Atheists, what needs to happen so that...

Post Reply New Topic

I want to witness one of them divine interventions described in the da holy books. Until then, no god(s)

To believe in the Modern American Christian God, MAC God, (McGod for short) who is defined as such:
-Follows the attributes of the paraphrased teachings of the modern bible (you can be forgiven at any time for anything, you can be gay, anything in here is arbitrarily either literal or metaphor, etc.)
- Is otherwise the same as the God of the Bible and Koran, which share the same God.

I would need to meet the entity in a verifiable way, at such a time that I would also question (if I could) whether the reason for the endless inconsistencies in the book of McGod is different from my current assumtion that it was indeed a book written by a lot of people, and therefore fallacious, like people are.

The entity would need to, directly though my sensory organs or through the use of equipment, need to reveal itself to me, in such a manner that it provides evidence of something that is not myself (so that it is beyond all doubt no illusion on the part of another, or a hallucination on my own part). I would also have to rule out the idea of it being a being of higher intelligence, or indeed a stargate style false god. (link)

However given this is, according to the single piece of anecdotal evidence, an entity that spans all time and space, and is capable of everything, but is not itself everything, it should be able to simply appear, at any time, in any way, so it could send me an email, appear as a person, or just begin dictating it's words in my mind as I type, for I am your lord and saviour Jesus Christ, click send on this message so they they might know.

Last edited by Asmodeus on 11 Jul 2010, 10:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A few things that would make me question my atheism:

1)replicable, well-done studies showing that prayer in general or prayer by one sect or another has greater-than-chance effects on the subject of prayer (studies have been done, but they have generally been poorly done and/or subsequently retracted due to evidence of questionable data).

2)verifiable, large-scale alteration of physical laws in multiple locations (ie, on different continents, to people of multiple cultures) simultaneously, with many witnesses to each incident.

3)logical arguments showing the necessity of god(s). Haven't seen any yet.

1. If this happened, the religious would give credit to god, and the non-religious would say that consciousness must exist in a realm higher than the physical world.

2. Actually, a lot of physicists think that the basic contants in nature aren't always constant, but instead are in a flux that changes so slowly that it's imperceptible.

3. If there was a proof that god exists, I assure you, logic will have no part of it.

1)I find the idea of a soul or 'higher consicousness' just as unlikely as that of a god, so toss the two in together. If you want to limit the test to gods, just remove the 'prayer in general' part and leave 'prayer to one specific god, but not the same type of prayer to other god(s).'

2)temporary, sudden suspension of physical laws in specific areas, as I described, that is lacking in catastrophic (ie, world-ending) effects, is so statistically unlikely that it qualifies as a miracle imnsho. I was also thinking, but did not write, that the suspension of laws would have some theological connotation - all of the unbelievers in an area being lifted into the air by invisible hands and shaken by the scruff, for example.

3)If it's not logical, it's not a proof.

1)Even if everyone was praying to the same god for some end, they are still thinking of the same thing, and praying could amplify their thoughts, or on the other hand muddle them, because there's a middleman between them and their goal.

2) Honestly, if something like this happened, I my first assumption would be some product of the military-industrial complex, since that is who gets first dibs on new technology's.

3)If there is a proof that can explain god, then god can't be very godly. See what I'm saying?

1) If a group of people praying to Jehovah by speaking an incantation 3X a day have consistently better results than the same number of people praying in the same way to Shiva, then there's some evidence that the religion of Jehovah is more valid than the religion of Shiva. Or vice-versa.

2)If it happened simultaneously on multiple continents, including multiple cultures, and had theological implications rather than 'give us all of your gold and oil' implications, the odds of it being military decrease. edit: besides which, if technology exitsted that could both read minds and subvert physical laws, I'd probably want to just kill myself anyway.

3)If it's not logical, it's not a proof. I think you're conflating 'god' with 'faith.'

Last edited by LKL on 11 Jul 2010, 11:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Proofs are usually considered outstanding logical evidences, not absolute theories of the divine.

I think you have a limit definition of god. I think it is impossible for human's or any of our devices to touch something that is godly. I don't think it would be possible for a super computer to come up with a god program that absolutely trances everything back to the beginning and up to the end. Science will only be able to go so far. There will come a time when theorists discover that even though they are able to explain more and more about nature, they uncover more unknowns. I'm sure this has happened many times already, but they are too proud to admit, "I don't know".

There will never be an end to knowledge. There is no real absolute.

Umm.... ok, well, we aren't touching something godly, but rather looking for evidences of the existence of an agent that we would consider God.

Even further, in the absence of evidence, we usually don't hold to neutrality on an issue, but rather say "it does not exist". That's the kind of stance we take to most existing things, such as for an example, we hold that fairies and elves do not exist. They could exist. We haven't and cannot disprove their existence. We just aren't agnostic on the possibility because there is no reason to believe they do exist, and the notion of their existence seems rather absurd given our knowledge on the situation.

I see what your saying. I think the most concrete evidence we'll come across will be through the pursuit of knowledge, but it won't be the knowledge itself, but the lines in between, or the meaning of the meaning, if you will. If that is the only real way to see god's shadow and your not swayed by it, I guess there really is no reason to believe in god and just ignore it.

Can't help you with #1. The problem here is a matter of perception. Any kind of data that CAN be collected can be called into question on pretty much any basis a critic can come up with. Whether evidence for/against is enough to convince you one way or another depends on how receptive you are of the findings and their implications. Let me give you a good example of this: Evolutionists claim that evolution DOES happen and point to rapid speciation of a few known species as evidence (speciation within a few generations). Creationists will look at the same evidence as support for special creation. The logic stems from the problem of Noah and the great flood. If Noah, as Genesis states, HAD to take 7 pairs, 2 (male and female) of each kind of land-based animal into the ark, the critics say it would have been impossible because the dimensions would have been too small to allow 7 pairs of each species in existence today. Creationists point to rapid speciation (within a few thousand short years) as the means through which all the kinds of animals that survive today made it through the flood. If so, the kind of evolution that Darwinists put forth is false since all the different kinds of animals in existence today could easily have appeared within a few thousand years. So who is right? Evolutionists? Creationists? Based upon the findings of rapid, observable speciation (which really just amounts to short-term, adaptive variations, anyway), it would appear that both sides are correct. So why bother using the evidence to support ONLY one or the other at all? It appears that those who would use the evidence as favorable towards evolution do so because they are biased in favor of evolution. The same principle applies to creationists.

#2: Unexplained phenomena HAS occurred throughout much of human history and has been documented by various cultures. The Tunguska Event, for example, is most often explained as a meteor, asteroid, or possibly even a comet impact, supported by unusual debris in the area. However, whatever impacted the area did not leave a crater. So while the event has some speculation as to its cause and limited evidence in support, one need not settle on just one explanation despite the fact the scientific community seems to already have done so. The problem is further complicated by Soviet secrecy. So as to what actually happened at Tunguska is just as much anybody's guess as it is the Roswell incident or even what goes on at Area 51. Further, the Bible tells us that God's revelation of Himself to others happens in very specific ways: He wanted His chosen people to be the first to bear witness of Him and provide testimony of His existence and power to the surrounding nations. Something I find exceptional about God's activity in Genesis is His tendency to visit His vengeance on wicked city-states directly (the flood, Sodom-Gomorrah) rather than inspiring a chosen nation to do His work for Him. It was the nation of Israel that left Egypt that served this function during and after the Exodus account. God only revealed a physical manifestation of Himself during this time to His chosen people because there was no need to reveal Himself to other peoples. Israel, since God's intention was to be a "nation of priests," was charged with the duty of revealing God to the rest of the world. The Bible tells us that Israel chose to abandon God during the period of the Kings, after which God destroyed the nation of Israel (though a surviving remnant would eventually return to Judah). During the time of the Exodus, there WERE many witnesses. But even the account of the Exodus shows us how quickly people lose faith. Even if such an event as you described were to happen, it is STILL not likely that it would be believed.

#3: Logical arguments abound: The ontological argument, the cosmological argument, the transcendental argument, creation itself as evidence in favor of God, and so on. The problem with human logic is that logical arguments can all be refuted in one way or another. While there does exist a logical order to the universe, to include man's thinking, it is not impossible for anyone to use some mental acrobatics to make a seemingly rock-solid case for even the most absurd of assertions--mind games you can find all the time in parliamentary assemblies, courtrooms, political debates, and even the occasional university classroom. People will make up their own minds on whether or not they want God to exist and will say a lot of things to make themselves feel self-assured one way or another. Logic, in a real sense, doesn't seem to really have that much to do with it in the end.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

lol that is the only thing that is absolute.

Well, I don't really consider that real evidence, or even what we should expect given the kind of God that most religions hold to. Even further, just given the immense complexity of a theistic hypothesis, I don't really consider it credible without evidence. I mean, it is an additional layer full of immense complexity and involving a mind of cosmic abilities. Why should something like this be believed to exist?

The issue is that most people think, and I think rightly think that creationism isn't real science or anything close to real science.

I don't think that a book will tend to represent verifiable alterations with multiple attestations. The fact of the matter is that if you don't take the Bible's history seriously, then you won't take the miracles in it seriously. There is no reason to take the history seriously though, as it isn't an unbiased account by any stretch, and most stories were written long after the events. The major exception is the New Testament, but it still has fantastical details that are not found in other stories.

As for the last one, the problem is that a failed argument isn't evidence, and to say "all arguments fail" really ends up as a skepticism towards knowledge.