To the skeptics: what evidence would convince you?

[flyingfish]

I see this argument a lot from atheists. They say there is no evidence for God. It seems they have utterly convinced themselves of this. I could list a few public evidences for God quite easily.

1. Incorruptible bodies of saints.
   youtube.com/watch?v=EMSCubd3hAg
2. Miracle of the Sun, Fatima
   fatima.org/essentials/facts/miracle.asp
3. Miracle of the image on the tilma from Our Lady of Guadalupe which can still be seen today 500 years after the fact.
   bridegroompress.com/snippets/guadhandout.pdf

I looked into all these miracles back when I still wanted to believe. They don’t stand up to scrutiny. There is a woman now in the US who claims to be witnessing apparitions and people there claim to be witnessing a sun miracle:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun

Professor Auguste Meessen of the Institute of Physics, Catholic University of Leuven, has stated that the reported observations were optical effects caused by prolonged staring at the sun. Meessen contends that retinal after-images produced after brief periods of sun gazing are a likely cause of the observed dancing effects. Similarly Meessen states that the colour changes witnessed were most likely caused by the bleaching of photosensitive retinal cells.[23] Meessen observes that sun miracles have been witnessed in many places where religiously charged pilgrims have been encouraged to stare at the sun. He cites the apparitions at Heroldsbach, Germany (1949) as an example, where exactly the same optical effects as at Fatima were witnessed by more than 10,000 people.[24]

…

Joe Nickell notes “Not surprisingly, perhaps, sun miracles have been reported at other Marian sites—at Lubbock, Texas, in 1989; Mother Cabrini Shrine near Denver, Colorado, in 1992; Conyers, Georgia, in the early to mid-1990s”[27]

Nickell adds that at Conyers whilst pilgrims were witnessing a sun miracle [28] “the Georgia Skeptics group set up a telescope outfitted with a vision-protecting Mylar solar filter” and that “more than two hundred people had viewed the sun through one of the solar filters and not a single person saw anything unusual” [29]

De Marchi claims that the prediction of an unspecified “miracle”, the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied religious backgrounds of the observers, the sheer numbers of people present, and the lack of any known scientific causative factor make a mass hallucination unlikely.[30] That the activity of the sun was reported as visible by those up to 18 kilometres (11 mi) away, also precludes the theory of a collective hallucination or mass hysteria, according to De Marchi.[30]

Despite these assertions, not all witnesses reported seeing the sun “dance”. Some people only saw the radiant colors. Others, including some believers, saw nothing at all.[31][32] No scientific accounts exist of any unusual solar or astronomic activity during the time the sun was reported to have “danced”, and there are no witness reports of any unusual solar phenomenon further than 64 kilometres (40 mi) out from Cova da Iria.[33]

If Mary wanted to give people a big miracle, why not go all the way and make the entire world see the sun write “Jesus is Lord” in the sky? Why only go half way so that it’s still unconvincing?

 

[Thing]

Bunk it may be but that is because this is not the claim I am making.

My claim is not that things should be dismissed because they are not credible sounding. I say we can not make the first move towards accepting them if they do not pass ANY level of credence whatsoever.

This applies to things that are ENTIRELY credible, but still have nothing to lend to their credence. An example would be if I offered to drive you to the shop in my car, this is a very credible statement, but if there is simply nothing on offer to you to suggest I HAVE a car, then you can not lend credence to the original claim.

Even things I have heard on the news today are not credible sounding to me, but they pass the credence test in that nothing within the claims being made are alien or unknown to me. As fantastic as the news was, it at least gets past the credence test because every constituent part of it are things known to me. The people. The places. The type of events. Etc.

What I am saying about the bible is that it is based wholly around an entity there is no reason on offer to me to think exists.

This does not mean I dismiss the bible because it is not credible and that is simply that. It just means I explore to find out if the basis for its claims are credible and until such time as they are shown to be, I dismiss the claims of the bible.

And since there is no evidence, argument, data, or reasons being offered to me to suggest that the entity on which the claims of the bible are based even exists, there is no avenue open to me by which I can lend credence to its claims. The whole book and the magical events therein are all based on a foundation that this entity exists, and nothing in my experience suggests that even this BASE claim is true. How then can you expect me to lend credence to things that then follow on from this base claim?

Were you to be privy to such data however, I would be agog to hear it. It would change everything.

Credibility…credible. You are spending your time and money and energy arguing against the existance of a magical fairytail. You are exhausting yourself herding imaginary unicorns with a stick.
Does any sane, credible person do this. I do not believe so. There is a saying ‘physician, heal thyself’ and ‘doctors are the worst patients’; other sayings like ‘cannot see the wood for the trees’ occur. If you can step back from yourself for a moment and ask yourself what reason or what cause has found you arguing vehemantly against Leprachauns.

Heres another saying ''Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day."

You are on a Catholic forum, my bet is that you have’nt asked yourself why you are.
You are here, that is reasonable grounds for believing, or seeking to, such is the definition of ‘credible’.
It is less credible to find a grown, sane human being arguing against the possibility of Leprachauns.

 

[Thing]

I looked into all these miracles back when I still wanted to believe. They don’t stand up to scrutiny. There is a woman now in the US who claims to be witnessing apparitions and people there claim to be witnessing a sun miracle:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun

You still have the Shroud of Turin.

If Mary wanted to give people a big miracle, why not go all the way and make the entire world see the sun write “Jesus is Lord” in the sky? Why only go half way so that it’s still unconvincing?

As we saw in another thread there are 29% of Britons who do not believe in the moonlanding, despite NASA science and photographs. If those words were in the sky there still would be people who would not believe; maybe it was the Russians, or an hallucination, or, mind over matter…

 

[Thing]

And that’s main point in the argument. All that “proof” of God, can be seen as coincidences or hallucinations.

My main personal issue is how can you see God as Good? Look at all the starving children, all the innocent people who are dying. Did God chose to let them suffer because they were sinners? then that means God isn’t loving. Atheists choose not to believe in God because believing that he is imaginary makes the world actually make sense.

The Argument between Atheists to Christians is that Atheists see Christians lacking morality and rational thinking. The argument from Christians to Atheists is that their “rational thinking” is either sin, or Satan, or that they are blind

P.S: I mean morality as in doing what is right for the greater good of man, not in the religious sense which makes things worse in that it causes more arguing and fighting.

My argument would be; how can you look at all the good and call it bad? Our God is the source of all that is good. The ‘bad’ things that happen are what we would call injustices; that is, the effects of decisions of ‘bad people’, especially those of people in position of power and influence who misuse resources.

 

[hillsteven]

Perhaps the most compelling LOGICAL argument I’ve yet read is by the author Lee Strobel. His first book was titled “The Case for Christ”. In it, he explains that his entire career was as an investigative criminal journalist in Chicago. He was an avowed atheist, as was his wife, and they were quite happy with that status quo… That is, until his wife became a Christian. After watching her go about her “new” life for a time (months or years, I don’t remember), he noticed that she had become a better person since she became a Christian. A skeptic to the bitter end, he did what he does best… he attacked the problem as an investigative journalist. The book is essentially a transcript of his findings. He interviewed the top minds in several fields, and records those interviews. In then end… he became a Christian himself because to ignore the facts as presented, to do otherwise would be intellectually dishonest.

Similarly, he has written a few other books along the same “The Case For…” avenue. All are written from the perspective of a skeptical investigative journalist, and he leaves the reader to form their own conclusions from his findings, and sources everything he presents such that the same facts could easily be verified… or found false.

In the end, though, the avowed skeptic has to be moved by the Holy Spirit to actually start the journey. They cannot be made to believe a certain way, nor can they be made to seek Truth. That is a response that we must initiate on our own, which is what free will is really all about.

 

[flyingfish]

As we saw in another thread there are 29% of Britons who do not believe in the moonlanding, despite NASA science and photographs. If those words were in the sky there still would be people who would not believe; maybe it was the Russians, or an hallucination, or, mind over matter…

A hardcore skeptic might doubt everything except their own existence. Some people could always believe that they’re a brain in a vat and everything they see is nothing other than brain stimuli with no correspondence to anything external.

Still, the vast majority of people do trust their senses, and if tonight the stars were rearranged to say Jesus is God and the Catholic Church is his Church, very likely more than 99% of human beings would convert.

 

[Thing]

A hardcore skeptic might doubt everything except their own existence. Some people could always believe that they’re a brain in a vat and everything they see is nothing other than brain stimuli with no correspondence to anything external.

Still, the vast majority of people do trust their senses, and if tonight the stars were rearranged to say Jesus is God and the Catholic Church is his Church, very likely more than 99% of human beings would convert.

We could probably do even better than that sky thing and have the almighty Creator of the Universe speak in to your very heart and draw you along with him that way.

 

[hillsteven]

We could probably do even better than that sky thing and have the almighty Creator of the Universe speak in to your very heart and draw you along with him that way.

Ahh… but that would impede upon our free will. See my comments on another thread on that topic, but in essence, God is Love, and he desires us to love him back. To do anything to force our love would make our response to Him not love, but rather the most profound form of slavery. God can and does speak in the silence of our hearts, but we must invite him in.

 

[Thing]

Ahh… but that would impede upon our free will. See my comments on another thread on that topic, but in essence, God is Love, and he desires us to love him back. To do anything to force our love would make our response to Him not love, but rather the most profound form of slavery. God can and does speak in the silence of our hearts, but we must invite him in.

I was rather thinking of this; 2027 No one can merit the *initial *grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.

 

[tonyrey]

You argued that the size of the universe is uneconomical and should have been tailored to our requirementsl! You also expect miracles to occur on demand as if God is your humble servant at your beck and call. How preposterous! Has it not occurred to you that it would defeat the purpose of making us free to decide what to believe and how to live? If you are forced to believe you might as well be a zombie!

You are assuming that there is no evidence. Why would the vast majority of the people in the world believe in God without any evidence at all?

The evidence for Christianity is the same as the evidence for Islam or Hinduism or Mormonism etc. If I were to believe in a specific God, I would have no way to distinguish between these.

“the same as”! It is evident that you know very little about religion…

I guess it makes sense for God to make our eternal future ride on choosing the right religion, and give us nothing to distinguish the various world religions from one another, and nothing to know whether God exists.

It is easy to make statements without justifying them…

If God deliberately gave us no evidence, then it stands to reason that specific religions are man made, and God doesn’t care if we believe in any of them.

“If” is the significant word. What evidence can you give us that your mind exists? Or are you mindless?!

 

[flyingfish]

We could probably do even better than that sky thing and have the almighty Creator of the Universe speak in to your very heart and draw you along with him that way.

I’m not sure if you mean to say that this is what we currently experience, with God calling us to believe, or if you are talking about God controlling our beliefs on a more fundamental level.

If it’s the former, maybe so, most people do seem to believe in God, or some kind of supernatural. However, people believe and historically have believed in many different faiths. It seems that God draws some people to Hinduism, others to Buddhism, others to new age spiritualities, and others to Christianity, Islam?

You are assuming that there is no evidence. Why would the vast majority of the people in the world believe in God without any evidence at all?

“the same as”! It is evident that you know very little about religion…

It is easy to make statements without justifying them…

“If” is the significant word. What evidence can you give us that your mind exists? Or are you mindless?!

I’m not saying the religions are the same, I am saying the evidence for them is very similar. Claims made by people to have spoken with God, or representative of God, miracles, ancient holy books.

Why should I believe the claims of Christianity but not Mormonism or Hinduism, for example?

If for example the Bible had the equations of General Relativity in it, at a time when people had no physics and very little math. Then if I read it now, I would think, wow, maybe God really spoke to these people.

 

[Thing]

I’m not sure if you mean to say that this is what we currently experience, with God calling us to believe, or if you are talking about God controlling our beliefs on a more fundamental level.

If it’s the former, maybe so, most people do seem to believe in God, or some kind of supernatural. However, people believe and historically have believed in many different faiths. It seems that God draws some people to Hinduism, others to Buddhism, others to new age spiritualities, and others to Christianity, Islam?
.

You need to critically review religion. Hinduism has thousands of gods and godesses, if fact Hindus themselves do not know how many they have. So which Hindu god or godess are you talking about when you say God is calling you to Hinduism. If it is One Supreme God why would He call you to other small gods, rival gods?

Buddism is not a religion. Its a philosophy of nothingness with no Creator God, that is, no God to call you to Him.

New Age Spiritualism, is not new age, it is old age now. Actually is seems to be a harkening back to old Celtic Paganism. But unfortunately old celts did not have a written language and their actual pagan beliefs were totally lost 2000 years ago. New age is just make something up that sounds old and possibly celtic sounding.
The pagans before Christianity had many gods and goddesses too but when Christianity was introduced to them they were able to see the truth in it and they became Catholic.

Islam did not exist before 610ad. The followers of Mohamed converted the Catholics by force of arms, die or serve Allah or some such idea, (presumably the people were Catholic before they were Islamic, and pagan or jewish before Catholic).

Jews believe in the same God as Catholics, obviously. Their Messiah has arrived already.

All the protestant groups emerged from Catholicism. No Catholicism, no protestants, as they say. So pure, early Christianity was Catholic not protestant.

Animal worshippers and sun-worshipers not very interesting, they like the old pagans of europe see that their traditional gods and goddesses are just aspects of the Creator Gods power and strength.

 

[flyingfish]

You need to critically review religion. Hinduism has thousands of gods and godesses, if fact Hindus themselves do not know how many they have. So which Hindu god or godess are you talking about when you say God is calling you to Hinduism. If it is One Supreme God why would He call you to other small gods, rival gods?

Buddism is not a religion. Its a philosophy of nothingness with no Creator God, that is, no God to call you to Him.

Well, that’s kind of my point. If there is a God who is calling people in their hearts to follow Him, then why are there billions of people who are Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, believers in the power of crystals and so on. I guess the magical life force is calling them in their hearts?

There is no evidence that people are being called in their hearts to follow a particular belief system, it seems to be more a function on where and when you’re born, and what information you’re exposed to.

 

[Thing]

Well, that’s kind of my point. If there is a God who is calling people in their hearts to follow Him, then why are there billions of people who are Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, believers in the power of crystals and so on. I guess the magical life force is calling them in their hearts?

There is no evidence that people are being called in their hearts to follow a particular belief system, it seems to be more a function on where and when you’re born, and what information you’re exposed to.

Gosh FlyingFish, what the heck is religion anyway? Is it something that purports to explain the cause of the universe, of everything, or what?.
If you have a ‘religion’ which has no ‘cause of the universe and everything’, then is’nt that ‘religion’ a bit of a contradiction to itself. Either that cannot be a religion, or, perhaps I do not really exist and there is no universe. It is in fact not a religion at all, as nothing is actually calling the person to follow it, because it believes in nothing. It is just a tradition, or superstition, - but not a religion.
Or in Hinduism there is a surfeit of gods and goddesses and none either actually fulfil the definition of what a religion is, they are on a somewhat lower plain of ideas than religion.

If you are talking about a religion, you mean that cause of the universe in toto. Only the Christian/jewish God fulfills the requirement totally. When someone is pulled, or drawn by the truth behind the universe or everything, assuming there is such a thing, then it is a homogeneous, universal and single cause, [or God], which will draw the person. Only Christianity and the jewish religion offers that type of Cause and is a religion.

 

[flyingfish]

Gosh FlyingFish, what the heck is religion anyway? Is it something that purports to explain the cause of the universe, of everything, or what?.
If you have a ‘religion’ which has no ‘cause of the universe and everything’, then is’nt that ‘religion’ a bit of a contradiction to itself. Either that cannot be a religion, or, perhaps I do not really exist and there is no universe. It is in fact not a religion at all, as nothing is actually calling the person to follow it, because it believes in nothing. It is just a tradition, or superstition, - but not a religion.

I don’t know. I would say that something is a “religion” if it attempts to provide an explanation of the universe, a way to deal with every day life, and most importantly has supernatural elements (otherwise it would be a philosophy or a science rather than a religion). I would say that it’s specifically the presence of supernatural elements as part of the explanation of the universe that makes something a religion.

Buddhism does have supernatural elements, namely reincarnation/nirvana. So does Hinduism. They do attempt to provide an explanation/way of life. I would consider them religions.

Maybe some religions are more religion-y than others. I think it would be supernatural elements that make the difference though.

Science is the alternative way to seek to understand the reason the universe exists, and it does so without the supernatural. So I would not make an attempt to explain the cause of the universe the main thing that makes something a religion.

 

[Thing]

I don’t know. I would say that something is a “religion” if it attempts to provide an explanation of the universe, a way to deal with every day life, and most importantly has supernatural elements (otherwise it would be a philosophy or a science rather than a religion). I would say that it’s specifically the presence of supernatural elements as part of the explanation of the universe that makes something a religion.

Buddhism does have supernatural elements, namely reincarnation/nirvana. So does Hinduism. They do attempt to provide an explanation/way of life. I would consider them religions.

Maybe some religions are more religion-y than others. I think it would be supernatural elements that make the difference though.

Science is the alternative way to seek to understand the reason the universe exists, and it does so without the supernatural. So I would not make an attempt to explain the cause of the universe the main thing that makes something a religion.

Science is not the cause of the universe and everything. Religion is the belief in *the cause *of the universe and everything.

A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,… - wiki.
There are many superstitions [as in hinduism] about elements *within *creation, but these do not satisfy the above definition of a religion. Buddhism does not have a creator god of the universe and everything, that I know of, so it is not really a religion either, I think.
There is only one religion.

 

[JCnMe]

There are different levels of existence- just as there are different levels of belief-there are lesser gods but only one God- God felt a need to make that very clear to us in the first commandment…not everyone is at the same place spiritually at the same time- it’s meant to be that way so we work to connect and learn to see God at work in all of us…but we have to ask-we have to seek- that’s what free will is all about… you asked for evidence, I showed it to you-but instead of trying to wrap your brain around that evidence- you’d rather argue…here’s more-the image at the bottom of the page is an actual image I received during a family crisis-it just appeared on my computer in my photos when I really needed Jesus to give me a hug-He did- in a way that others would be able to see He hears our prayers and is there with a hug for all of us… and although some of you may feel confident now in your negativity-here’s a fact- there are no atheists on their deathbeds…but you’ve spent your whole lives empty…when all you had to do was open your hearts and minds and ask…how blind is that…Jesus is very adept at helping the blind to see-but you still have to open your eyes yourself.

 

[fisherman_carl]

And that’s main point in the argument. All that “proof” of God, can be seen as coincidences or hallucinations.

My main personal issue is how can you see God as Good? Look at all the starving children, all the innocent people who are dying. Did God chose to let them suffer because they were sinners? then that means God isn’t loving. Atheists choose not to believe in God because believing that he is imaginary makes the world actually make sense.

The Argument between Atheists to Christians is that Atheists see Christians lacking morality and rational thinking. The argument from Christians to Atheists is that their “rational thinking” is either sin, or Satan, or that they are blind

P.S: I mean morality as in doing what is right for the greater good of man, not in the religious sense which makes things worse in that it causes more arguing and fighting.

You speak of morality. But what do you know of morality? Your morality comes from your mind only since you claim there is no God. But, the morality for the Christian comes from God. You claim to know about whether God exists or not yet you have never met him. You know not of which you speak. For the things of God are higher than the things of man. Yet I have met the Lord in my life and I can tell you that he does exist. I stake my life on it.

2 more saints to ponder:

St. Francis of Assisi - Many miracles attributed through him. He had the stigmata in the later years of his life.

Padre Pio - Many miracles including bilocation. He also had the stigmata for many years.

 

[fisherman_carl]

And that’s main point in the argument. All that “proof” of God, can be seen as coincidences or hallucinations.

And you prove the point that some atheists will never consider any evidence proof until they are standing in the fires of hell.

 

[fisherman_carl]

My main personal issue is how can you see God as Good? Look at all the starving children, all the innocent people who are dying. Did God chose to let them suffer because they were sinners? then that means God isn’t loving.

You seem to think that suffering is something that we as sinners don’t deserve. That we don’t have free will to choose good or evil. You seem to think that good can’t come from suffering. And you seem to think that poor starving people are actually worse off then people who think they are rich yet are poor and starving in the spirit, those who lack Jesus Christ in their lives.

Atheists choose not to believe in God because believing that he is imaginary makes the world actually make sense.

How does believing that the universe came from nothing and has no purpose and will eventually die and cease to exist for all eternity make more sense than a God who created the universe and the people in it and gives them meaning and loves them so much that He would become a man and die for them so they can live with him forever?