Question for atheists

[TagliatelliMonster]

sense of awe and wonder

??

I don't get it...

So you're just really contructing an argument from awe / incredulity / ignorance? Sounds like it.

 

[PruePhillip]

So, if you were burned from head to toe in a car crash, disfigured by scar tissue, had no ability to grow hair, and two amputated limbs, but while in the hospital somebody laid their hands on you and prayed over you, and the scar tissue left, your limbs were restored, and your baldness replaced with a full head of hair, would you consider the possibility that God exists, especially since you used your new limbs to run around the hospital twice, and heard a voice loudly and clearly say, “I am God”, and proceeded to tell you some of what is true about him, and there was no one else to be seen nearby.

Would you still be an atheist? Would you start praying?

I am fine with the idea of God, I just think this story is bogus.
And if people have faith in God, why make stories?

 

[PruePhillip]

??

I don't get it...

So you're just really contructing an argument from awe / incredulity / ignorance? Sounds like it.

yes, awe, incredulity and ignorance.
How did something come from nothing
when nothing was really NOTHING, ie no time, space, physical laws, energy etc..
Awe that everything in the universe has a physical reason, but there's no reason (?) for the beginning.
Incredulity that Genesis 1 gives us the precise sequence of events, but in theological language.

 

[SkepticThinker]

My body has just instantly regenerated and there is a lot of evidence that this is not possible. I've also heard god speaking to me. The main argument against god's existence is a lack of evidence, I've just had some evidence that he does.


It's not magical thinking if my body has just magically regenerated. I've not seen any evidence that religious people are less happy on average, so don't see that as a major downside. A reasonable chance at eternal hellfire as opposed to eternal bliss, is a pretty big downside.

As I said earlier, assuming he tells me which is the right religion, I'd become an adherent. It would be stupidly irrational not to.

Put it this way, if there was even a 1% chance that a gangster wanted to kidnap and brutally torture you for 40 years and you could do something to possibly prevent it, would you: a) do something to prevent it even if that something is a minor inconvenience b) do nothing and hope for the best.

This isn't necessarily directed toward you, but it made me think ...

Why is it that we leap directly to divine sources and gods instead of other potential sources like aliens or invisible pixies or something else like that? Why do we assume those options are less likely than some divine super power that lives beyond time and space (or whatever)?

 

[Polymath257]

yes, awe, incredulity and ignorance.
How did something come from nothing
when nothing was really NOTHING, ie no time, space, physical laws, energy etc..
Awe that everything in the universe has a physical reason, but there's no reason (?) for the beginning.
Incredulity that Genesis 1 gives us the precise sequence of events, but in theological language.

But Genesis doesn't describe something coming from nothing. It describes God creating the world out of water.

 

[Augustus]

Why is it that we leap directly to divine sources and gods instead of other potential sources like aliens or invisible pixies or something else like that? Why do we assume those options are less likely than some divine super power that lives beyond time and space (or whatever)?

In this case it was the fact that the miracle was immediately followed by hearing the voice of god.

If it was followed by me speaking to an alien who said he'd cured me, I'd be inclined to give aliens the credit unless someone presented me with a more reasonable explanation

 

[SkepticThinker]

In this case it was the fact that the miracle was immediately followed by hearing the voice of god.

If it was followed by me speaking to an alien who said he'd cured me, I'd be inclined to give aliens the credit unless someone presented me with a more reasonable explanation

But how do we know it's the voice of God, and not the voice of an alien or a pixie? What does God's voice even sound like? What does an alien sound like?

 

[Augustus]

But how do we know it's the voice of God, and not the voice of an alien or a pixie? What does God's voice even sound like? What does an alien sound like?

Contingent on the fact that I've just experienced by far the most miraculous event in human history, if a voice said "I'm god, I healed you so would appreciate it if you became an Anglican/Shiite/Mormon/etc. and if you don't I'll be angry and cook you in hell for all of eternity" I'd consider that it makes far more sense to assume it was god rather than invisible pixies playing a jape.

 

[stvdv]

??

I don't get it...

So you're just really contructing an argument from awe / incredulity / ignorance? Sounds like it.

I am open to miracles. The universe is a mystery and full of miracles, and when one was healed, as described in the OP, that would be a miracle too. Not too much to attribute this to God IMO. And feeling of awe and wonder seems spot on to me.

I love to keep my feeling of awe and wonder. Even if others mock it. Maybe they only try to communicate that they lost it.

I have experienced myself quite a few miracles and I have seen with others a few. So, although @PopeADope his hypothetical miracles are even for me "almost too much", I rather keep myself open to anything.

And remembering @PopeADope his personal miraculous death escapes (coming close to what he describes in his OP), I would definitely not call his OP

The OP posits a ridiculous hypothetical that is unworthy of a serious answer.

My original reply was to the above quote, with which I hugely disagree.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Contingent on the fact that I've just experienced by far the most miraculous event in human history, if a voice said "I'm god, I healed you so would appreciate it if you became an Anglican/Shiite/Mormon/etc. and if you don't I'll be angry and cook you in hell for all of eternity" I'd consider that it makes far more sense to assume it was god rather than invisible pixies playing a jape.

Okay. But I'm still not sure why god(s) would be more plausible than pixies or aliens who think they're gods. Or maybe the trickster god Loki is talking to you. There are equal amounts of evidence (or lack thereof) for all of them, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But Genesis doesn't describe something coming from nothing. It describes God creating the world out of water.

It also doesn't "give us the precise sequence of events," either.

 

[viole]

So, if you were burned from head to toe in a car crash, disfigured by scar tissue, had no ability to grow hair, and two amputated limbs, but while in the hospital somebody laid their hands on you and prayed over you, and the scar tissue left, your limbs were restored, and your baldness replaced with a full head of hair, would you consider the possibility that God exists, especially since you used your new limbs to run around the hospital twice, and heard a voice loudly and clearly say, “I am God”, and proceeded to tell you some of what is true about him, and there was no one else to be seen nearby.

Would you still be an atheist? Would you start praying?

I would probably consider it. As I would consider anything else if there was sufficient evidence. Including things like Superman, Batman, etc.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Howard Is]

Would you still be an atheist? Would you start praying?

Since ‘there is providence in the fall of a sparrow’ I would have to wonder why such a powerful God, who could so easily heal me, had allowed me to be burned up in the first place.

If the reason was so that I would accept Him as all powerful, and worship Him, I would be forced to realise that I was used as the battered plaything of a Cosmic Sado -Narcissist,

 

[Left Coast]

Of course it is evidence. Evidence =/= proof.

No.

If we're having a conversation about whether x is caused by a or b, and we agree either a or b could cause x, and we can't actually tell the difference between whether a did it or b did it, then it makes no sense to say, "well obviously x is evidence that a did it."

Hearing god directly tell you about the one true faith immediately after an assumedly impossible event occurring certainly is evidence. Until a better explanation is presented, I'd consider it the most likely.

But we already agreed that there is another explanation that is indistinguishable from God. It could be a natural event you don't understand. So you have no basis to assess God as more likely.

With asymmetric payoffs, you can be far from certain about something yet it is still rational to assume it may happen.

Lots of things may happen. The question is whether you will alter your behavior on the assumption that they will happen, no matter how little evidence there is or how unlikely they may be. Don't go outside today! You may get abducted by an alien! It could happen!

I'm of the opinion that it makes far more sense to assume it was god than was not god. You think that absent 100% certainty it better to assume it was not god. It's a difference in philosophy regarding uncertainty.

Lol no, I don't need 100% certainty. You have no basis for saying God is more likely because you've already agreed God is indistinguishable from unlikely unexplained nature, so they're at best equally likely.

And in the entire history of humanity, whenever some unexplained, seemingly impossible or magical event occurs, and we actually get all the information about it...lo and behold, it's never God or magic, it's always nature, explained by physics.

I'm not 100% certain man-made global warming is happening, but I still think it prudent to assume it is until proven otherwise as the costs of being wrong are too great.

Bad example. There is ample empirical evidence man-made global warming is actually happening that can't rationally be otherwise explained, so it makes sense for us to conclude it is so. You don't need to assume anything, you can come to a probabilistic conclusion that it is far more likely true than not.

Anyway, it's not like the OP scenario is actually going to happen

Exactly.

 

[stvdv]

Has anything like that ever happened? Ever?

Probably not to a Skeptic Thinker

 

[stvdv]

I was talking about a jog outside of the hospital

Strange they missed that part, maybe they were even hallucinating when reading the OP.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Probably not to a Skeptic Thinker

Pardon?
You don't think that wondering when such a thing has ever happened in the history of humankind is a skeptical position?

 

[stvdv]

Pardon?
You don't think that wondering when such a thing has ever happened in the history of humankind is a skeptical position?

No. Not what I said.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No. Not what I said.

I'm asking you to explain what you said because I don't understand what you were trying to say.

 

[stvdv]

So, if you were burned from head to toe in a car crash, disfigured by scar tissue, had no ability to grow hair, and two amputated limbs, but while in the hospital somebody laid their hands on you and prayed over you, and the scar tissue left, your limbs were restored, and your baldness replaced with a full head of hair, would you consider the possibility that God exists, especially since you used your new limbs to run around the hospital twice, and heard a voice loudly and clearly say, “I am God”, and proceeded to tell you some of what is true about him, and there was no one else to be seen nearby.

Would you still be an atheist? Would you start praying?

Has anything like that ever happened? Ever?

Probably not to a Skeptic Thinker

Pardon?
You don't think that wondering when such a thing has ever happened in the history of humankind is a skeptical position?

No. Not what I said.

I'm asking you to explain what you said because I don't understand what you were trying to say.

PopeADope: He creates an incredible unbelievable hypothesis
SkepticThinker replies: "Has anything like that ever happened? Ever?"
stvdv replies: "Probably not to a Skeptic Thinker"

I think very simple in this thread. So I can't explain it more simple.

Maybe the below would have been more clear.

PopeADope: He creates an incredible unbelievable hypothesis
SkepticThinker replies: "Has anything like that ever happened? Ever?"
stvdv replies: "(That happened) Probably not to a Skeptic Thinker"