Search This Blog

Friday, February 11, 2011

What would be compelling evidence?

One tired refrain is that there would never being enough proof to convince an atheist that God is real and that Jesus is God. That is simply not true. All we ask is for real, tangible, unequivocal evidence.

But what we get is contradictory stories that may or may not have been from the person they are attributed to. We get stories that have been shown to be altered over time. We get bombarded by bible verses which Christians seem to believe will sway us, not comprehending that we completely discount their origin being the inspired word of God. We are shown prophecies which are proven by the bible saying it was fulfilled. Some are so vague that any event could be used to prove it. Many of these prophecies have been shown to be completely false, yet they are continually shown to us as well as “proof”.
We are asked to believe stories that contradict known scientific fact. We are asked to believe stories that cannot have occurred the way they are described in the bible.

You claim your religion is different and unique. But it is not. We see the history of your story being developed from older religions. Many of the stories are simply rehashed versions of older stories, repackaged for a new audience. On top of that, there is no physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people.

In other words, what we get is nothing of any substance.

So, what would be compelling evidence? For example, God could have made the cross burst into flame after Jesus was taken done and allowed it to burn for all time as proof of the story. A 2000 year old cross that never consumes itself and cannot be doused would be pretty compelling. According to your fable he made a bush burn without consuming itself, so we know he is capable of that. (By the way, what made the bush finally stop burning?) My point is that there are ways of providing proof that would be very convincing to skeptics. Actually, the very reason we are skeptics is that there is no compelling evidence. If there was undeniable evidence, we would not be skeptics.

"If there really was one true god, it should be the ultimate entity of the entire cosmos. If a being of that magnitude ever wrote a book, then there would only be one such document; one book of God. It would be dominant everywhere in the world with no predecessors or parallels or alternatives in any language, because mere human authors couldn’t possibly compete with it. And you wouldn’t need faith to believe it, because it would be consistent with all evidence and demonstrably true, revealing profound morality and wisdom far beyond contemporary human capacity. It would invariably inspire a unity of common belief for every reader. If God wrote it, we could expect no less. But what we see instead is the very opposite of that." - Aronra
It is amazing that an all knowing God cannot understand what constitutes compelling evidence. Especially, since He supposedly loves us and wants everyone to go to Heaven. It is even more amazing that theists cannot grasp this idea either.

However, here is one idea of why God cannot grasp this concept; he is imaginary.

No comments:

Post a Comment