Atheists: What data would get you to consider believing in the existence of a deity?

Question

For me: If it could be reproducibly demonstrated that prayer could change to outcome of events I’d seriously consider belief.

Read "Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: Randomised control trial." L. Leibovici, 2001, BMJ, 323(7327):1450-1451.

I have. Other studies have shown prayer to be ineffective.

Answer 1

It should be very easy for God to convince me that he exists. If he's as all powerful as some people say he is, then he could do it in an instant. But he's never made the effort. That proves to me that either he doesn't exist, or he's screwing with the world. I prefer to believe that it's the former.

Answer 2

Read "Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: Randomised control trial." L. Leibovici, 2001, BMJ, 323(7327):1450-1451.

Answer 3

Well, an actual appearance by a deity would go a long way towards convincing me.

The test endorsed by the Bible, with the various altars and flames sent from heaven to consume one would also be a pretty good start.

The various other miracles - parting of the Red Sea, water into wine, making the lame walk and the blind see, etc. - would be a good start as well.

The Christians claim that these things happened, and that they demonstrate the existence of a god, but they can't back it up. If God can do these things, let's see him do 'em. Otherwise it's no different from me saying "I can fly by flapping my arms", and then refusing to demonstrate, insisting that you just believe it on my word.

Answer 4

A knock on the door from HER, in the flesh, with irrefutable proof that she is a deity - plus a promise that her followers have been instructed NOT to bother everybody else, and to mind their own spiritual business.

Prayer changing events would not be evidence of a deity - it would only be evidence that wishing yields results (not that a being is behind it). Similarly, "everything around us" is not evidence of the existence of any god - it is merely evidence that everything around us exists.

Answer 5

Any supposed "miracle" demonstartes that SOME natrual patterns are not well understood by science, but none would necessarily require a God to explain. There is no possible evidence for a deity.

Answer 6

Then who, pray tell, created humanity? - look at your guy or woman absurd words - "who" - it is your pre-end, attempt actual questioning. Now bypass returned in time until there exchange into purely one variety of species in the international. There would desire to have been one cellular who started that species. - No, there exchange into never "one" species or perhaps "one" variety of cellular. Who created abiogenesis? - as quickly as returned - who - absurd, yet needed on your paradigm. would desire to the primordial soup have relatively offered the standards for the commencing up of existence? - Of the dozen or so variations on that topic, confident, they have all shown those standards. i don't have faith a cellular of such complexity would have been spontaneously generated by a random combination of inorganic molecules. - fortuitously technology and intelligence does not place self assurance in what you "have faith". moreover, if this alteration into real, why hasn't it surpassed off returned or merely replicated in labs? - that's happening today on the white human beings who smoke alongside the mid-Atlantic ridge considering they have chanced on there all of the climate and compounds that is abiogenesis, additionally they have chanced on a similar amino acid systems in stllar clouds. that's happening and it takes hundreds of thousands of years, it is why it has not been re-created in a lab, yet. Its thoroughly irrational yet we could merely think abiogenesis is real for the sake of it - And magic from and impossible and unproven deity is rational? even although, this type calls which you will have had some thing there interior the 1st place to reason the upward thrust - confident, the fall down of the previous universe, advert infinitum. would desire to the singularity relatively have looked simply by random quantum fluctuations in empty area? - that's a shown danger, however the great fall down is a greater advantageous state of affairs. i don't think of you could answer those basically significant questions. - they have ALL been spoke back, yet you will never discover them analyzing fundie captions. for this reason God is the respond. - The classic argument from lack of knowledge, i don't understand and refuse to benefit so goddidit, that it is impossible and entirely unproven. you would be delusional to have faith that technology has defined all of the solutions to our existence from a biochemical and cosmological attitude. - And this from somebody who has no theory approximately which they talk.

Answer 7

I would consider belief if I were to literally witness water turn to wine without plausible scientific explanations.

I would also give a pat on the back to the person who literally can take two polar bears, two penguins, two water bears, two alpacas.... two of every one of the hundreds of thousands of species of beetles, bees, wasps, poisonous frogs, chupacabras, Komodo dragons... on a raft in "x" amount of time before a gigantic planned rain.

Answer 8

Here's a study about the power of prayer, published by the american heart journal:

http://www.ahjonline.com/article/PIIS0002870305006484/fulltext?browse_volume=151&issue_key=TOC%40%40JOURNALSNOSUPP%40YMHJ%400151%400004&issue_preview=no&select1=no&select1=no&vol=

Answer 9

The appearance of the almighty himself. That would convince me.

Answer 10

You would obviously need to define down your requirement a little. Two million cancer sufferers and one "miraculous" cure would not qualify.

How would you conduct "blind", "double blind" and "placebo" tests?