Howay the Toon

Why does this surprise you. Evidence leads to acceptance that a particular hypothesis can be accepted (provisionally) as true. Nothing more. Certainly not to "faith" or "believing in something". These are just alien concepts to us.

The problem with describing evidence which would convince us of the existence of God is that evidence can only be in support of a much more specific hypothesis than simply "God exists". I have no idea where to start designing an evidential test for that rather vague proposition.
Secondly, if we find it difficult envisioning evidence which would be suitably convincing, our first reaction would not be "Oh our hearts must be hardened to the notion" or some such rot. Our first reaction would be that "perhaps the proposition is unfalsifiable an hence worthless as a proposed explanation".

malookiemaloo

Thanks for this.


m

Theli

I'm more concerned on how this talking burning bush would convince me. I mean, if it said "I am god" that is hardly enough for me to believe it.
I wouldn't believe you if you told me you were god.

What I would accept as evidence could not be compressed into a single revelation, but would require lots and lots and lots of evidence (both philosophical and material) linking this god to what I've observed in this world. And this evidence should only work with that god alone, and no parodies (like the invisible pink unicorn).
I was under the impression that evidence never leads to faith.

Jack the Bodiless

This does sound suspiciously like the common Christian attempt to portray atheists as having closed minds: that no amount of evidence will convince us.

The issue is whether there is sufficient evidence.

Hypothetical scenario: you're out walking, and you come across a burning bush. A voice, apparently from the bush, tells you to buy all of L. Ron Hubbard's books and become a Scientologist.

Will you convert? Or will you look for a hidden speaker and a radio-controlled igniter, and a nearby guy with a microphone?

keyser_soze

Because the above is only what it would take ME personally. I require first hand knowledge of a claim that is supernatural. As I said, I am given to less a rational mind than I would wish. I would no more expect my neighbor to take my word for it than I would his, without verifiable data on the subject. Outrageous claims require better proofs than mundane claims. If you swear that woolite works better, then I will probably say "okay, it works better for you". If you say that woolite caused your drier to levitate...then I might be a little skeptical, but if you show it to me while it's happening...I'm going to believe my own eyes. Now, to take it you your degree, if you great grandson claims that 50 years ago, you used a woolite type product and your drier levitated, but have no verifiable proof other than your word that has been handed down 50years....well, I think you can see where this is going. Now take it to the level of the bible. You expect me to believe the word of a bunch of goatherders, with low education, from a time when every other culture surrounding them also suffered from omens and signs and were given to belief in superstition and the supernatural...you are asking me to take them at their word(despite the problem just mentioned) that a god came to earth through a virgin, was killed and ressurrected(notice that this is not the only mythology concering this action) and that the end of the world was coming(which is a little late according to the man who said it), and was prophesied by an even older bunch of goat herders, but you REALLY have to squint to make it fit...anyway, you expect me to believe such claims with no external verification? Just on the word of a bunch of goatherders whose stories weren't even written in their own lifetimes? What makes them any more credible than the other nuts from other cultures who made miraculous claims? Because that is the standard for our culture? No. I don't take supernatural claims on anyone's word. It requires a greater proof. And the proof back then was poor, let alone 2000 years later. If you really read the bible, as a book, not putting faith in it, as a book...you would see what we see. Nothing any different than any other mythology.

Dianna

m: 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'.

Exactly the problem with belief, isn't it? You ask two different questions. 1. What would it take to convince you? and 2. What would it take for you to believe?

If I have been convinced, I know beyond reasonable doubt. Belief is unnecessary.

For me to believe, I would have to be a different person. I would have to have a desire for more than is apparent, a strong feeling that reality isn't what it seems, and accept subjective experience and emotionalism (my own and others') as evidence of what I desire. But that is not me. That is the real question--why do some of us believe things and others do not?

To be convinced, deity would have to be objectively present for everyone. Everyone would know that it exists. There would be no question. To be convinced, I would not have to believe.

Dianna
www.geocities.com/atheistview/

malookiemaloo

Basically you are saying you would require a personal revelation, if I interpret you correctly.

If that is your answer then that is fine by me. That was my original question!!


m

malookiemaloo

I knew you'd come up with something I had not thought of, Dianna.

I am now trying to fuse (if that is possible) belief, faith, evidence and conviction.

As I said earlier, I had assumed that evidence would lead to belief but you say no, it leads to conviction. Therefore evidence is independent of faith. But the Christian faith is based on fact!! (at least to me) I'll have to philosophise over this at the weekend.

Thanks, though.


m

malookiemaloo

No. I am not trying to accuse anyone of having a closed mind.

I am trying to examine the correlation between evidence, faith, belief and conviction.

No offence intended.


m

Howay the Toon

This again betrays the differences. You said

" But the Christian faith is based on fact!! (at least to me)"

Facts are not something which can be true for you and not true for me. Facts are simply pieces of knowledge which are so overwhelmingly supported and universally accepted that it would be intellectually perverse to deny them. This is absolutely not the case with the basis of the Christian Faith.