sodium

For me to believe in the theology-style God, the one that is all-good and all-powerful, the world would have to be very different than it is now, because I see the problem of evil as cogent. But that doesn't mean that my belief is unfalsifiable, it's just that the evidence is already in.

But it isn't hard to imagine a world in which I would believe in various supernatural beings. If we found that the moon was pushed around by an angel, as would have seemed quite plausible to many of our ancestors, I wouldn't say, "ignore the angel, let's look for a natural explanation." I'd say, "Well, I guess angels do exist after all."

Similarly, many people say that science is based on methodological materialism or naturalism. I disagree. Of course science does find natural explanations, but that's just what's out there. Scientists do seek more precise and detailed explanations. It isn't enough just to say that God makes the rain and leave it at that. Scientists wants to know how that's done, and this process of investigation has tended to be bad for supernatural explanations.

As well, scientists tend to dismiss overly convenient hypotheses, like that psychic powers stop working in the presence of double-blind studies. Perhaps that is invalid to do, but it isn't the same as assuming naturalism or materialism either.

copernicus

Of all the answers given so far, MollyMac has come up with the closest perspective to mine. Disbelief, belief, and conviction are all relative judgments. I only truly know what I directly experience, but I am convinced of the truth of many propositions that are not based on direct experience.

What kind of evidence would make me more likely to believe in a deity? It wouldn't really have to be direct revelation or the witnessing of actual miracles. It would have to be grounded in repeatable experience, and I would like the evidence to be cumulative--based on different types of evidence. Another way of putting it is that the evidence would have to be verifiable. For example, the existence of miracles that resisted repeated debunking efforts by skeptics would make me more likely to believe in them as genuine miracles. Unfortunately, all reports of miracles seem to be debunkable when they are examined. Or they don't get repeated in the presence of debunkers.

I'm not even particular about the type of deity. That is, I don't require omniscience, omnibenevolence, or omnipotence. A fairly smart god with a good knowledge of some subject would do fine for me, and I don't really care about his or her attitude. Well, even a rather stupid, ignorant god would work, too. The point is that there would have to be verifiable miracles that have been reported by reasonably reliable sources, and those miracles would have to be linked to the alleged deity in some sensible way. Is that asking too much? Got any evidence of that sort, Alistair?

Kilgore Trout

There is an episode of Star Trek Where Dr. McCoy says something like "Just once I'd like to beam down to a planet and tell the natives 'Behold! I'm the Angel Gabriel!'" I think that kind of sums up the problem of "evidence of god." The whole idea is that there is a big universe out there that we know very little about (as theists love to point out). To say god talked to you in a burning bush is begging the question. You are assuming god is the one talking to you, and not just someone or something that possesses a power we do not understand. Why do you assume this burning bush is telling the truth? Maybe it's just some alien traveller trying to mess with your mind like Dr. McCoy. After all, show a cigarette lighter to a jungle native that's never seen any civilization and he'll probably think you're a god! :notworthy :notworthy

If it was so irrelevant why did you say in your original post....

Sounds like you are already assuming Jesus is the "god" that would appear to you. I love how theists talk about "god" existing when they only mean their god exists. Theists are atheists when it comes to every other god but their own. They are going to be very skeptical when it comes to what they perceive to be false gods.

Here's a question for you. What evidence would it take to convince you that there was some other god? If Vishnu appeared to you and performed miracles you wouldn't believe it because you are too sure Jesus is god and you don't want him to send you to hell. You would just think it was the devil trying to trick you. (Unless you don't believe in the devil!)

Kilgore Trout

The same goes for "The voice of god" at Jesus' baptism and transfiguration. How did they know it was god? Maybe it was the devil! Once you make up the devil myth you can't trust anything you see or hear. They look really silly pretending they know that was god talking.


Don't you know how to test if someone is Jesus? You ask him if he's Jesus, and if he says "Your words, not mine" then it MUST be Jesus!

diana

Interesting point. If we witnessed such things first hand now, it would be far easier to look at the bible and at least consider the possiblility that it is a true account.

But then, in the name of fairness, one the door was opened, all the rest of the myths would come in from the rain, too. I guess that doesn't help us much, after all.

d

diana

But if you consistently saw a "miracle," would you consider it supernatural, or would you simply decide that it's a phenomenon we simply can't explain yet?

I have to say I'd go with the latter, which I suspect is the whole reason Alistair is asking the question in the first place.

d

diana

Yes ma'am. I find it difficult to have discussions about faith and belief with theists for this very reason.

True.

Yes. I suppose where atheists and theists really quibble, then, is by what we mean by "evidence."

A different kind of "faith," a faith which is not grounded in evidence. And so the switch is flipped. And because they're using the same word or general concept, they don't realize they've even flipped the switch, I think.

Very well put, MollyMac. I'm always on the prowl for better (and more gentle) ways of explaining this. Thank you.

d

CX

My usual response to this query is, "I have no idea, but certainly an all powerful and omnipresent god should know what evidence would convince me and would provide such evidence if it wanted me to believe." Leaving perhaps 4 possibilities:

1)The evidence exists and
a)god hasn't shown me yet for unknown reasons
b)god hasn't shown me because it doesn't care whether I believe or not OR doesn't want me to believe

2)The evidence does not exist because
a)God is not all powerful or not all knowing
b)god does not exist

copernicus

I wouldn't know what to consider it, ultimately, but we are speaking of evidence here. I view the human mind as a battleground for conflicting beliefs (ok, memes). Our convictions are those beliefs that more or less dominate their negative counterparts. There is a little atheist inside Alistair, just as there is a little theist inside all us atheists. Evidence can strengthen or weaken dominant beliefs.

If we were to experience apparent miracles that could be verified (i.e. repeated under predictable circumstances), then we would have to consider the possibility that those miracles had a supernatural cause. After all, the very definition of "miracle" is an event that has no natural cause. So, if a self-proclaimed "holy man" could resurrect dead people, and do it repeatedly, then my long-suffering religion meme would begin doing little victory dances. On the other hand, my Arthur C. Clarke meme would start shouting that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". And I would also suspect the holy man of being an alien with an advanced technology. While I am very strongly biased to look for natural causes of events--a strategy that seems to have a good track record in human history--I cannot objectively rule out the possibility of supernatural causes.

Remember that I only talked about evidence that would make me more likely to believe in a deity. Convictions are nothing more than very dominant beliefs, and all are subject to attack and overthrow from the erstwhile less successful memes.

TomboyMom

Although it is often said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I agree that the existence of any particular supernatural being/god is an extraordinary claim, I would settle for "ordinary" evidence, that is, the same type of evidence that we expect for typical scientific claims, such as a controlled double-blind study, or verifiable historical documentation. I think the main criteria is that for a claim to be verifiable, it must also be falsifiable, and the same test can be used for proving or disproving the claim. Just as an example, we could have a test where we pick 50 counties that have tornadoes each year, and divide them into two groups that average about the same number of tornadoes. Then some christians pray for the tornadoes to pass over group A counties. Then we count the number of tornadoes for each county over a 5 year period. If there was a statistically significant reduction in tornadoes in the A group, I would consider that as some evidence for the existence of the christian god. But the christians should also consider the lack of any such reduction to be evidence against the existence of god, and not start explaining it away. You can think of lots of tests like this, such as a double blind test of the effect of intercessory prayer on cancer patients, etc.
I would also be very open to independent historical documentation of the life of Jesus, of which there is approximately zero. Similarly, if any of the fossil evidence tended to verify the biblical account of creation, that would be good. Or if any geological evidence seemed to indicate that the biblical account of creation or the flood was true, that would budge me in that direction. Basically, I would be very interested in any regular old evidence, the same kind that we use every day to further human knowledge, and if it tended to support the christian (or any other religion's) account, it would sway me toward that religion. I have never seen an iota of this kind of evidence, which pretty much convinces me that there is no truth to any of these major religions.
I just think we should not discard our normal ways of thinking, testing, and proving when we are dealing with a religious claim.

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --Mark Twain, if I remember correctly.

Rene, open minded and reasonable as always