2007-03-22 11:32:02 · 14 answers · asked by Angelz 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Sorry I mean accept.
Appearing is good, but outside of that you say real evidence but don't explain what kind?
2007-03-22 11:38:35 · update #1
Sorry to have to tell you this godfather but it didn't start with Moses it started with Abraham, you should at least get your facts straight.
2007-03-22 11:41:16 · update #2
Jesus said they would not believe even if some one rose from the dead. I think he was right.
2007-03-22 11:37:45 · answer #1 · answered by Mr Marc 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
It wouldn't hurt if he'd actually appear.
Obviously if there were a god, it'd be child's play for him to make an appearance and demonstrate his existence, for example by describing a few specific events a couple of minutes before they occurred, waving his hands and having a tree grow before our eyes, asking us what color we'd like to see, and then turning the sky that color a few seconds later, etc.
Believers insist that nonbelievers are being stubborn and in denial - but they can't even produce simple evidence like that.
There may be a god - it's possible that we're wrong. But when believers say that it's _foolish_ for us to not believe in gods, they're being arrogant and dishonest. If you're honest about it, you know as well as we do that there's no evidence for the existence of a god, and therefore that it is NOT foolish to not believe. Yet over and over again believers tell us that it's foolish not to agree with their unsupported beliefs.
Worse, many believers insist that nonbelievers wouldn't believe even if god really did appear to us. But how would they know that? It seems to me that the believers who say that are going WAY out of their way to be childish and insulting, and it speaks very poorly for Christianity.
2007-03-22 18:35:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
For us to limit the kind of evidence acceptable would be unfair and unfairly biased. There are certain forms of evidence which everyone agrees don't work--arbitrary books, personal testimony, hearsay--but the forms of evidence which could work would be, I assume, endless...presuming there were something to prove. If you have evidence (REAL evidence) that a god exists, then I will be willing to examine that evidence, but I couldn't possibly tell you what kind to provide. Wouldn't be fair to you.
2007-03-22 18:48:37 · answer #3 · answered by N 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First things first: A book talking about him that didn't contradict itself. I am not an atheist. But I believe in a god, not God. So this question applies to me, as well. Next, God could be a little more consistent throughout history. And lastly, the religion around Him could begin with a group of people, not one man who had been in the wilderness for 40-some years before he saw a burning bush and heard it talking to him. Sounds like a hallucination to me.
2007-03-22 18:38:17 · answer #4 · answered by Godfather76 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'll be honest with you: God, as He has been defined to me, would be pretty hard to prove no matter what happened. Even if I saw Him do some amazing miraculous, science defying thing the question would still linger in my mind "Who created the creator?"
I suppose I could be convinced that I was created by an extremely powerful being through direct demonstration. I could even be convinced to worship said being. None of this would stop me from being curious about how He came about though.
2007-03-22 18:39:47 · answer #5 · answered by The Lobe 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There's no reason, in theory, why god's presence couldn't be measured or detected in some way. The only reason that believers claim that god "can't" be detected in this way is because god *isn't* detected, and so a vast and intricate rationale has to be devised to explain this vast, loving, eternal, all-powerful "something" which is, in every external, objective respect, indistinguishable from nothing.
2007-03-22 18:45:04 · answer #6 · answered by KryptonOne 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't quite believe "ghosts" to be real, but they (if they are) have given me way more 'evidence' of themselves then this god ever has...this god has done not a thing. Seriously, it would have to be showing up in person...how hard is that to do?
2007-03-22 18:38:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Physical proof. A god would have to appear, to prove a god exist. It shoudn't be outside of a gods power.
2007-03-22 18:45:09 · answer #8 · answered by Magus 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If he's all-powerful, as people say he is, then appearing before me shouldn't take much effort. If he could whisk me away to the Eiffel Tower for 30 seconds, I'd drop to my knees and follow him for the rest of my life.
I have my French-English dictionary with me. I'm ready to go.
2007-03-22 18:40:42 · answer #9 · answered by S K 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do you mean accept?
Most would like some real evidence. All that is offered is an ancient book.
2007-03-22 18:35:39 · answer #10 · answered by Sun: supporting gay rights 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
They would certainly accept if He appeared before them.
2007-03-22 18:35:47 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋