NationStates Jolt Archive

What would it take for you to change your mind about something you believe to be a fact? It doesn’t necessarily have to be something you can prove or disprove. The question is just, what would it take to change your mind…

I’ll go first since it’s my subject.

I believe the Biblical account of creation to be factual. I know most of you don’t and that’s fine. What it would take to convince me that evolution/big bang theory are semi-plausible theories are as follows:

First, someone would have to be able to create a perfect vacuum. A 0 matter, 0 energy, 0 anything measurable, 0 Kelvin space.

Second, within that space/vacuum matter in the form of at least hydrogen atoms would have to spontaneously produce themselves.

Third, (not related to the vacuum/spontaneous matter generation) someone would have to take the homogeneous chemicals that compose a simple life form and engineer them into that life form and have it actually come to life.

Fourth, that life form would then have to be either genetically manipulated or naturally diversify itself to produce multiple genus and species.

If those four requirements could be completed, I’d be willing to consider big bang theory and evolutionary theory to be at least plausible theories. Until then, I consider those theories a far more fanciful creation of human imagination than that of the Biblical account of Creation.

Now, I know this is a subject that gets talked about a lot here and I’m not trying to start another debate thread on this subject. This was just a good example of the topic. It could just as easily have been on another subject. Please feel free to use any subject you feel strongly about and state whatever it would take to change your mind rather than debating why you agree or disagree with someone else’s issue. Please save that for another thread. Thanks.

I believe the Biblical account of creation to be factual. I know most of you don’t and that’s fine. What it would take to convince me that evolution/big bang theory are semi-plausible theories are as follows:

First, someone would have to be able to create a perfect vacuum. A 0 matter, 0 energy, 0 anything measurable, 0 Kelvin space.

Second, within that space/vacuum matter in the form of at least hydrogen atoms would have to spontaneously produce themselves.

Third, (not related to the vacuum/spontaneous matter generation) someone would have to take the homogeneous chemicals that compose a simple life form and engineer them into that life form and have it actually come to life.

Fourth, that life form would then have to be either genetically manipulated or naturally diversify itself to produce multiple genus and species.

If those four requirements could be completed, I’d be willing to consider big bang theory and evolutionary theory to be at least plausible theories. Until then, I consider those theories a far more fanciful creation of human imagination than that of the Biblical account of Creation.

given that we do not know if the pre-Big-Bang 'universe' was a perfect vaccuum, i think your criteria are a bit off. creating a perfect vaccuum in our existing universe would not necessarily replicate the conditions which existed prior to the advent of this universe.

Actual physical proof. If I cannot put it together without having missing links, then I cannot believe in it. That's if someone is trying to make me change my mind. I have my own religious beliefs that are really not based on facts whatsoever. Icould notproof it to be the true religion to save my life.

The problem with not believing in the Big Bang and waiting for visible evidence is that you can see the original echo of the Big Bang.

Not only can you hear the echo of the original bang on microwave wavelengths, you can see the pattern that it takes across the sky, as predicted by the mathematical model.

The observations of the COBE satellite match the predictions perfectly - and you're looking all the way back at the first echoes of the big bang.

There's your visible evidence. It's there, and it's undeniable.

Actual physical proof.

That would make me change my mind too.
Alythough, even proofs can be debated.

Definite proof supported by independently confirmed research and repeatedly tested to prove its veracity in any kind of scenario. That would cause me to at least reconsider, if not change, my belief.

A single piece of evidence or a single instance of a well and vigorously documented occurance that is completely inexplicable in terms of what we know about the world and the universe.

Someone flying around or a person with inoperable cancer waking up ten years younger and healthy with a solid gold cross or ankh or koran or something in their hand. Could be anything so long as it breaks the paradigm of science which as it stands is observed to hold in one hundred percent of cases.

given that we do not know if the pre-Big-Bang 'universe' was a perfect vaccuum, i think your criteria are a bit off. creating a perfect vaccuum in our existing universe would not necessarily replicate the conditions which existed prior to the advent of this universe.


Indeed, i dont think that the big bang theory predicts a 'vacuum' prior to the big bang, rather a singularity.

A vacuum requires dimensions, and the dimensions it seems were undifferentiated "before" (a tricky concept because time was undifferentiated and singular) the big bang.

There really wasnt a 'stage' upon which the big bang was set, rather the big bang was the creation of the stage as well as everything in it.

given that we do not know if the pre-Big-Bang 'universe' was a perfect vaccuum, i think your criteria are a bit off. creating a perfect vaccuum in our existing universe would not necessarily replicate the conditions which existed prior to the advent of this universe.

I said that is what it would take for me to buy the theory as plausible. You are free to like or dislike my criteria at your leisure. I'm not really asking to debate. If you'd like to state what it would take for you to believe in Creation or some other thing you currently don't believe, feel free to post, but this thread isn't for the purpose of debating the issues brought up. If you want to start another thread for that feel free. Thanks.

I said that is what it would take for me to buy the theory as plausible. You are free to like or dislike my criteria at your leisure. I'm not really asking to debate. If you'd like to state what it would take for you to believe in Creation or some other thing you currently don't believe, feel free to post, but this thread isn't for the purpose of debating the issues brought up. If you want to start another thread for that feel free. Thanks.
what's the point of a thread where people just state their feelings and don't discuss them? oh well, guess this debateless universe is not for me...:)

What would it take for you to change your mind about something you believe to be a fact? It doesn’t necessarily have to be something you can prove or disprove. The question is just, what would it take to change your mind…

I’ll go first since it’s my subject.

I believe the Biblical account of creation to be factual. I know most of you don’t and that’s fine. What it would take to convince me that evolution/big bang theory are semi-plausible theories are as follows:

First, someone would have to be able to create a perfect vacuum. A 0 matter, 0 energy, 0 anything measurable, 0 Kelvin space.

Second, within that space/vacuum matter in the form of at least hydrogen atoms would have to spontaneously produce themselves.

Third, (not related to the vacuum/spontaneous matter generation) someone would have to take the homogeneous chemicals that compose a simple life form and engineer them into that life form and have it actually come to life.

Fourth, that life form would then have to be either genetically manipulated or naturally diversify itself to produce multiple genus and species.

If those four requirements could be completed, I’d be willing to consider big bang theory and evolutionary theory to be at least plausible theories. Until then, I consider those theories a far more fanciful creation of human imagination than that of the Biblical account of Creation.

Now, I know this is a subject that gets talked about a lot here and I’m not trying to start another debate thread on this subject. This was just a good example of the topic. It could just as easily have been on another subject. Please feel free to use any subject you feel strongly about and state whatever it would take to change your mind rather than debating why you agree or disagree with someone else’s issue. Please save that for another thread. Thanks.
For most things, it would take only a "preponderance of the evidence" to convince me to change my mind. For some few things I hold very dear, it would take "evidence proving beyond the shadow of a doubt."

The problem with not believing in the Big Bang and waiting for visible evidence is that you can see the original echo of the Big Bang.

Not only can you hear the echo of the original bang on microwave wavelengths, you can see the pattern that it takes across the sky, as predicted by the mathematical model.

The observations of the COBE satellite match the predictions perfectly - and you're looking all the way back at the first echoes of the big bang.

There's your visible evidence. It's there, and it's undeniable.

So, rather than debating me, which is not the purpose of this thread, perhaps you should state what it would take for you to believe an alternate theory you currently find to be 'irrational' or 'unreasonable' or of questionable origins.

That would make me change my mind too.
Alythough, even proofs can be debated.

That's why it has to make sense in my mind like I said. I also realize a lot of ideas involve choosing a position even though all of them have missing "links". In that case, I choose the position that makes the most sense to me. That is why proof, sense, and point-of-view is relatvie to a person's perception.

I am a Christian Fundamentalist - but I accept the big bang because the evidence from the COBE satellite is incontrivertible. I still have God creating the universe.

I believe in evolution - if God took billions of years to make us out of the "dust of the Earth" then it's still OK.

Indeed, i dont think that the big bang theory predicts a 'vacuum' prior to the big bang, rather a singularity.

A vacuum requires dimensions, and the dimensions it seems were undifferentiated "before" (a tricky concept because time was undifferentiated and singular) the big bang.

There really wasnt a 'stage' upon which the big bang was set, rather the big bang was the creation of the stage as well as everything in it.

Please, this is not a debate thread. If you want to post what it would take for you to believe something you currently find to be unbelievable fine, but please don't debate Bottle on this subject here. If you want to do that please take it to another thread. Thanks.

What would it take for you to change your mind about something you believe to be a fact? It doesn’t necessarily have to be something you can prove or disprove. The question is just, what would it take to change your mind…

I’ll go first since it’s my subject.

I believe the Biblical account of creation to be factual. I know most of you don’t and that’s fine. What it would take to convince me that evolution/big bang theory are semi-plausible theories are as follows:

First, someone would have to be able to create a perfect vacuum. A 0 matter, 0 energy, 0 anything measurable, 0 Kelvin space.

Second, within that space/vacuum matter in the form of at least hydrogen atoms would have to spontaneously produce themselves.

Third, (not related to the vacuum/spontaneous matter generation) someone would have to take the homogeneous chemicals that compose a simple life form and engineer them into that life form and have it actually come to life.

Fourth, that life form would then have to be either genetically manipulated or naturally diversify itself to produce multiple genus and species.

If those four requirements could be completed, I’d be willing to consider big bang theory and evolutionary theory to be at least plausible theories. Until then, I consider those theories a far more fanciful creation of human imagination than that of the Biblical account of Creation.

Now, I know this is a subject that gets talked about a lot here and I’m not trying to start another debate thread on this subject. This was just a good example of the topic. It could just as easily have been on another subject. Please feel free to use any subject you feel strongly about and state whatever it would take to change your mind rather than debating why you agree or disagree with someone else’s issue. Please save that for another thread. Thanks.

You set up an incredibly rigid test for believing all that. It must be amazingly hard to convince you of anything....

Yet you believe all the stories in the Bible without any test. Don't pretend to be a critical thinker. You believe what you want and evidence doesn't even enter into the equation.

what's the point of a thread where people just state their feelings and don't discuss them? oh well, guess this debateless universe is not for me...:)

I'd be curious to know what it would take for you to believe in something you don't currently believe. Debate is fun and useful, but this thread is more about learning how people think, what kinds of evidence they base their opinions on and how they frame belief structures, which can also be very interesting... at least for a psychologist like me ;) :p :rolleyes: :)

For most things, it would take only a "preponderance of the evidence" to convince me to change my mind. For some few things I hold very dear, it would take "evidence proving beyond the shadow of a doubt."


Care to be more specific on one of those things that would take evidence proving beyond the shadow of a doubt and what that evidence would look like?

I thought this topic was going to be about brain transplants :( .
Anyway I don't really hold many opinions that are dear to me so I'm very open to changing my mind, swinging from one polar opposite to another like a bloated pendulum. In ecense I aquiseque, this could be due to my memory being a bit dodgey and not having to ability to remember previous opinions (which has happened before :p )

I am a Christian Fundamentalist - but I accept the big bang because the evidence from the COBE satellite is incontrivertible. I still have God creating the universe.

I believe in evolution - if God took billions of years to make us out of the "dust of the Earth" then it's still OK.

Okay, what would it take for you to believe the converse of those things?

Please, this is not a debate thread. If you want to post what it would take for you to believe something you currently find to be unbelievable fine, but please don't debate Bottle on this subject here. If you want to do that please take it to another thread. Thanks.

A single piece of evidence or a single instance of a well and vigorously documented occurance that is completely inexplicable in terms of what we know about the world and the universe.

Someone flying around or a person with inoperable cancer waking up ten years younger and healthy with a solid gold cross or ankh or koran or something in their hand. Could be anything so long as it breaks the paradigm of science which as it stands is observed to hold in one hundred percent of cases.

In any event, clarification and discussion towards that end were obviously intended. Not debate.

Okay, what would it take for you to believe the converse of those things?

I'm convinced of my own spiritual needs and the satisfaction of those needs by worshipping Jesus. That took decades to arrive at - through personal observation of what worked and what didn't.

As for scientific theories in which I believe (and which pose no threat to my faith), I would require:

a) a complete disproof by math and/or repeatable observations for the theory in question - hence, to disbelieve evolution, you would have to factually and repeatably disprove every scientific observation that supports it to date - which would be thousands of experiments.

b) a complete theory that could be proven repeatedly by math and/or observation that was accepted by peer review that replaced the prior theory.

You set up an incredibly rigid test for believing all that. It must be amazingly hard to convince you of anything....

Yet you believe all the stories in the Bible without any test. Don't pretend to be a critical thinker. You believe what you want and evidence doesn't even enter into the equation.

I'm not going to debate you on that, but I will say that I suspect your definition of "evidence" may be a little narrow. Science isn't the only means of obtaining evidence. It is one of many tools in the bag of knowledge aquisition methods, and it is probably over emphasized as well.

As for how hard it is to convince me of something, you're right, it is relatively difficult to get me to change my mind, but it isn't impossible and I'm always willing to at least consider the ideas of others.

I thought this topic was going to be about brain transplants :( .
Anyway I don't really hold many opinions that are dear to me so I'm very open to changing my mind, swinging from one polar opposite to another like a bloated pendulum. In ecense I aquiseque, this could be due to my memory being a bit dodgey and not having to ability to remember previous opinions (which has happened before :p )

Fair enough. :)

I'm convinced of my own spiritual needs and the satisfaction of those needs by worshipping Jesus. That took decades to arrive at - through personal observation of what worked and what didn't.

As for scientific theories in which I believe (and which pose no threat to my faith), I would require:

a) a complete disproof by math and/or repeatable observations for the theory in question - hence, to disbelieve evolution, you would have to factually and repeatably disprove every scientific observation that supports it to date - which would be thousands of experiments.

b) a complete theory that could be proven repeatedly by math and/or observation that was accepted by peer review that replaced the prior theory.

Very good. If I may ask a follow up question, How would you respond if another thoery or set of theories also explained the current data/observation just in a different way? On any given topic, not just Evolution/Creation??

Often, a good knock on the head is enough to change my mind. :D

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/aktion/action-smiley-060.gif

Often, a good knock on the head is enough to change my mind. :D

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/aktion/action-smiley-060.gif


Makes sense to me... I dropped myself on my head from 12 ft. in the air once. It convinced me that I could no longer live without some sembalence of caution in my life.

To overturn an existing belief there has to be some experience, some event which causes me to question that belief. This could be direct physical evidence that contradicts what I thought, or it could be a well argued, well justified exposition of a position that is incompatible with my beliefs.
I do not believe, for example, that it is possible to model the mind using an electronic digital computer, however a computer that passed the turing test would through some serious doubt on this belief. It would not completely overturn the belief until I could examine the program and instantiate it myself on a different computer. Then my belief in this not being possible would have to be abandonned.

One other factor that causes me to abandon beliefs is when I become aware that a belief is no longer compatible with other beliefs that I hold. Which is abandonned will depend on the evidence and importance of the belief, but something has to go. (There is an underlying belief in coherence that I do not choose to abandon.)

Very good. If I may ask a follow up question, How would you respond if another thoery or set of theories also explained the current data/observation just in a different way? On any given topic, not just Evolution/Creation??

Then that would be a modification of current theory. Quantum physics seems to go down that sort of road - not everyone is convinced of string theory - not everyone is convinced that Everett was right. In those cases, I feel comfortable waiting for better information.

I'm not an unreasonable person, although I can be characterized as a Christian Fundamentalist. It's just that I tend to divide my world into things spiritual and things physical. Science has no explanations for me in the spiritual world, and I do feel a spiritual need. It's real enough to me, so I must satisfy it. I've tried other religions, and they don't give me the satisfaction I seek. And religion does not satisfy me in any way when it comes to the physical world - but science does an incredible job.

If you're hinting at intelligent design, I find their arguments specious at best.

If you're hinting at intelligent design, I find their arguments specious at best.

Wasn't talking about any particular theoretical argument or idea. I'm more curious about how people come to the conclusions and beliefs that they come to than the beliefs themselves, at least that is the focus of this thread.

I have come to the conclusion that in picking the example I did to start this thread, I have probably defeated its intended purpose as people seem more interested in arguing with me than answering the stated purpose for the thread.

Wasn't talking about any particular theoretical argument or idea. I'm more curious about how people come to the conclusions and beliefs that they come to than the beliefs themselves, at least that is the focus of this thread.

I have come to the conclusion that in picking the example I did to start this thread, I have probably defeated its intended purpose as people seem more interested in arguing with me than answering the stated purpose for the thread.

That could be to do with the fact that you were asking for an impossible set of experiments, essentially asking scientists to re-create the entire universe and then speed it forward several billion years untill life appeared. Asking a bit much even for today's technology. If you didnt want to argue about that, you shouldnt have included it. I think people are capable of grasping the general concept without an example.

I have changed my mind on Gun Control. But that was after watching Bowling for Columbine. I actually changed my mind the other way though.

Until then, I consider those theories a far more fanciful creation of human imagination than that of the Biblical account of Creation.

Ha aha haha ahahaha... ahahahahahaha!!! :D

All it takes for me to change my mind in a situation like this is information that disproves what I think is fact.

what would it take?

proof

For anything, logic. I make a decision with a blend of facts and logic. If it seems logical and there are a few facts supporting it, it's usually right in my eyes. I don't rely solely on facts, because I know that we are still in the fledgling stages of understanding the Universe, thus relying totally on facts can be unreliable.

Which is why I believe in evolution, it is logical and there are facts to prove it. It is the same reason I hold no opinion on the creation of the Universe, there are no facts, and it is far beyond my mind to comprehend, so I leave it as: Unknown until something can explain it well. It's also the reason that I am a Communist, it is logical in my mind for equality and there are instances where it is working (small but none the less there exist Communist communities, not countries, yet); but also why I don't like Capitalism, it is illogical and there are facts to show that it is negative.

I could go on and on but by now you've got the point.

What would it take for you to change your mind about something you believe to be a fact? It doesn’t necessarily have to be something you can prove or disprove. The question is just, what would it take to change your mind…

I’ll go first since it’s my subject.

I believe the Biblical account of creation to be factual. I know most of you don’t and that’s fine. What it would take to convince me that evolution/big bang theory are semi-plausible theories are as follows:

First, someone would have to be able to create a perfect vacuum. A 0 matter, 0 energy, 0 anything measurable, 0 Kelvin space.

Second, within that space/vacuum matter in the form of at least hydrogen atoms would have to spontaneously produce themselves.

Third, (not related to the vacuum/spontaneous matter generation) someone would have to take the homogeneous chemicals that compose a simple life form and engineer them into that life form and have it actually come to life.

Fourth, that life form would then have to be either genetically manipulated or naturally diversify itself to produce multiple genus and species.

If those four requirements could be completed, I’d be willing to consider big bang theory and evolutionary theory to be at least plausible theories. Until then, I consider those theories a far more fanciful creation of human imagination than that of the Biblical account of Creation.

Now, I know this is a subject that gets talked about a lot here and I’m not trying to start another debate thread on this subject. This was just a good example of the topic. It could just as easily have been on another subject. Please feel free to use any subject you feel strongly about and state whatever it would take to change your mind rather than debating why you agree or disagree with someone else’s issue. Please save that for another thread. Thanks.
what if, instead of proof of evolution, you came across undeniable proof that creationism is wrong? say....something that would make it utterly impossible for the garden of eden to have existed (i have no idea what that proof might be, just go with me on this)
would you then refine your belief in creationism or toss it out altogether (since if one part is wrong the rest may well be too)?

I am a Christian Fundamentalist - but I accept the big bang because the evidence from the COBE satellite is incontrivertible. I still have God creating the universe.

I believe in evolution - if God took billions of years to make us out of the "dust of the Earth" then it's still OK.
If you believe these things how are you a fundamentalist?

My mind can change with a shift of the wind.

Ill change my mind for an ice cream cone and some cigarrette money.

Makes sense to me... I dropped myself on my head from 12 ft. in the air once. It convinced me that I could no longer live without some sembalence of caution in my life.

Yes, well. I try to always size up any situation that is potentially hazardous and try to determine exactly how dangerous doing something stupid might be and how badly I might get hurt before I go ahead and do it anyway. :)

And for me to beleive your story God would have to have a long friendly chat to me.

That could be to do with the fact that you were asking for an impossible set of experiments, essentially asking scientists to re-create the entire universe and then speed it forward several billion years untill life appeared. Asking a bit much even for today's technology. If you didnt want to argue about that, you shouldnt have included it. I think people are capable of grasping the general concept without an example.

True enough, but I was stating specifically what it would take to consider changing my mind on that specific subject. Which was a direct answer to the question, "What would it take to change your mind?"

It is the kind of response to the question I had hope would be given on a variety of subjects and on both sides of issues. I guess people would rather argue with me though... :rolleyes:

All it takes for me to change my mind in a situation like this is information that disproves what I think is fact.

But what do you consider "proof"? What rises to a sufficient level of evidence for you to change your mind on a subject? You can give a specific answer like I did or give a theoretical framework that applies to all situations if you like.

proof

What = "proof"?

True enough, but I was stating specifically what it would take to consider changing my mind on that specific subject. Which was a direct answer to the question, "What would it take to change your mind?"

It is the kind of response to the question I had hope would be given on a variety of subjects and on both sides of issues. I guess people would rather argue with me though... :rolleyes:

So basically if the only way you'll change your mind is by viewing the results of experiments that are impossible to do at this moment and probably at any point in the future, you'll never change your mind on this subject? I hope you're not trying to come across as open minded.... :rolleyes:

For anything, logic. I make a decision with a blend of facts and logic. If it seems logical and there are a few facts supporting it, it's usually right in my eyes. I don't rely solely on facts, because I know that we are still in the fledgling stages of understanding the Universe, thus relying totally on facts can be unreliable.

Which is why I believe in evolution, it is logical and there are facts to prove it. It is the same reason I hold no opinion on the creation of the Universe, there are no facts, and it is far beyond my mind to comprehend, so I leave it as: Unknown until something can explain it well. It's also the reason that I am a Communist, it is logical in my mind for equality and there are instances where it is working (small but none the less there exist Communist communities, not countries, yet); but also why I don't like Capitalism, it is illogical and there are facts to show that it is negative.

I could go on and on but by now you've got the point.


Thank you very much for answering the question. Obviously I disagree with you, but I appreciate your answer and respect your opinion.

what if, instead of proof of evolution, you came across undeniable proof that creationism is wrong? say....something that would make it utterly impossible for the garden of eden to have existed (i have no idea what that proof might be, just go with me on this)
would you then refine your belief in creationism or toss it out altogether (since if one part is wrong the rest may well be too)?

It would very unlikely for me to change my belief in something like that as I think it highly unlikely that you can prove that something never existed. The best we could do is prove that we can't find any evidence of its existance and that isn't conlusive one way or the other...

And for me to beleive your story God would have to have a long friendly chat to me.

Very good answer and not altogether unreasonable either. Thank you for the response...

How about on other subjects you believe stongly about? Doens't have to be related to anything religious mind you...

So basically if the only way you'll change your mind is by viewing the results of experiments that are impossible to do at this moment and probably at any point in the future, you'll never change your mind on this subject? I hope you're not trying to come across as open minded.... :rolleyes:

I just require a high degree of evidence on this particular subject and most any other that relates to Biblical truth. On other issues, I'm much more open minded.

What would it take for you to change your mind about something you believe to be a fact? It doesn’t necessarily have to be something you can prove or disprove. The question is just, what would it take to change your mind…

I’ll go first since it’s my subject.

I believe the Biblical account of creation to be factual. I know most of you don’t and that’s fine. What it would take to convince me that evolution/big bang theory are semi-plausible theories are as follows:

First, someone would have to be able to create a perfect vacuum. A 0 matter, 0 energy, 0 anything measurable, 0 Kelvin space.

Second, within that space/vacuum matter in the form of at least hydrogen atoms would have to spontaneously produce themselves.

Third, (not related to the vacuum/spontaneous matter generation) someone would have to take the homogeneous chemicals that compose a simple life form and engineer them into that life form and have it actually come to life.

Fourth, that life form would then have to be either genetically manipulated or naturally diversify itself to produce multiple genus and species.

If those four requirements could be completed, I’d be willing to consider big bang theory and evolutionary theory to be at least plausible theories. Until then, I consider those theories a far more fanciful creation of human imagination than that of the Biblical account of Creation.

Now, I know this is a subject that gets talked about a lot here and I’m not trying to start another debate thread on this subject. This was just a good example of the topic. It could just as easily have been on another subject. Please feel free to use any subject you feel strongly about and state whatever it would take to change your mind rather than debating why you agree or disagree with someone else’s issue. Please save that for another thread. Thanks.
I would have to travel back in time to see Eve created from Adams rib in order to disbelieve the theory of evolution. Same goes for the big bang theory. Frankly, I don't understand why creationism contradicts the big bang. It would have been one heck of a light show and what better explanation for such an unlikely event as the existence of God?