100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: What would it take? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Actually this is a continuation of a discussion texasscoundrel and I were having in another thread.
He asked me a question that I had never given much thought. He asked me what it would take to make me believe? Those weren't the exact words, but that was the gist. So now I'm asking other agnostics/atheists, what would it take to convince you and why? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would take physical proof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I asked this same question a while back. I didn't get any good answers,but maybe one will come up here.
People always say "proof." But,what would that proof have to be? I know exactly what it would take to sway my views on every other opinion I have. But, when it comes to god, I don't know what would convince me. If I saw something with my own eyes, I'd just think I was hallucinating. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual physical proof |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There will never be a point at which science could confirm nor deny the existence of any divine beings. while we may eventually think we can answer everything about the universe, that does not imply that some god put it there to begin with or is still altering the effects, which we label as laws of nature.
Because of that I don't think I ever will believe in their existence, but I think that the purpose of religion lately has become more of a social support system than a teaching tool of why things are. Without religion though we would have been hard pressed to form the social moral systems we have now, such as being nice to others etc, as we'd have nothing to reason as to WHY it is right to act in such a way and wrong to not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There will never be a point at which science could confirm nor deny the existence of any divine beings. while we may eventually think we can answer everything about the universe, that does not imply that some god put it there to begin with or is still altering the effects, which we label as laws of nature. Because of that I don't think I ever will believe in their existence, but I think that the purpose of religion lately has become more of a social support system than a teaching tool of why things are. Without religion though we would have been hard pressed to form the social moral systems we have now, such as being nice to others etc, as we'd have nothing to reason as to WHY it is right to act in such a way and wrong to not. Confirming god would be a simple matter. Or at least the actions of god. Do people that pray have their needs met more often than people that don't? Praying for that matter would have to be a transfer of energy from one mind to the mind of god. We should be able to measure it if it does in fact take place. Everyone keeps saying actual proof. What would that proof have to be? If god came down and spoke to every person on earth at the same time, giving each the same message would that be proof or mass hallucination? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This question is actually more interesting than I first thought. Saying "physical proof" is one thing, but what the heck kind of proof would it be? Raising people from the dead, walking on water, I mean, most of these things you'd automatically think of as some kind of magic trick. But the real point is, are they what's really "the point" about God? God is a pretty large concept, especially the "all knowing" part. I can't even think how you could test that. This is the problem I've always had with God. By definition, it's beyond our power to grasp.
|
|
|
|
|
