frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





What would convince you of God's existence?

Debate Information

What would convince you of God’s Existence?

So, this is basically a question for those non-believers (NOT DENIERS). What exactly would convince you of either a Deistic or Theistic divine?

However, before we continue, I would just like to clarify what is meant by me when using the following terms, if I choose to use them that is:

1. Atheism – The lack of belief, without belief, non-belief, disbelief etc. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/atheist, https://www.lexico.com/en/synonym/atheist. Please note that by referencing the Oxford dictionary and thesaurus I am not saying this is the true definition of Atheism just because a dictionary says so or I would be making the “appeal to the dictionary “(also an “appeal to an authority”) fallacy. I am simply stating that this is the definition that I personally ascribe to and which I will do throughout this discussion. Lastly, with regard to this paragraph I would also like to make it very clear that what I do NOT mean by Atheism is the Denying of a creator; that is not what this discussion is about. You might also find it interesting to note that if you’ve ever done well on verbal reasoning tests, you’ll also ideally understand that the terms “Atheism” and “Denialism” are miles apart in meaning from one another.

2. Unfalsifiable – “Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.” https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/178/Unfalsifiability

3. Theism – “Belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.” - https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/theism

4. Deism – “Belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.” https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/deism

Now regarding the question, I asked at the beginning of this discussion I felt prompted to ask it after just recently re-watching some question period of a video debate between William Lane Craig and Non-theist Daniel Came.

During this period Daniel Came was asked about what convince him that God existed of which he made references to burning crosses in the Sky or the words of Jesus Christ being discovered of every subatomic particle. I personally believe Daniel Came was doing well before he said, “burning crosses in the sky” and seemed somewhat contradictory to what he was saying before. As for the latter part I am not entirely sure what to make of that.

Still, Daniel Came’s responses are still far superior to what other Atheists have said about this question where they have said stuff like God speaking to them in clouds would convince them of his existence.

What would convince you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDRcDDSEx2Q






Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    I use something analogous to scientific method in all areas of my life. The following algorithm is roughly what I use:

    1. Is this hypothesis needed?
    2. What is the evidence supporting it?
    3. Is there any evidence contradicting it?
    4. What are the predictions I can make that will hold if this hypothesis is true, but fail if it is not?
    5. Do those predictions hold true?

    Step 1 is needed because there is, in principle, infinity of possible hypotheses, and we should only be interested in those that expand our understanding, rather than cluttering it. Hypotheses that explain something that we already can explain confidently are useless.
    Step 2 is needed as the first basic test; if there is no evidence supporting the hypothesis, then it is nothing but fantasy.
    Step 3 tests the hypothesis for how well it describes the observable phenomena. Most hypotheses I make fail at this step.
    Step 4, again, comes back to the usefulness of the hypothesis: if the hypothesis does not lead to any predictions, then there is no point seriously considering it.
    Step 5 is the final test, and if the hypothesis, at least, predominantly passes it, then it becomes a part of my world view.

    So far all claims of God's existence failed to pass steps 1, 2 and 4. In light of this, them passing step 3 is irrelevant, and I am not even considering step 5, given how far down the ladder it is.

    What would convince me of God's existence is a theory of such that would pass all 5 steps. This means that:

    1. There should be a demonstrable problem with our current theories that does not seem solvable without introducing the idea of existence of the supreme intelligent being.
    2. There should be direct, tangible evidence supporting its existence. Something like, "We cannot explain how this structure could possibly arise here in the middle of nowhere, with no trace of any living beings ever coming here in the last few million years, hence it must have been created by someone supernatural".
    3. There must be nothing outright contradicting our theory of what the God would be like. Note that, for this to even be of relevance, the previous 2 steps must be passed, and our theory must be concrete enough for us to be able to formulate what such evidence would look like.
    4. There must be possible outcomes of some experiments that differ, based on God's existence or non-existence. For example, if our theory includes the existence of Hell and Heaven, then we must be able to perform some experiments allowing us to interact with these entities - not "in the afterlife", but right here, right now.
    5. And these experiments must achieve the outcome we expect if our theory was true. For example, the characteristic temperature in Hell would be higher than on Earth, and if that is not the case, then our theory is wrong.

    Note that I am overcomplicating things. I do not actually expect scientific papers written in a rigorous manner on this for me to be convinced of God's existence; I am not that obtuse. I would accept a regular argument from a non-specialist that satisfies all 5 steps in a loose way. The problem is, nobody has suggested such an argument so far, and I doubt anyone ever will.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    An all powerful god could instantaneously let himself be known to each and every person on the planet in such a way denial of his /her existence  would be impossible as god allegedly can do anything 
    ZeusAres42Plaffelvohfen
  • MayCaesar said:
    I use something analogous to scientific method in all areas of my life. The following algorithm is roughly what I use:

    1. Is this hypothesis needed?
    2. What is the evidence supporting it?
    3. Is there any evidence contradicting it?
    4. What are the predictions I can make that will hold if this hypothesis is true, but fail if it is not?
    5. Do those predictions hold true?

    Step 1 is needed because there is, in principle, infinity of possible hypotheses, and we should only be interested in those that expand our understanding, rather than cluttering it. Hypotheses that explain something that we already can explain confidently are useless.
    Step 2 is needed as the first basic test; if there is no evidence supporting the hypothesis, then it is nothing but fantasy.
    Step 3 tests the hypothesis for how well it describes the observable phenomena. Most hypotheses I make fail at this step.
    Step 4, again, comes back to the usefulness of the hypothesis: if the hypothesis does not lead to any predictions, then there is no point seriously considering it.
    Step 5 is the final test, and if the hypothesis, at least, predominantly passes it, then it becomes a part of my world view.
    Well, this bit here is rather interesting but I feel we might border onto another topic for discussion. In addition, this has also got me thinking and I might soon make a debate topic that explores more of the stuff here among others.

    What would convince me of God's existence is a theory of such that would pass all 5 steps. This means that:

    1. There should be a demonstrable problem with our current theories that does not seem solvable without introducing the idea of existence of the supreme intelligent being.
    2. There should be direct, tangible evidence supporting its existence. Something like, "We cannot explain how this structure could possibly arise here in the middle of nowhere, with no trace of any living beings ever coming here in the last few million years, hence it must have been created by someone supernatural".
    3. There must be nothing outright contradicting our theory of what the God would be like. Note that, for this to even be of relevance, the previous 2 steps must be passed, and our theory must be concrete enough for us to be able to formulate what such evidence would look like.
    4. There must be possible outcomes of some experiments that differ, based on God's existence or non-existence. For example, if our theory includes the existence of Hell and Heaven, then we must be able to perform some experiments allowing us to interact with these entities - not "in the afterlife", but right here, right now.
    5. And these experiments must achieve the outcome we expect if our theory was true. For example, the characteristic temperature in Hell would be higher than on Earth, and if that is not the case, then our theory is wrong.

    Note that I am overcomplicating things. I do not actually expect scientific papers written in a rigorous manner on this for me to be convinced of God's existence; I am not that obtuse. I would accept a regular argument from a non-specialist that satisfies all 5 steps in a loose way. The problem is, nobody has suggested such an argument so far, and I doubt anyone ever will.

    Well, this all seems very interesting too as well as little complex. I am not too sure what to make of this just yet; probably because I'm a bit under the weather right now lol. Might need to read it a few times haha. Still, it seems like an interesting read nonetheless. 
    MayCaesar



  • Dee said:
    An all powerful god could instantaneously let himself be known to each and every person on the planet in such a way denial of his /her existence  would be impossible as god allegedly can do anything 
    This I think I will have to concur with, especially with regard to a Theistic God anyway. Things with regard to Deism on the other hand can get somewhat complex.
    Plaffelvohfen



  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    You can voluntarily believe in the existence of God, or not.

    Being that there's not enough science, to disprove the existence of God, Jesus, or the Bible.

    Outside of some of the "published anti God" commentary that is self fueled by both individual opinion and perception. 

    "What would convince you of God's existence?"

    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch