Should atheists believe in the God of christianity if...

[Ken-1122]

I couldn't tell you which is better, but if God exists clearly he thinks hiding his existence from plain sight is better than what you suggest he do.

Yeah; that's the logic ya gotta use if you assume God exists. Obviously I don't make that assumption.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I couldn't tell you which is better, but if God exists clearly he thinks hiding his existence from plain sight is better than what you suggest he do.

Yet being all-knowing and all-hiding, he'ld surely realise that he would be demanding people to hold irrational beliefs. That is to say: belief not based in evidence and in some cases, even in spite of evidence to the contrary.

That doesn't make any sense to me.
So I'm of the opinion, that your god model isn't even internally consistent.

And as I also expressed, even if it was, there still wouldn't be a valid reason to believe it that I know of.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

There's evidence you just don't find it compelling, because it's not scientific evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There's evidence you just don't find it compelling, because it's not scientific evidence.

What evidence are you talking about?

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

What evidence are you talking about?

Life itself is evidence(not for you obviously). And not just life but experiences in life. Your experiences have led you to conclude something entirely different. I don't care if it stands up to scientific scrutiny, because what I experience matters. Could I be wrong? Sure, but i'm willing to be.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Life itself is evidence(not for you obviously). And not just life but experiences in life. Your experiences have led you to conclude something entirely different. I don't care if it stands up to scientific scrutiny, because what I experience matters. Could I be wrong? Sure, but i'm willing to be.

You make an excellent point. It's not about whether or not evidence exists. It's about what evidence would be sufficient for someone.

Not long ago I had an exchange with someone here where I asked him honestly what evidence he would deem sufficient for the existence of God. He stated something to the effect of watching an amputated limb regrow. I asked him if a three-day-dead corpse resurrecting back to life would work. Crickets.

 

[Desk trauma]

Life itself is evidence(not for you obviously). And not just life but experiences in life. Your experiences have led you to conclude something entirely different. I don't care if it stands up to scientific scrutiny, because what I experience matters. Could I be wrong? Sure, but i'm willing to be.

Personal feelings and experience and an awful form of evidence if you are trying to argue that your religion is true as every single religion has people who's lives were radically changed for the better by joining it or leaving it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Life itself is evidence(not for you obviously).

Things are evidence or they aren't. That it's person-specific is already kind of suspect.

But anyhow....
How is "life itself" evidence in support of your religious beliefs?

I don't care if it stands up to scientific scrutiny, because what I experience matters. Could I be wrong? Sure, but i'm willing to be.

Do you care about being wrong?
If yes, how do you go ahead to find out if you are wrong or correct?
More generically, how do you distinguish true from false? By what methodology?

The scientific method seems like a pretty reliable method to do that. It is what I would answer. So, what do you use? Since you say that you don't care if your beliefs are able to stay standing in the face of scientific scrutiny...

Also...
Do you don't care about the scientific process accross the board, or do you only don't care about those aspects of scientific discovery that don't fit your religious narrative?

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

I want science to progress as much as it can. Science is no longer hindered in any way because of religion. Do you use the scientific method before deciding if something is true or not? Of course not, you make decisions based off of the knowledge you gained through experience. That experience is why you don't believe in God, not because God can't be proven by science. God is outside of the scope of science and you seem to believe nothing can be true if it can't be proven scientifically which is absurd. There are some truths that can't be proven scientifically.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You make an excellent point. It's not about whether or not evidence exists. It's about what evidence would be sufficient for someone.

Not long ago I had an exchange with someone here where I asked him honestly what evidence he would deem sufficient for the existence of God. He stated something to the effect of watching an amputated limb regrow. I asked him if a three-day-dead corpse resurrecting back to life would work. Crickets.

I'm not sure that either would convince me.
Because I don't see how observing such a phenomena would necessarily tie back into a god-model.

It seems to me that it would be, yet another, instance of "we don't know how this happened, therefor god did it".

Now if it would occur consistently immediatly after an amputee says a prayer asking for his limb to grow back, then you might have something. Maybe. We could then do some experiments in controlled environments.

But more importantly.... here's the problem with the question "what would convince you".

Before I can answer that, it would need to be very clear what exactly it is that I'm supposed to be convinced of.

As it stands, the mainstream god model of the christian god is simply unfalsifiable. It is defined as some kind of timeless, not-part-of-this-universe, undetectable and untestable overlord, with thus no way to measure or otherwise detect a manifestation thereof.

So really, any evidence in support of such a thing is by definition impossible.
Unfalsifiable models are by definition unverifiable, untestable,... If evidence exists, then the thing is verifiable at least to a certain degree. You can't have it both ways.

You see, when you define a thing such that it could have evidence in support of it, it also becomes vulnerable to evidence against it. Religions tend to not like that.

And for that reason, I really can't tell what would convince me.
So I usually just say this: "If an all-knowing god actually exists, then this god knows exactly what it would take to convince me. So if that all-powerfull god indeed wants me to believe he exists, it would be rather trivial for that god to expose me to that evidence that would in fact convince me."

 

[DogmaHunter]

I want science to progress as much as it can. Science is no longer hindered in any way because of religion. Do you use the scientific method before deciding if something is true or not?

I use those principles, which is to say: rational/logical reasoning, to make informed decisions and evaluations of claims, yes.

So if someone claims to have been abducted by an alien, I'm not just going to believe his "testimony", but consider the likelyhood of that happening given the evidence at my disposal.

Of course not, you make decisions based off of the knowledge you gained through experience.

What do you mean by "experience"? Do you mean "personal experience"?
Because "personal experience" is a very bad foundation to believe things.
Every schizofrenic believes what he believes because of his "experience".

I use an extreme example to make it clear. The brain is a tricky thing and our senses fail us all the time.

Every single person that asserts "experience" with such unfalsifiable entities (gods, angels, aliens, etc), happens to only ever have such experience to fall back on.
And like I already said, if you are honest about it, you'll see that ONLY on the subject of your specific religion, do you accept such "reasons" as good enough to believe.

You would never believe the claims of a muslim, a viking, an ancient egyptian, a scientologist, an alien abductee, a bigfoot spotter,... on the same grounds.

I already told you once about your double standard.

That experience is why you don't believe in God, not because God can't be proven by science.

I don't believe in god for the same reason that I don't believe in alien visitation.
There's no rational reason to do so.

God is outside of the scope of science

He's outside of the scope of anything verifiable. Just like that undetectable dragon that's going to eat you one of these days....

and you seem to believe nothing can be true if it can't be proven scientifically which is absurd.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying.
I never said that things can not be true unless they can be scientifically proven.
Instead, I say that things can not be SHOWN to be true, unless they can... well... be shown to be true.

What I am also saying, is that if you cannot show something to be true - you have no reason to believe that it is true. And you apply such logic every second of every day. Every time you cross the street, you assume that an invisible truck is not going to run you down. Why? Because you have no reason at all that such a truck exists, nore that it is coming right at you. You can't prove that such a truck doesn't exist. You can't prove that it won't run you over. Yet, you cross the streets anyway, fairly confident that such truck wouldn't run you over.

See?
As I said, there's an infinite amount of unfalsifiable things that you could believe, but don't.
And you don't believe them, not because you can show them wrong (because you can't - since they are unfalsifiable), but just because there is no reason to consider those claims true.

There are some truths that can't be proven scientifically.

Sure. But then again, how would you recognise those things as truth?
How do you establish those truths to actually being truths?
How would you know?

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

The only truth is scientific truth.

 

[Phil 1:21]

And for that reason, I really can't tell what would convince me.
So I usually just say this: "If an all-knowing god actually exists, then this god knows exactly what it would take to convince me. So if that all-powerfull god indeed wants me to believe he exists, it would be rather trivial for that god to expose me to that evidence that would in fact convince me."

And for a lot of us, He did just that.

 

[loveofourlord]

There were more evil acts committed by people who didn't believe in God. Adolf killed six million Jews (who believed in God), not to mention Riwanda where millions were killed by pagans, and Stalin killed more people than Hitler did, and he was an atheist, and the Japs exterminated thousands of innocent Chinese during WW2. So I think it is a matter of the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think?

WOW you mean more people died in the holacust then was the population of europe in the middle ages??? I love this figure thrown out as if it means anything, how many would have died during the crusades if they had the population and technology of today.

 

[loveofourlord]

More meaningless statements.

just when you thought presupositional apologetics trite was over heh

 

[Ken-1122]

And for a lot of us, He did just that.

Kinda makes ya wonder why he won't do that for all of us huh?

 

[Phil 1:21]

Kinda makes ya wonder why he won't do that for all of us huh?

Not really. Scripture is very clear on the matter.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Personal feelings and experience and an awful form of evidence if you are trying to argue that your religion is true as every single religion has people who's lives were radically changed for the better by joining it or leaving it.

We cannot really speak on anyone s experiences but our own. I may think I know but I don’t.

 

[Ken-1122]

People will find any excuse to deny anything, no matter how obvious.

Only the dishonest will do that; most will accept that which is obvious. IMO to deny the majority by remaining hidden due to the actions of the few dishonest is unfair.

 

[Strathos]

Only the dishonest will do that; most will accept that which is obvious. IMO to deny the majority by remaining hidden due to the actions of the few dishonest is unfair.

Not really. Many conspiracy theorists consider themselves honest but believe the craziest things.