What would convince you?

[Wertbag]

I had a Christian ask me "if a undeniable miracle happened in front of you, say someone prayed and a lost limb grew back before your eyes, would you believe?"

Now this is a common point that apologists make, that there is often no amount of evidence that would be considered adequate.  We would doubt our sanity before we believed our eyes.  I considered the question, and my response was "I would accept that the supernatural exists, so my view of the universe was incorrect.  I wouldn't automatically accept a specific answer as to what caused that supernatural event, because it still didn't come with any communication, so I'd be left confused more than anything.  Why now?  Why this guy?  Why not the millions who asked for such help in the past?  The problem of suffering would rear its head.  It would show such help was possible but never given."

 

To my mind any event would fail to answer 99% of the questions, the only thing that could convince me would be communication.  God could chose at any time to tell me the correct answer.  Showing Himself by helping you find your lost keys, opening up a carpark or making your headache go away, just isn't enough.  And neither is calling fire from the sky, restoring limbs, or burning letters appearing in the sky.  It would tell you something is different to what we believe, but it wouldn't clarify what the right answer is.  The muslims would claim its Allah, the Christians would claim its Christ and the Scientologists would say they have the answer but you need to get them ten grand before they will tell you what it is.

 

So communication is the key, but it would have to be a shared experience.  Hearing voices would make you question your sanity rather than accept God.  It would have to a few people with the exact same experience, each asking questions and hearing each others answers.  Anything less would not work.

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, Wertbag said:

I had a Christian ask me "if a undeniable miracle happened in front of you, say someone prayed and a lost limb grew back before your eyes, would you believe?"

Now this is a common point that apologists make, that there is often no amount of evidence that would be considered adequate.  We would doubt our sanity before we believed our eyes. 

 

The apologist can claim that you would never believe under any circumstance....but  that doesnt really change the fact that their argument is hypothetical. An undeniable miracle has not happened, so who cares? They are simply trying to make you feel bad for not being a fool like them.  

 

Turn it around on them and say, "There is no amount of evidence that you would consider adequate to believe in Bigfoot. He could jump out of the bushes, do a little dance and you would just doubt your sanity before believing your eyes. 

 

Or say, "I'm not sure if I'd believe or not. Lord Jesus, give us a miracle, please!".... and then wait for it to happen for a minute. lol

[WarriorPoet]

To paraphrase Matt Dillahunty: an omniscient god would know what evidence would convince me, and an omnipotent god could produce it.