"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.

[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.

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.

True.I have said (once or twice) that Christianity like other religions and most cults and a lot of other human Beliefs, too, is based on Faith and the evidence is selected and fiddled to fit. Believers know this and so they try (fair enough) to make a case for God on evidence. ID evidence, Bible -as - reliable-report as evidence and philosophical or woo end science (quantum/cosmic origins) questions as evidence for God, or A god at least.

There's two things there. Theism which can be irreligious ("Agnostic" as they call it) or religious, and usually that's Christian. Which is where we came in as it is Faith in Christianity that is driving it as all arguments, evidence and apologetics outside of the Bible only get one to a non -specific god.

Not that irreligious theists can't be as violently anti -atheist as Christian apologists. More so as they don't have the Bible to argue for. Anyway, that said, Christian apologetics is actually about the Bible as evidence to support the Faith, and the Faith is needed to support the Bible. just point out that illness is not caused by demons and (aside from science -deniers) they will ignore the point and carry on having Faith. We know this wen the debate flips from 'This is evidence that the Bible is true' to 'I and not convinced by your evidence that it isn't'. It immediately flips from making a case to persuade others to declaring Faith. And hardly anybody notices, including me, half the time.

[Mithrae]

...based on Faith...
...Faith in Christianity...
...Faith, and the Faith...
...carry on having Faith.

We know this wen the debate flips from 'This is evidence that the Bible is true' to 'I and not convinced by your evidence that it isn't'. It immediately flips from making a case to persuade others to declaring Faith. And hardly anybody notices, including me, half the time.

I'm not sure I agree with your idea of faith. That last example in particular seems to be a case of critics assuming their own (often un- or poorly-examined) epistemic approach as a given. Tying in to my earlier post, a common approach seems to be assuming 'lack of belief' as a given, default stance on all issues at all times (supposedly, though I'd suggest inconsistently) and therefore requiring some often undefined standard of 'sufficient evidence' before accepting something as believable. Therefore if any given believer is unable to provide 'sufficient evidence' for their view of the bible, their opinion must be treated as irrational Faith.

But that is simply absurd, IMO. That just isn't how human minds work. Our societies and their associated bodies of information have developed over thousands of years: Pretending that every individual can (let alone that we should) jump down off the shoulders of giants and try to start discovering the nature of fire and wheels all over again would obviously be ridiculous and no-one, least of all critics of religion, actually does that! How we actually operate is to require 'sufficient evidence' before changing the views we currently hold. I don't need to spend hours sitting under some apple tree; if Newtonian mechanics worked for my grandfather and my father and others in my society, it'll probably work well enough for me too. I don't have to personally prove it, and pretty much no-one does. There's a perfectly sound and logical argument for that:
> My parents/society/respected intellectuals seem to be right more often than not (at least as far as I can tell)
> My parents/society/respected intellectuals tell me that X is true
> Unless I have solid reasons to believe otherwise, I should accept that X is true

'Lack of belief' atheists are applying an absurd epistemic double-standard against theism; it's one thing for someone to personally imagine that they are so clever that they can and should challenge accepted wisdom - in part, that is how we progress - but even they should recognize like Descartes that it's more an intellectual exercise than a coherent epistemic approach, and pretending that even that intellectual exercise is a standard of rationality for all people is obviously mistaken. A born and raised Christian saying "You haven't convinced me that Jesus wasn't resurrected" is potentially just as rational, and just as much the 'winner' of a debate, as a lack-of-belief atheist saying "You haven't convinced me that there is a God." There are major problems with traditionalist Christian views and arguments, of course, just as there are the major problems with new atheist epistemic assumptions I've just highlighted: But when push comes to shove, both groups can easily claim that the burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of the other - that's at least as legitimate from the Christian as the atheist.

[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.

True.I have said (once or twice) that Christianity like other religions and most cults and a lot of other human Beliefs, too, is based on Faith and the evidence is selected and fiddled to fit. Believers know this and so they try (fair enough) to make a case for God on evidence. ID evidence, Bible -as - reliable-report as evidence and philosophical or woo end science (quantum/cosmic origins) questions as evidence for God, or A god at least.

There's two things there. Theism which can be irreligious ("Agnostic" as they call it) or religious, and usually that's Christian. Which is where we came in as it is Faith in Christianity that is driving it as all arguments, evidence and apologetics outside of the Bible only get one to a non -specific god.

Not that irreligious theists can't be as violently anti -atheist as Christian apologists. More so as they don't have the Bible to argue for. Anyway, that said, Christian apologetics is actually about the Bible as evidence to support the Faith, and the Faith is needed to support the Bible. just point out that illness is not caused by demons and (aside from science -deniers) they will ignore the point and carry on having Faith. We know this wen the debate flips from 'This is evidence that the Bible is true' to 'I and not convinced by your evidence that it isn't'. It immediately flips from making a case to persuade others to declaring Faith. And hardly anybody notices, including me, half the time.

Yes, it seems - even me - that in so many of these debates we're "stuck on stupid"; that is we, regurgitate the same thing over and over and seem to never get anywhere. For goodness sakes, people still try to resurrect Flat Earth, YEC, ID, etc... yet, all has been said about it and more. There is no lack of resources anymore. We are in the Golden Age of the Information Age. We now need an Age of Properly Digesting Information.

But, you point out an even more insidious problem, is that we seem to be led into debates that shouldn't even happen.

We all know how all these debates end: "You can't disprove Solipsism, so everything is based on Faith." (Which is, as I posted somewhere else, how Conservatives use a term to mean two contradictory things: They claim they have Faith(meaning: a virtue) in Jesus, then they attack atheism as a Faith (a bad thing)!)

Yet, we'll go around and around on carbon dating, evolutionary theory, interpolations, translations, reliability of oral tradition, etc. For what? In hopes that the Theists will realize their error? Ain't gonna happen. They want that Eternal Life Prize so bad they aren't willing to consider they're wrong.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. I was astounded when I first got into apologetics and so were others when we realised that presenting persuasive evidence wouldn't do. There would be the endless bickering or deepdive and resurface a montrh later with the same arguments. During my time, I made three Breakthoughs-

(1) the what. The debate was won.
(2) the how - the methods used to keep the (lost) debate going.
(3) the Why. Understanding how Faith is the basis of the whole theist thing.

I had to do a rethink of what I was trying to do as simply presenting a better case was not going to change their minds. And preaching to the choir had limited point. Not none - mugging up on the debating points is always good.

It is the Message as media says in such an iconic way. Convincing the Masses is what wins the game, and the name of the game is getting the argument heard, both sides. I believe that Theism would love to shut us up, though some will have proper discussions, but the Plan is to make sure only their voice is heard. We goddless aim to make sure that doesn't happen.

We need the best arguments (we have them but they take a lot of learning (1) I remember Matt Dillahunty answering phone calls with his folder of 'frequently argued apologetics' to look up. But the vital thing is getting the case out, not only to the public but to those who talk to them. I am very conscious of arguing on a forum with a double handful of people looking in (twice what it used to be ) when there are millions out there only hearing one side of the debate. Video streams is probably better, but I don't do one and here discussion is the name of the game. Videos are generally one -sided.

(1) I have said before that I've had to tackle everything from Quantum physics to Roman numismatics and from logical constructs to organic, geological and pottery dating methods.

[boatsnguitars]

Yes. I was astounded when I first got into apologetics and so were others when we realised that presenting persuasive evidence wouldn't do. There would be the endless bickering or deepdive and resurface a montrh later with the same arguments. During my time, I made three Breakthoughs-

(1) the what. The debate was won.
(2) the how - the methods used to keep the (lost) debate going.
(3) the Why. Understanding how Faith is the basis of the whole theist thing.

I had to do a rethink of what I was trying to do as simply presenting a better case was not going to change their minds. And preaching to the choir had limited point. Not none - mugging up on the debating points is always good.

It is the Message as media says in such an iconic way. Convincing the Masses is what wins the game, and the name of the game is getting the argument heard, both sides. I believe that Theism would love to shut us up, though some will have proper discussions, but the Plan is to make sure only their voice is heard. We goddless aim to make sure that doesn't happen.

We need the best arguments (we have them but they take a lot of learning (1) I remember Matt Dillahunty answering phone calls with his folder of 'frequently argued apologetics' to look up. But the vital thing is getting the case out, not only to the public but to those who talk to them. I am very conscious of arguing on a forum with a double handful of people looking in (twice what it used to be ) when there are millions out there only hearing one side of the debate. Video streams is probably better, but I don't do one and here discussion is the name of the game. Videos are generally one -sided.

(1) I have said before that I've had to tackle everything from Quantum physics to Roman numismatics and from logical constructs to organic, geological and pottery dating methods.

agree to all of it, but I'll note the last comment. It's insane that Theists feel they can argue against the Consensus of Experts based on the claims from their preachers or church elders. Insane.

I started a thread (maybe on WLC's forum) called: If not the Consensus of Experts, who should we trust? Their answer was - not explicitly, but obviously - "My chosen non-expert". It's - again, and literally - insane.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. I was astounded when I first got into apologetics and so were others when we realised that presenting persuasive evidence wouldn't do. There would be the endless bickering or deepdive and resurface a montrh later with the same arguments. During my time, I made three Breakthoughs-

(1) the what. The debate was won.
(2) the how - the methods used to keep the (lost) debate going.
(3) the Why. Understanding how Faith is the basis of the whole theist thing.

I had to do a rethink of what I was trying to do as simply presenting a better case was not going to change their minds. And preaching to the choir had limited point. Not none - mugging up on the debating points is always good.

It is the Message as media says in such an iconic way. Convincing the Masses is what wins the game, and the name of the game is getting the argument heard, both sides. I believe that Theism would love to shut us up, though some will have proper discussions, but the Plan is to make sure only their voice is heard. We goddless aim to make sure that doesn't happen.

We need the best arguments (we have them but they take a lot of learning (1) I remember Matt Dillahunty answering phone calls with his folder of 'frequently argued apologetics' to look up. But the vital thing is getting the case out, not only to the public but to those who talk to them. I am very conscious of arguing on a forum with a double handful of people looking in (twice what it used to be ) when there are millions out there only hearing one side of the debate. Video streams is probably better, but I don't do one and here discussion is the name of the game. Videos are generally one -sided.

(1) I have said before that I've had to tackle everything from Quantum physics to Roman numismatics and from logical constructs to organic, geological and pottery dating methods.

agree to all of it, but I'll note the last comment. It's insane that Theists feel they can argue against the Consensus of Experts based on the claims from their preachers or church elders. Insane.

I started a thread (maybe on WLC's forum) called: If not the Consensus of Experts, who should we trust? Their answer was - not explicitly, but obviously - "My chosen non-expert". It's - again, and literally - insane.

Experts in their field (we have to be wary of those making pronouncements outside of their field) should be listened to. But I am rather maverick here. I'm aware of those who were outside of the expert consensus from tectonic plates to feathered dinosaurs. They turned out to be right and they are now the consensus expert view- not because of Authoritative pronouncements, then or now. It was the evidence that made the case in the end.

This is why my own pet theory on the gospels is based on the evidence, not on Expert Consensus. I present the evidence and I am convinced it will Out, even if it is not the mainstream view right now. e.g Q document and Mark is Not the original Synoptic gospel.The evidence convinces me otherwise.

[TRANSPONDER]

...based on Faith...
...Faith in Christianity...
...Faith, and the Faith...
...carry on having Faith.

We know this wen the debate flips from 'This is evidence that the Bible is true' to 'I and not convinced by your evidence that it isn't'. It immediately flips from making a case to persuade others to declaring Faith. And hardly anybody notices, including me, half the time.

I'm not sure I agree with your idea of faith. That last example in particular seems to be a case of critics assuming their own (often un- or poorly-examined) epistemic approach as a given. Tying in to my earlier post, a common approach seems to be assuming 'lack of belief' as a given, default stance on all issues at all times (supposedly, though I'd suggest inconsistently) and therefore requiring some often undefined standard of 'sufficient evidence' before accepting something as believable. Therefore if any given believer is unable to provide 'sufficient evidence' for their view of the bible, their opinion must be treated as irrational Faith.

But that is simply absurd, IMO. That just isn't how human minds work. Our societies and their associated bodies of information have developed over thousands of years: Pretending that every individual can (let alone that we should) jump down off the shoulders of giants and try to start discovering the nature of fire and wheels all over again would obviously be ridiculous and no-one, least of all critics of religion, actually does that! How we actually operate is to require 'sufficient evidence' before changing the views we currently hold. I don't need to spend hours sitting under some apple tree; if Newtonian mechanics worked for my grandfather and my father and others in my society, it'll probably work well enough for me too. I don't have to personally prove it, and pretty much no-one does. There's a perfectly sound and logical argument for that:
> My parents/society/respected intellectuals seem to be right more often than not (at least as far as I can tell)
> My parents/society/respected intellectuals tell me that X is true
> Unless I have solid reasons to believe otherwise, I should accept that X is true

'Lack of belief' atheists are applying an absurd epistemic double-standard against theism; it's one thing for someone to personally imagine that they are so clever that they can and should challenge accepted wisdom - in part, that is how we progress - but even they should recognize like Descartes that it's more an intellectual exercise than a coherent epistemic approach, and pretending that even that intellectual exercise is a standard of rationality for all people is obviously mistaken. A born and raised Christian saying "You haven't convinced me that Jesus wasn't resurrected" is potentially just as rational, and just as much the 'winner' of a debate, as a lack-of-belief atheist saying "You haven't convinced me that there is a God." There are major problems with traditionalist Christian views and arguments, of course, just as there are the major problems with new atheist epistemic assumptions I've just highlighted: But when push comes to shove, both groups can easily claim that the burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of the other - that's at least as legitimate from the Christian as the atheist.

Yes.The nature of Faith comes into play, here and the burden of proof.

Faith as I use it is believing something without evidence, or not enough or even in spite of it. Which is illogical as you suggest.

The skeptical view is to not start with any given belief, but ask for the evidence. Now the evidence before us can be misinterpreted which us where science comes in (broadly). The evidence of nature suggested a flat earth with a sky canopy over us and some magical act of creation for everything. It took research to show us how it actually was and to deny the science (broadly) in spite of the evidence is the irrational stance.

The same with the Bible.On the face of it, it had to be credited,like any other book, unless there was evidence that caused us to doubt. The evidence has piled up to bring the Bible into question and I would say that it is now the irrational stance to have (Bible) faith in spite of the evidence. At this time, the gospels, even the resurrection, is considered broadly reliable. I am convinced that it is not but it is just my evidence -based view and I think it will become more comprehended that there are evidence -based reasons to doubt it.

That's why we are having these discussions, not based on Faith but on the evidence.

[boatsnguitars]

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.

So if you saw, "God is Real!", Why wouldn't the initial belief be that a Church had gotten their hands on advanced technology? my point is that it's an absurd test for Theists to ask Atheists, since it proves nothing.

Again, Matt's answer is the right one: "God would know what would convince me, but he's either unable or unwilling to do it."

[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.

So if you saw, "God is Real!", Why wouldn't the initial belief be that a Church had gotten their hands on advanced technology? my point is that it's an absurd test for Theists to ask Atheists, since it proves nothing.

Again, Matt's answer is the right one: "God would know what would convince me, but he's either unable or unwilling to do it."

Good grief, why are you pretending to ask questions if you're going to deliberately ignore the repeatedly-offered answers? Pretty much a standard approach for certain debaters, I suppose, though surely with no relevance at all to the thread topic

[Purple Knight]

Nothing will make me believe and I admit it. Not in the way a Christian would want me to.

If that entity in the Bible exists, I don't have to worship it just because it is very powerful.

Just as, if Christians end up being mistaken, the Bible all lies, and the universe run by an evil being, they don't have to believe in that being either - not believe in the way of, worship it and do its bidding. And it may punish them. And they're free to stand for their beliefs, uphold their fantasy god as better than the real one, and call the actual Creator wrong, if they think he is.

Just like I am.