Christians, what would it take...

[Ana the Ist]

For you to stop believing in Christianity? Hear me out on this, as I know you're probably already thinking this is a "trolling" thread, but it isn't. It's intended as a philosophical question regarding the importance of evidence in regards to your belief in Christianity. Seriously...please take the time to read through the OP and consider it as a sincere question. I'll explain...

I've been on this forum for awhile and every few months or so a new christian to the forum decides to pop the same question atheists here have all seem many times over. They want to know what, if anything, would get an atheist to believe in god? The atheists, depending on how tired they are of hearing/answering this question, usually respond with some form of evidence that would get them to reconsider their position on the lack of an existing god. So this got me thinking...why does no one ever really ask the same question of christians?

Granted, it's not the exact same question, since I'm not asking what it would take to get you to stop believing in god. Rather, I'm curious as to what kind of evidence would make you stop believing in christianity? For example...

Say that god appeared before you and some friends one day and proved to you that he was in fact god. Whatever it would take for him to do this...whether it's parting a sea, bringing someone back to life, curing a paraplegic of a spinal injury and making them walk again, telling you every prayer you ever made...exactly as you made it...and whether or not he answered those prayers, showing you that he's able to create life or even a tiny universe from nothing....whatever it would take for him to prove to you that he is, in fact, the one and only god...he does this to prove to you that he's god so that you'll take what he tells you next seriously.

He tells you christianity is wrong...Jesus was just some guy...that pretty much the whole story of the bible is made up and merely a work of fiction. He tells you this because (for whatever reason) he's tired to people living by a made-up story. Then he leaves...not sticking[bless and do not curse]around to answer your numerous questions.

Would you stop believing in christianity? Why or why not? If you wouldn't...does evidence mean nothing to your belief in christianity? (I'm only asking this because whatever evidence "against christianity" you would have after this experience would be more than you had "for christianity")

Also, extra credit if you tell me what god could do to prove to you that he is god.

 

[Strivax]

Well, I'll try to explain just one aspect of the difference my belief has made to me. As a roundabout route to answering your (very fair) question.

You see, I have been an atheist. As an atheist, I thought I kind of understood how the world came about. Big bang, much chaos, laws of physics and chemistry resulting in isolated pockets of order, (primitive) life occurring by chance and probability, complex life evolving as per Darwin.

Then, much to my own exasperation, I became a Christian. It happened because I hit a point in my life when I needed help, prayed, and help happened. Not the kind of help I had prayed for, but something much more profound than that.

And suddenly, my understanding changed. I realised that my understanding of the world was all about how things were as they were, not why they were as they were. I realised that my understanding had been two dimensional, and there was an extra, qualitative, moral, third dimension I had not previously considered, or considering it, dismissed as 'purely subjective'.

So what would it take for me to become atheist again? What evidence would count for me against the existence of God? It's like asking what would take a colour-blind person, who somehow gained the experience of colour, to revert back to his disability. Even if he could do so, he would have gained an understanding of the world he could never relinquish.

Love and stuff, Strivax.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, I'll try to explain just one aspect of the difference my belief has made to me. As a roundabout route to answering your (very fair) question.

You see, I have been an atheist. As an atheist, I thought I kind of understood how the world came about. Big bang, much chaos, laws of physics and chemistry resulting in isolated pockets of order, (primitive) life occurring by chance and probability, complex life evolving as per Darwin.

Then, much to my own exasperation, I became a Christian. It happened because I hit a point in my life when I needed help, prayed, and help happened. Not the kind of help I had prayed for, but something much more profound than that.

And suddenly, my understanding changed. I realised that my understanding of the world was all about how things were as they were, not why they were as they were. I realised that my understanding had been two dimensional, and there was an extra, qualitative, moral, third dimension I had not previously considered, or considering it, dismissed as 'purely subjective'.

So what would it take for me to become atheist again? What evidence would count for me against the existence of God? It's like asking what would take a colour-blind person, who somehow gained the experience of colour, to revert back to his disability. Even if he could do so, he would have gained an understanding of the world he could never relinquish.

Love and stuff, Strivax.

That wasn't the question...it's not even close...

Did you actually read the whole OP?

Edit: Don't get me wrong, it's nice of you to share your little story, it just doesn't answer my question. I'm not asking what it would take to convince you to become atheist. I'm asking what it would take for you to no longer be christian. As a hypothetical, I asked if god himself told you that christianity wasn't true...would you stop believing?

 

[Strivax]

Well, thanks for that clarification. But for me, I was answering your point, because I tend to see Christianity and belief in God as synonymous. I know Jews and Muslims are monotheistic believers, but to my mind, they both believe in God as they want Him to be, rather than God as He is. Any mindset that denies theological and philosophical progress by stressing tradition and cultural status quo is bound to be wrong after centuries of human development, and can only get more wrong as history works it's way forward.

As for God appearing before me, and saying 'I don't exist; Christianity is myth'; well, I'd think that proof of His ironic sense of humour.

Cheers, Strivax.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, thanks for that clarification. But for me, I was answering your point, because I tend to see Christianity and belief in God as synonymous. I know Jews and Muslims are monotheistic believers, but to my mind, they both believe in God as they want Him to be, rather than God as He is. Any mindset that denies theological and philosophical progress by stressing tradition and cultural status quo is bound to be wrong after centuries of human development, and can only get more wrong as history works it's way forward.

As for God appearing before me, and saying 'I don't exist; Christianity is myth'; well, I'd think that proof of His ironic sense of humour.

Cheers, Strivax.

...well he wouldn't be saying "I don't exist"...he would just be saying "christianity is wrong". I know you understand the concept of a religion being wrong...you basically just said that you believe both Judaism and Islam to be wrong, so it's not something beyond your comprehension.

 

[Strivax]

...well he wouldn't be saying "I don't exist"...he would just be saying "christianity is wrong". I know you understand the concept of a religion being wrong...you basically just said that you believe both Judaism and Islam to be wrong, so it's not something beyond your comprehension.

And, of course, fundamentally true, since all three Abrahamic faiths affirm the existence of God. We just differ as to His nature, and His expectations of us all. This 'rightness and wrongness' is very much a greyscale thing, rather than a binary 'totally correct' or 'totally incorrect' state of affairs.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And, of course, fundamentally true, since all three Abrahamic faiths affirm the existence of God. We just differ as to His nature, and His expectations of us all. This 'rightness and wrongness' is very much a greyscale thing, rather than a binary 'totally correct' or 'totally incorrect' state of affairs.

Best wishes, Strivax.

Well in fairness, only one of the three thinks Jesus Christ was the son of god or god himself...however you like to put it.

If you wouldn't believe god if he told you that christianity isn't real...doesn't that mean that you don't care if it's true or not? You'll just believe it regardless of whatever the facts are?

I mean if you won't trust the word of god spoken right to you in front of your face...but you'll trust a book claiming to be the word of god from 2000 years ago...it seems truth isn't all that important to your belief.

 

[Strivax]

Well in fairness, only one of the three thinks Jesus Christ was the son of god or god himself...however you like to put it.

If you wouldn't believe god if he told you that christianity isn't real...doesn't that mean that you don't care if it's true or not? You'll just believe it regardless of whatever the facts are?

I mean if you won't trust the word of god spoken right to you in front of your face...but you'll trust a book claiming to be the word of god from 2000 years ago...it seems truth isn't all that important to your belief.

I see now the point that you are trying to make. Seems that you want to denigrate this particular Christian for blind belief, and tar all other Christians with the same dirty brush. Well, by all means do so. No one is the loser but you.

For my part, I am happy to believe because belief has made my world more real, more rich, more comprehensible. When I read the Bible (which isn't that often) I read it like any other source text, with a degree of critical distance. I do not regard it as the unadulterated word of God, but a series of books about Him, and about the then prevalent understandings of Him, and about the deeds and works inspired by Him.

As for God appearing before me with the words that 'Christianity isn't real', well, I hope I'd have the guts to demand of Him His justification for making such an extraordinary statement. An assertion, whoever makes it, isn't an argument, and without an argument, we should take no assertion on trust.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[lesliedellow]

If somebody dug up some bones in Palestine, and could demonstrate uncontestably that they were those of Jesus of Nazareth, the central claim of Christianity would have been falsified, and the Pope would be out of a job.

Short of actual proof, they would need a very convincing argument to persuade me that the ressurection never happened, and believe me, I have heard most of them.

 

[South Bound]

For you to stop believing in Christianity?

That would be a pretty good trick, since one can't un-experience something.

Say that god appeared before you and some friends one day and proved to you that he was in fact god. Whatever it would take for him to do this...whether it's parting a sea, bringing someone back to life, curing a paraplegic of a spinal injury and making them walk again, telling you every prayer you ever made...exactly as you made it...and whether or not he answered those prayers, showing you that he's able to create life or even a tiny universe from nothing....whatever it would take for him to prove to you that he is, in fact, the one and only god...he does this to prove to you that he's god so that you'll take what he tells you next seriously.

He tells you christianity is wrong...Jesus was just some guy

That would be a another god. Why should I believe him over the God of the Bible?

...that pretty much the whole story of the bible is made up and merely a work of fiction. He tells you this because (for whatever reason) he's tired to people living by a made-up story. Then he leaves...not sticking[bless and do not curse]around to answer your numerous questions.

And why should I believe this false god?

Would you stop believing in christianity?

Of course not. Why should I stop believing in the promises of Christ just because some demonic false god says so?

Why or why not? If you wouldn't...does evidence mean nothing to your belief in christianity?

What evidence? According to your premise all this "god" has proven is that he's another god and that we should just take his word for it.

Also, extra credit if you tell me what god could do to prove to you that he is god.

He could create an ordered universe out of nothing and rule it sovereignly. Oh, wait! He does that now!

 

[Chany]

I'm holding my breath on this one. Most Christians are ultimately Christian from private revelation or something of the sort- an emotional response, if you will. Because their choice of religion was not intellectually motivated, it cannot really be replaced through intellectual means easily.

I want to see responses by Christians who came to their faith through intellectual reasons alone.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I'm holding my breath on this one. Most Christians are ultimately Christian from private revelation or something of the sort- an emotional response, if you will. Because their choice of religion was not intellectually motivated, it cannot really be replaced through intellectual means easily.

I want to see responses by Christians who came to their faith through intellectual reasons alone.

I do not think you will find anyone who has entrusted themselves to Christ that will tell you they came to the point where they were willing and able to do said entrusting solely as a result of intellectual reasoning compelling them to do so.

I happen to agree with Pascal's view of reason and how it relates or does not relate to coming to know God.

Pascal believed that even if these (reasoned) arguments were valid, few would reason well enough to be persuaded by them. And, even if the arguments persuaded someone, that person would still not be saved. Pascal was concerned with leading people to Christ, not merely to monotheism. Therefore, he believed the traditional arguments for God's existence were counterproductive.

Pascal was also opposed to the pure rationalism of Descartes. Pascal realized that there were more ways to find truth than through reason alone. Man could also find truth through his heart. By the heart, Pascal meant what we intuitively know as opposed to what we know through deductive reasoning.7 We perceive and believe in God with our hearts. We will with our hearts.8 We know first principles through the heart. Pascal not only recognized other ways of knowing besides reason, but he saw that man's reason is often influenced by other factors. Man is not always true to his reason. Pascal's view of reason can be seen in the following quotes:

"We know the truth not only through our reason but also through our heart. It is through the latter that we know first principles, and reason, which has nothing to do with it, tries in vain to refute them. The skeptics have no other object than that, and they work at it to no purpose. We know that we are not dreaming, but, however unable we may be to prove it rationally, our inability proves nothing but the weakness of our reason, and not the uncertainty of all our knowledge, as they maintain. For knowledge of first principles, like space, time, motion, number, is as solid as any derived through reason, and it is on such knowledge, coming from the heart and instinct, that reason has to depend and base all its argument… It is just as pointless and absurd for reason to demand proof of first principles from the heart before agreeing to accept them as it would be absurd for the heart to demand an intuition of all the propositions demonstrated by reason before agreeing to accept them. Our inability must therefore serve only to humble reason, which would like to be judge of everything, but not to confute our certainty. As if reason were the only way we could learn!" (110)

The Apologetic Methodology of Blaise Pascal

 

[Ana the Ist]

I see now the point that you are trying to make. Seems that you want to denigrate this particular Christian for blind belief, and tar all other Christians with the same dirty brush. Well, by all means do so. No one is the loser but you.

For my part, I am happy to believe because belief has made my world more real, more rich, more comprehensible. When I read the Bible (which isn't that often) I read it like any other source text, with a degree of critical distance. I do not regard it as the unadulterated word of God, but a series of books about Him, and about the then prevalent understandings of Him, and about the deeds and works inspired by Him.

As for God appearing before me with the words that 'Christianity isn't real', well, I hope I'd have the guts to demand of Him His justification for making such an extraordinary statement. An assertion, whoever makes it, isn't an argument, and without an argument, we should take no assertion on trust.

Best wishes, Strivax.

Lol geez...I didn't expect the very first poster to question my motives. Didn't I say at the start that the question related to the importance of evidence in your beliefs? It still does, if you answered "yes"...I didn't actually think anyone would answer "no."

So god's word isn't good enough for you to believe in this situation? Without some accompanying argument god isn't trustworthy on the truthfulness of christianity?

 

[Ana the Ist]

If somebody dug up some bones in Palestine, and could demonstrate uncontestably that they were those of Jesus of Nazareth, the central claim of Christianity would have been falsified, and the Pope would be out of a job.

Short of actual proof, they would need a very convincing argument to persuade me that the ressurection never happened, and believe me, I have heard most of them.

I don't see how someone could "uncontestably" show that bones belonged to Jesus...but I see your point. Very interesting.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That would be a pretty good trick, since one can't un-experience something.



That would be a another god. Why should I believe him over the God of the Bible?



And why should I believe this false god?



Of course not. Why should I stop believing in the promises of Christ just because some demonic false god says so?



What evidence? According to your premise all this "god" has proven is that he's another god and that we should just take his word for it.



He could create an ordered universe out of nothing and rule it sovereignly. Oh, wait! He does that now!

Surely there's something that god could do to prove to you that he's god....if it required him to create another universe, and he did it, would you believe then?

 

[Strivax]

So god's word isn't good enough for you to believe in this situation? Without some accompanying argument god isn't trustworthy on the truthfulness of christianity?

But we have already established that in a fundamental way, Christianity is true, insofar as it posits a God who has just proven His existence by appearing before us. So any disavowal by God of Christianity has already to be only partial, more subtly nuanced than any simple idea that Christianity is all hopelessly wrong in every respect, don't you think?

Warm regards, Strivax.

 

[South Bound]

Surely there's something that god could do to prove to you that he's god....if it required him to create another universe, and he did it, would you believe then?

No, you've already said that he's proven he's a god. But you also said that he said that Jesus is not God, which, by his own admission, admits that he is not the god of the Bible.

For the sake of this conversation, I have no problem believing he's a god. I just believe that, by stating that Jesus is not God, he's admitted that he's not the God described in the Bible.

So god's word isn't good enough for you to believe in this situation?

Why isn't God's Word as revealed in scripture good enough for you to believe Him?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I do not think you will find anyone who has entrusted themselves to Christ that will tell you they came to the point where they were willing and able to do said entrusting solely as a result of intellectual reasoning compelling them to do so.

I happen to agree with Pascal's view of reason and how it relates or does not relate to coming to know God.

Pascal believed that even if these (reasoned) arguments were valid, few would reason well enough to be persuaded by them. And, even if the arguments persuaded someone, that person would still not be saved. Pascal was concerned with leading people to Christ, not merely to monotheism. Therefore, he believed the traditional arguments for God's existence were counterproductive.

Pascal was also opposed to the pure rationalism of Descartes. Pascal realized that there were more ways to find truth than through reason alone. Man could also find truth through his heart. By the heart, Pascal meant what we intuitively know as opposed to what we know through deductive reasoning.7 We perceive and believe in God with our hearts. We will with our hearts.8 We know first principles through the heart. Pascal not only recognized other ways of knowing besides reason, but he saw that man's reason is often influenced by other factors. Man is not always true to his reason. Pascal's view of reason can be seen in the following quotes:

"We know the truth not only through our reason but also through our heart. It is through the latter that we know first principles, and reason, which has nothing to do with it, tries in vain to refute them. The skeptics have no other object than that, and they work at it to no purpose. We know that we are not dreaming, but, however unable we may be to prove it rationally, our inability proves nothing but the weakness of our reason, and not the uncertainty of all our knowledge, as they maintain. For knowledge of first principles, like space, time, motion, number, is as solid as any derived through reason, and it is on such knowledge, coming from the heart and instinct, that reason has to depend and base all its argument… It is just as pointless and absurd for reason to demand proof of first principles from the heart before agreeing to accept them as it would be absurd for the heart to demand an intuition of all the propositions demonstrated by reason before agreeing to accept them. Our inability must therefore serve only to humble reason, which would like to be judge of everything, but not to confute our certainty. As if reason were the only way we could learn!" (110)

The Apologetic Methodology of Blaise Pascal

Wow...Pascal sure is interesting.

So do you have an answer for the OP?

 

[Ana the Ist]

But we have already established that in a fundamental way, Christianity is true, insofar as it posits a God who has just proved His existence by appearing before us. So any disavowal by God of Christianity has already to be only partial, more subtly nuanced than any simple idea that Christianity is all hopelessly wrong in every respect, don't you think?

Warm regards, Strivax.

Well no...I don't...I'm assuming when you say "God who has just proved His existence by appearing before us" you're referring to Jesus Christ? In which case, he hasn't appeared before you...he supposedly appeared before some folks 2000 years ago. You just happen to be one of the people who believe this happened.

God actually appearing before you, would be a bit more significant than the belief he appeared before some people 2000 years ago...would it not?

 

[Strivax]

I am referring to your hypothetical scenario, in which God appears and says 'Christianity isn't true'.

Cheers, S.