If you were presented with a seemingly valid proof of God's existence, would you accept it or would you squirm uncomfortably while you looked for any and every reason to discount its validity?
2006-09-07 08:56:19 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I would consider it as I consider everything I read. If I found it to be solid empirical proof I'd adjust my beliefs accordingly. I am not against new knowledge and will always consider it.
2006-09-07 08:59:56 · answer #1 · answered by genaddt 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course I would consider it. I enjoy learning about all religions and why people believe in them. All I ask for is proof. I do not believe in God because I don't think I have been presented with valid proof. Seemingly valid? No.
2006-09-07 16:01:47 · answer #2 · answered by . 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
define what the seemingly valid proof would be?
If you can produce it I would happily examine it.
You have to remember most scientific proof is peer reviewed and examined as to its validity. It has to be able to be reproduced independently.
Since this is a "if you" question, is it safe to assume its hypothetical and you dont have any seemingly valid proof of any gods existence?
2006-09-07 16:03:58 · answer #3 · answered by Rob 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"SEEMINGLY valid proof of God's existence".
If there was only SEEMINGLY valid proof i most definitely would still look for other explanations. After all, what if it only SEEMS to be valid proof but ACTUALLY isn't? Would you prefer to discover TRUTH, or just believe what you like to hear? Would you prefer your ears ticked??
2006-09-08 00:08:52 · answer #4 · answered by CJunk 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is a "seemingly valid" proof? Believers have all kinds of those already, which don't work for me. All the logical arguments for god's existence have counter arguments from atheists.
You must be refering to some sort of physical evidence. It would of course depend on the evidence....ie.his mom's picture on a grilled cheese sandwich isn't quite up there. It would have to be demonstration of a physical event that could not be duplicated by stage magicians, or seemed to defy known natural laws. I would be happy with any of his old testament tricks...talking donkeys or snakes, part the Red Sea, stop the sun in the sky. Back in the good old days he seemed to realize that man would need something tangible. I don't know why he thinks modern man needs less evidence to believe.
God could make an indisputably convincing demonstration of his omnipotence if he chose to. The question for believers of course, is why he has chosen not to, or why he chooses to reveal himself in such obscure ways, (cheese sandwiches and crying statues) which are not at all convincing to us atheist/agnostic types. If he really really loves us, and doesn't want to send us to hell, you think he might make it just a teency tiny bit easier to believe in him.
This makes me think that he either doesn't exist, or he created me just to send me to hell. Now I am an agnostic atheist....you show me something convincing, and I will change my mind.
Go on......I'm waiting.
2006-09-07 16:08:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You agnostics are the ones looking for proof, not me. I know that any proof brought forward would be false. There would be no "squirming" involved. Whether or not I would try to disprove it depends on what form this "proof" took. If it was something I was knowledgeable about, then sure, I'd find what was wrong with it. If not, I'd be forced to let someone else do it.
2006-09-07 16:05:04 · answer #6 · answered by The Resurrectionist 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What's this about "seemingly valid"? Would you accept "seemingly valid" proof that God does NOT exist? I'm old enough to know "seemingly valid" is very, very far indeed from "valid".
Only the gullible would accept such evidence.
2006-09-07 16:01:46 · answer #7 · answered by ThePeter 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
What stage is this proof at? Has it been tested and verified, or is it just seemingly valid evidence? I guess I know what you're asking...I would be very skeptical, and would probably doubt that it proves the Yaweh god is true, since the Bible is BS.
2006-09-07 16:06:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't squirm, but I would definitely look into every possibility of how it could be fake, before I would give it credence.
When you watch a magician on stage, do you assume it's real magic?
If a guy walks up to you and says he's the son of god, and needs bus fare to get uptown, do you assume he's telling the truth?
Edit - And I'd like to add... I would be thrilled to see a magician that actually did do real magic. And I'd love to run into the son of god on the side of the road. I'd sincerely hope that something fantastic like that was happening. But in either case, it would be quite easy to see that neither are true.
2006-09-07 16:02:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
So... you're asking whether I'd immediately accept something MODERATELY PLAUSIBLE as FACT? No... not really. I guess that makes me a squirmer, huh?
Apparently the immeasurably important distinction between "seemingly valid" and "valid" is lost on some people.
2006-09-07 16:01:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
We atheists don't just want "proof" because we think there is a rational explanation for your "proof". We want whatever God has to say directly from God instead of using go betweens like "the son of God" and prophets. If God exists, how come he does nothing directly? Very suspicious.
2006-09-07 16:03:38 · answer #11 · answered by cptcanuck2 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋