Nowhere357

Well, you said

So I associated "divine" with "Christ", and came up with the "divinely inspired revelations" of the Bible.

Without a specific definition, I can only guess at a generic god - like Q. What would it take for a person to believe that Q was real?

It comes down to direct experience and general concensus. These are the two types of evidence I'm aware of. Everything else fits in these two groups. Hearsay and expert opinion are both part of general consensus, for example. While lab work and meditation are both direct experience.

But no single experience, and no single consensus, would be sufficient evidence for a radical new theory. It would take a preponderance of evidence, built up over time.

But in the spirit of your question, the single most compelling thing I can think of, is to be given the powers of a god, even if just for a while. If that happened, there would be little point in denying it. Maybe it was a dream, I guess. So I get to keep the powers if you want me to keep believing.

The Christian mythology version of God is too illogical for me to even describe any potential evidence. But if a god is real, then god affects reality, so we can detect these effects, and come to understand them.

And when I understand, I believe. Something or other.

malookiemaloo

You're right I did mention divinerevalation but not inspired.

In this thread I am not necessarily thinking about the Christian God but just a deity in general.

However, one point. You seem to be saying that God has to be 'logical'. Why? Does a creator deity have to conform to the rules of His creatures? Slightly off topic but anyway.


m

Jack the Bodiless

Also slightly off-topic...

How many Christians actually believe in the special "proofs" supposedly granted by their God?

Such as the ability to drink poison and not be harmed by it. This Biblical test is something that any Christian can readily perform, and provides a good foundation for belief if it works. They don't even have to risk their lives: just drink something non-lethal but nasty, and have a friend with a stomach pump handy.

malookiemaloo

Well, Christians don't need proof as such-especially of the drinking poison type.

Your question does raise a point and that is this. Miraculous sighs etc only come in small clusters in the Bible. Healing, raising the dead, drinking poison are 'apostolic' and really don't apply now. For good reason. If such signs continued they would cease to be miraculous and have any real value.

But if I did drink poison and survive............would you believe?!


m

Jack the Bodiless

I would need evidence that this isn't just some metabolic quirk that YOU happen to have. If it can be demonstrated that any Christian can drink any poison handed to them, by anyone, at any time (and this isn't due to some special mind-over-stomach training they receive): yes, I'd have to conclude that there's something supernatural going on.

It wouldn't be sufficient to make be believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible (which most Christians don't believe either), so I'd still not be sure which version of "God" exists.

malookiemaloo

Ah well, nothing like keeping your options open!!

Seriously, of the replies I've seen so far, it seems to me that evidence will not necessarily lead to faith. Strangewhy this should be. And that is the reverse of what I thought when I got up this morning!!


m

Jack the Bodiless

Maybe God should have chosen the "pink glow and levitation" stunt that I suggested for the IPU?

A cathedral full of glowing, levitating Christians would be a mightily impressive sight.

keyser_soze

Hey, I'm openminded..I'll accept any of the following:
1. I pick the poison, you take it. If you survive, hell yes, I'll be there right by you next service...as I beleive that human physiology doesn't change that much.
2. Burning bush? Sure, if it talks, doesn't incinerate, and more than one person witnesses it with me.
3. Any miraculous proof that is not as easily discounted as most of the tripe in the bible. The actions above verified by being filmed, and witnessed by rational beings(meaning non-fundies or people with mental defect--who seem to talk to invisible people daily anyway) would be sufficient.
4. That only specifies that it is a deity. He's going to have to pick his particular flavor of theism in order for me to follow that one.

But hey, I'm easy, and given to flights of fancy. I know most rational people would require more(quite rightfully so).

malookiemaloo

OK let's move on a bit, just for arguments sake.

You're a believer. You have all the evidence. It is documented.

On what basis could people 2000 years later disprove what you now believe? Because maybe they will say your writings are, what's the word again?, 'tripe'.


m




m

Wyz_sub10

This topic has been addressed elsewhere quite recently:

What will it take?

This thread is going, so I won't interrupt it by combining it with the old one, but for those interested in the topic, you may want to look at previous posts.

There are other similar, and older, threads on this subject.

Wyz_Sub10,
EoG Moderator