Wyrdsmyth

I've been thinking about Andrew_theist's question, and I have to say that I for one would not rule out all possible evidence in an a priori fashion. But for me to consider theism, or move towards it and away from atheism, the evidence would have to be pretty good. I think context would have a lot to do with it as well. Below is a hypothetical of "what it would take" for me:

If someone was claiming to be a holy man, a spokesman for Jesus Christ on earth, and that to prove this Jesus was going to work through him in one week's time to heal many. Then, a week later, the holy man heals a bunch of people, and not just in ambiguous ways -- amputees regrow limbs. The whole thing is caught on film and shown on various media. Still, there are skeptics, saying the whole thing was somehow staged. The skeptics are invited to put the holy man to the test, and he passes all the tests. He continues to heal the sick, restore amputated limbs, and so on. Among skeptics, it becomes increasingly more difficult to sustain the theory that this is all a big hoax. The holy man has healed so many people and so many different news media and medical doctors have been on hand to document it that it is becomes next to impossible to write it all off. The holy man doesn't seem to have an agenda other than to tell people Jesus just wants them all to believe, and wants to give them proof he is real.

This is the sort of thing that would get me to consider I am wrong, and that maybe god really does exist. It has the following features:

(1) It has a context. I.e., it's not just something unexplainable happening, it's a person saying he's going to do something fantastic, and then doing it, and attributing to a particular higher power.

(2) Repetition. It's not just a one-time event. When the holy man is called upon to prove that god is really working through him, he meets the challenges. He doesn't evade the challenges, or get all mysterious. He's forthright, invites medical doctors and investigators and scientists to test him, and for the media to record what he's doing.

(3) Overt results. This is not like some TV evangelist getting people out of their wheelchairs or off their crutches. This is amputees regrowing entire limbs live on the air, and caught on film.

(4) Publicity and documentation. We're not just talking about some anecdotes from some Jewish towns on the outskirts of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago, with a questionable written recording of the events 30-60 years after they occurred by uncertain authors. Now we're talking about hundreds of different media people, medical professionals and so on having access to record them and each give their own version of the events.

This is the sort of thing that would get me to consider I've been wrong all these years. I think it would convince a lot of us. Of course, there would always be a few hard-core atheists who could never be convinced. They'd still think it was a conspiracy or some kind of grand hoax. And, of course, there would still be alternate naturalistic explanations. The 'holy man' could be a tool of a higher alien intelligence, doing all this to manipulate us or play with us. We couldn't totally rule that out. But the overwhelming evidence would be in favor of believing the holy man at face value.

GunnerJ

It's interesting that what you are describing is like the antichrist of Revelations. It's even more interesting that the "bad guy" of Xian dogma is the one doing what it would take for rational people to belive, and the "good guy," god, is hiding himself.

Wyrdsmyth

Good point, Rimstalker. Incidentally, this brings up an vital question for Christians. If Jesus comes back, how will they know it's him and not an imposter? Going by Revelations, should they automatically discount the first big, overt miracle-worker who comes along? How will they know when it's the 'real' Jesus?

Like I said, Rimstalker, there would still be alternate explanations -- both naturalistic, and as you've pointed out, alternate supernatural explanations as well. Because a holy man with magical healing powers claims he is getting his powers from the Judeo-Christian god is no guarantee that he is. He could be an alien in disguise, a human with psychic powers, the Anti-Christ, the list goes on and on. There's no way to completely rule those things out.

I have to admit, I'd be kind of disappointed to find out the whole Judeo-Christian mythology is real, and that's the way the universe really is. I'd have problems with the way god is, the way he works... Being all mysterious and secretive, allowing all sorts of evil and suffering, communicating to us in cryptic ways, mostly through desert nomads in the Middle East two to three thousand years ago... I might come to believe he exists, but that doesn't mean I'd like him. I'd still have a philosophical problem with the way the whole "sin" thing works, it is simply incoherent to me. Instead of feeling all warm and fuzzy and relieved there is a god after all, I think I might feel like a toy in the hands of a madman.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

Marduk

I think the true test of the 2nd comming is that the Dead will come back to life, all the dead not just Jerry Garcia and Pigpen, but ALL who have died will be physically resurected, including the really yucky long time dead. Then you know it's the real JC.
If I remember correctly.

Mageth

Where the hell are they all going to stay? My house is out; I don't want no zombies around!

I ate Pascal's Wafer

They'll probably stay with the Christians. Who else would take them? I wouldn't want them in my home either.

Nick

Marduk

I think they all have to line up in front of JC, then they either get tossed into the Lake 'o Fire or sent up to heaven or else live on Earth in peace with JC for 1000 years, I forget, ask Roxella & Jack Van Impe the are the 'experts' on Rev.

waxm

Wyrdsmyth- Because a holy man with magical healing powers claims he is getting his powers from the Judeo-Christian god is no guarantee that he is.

Wax- I think that one sentance pretty much sums it all up.
Even if the fantastical events that you describe actually occured, it would not bring the Christian concept of God, one step closer to being acceptable!
Why? Because the Bible, as written, can not be correct.

babelfish

Well, Jerry Garcia would be welcome to stay at my house!

Wyrdsmyth

True, I already conceded that. He could be a psychic with enormous mental powers who is deceiving everyone through telepathy. He could be a pawn of aliens, or an alien in disguise. He could be a being from another dimension, who's just toying with us. He could be a psychic with genuine healing powers that are naturalistic in some way, yet he is deluded in thinking the J/C God gave him the power. He could be the Anti-Christ. The list goes on and on.

There are always alternate possibilities.

But I was answering the question of what it would take to get me to strongly consider I'm seriously wrong, and perhaps there is something to theism. It would take more than just an unexplainable event (like someone's cancer going into remission) or a coincidence (like a narrow escape from death) or clever metaphysical arguments to get me to even consider that a god analogous to the prevalent monotheistic religions of today is a reality.

The more I try to imagine something like this happening... An overt, well-documented 'holy man' performing miracles and healing people and attributing it to the J/C God... It's actually kind of disturbing to think of reality being the way the Judeo-Christians have believed it is. To think that the god of the Bible is true, is very disturbing. A supreme being that communicates to people through a burning bush, takes sides in primitive wars and battles in the ancient world of the Near East, and takes a certain tribe as his "chosen people," that whole circumcision thing, the thing about incinerating entire cities with brimstone or flooding the world because the people he created are "being bad" -- it would just be unpleasant to think this entity actually exists.

You know what? Andrew_theist was right about me in one particular way: I don't like the Judeo-Christian God, and I actually prefer it that he doesn't exist. I don't think such a being actually exists, and I am glad. I prefer a blind chance universe to one in which:

1. God programs his toys to want to disobey him.

2. God winds up his toys and then orders them to obey him.

3. God punishes the toys who disobey, tossing them into burning lakes of fire. They scream and scream eternally, but can't die, and God says they deserve it.

4. Except for a small handful of toys, God never appears or interacts with his toys in any definite, overt ways.

5. He leaves it to the small handful of toys to tell the vast majority of others about all his rules, the true nature of reality, and the eternal torture and lake of fire they'll get thrown into if "they're bad."

6. He allows all kinds of misinformation and false beliefs about the true nature of reality to exist.

7. He presents reality in such a way that to those toys who've never seen him, it is extremely plausible that he doesn't exist.

8. His primary method of communicating with his toys is through a rather primitive set of creation myths and morality stories, that don't seem the slightest bit plausible to anyone with a brain. Creating Eve from Adam's Rib? Tower of Babel? Flood myth with an ark and two of every animal? A talking ass?

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>