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?

CoteDAzur: That is just a nickname for a subatomic particle
I meant the scientific process not the boson.

if there is a God, mathematics must be his language So, if you can't find evidence of it, that would be an argument against. However, literary genre, magic and miracles are hard to shake off. Why is that? After all, the scientific approach has a good track record at delivering the truth and most people accept it. Maths and God don't mix because the scientific methods that use it generally don't support religious arguments. I suspect that is why believers are not keen to pursue my proposal.

But what if there are names in stars with probabilities in billions (in context) type arguments that could be verified? That would remove the apples and pears approach. Believers would surely be excited about that. And non-believers for the opposite reasons.

So, can someone provide such an argument (example). What data (events) would it need, context and probabilities? It doesn't have to be one that has actually happened, but one that could in theory.

What would it take to unconvince you, TheKeyAuthor?

Because what ever it would take to convince me is the opposite of that?

You are the one who believes it so the onus is on you to prove it. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing there to disprove.

These things are not condemed, Abraham was not punished for marrying his sister and Lot was not punished for offering his daughters up to be raped. In fact his family were saved because of this action.

I'm just pointing out if you say the Bible is correct then you cannot disagree with some of the more problematic verses. I'm also not questioning why there is evil and suffering in the world, that question is answered in Job. where God and Satan have a bet and ruin some poor suckers life, destroy his family and everyone he ever loved then God turns around and say 'who are you to question me'.

All the Bible does for me is prove that the jealous God of the Isrealites (his words not mine, so much for benevolence) is a nasty piece of work and I'll take my Goddess over him any day.

If everyone could just be kind to each other and the planet the there would be no need for any religion or god. Evolution and history shows us that this can never happen.

I don't know what would convince me. But an omnipotent god would.

i am urged to look at the world attentively and with curiosity, and so see the signs of God in the creation of the earth

If you look in the expectation of finding something then you are at risk of overlooking evidence that suggests that thing does not exist. If you expect to find evidence of fairies then you'll be much more likely to regard the Cottingley pictures as authentic.

Some religions, in some areas, did help engender some scientific progress. But that was always within certain heavily proscribed limits and with the sure expectation that whatever was discovered must not go against religious teachings. It is arguable that such restrictions held back science much more than it helped.

I don't know what would convince me. But an omnipotent god would.

Quite! And since the god proposed by most major present-day religions is supposedly so preoccupied with mere humans believing in him and worshiping him, I really don't see why he wouldn't have made his existence and intentions clearer.

My DH was "convinced" of the existence of god and the truth of the Muslim religion by his parents: if he forgot to pray or read his Quran they'd beat him. He somehow still managed to turn into a lovely, well-adjusted adult - albeit one who is utterly unable to discuss religion in rational terms even when invited to defend his beliefs.

Yes, my ILs were very convincing - but I lost all respect for them the day I learned about this and have vowed never to leave a child of mine unsupervised in their presence.

When there is no forced religion and people live in a free state, I am wholly convinced that religion (teaching of morals) does far more to help science than hinder it.

Can you give an example of how, in your opinion, religion is furthering scientific insight at this present moment? (I'm assuming that the UK in 2012 qualifies as reasonably free under your definition.)

"religion didnt hinder science"

Sorry but this is actually funny

Have you heard about the Dark Ages? Do you know why they were called "Dark"? (Hint: It's not because electricity wasn't yet invented)

Oh and my personal favourite:

Have you heard about the little problem Galileo had with the Church? Do you know when they finally accepted that the world turns around the Sun and not the other way round? (1990!)

Even now they are at it, fighting against stem cell research, denying evolution, pushing for "Intelligent Design" to be taught in schools in the US.

The "Intelligent Design" tragedy isn't only playing out in the US. There are several other countries (eg Saudi Arabia, Sudan) where teaching evolution in schools is outright banned.

I believe in God because the Qur'an confidently asserts that He is the Creator and that as a person learns about the world, they will be convinced.

... in which case your god is simply wrong! There are millions of people who know a great deal about the world but who are either non-Muslims or even non-theists altogether. Some of us have read the Quran too - even in Arabic - and remain utterly unconvinced.

Muhammad Al-Khwarizmi, incidentally, did not invent algorithms (or even single-handedly invent algebra). He made some majorly important contributions to mathematics, e.g. the solution of linear and quadratic equations. The association with algorithms derives from the fact that his book on calculations using the Indian numerical system was translated into Latin as Algoritmi de numero Indorum - where the 'algoritmi' part referred to the calculations.

Algorithms preceded Al-Khwarizmi; Greek mathematicians developed solutions that we would nowadays describe as algorithmic, e.g. Euclid. The formalisation of algorithms as used in modern computer science was probably most strongly influenced by people like Turing, von Neumann, Hopper, Nash etc.

(Yes, this happens to be my field and I do get slightly anal about accuracy!)

but we have computers, incredible discoveries in physics, cell phones, the internet, incredible medical care, and countless other marks of human progress that couldn't have taken place without morality and freedom.

I'm not sure that you can really conflate the rather vague notion of "human progress" with scientific discovery in this way - especially where ethics (or "morality") are concerned.

As a PhD student I can certainly think of a multitude of situations in which my research might be a whole lot easier if the law or common decency didn't interfere.

This is not to say, of course, that behaving ethically is bad for humans (I agree that it's arguably good for us, though as an atheist I disagree about morality -and most definitely freedom - being based on religion). What I'm saying is simply that ethical behaviour is not necessarily a contributor to scientific insight.

Atheism isn't a moral position any more than theism is.

Wow - this has been an interesting thread to follow and I bow down to the superior knowledge, both secular and religious that has been displayed. It would take far too long to go through every point raised on this thread, but my comments are as follows:

Lots of people on this planet manage to turn water+grapes+sunlight+a bit of work into wine and do an amazing job at it. Maybe there are lots of gods walking the earth right now - a surprising number centred on the Bordeaux region of France.

Those of us who are lucky enough to be parents, and perhaps more so for those who have been lucky through the miracle of IVF and the sadness of early miscarriage, we all know that miracles happen every single day. When I think about the myriad of things that have to happen 'just so' in order for sperm and egg to meet and make something as awesome as a human being, I am floored. It doesn't need to have any Divine guidance to make it more or less than what it is - an absolute miracle that any of us are here and living, breathing, sentient creatures.

Atheists have morals too. Morals and religion don't have to go hand in hand, and quite often they don't, or religion is used to justify abhorrent actions. Surely the most important driving factor in being kind and 'good' to our fellow human beings is the hope that they will respond in the same way? "Sin" is something I have never been able to comprehend, despite a Catholic upbringing and reading around the subject. "Sin" seems to be completely subjective.

To throw my hat into the ring, I am not an atheist, I am a panentheist, so I believe that everything is of the Divine. I don't like to use the term 'god' because that comes pre-loaded with images of old men with beards giving out judgements from on high.

Maybe the Divine is somewhere in the nothing that we and everything are mostly made up of? Who knows. If I have a 'god-given job' in life then it is to be happy, to enjoy creation, to ensure that other people around me can enjoy creation and life too, and that those coming after me can be happy and enjoy life.

crescent - I have read many works of Ayn Rand. Her philosophy ("Objectivism") re her love for vicious capitalism and selfishness has been influenced mostly by her childhood in Soviet Russia, rather than her lack of religious belief.