Christians are often accused of being close-minded for not conforming to the naturalistic belief system which is so prevalent in the U.S. So for this little experiment, I would like to see if atheists practice the same open-mindedness they preach.
If you are an atheist, what I want to know is: If God did exist, what would it take to convince you? Give me a hypothetical example of evidence that you would not reject.
I'll be pleasantly surprised to receive any response to this query at all.
In Christ's Love,
Matthew
P.S. - Mudskipper requested a prize for his latest comments on this post. I guess it's only fair! So, Mudskipper, here it is:
48 comments:
oh, let me play again matt, please!
PLEASE!!!
You're probably my favorite game-player, Steve. Of course you can play... just make sure that if the other atheists want to join in you give them room to breathe!
What other atheists?
I forgot what the question was...
Oh, what proof would someone need to believe in God.
I don't know, maybe a shining light coming down from the sky, then a deep voice tells me everything about what I'm thinking, and what will happen for the next 24 hrs. Then it actually happens.
It's hard to tell whether I would actually believe, or whether I would think I were going crazy (Which happens too often).
Would I, like Abraham for instance, respond to the voices in my head and kill someone or at least try to kill someone? Maybe.
I assumed that because atheists always reject the personal experiences of others, they would also reject their own spiritual experiences. I am confident that you would choose to reject such an experience if given the opportunity.
"What other atheists?"
There are plenty of other atheists lurking about, Steve; I just haven't chosen to cater to them in quite some time. And, as I said in closing this post, I don't expect much response here - this question requires more critical thinking and self-examination than most of them are comfortable with.
In Christ,
Matthew
well yeah, as a rule personal experience in anything other than religion isn't worth more than a hill of beans. Take law, science, or any other area.
It's called "anecdotal."
This might just be a compartmentalization avoidance strategy. YAY for me.
By critical thinking and self examination, you mean "buy into my religion Whole sale and don't ask questions." Right?
Ah, you're a character Matt. You can twist words to mean the exact opposite.
Critical Thinking = Don't ask questions
Examination = Trust my anecdotal evidence
I feel like one of Jigsaws victims in SAW 5. "I want to play a game"
Happy Turkey Day! btw
haha... the only one twisting words is you...
I never so much as suggested in this post or the subsequent comments that anyone needed to adopt my beliefs! "Critical thinking and personal reflection" was referring to my clearly stated request for "a hypothetical example of evidence that you would not reject."
Man... talk about twisting words...
Happy Thanksgiving to you, too, by the way!
In Christ,
Matthew
Ok evidence...
If I could see him with a telescope. That would be cool.
You're like a kid with an imaginary friend. I love it.
Classic... the atheist realizes he has no better leg to stand on than to degrade his opponent...
"[M]ust we light a candle to see the sun?" - Wernher von Braun
haha, no that's just ME.
But really, it is easy with you.
What evidence would you need to believe I have an imaginary friend called Fred?
haha
Continue to mock and ridicule the positions of your opponents and you won't be tolerated for long in most debate settings.
By the way, your analogy with "Fred" is a straw-man - you've deemed him "imaginary" and then asked what you would have to do to make me believe he exists. This is a contradiction, as he cannot both exist and be imaginary. If you sincerely wish to pursue this analogy, then clear up your story: is Fred real, or did you "imagine" him?
In Christ,
Matthew
What about my friend Sara?
HAAA! Gotcha!
So really, what evidence would you need to know sara exists?
QED. I win. Where's my prize?
I need another sticker.
How would I know Sara existed... hmm... well, of course speaking to her personally would be the most convincing route to go. If that wasn't an option, however, I would probably want some more details other than just her first name. For instance: What's her last name? Where does she live? What are her interests? Can you tell me of anyone else who knows this "Sara," or is it just you?
Then I would probably want to talk to some of the other people who you claim know Sara. I'd throw a lot of the same questions their way and see if their answers mesh with yours in any conceivable way.
Of course, a good portion of what I just mentioned would be best applied toward determining whether or not you are actually friends with Sara; verifying her existence, on the other hand, can become a complicated issue: Obviously, going back to the testimonies of Sara's other friends would be helpful, but at best that will only be convincing, not "proof" - after all, it could all be an elaborate conspiracy (unlikely, but I suppose not impossible). Pictures and videos would be nice, but again, they don't actually "prove" that Sara exists, as they are only useful in verifying that someone exists, thus claims that her name might not be Sara, or that Sara is actually a dude, would be difficult to refute definitively. Furthermore, it isn't technically impossible to fake such photographic/video evidence. As stated earlier, the best way would be to meet her personally - although if I'm not even willing to take the "Sara-myth" seriously enough to try and get in touch with her, you might as well give up on convincing me that Sara exists, as I will clearly not accept any evidence you offer up, no matter how genuine it may be.
Finally, considering how many ways a word like "proof" can be interpreted, if I have even the slightest preference toward the non-existence of Sara, you will naturally never convince me that she exists until I decide to become more reasonable.
Lucky for you, I couldn't care less if your friend Sara exists or not! So feel free to introduce us anytime! Until then, I will naturally assume that you are a liar with a hidden agenda to convert the world population to Sara'ites, impose Saría law upon us all, and keep us all under your thumb with threats of a "Sara-less afterlife" (a.k.a. S'ell/S'ades) for all who don't bend to your insidious will.
*Sigh* I don't mind open-minded Sara'ites, it's those blasted fundies that get on my last nerve...
;-)
As to your prize, I'll get that posted at the bottom of the post soon!
In Christ,
Matthew
Awsome! another PRIZE!!!!
I should start a collection.
Well,
Sarah doesn't have a last name, but she has many first names.
She travels a lot, so she doesn't really "live" any where. She kinda lives everywhere at the same time.
Don't ask me how she does it, because I don't know.
Everyone knows sara, but some deny that she exists. They are just in denial and don't like her.
Probebly because she's really hot and they're not.
No but really, I do have a friend called sarah. But how would you KNOW?
So you're a A-saraist huh, rhymes with Atheist. Or maybe strictly speaking, you're a Asaragnostic!
haha
You just need to open your heart and feel Sara's love. She has plenty to go around. Actually she's kind of a tease.
"So you're a A-saraist huh, rhymes with Atheist. Or maybe strictly speaking, you're a Asaragnostic!"
Oh darn... you're right, I really would be hard-pressed to find proof that she DIDN'T exist! I guess I am an Asaragnostic.
"No but really, I do have a friend called sarah. But how would you KNOW?"
Well, in my personal opinion, Mudskipper, I would be awfully unreasonable to demand that you make me KNOW Sarah exists. After all, as I said before, if I have any desire to doubt whatsoever, I can always find a loop-hole. Perhaps a better question would be: What would you have to show me in order for me to believe Sarah exists?
So, here's how I see it: "Sara," as best as I can tell from your description, is most accurately described as a female human being bearing the name 'Sara,' among others, who is a close acquantance of yours (i.e. "friend") and has homes in every country and on every planet.
(of course, now that I have a good definition, if I can disprove any part of it [or refute it beyond 'reasonable doubt'] then I have effectively disproved the existence of "Sara" alltogether)
So, why would I believe that such a person exists? Well, on a more serious note, I suppose one of the best ways to convince me would be with something such as a birth-certificate with information on it matching the information about Sara that you've shared with me - you know, something that can only be reasonably explained by the existence of Sara.
Now, I hope you see why I am annoyed by the use of the word "know" in your question - after all, even the birth-certificate could technically be forged, however unlikely that may be. Also, the certificate could have been a coincidence, an "accident" if you will, on the part of the government. I could construct an elaborate theory explaining how the government makes approximately 1 error per 1000 legal documents, so naturally it is inevitable that a certificate with the "correct" information concerning the fictional Sara would eventually come to be without the need to multiply variables by perpetuating the existence of this so-called "Sara." Regardless of how minute the chances may be, any chance at all proves that it is possible!
Your turn. Give me your best evidence for Sara's existence.
In Christ,
Matthew
That's the rub Matt, She doesn't exist!
But according to your reasoning, you concluded that IT IS POSSIBLE.
Now you are chasing ghosts.
Technically, Mudskipper, I only concluded that false evidence was possible. I reserved judgment as to the existence of Sara because I had asked for your evidence and you had yet to provide it. I'm not that ignorant. I will grant, however, that had you gone to all the trouble to actually fake convincing evidence, I most likely would have concluded that it was possible. Why? Because I don't assume the worst of people (i.e. I don't expect most to blatantly lie to me outright) - not even of you. Also, because I had nothing staked in the existence (or lack there of) of Sara, so I had no motivation to doubt any genuine evidence.
You, on the other hand (as well as approx. 97% of all other atheists), reject any evidence or argument for the existence of God if it comes from a theist - because you think that we are all willing to lie if that's what it takes. The convenient part of this discrimination is that only a theist would provide an argument for the existence of God, as no one wants to argue for the existence of Someone they don't believe in - thus in effect you have chosen to not listen to any evidence for God's existence at all (because it always, of course, comes from those who believe in Him).
Curious what you'll think of this one, Mudskipper:
I propose that the burden of proof is on the atheist, as he has challenged the precedent.
In Christ,
Matthew
I had a similar conversation with my friend yesterday who recently decided to become a christian.
I don't reject arguments because they come from believers. I just find the arguments to be silly and circular, that's why. But, if you want to play the victim, go ahead if it makes you feel better.
No, the burden of proof is not on me.
Nice try though. haha
"I don't reject arguments because they come from believers. I just find the arguments to be silly and circular, that's why. But, if you want to play the victim, go ahead if it makes you feel better."
Sorry, but generalizations like that are why I draw the conclusions that I do - I find it rather hard to believe that every argument you have ever heard from a believer has been "silly and circular." Not playing the victim (no matter how how "weak and needy" you may think we Christians are), just stating the facts. If they don't apply to you, then I apologize; must just be a coincidence.
"No, the burden of proof is not on me.
Nice try though. haha"
Thanks for the feedback, but I was hoping you might explain the flaw rather than just saying what is, in effect, "No. You're wrong."
Christianity sprang forth from Judaism nearly 2000 years ago, and Judaism began nearly 2000 years before that (if I trace it back further than that, you're likely to start raising your eyebrows). Of course, you could always assume that there were atheists around 4000 years ago, too, but good luck finding evidence for it. Like it or not, belief in God is the long-held precedent. If you don't agree with it, you need to prove the precedent false.
Matt,
To answer your first question, yes.
2nd part,
I don't have to prove you wrong any more than you have to prove that Sarah doesn't exist.
You can't.
"To answer your first question, yes."
Odd... I don't remember having a first question...
"I don't have to prove you wrong any more than you have to prove that Sarah doesn't exist.
You can't."
I don't have to. I was never foolish enough to claim that I "knew" Sarah didn't exist, in fact you were the one who said she didn't. Also, I couldn't care less if Sarah exists or not. I have no motivation to buy into whatever theory floats my way that might remove any need for Sarah's existence.
Mudskipper, I know the Lord. Personally. I speak with Him on a regular basis and He answers my prayers both with words and with actions. How many imaginary friends can do that? With that in mind, give me one good reason why I shouldn't believe He exists.
In Christ,
Matthew
Plenty of imaginary friends talk to people. A casual stroll through the asylum can show you that.
The last part leads me to believe you have doubts. I wouldn't ask someone for proof that my computer exists because I can see it in front of my face, you however probably don't talk to this person you believe in because you are asking for reasons why he shouldn't exist. Strange. You should know.
Actually, you don't really believe. You make up that you talk to him, but there is no one there, he doesn't give you advise and he doesn't care for you. You only wish he did. You only wish he existed.
This fantasy is quite compelling.
Come on matthew. Quit playing around.
You amuse me, Mudskipper. You've told me multiple times that you don't degrade my intelligence, yet now I am compared to lunatics in an asylum! It amazes me the elaborate lies atheists have to tell themselves about Christians in order to keep themselves from asking questions. I don't have doubts, Mudskipper. If I did, I wouldn't have brought up my knowledge before asking for your evidence to counter it. I was attempting to show the absurdity of your claim of "knowing" that God doesn't exist; an attempt at irony which was clearly wasted on someone as close-minded as yourself.
"You only wish he existed.
This fantasy is quite compelling."
Haha... sorry, Mudskipper, I don't have that much self-control. For instance, there are times when I wish certain people didn't exist, yet (as you've proven time and time again by returning to my blog - just kidding) they still do exist and I speak with them and interact with them daily. I'm afraid you are giving me too much credit to think that I could ever convince myself to believe in lies I had crafted myself - no matter how clever they were. I do not simply "wish" God existed, as you so degradingly put it. Believe it or not (and I'm betting I know which one you'll choose), I do know Him and He is the only reason I'm strong enough to even speak to people like you. If I were simply believing fairy-tales, I'd be hiding behind my couch begging my imaginary friends to keep all the mean people away who wanted to prove to me that my friends didn't exist. Yet here I am! Bold, confident, and not the least bit afraid of people like you! And somehow I manage to deal with people such as yourself on a nearly daily basis without developing any fear or hatred of them whatsoever - even going so far as to feel compelled to pray for them as often as they come to the surface of my mind.
Now I ask you, honestly, do you really think I would waste that much of my time talking to someone who never talks back?
"Come on matthew. Quit playing around."
You first.
In Christ,
Matthew
well your original question was designed to draw atheists into some kind of debate about the existence of your friend.
Why do you need to debate? huh?
To answer your last question, yes.
Muslims and countless other religious people do it every day. That's interesting.
"well your original question was designed to draw atheists into some kind of debate about the existence of your friend."
It was? Interesting... I'm pretty sure I just presented a question and requested an answer. Why was I not expecting a debate? Simple. Because I did not expect an answer at all. There is no evidence, real or otherwise, that most atheists would accept.
"Why do you need to debate? huh?"
I don't. Actually, I detest debates on this topic. They're pointless as no one ever says anything new.
"To answer your last question, yes.
Muslims and countless other religious people do it every day. That's interesting."
Do they? I'm not sure I agree with you.
In Christ,
Matthew
for someone who hates debating, you sure do a lot of it.
"To answer your last question, yes.
Muslims and countless other religious people do it every day. That's interesting."
Do they? I'm not sure I agree with you."
Then what do they do every time they pray? Are you saying Allah actually talks back? What are you saying?
Exactly, you just confused yourself. haha
"for someone who hates debating, you sure do a lot of it."
I've been thinking that myself for quite some time now, Mudskipper. Believe me, I have.
"Then what do they do every time they pray? Are you saying Allah actually talks back?"
Who's to say he doesn't? None of the muslims I've spoken with have been the least bit doubtful of that - and I wouldn't be compromising my beliefs to say that it's true (see: 1 Corinthians 8:5; 10:20; 2 Corinthians 11:14; 1 John 4:1-3; Luke 4:33-35).
"Exactly, you just confused yourself. haha"
Always quick to jump to conclusions... sorry, Mudskipper. I'm not the least bit confused. Though I suspect you might be (particularly since I realize that there is a rather high likelihood that you didn't actually want to read all those Bible verses I cited above - that's sure to contribute to your confusion).
In Christ,
Matthew
ahh, [LIGHTBULB]
now I get it.
Yeah, I would believe you about those verses. The main character in your book said he likes to confuse people.
Sorry about that. My bad.
That's rich. Allah is the God of the bible. Nice! Two for one. How about the Raelians? Do they talk to God too?
Can you give me a list of religions which God speaks to?
Ooh... nice job! Way to completely live up to my expectations! Now I KNOW that you didn't read those verses! The muslims do NOT worship the God of the Bible. The Bible tells us that they are worshipping demons. Now, I ask you, what makes you think demons are mute?
In Christ,
Matthew
How do you know that, besides the bible telling you so?
Is there any evidence?
yeah, i didn't look up those verses. I'm lazy.
I hate reading bible verses anyway, they're all garblygoop.
I'm not mute BTW. haha
"How do you know that, besides the bible telling you so?
Is there any evidence?"
Oh, only the millions of testimonies of spiritual communications that come out of those religions every year. Oh wait, I forgot, you seem to think that the minimal atheist population of the planet consists of the only sane people on earth - the rest of us need to be locked up in the loony-bin. That was your implication, correct?
"yeah, i didn't look up those verses. I'm lazy."
Yeah, I figured. Interesting that you criticize me for not reading enough atheist literature, yet you never even read the short Bible passages I request of you.
"I hate reading bible verses anyway, they're all garblygoop."
Interesting allegations from someone who never reads the Bible.
"I'm not mute BTW. haha
I surmised as much.
Why on earth would you seriously believe that everyone on earth (except for you and a few other atheists) was either insane or lying? Sounds like multiplying variables to me... ;-)
In Christ,
Matthew
hey,
1st, I'm crazy too, in case you haven't noticed, so no, I don't think everyone is crazy except me. Part of the human condition.
Forgive me if I don't believe spiritual communications. Who was that crazy guy a while back who claimed to be healing people and talking with God? Forget his name. healed like 23 people.
Come to find out, it was a fraud.
"Who was that crazy guy a while back who claimed to be healing people and talking with God? Forget his name. healed like 23 people.
Come to find out, it was a fraud."
Yes, Todd Bentley was a fraud. However, as I recall, the Word of God revealed him as a fraud long before it became evident to those such as yourself. Not everyone who claims to know my God really does - and the beauty of it is that I only have to ask Him if I ever want know.
Todd Bentley was a fraud, yes. But Todd Bentley was a man. I do not follow men, I follow God. And unlike men, my God can move mountains, part seas, make broken men into great leaders, and make great leaders into broken men. He brings low the proud and raises up the humble. And He has the power to save even the greatest sinners from what they deserve - and what they've asked for, despite their best efforts.
I serve an awesome God, Mudskipper, and don't you forget it. You can scoff and roll your eyes now, because I can't stop you. But one day you'll stop on your own. I guarantee it. And I advise you to consider making that day sooner rather than later.
Isaiah 45
Romans 14:11-12
Philippians 2:5-11
In Christ,
Matthew
AMEN!
ANDREW!!!! Nice to see you drop by, man! Though I fear you may have picked the wrong conversation to drop in on! (jk, man, I know you can handle yourself - and you don't have to stick around if you don't want to, of course!)
I appreciate the support.
In Christ,
Matthew
Anytime man! I love these type of conversations....it causes us to really search God and bring more questions when we approach scripture, which allows Him to teach us just that much more! If you need any help, let me know!
Yeah, I always find it amusing when I'm reminded of how so many atheists have told themselves (or rather been told) that we fear these conversations. The truth is, they strengthen us and encourage us to sharpen our knowledge of God's Word.
Mudskipper, I would like to formally thank you. By continually and tirelessly attempting to destroy my faith, you have inadvertently strengthened it and driven me closer to the Lord.
Isn't it funny how the God who you don't believe in is still powerful enough to work through you?
In Christ,
Matthew
P.S. - Andrew, I don't know how long you've been "lurking" on my blog, but if you don't know who Mudskipper is, you'll probably learn to love him very soon. He's a regular poster and always up for a stimulating debate. Assuming he sticks around (he's usually pretty reliable) I'm sure you'll soon become good friends.
(though I might advise you to steer clear of his blog - it used to be decent, long ago and far away, but I'm afraid I can't advise anyone to visit there anymore - and I suspect that may have been on purpose)
No, matt,
earlier you said that you believed because so many others believe, and that I should do likewise specifically when I asked for evidence, kind of like majority rule.
Here is your answer when I asked for evidence;
""How do you know that, besides the bible telling you so?
Is there any evidence?"
Oh, only the millions of testimonies of spiritual communications that come out of those religions every year."
And then when I brought up the fallibility of man, such as Todd Bently, you changed your story;
"I do not follow men, I follow God"
So you change your story depending on what kind of point you are trying to make, and whether someone calls-you-out on it.
So when someone calls your bluff, change the story. Is that the plan?
This is typical for someone making it up as they go along. haha
you don't like my blog matt?
It wasn;t because of you. I just do what I feel like.
Here is your answer when I asked for evidence;
""How do you know that, besides the bible telling you so?
Is there any evidence?"
Oh, only the millions of testimonies of spiritual communications that come out of those religions every year."
And then when I brought up the fallibility of man, such as Todd Bently, you changed your story;
"I do not follow men, I follow God"
So you change your story depending on what kind of point you are trying to make, and whether someone calls-you-out on it.
So when someone calls your bluff, change the story. Is that the plan?
CONGRATULATIONS! That's the most impressive quote-mining I've seen in a long time! Not to mention a fundamental flaw in logic. I was offering "evidence" for the existence of the spiritual entities worshipped by other religions, not evidence for believing in my God. Also, even if I had been, you made the mistake (if it was indeed a mistake) of assuming that the evidence I offered was my reason for believing in God. Also, even if that weren't true, my reasons for believing would in no way dictate who I follow. Mudskipper, I'm disappointed in you. This is just sad. I've never seen so many "mistakes" come out of you in a long time (and again, I'm not convinced that you weren't just trying to see what you could get away with).
I believe in God because He has revealed Himself to me. I challenge you to show me where I have ever deviated from this.
Please note that my reasons for believing in God and my reasons for not believing in naturalism are distinct in some ways (though clearly the fact that I believe in God is the key reason, there are many others).
Please try harder next time. This is getting boring. Interpret my comments the way you know they are intended, or don't bother interpreting them at all. My time is too precious to spend restating myself four times before you finally concede to understanding what I'm saying.
In Christ,
Matthew
Oh, I see that.
You're right, I didn't read it clearly.
You can't blame me though. God gave me my patience right?
God gives us the tools; we're responsible for how we use them.
HEY Matt, Andrew, MudSkipper, I just happened to read this and I just wanted to answer Mudskipper's comments about how we know the Bible is true...
1) As you stated earlier MudSkipper you are in agreement with whatscience "proves" as laws, theories, facts, etc...
2) The Bible has historical evidence (ancient transcripts) that it has existed longer than your scientific beliefs.
3) Time is just one factor that proves the legitimacy of the Bible, In history nations that have shown faith to the Lord have been successful beyond their wildest beliefs (Isreal of old) but as the strayed from the true teachings they have become farther and farther from their former glory
In conclusion, believing this is more historically accurate than Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" and there are more basis and evidence for the teachings of the Bible. There are no remains of a linking species between say man or monkey, no species that features both traits of simian and human in less amounts of each.
Also in Jesus Christ
Zane
Zane said,
"There are no remains of a linking species between say man or monkey, no species that features both traits of simian and human in less amounts of each."
Unless you're Hitler. He believed the Black Africans and Jews were (at least) half-ape. Ahh, racism... the inevitable fruit of a rotten theory...
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit." - Matthew 7:16-17
In Christ,
Matthew
It is difficult for some one to use the "tools" when their toolbox is empty.
Well, if that's the case, then perhaps someone needs to admit that they need tools and ask for them.
P.S. - Patience, the "tool" being referred to here, is one of the "fruits of the Spirit" - and the Lord makes pretty clear in His Word how we can receive it.
In Christ,
Matthew
haha. Or a cup of coffee could achieve the same effect.
I guess coffee is holy. haha
its hard to pay attention when you've heard the same thing 50 times.
"its hard to pay attention when you've heard the same thing 50 times."
No one sympathizes with you more than I do, Mudskipper, believe me...
Post a Comment