gw, I certainly did answer your original question. If God's rules
are posted on the moon, for all to read, I and others will take
notice!

* if I performed some verifiable miracle in front of you (flying, walking on water, raising the dead etc) and told you this was a power given to me by God would you not believe?*

GW, in India this kind of stuff goes on all the time, its a very
lucrative industry. From walking on hot coals to holy ash flaking
off pictures of Sai Baba, once they are purchased by the true believers, its all happening. There is a group called the Indian
Rationalists, which goes around explaining to the less educated and
gullible, why all this "magic" happens, in scientific terms.
Yet many true believers still believe, worship Sai Baba and others.

The thing is, when true believers want to believe, emotion takes
over reason and that is what they believe, ie. it satisfies emotional
needs. Jesus really loves them etc. They feel better!

If you take some time to understand the human mind, you will realise
that its full of brain chemicals being manufactured on a constant
basis. Homeostasis matters! The rational, deductive part of the
human brain, is only one small section.

Hey it keeps you happy and content, fair enough. So what about
those rules on the moon for evidence?

I think you are closer to understanding my point than you realize, gw.

>>For example lets say you are trying to convince a blind person that the colour Red exists. Given they cannot see it, and have never seen it, what evidence would you give them that the colour red does actually exist?<<

What, exactly, would be the point of attempting to provide evidence?

By definition their belief (yes, I believe there is a colour red, gw, just like you tell me) or disbelief (carn, gw, you're kidding me, right?) aren't going to matter a fig, either to them or you.

It is not, after all, information that they can actually use, is it?

If you had to say "look out, the colour red is about to land on you and kill you, move out of the way!", then belief would become important.

Very important, very quickly.

>>if I performed some verifiable miracle in front of you (flying, walking on water, raising the dead etc) and told you this was a power given to me by God would you not believe?<<

Once again, the believing here has nothing to do with the miracle, but to the telling me it's God part. I might look at you, raising the dead left right and centre, and still walk away saying "there has to be a scientific explanation to this"

The only "proof" would be the permanent, unquestioned existence amongst us, of that supreme being. Christians have told me that hey, that's exactly what we are talking about. But without belief, it can't occur.

As I said before, it is a non-question. If there were an obvious, self-evident and available supreme creator, both belief and non-belief would be meaningless concepts.

Thus the question - what would make you believe/not believe - is also meaningless.

Doesn't logic count for anything these days?

gw, as a former believer I've had some experience at this.
I doubt that there was one single thing but rather a variety of factors.

The biggest issue came down to the lack of differentiation in the lives of believers in different belief systems especially in the christain church which claims the indwelling of the holt spirit, renewing of minds etc. For the most part those claims don't stack up when compared to non-christains with lives that are values centered. If those claims were true then christains should be better people than those around them who place emphasis on values outside themselves. I'm not sure that I've explained that concept well.

I was also bothered by corporate governance in the church, if christ really was the head of the church, all knowing and all powerfull then the final responsibility for ongoing abuse of children by church employee's lies with him along with final responsibility for a bunch of other stuff that I wanted no part of.

I was bothered by the number of twists and turns christains seem to have to do to try and place a rational framework around their faith - Davids obsession with "make it up as you go" whilst trying to ignore the changing practice and theology of the church being a good example, his obsession with the violence in the foundation documents of Islam whilst ignoring the violence promoted by his god in the old testament being another.

I wrote the above when the opening post was the only one in the thread. Steel Man, from my perspective life is a lot better without the christian god but thats just my experience and it may not be the case for others. As I pointed out earlier the comparisons make more sense if done based on people living by a chosen value system. My own view is that there is not a clear difference when you look like that.

R0bert

OK trying to follow your logic here Pericles.

- on the point about the colour red, you could argue that it is quite important. Red is a danger signal in many parts of life, which a blind person doesnt see. But I take your point that it doesnt matter, because they cant see it. But that doesnt mean it doesnt exist right? Are you saying that you have to be able to experiance something with one of your primary senses for it to be real? What about something like time? You know time exists, and it is important but you dont experience it through touch, smell etc...

- on the point about wether the debate has any purpose I agree that if a God was obvious to all (like writing on the moon) then yes the debate about belief would be meaningless. But that wasnt what I asked! I was trying to ascertain how much evidence you would need...

cheers,

gw

If Christianity is wrong and athiesm is the truth, then when I die, I will be no worse off than the unbeliever. The only difference it would make to my life now is:
-I would be wasting about 10 to 15 minutes each day reading my Bible - but nevertheless the Bible contains some useful information on how to live a better life.
-I would be wasting my Sunday mornings in Church, but I still enjoy the fellowship with friends.
The atheist says that they will believe in God if they see him. I'l suppose I'll stop believeing in God when God tells me he doesn't exist.

Surely this question hinges on what people perceive god to be?

The god I read about in the old and new testaments is a judgemental, vengeful man who claims to love all his creation and lives in a place called heaven.

If this is the god that is being discussed here, no I do not believe in a being like this anymore more than I believe in Santa.

Do I believe there is an infinity of knowledge still waiting to be discovered?

YES

Do I believe that there may be a greater intelligence in the entire universe?

Possibly.

Did this greater intelligence create this universe?

Don't know.

For the sake of argument, if this greater intelligence did exist and did create the universe, would it expect me to worship it?

I don't think so; anything that arrogant wouldn't deserve worship.

If it was that clever, it would have better things to do than sit around in judgement of a bunch of primates on a tiny little planet at the far end of a starry arm of an ordinary galaxy.

As Pericles made very clear, this is a non-question. Not least because there are as many interpretations of god as there are people.

So, which god do you believe in GW?