"What would it take for you to Believe?"

[boatsnguitars]

I was listening to a debate and the Christian was really fond of this line of questioning:

Christian: What would it take for you to believe? Because isn't it true, Matt (Dillahunty), that you have said that even if the words "I Exist. Signed, God" were written in the sky so that everyone on Earth could read it, you wouldn't think this is evidence for God?
Matt: Well, it's "Evidence", but it's not good evidence - since I don't know if there is some technology that could do that.
Christian: (scoffs) See, even with that, Matt wouldn't believe. He is predisposed to not believe! Therefore, you must accept Jesus!"

He continued with more elaborate examples that - to date - have never happened, but trying to get Matt to cave.

Matt ultimately responded (correctly): God would know what would convince me, if God exists.

But think of it this way, Christian, what if this was written in the sky, so that everyone in the world could read it:

"Elon Musk is God"

What then?

This is one of the reasons I think Christians are ultimately too blinded by Faith to be rational.

Not to mention, in all these extreme examples - they've actually never happened! There isn't sky writing, there is just - yet another - Holy Book telling them what to think.

[POI]

I was listening to a debate and the Christian was really fond of this line of questioning:

Christian: What would it take for you to believe? Because isn't it true, Matt (Dillahunty), that you have said that even if the words "I Exist. Signed, God" were written in the sky so that everyone on Earth could read it, you wouldn't think this is evidence for God?
Matt: Well, it's "Evidence", but it's not good evidence - since I don't know if there is some technology that could do that.
Christian: (scoffs) See, even with that, Matt wouldn't believe. He is predisposed to not believe! Therefore, you must accept Jesus!"

He continued with more elaborate examples that - to date - have never happened, but trying to get Matt to cave.

Matt ultimately responded (correctly): God would know what would convince me, if God exists.

But think of it this way, Christian, what if this was written in the sky, so that everyone in the world could read it:

"Elon Musk is God"

What then?

This is one of the reasons I think Christians are ultimately too blinded by Faith to be rational.

Not to mention, in all these extreme examples - they've actually never happened! There isn't sky writing, there is just - yet another - Holy Book telling them what to think.

It usually comes down to some "personal experience(s)", which lead some to belief. We all have 'experiences'. Some are just more inclined to tie some of those 'experiences' to a 'god(s)', for whatever reason(s)?

What exactly would it take for me to believe in the Christian god? I'm not sure? Just like I do not know what would ultimately get me to believe in Hindu god(s), the god of Scientology, etc......

[TRANSPONDER]

I have to respond with three points. Connected. Maybe four.

Evidence. While theist apologists themselves say that nothing is known for certain, a sliding scale of validity is to be used. Cosmic Constants and suchlike unknowns as gaps for God are not good evidence but they are slight evidence. While whale morphology and fossil stratification are hard evidence for evolution, which doesn't stop science - deniers dismissing it. Apart from the verbal trick of calling bad evidence 'evidence', a heap of bad evidence does not pile up into good evidence - a claim I've seen God - apologists make a couple of times. Whereas a heap of decent Evidence that the Bible is unreliable amounts to nothing when compared to Faith - which should make the point clear.

The point being that it is the 'water under the bridge' response, like 'what evidence would convince you that the earth was flat?' Or the sun went around the earth, which was a few thousand years old.

It is as pointless as a case for a flat earth, geocentric system, YE earth or the Bible being true as the opportunity to make the case is already gone. It is a bit of a pointless question and a cheat, too as it is asking the doubter to give the counter - case to the opposition. It is asking the skeptic to provide the counter - case and they can find some apologetic (1). And even worse, if the atheist can't think what would now convince them (because it's too late) the Bible apologist can claim we have closed our minds. Not really, but it is too late for Christianity to make the case.

We might say, a bit helplessly "Well...if God himself came down.." Which is a bit of a hoot as the theists say that even if God himself came down atheists would not believe. When we say that it's about the only thing that would have a cance to convince us.

Which leads to the 2nd point...that atheist bash was originally Muslim (or that was the first i heard). Which contains its' own debunk. If God came down and said Islam was right..atheists might tend to believe, but Christians wouldn't. It is Believers who accept bad evidence on Faith and reject good evidence on Faith, as much as a God coming down and being the wrong god. It is not atheists who need to demand less evidence to be persuaded, but Believers who should have demanded more.

And I can't think of the Third point, and I might have already covered it...'Which god?' It is another of the whole herd of elephants lurking in the wings, that all signify the basic and fundamental error of Theist reasoning - it only works if one posits Their God as the true one to start with. This is why all of the usual apologetics - Kalam, consciousness, Abiogenesis, morality - fail because they only point to a creator. They do not say which one. The believer either ignores that because Faith tells them which one, or they think their Holy Book is the Evidence that tells them which is right.

Which is why it comes down to the Bible, NT and specifically and exclusively the case for the resurrection. All of the other stuff is irrelevant as evidence for the Christian religion, even if it might be evidence for some sorta god.

(1) let's see how this works. 'what evidence would persuade you of scientology?'. "Well...a clear that knew everything and could do anything." Now, the apologist might claim that a clear was produced but that's risky as she was shown up pretty quickly. So short of trying a pious lie, they might say 'Work is in progress. There are many near clears, but nobody has yet made it 100%, But by joining us, you could be so much better...you know that things seem desperate and meaningless.." Usual bait and switch religious carrot.

[1213]

...
"Elon Musk is God"

What then?

This is one of the reasons I think Christians are ultimately too blinded by Faith to be rational.
...

That is why I think the question about existence is not very relevant. More intelligent question would be, what would you be ready to keep as your God.

[Mithrae]

Matt ultimately responded (correctly): God would know what would convince me, if God exists.

But think of it this way, Christian, what if this was written in the sky, so that everyone in the world could read it:
"Elon Musk is God"

What then?
This is one of the reasons I think Christians are ultimately too blinded by Faith to be rational.

I'm not a Christian, but on this point I can kind of understand the believers' frustration. The problem with your comparison is that most of us including Christians already know with something approaching certainty that Elon Musk is not God, such that it would require an almost insurmountable weight of evidence to overturn that confidence. No-one is hiding behind some kind of vague, coy "lack of belief" in the divinity of Elon Musk. Whereas by contrast many atheists - and I don't know about Dillahunty specifically, but in particular many atheists who pretend to be 'debating' the topic - adopt an approach which all but borders on "Here's how this will go; you have to convince me that God exists (and by the way nothing, least of all anything you say will convince me that God exists), but I'm telling you that I merely 'lack belief' in God's existence so I don't have to prove anything or do anything at all to 'win' the debate, in my own mind at least."

To be fair, in a way that kind of rhetorical sleight of hand was really instigated by Christians themselves with their own emphasis on 'belief.' You either believe or you don't believe, right? But such a simplistic, binary distinction lends itself far more to obfuscation and all the cognitive biases of identifying with one side or another than to clear thinking, which I think we've seen pretty well played out in the 'lack of belief' and associated constant stream of 'no evidence' rhetoric; as with believers, it seems like simply a case of stacking or dismissing evidence on one side or the other, rather than fairly weighing the information and perspectives available. It seems to me that it's far more useful to try to rate our confidence in a proposition, however rough the estimate in some cases, or how likely to be true that proposition is in a Bayesian sense. If you're rating the propositions "Elon Musk is God" and "God of any kind exists" down near 0%, you can hardly pretend to merely lack belief any more - you're damn near certain that there is no God! But that then incurs the dreadful, scary burden of proof which at least in my experience the 'lack of belief' folk seem to fear above all else If you're that near to certain that there is no God it implies pretty high confidence in some alternative worldview/s, which (in my experience and perhaps in these folks' understanding also) tend to be at least as shaky and indefensible as the theism which they so comfortably mock from the sidelines. However by very virtue of that derision, the 'no evidence' rhetoric and so on, I rather suspect that many 'lack of belief' folk would be loathe even to acknowledge "Yeah, I could see there being maybe a 10-40% possibility of a creator God existing."



For my part, for what it's worth, I'd hazard a guess that the existence of some kind of god is more likely than not, so somewhere in the 50-70% ballpark of confidence... whereas the incoherently self-contradictory biblical deity would stand at around 0% (although Yahweh could slightly more plausibly be a deceptive demon-god).

[boatsnguitars]

Matt ultimately responded (correctly): God would know what would convince me, if God exists.

But think of it this way, Christian, what if this was written in the sky, so that everyone in the world could read it:
"Elon Musk is God"

What then?
This is one of the reasons I think Christians are ultimately too blinded by Faith to be rational.

I'm not a Christian, but on this point I can kind of understand the believers' frustration. The problem with your comparison is that most of us including Christians already know with something approaching certainty that Elon Musk is not God, such that it would require an almost insurmountable weight of evidence to overturn that confidence. No-one is hiding behind some kind of vague, coy "lack of belief" in the divinity of Elon Musk. Whereas by contrast many atheists - and I don't know about Dillahunty specifically, but in particular many atheists who pretend to be 'debating' the topic - adopt an approach which all but borders on "Here's how this will go; you have to convince me that God exists (and by the way nothing, least of all anything you say will convince me that God exists), but I'm telling you that I merely 'lack belief' in God's existence so I don't have to prove anything or do anything at all to 'win' the debate, in my own mind at least."

To be fair, in a way that kind of rhetorical sleight of hand was really instigated by Christians themselves with their own emphasis on 'belief.' You either believe or you don't believe, right? But such a simplistic, binary distinction lends itself far more to obfuscation and all the cognitive biases of identifying with one side or another than to clear thinking, which I think we've seen pretty well played out in the 'lack of belief' and associated constant stream of 'no evidence' rhetoric; as with believers, it seems like simply a case of stacking or dismissing evidence on one side or the other, rather than fairly weighing the information and perspectives available. It seems to me that it's far more useful to try to rate our confidence in a proposition, however rough the estimate in some cases, or how likely to be true that proposition is in a Bayesian sense. If you're rating the propositions "Elon Musk is God" and "God of any kind exists" down near 0%, you can hardly pretend to merely lack belief any more - you're damn near certain that there is no God! But that then incurs the dreadful, scary burden of proof which at least in my experience the 'lack of belief' folk seem to fear above all else If you're that near to certain that there is no God it implies pretty high confidence in some alternative worldview/s, which (in my experience and perhaps in these folks' understanding also) tend to be at least as shaky and indefensible as the theism which they so comfortably mock from the sidelines. However by very virtue of that derision, the 'no evidence' rhetoric and so on, I rather suspect that many 'lack of belief' folk would be loathe even to acknowledge "Yeah, I could see there being maybe a 10-40% possibility of a creator God existing."



For my part, for what it's worth, I'd hazard a guess that the existence of some kind of god is more likely than not, so somewhere in the 50-70% ballpark of confidence... whereas the incoherently self-contradictory biblical deity would stand at around 0% (although Yahweh could slightly more plausibly be a deceptive demon-god).

The point I was hoping to elucidate was that if you did see "Elon Musk Is God", you'd assume Elon found a way to do it through technology. However, if you was "Jesus is the true God"(or whatever), Christians think that it must be supernatural - not, perhaps, some highly motivated Church that has stolen the technology from Elon.

See what I mean? The point is, even this extreme example fails - yet, it hasn't even happened! I'd tell Christians "Let's talk when something like that happens. Especially if it says Elon or Allah is God - because I'd love to hear their reasons why it couldn't possibly be the real God!"

[boatsnguitars]

I have to respond with three points. Connected. Maybe four.

Evidence. While theist apologists themselves say that nothing is known for certain, a sliding scale of validity is to be used. Cosmic Constants and suchlike unknowns as gaps for God are not good evidence but they are slight evidence. While whale morphology and fossil stratification are hard evidence for evolution, which doesn't stop science - deniers dismissing it. Apart from the verbal trick of calling bad evidence 'evidence', a heap of bad evidence does not pile up into good evidence - a claim I've seen God - apologists make a couple of times. Whereas a heap of decent Evidence that the Bible is unreliable amounts to nothing when compared to Faith - which should make the point clear.

The point being that it is the 'water under the bridge' response, like 'what evidence would convince you that the earth was flat?' Or the sun went around the earth, which was a few thousand years old.

It is as pointless as a case for a flat earth, geocentric system, YE earth or the Bible being true as the opportunity to make the case is already gone. It is a bit of a pointless question and a cheat, too as it is asking the doubter to give the counter - case to the opposition. It is asking the skeptic to provide the counter - case and they can find some apologetic (1). And even worse, if the atheist can't think what would now convince them (because it's too late) the Bible apologist can claim we have closed our minds. Not really, but it is too late for Christianity to make the case.

We might say, a bit helplessly "Well...if God himself came down.." Which is a bit of a hoot as the theists say that even if God himself came down atheists would not believe. When we say that it's about the only thing that would have a cance to convince us.

Which leads to the 2nd point...that atheist bash was originally Muslim (or that was the first i heard). Which contains its' own debunk. If God came down and said Islam was right..atheists might tend to believe, but Christians wouldn't. It is Believers who accept bad evidence on Faith and reject good evidence on Faith, as much as a God coming down and being the wrong god. It is not atheists who need to demand less evidence to be persuaded, but Believers who should have demanded more.

And I can't think of the Third point, and I might have already covered it...'Which god?' It is another of the whole herd of elephants lurking in the wings, that all signify the basic and fundamental error of Theist reasoning - it only works if one posits Their God as the true one to start with. This is why all of the usual apologetics - Kalam, consciousness, Abiogenesis, morality - fail because they only point to a creator. They do not say which one. The believer either ignores that because Faith tells them which one, or they think their Holy Book is the Evidence that tells them which is right.

Which is why it comes down to the Bible, NT and specifically and exclusively the case for the resurrection. All of the other stuff is irrelevant as evidence for the Christian religion, even if it might be evidence for some sorta god.

(1) let's see how this works. 'what evidence would persuade you of scientology?'. "Well...a clear that knew everything and could do anything." Now, the apologist might claim that a clear was produced but that's risky as she was shown up pretty quickly. So short of trying a pious lie, they might say 'Work is in progress. There are many near clears, but nobody has yet made it 100%, But by joining us, you could be so much better...you know that things seem desperate and meaningless.." Usual bait and switch religious carrot.

All good points.

I think what is ultimately frustrating is for us, here, on forums, to generally agree (barring some of the zealots) that it comes down to Faith, and there really is no reason to accept Christianity or any other religion beyond ones preference... then, out in the 'real world' we get people voting for "Christian ideals", or people claiming facts that would be rejected by Christians here - but, no one says a word. (At least, Christians don't speak up to other Christians unless its' absolutely egregious.)

All this reason and logic we've exercised to come to a "it comes down to Faith", has no impact on our schools, politics, etc. because Christians are not motivated to stop the zealots from pushing their chosen religious agenda.

[Mithrae]

I'm not a Christian, but on this point I can kind of understand the believers' frustration. The problem with your comparison is that most of us including Christians already know with something approaching certainty that Elon Musk is not God, such that it would require an almost insurmountable weight of evidence to overturn that confidence. No-one is hiding behind some kind of vague, coy "lack of belief" in the divinity of Elon Musk. Whereas by contrast many atheists - and I don't know about Dillahunty specifically, but in particular many atheists who pretend to be 'debating' the topic - adopt an approach which all but borders on "Here's how this will go; you have to convince me that God exists (and by the way nothing, least of all anything you say will convince me that God exists), but I'm telling you that I merely 'lack belief' in God's existence so I don't have to prove anything or do anything at all to 'win' the debate, in my own mind at least."

The point I was hoping to elucidate was that if you did see "Elon Musk Is God", you'd assume Elon found a way to do it through technology. However, if you was "Jesus is the true God"(or whatever), Christians think that it must be supernatural - not, perhaps, some highly motivated Church that has stolen the technology from Elon.

See what I mean? The point is, even this extreme example fails - yet, it hasn't even happened! I'd tell Christians "Let's talk when something like that happens. Especially if it says Elon or Allah is God - because I'd love to hear their reasons why it couldn't possibly be the real God!"

We would all assume that based on an existing near-certainty that Elon Musk is not God. An extreme example like that - presumably we're not just talking about regular sky-writing here - successfully illustrates that Dillahunty for example (if he professes to merely 'lack belief' in any God as many atheist debaters do) is not debating in good faith, that he is not merely in a neutral and unbiased state awaiting a balance of evidence to tip the scales but is already pretty heavily committed to the view that there is no God. As you suggested in the OP, "He is predisposed to not believe!" Turn that around with your example, tell Christians that they are predisposed not to believe that Musk or Allah are God. Well, duh - they'll freely tell you that with every chance they get! See how it doesn't have quite the same effect?

The question isn't "Is there some obscure possibility to worm our way out of a given conclusion regardless of the evidence presented?" Obviously folk can always do that, if they're predisposed to do so. The question is whether or not someone has that predisposition to begin with, and it seems likely that many 'lack of belief' atheists do, while disingenuously pretending that they do not (perhaps simply in the interests of avoiding any burden of proof for coherent nontheistic worldviews, which in my experience tend to be as or more shaky than some theistic options).

[boatsnguitars]

So what would you think if you saw "Elon is God" written in the Heavens?
What would it convince you of?

[Mithrae]

So what would you think if you saw "Elon is God" written in the Heavens?
What would it convince you of?

That Musk has quite the ego (of which I'm already convinced) and access to advanced technology (which goes only a little beyond expectations)... largely based on my existing near-certainty that he is not God, as I've pointed out several times already.

Let's try a different example: Giant spaceships appear in the skies above Earth's major cities, as in Independence Day. Is your go-to conclusion that it's a hoax by humans with some unknown hyper-advanced technology, or more likely that it's genuinely what it seems to be? In that case - a case in which most folk will hold no strong prior convictions, a genuine neutral lack of belief in extra-terrestrial civilizations - I imagine most folk would (pending contrary evidence) accept the evidence of their own eyes rather than some fanciful, baseless speculation about a hyper-advanced human hoax.

That's not to say that it cannot be a human hoax, simply that it requires some prior commitment against the 'obvious' conclusion (eg. that Musk is God, or that extra-terrestrial civilizations exist, or that God exists) in order to seriously endorse the fanciful, baseless speculation as being better than or even on par with the obvious conclusion. I have a strong prior commitment to the view that Musk is not God, so I wouldn't accept heavenly signs to that effect on face value; I don't have a prior commitment against extra-terrestrial civilizations, so I'd be much more inclined to provisionally accept those heavenly signs. Does Dillahunty have - and more to the point, does he acknowledge, since it seems likely that he does have - a strong prior commitment against the view that God exists?

As you yourself quoted it in the OP, that was the main point of the believer's question: "He is predisposed to not believe!" Raising a comparison which most of us including Christians are predisposed not to believe (that Musk is God) doesn't undermine the point, it reinforces it!