What Would Convince You To Not Believe?

Originally posted by vivify
Are you saying it's possible to convince you to believe, if certain evidence for it could be presented? If so, can you think of an example of such evidence?

EDIT: Yes I am saying that if presented with convincing evidence I would believe in the
existence of a god or gods.

No. I already said (several times in this thread including the post you are replying to) that I
don't know what evidence would convince me that a god or god exist.

However IF your god does exist then that god would know what evidence would convince me.

Originally posted by googlefudge
EDIT: Yes I am saying that if presented with convincing evidence I would believe in the
existence of a god or gods.

No. I already said (several times in this thread including the post you are replying to) that I
don't know what evidence would convince me that a god or god exist.

However IF your god does exist then that god would know what evidence would convince me.

It is written in the Holy Bible that God is no respecter of persons. (Acts 10:34)

So why do you think God should provide you with other evidence that is not provided to the rest of us? What makes you rate more attention from God than anyone else?

WHY DON'T YOU DELIGENTLT SEEK THE EVIDENE YOU NEED?
(Proverbs 8:17)

Originally posted by googlefudge
EDIT: Yes I am saying that if presented with convincing evidence I would believe in the
existence of a god or gods.

No. I already said (several times in this thread including the post you are replying to) that I
don't know what evidence would convince me that a god or god exist.

However IF your god does exist then that god would know what evidence would convince me.

I don't believe in any god. Just wanted clarity on your position.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have yet to hear any logical and reasonable explanation from you for the existence of the heavens and the Earth and life to replace the one that the supreme being and creator God did it. You already know my opinion of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution -- stupid! 😏

Well we disagree about what constitutes a logical and reasonable explanation and I am not
about to go back down the rabbit hole of trying to get you to see reason or explain to you
why and how evolution works.

However I DON'T NEED to have a reasonable alternative explanation to be able to reject YOUR
proposed 'explanations'.

First, all explanations must be in terms of things we understand.

If I told you that an apple falls from a tree towards the ground because of flahaflfleheminem I
wouldn't have explained anything to you because you don't have any meaningful concepts that
go with the word flahaflfleheminem that would constitute an explanation.

It wouldn't be any better if instead of flahaflfleheminem I said gravity unless you had an adequate
understanding of what gravity was and thus had a bunch of useful concepts that came along with
the word gravity that then constituted an explanation that you understood.

Thus as neither you nor I can or do understand an infinitely complex omnipotent super being (or god)
any explanation that goes along the lines of "something happens because of god" is meaningless and
useless as an explanation because neither you nor I understand what god is or how god works.

Secondly, the value of any explanation is not in what it can explain but what it can't explain.

Any 'explanation' that can explain anything explains nothing.

An explanation is a set of concepts that allows us to understand how/why something works or happens.

Those set of concepts are only useful if they are specific to the thing we are trying to understand.

So the concept of gravity makes me expect objects with mass to attract each other and try to move towards
each other and that they will try harder/move faster the closer they are together.

I do not expect things to fly apart.

Thus the concept of gravity makes me expect to see apples fall down towards the earth and not up into the sky
or sideways.

The usefulness of the explanation of 'gravity' is that it rules out all kinds of possibilities and narrows my expectations
of what will happen. (obviously if what happens then doesn't match the predictions the explanation is wrong).

An explanation that could both explain apples falling down and up (and anything in-between) is useless.

Thirdly, given a set of competing explanations of equal predictive power for the currently available evidence
the most likely to be true and most practical/easiest to use explanation is the simplest one (Occam's razor).

The more complex an explanation is, the more parts to it, the more things that need evidence to justify them.
Thus the burden of proof goes up and the prior probability (or likelihood) of an explanation goes down the more
complex an explanation is.

God seems a simple explanation because we can say 'god did it' in three words (in English) but the word god
refers to a hugely complicated (even infinitely complicated) being who acts in extremely (again possibly infinitely)
complicated ways.

The complexity of an explanation can be shown in how hard it would be to make a computer do it using a program in
binary. The longer the binary string the more complex your explanation.

The binary string that represents 'god did it' is depending on the god in question potentially infinitely long.

All other non-infinite strings are thus less complex and thus more likely. (based on prior probability alone before you
look at the evidence)

This explains why for something to be evidence of god, it must be inexplicable by every other possible explanation.

Fourthly, an explanation needs to be positively confirmed by observed evidence and any and all likely contra explanations
ruled out before it is accepted as probably being true.

Even if we had absolutely no idea about how life came to exist or the universe came into being or even if it had a beginning
or has existed on some form forever that is not an excuse to make up an explanation and say god did it.
It means that we don't know and should keep looking for an explanation.

Only if you can rule out ALL of the infinite number of possible explanations can you default to the one remaining one.
Otherwise you need positive evidence to justify an explanation, simply not currently having an alternative is not enough.



Thus, in conclusion.

Even if evolution were not proven and we had absolutely no idea about how the universe or we came into being.
If I had no alternative explanations.

That still wouldn't make you justified in claiming the existence of god as an explanation.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is written in the Holy Bible that God is no respecter of persons. (Acts 10:34)

[b]So why do you think God should provide you with other evidence that is not provided to the rest of us? What makes you rate more attention from God than anyone else?

WHY DON'T YOU DELIGENTLT SEEK THE EVIDENE YOU NEED?
(Proverbs 8:17)[/b]

I think that if god exists and there is an afterlife and that god decides if that afterlife is nice or
horrible then I think that god should provide ample evidence of his existence to everyone.

I am not asking for special treatment.

The difference between us is not that I think I deserve more evidence than you or that I am special.

It's that I am not prepared to believe in something without sufficient evidence to justify doing so.

If god exists and isn't prepared to prove it then god is an ass.

It doesn't make my position wrong or unreasonable, or make me want special treatment.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well we disagree about what constitutes a logical and reasonable explanation and I am not
about to go back down the rabbit hole of trying to get you to see reason or explain to you
why and how evolution works.

However I DON'T NEED to have a reasonable alternative explanation to be able to reject YOUR
proposed 'explanations'.

[b]First, all exp dn't make you justified in claiming the existence of god as an explanation.

It is amazing to me how you can talk about reason and logic in such an intelligent and seemingly knowledgeable manner, but refuse to completely use it when it comes to determining if to believe in God or not. It seems to me that you must have decided not to believe regardless of any other factors. It is like you saying, "I don't want to believe, therefore I am not." In that respect you are no different from VoidSpirit, who logically makes no sense.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is amazing to me how you can talk about reason and logic in such an intelligent and seemingly knowledgeable manner, but refuse to completely use it when it comes determining if to believe in God or not. It seems to me that you must have decided not to believe regardless of any other factors. It is like you saying, "I don't want to believe, therefore I am not." In that respect you are no different from VoidSpirit, who logically makes no sense.

Well however it 'seems' to you the truth is that my position of the existence of god (or anything else)
is based solely on the evidence for their existence.

There are any number of things that I wish were true but aren't and things that I wish were not true but are.

As it happens I am quite happy with the idea that no god's exist, and find the idea of the Christian god to be
abominable.

But that has no bearing on whether or not I believe in their existence.


Perhaps you might consider that the reason you don't understand 'our' logic on the topic is because it is in fact
you who is being illogical.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well however it 'seems' to you the truth is that my position of the existence of god (or anything else)
is based solely on the evidence for their existence.

There are any number of things that I wish were true but aren't and things that I wish were not true but are.

As it happens I am quite happy with the idea that no god's exist, and find the id ...[text shortened]... nderstand 'our' logic on the topic is because it is in fact
you who is being illogical.

I GOT A FEELING that the Christian God may find you abominable too.

YouTube&feature=endscreen&NR=1

I think I am of the position that once you have believed, it is imposible not to believe.

Originally posted by divegeester
I think I am of the position that once you have believed, it is imposible not to believe.

I think you are correct. I have never heard of a single Christian that became an atheist, while I have heard of many athiests that became Christian. That should be a tip-off to thinking people.

Originally posted by divegeester
I think I am of the position that once you have believed, it is imposible not to believe.

I used to believe (parents were both exremely religous). I also believed in Santa. But I grew up.

Originally posted by vivify
I used to believe (parents were both exremely religous). I also believed in Santa. But I grew up.

Why do you feel compelled to ridicule? This is something I don't understand about a lot of atheists; hanging out here taking the piss...I don't get it.

Originally posted by vivify
I used to believe (parents were both exremely religous). I also believed in Santa. But I grew up.

I thought the same as you. Once I found out there was no Santa, I no longer believed in God or Jesus. But the existence or non-existence of God and Christ has nothing to do with Santa. It was only through diligently seeking that I began to have faith to believe again. Without faith one can not please God. Faith is counted as righteousness by God for those that believe.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by CLL53
I think you are correct. I have never heard of a single Christian that became an atheist, while I have heard of many athiests that became Christian. That should be a tip-off to thinking people.

Do you think it is possible to believe, convince yourself you don't believe and are in fact atheist, and then spend a troubled life convincing happy theists that they don't believe either?