What would convince you?

[TheKeyAuthor]

1 Would he have to appear on Oprah or the like? Which means he has to be a celeb first. How would he become a celeb?
2 Would he have to do tricks like change water into wine? Which means the likes of David Copperfield, Siegfried and Roy etc. are candidates?
3 Would you believe a "miracle" on TV anyway?
4 Are we too sceptical and information overloaded to believe anything any more?
5 Would anything possibly convince anyone in the 21st century anyhow?

I have been thinking about this for a couple of days and honestly, pretty much nothing would convince me. Apart from, upon dying, ending up in heaven.

My partner's dad is a born-again Christian.

He has been pretty much batshit crazy his entire life.

The two things seem to go hand in hand just a leetle too often.

I don't need to be convinced. I don't believe in any kind of fatherly god figure but I do believe in a belief in a joy, love and light. Any mention of that being male is inconceivable. My aim is to find that feeling wherever I can because I have a 'god shaped hole in my soul' that need filling.

If I don't fill it with something spiritual I will fill it with less healthy options, so I work hard at doing the right thing.

Carrying on from my (lightning, star) example, specifically probability threshold as in Cern's Higgs boson hunt:

It has often been said that mathematics and God don't mix. But what if they did? Surely it makes sense that God would converse (amongst other means) in the language of nature and the universe? Even thousands of years ago, people had a grasp of patterns and likelihood. In other words, if we universally accept a process that proves the existence of the 'God Particle', then why not for God?

Well, a. we don't "universally" accept that process, plenty of people don't believe in science at all and b. when I think about God for more than 3 seconds, it is just clear to me that the whole concept couldn't possibly exist.

If God exists, why wouldn't he reveal himself? Why communicate in this way that is entirely unconvincing? Lightning. A star. Why not just go "oi, I am God, so listen the fuck up?"
If he exists, why would he look like man?
And A man, at that?

It would have to be something big.

He'd have to appear on every TV and computer screen on the planet and tell everyone that something spectacular was going to happen - i.e. it was going to rain chocolate muffins and pink milk

And then, it would have to happen.

There wouldn't be too many sceptics left after that.

I believe JC lived, he was a human being, a bit of a trouble maker with a few tricks up his sleeve. Don't believe the hype.

but what on earth proof do you have crescentmoon?

I am happy for people to have their beliefs, but to me there's absolutely no reason for me to believe.

Crescent, I'm an atheist. It's perfectly possible to love and appreciate the world in all it's complexity and beauty, without believing in a deity.

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams

Bad stopped happening to good people. A God appeared and said "I love my children so much I will stop anything that Hurts them". Then I will bow down and worship that god.

Until then I will continue to believe that God is a sadist and I don't worship sadists

IF god exist

"It has often been said that mathematics and God don't mix"

Who says that? Clearly, if there is a God, mathematics must be his language, because it is the underlying rule system of the entire universe. (I think this is what you are saying, too)

"if we universally accept a process that proves the existence of the 'God Particle', then why not for God?"

That is just a nickname for a subatomic particle, not actually a part of God. Some author called Higg's boson "God particle" because it is so important and so elusive.

"atheists ... are sticking their heads in the sand, like ostriches, because they are afraid of the responsibility that comes with acknowledging the universe was created by God and that life on earth began by God"

What responsibility is that supposed to be then? Being nice to your neighbour? I already do that. Having to visit Mecca at least once in my life, dressed in white curtains? I'll pass that one

I'm happy to acknowledge things that are true. The problem here is that you don't really know if there is a God, neither do we. You... believe.

"both capitalism and communism try to preach religion as just sentimental inhibitions and as a crutch for the feeble minded"

I didn't realize capitalism was the enemy of religion. Capitalism happily uses religion as the barbiturate of the masses.

"but there are big questions. how did we come to be here? why are we here? and where are we going?"

We all ask those questions, but only you pretend to know the only answers.

"i strongly object to the hijacking of science by atheists"

What on earth do you mean by that?

"how does each discovery lead to a conclusion of atheism?"

In two ways:
(1) By proving the religious myths as completely false (ex: Earth was created in seven days, this creation took place only some thousands of years ago, people were created precisely the way they look now, earth is in the centre of the solar system, etc)
(2) By increasing what we know about the universe and decreasing what we don't know (and hence might attribute to a divine power)

HTH

If capitalism is the enemy of religion, then why does it cost £15 to get into St Paul's Cathedral. And please don't tell me it's for 'repairs'.

So if the Bible is correct I can offer up my children (Lot) to be raped and have an incestuous relationship with my brother (Abraham and Sarah).

So the Bible is wrong?

So...it's people's own fault if they starve to death in some stinking cesspit, or get crushed in an earthquake, or die of malaria?

They should have just used their free will and hotfooted it out of there.

I'm sure NONE of them have ever contemplated that before.

Faerie, the thing you're not acknowledging here is any sense of literary genre. Now that might sound high-falutin' / get-out clause, but most of us, most of the time, instinctively have a sense of genre. Take Aesop's Fables; few of us would react by saying 'The man's a loon; he thinks animals can speak.' Of course not - to react thus would indicate our own inability to understand what kind of text it is. Same with all sorts of literature - yet often people have a blind spot for this when it comes to the Bible. Maybe there's another assumption that the only way God can speak is by issuing orders, and that therefore everything in the Bible must be an instruction - so if Lot sacrificed his daughter, obviously we must go and do likewise.

But that's not my understanding of God - God doesn't just bark out orders like some manic heavenly sargeant-major. Which means we need to think a little bit more about what the Bible is, and what the various bits thereof are. Which means in turn that throwing proof-texts ('this bible verse says that, therefore it must be true for all of us') into conversations about the nature / existence of God is not particularly helpful. The 'is the Bible wrong?' question suggests that the Bible is issuing the order to sacrifice children etc - i.e. it's the wrong question to ask, if you want to approach the Bible in a meaningful way. (Of course, using its unsavoury passages as fodder for anti-Christian prejudice is much easier! Prejudice is normally easier to sustain than proper engagement, on the other's terms.)

The people responsible for earthquakes, crescentmoon? WTF?

Buildings in Japan are v earthquake proof, yet look what happened there. I didn't see anyone blaming God in Japan.

How many times is God blamed in this country for mishaps? Almost never, since we're essentially a secular society.

I don't really agree with this argument that if God exists why would he let evil happen, because honestly, if God exists how the hell would we KNOW what he would want for us?