List of Evidence Potent Enough to Convince Atheists of the Veracity of a Religion.

[andave_ya]

Very well-put, eminently sensible list. I agree with you entirely, and in fact several of those things are what helped persuade me to become a Christian.

However it cannot be denied that at least in part, Christianity is a faith-based religion. Not necessarily empirical -- just faith. Faith is the evidence of things hoped for, of things not yet seen. How would you address that? Your list only demands things of God but being a Christian is reciprocal.

You have to have faith: faith that He exists, faith that Jesus died on the cross, was buried, and rose again after three days. You have to have a relationship with Him; being a Christian is absolutely not just believing in a deity and that's the end of it. It is neither so dumb nor so easy to be a Christian as you seem to imply it is.

[JBI]

Actually, the big bang doesn't explain anything. Why did it happen? There needs to be a push. No one can answer that - the big bang doesn't explain what came before it, or why it happened when it happened. Time itself doesn't just start.

There is no answer as to where matter came from - which is unexplainable. Good luck - there is no theory to give anything substantial. That isn't proof in itself of a God, I will admit, but it is enough to cast doubt that science has all the answers, which even scientists agree.

The concept of a Spinoza type God has nothing to do with organized religion, but it is just as practical as any hypothesis given by the scientific community.

[Etienne]

Actually, the big bang doesn't explain anything. Why did it happen? There needs to be a push.

Actually no, since Big Bang created matter, without matter (pre-Big Bang), no space, without space, no time. Therefore you cannot think about the Big Bang happening in some kind of temporal cause-effect way, there is in fact no "before" the Big Bang. Human is used to think everything in relation to time, unfortunately, time is is what is generally conceived, it is not some kind of universal measure. Merely a perspective.

There is no answer as to where matter came from - which is unexplainable.

Yes, yes, energy. But actually it is all pointless arguing over these, as none of us (I might be mistaken) has the necesary knowledge for such question. Physics are thrown everywhere in such discussions, by both sides of the argument, but none of them really understand it, and even though they would understand a simple part of it, the simple fact that they miss the big picture is most likely to make it irrelevant.

Besides using what seems like logic or common sense is also useless when this logic is of human size, and when what is discussed about is chemical reactions, powers, sizes, spaces that escape mere human intellection and imagination and require this scientifical abstraction.

So when talking about such notions of physics, we are basically all talking through our hats. And then it all comes down to religious discussions on internet forums, something that, JBI, is far, far worse than any Wikipedia has or will ever be.

[JBI]

Very well-put, eminently sensible list. I agree with you entirely, and in fact several of those things are what helped persuade me to become a Christian.

However it cannot be denied that at least in part, Christianity is a faith-based religion. Not necessarily empirical -- just faith. Faith is the evidence of things hoped for, of things not yet seen. How would you address that? Your list only demands things of God but being a Christian is reciprocal.

You have to have faith: faith that He exists, faith that Jesus died on the cross, was buried, and rose again after three days. You have to have a relationship with Him; being a Christian is absolutely not just believing in a deity and that's the end of it. It is neither so dumb nor so easy to be a Christian as you seem to imply it is.

Is it now? Is it easier than being an atheist, knowing when you die you end up in oblivion, and knowing that everyone else who died is already in oblivion? OR knowing that you are shunned from most society (especially the united states, and other extremist religious countries). There's not just that though - Atheism doesn't have a church charity basket to turn to in trouble - who is there to give it? Atheism doesn't have any of the luxuries of religion - that's why people believe.

It may not be easy to believe in Christ, but I doubt it is easier than the alternative, especially if you live in a religious country.

That being said - if it was Sweden, I think most people simply just wouldn't care - a better lifestyle - and perhaps why such countries seem so idyllic in portrayal.

[planet earth]

JBI

My comments will tackle two points

First, I believe because Allah deserves to be worshipped, by his creations, not because it is easier than atheism. Imagine if you have a son, that refuses to admit that you are his father. And you as a father love Him and pray for Him and want him, but he does not want to admit, because you might punish him for a mistake he has done. But if he comes closer and knows you, he will know, that it was out of love and paternal wisdom that you knew his own good. Similarly, Allah, who is not our father, but even nearer, He is our creator, that made us with His Hands, and knows what is best for us, who could we search for except Him?

THe second point concerning the Big Bang. I don't know if a verse in the Quran would explain this phenomenon. Allah says in His Final Holy Scripture the Quran:

ARE, THEN, they who are bent on denying the truth not aware that the heavens and the earth were [once] one single entity, which We then parted asunder? – and [that] We made out of water every living thing? Will they not, then, [begin to] believe?

In other words, the skies and earth were one unit and to be separated something similar to the Big Bang was ordered by Allah, who then made water the source of life to every living thing.

I really hope this explains anything at all.

[andave_ya]

Is it now? Is it easier than being an atheist, knowing when you die you end up in oblivion, and knowing that everyone else who died is already in oblivion? OR knowing that you are shunned from most society (especially the united states, and other extremist religious countries). There's not just that though - Atheism doesn't have a church charity basket to turn to in trouble - who is there to give it? Atheism doesn't have any of the luxuries of religion - that's why people believe.

It may not be easy to believe in Christ, but I doubt it is easier than the alternative, especially if you live in a religious country.

That being said - if it was Sweden, I think most people simply just wouldn't care - a better lifestyle - and perhaps why such countries seem so idyllic in portrayal.

When you die you end up in oblivion...No, you're absolutely right, that is harder than believing you will go to Heaven. But why do you believe that you'll end up in oblivion? This is probably the most difficult aspect of your post for me to understand. All of life -- and you want to just die and have an end of it? No hope? No want to be able to understand everything? Life is short and there is so much to learn and do; don't you feel the same? I read a sermon once by somebody whose name I forgot, and he said that Heaven won't just be harps and wings, but ever so much more. Those who love knowledge will have the Creator of all things to learn from. Those who love music will have celestial choirs to listen to -- Kepler's musical dreams of old! Those who love art will have colors that don't even exist in our spectrum -- how then can one opt for "oblivion" when there is so much more to know?

Shunned from society...Christians are shunned too. That said, what do you want me to say? It is, in the end, your choice, whether atheist or Christian or theist or deist or whatever you like, and therefore up to you to stand up to opposition. There's opposition for anything and everything out of the norm, and Christians have long since relinquished the right to guide that norm. Too, what is the point of believing something that everyone else believes? Taking into consideration the wide variety of humanity there's something a bit unusual and indeed a bit eerie in the idea of everyone believing the same thing.

Church charity basket…Not all churches are these benevolent, happy-making places you portray. Only the big churches can afford to have generous “church charity baskets.” The small unknowns, like my church, don’t even have a building, much less money to hand out like largesse. Furthermore, Christians – and I speak as one of them – are humans, not automatons. We have pride too. Most Christian families I know would have to be in straits worse than dire before they asked for money. The Bible says that the man of the house is supposed to provide for his family, and as much as possible, Christians try to keep to that.

Where atheists are supposed to get “church charity baskets” I don’t know. The government soon enough will be offering to all, and taking on the load of “come to me, all ye who are weary and heavy laden.”

A question: what are the “luxuries of religion?”

[Jilvin]

Um, the Big Bang theory isn't a theory about how the universe began, but a theory of the current development of the universe. What scientists mean when they tell laypersons that the Big Bang was "the beginning of time" really means that the conditions that occured before the rapid expansion of the universe would be inconsequential and undetectable.

[1n50mn14]

Actually, the big bang doesn't explain anything. Why did it happen? There needs to be a push. No one can answer that - the big bang doesn't explain what came before it, or why it happened when it happened. Time itself doesn't just start.

Scientifically, and I am NOT a scientist, so this is the best way I can put it, but the Big Bang would actually prove the existance of a God, or a sentient being. As far as we can tell, the Big Bang occurred because a single atom was condensed so densely that the energy within it was too great to contain. However, because it was only a single atom, there were no other influences, no other reasons for it to ... well... BANG. Leading us to beleive it had to make the choice to do so. Or something like that... there was a lot more string and particle theory in the actual discussion... Ummm... aha.

Time is a human invention and only relative to us.

[bazarov]

3. Miraculous occurences brought about by prayer.

If thousands of believers gather to pray for the recovery of a large group of random patients, and these patients alone (and almost nobody else) see a completely abnormal and statistically significant recovery from their ailments, and this experiment could be repeated and verified, I would convert immediately.

I've seen that, and believe me; it was shocking. And scienctificly unexplainable also.

II. Inconclusive, but compelling evidence for a religion

1. A genuinely flawless and consistent Holy Book.

If I were to find a Holy Book of considerable size without any self-contradictions or errors (by errors I mean blatantly wrong about empirical evidence), it would be extremely compelling evidence for the veracity of that religion.

What's wrong with Bible?

[Redzeppelin]

The entire premise of this thread is pointless: one does not believe in God because God has been sufficiently "proven" enough to overcome human doubt. If you read the Bible, Paul makes it clear in the NT that the desire to know God comes from God - and that the clarity of vision necessary to believe comes from God - but that clarity comes only when the individual truly desires to know God - not from some "show me" attitude. Honestly, if one is predisposed to disbelieve in God due to a lack of "empirical" evidence, providing said evidence wouldn't work. Even if God did actually decide to speak audibly to a nonbeliever, the odds are pretty good that the nonbeliever would concoct some alternative explanation (I was hallucinating, a dream, medication malfunctioned, etc). Seriously, both nonbelievers and believers choose what they believe, based upon "evidence" that they believe proves their case - but it only proves their case in that they have already decided what they wish to believe.

[billyjack]

the desire to know God comes from God - and that the clarity of vision necessary to believe comes from God - but that clarity comes only when the individual truly desires to know God -

So, the desire/drive to know x comes from x. similar to saying that the drive for food comes from food-- which it doesnt, it comes from hunger (just as the desire to know god comes from some people's hunger for meaning and purpose, not god). Now you could say that the desire for everything is rooted in god, but to say that everything is one-thing is basically saying nothing--you can't do anything with it

Seriously, both nonbelievers and believers choose what they believe, based upon "evidence" that they believe proves their case - but it only proves their case in that they have already decided what they wish to believe

truth

[Redzeppelin]

So, the desire/drive to know x comes from x. similar to saying that the drive for food comes from food-- which it doesnt, it comes from hunger (just as the desire to know god comes from some people's hunger for meaning and purpose, not god). Now you could say that the desire for everything is rooted in god, but to say that everything is one-thing is basically saying nothing--you can't do anything with it

Not quite the same. The presence of hunger does not prove the existence of food, but it does suggest that we were designed to be fueled in a certain way by certain substances. In the same way, the "hunger" for meaning and purpose comes from God in that God designed us to be in relationship with Him; that we can override that desire (via a stubborn insistence that God "prove" Himself to us before we'll believe) or misinterpret it (largely the explanation for our numerous addictive and self-destructive behaviors) doesn't diminish the fact that we were made to be in relationship with Him. He created us with that desire - and our attempt to fulfill that desire with drink, drugs, sex, food, etc, attests to our need to fill an emptiness in our hearts that only God can fill.

In other words, the desire for transcendance that we feel - whether it is transcendance through artistic expression, sex, mind-altering drugs, or whatever - is due to our desire for God (which is partly why GK Chesterton once wrote (paraphrase) that "every man knocking on the door of a brothel is really seeking God" (and ancient temples to Aphrodite bear this idea out). So - those who demand "proof" really don't want to know God at all - just as the man who demands proof that a woman loves him before he'll inter into relationship with her demands the impossible because such an attitude already says "I'm only interested in you so far as you confirm something to me that I feel I must have" - now how well would that work? Any woman subjected to that attitude would fail the man's "test" because she would refuse to open herself up to such a demand. Both partners undertake the equal risk of opening up and learning about each other, assuming that the other is just as genuinely interested as we are. God is no different. Since the Bible tells us that God IS love, I think the comparison valid.

God exists beyond our 4 dimensions - He is not subject to empirical proof any more than love is - they can only be experienced - and largely internally so.

truth

Right - but non-believers will not go along with this; they will insist they have an empirical basis for their doubt - but that's not really true; just because God won't reveal Himself in a way that subjects Himself to our tools of measurement doesn't mean He doesn't exist - any more than we could definitively say that the man who doesn't send flowers or cards to his wife doesn't really love her. He may deeply love her, but he may choose to express that love in less "objectively" measurable ways. (Bad analogy, but I'm in a hurry.)

[The Atheist]

Scientifically, and I am NOT a scientist, so this is the best way I can put it, but the Big Bang would actually prove the existance of a God, or a sentient being.

Nope. Nothing of the sort. Not only does it prove nothing, it suggests nothing either. "Big Bang" is a two word phrase to descibe an enormous number of likely theories as to what happened. 99.999999999% of it deals with the universe a nanosecond after its creation.

As far as we can tell, the Big Bang occurred because a single atom was condensed so densely that the energy within it was too great to contain. However, because it was only a single atom, there were no other influences, no other reasons for it to ... well... BANG. Leading us to beleive it had to make the choice to do so. Or something like that... there was a lot more string and particle theory in the actual discussion... Ummm... aha.

Not even close. Here's a good start to what "Big Bang" actually does mean.

Time is a human invention and only relative to us.

Time, as in hours, days, minutes and years is certainly human construct, but the fact that the universe is expanding means that time as a concept does actually exist. The space a galaxy occupies now is different to the space it occupied 10,000 earth years ago, and while nobody cares what time it was, it has definitely moved and not instantaneously, so time does pass, whether you're wearing a watch or not.

[Virgil]

Not quite the same. The presence of hunger does not prove the existence of food, but it does suggest that we were designed to be fueled in a certain way by certain substances. In the same way, the "hunger" for meaning and purpose comes from God in that God designed us to be in relationship with Him; that we can override that desire (via a stubborn insistence that God "prove" Himself to us before we'll believe) or misinterpret it (largely the explanation for our numerous addictive and self-destructive behaviors) doesn't diminish the fact that we were made to be in relationship with Him. He created us with that desire - and our attempt to fulfill that desire with drink, drugs, sex, food, etc, attests to our need to fill an emptiness in our hearts that only God can fill.

In other words, the desire for transcendance that we feel - whether it is transcendance through artistic expression, sex, mind-altering drugs, or whatever - is due to our desire for God (which is partly why GK Chesterton once wrote (paraphrase) that "every man knocking on the door of a brothel is really seeking God" (and ancient temples to Aphrodite bear this idea out). So - those who demand "proof" really don't want to know God at all - just as the man who demands proof that a woman loves him before he'll inter into relationship with her demands the impossible because such an attitude already says "I'm only interested in you so far as you confirm something to me that I feel I must have" - now how well would that work? Any woman subjected to that attitude would fail the man's "test" because she would refuse to open herself up to such a demand. Both partners undertake the equal risk of opening up and learning about each other, assuming that the other is just as genuinely interested as we are. God is no different. Since the Bible tells us that God IS love, I think the comparison valid.

God exists beyond our 4 dimensions - He is not subject to empirical proof any more than love is - they can only be experienced - and largely internally so.

Zep, that is exactly what I have believed and thought and never really formulated into a well thought process for the longest time. That was so well said that it needs to be copied and saved. I intend to copy that post and save it into my word files. Thanks.

[The Atheist]

I've seen that, and believe me; it was shocking. And scienctificly unexplainable also.

I'd love to hear more details. I've investigated lots of allegedly miraculous medical cures and none of them have been very convincing.

What's wrong with Bible?

Depends which version you're reading!