Phanes

I won't venture to take a stab at the actual question, but I would like to say that, if atheists do have a hard time coming up with evidence that would convince them, it's for good reason. God is not something like "cow," or "evolution." God is supposed to be a supernatural, immaterial being with various unique properties, e.g. omnipotence. Any time you have a concept this abstract, you're going to run into complications.

Problem: What does "supernatural" mean? Does it have any positive properties? (i.e. does it mean anything other than "not natural")

Problem: What is an immaterial being? Does it have any positive properties? (What makes it different from a would-be material being that doesn't actually exist?)

Problem: There are two types of arguments we can make for anything: a priori and a posteriori. A priori arguments, I think, are more or less useless in terms of actual learning, because they only tell us what we already know. In any case, I have very little doubt that any a priori argument for God's existence will ever succeed.

On the other hand, I don't understand how we could have an a posteriori argument for God. First, God is a supernatural entity. It seems to me that any experience we might have is physical in nature. How do you come up with physical evidence for something that isn't physical?

Further, if omnipotence, etc. are taken to be infinite attributes (e.g. infinite power), then I don't believe an a priori argument can justify belief in them. Any experience a human has, or even one the whole race has, is going to be finite. Humans just can't have infinite experiences. How do you move from any finite amount of evidence to justified belief in something infinite? (Of course, you could just say God is very powerful instead )

Until these problems have adequate solutions, I don't know that I can reasonably answer the original question.

I would also like to add that it is okay to say "No amount of evidence would convince me," depending on your views. If God entails a contradictory set of hypotheses (which may or may not be the case), then no amount of evidence should convince you he exists. Would you accept any "evidence" for the existence of a married bachelor?

Jamie_L

That's the way I felt when I first began questioning my belief. God used to intervene in all these spectacular ways, with tons of witnesses (supposedly). The way you would expect a very powerful entity who was concerned about affiars on earth to behave. But when I look around, I see nothing. I see only a world that appears to function on mechanistic clockwork with no evidence of a diety whatsoever.

If a messiah started wandering around North America, healing people, preaching, feeding thousands from one fish, all caught on video on every major news broadcast. Well, I might start to believe. If the supernatural abounded, instead of being questionable at best and almost always backed by misinterpretation or hoax, I'd be more prone to believe.

I don't think it would take all that much to make me believe, but I would expect that if powerful, supernatural entities were around, there would be a noticeable, systematic effect on the world. Things would be different in lots of little ways. Churches would pray and paritioners would have their cancer go into remission reliably. We'd have faith healers instead of doctors.

Really, it's not about one specific thing. It's about the fact that the world just ought to be fundamentally different if this stuff is true.

But, I do like the good, old-fashioned star writing: If the stars and galaxies viewable in the night sky reoriented themselves to write a message, viewable by all, verified by scientists, etc. That would be pretty darn hard to disbelieve. Really, an omnipotent being could violate the laws of physics in so many ways that making me believe would really be trivial.

And, of course, if my dead son came back to life and told me God did it, I'd be in church the next day.

Jamie

braces_for_impact

I have always wanted to know about this "divine plan" god has. Perhaps if he could show me every nuance, every detail, and how it all works out to not be immoral, that would go a long way.

parkdalian

I think the problem for atheists with such a hypothetical question is that there remains existing evidence against the reality of God. Theists, and to a lesser extent, even atheists take for granted the existence of conflicting religions, often with contradictory doctrines and including some without a god at all. Atheists accept that as evidence against God (although not proof).

Any potentially sufficient amount of evidence for God must take in to account the actual evidence that God is a product of human imagination.

Goober

200m long flaming letters in the sky proclaiming 'God exists, become a christian', which is simultaneously heard spoken in a loud voice by everyone in the world at the same time.

Well within the reach of an omipotent god.

NonHomogenized

I think that this is a fair question, and I'll endeavour to answer as best I can.

First of all, I can speak only for myself. I do not pretend to be representative of anyone but myself.

I've been asked this question before, and, on those occasions, I said I'd think about it, because I really didn't have a good answer.

First, I considered god appearing to me. Then I realized that there would still be issues: 1) I could, more likely, be going insane. 2) I could be decieved

Then, incontrovertible evidence (writing clear messages in the stars, real, verifiable miracles occurring, etc). Again, insanity becomes a reasonable explanation, as do hallucinogens.

Then, I got stumped. After thinking about it long and hard, I'm forced to conclude that, for all practical purposes, the naysayers are right, at least about me. I cannot think of anything that would convince me that god exists (and not, instead, that I was insane): however, let me explain further. This is not because I cannot be convinced by evidence, but rather because such a great preponderance of evidence has led me to the conclusion that there is no god, that I would find insanity to be a more reasonable explanation.

If the universe were not as it is, I'm sure that any number of things could convince me that god exists: however, reality, as I have observed it, has lent itself completely to the opposite conclusion, and I cannot think of any single piece of evidence (or, AFAIK, particular combination thereof) which would convince me god exists.

That being said, I'm sure there is a way to convince me, and, if there were such a thing as god, it would, pretty much by definition, know exactly how to convince me.

Jobar

keyser_soze:
You don't need faith if you have evidence, and you don't want evidence when you have faith.

Well and succinctly said.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/attachment.p...postid=1014236

MollyMac

Surely you have to define the distinguishing features of this deity before asking me what evidence I need to believe in it! If you simply say that it is an invisible deity then my response has to be along the lines of 'seeing is believing'.

But if you told me that this particular God is not merely invisible but omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and created the universe a mere 6,000 years ago, your next task must be to explain away the weight of evidence that contradict these claims. You cannot possibly do this and that is why leaping ahead with just won't do.

The evidence that, for example, God loves all his children is no more apparent today than it has been over the past 2,000 years. The problem of 'evil', if I may use that term to cover the many sources of human pain and suffering, is an insurmountable one for theists, who fall over themselves trying - and inevitably failing - to explain why a loving 'Father in Heaven' gives sweet and kind people cancer, wipes out thousands in one fell swoop with an earthquake but allows a brutal, murdering dictator to live in the lap of luxury.

I could go on to make a similar point about today's creationists' attempts to 'scientifically' disprove evolutionary theory - but I'm sure you get my drift.

There is no clean slate, no starting from scratch, no 'let's just assume God exists' and, at the bottom line, no conceivable evidence that can prove his existence - there is only a mountain of evidence against it.

Goliath

malookiemaloo,

When it comes to the supernatural, evidence is irrelevant. I will only accept a logical proof of a god's existence, built upon:

1. The Zermelo-Frankel axiom of set theory.

2. The Axiom of Choice (and, of course, its equivalents (Zorn's Lemma, etc)).

3. Either the Continuum Hypothesis, or its negation (Either one, I'll let you take your pick).

4. The axiom that our five senses model reality.

Good luck!

Sincerely,

Goliath

SteveD

malookiemaloo,

I can think of a couple of things that would do a pretty good job of persuading me.

1) Having someone I knew personally that is dead now(e.g. my mother in law) show up and tell me that they are back because god sent them back. Ten they can tell me which god or gods.

2) I have a friend who lost an arm becasue of a rattle snake bite. If he were to pray, or have someone pray for him, and have his arm grow back.

Of course both of these would have to be corroborated by other observes so that I could be sure I wasn't just hallucinating.

BTW I wouldn't expect anyone else to believe on the basis of my telling them about these things unless I could prove it to them.

Steve