Just out of curiousity...

[tdrehfal]

Tdehrfal, I think your question can be divided into two:

(1) What would it take for you to believe in a god.

Better examples of irreducible complexity. Better indications that humans have some kind of intrinsic, designed purpose, etc.

(2) What would it take for you to believe in the Christian god.

What God did for Moses would work for me. Some kind of very vivid, unmistakable "real" vision.

No. My question is for seekers in the Faith V Science forum. God is the Christian God, but I don't need to force it on anyone.

God will reveal himself if asked. It may take many years of this 'asking' but God is not an idiot. He does not work according

to our timeline. My question is simply there to get the agnostic/atheist to ASK GOD.

[tdrehfal]

So, do you want Jesus to show you Himself, or not? Sounds like a big "not" to me! He doesn;t play silly games with people. Either you are seriously seeking or you're not.

It is a big fat no on the idea of subjecting myself to confirmation bias. We are talking about negating it, not instilling it. You are asking me to instill it as if it's something to be proud of or that I'm scared to do it, I deem it idiotic though.

Sounds like your God plays a lot of silly games, like REQUIRING faith. You know, I only wish there were a God that came down all the time to dispense immediate judgement on those that did others wrong, that would be a great thing for everyone. Unfortunately, it isn't the case. Playing games like "he built history into the world." Playing games like "fore-go evidence if it contradicts the Bible." Playing games like "I changed my mind with the new testament." Playing games like claiming prophecy is even worthy of respect. There are a lot of games, but science has a way of negating the games THAT WE PLAY ON OURSELVES.

You can be sure He doesn't change His mind about you! He still loves you even though you ridicule Him. He takes a lot more than we could, and He still loves. I call that an incredible God.

This is the thing. EVERYTHING requires faith. Faith is all that truly exists in human perceptual concepts. Prove to me right now that we're not living

in "The Matrix" like the movie describes. You can't. There is no proof of it, period. Everything requires SOME level of faith.

[tdrehfal]

....then why not try praying on a daily basis for God to reveal himself to you..

This is another logical fallacy, this one is called Confirmation Bias. Basically, if you are looking for something, you'll fool yourself into finding it.

This is an assumption. You're assuming God can't reveal Himself to you in a way that you know you're not fooling youself. Yes, it's true

that you can fool yourself into believing something. Where God is concerned however, if you can believe that God is omniscient, then He

can do it in a way that you know you're not being 'fooled'.

Amen,

Sorry, missed this one somehow.

Not exactly Josh-13 and tdrehfal. I bolded the part that you can fool yourself into "believing." It's a set-up from the start and you yourself profess it by saying basically that "IF" you believe this, then it's all logical after that. That is a huge, monstrous "IF" right there.

Yes, it's an if, but is it not REASONABLE, to belive in [if there is] a God, omniscience?

[Floatingaxe]

Yes, it's an if, but is it not REASONABLE, to belive in [if there is] a God, omniscience?

Let me pose an example to you:

Suppose I told you about a Breh. A Breh is something that creates "Gods." With this definition, and it's just a definition like your definition of "God," I could make the rational argument that "IF Gods exist, there must be a Breh."

What the definition of God has done is thrown infiniti out to be counted in something it has no place in, thus throwing all arguments against it into infinite regress. It's a black-hole of thought....

Methinks ye think too much!

[tdrehfal]

You know, this just isn't true. The scientific community laughs at everything outside of the current scientific paradigm.

The scientific community even laughed at the Wright Brothers for thinking that flight was possible... The scientific community

[of people] is the problem. Not science. Like I said before... IT'S PEOPLE.

http://www.jvsr.com/researchupdate/detail.asp?ID=986

I didn't say science didn't laugh at itself. It's part of the peer-review process as is clearly outlined in your cited article(thank you by the way.) The Wright Brothers were indeed laughed at and scoffed, the same way WE ALL laugh at the guy with the flappy-wing contraption jumping off a cliff. But they all used one thing, and that is the scientific process to make it happen. Trial and error is a fundamental element of early scientific understanding in that we are predisposed to it, otherwise, your toddler wouldn't quit walking into the glass sliding door.

Let me ask you a very serious question: If we didn't laugh at each other, what would propel us to do anything?

Isn't laughing a well of telling you that your idea is absurd? Sure, we reference The Wright Brothers because it is the classic case of "dern, we were wrong as scientists," but two things happened:

One before the Wright Brothers where everyone was trying to find the right machine to fly and they all looked crazy and stupid and they were laughed at when they made a fool of themselves. The Wright Brothers probably expected laughter from everyone.

Secondly, the scientific community should have laughed at itself for laughing in the face of those that succeeded in discovering The THEORY of Flight we all depend on today. You can bet a lot of them did, and they later accepted it, and moved on to discovering better Aerodynamics, pressure variance, and on up to today "thrust vectoring." Science is a process, not an empirical.

Science is a great tool that man can use to discover the natural world... But like Leonard's earlier post, should you not at least be OPEN to the idea of THEOLOGY?

[tdrehfal]

"It's a good thing I dont believe in it" is like saying it's a good thing I don't believe in the national debt. It exists wether you believe or not.

Again, Prove it. You can't. Just because you believe something or say it over and over and can't retract out of pride doesn't make it so.

Quit asserting something you can't prove.

So are you asserting that I should prove the national debt, or are you asking me to prove it?

[tdrehfal]

Science is a great tool that man can use to discover the natural world... But like Leonard's earlier post, should you not at least be OPEN to the idea of THEOLOGY?

How open-minded should I be? So open that my brains fall out?

If I asked you to be open-minded about ghost? Fairies? Dragons? Thor? Gremlins? Soullessness? Where does it stop? Again, a blackhole of thought..... infinite regress....

No. Simply Open-minded about the existence of God.

[Ovedya]

What's a "black hole of thought" anyway?

Without religion what would have atheists pondered, talked about, and foamed at the mouth about for the past 7,000 years?

Many of the deepest most profound concepts in philosophy originated from religious faith and thought.

Black hole?

Feh.

[tdrehfal]

Why not just keep asking? It can't hurt you, can it?

YES, it can very much so. Confirmation Bias. If I'm expecting God to talk to me or show me a sign, it could be that a very natural event with very narrow chances of happening could come about in front of me and instead of explaining it away in the natural terms it ask for, I just simply say God Did It because "I'm looking" and I've hurt myself. I've kept myself from finding out the natural truth of the matter.

Please, study confirmation bias, for everyone's sake. It should be mandatory in schools.

The original topic of this thread was "What would be acceptable proof"... If every proof is relegated to Confirmation Bias, then you're saying there is NO ACCEPTABLE PROOF to you...

Edited February 7, 2007 by tdrehfal

[systemstrike_7]

What's a "black hole of thought" anyway?

Without religion what would have atheists pondered, talked about, and foamed at the mouth about for the past 7,000 years?

Many of the deepest most profound concepts in philosophy originated from religious faith and thought.

Black hole?

Feh.

Well of course humans are always going to ponder about the supernatural, but Christianity itself has not progressed this thought. It has regressed it. In all reality, the atheistic view point is a young one. Before this in the Pre-Socratic and Socratic period, philosophers would ponder the supernatural while not being bound by theological certainties. This continued into the Platonic period and shortly thereafter. (I use the word shortly a bit lightly) Even today, you will find philosophers pondering about the supernatural in different ways, apart from Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.

Christianity or any other theological certainty leaves someone without any options or choice. To just believe would mean to stop thinking in the mind of a philosopher. Intellectual suicide doesn't sound very appealing.