Maybe not, but it sure is industrial strength evidence. Anyway, is there anything you would be willing to accept as proof there is no God? There isn't, is there? Well, well, isn't that convenient for you. Fact is, jack, you're a theist because it's more emotionally satisfying to you, aren't you? Come on, be a man, just admit it. There's no way in hell someone chooses to believe in God -- in a God they pray to, who they think listens to them, and talks to them, and provides them with an afterlife, and is the source of their (and everyone's) morality etc -- on the evidence for it. Well, if not on the evidence, why? Because it's emotionally satisfying.
Oh, that's too easy. If he pulled off a couple of unmistakable miracles, like he used to do all the time back in the day. Yeah, that'd be pretty good proof. Your turn.
If you viewed those events, how would you know you weren't just dreaming the event? How would you know you were not delusional at the time of viewing them? How would you know they weren't just a trick?
So is science atheist or just agnostic about the existence of Little Green Men? Your definition of "atheism" is so strict that no one would ever hold that position. In reality, atheism is simply the view that religious belief is so unlikely to be true that it is irrational to believe in it. All atheists accept that it is *logically possible* for God to exist, just as it is logically possible for Little Green Men to exist. They just think that the evidence is so pathetically weak, and alternative explanations so much more convincing, that for all intents and purposes we can assume that they do not in fact exist until we get convincing evidence to the contrary. If I met someone who sincerely believed in Little Green Men, preached to convert people to that belief, and based their code of morality around it, I would think them to be irrational and I assume you would too. You and Shoeshineboy are holding up straw men - no one is trying to argue in favour of scientific reductionism. Both myself, Axeman, and anyone who understands anything about science, are in total agreement with your position on hardcore scientific reductionism. You are trying to convicince us of something we already believe, something we most likely believe *even more* than you do. Your posts just comes across as an uninformed straw man ad hominem attack based on groundless (and, as it turns out, 100% incorrect) assumptions - more like non-rational emotional debating trickery, rather than an attempt to actually clarify and advance knowledge of the subject by examining each statement for logical consistency and the extent to which it is supported by empirical evidence.
Hahaha. Typical ART. Just plain typical. Dude, who cares whether I'd believe my own eyes if that crap happened. I probably wouldn't believe it, these days, with all the special effects tech we have. I can't be bothered getting involved in your mystical metaphysical bullshit. Just go and read Cutten's post, it explains everything. You sit there smugly taking pot shots at everyone who doesn't share your hokey view of the universe all because you've set up the game up in such a way that you can't be proven wrong. Even though you really don't have any good reason to believe you're doing anything more than talking to yourself with your prayers you believe it anyway? Why? Cos it feels good. Fine. But why should anyone take you seriously? As I like to say: God -- the imaginary solution to the imaginary problem.
Exactly. He has crafted himself an unfalsifiable, untestable, unverifiable position to hide behind. Only problem is... such a position is completely meaningless and carries no weight. peace axeman
You couldn't be sure. However, you would assess the evidence like you would any other evidence. For example, if a bearded man came up to me and introduced himself as Jesus Christ, I would be highly sceptical. If I had a dream involving god, I would assume it was about as true as my dreams involving Jennifer Lopez's ass. However, if in the dream the god told me that a bearded man would introduce himself as Jesus tomorrow, and then perform a miracle, and that indeed happened the next day, then the evidence would become much stronger. I could still be hallucinating, but if I told other people and they witnessed it too, then this would eliminate that possibility. If this Jesus then went round the world doing the same thing, the evidence would be extremely strong. If a bunch of evolutionary atheist scientists examined these miracles and found them to be true, and all converted to Christianity, then it would be very strong evidence indeed. If I said "Ok, if you can do miracles, how about parting the English Channel?" and he did it, it would be pretty hard to refute.