Tercel

The Bible seems generally clear that Jesus' return will be rather unmissable. Such things as the sign of Jesus (presumably the cross) appearing in the sky, believers getting "caught up in the clouds", the dead being raised en masse, and the stars and the earth generally getting destroyed are probably more than a little hard to miss. The appearence of someone doing well attested miracles and declaring that they are God doesn't really cut it by comparison.

Tercel

Tercel

I find it absolutely fascinating that all atheist posts I read on this subject seem to set such high standards. Ludicrously high in my opinion. Why set the standards for religious belief so high that only when it is proved beyond all possible and super-super-skeptical unreasonable doubt would you ever believe?
Am I the only one that sees this as more than a little inconsistent? Imagine trying to apply those same standards for everything you believe in life!
Our justice system generally works with the idea that something has to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt". But that's a special case because we don't want to be punishing people by mistake for something they didn't do. The rest of the time, we all work with the basic idea of "most likely". Whatever is most likely to be true based on the evidence, we tentatively believe. The more likely it is to be true, the stronger becomes our believe: Until we reach the point of "beyond reasonable doubt" where we say that the evidence amounts to proof and that we are sure of our belief and that our conclusion is correct.
Certainly, anyone who wants to use an assessing system other than this one has a large onus on them to provide a good reason for doing so.

So I, for one, would certainly expect the "most likely" system to be used in our approach to the subject of religion. I certainly use it, and have found this system entirely adequate for assessing religious claims. And it has led be to the point where I express certain belief in the Christian God.
Yet, the atheists I read on this subject, for some reason apparently decide that, no, this system of assessment is not skeptical enough for religious claims. The standard is instead normally raised to: If there is any possible explanation whatsoever however unlikely by comparison, then the religious claim is to be disbelieved. So where, I, would accept an evidence as proof when it surpasses all reasonable doubt, while the atheist would be barely convinced so long as some explanation, no matter how contrived and unreasonable it appears to me to be, can be thought up.

To me it would seem that we simply don’t know whether or not a supernatural being or divine creator or whatever exists. And so I look at the evidence and base my opinions on whatever the evidence would appear to suggest is most likely. I conclude from this that it is most extremely probable amounting to certainty that the Christian God exists.
Where as the atheist apparently begins with the assumption, before looking at any evidence, that the existence of such a being is so extremely improbable as to require proof of the absolute highest degree that has no other possible explanation whatsoever before they accept the existence of any supernatural being.

Now, I recognise that when I say “atheist” in the above I am making a large generalisation and no doubt there certainly, as in all such cases there will be exceptions even many exceptions. But by and large in my experience, and Wyrdsmyth’s post merely continues the trend, atheist writings I read on the subject of required evidence show a presupposed unwillingness to any religious belief coupled with an unreasonably and inconsistently high demand for absolutely indisputable evidence. Wanting evidence is certainly a good thing, I applaud a demand for evidence and I detest any sort of blind faith. But why, set the bar for the evidence so inconsistently and unfairly impossibly high?
Is it simply blind faith in the non-existence of God? I seriously worry that in many cases it truly is.

Tercel

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

David Gould

Tercel,

You may be right in some cases. However, in my case the resaon I do not believe in God is that I have seen no evidence for His existence.

This of course requires that I then set a definition of what I would describe as evidence, I suppose.

My personal opinion is that a miracle without a mythological context is no evidence for anything - for example, if something really good happened to me that was extremely unlikely, it is a miracle but not evidence for anything.

However, if someone declared that Jesus Christ had told them that David Gould would have a really good thing happen to him that was extremely unlikely, and it came true that is evidence that Jesus Christ is real.

Of course it is not proof - nothing can be proven. It is simply evidence.

As to exactly how much of similar evidence I would require to convince me, I do not know.

Other examples of evidence would be prayer to Jesus having a significant statistical effect on medical conditions.

Prayer in general having such an effect would not be evidence that Jesus Christ is divine - in fact, it could be seen as being more likely to be some group psychic thingy, as prayers to conflicting contradictory God concepts seem unlikley to all be granted similar status by a deity.

Prayer to Jesus specifically having a healing effect however would be unlikely to be a psychic thingy as there is no logical reason why focusing through one particular cultural construct would be inherently different than focussing through another.

Things like having all quarks stamped with 'Jesus loves you' would certainly be convincing evidence

HRG

IMHO, it is the recognition that the supernatural claim is an "outlier", to use a statistical term, and thus needs an extremely high degree of evidence to be accepted.

Imagine 999,999,999 reported data falling on a straight line, and one reported datum being quite a way off. Wouldn't you test that one datum on the most stringent terms before being sure that it is not the result of an "experimental error" ?

Regards,
HRG.

Autonemesis

I said in the "Are you really?" thread that I avoid mystical, magical and wishful thinking and try to recognize it wherever it appears. So if convincing evidence for the existence of god were to appear, I'd still have to integrate that knowledge into a logical system of thought, somehow. I think I'd be inclined to take Arthur Clarke's hint that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, and conclude that god was an incredibly advanced alien or alien race. Proof of god's existence does not necessarily also convince me that the events in the Bible occurred (or the Quran or whatever) or that I possess a soul that will live forever, or of any other point of doctrine.

In fact, I think I find that I am morally obligated as a free person to resist this twisted, meddling despot of a god. If reality really does resemble the Vorlon-esque nightmare depicted by sin-and-judgment religions, then it would seem my only means of resisting this being is to withhold the one thing it wants, the only thing in this creepy, Lovecraftian universe that is mine to control.

babelfish

Tercel, you said:

Maybe some atheists look at everything from this perspective. For others of us, like me, this is just completely untrue.

Having been raised in that cult of miracles, Roman Catholicism, my earliest training was based on the assumption that miracles do exist. My perspective from childhood, and from going to Catholic school for 8 years, was to assign miraculous explanations to everything.

It was only later on that explaining everything in the natural world as being somehow directed by the hand of an invisible supernatural being began to seem unnecessary. Theists see the evidence of god's work everywhere. But that doesn't mean that all atheists start out with blinders on to the possibility of god.

JerryM

To Tercel:

Thanks for your response. Christians of all stripes must agree that there is no absolute free will. God is ultimately sovereign. Some may believe that God gives us greater lattitude in matter of belief, but if he truly wants us to believe, he will effect it. Didn't the Apostle Paul, a Pharisee and persecutor of Christians become a follower of Jesus through God's intervention? If God knows the heart, then he must know that I am an honest skeptic--for all of the arguments I've ever heard in favor of God's existence, there are equally good, if not better ones to the contrary. What pleasure would it give God if I claimed to believe, but really had doubts? This may sound strange coming from an atheist, but if a sovereign God actually does exist, and if it's in his will, he will show himself to me. So I leave it in God's hands.

Echo

I think this raises another question. From my experience, theists seem to find it believable that if you pray to God, he can or will heal your arthritis or cancer, but they don't find it believable (or likely) that if you pray to God he can or will restore to life your beloved dead pet or cause you to regrow a severed limb.

They seem to be saying that there are certain "types" of miracles that God performs and can reasonably be expected and certain "types" of miracles that God does *not* perform and should not be expected.

But I've yet to hear them list some criteria for what types of miracles God performs versus the types of miracles he does not perform, other than that the miracles he *doesn't* perform are so outrageous that even the theists don't accept or expect them. But all things should be possible for God, which makes me wonder why theists designate some miracles as "too outrageous" even for God.

Unless, like atheists, they realize that some things just don't happen.

Mageth

Echo:

Right on! You echoed my sentiments exactly.

Theli

Mageth.
Yes, it's a really weak excuse, I know. God can only do invisible miracles, such miracles that can't be proven as miracles.

This is just a continuation on the weak excuse.
He already circumvented our free will when he created the extreme heaven and hell.