To the skeptics: what evidence would convince you?

[tonyrey]

Treating the female half of humanity as somewhat less than human is contrary to the Ten Commandments

So what? I have already pointed out that the Law was imperfect.

Since the vast majority of people in the world believe He has communicated with us the onus is on you to justify your opinion that He hasn’t…

Why? This thread is about evidence that would convince skeptics. The OP presumably wants skeptics to tell them what would be convincing.

The fact that the vast majority of people in the world believe in God is itself evidence. There is no smoke without fire… Atheists have always been a very small minority because from the dawn of history human beings have intuitively recognised the difference between mind and matter, between persons and things…

I’m not trying to prove that God hasn’t communicated with man, I’m talking about the kinds of things that would make me a believer.

All the things you have mentioned are some form of public miracle which would force people to believe - and defeat the purpose of making us free to choose what to believe and how to live.

 

[Zatzat]

The evidence, clearly, is that the majority of people do believe in a Creator and, the majority do not believe they were abducted by aliens.

Argumentum ad populum.

 

[Zatzat]

1. You are assuming there is no evidence whatsoever for Design.
2. A group of people in one place at one time believing in a personal experience is vastly different from the majority of people all over the world throughout history believing in a Source of truth, goodness, freedom, beauty and love..
3. The onus is on you to produce an **explanation **of the existence of rational beings in view of the fact that you are purporting to use a rational argument. Otherwise your argument is worthless.
4. Your appeal to the words of Christopher Hitchens carries no weight with me since I know nothing about the man. What claim has he to be an authority?

An ancient alien race created the world and all life upon it.

By your very argument, the onus is on you to prove me wrong.

Secondly, you need not know the author of a quote, to understand clearly what is meant. An assertion without evidence is to be soundly dismissed without evidence.

Just as I do not need to know this Christ you worship, to fully understand the meaning of ’ do unto others, as you would have done to you.’

 

[Zatzat]

The fact that the vast majority of people in the world believe in God is itself evidence.

That isn’t evidence, it’s argumentum ad populm…very popular around here.

 

[tonyrey]

The fact that the vast majority of people in the world believe in God is itself evidence.

Do usually ignore the beliefs and values of the vast majority of people in the world? That implies that you consider yourself to have privileged insight into the nature of reality. Or what may be described as hubris, intellectual pride…

 

[tonyrey]

1. You are assuming there is no evidence whatsoever for Design.
2. A group of people in one place at one time believing in a personal experience is vastly different from the majority of people all over the world throughout history believing in a Source of truth, goodness, freedom, beauty and love…
3. The onus is on you to produce an explanation of the existence of rational beings in view of the fact that you are purporting to use a rational argument. Otherwise your argument is worthless.
4. Your appeal to the words of Christopher Hitchens carries no weight with me since I know nothing about the man. What claim has he to be an authority?

?

By your very argument, the onus is on you to prove me wrong.

Nonsense! If there is no onus on you to prove anything you have nothing whatsoever to offer. “Nothing shall come of nothing.” You make yourself invulnerable but at the cost of credibility…

Secondly, you need not know the author of a quote, to understand clearly what is meant.

Then why name the author as if he has authority?

An assertion without evidence is to be soundly dismissed without evidence.

There is no point in repeating your mantra unless you can produce **evidence **that there is no evidence! If I say “The existence of rational beings is evidence that we owe our existence to a Rational Being” you can repeat “that is not evidence” until you are blue in the face but without an alternative explanation your mantra remains utterly worthless…

Just as I do not need to know this Christ you worship, to fully understand the meaning of ’ do unto others, as you would have done to you.’

You may understand it but you have no **reason **to agree with it or to put it into practice!

 

[Thing]

Argumentum ad populum.

Thats your counter-argument?
If everyone said they had a cold at some stage, but not at the moment. That would be an argumentum ad populum, and be grounds to disbelieve them?

 

[Zatzat]

Do usually ignore the beliefs and values of the vast majority of people in the world? That implies that you consider yourself to have privileged insight into the nature of reality. Or what may be described as hubris, intellectual pride…

There was a time when the majority of people in the world embraced slavery, child labour and misogyny.

Had I opposed slavery, child labour and misogynistic practices, would you have suggested that I possess a privileged insight into the nature of reality?

With that in mind, just what is your point?

Argumentum ad populum is a very, very weak argument.

 

[Zatzat]

Thats your counter-argument?
If everyone said they had a cold at some stage, but not at the moment. That would be an argumentum ad populum, and be grounds to disbelieve them?

Colds are caused by viruses, which are measurable, detectable, testable and the virus itself is visible under a microscope.

The actual symptoms of a cold are visible, detectable and measurable.

Your analogy fails.

 

[Thing]

Colds are caused by viruses, which are measurable, detectable, testable and the virus itself is visible under a microscope.

The actual symptoms of a cold are visible, detectable and measurable.

Your analogy fails.

You don’t know about viruses. You never saw a cold. But most people said they had one once.

 

[tonyrey]

1. You are assuming there is no evidence whatsoever for Design.
2. A group of people in one place at one time believing in a personal experience is vastly different from the majority of people all over the world throughout history believing in a Source of truth, goodness, freedom, beauty and love…
3. The onus is on you to produce an explanation of the existence of rational beings in view of the fact that you are purporting to use a rational argument. Otherwise your argument is worthless.
4. Your appeal to the words of Christopher Hitchens carries no weight with me since I know nothing about the man. What claim has he to be an authority?

An ancient alien race created the world and all life upon it.
?

No response!

By your very argument, the onus is on you to prove me wrong.

Nonsense! If there is no onus on you to prove anything you have nothing whatsoever to offer. “Nothing shall come of nothing.” You make yourself invulnerable but at the cost of credibility…

No response!

Secondly, you need not know the author of a quote, to understand clearly what is meant.

Then why name the author as if he has authority?

No response!

An assertion without evidence is to be soundly dismissed without evidence.

There is no point in repeating your mantra unless you can produce evidence that there is no evidence! If I say “The existence of rational beings is evidence that we owe our existence to a Rational Being” you can repeat “that is not evidence” until you are blue in the face but without an alternative explanation your mantra remains utterly worthless…

No response!

Just as I do not need to know this Christ you worship, to fully understand the meaning of ’ do unto others, as you would have done to you.’

You may understand it but you have no reason to agree with it or to put it into practice!

No response!

Do usually ignore the beliefs and values of the vast majority of people in the world? That implies that you consider yourself to have privileged insight into the nature of reality. Or what may be described as hubris, intellectual pride…

There was a time when the majority of people in the world embraced slavery, child labour and misogyny.

Had I opposed slavery, child labour and misogynistic practices, would you have suggested that I possess a privileged insight into the nature of reality?

With that in mind, just what is your point?

Argumentum ad populum is a very, very weak argument.

The essential difference is that slavery, child labour and misogyny are human** practices** whereas the beliefs and values of religion are concerned with the nature of reality and the purpose of life. In spite of their faults and failings the majority of people all over the world throughout history have believed in a Source of truth, goodness, freedom, beauty and love.. You can attempt to dispute that fact as long as you like but you are merely banging your head against a brick wall :banghead: and demonstrating to everyone that you are incapable of admitting that you are mistaken…

 

[Zatzat]

No response!

No response!
No response!
No response!
No response!

Didn’t read you post after the third ’ no response’.

 

[Zatzat]

You don’t know about viruses. You never saw a cold. But most people said they had one once.

Measurable, testable, observable.

 

[Zatzat]

?

Nonsense! If there is no onus on you to prove anything you have nothing whatsoever to offer. “Nothing shall come of nothing.” You make yourself invulnerable but at the cost of credibility…

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

I would like to see proof that you exist, because I don’t think you do. In fact, I’m sure you don’t exist. I am agog to hear your evidence. It would change everything!

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[flyingfish]

The stars were already created, after light was created in 1:3 and before plants were created in 1:11. The stars were, thus not created in 1:14.

Please point me to the exact passage before 1:14 where it says the stars and sun were created.

I just read the entire Genesis 1 again, and it doesn’t exist.

Just read the passage for yourself:

13And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

14 And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.’ And it was so. 16God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, 18to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

First the third day ends, then it explicitly says that God made the two great lights (the sun and the moon), and the stars, and set them in the “dome of the sky”.

It doesn’t say they already existed and were already in the dome, but God just made some minor adjustments to the earth’s orbit and angle. Would it make any sense whatsoever to say that God made them and put them in the sky if they were already made and in the sky, but God just slightly adjusted the earth’s position/rotation axis (which by the way changes to this day)?

Also the seasons were formed at this point. According to scientists the moon finished forming nearly half a billion years after the creation of plant life.

Really, can you please link me a respectable source that would claim you had

11Then God said, ‘Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.’ And it was so. 12The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it.

on the earth before the moon “finished forming”?

And it seems life in the sea was created after there were trees and flowering plants on earth:

20 And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.’ 21So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 22God blessed them, saying, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.’ 23And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day

 

[flyingfish]

The fact that the vast majority of people in the world believe in God is itself evidence. There is no smoke without fire… Atheists have always been a very small minority because from the dawn of history human beings have intuitively recognised the difference between mind and matter, between persons and things…

All the things you have mentioned are some form of public miracle which would force people to believe - and defeat the purpose of making us free to choose what to believe and how to live.

And if the vast majority of people believed the earth was flat and sitting on turtles, would you claim it was evidence that this is true?

Human beings are fallible, our minds are limited, and our intuitions are tailored to the particular environment we evolved in (modern physics doesn’t make intuitive sense to us for example).

For your second point, is the biggest virtue believing in God without evidence, or accepting the way of life God proposes? Also, there is a contradiction in the view you hold. If God wants us to choose completely on our own, without being “forced” by things like our parents telling us to believe from childhood/being told that we’ll go to hell if we don’t, then it makes no sense for revealed religion to exist at all.

You can’t have both ways: claim that miracles would force people to believe and this is not what God wants, and God physically coming to earth, leaving the Bible, commanding that nonbelievers be converted and children raised to believe (which amounts to removing their choice), Mary allegedly performing miracles like Fatima.

Fundamentally, I would agree with you that it would be more valuable to leave us to find our own way than tell us what to do. Of course, this means it makes no sense for there to be revealed religion.

I would like to see proof that you exist, because I don’t think you do. In fact, I’m sure you don’t exist. I am agog to hear your evidence. It would change everything!

How is this relevant? There is no evidence I can give you of my existence, and you’d be perfectly reasonable in thinking that I’m just a figment of your imagination.

How is this analogy supposed to convince skeptics that God exists?

 

[tonyrey]

Didn’t read you post after the third ’ no response’.

Then you don’t know what you missed. Bad luck! Perhaps you didn’t want to know - in case you had to try to answer… That’s the easiest way out.

 

[ManOnFire]

The concept of Time and Space is like a song that is playing right now. Yet, the song never had a beginning, or an ending. (if you say time began at x time, there was always time before that. If you think there’s a wall out there somewhere that is the end of space, there’s always something on the other side of the wall. If there’s no wall or an unlimited thick wall, then there’s still no end). Scientists don’t have cures for cancer, Alzheimer’s, autism, etc., so there’s not much we really know. God is a glass is half empty / half full choice.

If one chooses to give one’s life to the Church’s way of sacrificial, true love for spouse and kids, one can experience the love that makes one’s heart sing and will rock you to the depths of your bones. This lifestyle increases conscience. The whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts.

If one chooses a life of selfish indulgence of the basic instincts, one will walk around like a person with a teaspoon and a sugar bowl: dipping the teaspoon into the bowl frequently, constantly searching for the next temporary high, artificially looking to that which is different or diverse since familiarity is just way too boring, trying to invent something deep that lasts, to no avail. The search for shallow amusements continues indefinitely. Some believe that peace and satisfaction will be coming soon because they remember how wonderful it felt for the parents to love them and take care of everything for them as children. They want these days to come back, not realizing that it’s their turn. Some are still stuck at this level, undetermined to grow up and live for others. This lifestyle which does not see the utility of sacrifice for others can choose to keep the parts (money, drugs, love-less sex, etc.) for oneself. The “parts” expire quickly. Then comes the imminent need to acquire more parts. And it continues.

The educated know that science will never prove the infinity of Time and Space. We can’t say the same for God. God could be understood, but the infinity of time and space cannot. Therefore, God > science.

The Covenant exists, if only we choose to take the time to find it.

Ahhh, choices.

 

[DysonSphere]

What would convince the atheists and agnostics that God exists?..

Axiomatically none would convince me completely. There is always a possible naturalistic explanation for anything. Some events, such as seeing a person rise from the dead, would seem at this time to be better explained by invoking the supernatural, but this may not always be the case.