitations allow. i believe it is you, not i, who fail to be "open" to God; you decided on your vision of God without even coming close to sampling the possible options, and you now close yourself to an infinity of possibilities. you also grossly overestimate your own ability to understand and perceive the universe, which lends inflated and inappropriate significance to your personal experiences.

god is like atlantis, he is there, somewhere, we think.

we are our own gods. we do as we please, and when something bad happens, then it is either by mere chance or a result of one of our actions. there isn't a "fate" that determines how this works, because fate is just a plot, and a plot must be created. How can so many people have so many different gods? wouldn't these god(s) prefer to belong to everyone's culture?

Okay, atheists, agnostics, secularists, and nonbelievers of all sorts:

What would it take? What would have to occur for you to believe in God/god/gods?


And for the believers (so you guys don't feel left out):

What did it take? What occured that lead to your belief in God/god/gods? What do you think it should take to convince nonbelievers?

EDIT: In the interests of clarity on this topic, God/god/gods refer to a being or beings, not the sort of "God" described by Einstein, the amorphous "God-force" concept, or the "god is everything" model. For the sake of this discussion, God is not a state of mind, a feeling or set of feelings in a human being, the sound of a baby's laughter, et cetera.

Okay, what makes me believe there are higher powers is that there simply must be. Otherwise, we have no purpose, and I just couldn't deal with that.

What would it take me to believe in the Christian God? Evanescence would have to come to Birmingham, Alabama for a concert, get lost, and have their car break down in front of my house. And then I'd have to befriend them and they'd have to express their gratitude by letting me go up stage with them for the concert. And then they'd have to go, "You were great! Want to tour with us?"

Never... gonna... happen... ;)

Okay, what makes me believe there are higher powers is that there simply must be. Otherwise, we have no purpose, and I just couldn't deal with that.

What would it take me to believe in the Christian God? Evanescence would have to come to Birmingham, Alabama for a concert, get lost, and have their car break down in front of my house. And then I'd have to befriend them and they'd have to express their gratitude by letting me go up stage with them for the concert. And then they'd have to go, "You were great! Want to tour with us?"

Never... gonna... happen... ;)

ill believe if the christian god lets me be god.... with power to do as i wish... then i will unmake their god and supplant him with myself... then being god i will know there is a god

quite possible. however, i would never be able to know if it was God overcoming those limitations or not.
I'm saying you would know it was God; you'd know it in a way you cannot currently imagine.

you didn't answer me at all. i believe my perceptions are limited in many other ways, yet you don't seem inclined to disagree with me. on what basis do you assert that i am able to perceive proof of God?
Only on the basis that I am able to do so, and as you are a person, as I am a person, you can do so also.

you have not presented that proof. i am not interested in convincing you on the subject of God's existence, nor do i especially care if you believe in God. all i am interested in is examination of the "proof" you claim to have, and whether it constitutes actual evidence of the God you claim to believe in. so far, you have not given any reason why you believe in your particular God, other than your subjective opinion that you are right...that isn't proof of anything, other than that you believe you are right.
I can't present my "proof"; it's subjective, based on personal experience. I do care if you believe in God, but I can't convince you that He's there, only hope that He'll reveal Himself to you.

so, essentially, you have a "perceptual filter" in place? you choose to believe in the Christian God and interpret all input that reaches you through that particular filter. you do not give equal credance to alternate theories (such as that Vishnu may be responsible for a given event, or that Hades may be manefest in a given action). yet you suggested in your original post that i am the one operating with unfair bias...interesting.
Quite right.
I choose to believe in the Christian God and interpret all input that reaches me through that particular filter. I do not give equal credence to alternate theories. I did not intend to suggest that your bias is less fair than mine, only that it is less accurate. I realise that you may find that as insulting, or even more so.

i realize you may not have intended it this way, but you should be aware that it is extremely insulting when believers imply that nonbelievers are not "open" to God revealing himself. i have personally spent all of my conscious life "open" to God, and i have spent nearly a decade actively investigating this issue. just because somebody doesn't agree with you does not mean they are not "open" to God; on the contrary, i think it would be impossible for any person to agree with you on this topic if they were truly "open" to God.

i would wager i have read more religious texts in more original translations than you, and definitely more than most religious persons. i have probably visited a wider variety of religious ceremonies than 99% of people. i have read more philosophical and theological works than you or most religious persons. i have studied the neurobiological components of spirituality as much as current science and my own research limitations allow. i believe it is you, not i, who fail to be "open" to God; you decided on your vision of God without even coming close to sampling the possible options, and you now close yourself to an infinity of possibilities. you also grossly overestimate your own ability to understand and perceive the universe, which lends inflated and inappropriate significance to your personal experiences.
I implied that you are not open to God because you stated, and have stated several times, that it is completely impossible for you to know anything at all about God, including the base issue of whether there is a God, and that no possible combination of circumstances and experiences could persuade you otherwise.

I agree that you have examined the options more than I have; you certainly were more open to God than I was before I believed. Now, you are certain that you can never know; how is that openness?

It was not my intention to offend you; I can tell this is an important issue to you. I do not claim perfect knowledge of God, or perfect love toward Him, or perfect obedience of His commandments; I only claim that I have started to know Him, and love Him, and obey Him, in a very small way, and that I hope to do so better and better as I continue to follow Him.

Okay, atheists, agnostics, secularists, and nonbelievers of all sorts:

What would it take? What would have to occur for you to believe in God/god/gods?


Proof that he/she/it/they exist.

I'm saying you would know it was God; you'd know it in a way you cannot currently imagine.

and you base this claim on...?

Only on the basis that I am able to do so, and as you are a person, as I am a person, you can do so also.
you have yet to convince me that you are able to do so. even if you could, there are many things other people are capable of that i am not capable of.


I can't present my "proof"; it's subjective, based on personal experience. I do care if you believe in God, but I can't convince you that He's there, only hope that He'll reveal Himself to you.

*sigh* i'm not ASKING you to prove God. i'm asking you to TELL ME what your proof was. you don't have to give it to me, you have to TELL ME what it was, and how you knew it was proof of God.


I choose to believe in the Christian God and interpret all input that reaches me through that particular filter. I do not give equal credence to alternate theories. I did not intend to suggest that your bias is less fair than mine, only that it is less accurate. I realise that you may find that as insulting, or even more so.

i don't find it insulting for you to admit your hypocracy, no.


I implied that you are not open to God because you stated, and have stated several times, that it is completely impossible for you to know anything at all about God, including the base issue of whether there is a God, and that no possible combination of circumstances and experiences could persuade you otherwise.

i never said that "no possible combination of circumstances or experiences could persuade me" that i am unable to ever have proof of God's existence. indeed, this entire thread is an effort to discover what evidence might suffice for just such a purpose. i have simply said that i am unable to come up with anything that would work (and i have detailed why), and have also found that nobody else has figured out an answer either.


I agree that you have examined the options more than I have; you certainly were more open to God than I was before I believed.

doesn't that worry you?


Now, you are certain that you can never know; how is that openness?

at one time, when i was very young, i was utterly convinced that i could fly if i figured out the correct way to flap my arms. after a great deal of time, effort, and investigation, i realized that i simply did not possess the physical traits necessary for arm-flapping flight.

i would not say i am "closed" to the possibility of flying by flapping my arms, any more than i am "closed" to the idea of breathing through my gills. i am simply aware of the limitations of my body. it is possible something might occur in the future to render me capable of such things, but, in my present form, i know i will never be capable of them. if you want to refer to that as "closemindedness" then that's your choice, but i think that's a very foolish way to look at it.


It was not my intention to offend you; I can tell this is an important issue to you. I do not claim perfect knowledge of God, or perfect love toward Him, or perfect obedience of His commandments; I only claim that I have started to know Him, and love Him, and obey Him, in a very small way, and that I hope to do so better and better as I continue to follow Him.
when i love something or someone, i seek to know it and experience it as fully as possible. i don't assume that i know everything i need to know right off the bat, and i certainly don't read one book on the given subject and assume it's the final word.

how can you claim to be devoted to God if you aren't even reading His word in its original form? how can you claim to be trying to obey His will, if you haven't even made an effort to determine what His will actually is? you admit you haven't read all the religious texts out there, so how can you claim to be attentive to God's wishes? for all you know, your "inspired" experiences were the work of the Devil, who was out to divert you from God's real Truth.

Okay, what makes me believe there are higher powers is that there simply must be. Otherwise, we have no purpose, and I just couldn't deal with that.

:( wow, i am so sorry. if you feel you have no purpose without a higher power then...ouch. that must really suck. please be aware that it is quite possible for life to have purpose and meaning without higher powers. you, personally, may feel your life is meaningless without higher powers, but not everybody is handicapped in that way, and you don't necessarily have to continue to view your life in that way.

for instance, what if there is no higher power, but there are an infinite number of "lower" powers which sustain the universe? as plankton sustain a great whale, the universe could be a massive entity sustained by the humblest of forces.

or what if there were higher powers, and they set the universe in motion, but they no longer exist? what if all that remains is their momentum, and we are left to direct that energy and force however we may?

or what if the Hokey Pokey really IS what it's all about?

how would you recognize God?
i assume he/she/it would appear before me in some kind of godly, etherial mist and proclaim in a sterotypical god-voice "i am god". or something.

i don't know. maybe i've met god already but he's just keeping a low profile at the moment

What would it take? What would have to occur for you to believe in God/god/gods?

An afterlife would probably do the trick. One of my primary beliefs is that when we die, we're dead. If I die and something comes after that, I'm pretty much guaranteed to be wrong somewhere.

In this life, there's essentially nothing that could not be explained by natural causes that we don't yet understand.

Well, not having read most of the thread, I'll just say what I would consider to be evidence or proof:

A message, something that is unmistakably a message, that is permanent and can thus be verified, and could not have been formed by natural processes.

Example - large gold statue on the moon, with a message written in a human language. Takes almost no effort for a God to do - after all, he's omnipotent and thus can make gold statues where they really shouldn't be, and he's omniscient so he knows what languages will exist when it is discovered.

I probably wouldn't accept some personal experience as proof - I've tried to observe my thoughts at times, and it's scary how often deep beliefs about things turn out to be wrong later. And of course, they're nonverifiable. ...or maybe I would accept something personal as proof, but I'd have to take it on a case-by-case basis...

Would have to be something good, like make me grow 5 arms all of a sudden or speak from the clouds like in lion king

That or die and go to hell, then probably I would believe.

A message, something that is unmistakably a message, that is permanent and can thus be verified, and could not have been formed by natural processes.

Example - large gold statue on the moon, with a message written in a human language. Takes almost no effort for a God to do - after all, he's omnipotent and thus can make gold statues where they really shouldn't be, and he's omniscient so he knows what languages will exist when it is discovered.

What's stopping an intelligent race of aliens tapping into the vast amount of information about our culture and then creating such a thing just so we will be convince they are gods?

IMO, that's more likely than actual existence of a god. Others would find it less likely. Specific evidence of a god can not be proven from within this universe.

What's stopping an intelligent race of aliens tapping into the vast amount of information about our culture and then creating such a thing just so we will be convince they are gods?

IMO, that's more likely than actual existence of a god. Others would find it less likely. Specific evidence of a god can not be proven from within this universe.
that's what i'm talking about. glad i'm not the only one who takes this point.

that's what i'm talking about. glad i'm not the only one who takes this point.

I haven't even read most of this thread, so I was worried I was rehashing old ground. :)

I haven't even read most of this thread, so I was worried I was rehashing old ground. :)
in some ways, i suppose you were. but it is apparently a point that bears repeating, since there are several people who don't seem to understand; witness the number of posts containing some variation on the "he would have to appear to me and do some tricks" motif.

I need said god to visit me and show some of his so-called powers.

that's what i'm talking about. glad i'm not the only one who takes this point.

Wait...if, IF actual physical proof of a god is not possible within this universe, how are those of us who don't happen to hear god in our minds to be converted?

Okay, atheists, agnostics, secularists, and nonbelievers of all sorts:

What would it take? What would have to occur for you to believe in God/god/gods?



Simply, I would have to see a similar amount of evidence as I see for other things that I believe in. I believe I am sitting in a chair. I can see it, feel it, hear it creak. If it's not here then it's a very good illusion. As for God - I see nothing, I feel nothing and I hear nothing.

anything short of him coming to me, looking me straight in the face and saying "you were wrong mother fucker! now eat eternal suffering!" wont really do much.

What's stopping an intelligent race of aliens tapping into the vast amount of information about our culture and then creating such a thing just so we will be convince they are gods?

Absolutely nothing. It's of course possible. It's always possible to make up an ad hoc explanation for things.


IMO, that's more likely than actual existence of a god. Others would find it less likely. Specific evidence of a god can not be proven from within this universe.

But it would be evidence for the existence of a God, or at least a higher being.

Now, what would distinguish something created by aliens from something created by a God - in my mind, it would be purpose. If it had, for example, a copy of the Bible on it (or a holy text of another religion) then that would be evidence for that particular religion. Either way, it would be evidence of a higher power of some sort - and, if it points to the existence of a God of some sort, I see no reason why we would arbitrarily decide that it was some alien race that we have no knowledge or evidence of.

nothing

More interestingly, how would a deity KNOW it was a first causing being?

The one thing you can never know is that you do know everything.

What if the Christian deity was made by aliens who were made by robots who were made by OTHER aliens who were made by an alien deity who was made by even MORE aliens, who had all become cyborg clones of some alien named Ralph? And Ralph's actually an invisible pink unicorn?

And Ralph's actually still stuck in the Matrix.

It's of course possible. It's always possible to make up an ad hoc explanation for things.

Agreed. That's how I explain the prevalence of religions throughout almost all cultures.

It's all a matter of perspective as to what you view as ad hoc and what you view as fitting into a larger picture.

What it took me to believe in Gods? A way to make myself even better than everyone else. Not be one with something, not be humble, but to become something better. Greed fueled my desire for a God. I found something that gave me that, I tested it, and discovered that it worked, and it worked well. So I stuck with it.

By better I mean more able to influence that which is around me. Better as in better able to do what many refer to as 'magic' manipulating my environment and the people in it.

For me to believe in god I'd probably have to die and then meet them because if I was dead and meeting someone I'd be more inclined to think they're god. Or maybe if the 10 plagues started happening.

You are asking the wrong question. I do not care if they exist or not (gods)

what i want to knwo is where to find the ambrosia that makes them so.

I agree with Williiam James (father of Psychology, Major American Philosopher) who wrote in The Varieties of Religious Experience, that the only way to truly know God, and to know what he wants of us, is for him to tell me as an individual. After reading most of the major religious texts, it is easy to extrapolate some basic premises, because in most say 90% of the same stuff. The main difference is what name you wish to give to God, and how you should worship him. I think that I will continue to try and live in accordance with what most texts consider to be "right living" and still fail to name God and fail to attend the "correct" services.

If God is going to punish me for this, so be it. If he wishes to enlighten me as to the specifics of his desires, so be it. I can not imagine that an omnipresent deity would willfully withhold his overt presence from the world if he truly wished it to be the dominant influence. For those that preach that he is present, but ignored, I counter that no omnipresent deity could be ignored, unless he willed it. And if he wills it, so be it.

Wait...if, IF actual physical proof of a god is not possible within this universe, how are those of us who don't happen to hear god in our minds to be converted?
that's my question. furthermore, if we assume God has created humans, then He must have created us with this built-in limitation, and then we must ask what that says about His desire for us to know Him or believe in Him. isn't it possible that God does not want us to know Him or worship Him? perhaps He built these limitations so that we would not fixate on pleasing or fearing Him...wouldn't that be ironic?

Absolutely nothing. It's of course possible. It's always possible to make up an ad hoc explanation for things.
...
But it would be evidence for the existence of a God, or at least a higher being.

but that's the thing; it's NOT evidence for God, any more or less than it is evidence for a race of super-powered orange centaurs which are trying to control the human race. it's ad hoc, just as you said, and doesn't ammount to evidence of a damn thing.


Now, what would distinguish something created by aliens from something created by a God - in my mind, it would be purpose. If it had, for example, a copy of the Bible on it (or a holy text of another religion) then that would be evidence for that particular religion.
no, it really wouldn't. it would be evidence that the Bible got there somehow, and probably that it was put there by whatever entity created that given work. it would be just as likely the Devil put the Bible there, or aliens who randomly selected a human book as an effort at communication (and who discovered that lots of humans have Bibles, so figured it was a good choice), or a whole host of other possible explanations. it would not, in any way, constitude evidence of these things, because it could be all or none of them with equal likelihood based on the information we have.


Either way, it would be evidence of a higher power of some sort
not necessarily, depending on how you define "higher power".


- and, if it points to the existence of a God of some sort, I see no reason why we would arbitrarily decide that it was some alien race that we have no knowledge or evidence of.
the point is that it DOESN'T point to the existence of a God of some sort, and to leap to that conclusion is just as silly as assuming it was an alien race. they are equally groundless.

What it took me to believe in Gods? A way to make myself even better than everyone else. Not be one with something, not be humble, but to become something better. Greed fueled my desire for a God. I found something that gave me that, I tested it, and discovered that it worked, and it worked well. So I stuck with it.

By better I mean more able to influence that which is around me. Better as in better able to do what many refer to as 'magic' manipulating my environment and the people in it.
ooooh, there's one that we haven't encountered yet (i think).

perhaps if God could bestow additional powers on the individual...would that constitute solid evidence? you can experience your own abilities, and you could experience a change in those abilities...but then, i suppose it could just as easily be a delusion or halucination (as with the other forms of "proof")...hrm...going to have to think about this...

Simply, I would have to see a similar amount of evidence as I see for other things that I believe in. I believe I am sitting in a chair. I can see it, feel it, hear it creak. If it's not here then it's a very good illusion. As for God - I see nothing, I feel nothing and I hear nothing.
i suppose that is a fair standard. but a chair's purpose and powers are relatively straight forward; dealing with other beings is a bit more hazy. for example, if another human presents themselves to me i can know their presence as solidly as i know that of a chair, but if they tell me they are God then does that prove God is real? if a being, solid and real as my own chair, is right in front of me, how can i establish that being is God?

what if god is a computer progamming expert and we are just part of his progammes??? :eek:

what if god is a computer progamming expert and we are just part of his progammes??? :eek:
why would that be any more (or less) alarming than the idea of a God who created us all to worship Him? i'd rather be the whim of a cosmic geek than the slave of a megalomaniac with a penchant for genocide.

The difference in practical terms is that proof is replicable and communicable. In logical terms, there's very little you can prove, granted. In practical terms, lots of things rely on practical proof which has standards lower than true logical proof, but which works enough to allow to us to eg build buildings, make computers, take rockets into space, invent medicines yada yada.


I believe that my car will fit through a gap of a certain size, and that I can perceive what size that gap is, to an acceptable tolerance, by looking. I can't prove this very easily, but I accept it as fact that the width of my car isn't going to change, and that the width of the carriageway isn't going to change. This is practical fact, even though it can't be proven.

I also think my car is pretty cool. This is my opinion.

I wouldn't like to be a passenger in a car whose driver thought that the size of the car was as much an opinion issue as the coolness of the car, for fear that said driver might decide that his belief/opinion about the size of the car was about to change, and given that his belief is as good as proof, and that facts and opinions are all the same blah blah, he is going to drive the car through a 12 inch gap in a wall that, in his opinion, doesn't exist anyway.


You've never had a shared experience? Look up in the sky. You may be able to see a big orange ball. It's called the sun. It's likely that someone else is also seeing that sun at the same time.

If you define "shared experience" as "someone else getting the experience that you are getting by pulling it out of your head" you've probably never had a shared experience. But why would you define it like that? You don't define a shared cake as a cake where you eat it and them someone else gets it out of your guts and eats it too. A shared cake is when you get a cake and let someone else have a bit. Like a shared experience is when you look at something and someone else looks at it too.



Who says? Who says that society and all religions haven't got it wrong and Peter Sutcliffe got it right, particularly if as you say you can't prove anything?



I think that some things can be proven to the satisfaction of some people, and some things can be proven to the satisfaction of all people, and almost nothing can be proven to the satisfaction of formal logic.

I'm an apathist.
Good post. I especially like the last part.
;)

yeah, i often find blondie a religious experience
---->VIDEODROME! Yowza! (Just rereleased on DVD btw)<----

BTW, *nyuk* on your car's suspension .... ;)

So, even if Abraham's faith in God is disproved (ie. God doesn't stay his hand), then Abraham's faith in God remains? (and vice-versa)
(Quoting old Batman series) ...
*KaPOW!* :sniper:
Good other posts too.

(Quoting old Batman series) ...
*KaPOW!* :sniper:
Good other posts too.
personally, i liked *BIFF!* and *THWOK!*

case in point. silly as it sounds, this sort of experience is actually quite pertinant to what i am talking about. i participated in a religious ceremony that involved the use of halucinogens, and i had a vivid "spiritual" experience in which a water spirit explained the moral import of ice crystals to me. of course, this water spirit looked like a topless mermaid version of Angelina Jolie, and the moral import of ice crystals was "chill out" (which seemed like a brilliant notion to me rather than like the horrid pun i now know it is), but it was very real and meaningful to me at the time.
Excellent. Reminds me of spiked pork rinds ... and NASCAR turtles and anime cats and people's faces turned neo-cubist/impressionalist all w/in about a 6 hour expanse of time. Did a lot of laughing and almost peed several times w/out meaning to.

personally, i liked *BIFF!* and *THWOK!*
I am indeed humbled, with my limited dialogue. I was too caught up in the costumes and dance to remember the terms well. *sigh*
;)
Or ... i may borrow from another series ....
*SCREW!*
*INFLATE!*
*ALTER SADDLE!*

Regards, F.G. Superman

god is like atlantis, he is there, somewhere, we think.
god is like WMD's ... they're there, somewhere, we think.
*hijack*
Although, joke aside, it is kinda fitting ... god in the "wrong hands" results in ...?

:( wow, i am so sorry. if you feel you have no purpose without a higher power then...ouch. that must really suck. please be aware that it is quite possible for life to have purpose and meaning without higher powers. you, personally, may feel your life is meaningless without higher powers, but not everybody is handicapped in that way, and you don't necessarily have to continue to view your life in that way.

for instance, what if there is no higher power, but there are an infinite number of "lower" powers which sustain the universe? as plankton sustain a great whale, the universe could be a massive entity sustained by the humblest of forces.

or what if there were higher powers, and they set the universe in motion, but they no longer exist? what if all that remains is their momentum, and we are left to direct that energy and force however we may?

or what if the Hokey Pokey really IS what it's all about?
You rock.

Okay, atheists, agnostics, secularists, and nonbelievers of all sorts:

What would it take? What would have to occur for you to believe in God/god/gods?

It would take him/her/it actually showing up in some tangible form, i.e. taking on a physical shape, projecting a voice that multiple people could hear at once and agree upon, showing sentience beyond a shadow of a doubt, etc.

anything short of him coming to me, looking me straight in the face and saying "you were wrong mother fucker! now eat eternal suffering!" wont really do much.
In that actual quote, i think there are many, MANY people that filter through NS that might fulfill that requirement for you, though i doubt any of them really have the wherewithal to try and inflict for that long. I personally have gotten that quote a few times, and none of the folk who barbed me with that attitude really bothered to follow through. I guess i'll have to wait an eternity or something to find out if they really mean it ... wankers. To be fair, i don't know now if i'm in a corporal experience that would let me have suffering but my consciousness would be required for me to suffer eternally, so by definition i would also have to be suffering in the not-so-eternal.
*munsch*

You rock.
why, thank you.

Spending time on NS is making me want to believe in a god less and less. I mean, how much stupidity would god allow in his/her name? :p

If a booming voice declared that the apocalypse was upon us and damned me to eternal hellfire... No wait, I still wouldn't believe in god, I'd think it was either an illusion or just some alien entity trying to convince us it was god...

So... er... nothing, I guess...