ggazoo

A question for the atheists. Having browsed these forums for a while now, the question I pose to you is this: exactly what hard evidence would it take for you to become a believer?

Outside the second coming of Christ (unless that is the evidence that you require), what are you looking for? A historical document? If so, what would that be?

I ask because everything that has been discussed on here which may have a even a slight chance of being construded as a hint of proof, is refuted without question.

dettus

The amount of evidence required depends on the claim being made.

Osbert

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

alienrodeoclown

this thread might help

the idea of god(as most religions see it) is so incredibly silly that i cant even imagine a type of evidence that would make me believe. i guess if a short arab guy with holes in his extremities came down from the sky with a bunch of angels spewin' fireballs at a bunch of demons and and some "bad" angels then i might believe.

alienrodeoclown

The second quote is by Stephen F. Roberts.

general_koffi

It is difficult to imagine credible evidence for the majority of Christian claims.

I'll let you know when I see it.

Dean Anderson

In all honesty, I don't know what evidence I would find convincing.

However, if we (for the sake of argument only) assume that Christianity it correct, God does know what evidence I would find convincing. And he has apparently chosen not to give me that evidence yet, for reasons best known to himself.

Why do you think God has done that?

Katastrophikus

That is not the impression that I am getting. I am relatively new in these forums and I find its members quite patient in looking at evidence. The only thing that is "refuted without question," seems to be old arguments that have already been discussed.

As to the actual topic at hand, I would think that, before anyone can accept any claims of the supernatural, we would have to be presented with natural evidence.

In other words: show evidence of a biblical event that matches the text of the bible, and then, but only then, can one start looking at a supernatural answer.

Right now, there isn't even any evidence of the vast, overwhelming majority of the biblical events, so there is no reason to beleive that they even happend, let alone that they were supernatural in origin.

Similarly, what I (personally) require is evidence that is falsifiable, reproducable, peer-reviewed, etc. This evidence would be unexplainable by natural explainations, and would leave only a supernatural explaination. The second coming of Christ, as you mention, for example, is a good one.

EarlOfLade

Well, god could start of demonstrating how he makes planets and stars. Or he could make us a new moon so we have 2. that would be a good start.

Then he could in an instant cure cancer and HIV in such a manner that everyone who currently have either one, would turn up healthy on all possible medical tests.

That would be a good start.

Tuvar Ane Ingolenen

I could think of so many things that would convince me, but the Theist will 'counter' these by 'explaining' that God will not 'do tricks for my amusement'
(been there, done that).

( Although, if scripture/anecdotes is/are truthfull, God did/does similar things in the past/for others. )

I don't have to think of things that would convince me, because if God is real ( and matches the descritions I have heard ) he knows what would convince me. He doesn't convince me.

So, apparantly, he wants me to go through life as if he does not exist.

I can only hope that's not because he's looking forward to the smell of my burning flesh for eternity, but instead that he really does not exist.