What would it take?

[everyoneneedsasmil]

This question is posed to both sides of the theist/atheist debate. I'm not posing this to make an example of anyone, I just honestly want to know. If you can, please provide as much specificity as you can.

If you are an atheist, what would it take to convince you that there is a god? If you just say "evidence" or "s/he would know" I'm considering that a cop-out. The same evidence doesn't convince every person, and just because a god should know in your opinion doesn't mean that is the god which exists.

If you are a theist (of any religion or denomination), what would it take to make you distrust the validity of your religion (and in turn a god)? Similar criteria apply: if you say "nothing" all it means is that you aren't honest, and if you say "proof" it shows you don't understand who has the burden of proof.




Myself, I'm an atheist. At this point, I think it would take a major show (miracle of sorts) to convince me. It would have to be something no human, or group, could accomplish with our current technology. It would not be left up to any interpretation - that is, it would clearly state that a god exists in a language or manner that all humans could understand. Perhaps a mass telepathic message to everyone on earth at the same time, in the language they understand, stating in no uncertain terms that god is talking to them and has a message to be heard. This is then verifiable by every human being on the planet. It would have to be repeated, or clear shows of power would need to be displayed such that humans could study them and rule out anything man-made or natural.

That technically wouldn't rule out an advanced civilization with unimagined technology. But then again, I have minimal criteria for a god. If a truly advance civilization existed with the technology or power to bend the laws of physics as we know it and create life, I would consider that sufficiently godlike.

 

[sggatecl]

Probably a deep personal experience. Something that I would tell other atheists and they'd think I was an insane religious loon.

 

[Monster]

It would take evidence - either through sight or sound in combination with a miracle that can not be duplicated by man or nature. It would also need to be witnessed by multiple people so I knew it wasn't a hallucination.

If science can somehow prove that a god exists, I would then require the same evidence to determine who or what that god is and if I should worship it. The bible, Quran, and every other religious text I've studied have way too many inconsistencies and inaccuracies for me to jump to the conclusion that they are the one true god(s).

 

[Gulo Blue]

Theist here.

I can't envision what a discovery might look like that would convince me, unless it was some crystal clear thing as described above with something like "...and the Mormons were correct" tagged onto the end. It wouldn't be a tremendous shock to my worldview to find that some other religion was closer to correct than Catholicism anyway. Obviously all religions are built on centuries of human flaws and conflicting interpretations.

To believe there is no God, I would need to develop a sense that it's the easiest explanation for our state of existence. The Fermi paradox, the anthropic principle as an explanation for our fine tuned universe, and the existence of consciousness all make that difficult for me. Mostly the last one. The first two are more a "God of the gaps" thing, which isn't compelling. But consciousness is a problem. It seems that people on the forefront of research into the subject believe it's an illusion - which makes zero sense to me from an evolutionary standpoint. The mind either is either a causal agent or it isn't. But if it isn't, why on Earth would it be a result of evolution? To believe that this key facet of the human experience is an illusion with no evolutionary benefit and no explanation for existing, just because it fits the determinist worldview seems like too big a leap to me. If I ever clear that hurdle, I think my position would change.

 

[tbone413]

I was raised Catholic but am no longer practicing, I went from having a very strong belief in God throughout my adolescence, to not believing in God at all throughout college, and currently I am agnostic.

I have no clue if there is a Higher being or not, and I don't worry myself with trying to figure it out/rationalize my feelings any longer.

One of the pillars of Christianity (all religion in general) is "believing without seeing". That is necessary, as there is honestly no way for anyone to prove the existence of God - even if Jesus Christ himself returned from the Heavens and started preforming miracles on Earth, you'd have people calling him a phony, and you'd have Muslims, Buddhists, all of the other religions crying foul as well.

Whenever I would ask members of my church, or my parents why they believed in God, they would usually say that they have had their prayers answered before, or they have experienced events that in their mind were 'miracles', or else wise convinced them of God. None of these things can be tested or proven scientifically, so who knows.

I don't think there will ever be a time when mankind will definitively know the answer to whether or not there is a God. So you will continue to have believers (who will never be swayed regardless of the 'evidence') and non believers (who will never be convinced, since its not provable)

 

[Michchamp]

religions are all very different and each has their own concept of god and/or gods.

assuming you mean the Christian god, I guess I'd need to see enough objective evidence he exists, can bend the laws of physics with his will, the descriptions of him in Judeo-Christian sources are accurate, etc. and some pretty damn satisfying explanations for the inconsistencies in the bible and why the fuck he created earth & the universe the way he did if he loves us so much, as alleged.

maybe he'd say "No, my son, your idiot fellow human beings translated that part wrong. I didn't love the world, I hated the world. and you. and still do. that's why pieces of shit like Donald Trump, Sheldon Adelson, and Rush Limbaugh are wealthy and well-fed, people like Rahm Emanuel, Dick Cheney, Pol Pot, etc get political power, and little innocent children in Africa, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc die horrible deaths, and spend their entire lives scared, abused, hungry, and miserable."

I'd say "okay, thanks, this is all making a lot more sense now. also: fuck you."

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

To the theist (Gulo): If we found scientific answers to the issues you posed, would it realistically make you give up on God? That is, say we work out such a detailed and complete map of brain functions that we discover exactly where the idea of consciousness exists. Say we can find ways to turn this off and find people act completely the same just without a sense of self (giving consciousness a completely material origin).

Obviously that's a leap, but it's important. Would you be able to let go of god, even though a lack of non-material consciousness doesn't inherently disprove the existence of a god?



To the atheists: What kind of being would need to exist for you to consider it a god? I said myself I wouldn't make a distinction between a hyper advanced alien civilization with the ability to create life and a god. Some might require a god to be all powerful, all knowing, or specifically benevolent. Would you accept a being as a god if it didn't meet the ALL criteria, but was discovered to have been the foundation for all modern religions?

 

[Monster]

To the atheists: What kind of being would need to exist for you to consider it a god? I said myself I wouldn't make a distinction between a hyper advanced alien civilization with the ability to create life and a god. Some might require a god to be all powerful, all knowing, or specifically benevolent. Would you accept a being as a god if it didn't meet the ALL criteria, but was discovered to have been the foundation for all modern religions?

Creating things from nothing and bringing life to non-life would be my personal requirement for proof of being a God. A being that requires technology (an alien, pretending to be a god, perhaps) is no god. Some day, humanity will progress to the point of creating life, but we would still need the materials and technology to do so.

After Godhood is established, the idea of worship comes up. Is the god worthy of our love or hate? Or should we just live our lives without this god? None of the gods I've studied are deserving of worship. Jesus, not the OT god, might be the closest, but still falls short of worship. Admiration and appreciation, yes, but not worship.

 

[tbone413]

To the theist (Gulo): If we found scientific answers to the issues you posed, would it realistically make you give up on God? That is, say we work out such a detailed and complete map of brain functions that we discover exactly where the idea of consciousness exists. Say we can find ways to turn this off and find people act completely the same just without a sense of self (giving consciousness a completely material origin).

Obviously that's a leap, but it's important. Would you be able to let go of god, even though a lack of non-material consciousness doesn't inherently disprove the existence of a god?



To the atheists: What kind of being would need to exist for you to consider it a god? I said myself I wouldn't make a distinction between a hyper advanced alien civilization with the ability to create life and a god. Some might require a god to be all powerful, all knowing, or specifically benevolent. Would you accept a being as a god if it didn't meet the ALL criteria, but was discovered to have been the foundation for all modern religions?

I don't want to speak for any Theist, but I don't necessarily think that science (regardless of how advanced it is) can ever definitively prove that a God doesn't (or Does for that matter) exist. Thats because science proves how something works, not Why.

So in your example, even if we mapped the entire human brain and could not only turn peoples consciousness on and off, but also change it/their personality, etc, that's all good and dandy, but it doesn't tell me why we have a conscious in the first place. God is the 'why' to sciences 'how'.

 

[Spartanmack]

A really good argument against in a really good thread in an online sports forum chat room. This one is good, but it would still have to be way better.

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

I don't want to speak for any Theist, but I don't necessarily think that science (regardless of how advanced it is) can ever definitively prove that a God doesn't (or Does for that matter) exist. Thats because science proves how something works, not Why.

So in your example, even if we mapped the entire human brain and could not only turn peoples consciousness on and off, but also change it/their personality, etc, that's all good and dandy, but it doesn't tell me why we have a conscious in the first place. God is the 'why' to sciences 'how'.

My question was in regards to a specific claim. I wouldn't expect something like material consciousness to convince everyone (or even most people). That's pretty much the crux of this thread. We all have different criteria and beliefs. Saying, "That's dumb," "You have no evidence," or "You're going to hell" doesn't get us anywhere.

But, having a discussion about what our real motivations are for forming beliefs or rejecting them is worth having. It tells us more about each other and helps us find common ground.

Case in point: I already knew Gulo was a theist. Most theists I know actively avoid this kind of discussion and claim nothing could ever change their mind, without ever actually thinking about it. Gulo responded with similar cares that I have - how do we account for certain realities where science has so far fallen short? Now, we disagree on what conclusions to draw from these realities, but it makes me think he's at least concerned about truth. I could have an entire discussion with him about these things. We would probably never fully agree, but we would be on the same page and be searching for the same result (the real answer).

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

@Monster, it's an interesting distinction, I think, between advanced and god. I don't think it's necessarily true that humanity will certainly advance to the point of creating life, or bending the laws of physics. A sufficiently advanced species may possess physical traits that we simply will never evolve, creating a fairly complete separation from us.

Also, while I think it would be important from the theistic worldview to ask the question about worship, it may not have any meaning otherwise. If you are already of the mind that worship is unnecessary (atheist, agnostic, even some religions), why would you need to question this in the face of a real god? A god could certainly prove its existence without demanding (or politely asking) for worship. And if worship isn't requested (I mean, I have kids and I don't ever think they should worship me), it could be a non-issue. I think it's really only a good question for people who already engage in worship. They would be the ones inclined to do so in the first place (without prompting), and they would have to decide if the worship itself enriches their lives.

@Spartanmack, cheeky but true. I guess the obvious question is: Why do you need an argument against? Were you convinced by an argument for in the first place? There are plenty of claims that cannot be logically or evidentially disproved. I wouldn't suppose you believe all of those intrinsically.

 

[Monster]

@Monster, it's an interesting distinction, I think, between advanced and god. I don't think it's necessarily true that humanity will certainly advance to the point of creating life, or bending the laws of physics. A sufficiently advanced species may possess physical traits that we simply will never evolve, creating a fairly complete separation from us.

I guess my point is, if you can control nature by your own means, you could be considered a god. Not with technology or artificial enhancement to their bodies or minds, of course. That would just be science.

 

[Michchamp]

a little off topic, but I've had the debate with agnostics about why agnosticism makes more sense than atheism. I don't agree.

I mean, yes in the strictest sense it's hard to argue it doesn't; you can't completely disprove anything, so it makes sense to be agnostic about everything: ghosts, bigfoot, alien abductions, Iraqi WMDs, etc. it gets a little ridiculous. why give loonies any credit? if some wild-eyed preacher comes up to you and tells you there's a giant imaginary man in the sky who talks to him & and therefore you need to pay him money and follow him in order to avoid eternal misery, are you going to listen? are you going to say, well, I'll wait to pass judgment here because I can't disprove any of this? Fuck no. he's alleging it. he has the burden of proof. if he can't come up with anything, you dismiss it and move on.

but I think in the end it's a harmless distinction. if people want to consider themselves agnostic, that's fine. they're presumably not furthering the interests or influence of organized religion at least so practical-minded atheists who want to see a world where decisions and policy are based on objective observations of the world, science, & equality before the law, rather than religious sectarianism or theology should welcome agnostics. live and let live.

 

[tbone413]

My question was in regards to a specific claim. I wouldn't expect something like material consciousness to convince everyone (or even most people). That's pretty much the crux of this thread. We all have different criteria and beliefs. Saying, "That's dumb," "You have no evidence," or "You're going to hell" doesn't get us anywhere.

But, having a discussion about what our real motivations are for forming beliefs or rejecting them is worth having. It tells us more about each other and helps us find common ground.

Case in point: I already knew Gulo was a theist. Most theists I know actively avoid this kind of discussion and claim nothing could ever change their mind, without ever actually thinking about it. Gulo responded with similar cares that I have - how do we account for certain realities where science has so far fallen short? Now, we disagree on what conclusions to draw from these realities, but it makes me think he's at least concerned about truth. I could have an entire discussion with him about these things. We would probably never fully agree, but we would be on the same page and be searching for the same result (the real answer).

I understand completely. I wasn't trying to rain on anyone's discussion with my comments. I am kind of weird because I was raised catholic, and my parents are both catholic, but they are also Democrats and my Dad in particular is one of the more logical/analytical people I know.

I look at him and try to understand how such a smart, logical thinking person can believe in God, and it makes me wonder what he has experienced in his life which is so convincing that it makes him a believer.

As I mentioned already in this thread, I am an agnostic, but if I had a Gun to my head and had to guess which one I thought was more likely, Id say the odds of there not being a God are higher.

I like these types of discussions because I would love nothing more than to hear an argument so convincing that it gets me to question my belief in something. Some people shy away from these discussions (not just about God, but anything they are passionate about - IE Guns rights, abortion, Gay rights, etc.), because they are afraid of hearing something that might change their mind. I think knowing all of the 'best' arguments for both sides, and then making a decision based off your own interpenetration of said arguments is the best way to go about things. And if someone convinces me to view a subject differently, I will thank them, as they will have done me a large favor in life.

 

[biggunsbob]

Not sure what I believe in but god or a higher power has alot of explaining to do. I hope there is a higher power but I am not holding my breath.

 

[Gulo Blue]

To the theist (Gulo): If we found scientific answers to the issues you posed, would it realistically make you give up on God? That is, say we work out such a detailed and complete map of brain functions that we discover exactly where the idea of consciousness exists. Say we can find ways to turn this off and find people act completely the same just without a sense of self (giving consciousness a completely material origin).

Obviously that's a leap, but it's important. Would you be able to let go of god, even though a lack of non-material consciousness doesn't inherently disprove the existence of a god?

It's really tough to say what that might look like; I do think computers will someday pass Turing tests and they won't need consciousness to do it (which proves consciousness to be unnecessary at least.) That wouldn't be too unlike a person without a sense of self acting normally.

...but yeah, if free will was proven to be an illusion, then I can't imagine the point of the creation of humanity. It wouldn't be a technical proof that there is no God, but I would feel atheism to be a simpler explanation.

 

[Gulo Blue]

my parents are both catholic, but they are also Democrats

This isn't unusual. the Catholic Rep/Dem split usually reflects the nation as a whole. I'm not sure if the streak is still active, but we had a 40-years stretch where the Catholic vote majority matched the popular vote majority for the nation.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Creating things from nothing and bringing life to non-life would be my personal requirement for proof of being a God. A being that requires technology (an alien, pretending to be a god, perhaps) is no god. Some day, humanity will progress to the point of creating life, but we would still need the materials and technology to do so.

Like Q? From Star Trek?

After Godhood is established, the idea of worship comes up. Is the god worthy of our love or hate? Or should we just live our lives without this god? None of the gods I've studied are deserving of worship. Jesus, not the OT god, might be the closest, but still falls short of worship. Admiration and appreciation, yes, but not worship.

I suspect worship is a human idea. Prayer is for the benefit of the prayer, not God. The effort involved in considering the mind of God is good for you and leads you to better ways of thinking. If you were to anthropomorphize humanism, I think you'd have the more valuable side of the majority of prayer.

 

[Gulo Blue]

but it makes me think he's at least concerned about truth.

I spend far more time thinking about science than philosophy or religion, but I see them all as forms of a pursuit of truth. Sometimes ideas can bleed over from one realm to another. If you're not willing to challenge the ideas of your religion, and hear or consider evidence that might force you to change your beliefs, then I don't think you have strong faith anyway. If you have real faith in some idea, you shouldn't be afraid to challenge it.