What Would Convince You To Not Believe?

Originally posted by JS357
Maybe they don't know. I don't know what it would take for me to stop lacking belief in deity.

I'm sure you'd believe if you just had objective evidence. Right? What if scientists confirmed that a corpse had been dead for three days, and after praying to a deity, it came back to life, while observed under strict labratory conditions? And what if this test was repeated over and over again with the same results, even after peer-review from the scientific community?

And what if it didn't stop with that; similar rusults happen with people being healed of severed limbs on the spot, after praying in a lab with scientists watching closely? Or healed of diseases in the same manner? Would you your "lack of belief" still not start to go away?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
SNIP.....

We all act on, and hold, firm convictions and have things that we accept as true (Are you disputing the
value of pi in Euclidean geometry?) to simply function and get through the day.

i can get through the day without believing any of it. [b] i accept them as true until such time as new information disputes it.
...[text shortened]... arguments in support of it.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm

don't believe any of it.[/b]

i can get through the day without believing any of it. i accept them as true until such time as new information disputes it.

And that there, to me, falls in the stated definitions of a belief.
Your acceptance of it being true (even with the caveat) constitutes in my book a belief that it is true.
Now you can get into tricky semantic water here because I for example accept as true (ie have a belief in the truth of)
evolutionary theory. I do not however Believe IN evolutionary theory, in the way that someone Believes IN god or Christian teachings.

The argument we are having is semantic in that we seem to have no real disagreement in our underlying meanings.

However the semantics matter because the vast majority of people do not use (or perhaps accept) the definition of
belief that you do. And certainly you will find great difficulty finding any theists who agree.

So your use of the word is confusing as you mean something different from everyone else when you use it.

Now if your reason for doing so is clarity and for making your meaning clearer I have to say that you have failed and
are making your meaning less clear.

As the problem is the use of the word belief and disagreement over what it means, stop using it.

Employ the rationalists taboo and avoid the word entirely http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Rationalist_taboo

[The] Rationalist taboo is a technique for fighting muddles in discussions. By prohibiting the use of a certain word and all the words synonymous to it, people are forced to elucidate the specific contextual meaning they want to express, thus removing ambiguity otherwise present in a single word.

Say what you actually mean by using other words rather than trying to force everyone else to accept your definition of the word belief.


We seem to be in agreement (and I agree with the author of the web-link you gave) about the dangers of faith based thinking.

And we seem to agree in the way of determining what is likely real and true and what isn't.

What we disagree about is the meaning of the word belief.

I don't think we are going to agree a definition that we would both accept that solves our argument, and we are even less likely
to get anyone else to accept that definition, so lets instead agree (at least with each other) not to use the word at all and instead
replace it with the definition, or meaning that we are intending to convey.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
we had this discussion before and i stated my position. the problem with your view is that you are associating beliefs with knowledge. there is no association between the two.

one can have knowledge that something is true.
one can have a belief that something is true.

they can coincidentally overlap, but one is not necessary for the other.

[qu t.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm

don't believe any of it.

You can not believe in something without some knowledge of it, numbnuts! 😏

P.S. I doubt that you have enough knowledge to think. But if you do, then you only think you have knowledge that something is true. Logically then you can not believe anything. It is impossible to believe you can think.

Originally posted by vivify
I'm sure you'd believe if you just had objective evidence. Right? What if scientists confirmed that a corpse had been dead for three days, and after praying to a deity, it came back to life, while observed under strict labratory conditions? And what if this test was repeated over and over again with the same results, even after peer-review from the scienti ...[text shortened]... healed of severed limbs on the spot, after praying in a lab with scientists watching closely?

That wouldn't be evidence for a god (at least as described in the bible/by theists).

It would be evidence of something we don't yet understand and possibly of some entity
more powerful than us but there are many many possible alternative explanations and the
trouble with the 'god hypothesis' is that it is inherently the least likely explanation for anything.
Which means for any significant probability to be attached to it, the evidence must rule out
ALL other more likely possibilities first.

I really can't think of anything that would be convincing evidence of the existence of an all
powerful god
(although that is not the same as convincing evidence of a super powerful being that is powerful
enough to act like one)
However an all powerful god should be able to work out what it would take to convince me so
that is only a problem if it decides not to provide evidence of it's existence.

But to try to impart the scale of what it would take I usually give this example of what kind of
evidence it would take.

The entire solar system is rearranged inside of a day, with dozens of new gas giants added inside
the habitable zone each with hundreds of moons many of which are earth like and habitable and
earth becomes one of those moons, and each gas giant with surrounding moons is encircled by
a fully terraformed Banksian orbital and the whole lot are kept in neat regular and impossible orbits
in contravention of the laws of gravity and the whole rearranging of the solar-system is done such that
there are no devastating (or damaging) changes to tides or flurry's of earthquakes due to the gravitational
shifts.

THAT would get my attention, and be extremely useful.

It wouldn't be evidence of an omnipotent (powerful as logically possible) god.

But it's a step in the right direction.

None of this weeping statues, or look at the miracle of life nonsense that usually gets touted as a miracle.

Originally posted by vivify
I'm sure you'd believe if you just had objective evidence. Right? What if scientists confirmed that a corpse had been dead for three days, and after praying to a deity, it came back to life, while observed under strict labratory conditions?

I don't see belief in deity coming to me that way. That would be an observation of the workings of the natural world. So far in history, observations of the natural world are understood via further, systematic observation of the natural world. If this approach fails, we are only justified to say our theories are wrong. It returns us to an ignorant state. It does not create knowledge.

A deviation from the the regularities we see in our natural world would be no more or less proof of deity, than those regularities are. One could even say that such an incident could shake their faith in a Lawmaker.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That wouldn't be evidence for a god (at least as described in the bible/by theists).

It would be evidence of something we don't yet understand and possibly of some entity
more powerful than us but there are many many possible alternative explanations and the
trouble with the 'god hypothesis' is that it is inherently the least likely explanation fo ...[text shortened]... statues, or look at the miracle of life nonsense that usually gets touted as a miracle.

Yeah, like your arse is purple and yellow, right? That should make a good explanation for the non-existence of God. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
You seem like a reasonable and logical person in your recent explanation, unlike VoidSpirit and some others. So I do not understand why you think my belief, in a creator God and that the theory of evolution is stupid, is so logically unreasonable.

Ok, well I said this in the post you responded to...

"Now as a proponent of Bayesian reasoning I would hold that beyond accepting your own existence
and the laws of logic and mathematics and thus the existence of some sort of reality...
All knowledge/information about the world/universe/reality is uncertain and probabilistic.

There is no absolute 100% certainty about the nature of the reality we live in.

There is no black and white, just shades of grey.

However there are shades of grey so light as to be almost indistinguishable from white.
And likewise shades of grey so dark as to be almost indistinguishable from black.

And using logic and reason via Bayesian theory we can calculate the probabilities as to what is or
isn't real about our reality and what is or is not true based on the evidence (observations) of the
reality we live in."

Which basically means that every thing we would claim to know about reality is and must be
probabilistic based on the evidence we have.

Bayesian theory is what tells us what probability a hypothesis has given the evidence we have for it.

I think that your positions are logically unreasonable for many reasons but the main one is simply that
based on the current evidence the probability that what you believe (as stated) is right is too tiny to
contemplate.

I distinguish between the possible and the probable.

Is it possible you are right? yes.

Is it probable that you are right? Absolutely not.

In the same way that it's possible that the sun wont rise in the East tomorrow it is not in any way remotely
probable and thus not something you can justifiably or rationally believe in.

Now of course we disagree over what constitutes evidence and what evidence is available but to answer the
question of why your position seems (and is) to be logically unreasonable is that it is not supported by the evidence
(as I see it).

If the evidence were different I would hold a different view, but it isn't different, and so I don't.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yeah, like your arse is purple and yellow, right? That should make a good explanation for the non-existence of God. 😏

That's just nonsensical.

Originally posted by JS357
I don't see belief in deity coming to me that way. That would be an observation of the workings of the natural world. So far in history, observations of the natural world are understood via further, systematic observation of the natural world. If this approach fails, we are only justified to say our theories are wrong. It returns us to an ignorant state. It do ...[text shortened]... gularities are. One could even say that such an incident could shake their faith in a Lawmaker.

So would it be fair to say, that people like RJ Hinds are correct; that no matter what evidence is given to you and atheists like you, that you will always refuse to believe?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Is that meant to be a play on the name of God "YAH" meaning "I am"?

No, "I think, therefore I am" was stated by Descartes in the 17th century, I can take no credit for that part. Per my extrapolation, the fact that I, me, a human being (mostly) exist is proof enough to me that God exists, without even having to look outside oneself at other miracles of creation. If there is other meaning or play on words, it was not designed by me. However, I have always thought it remarkably authoritative and definitive when God refered to his name as "I Am" (in English, translated of course, meaning is unaltered). This simple statement implies so much for such economy of words. To those that seek answers to who God is, or where did he originate, this simple and elegant phrase indicates all that is deemed for us to know, or indeed all that we can comprehend of the infinite.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That's just nonsensical.

Now you are getting the idea. Maybe. 😏

Originally posted by vivify
So would it be fair to say, that people like RJ Hinds are correct; that no matter what evidence is given to you and atheists like you, that you will always refuse to believe?

No, it would not be fair to say that at all.

The problem is that what they are claiming to exist (an omnipotent and infinitely complex god)
is inherently the least plausible possible thing to exist.

It correspondingly has the biggest possible burden of proof to justify believing in it's existence.

It's not surprising therefore that we have a hard time imagining anything that would actually
constitute proof that it exists.

However you don't prove the existence of such a being IT proves it's own existence if it so chooses.

Thus the only thing that needs to know how to prove the existence of god is god.

And being omnipotent this shouldn't be a problem.




However there is a distinction between believing or not in the existence of a god or gods.
And actually worshipping them.

I fall into the camp that says that even if you could convince me that a god exists I would believe
that it exists (thus would be a theist) but I am still not going to worship it.

Originally posted by CLL53
No, "I think, therefore I am" was stated by Descartes in the 17th century, I can take no credit for that part. Per my extrapolation, the fact that I, me, a human being (mostly) exist is proof enough to me that God exists, without even having to look outside oneself at other miracles of creation. If there is other meaning or play on words, it was not designed ...[text shortened]... tes all that is deemed for us to know, or indeed all that we can comprehend of the infinite.

I am glad that you are not taking the name of the Lord in vain.

HalleluYAH !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, it would not be fair to say that at all.

The problem is that what they are claiming to exist (an omnipotent and infinitely complex god)
is inherently the least plausible possible thing to exist.

It correspondingly has the biggest possible burden of proof to justify believing in it's existence.

It's not surprising therefore that we have a h d believe
that it exists (thus would be a theist) but I am still not going to worship it.

I have yet to hear any logical and reasonable explanation from you for the existence of the heavens and the Earth and life to replace the one that the supreme being and creator God did it. You already know my opinion of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution -- stupid! 😏

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, it would not be fair to say that at all.

The problem is that what they are claiming to exist (an omnipotent and infinitely complex god)
is inherently the least plausible possible thing to exist.

It correspondingly has the biggest possible burden of proof to justify believing in it's existence.

It's not surprising therefore that we have a h d believe
that it exists (thus would be a theist) but I am still not going to worship it.

Are you saying it's possible to convince you to believe, if certain evidence for it could be presented? If so, can you think of an example of such evidence?