Evidence

Here is an open question to creationist and literalists: If you were presented with (and I phrase this as a hypothetical thought experiment) solid evidence with no chance of error that there was no god, what would that do to your faith?I know this may sound like a daft question, take a minute to think. What would happen to your paradigm?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

It is extremely hypothetical.How do you provide absolutely solid evidence (or any evidence at all for that matter) to "prove" a negative?Adminnemooseus

I can't imagine what such eveidence would be short of GOD coming down and telling folk that He didn't exist. But if such evidence were presented I don't see how there could be any reaction other than "Well, it looks like I was wrong."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You got me there, I did not think it through as well as I could have. A question I ask in my job (CBT therapsist) when people have entrenched beliefs about the world is : how much evidence would it take for you to question you beliefs? If the client cannot imagine any evidence that would challenge his or her beliefs then there is no room for arguement. This struck me as a stumbling point in the creo vs evo debate.This message has been edited by Larni, 09-22-2005 10:39 AM

I guess thats my question, how much evidence is enough to reject creationism or literal interpretaions of the bible? On these pages I'v seen scientific evidence rejected because it is not in line with the bible. The evidence for creation seems to be the bible. How much evidence does it take?

I think the content of your message 6 has been worked over in other recent topics, for which I'm not the one that's going to do the search.Per your message 5: I think exploring one of these other beliefs, excluding any religious items, would make for a better topic. Not that I don't at large support AdminJar's efforts (I do), but perhaps this should have been the direction the topic should have been guided prior to it being promoted out of the Proposed New Topics forum.AdminnemooseusEdit: Fixed typos (which I didn't catch despite having used the preview feature).This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-22-2005 11:49 AM

the only thing science ever does is prove negatives. they rule out things and what can no longer be ruled out must be true.as to the question.. i suppose it would have to shift, wouldn't it? i'd prolly read kuhn again.

It would destroy it. I'm no creationist/literalist but I do like believing in god. If it was proven he didn't exist, then I could let go of my faith. I'd have to switch to hedonism.

Not sure how a non religious belief fits what I wanted. Your right about post 6 I have found. Will go back to the drawing board. Thanks for the advice, will take it on board.

Creationism is no big deal to me. It happened one way or another.
God as first uncaused cause is more serious to me philosophically.
Literal Bible is not a bigt deal when the book is viewed in contexts.
A literal death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is very important to my faith...and the evidence that pokes holes in the Bibles reliability as evidence are themselves not strong enough sources to sway me much. If anything, I have come to accept that God is more interested in all of us getting along (with Him included) than He is whether or not we follow the right guidebook.To totally convince me that God does not exist would be hard, because I trust my experience in meeting Him (delusional or not) as of a higher persuasive value than anything that human wisdom can throw at me. I think that a lot of this answer boils down to what a person wants to believe. A lot also boils down to influence and experience (or perception) of the supernatural.I suppose that if I were convinced, I would scratch my head and mutter that I really should not have smoked all that pot as a young teenager!

"I think that a lot of this answer boils down to what a person wants to believe. "Good point. Hope I'm not going OT here but what do you think defines what we want to believe?

Certainly you are not off topic in a thread entitled "Evidence" in the Faith and Belief forum! Some of us are very emotional. We are romantics. Others of us are logical and rational. We are empirical and are more scientifically skeptical. I want to believe in God because my life changed one day when I swore that I met Him. The day is still so vivid in my memory that I almost feel sacreligious in describing it in a detached and rational way, but I DO remember that the event itself was less remarkable than the transformation that followed it.I would honestly say that since that meeting, I have wanted to believe more than ever at times, and disbelieve occasionally..just so I could check and see if I still had a will! Critics would say that my epiphany is similar to young children who ever so want to believe in Santa Claus, but if I know my Lord that day, I know Him today and I pray that His light shines out in the darkness that has not quite understood Him!This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-23-2005 05:23 AM

So it's a subjective experience interpreted by you as evidence of god?

Actually, it is quite a few subjective experiences. Mere coincidence certainly did not apply.