Why would it be? It's been a very civilised discussion on how people come to hold their views.
How did you lose faith in religion? And why is there so many believers out there
- Thread starter Johnnytoxic
- Start date
Why would it be? It's been a very civilised discussion on how people come to hold their views.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,647
because it goes around in circles.
As do an awful lot of threads in here!
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 1,533
- Location
- Cornwall, England
Well, it would have to be very strong evidence.
Even if I thought I saw a supernatural being (whatever that may look like) with my own eyes I don't think that would be enough proof, a more rational explanation would be that I was on drugs or having some kind of hallucination.
So my answer is I don't know.
Well, it would have to be very strong evidence.
Even if I thought I saw a supernatural being (whatever that may look like) with my own eyes I don't think that would be enough proof, a more rational explanation would be that I was on drugs or having some kind of hallucination.
So my answer is I don't know.
I meant what type of evidence i.e. scientific?
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Feb 2013
- Posts
- 2,468
- Location
- Birmingham
Wait, people actually still believe in the global flood story in the Bible? You do know that there has never been enough water on the planet in order to produce a global flood in the lifetime of our species? And if you suggest asteroids depositing water may have caused a global flood then you should probably realise that such in such a situation water would be the least of every species concerns.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 1,533
- Location
- Cornwall, England
Well no, of course science has no evidence or will ever have any evidence for the existence of a supernatural being as science addresses the natural (not the supernatural).
Agreed. What other sort of evidence is there that would be sufficient?
For a start the evidence would need to be verified by a third party, something which pretty much all supernatural things don't seem to have (or fail when they try, such as the James Randi experiment).
What evidence would you want to believe in Aliens say?.
It also depends on what specific claim you are asking, I'd need to know exactly what you mean by "a god" before attempting to reply as to what kind of evidence I'd need.
As if you propose an entity which doesn't exist (or is measurable in any way by it's impact on other matter) in our universe then it's a no-starter.
What evidence would you want to believe in Aliens say?.
It also depends on what specific claim you are asking, I'd need to know exactly what you mean by "a god" before attempting to reply as to what kind of evidence I'd need.
As if you propose an entity which doesn't exist (or is measurable in any way by it's impact on other matter) in our universe then it's a no-starter.
Last edited:
By a third party I'm assuming you mean this would have to be of a non-physical nature?
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 1,533
- Location
- Cornwall, England
Like I mentioned before, I don't know.
An event involving a supernatural being doing something significant and supernatural would have to occur and a lot of people would have to witness it and record the event (for it to be examined), even then I wouldn't be totally convinced.
In that case it sounds like there is no hope of ever finding out. I'm curious how you can reach a conclusion without understanding what type of evidence would convince you.
Do you have a particular numerical value in mind that would render a historical source accurate?
To be fair the James Randi experiment was arguably not passable by design and many applicants were not accepted or the criteria of the testing could not be agreed upon. The Challenge itself was criticised by sceptics and adherents alike.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 1,533
- Location
- Cornwall, England
Well yes it's hard to quantify what evidence I would need to believe in something supernatural, like I've said twice now I don't know.
What I find very odd is why adults who are capable of logical thought and reasoning will believe in a supernatural being with no evidence to support it's existence.
I thought the default position was to disbelief something until there is sufficient evidence, except if the premise is logical and has little impact, for example you could belief something like "John likes cheese" just on the face of it because it doesn't matter.
However something as important as a supernatural being should require substantial evidence and IMO shouldn't just be believed because you like the idea or your parents believe.
I wouldn't think the default position is disbelief, rather an agnostic position where a person simply doesn't know either way.
I agree that evidence should help form a decision but I think your requirement for substantial evidence is based on the assumption that atheism is true (which may or may not be the case).
Similarly, your implication that a belief in a supernatural power is irrational also seems to be built on the same assumption. Does this belief only seem irrational and logical because you simply don't believe the conclusion? It is possible for thiests to come to a conclusion rationally just as much as an athiest can reach a different conclusion rationally. To say that a given belief is irrational in itself is simply building an argument on an assumed conclusion.
Google for the genesis chapter and see what it says for yourself.
I know what it says, i was raised a christian...but what im asking is why your brain thinks a statement like that is legit? how can you say the life expectancy at the time was 120 years with a straight face?
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,524
- Location
- Woking
It's ********. The life span of a human has never been 120. The Bible is not a historically accurate document; only some of it reflects true history. I can't believe that you continue to argue that men lived for that long, and that the Biblical flood was real.