I was once talking with someone about my religious doubts and she said something like, "It sounds like you wouldn't believe unless you got a revelation from God." And it was said almost sarcastically like I was putting up an incredibly high bar where I was not willing to listen to answers from people. That got me thinking, if they claim that God wants a relationship with me, that's a testable claim. Talking to me to let me know that he exists is a very low bar for having a relationship.
@PiRobot314 That's very true. And that person seems to not have read her Bible well cause all the prophets, kings, and whatever in the Bible believed, taught & worked miracles BECAUSE they had revelation. For me, I just wish a fitting revelation & relationship was what God granted all humans and all living beings of all time.
@@baonemogomotsi7138 I don't think it's fair to say that she hasn't read her Bible. I was raised Christian with a Christian community around me. The apologetic I would hear had to do with the fact that Noah may have talked with God, but it took 600 years, so we need to be patient. But even still, taking one every 600 years is not much of a relationship
I mean, he has spoken a plethora of wisdom for us all to read, whether we choose to read it or not is up to us. He does guide and speak to us through scripture. Its His word there for us to read. He can (and often does) point us to verses that answer our concerns, or with anything that troubles us.
@@reubensearle8200 That's your experience, not the truth. God doesn't ''guide and speak'' to the Christians who abuse, mistreat, misuse, hurt & are hurt by others. Your God is as real to you as Brahma is to the Hindu All personal & theological belief, no evidence.
One of the biggest problems I run into when considering this question is precisely what God (or Christianity) we're talking about. The only versions of Christianity that seems palatable to me include the doctrine of universalism, and yet most Christians do not affirm this belief. So I feel that from the get-go I'm answering their question disingenuously by contorting their religion into something that it just isn't. And I doubt Christian aliens would change this. It seems so overwhelmingly implausible that a loving god would forake most of his children, many of whom have and still afe crying out in all earnest for for mere recognistion. Great food for thought here, Emerson. Thanks!
I do think some universalists dismiss the Christian tradition a little too glibly. How is it not a big deal that most Christians who ever existed were completely wrong about the afterlife? (Well, not completely wrong, since there is still a hell on universalism.) But I think it’s not an insurmountable problem. Christians can be wrong about Christianity, as any Christian knows. And I don’t buy the arguments that universalism is outright incompatible with Christian theism. Universalism exists in the tradition, and is arguably present in the New Testament.
Thats a good point. When christians ask this question they could either mean just the core doctrine of christianity, or their specific interpretation of it.
@@EmersonGreen Yeah, it's certainly not an insurmountable problem. That's true. Good point. I guess for me it comes down to the specificity, which you covered, to be fair. If the specificity of the alien religion is exactly the same as Christianity, with an almost one-to-one correspondence with doctrines, then this would suffice, but I'd have to exercise a lot of faith in many areas still. If it was simply a story of resurrection, though, something that Christians would interpret as God playing out the same motif in a different intelligent species, then I doubt this will cut it for me. It wouldn't surprise me if other social species have very similar archetypes and even religions to us. The "love your neighbour" message is, in more cases than not, a feature of religions because, as I see it, it's beneficial to a social species; venerate those who protect our collective lineage. Finding that an alien species has a very similar religion to Christianity would certainly be a major piece of evidence in its favour, but I don't think it would, for me, at least, surmount the seemingly incongruent state of an all loving god and so many of his children being forsaken. Combine this with the seemingly overwhelming gratuitous evil in the universe, and the moral relativity of Christianity's supposed objective morals, and I think I'd need the alien religion to be almost, if not entirely, a one-to-one with Christianity on earth.
@@rationalityrules Fascinating that you would find the idea of Christian Aliens to be sufficient evidence for Christianity, when one could come up with many different explanations that all seem more sensible than Christianity being true. For example, ancient aliens who for whatever reason wished to interfere in the developpment of certain intelligent species by masquerading as divine beings using their advanced technology and creating the same narrative accross all species they interacted with resulting in Christianity every time. Another one would which isn't naturalistic would be an evil God, working through sentient organisms of all planets to make them get the same religion, filled with all the contradictions, inhumane instructions, etc, after which he would punish those who wouldn't be convinced of his purposefully ridiculous religion. Although these scenarios certainly seem ludicrous, they would account for Christian Aliens and wouldn't require throwing logic out the window and believing that a tri-omni God created a world filled with unecessary suffering.
Wouldn’t a one-to-one correspondence with christian doctrines be a little too suspicious? Of course it can be used as evidence for Christianity, but it could also be used as evidence against it. I’m getting into pretty wacky territory here, but we’re talking about aliens after all lol. Couldn’t it be that those aliens were the ones who created Christianity to begin with and spread it across the galaxies like cosmic missionaries. Perhaps they created this myth and wanted to test its effects on certain complex intelligent lifeforms like humans, over thousands of years. The mere existence of Christian aliens doesn’t automatically mean that Christianity is true or that god exists; there are many possible explanations for why they could exist.
Here’s my answer: He needs to show up in my life. Simple as that. I would need him to show that he cares like I’m told he does. If I were told that some man named Bob really loved me, but he never visits with me, never messages me, never takes any time whatsoever to contact me, then I will doubt that he loves me or even exists. You don’t ghost someone you love.
I just want a billion dollars in my bank account. For a god, this should be a trivial 'miracle'. However, I do have a "due date" and well... these theists have still not managed to get their god to perform said miracle. Either they're lying or they're going to hell and thus, their god won't answer their prayers to make me a billionaire.
yep, the ways humans treat the other is only as seriously as they can when in person, just like how people are rampaging online, without seeing the person face to face, nothing is real, and if this goes for any relationship that a human can form, same goes for this, and as much as they deny it, they consider it a father figure, why? coz it's most relatable, their god is basically their own biological father but in transparent floating form, fortunately or unfortunately, many people don't have great father figures and that makes for either a discernment between believing in an alternate figure or completely dismissing it all and walk away
Evidence for me would be communication with human beings, not just alone but in groups. A recordable event. Not just once but multiple times over years. I am unable to comprehend how we are supposed to have a relationship with this being without a buildup of trust. This trust is earned from COMMUNICATION, not from a third party book.
@skwills1629 You missed the "and other example". Consistent requires at least two examples. Why do Catholics say Aposolitic Succession is important but Southern Baptists do not?
@@stephenolan5539 - No, I didn't Miss it, and I Really Resent how All Atheist Know How to do is Attack. Why should I Bother Answering the Apostolic Succession Question when You won't even Address what I said Properly? All Atheist do is Attack, and Never Defend. You Sociopaths want Special Privledge for Hour Silly Nonsensical Beliefs. Well I am Done with that. What You said is Absurd. It is Wrong on its Face. I don't have to Pretend its Not juist because You changed the Subject.
For the Christian God specifically: moving a mountain with faith alone will be enough for me. We can even repeat the test and have control groups praying to another gods for moving the mountain in a different direction, and one not praying at all. Then we compare the results.
@@TheCheapPhilosophy True enough... Though... How many narratives deal with the power of stories themselves? Certainly the stories the Nazi's told the German folks were pretty disastrous... 'Powerful' if you will. But clearly not psychokinetic notions. Fun for stories tho.
Let us not test the Father. If we refuse to humble ourselves to Him, why would HE (the father almighty, creator of all things) have to prove Himself to US? We are all headed for death, we dont even deserve what the Father has given us, not only through His word but through salvation.
The idea that a god that wants a relationship with everyone, would make itself known via a religious experience to one but not to another, makes zero sense to me. The fact that there are so many different religions with so many different ideas as to what their god wants or expects and that every person on the planet isn't on the same page in regards to their belief is the biggest reason I'm convinced that either there is no god, or if there is, that it couldn't care less about us.
If I was able to build a life-like simulation; I would be very curious about the entities that would "live" inside of this simulation if it could simulate life - another example; if you had a child would you want to have a relationship with him/her?
If the Abrahamic God were able to convince me that he were real, which he certainly could if he chose to, I don’t see how he could possibly convince me that he is moral, loving, consistent, or worthy of praise. Through his own words he’s an absolute beast. I wouldn’t want someone like that as a neighbor. I wouldn’t want someone like that outside of a maximum-security prison.
I wish atheist debaters would start each debate with a public prayer, asking god (if it exists) to show up at that debate, and finally settle the question. No more abstruse logic-chopping about the Kalam, or Contingency arguments, etc.,-just show up! If WL Craig can end each of his debates with an invitation to convert, we should begin with something just as practical.
I’m almost certain I’ve seen various hosts of “The Atheist Experience” do this very thing while debating theist callers. It’s been done. Also, many of us have personally, SEVERAL TIMES, done this very thing on our own, only to be ignored, as usual.
Calling God It is done to be Insulting. Its WHy I do not Respectt Atheists.; And Honestrly, God is already There, so doens't need to Show Up. Atheists are Bigoted Sociopaths. By the way, None of You even Understand Kalam, You Ridiculous it because You Think its Easier than Addressing it. And I Really Know You do not Listen to WIlliam Lane Craig. He's just a Buzz Word and Someone You are Programmed to Hate. After All, Craig does Not End each Debate with an Invitation to COnvert. But You;d Know that if You Knew Craig and not just Atheist Prattle.
@@WonderfulDeath It's even funnier when you realize that the few passages that it's based off of aren't even referring to anything like what they describe as the rapture at all.
One thing I feel that was not touched on which I found allowed for a better conversation when I have this conversation with theist. There is a difference between belief and worship, and the way you phrase the question it appears you (like many of the theist) use them interchangeably. The key point being even if I believe in God, does not mean I will convert in Christianity or worship him it merely means I will acknowledge his existence. Once worship and existence are dis-entangled, it is easier to talk about what are good reasons to believe something (is the belief justified and reasonable) separate from the if the god described is worthy of worship. As to what would make me believe, he would need to show up in my life some demonstrable manner which which has the same amount of evidence behind it as me knowing my dad exists. This is not the only thing that would make me believe, but it is the most succinct. Though as you mentioned it is a bit of a moot point, God would know what would convince me even if I do not know and has the power to do so. Further more if the bible is to be believed God knowingly created me requiring this level of evidence (and was able to create me differently) from the start and chose not to provide the evidence, so if I do not believe its not my fault, its God's. So as far as I am concerned, if God wants me to believe, its on him to make the case. Keep in mind this is not worship, this is just belief. As you said in your video many theist do not like when you point out how God is culpable, however, because I am using the claims of the bible itself it puts them in a bit of corner. As far as once I believe what would get me to worship, I would have to have a long chat with God about all the genocide, slavery, terrible reasons to do things, why he did nothing to correct the mistakes, etc. and it would depend.
An all loving, all powerful god. Then why am I an atheist? If he doesn't want to convince me, then he's not all loving. If he can't convince me, then he's not all powerful.
I had been writing probably too long of a comment as I listened to this video, only to have you state my overall point pretty succinctly in the last couple minutes. I’ll say this: for me, the rationality or irrationality of the believe in the assertion is in some respects beside the point. I and many others have had religious experience which we rationally attributed to god, only to later reattribute those experiences. The inherent subjectivity of it, to me, undercuts its potential for truthfulness, especially in light of how confident I had been in my prior Christian assertions.
"I don't know but God would Know" is not a cop-out. I am faced with the very real possibility that another society might possess technology that I could not distinguish from the supernatural. I lack the ability to contrive a test for God.
I think it is logically impossible for *any* being to know it is the ultimate foundation of reality with certainty. So if God couldn't profe this to itself with certainty it also couldn't prove it to us. But possible if the aliens were powerful enough we'd be wise to just go ahead and treat them as gods.
Working on my own video on this topic, so I thought I'd watch again. And I noticed something. You kinda give the best argument against religious experience earlier on in the video: "If I really try to convince myself that God exists without God doing much of anything, how can I be sure that I didn’t just play on my own cognitive biases and work myself up into believing." Or, I might add, working myself up into having a religious experience. I did exactly that when I was a Mormon. As for trusting our senses, do I really have to tell you or anyone who's scientifically literate why that's a terrible idea? I hope not. Love your channel and content. Keep it up!!!
First time listener to you. Interesting & relatable to me. I am one who lost faith starting in Bible College in early 1980s - from reading the Bible fully & terrified that the character depicted as God is in no way (practical to humans anyway) Good or Love or “unwilling that any should perish.” I’m obsessed ever since in leaning more and proving my perceptions wrong. Agnostic about the existence - and still not convinced I should willingly worship the Monster if proven He does exist. But I very much appreciate your acknowledgment that personal experience is VERY rational to the experiencer.
I don't Believe People Who claim to have become Atheist from Reading The Bible or that call God Terifying or Evil. I Have Read The Bible, and God is Locving in The Bible. The Cherry Picked God Ordered General-Cide The Flood was General Cide and Killed Innocent Babies Slavery and all that is Tommyrot. God is Not a Monster, and I Really don't Buy Into You being Honest. The whole If God exist and is as Described in The Bible He is Unworthy of Worship Routine is from The Atheist Experience, so IKnow its Not Really Your Thoughts. Spare Me the Great Minds Think Alike Claptrap.
But if the alien race also includes buddhism, islam, and maybe even a slew of other otherworldly religions, I think we're back to square one. It would require that Christianity is the only religion of the alien race or, at the very least, is the only religion shared by our races.
I dont think it would be square one exactly, since the fact that aliens have the exact same religions is still completely unexpected of naturalism and may at least narrow the possible gods that could exist. Basically, it may not convince me of one religion, but it would be a huge coincidence on naturalism.
That's fair, but I'm mostly responding to Emerson's notion of a total conversion to Christianity specifically. I don't think 'Christian aliens' is the slam dunk evidence he implied it was without some major caveats. Not to mention the question of whether or not their story of Jesus pertains to his time on earth or did he also live, die, and resurrect on their planet.@@igbo925
I have trouble imagining how we would decide an alien religion is "Christian" and we're not just projecting Christian ideas onto it. It's a bit like claiming correspondences between Norse and Olympian gods and such. Do we demand that their history includes a Roman empire, an Easter feast, a practice of crucifixion? How do we identify their savior with Jesus as opposed to Prometheus or Mithras or Odin?
The Idea of Religion You are using is a Western European Creation from the 1500's, and is More a Result of The Protestant Reformation and How We Conceptualised The Different Churches in The Reformation Era Legally. Historically it was less about being in "The One TRUE Religion TM", with all other Religions being False, but was about what was actually Taught, with Christianity being Understood as both Universal principles and Culturally Distinct Specifics. No One in Christianity before the 1500's Thought of God as "The Christian God", or though "The Muslimn god Allah" was a different god. And even in THe Colonial Period The Jesuit and Francistcin Missionaries to The Natives did not say The Great Spirit was a false god from a False Religion, but was simply Their Understanding of The Holy Spirit. And this was Not just a Trick to Convert The Natives, I Know How You Lot Love to Demionise Christians, but How They Wrote to The Roman Curia about it. Even in More Modern History the Concept of Religion We use did not Enter Asia Until the Late 29th Century. Christianity is Understood as True because it Reflects Principles and Facts and a History in The Real World, and whole the History and Culture is Unknown Outside of Those Who have been Exposed to it, the principles it is Rooted In are Understood to be Universal. Based on How Christians Historically Understood Christianity, and How Mist Still approach It, We'd not Expect Aliens to be Christian, Specifically, We'd Only Expect Them to be aware of God and Certain Universal principles or Truths. How those are expressed are Ultimately less Important.
@@TrueFork I don't think the idea works even in concept. Aliens would not be Christians because they are not humans. Christianity is about solving a problem humans have since Eden. Aliens would have an adjacent religion like how Judaism is. Believe the same God but have a different relationship with him than humans do. Also wouldn't we be projecting every idea onto them to some extent.
As for personal experience from a theistic perspective we would say god does reach out to us in the world we live in. That he has given us what we need to reach him through the world he made and his scripture. Like a man who lives away from a village may want people to come and visit him. He may gi out and invite them directly sure. He might put up a sign or flyer leading to his house. You could say the signs and flyers doesn't prove a man is down the road and that he didn't reach out to you personally. But it is not reasonable to say he did not reach out at all. Personally i have a problem with atheist saying that personal experience will convence them is often disgenuine. Many atheist say that if the had one they will simply conclude they hallucinated. Or they will be so skeptical og god that if they were consistent in their skepticism they would not believe most of what they do. In other words i think it is something atheist will claim to win an argument. Thats obviously not eveyone. But i have personally found that to be the case with many atheist. This is from someone who believes because personal experiences. Btw i use atheist to refer to agnostics and atheists. Just because many agnostics refer to themselves this way.
As a Christian, I had some such experiences. They were very confirmative. Then I heard testimonies from persons of other faiths and of no faith at all that were similar enough to cast doubt on the value of mystical experiences in determining what's real.
Banger vid as usual Emerson. Considering your interest in non classical theism and philosophy of mind, i would love to hear your thoughts on the combo of simulation theory with theism.
@@EmersonGreen awesome, I really like that guy but didn't know that was an area of interest for him. I'll look into his stuff more. If Joseph Smith was a zoomer, I definitely think he'd be cooking up some simulation theory Mormonism ✌️♥️
I wonder if the apologist is frustrated because a religious experience is outside of there ability to produce. In a way it is telling them there is nothing they could do to change your mind, but not that your mind can't be changed.
That’s interesting, I wonder if that’s a part of it. I once voiced my frustration with my lack of seeing any divine activity in my life, and Tyler McNabb said he was praying that I had the religious experience I was after. I thought that was a pretty good response, I wish more theists reacted that way.
Hey brother, great video as always, I am an agnostic turned heretic of sorts and would absolutely love to have a conversation with you about theism, the problem of evil and the hiddenness of God as well as any other topic you would be interested in, keep up the good work, looking forward to your next video!
Lots of competing people claim to have religious experiences, so I'm not certain me having one would be valid grounds for conversion. I wonder what the nature of the religious experience would have to be. I don't think it could just be a singular, brief, and emotionally powerful event; after all, I've had very powerful dreams and people who take DMT receive exactly that kind of experience, so how would I know I wasn't just dreaming or drugged? So I'm not really sure. Is it too greedy to ask that it's unambiguous, repeated, and specifically clears up my personal confusions with Christianity? But, I wouldn't need to have a religious experience to have that. Like you said, there are facts about the world that make belief in Christianity reasonable, but there are also facts about the world that make it seem impossible. If I get convinced by arguments/new discoveries that the facts about the world that make it seem impossible go away, then yeah I'd be Christian. Probably get a real good existential crisis over which kind of Christian to be though. I've heard good arguments for and against all sorts of versions and have no idea how I'd make a choice.
What would convince me of God's existence? That I would pray together with others and that we would hear exactly the same thing in an audible voice or a voice inside our heads. That would demonstrate that there is speech from God apart from our personal thoughts. But over the course of about 15 years as a believer, having prayed countless times with others, that never happened. And they call it a 'relationship'.
Before I can be convinced of God, I need a consistent and coherent definition of it, with detail sufficient to analyze whether it could exist. The fact that it is the bible that is our sole source to develop that, doesn't lead me to think that we even have enough knowledge to get that far. I am not saying that the bible couldn't be used to make such a definition, but that it can be interpreted in very different ways. There are so many critically important matters, that the bible leaves vague, or even contradictory, that it is hard to have any confidence in it's trustworthiness. And then there's that Romans 1:20 verse, saying we shouldn't even need to be convinced. If the bible is reasonably true, God should be clearly apparent. As you pointed out, the bible is making an assertion about what is in my head. One in direct contradiction to my experience and understanding. Finally, why don't we turn the question around for our theist questioner. What would it take for them to be convinced that God doesn't exist?
What if the God that exists doesn't care about a relationship or worship or belief? What if the virtues Christians take to be extremely profound, are not even connected to the God that exists? What then?
That was a really great video. Lots to think about. Just toying with the idea and its ramifications atm but what if the Christian aliens were not universalists? It seems to me that this might be some additional evidence in favour of Christianity granted its generally non universalist tradition. And yet not a welcome discovery for anyone who holds that universalism is the only plausible form of Christian theism. What do you reckon? Would it lead you to reconsider alternative explanations or would you still convert?
@@EmersonGreen Haha fair enough.. Though I'd say you might have your work cut out for you once they realise we also have the same general tradition. Having said that, I imagine basically every point of symmetry would be considered far more seriously so there would no doubt be many who might be caught out regardless
Hi Emerson. Incredibly fun… Some astrophysicists study exo planets. Some brave souls study exo biology. But you are inventing exo religious studies! This is so intellectually amusing that I shall don my best silk smoking jacket, retire to my library, tamp my meerschaum with that Dubai cherry tobacco I’ve been saving, draw up the comfortable leather chair, and indulge myself in long languid reflection upon the nature of nature itself. My good man, do accept my most hearty thanks. I am in your intellectual debt… Cheers.
A few answers: 1. A road to Damascus experience Paul could - Ask his friends who “saw/heard” it - Keep the “scales” that fell from his eyes - Get his blindness documented - Talk to Ananias and confirm details 2. Clear-cut experiences of independently developing Christianity on other planets, or in pre-Colombian Americans, or just in indisputable cases where there was a supernatural revelation 3. I like the Catholic mass miracle by CA. Certainly it would be difficult but not impossible to satisfy all conditions to show it wasn’t a hoax.
I had a "religious experience". It convinced me that all religions are human made constructs. While it was a glorious, liberating surge of understanding there was no hiding from the realisation that the voice I was hearing was my own.
I asked God to give me a sign because this was the last time I was asking and I meant it. This was after I went on quite a long journey, both physically and metaphorically, searching him out. The response broke me for a while. Seeing his back leaves you blind, seeing his face destroys you, and apparently hearing him talk shakes you for days and leaves you broken and crying on the floor for a good 20 mins or so hoping your wet shower puddle doesn't reach the plugged-in fan that's sitting in the middle of the floor. Maybe that's just me?
See that one still wouldn't convince me. I explained why in a longer comment, but if aliens observed us from afar, then they'd likely do so by picking up our various radio transmissions. If they absorbed enough Christian media content (and let's face it, it's not as if we don't pump out a lot of it), they might become convinced that it's true. That's the TL,DR version, but I think it shows that Divine revelation is not the only means by which ET could come to Christianity.
The biggest problem with religious experience is that every day our understanding of the mind increases and we have better explanations to what people would call "religious experience", so that a supernatural explanation becomes unnecessary and, eventually, insufficient by itself to be a plausible "conversion reason". But, in the same vein, this is a very clear case of non-commutativity, in the sense that if someone has the mental framework and the necessary baggage to understand those "heightened states", what can cause them and how they can manifest a priori to the religious experience, this person would be very unlikely to be persuaded by it. But if the knowledge comes a posteriori to the religious experience, the person is much more likely to reason that "such a thing is what happens to people from *other* religions, but mine is the true one", so the religious experience conversion is something that preys on the ignorance(with no value judgement) of the person in question.
Exactly, when you understand how easily our brains can create false memories, or how readily our senses betray us, then your first reaction upon experiencing something apparently supernatural is going to be to pull back the curtain and look behind it.
Well, keep diving in to Craig Keener and JP Moreland on miracles! :D and Caleb Jackson's upcoming book Do you think Near-Death Experiences would as plausibly convince you as these other things?
I think Phenomenal Conservatism is basically the foundation of the second and third point. Fair enough. I personally am basically as sceptical as can get and although I do have reasons for that, maybe we all are just pushed towards these positions by our psychology. Trusting or agreeable people would tend to be more favorable to PC, whereas Radical Scepticism is more appealing to people who have trust issues. If PC has any truth in it at all, it would be in a descriptive form. That is, I do think it is the case that we take phenomena for granted unless there's any defeater, but I don't think we _should_ do this. I have no problem granting rationality for cheap, but that just cheapens rationality. Rationality has worth for me because I think that by being rational I can attain truth. At this point we're again faced with a difference in disposition I think. There's "My worldview is just as plausible as any other" and "My worldview is just as implausible as any other".
In my web of beliefs there is are several *very small classes of seemings* which I put at least some credence in. The entire rest of seemings are worth *exactly zero* to me. They're in the "no better than flipping a coin" category.
@@cynicviper Some clear categories of seemings which have "earned their pay", so to speak. One part of my web of beliefs is the belief that *most seemings are wrong.* But I also have other beliefs of the form "seemings about X are usually right". Where each and every X is justified *separately,* with no over-arching "super-justification". For example: seemings which are concerned with perceptions of movement of roughly human-sized objects, at low speeds, in normal atmospheric conditions. Justified by the fact that the human perceptual system evolved to correctly report these objects. For example: seemings about mathematical problems. Justified by the fact that I personally have a math-related education, thus I have a more-than-average trained intuition for these things.
@user-qm4ev6jb7d Alright, I can get behind that, although I personally don't think "this seeming is right" means anything. There are seemings, some of which are immediate and others that occur because of some other seeming. I can say a lot of things which I would call true, e.g. "It seems to me I have two hands" is true. It really seems that way to me, but I wouldn't say that seeming is right, not only because I don't know if it is, but also because I don't know if it being right is a definite matter.
There is a disconnect in the mindset of many (if not all) theist apologsts when it comes to non-believers. The concept of `God` they believe in, is of paramount importance in their worldview. As such, they tend to think it deserves attention and consideration to excessive levels. However, I don't believe in gods. The concept is not the cornerstone of my worldview, so sitting around wondering what would convince me, really doesn't make much sense anyway. If there is a god and it wants me to know it exists, I'll know. To quote a religious saying "For who can resist his will?" Also, it amazes me that I've yet to hear a Christian say "I became a Christian because someone told me I should." Not a one. There is always some `testimony` of a religious experience. So, if they didn't simply take someone's word for it, why would they expect anyone else to?
I had many “religious experiences” as a believer. That is one reason having one again would not be sufficient. I know how amazing they are, when you are poised to believe. From my later experiences, as a music lover, a lover of good argumentation, as a musician who sang and played on worship teams, though, I feel like I saw how the sausage is made. I know too much about how strong emotions can be stirred up by everyday things.
That said, if I had an experience, and in it, a god revealed to me something I don’t already know, and no one else does, but I could verify it, that would convince me. Like a theory that explains some phenomenon we don’t have an explanation for yet, an equation that we haven’t figured out. Something like this that had hard predictive capacity that could be verified.
The Silly Atheist trope that Music can give You The same Feeling You get from Religious exeifnces comes Up, I Know its Bogis. Religious Experiences are Not Purely about How You Feel Emotionally, and frankly, I find it Disgusting's You Think You Know How the Sausage is made" based on This, is Why I don't Think Atheist Use Reason or Care for Evidence
@@skwills1629I get that. I had very real experiences that convinced me that Jesus was Lord and that asking forgiveness and giving my heart to him was the only way to live free. Those experiences were more than just feelings to me. When I heard people giving talks and testimony at Ichthus and Young Life meetings, I felt that warmth rush over and through me, and the words from God telling me about my own heart and spirit. I know what people mean when they say that “I know that I know that I know.” I learned all the songs and started going to a church where a lot of my born again Presbyterian and Catholic friends had started going. It was a church where there were amazing with services, people speaking in tongues, laying on of hands, and loads and loads of prayer. Eventually, I played and sang in the worship team. This was my life. These are my people. I was surrounded by love and the spirit. It’s very real. We had multiple intercessional prayer (redundant?) sessions every week. I. Loved. It. When doubts about some aspects crept in, and it came from many angles, I felt like I was being tested. Once those things started to add up, which took years -the nature of spirits and brains, the similarities to other religions, the nature of prayer vs Gods Will, the realization that much of the experience could be summed up to very natural occurrences- I started to disbelieve. I wanted to believe. Not believing meant choosing between pretending and losing my whole friend base, the people I shared everything with. But, yeah. Those religious experiences were all way too similar to natural experiences that can be reproduced outside of the church and explained by natural brain function. That was one of many bricks that tumbled out of my faith wall. If you’d known me way back then, you wouldn’t have doubted my faith. Not until I lost it.
When it comes to religious experiences, in my case it would have to be something quite special. The reason for this is that I had certain deep feelings towards God when I was a Christian but years later I had almost the same feelings when I became interested in Buddhism. At that point I decided that both experiences were probably just psychological phenomena, as I saw no reason that 2 contradicting religions could both give me religious experiences that were caused by anything supernatural.
6:43 For non-believers who are analytical and rely much on logic and reason in forming propositions about God, it always surprises me that they will use “I’m not convinced” as an argument against God’s existence. I am surprised because it’s a basic non sequitur. “I’m not convinced” is a statement about one’s personal epistemological state towards a proposition. Just as “I am convinced” is likewise just an epistemological condition about a proposition. Neither say anything about the proposition itself. The _proposition itself_ stands independently of the epistemic attitudes and mental states of individuals. One may or may not be convinced that aliens exist. But their existence is utterly independent of what any earthlings may think about them. It then does not follow to blame the aliens for the state of an earth-bound skeptic’s non-belief regarding their existence. Lastly, how do non-believers _know_ what God would do or could do or has already done? Specifically? Not extrapolating generic omni properties from all the god claims out there, not extrapolating from classical theism, but from where are skeptics (or Schellenberg) getting this very niche specific idea that God wants a relationship with _everyone?_ Says who? What God is that? How does the non-believer know? How does the non-believer know he’s got the right attributes of God? How does the non-believer know his expectations he has about this God whom he claims not to be resisting are accurate?
My issue with the question is that Christians will act shocked if I say miracles happening wouldn't convince me of Christianity but if miracles are evidence for Christianity then a lack of miracles is evidence against it and they never seem to accept that as an argument. Also I find that while people have a sense that miracles are more expected under Christianity they struggle to explain why exactly a given miracle is expected without contradicting some other part of their beliefs, for example many people argue that God can't make himself obvious without taking away free will but if thats true then some massive cosmic sign is really unexpected and if its not true that loads of other atheist objections become more powerful.
This is Asinine. "My issue with the question is that Christians will act shocked if I say miracles happening wouldn't convince me of Christianity" In Reality, Christians would Not be Shocked that Someone Who Obviously Hates God and Pretends to not be Able to Hate God since You Defined Atheism as a lack of Beleif in a god and Pretend a Label Changes Reality won't be Convinced by Evidence. Christians Already Know People like You aren't Really People Who Merely lack beleif in a god, and do not lack beleif due to a lack of Evidence. " but if miracles are evidence for Christianity then a lack of miracles is evidence against it " Not Really. Especially given Not All Christians even Believe Miracles occur today. I for example Grew Up in The Churches Of Christ. The Churches Of Christ Teach that Miracles Ended at the Close of The Apostolic Age so when The Last Apostle Died and Last Person They Conferred Miraculous Gifts to Died, Miracles Ceased. Would the Abscence of Miracles disprove the Beliefs of The Churches of Christ? It would seem to be what We'd Expect if The Churches Of Christ were Right. The Churches Of Christ are also Not Alone in This Beleif. Then there's the Fact that the lack of Miracles is not the same as lack of God's Existence. This is like saying Alien Life does not Exist Off of Planet Earth because I Personally have Not Seen it. Besides, Miracles are Reported as still Occurring, Atheists dismiss This and say All Miracles are Proven False Eventually but, This is a Lie, there are Plenty of Miracles that Simply have Not been shown to be Fraudulent. Atheists like You just Decide to Reject All Miracles as Fraudulent, then pretend if Anyone shows You a Miracle it must be a Fraud whilst Insisting We see You as Open Minded and a Critical Thinker Who merely lacks beleif, when it is Obvious You Decided in Advance what is True and what is Not True. "and they never seem to accept that as an argument. " Why would They ? Its a Logical Fallacy, and is Also Obviously a False Premise. People do Report Miracles Happening Today, and Not All Christians Believe Miracles occur Today. I am Not Contradicting Myself saying That Either, I am being Broad and Considering the Things You did not. The Fact is, You are Not Really being Rational in This. "Also I find that while people have a sense that miracles are more expected under Christianity" Is This Really True, Though? "they struggle to explain why exactly a given miracle is expected without contradicting some other part of their beliefs," No, Christians do Not Struggle with This. You Certainly haven't Demonstrated This to be the Case, At Any Rate. It is simply an Assertion. " for example many people argue that God can't make himself obvious without taking away free will " The Only Time I see This is when an Atheist Claims This is a Common Christian Argument. Can You Show Me ANy Actual Christians Saying This? "but if thats true then some massive cosmic sign is really unexpected and if its not true that loads of other atheist objections become more powerful." So, You go from "A Mircle" to "COsmic Sign"? You do Know a Miracle is Not the same Thing as a Cosmic Sign, Right? A Miracle Healing is Not the same as some Cosmic Light Engulfing the Entire Earth, for example. You are Moving The GOal Posts.
It wouldn't matter what the experience is or how resistant I would be to it being a god; a religious experience directly from a god, especially a tri-omni one, would stand up to any scrutiny. I think it was Erik Hovind who said he was lying on the hood of his car, looking up at the night sky and asked for a sign when he saw a shooting star and just went "yep, that proves god is real all right". Just... no. He can define it as a religious experience however much he wants but I wouldn't do that. Loving the idea of Christian aliens, though. An extreme version example of how a person in India wouldn't have hallucinations about Jesus if he's never heard of him, but the absurdity of it drives the point home better. Gonna start using that one.
Thank you for the perfect video. This topic is something I've been trying to come to my own conclusion for a couple of months now as an atheist. While I have my own criteria/standard, it still wasnt clear cut ebough for me. I really appreciate what you laid out, I find the christian aliens reason to be an amusing abd great response.
I never liked the God would know what it would take to convince me argument. I really had to think about this question for sometime and what I came up with is that it wouldn't be one thing or one fact it would be a series of facts that fit together into a comprehensive theory that contain no internal contradictions and doesn't contradict any of our understanding of reality / theories. You know just like everything else I accept to be most likely true.
Great video. A brief critique of the idea that religious experiences make religious belief rational: Suppose we do accept some kind of principle of credulity. It will still be true that we ought to treat perceptual claims differently depending on their content. For instance, claims with extremely specific content (ie. 'I saw a hispanic male who was around 44 with a mustache vs 'I saw a man') and extraordinary content (ie. I saw pixies in the forest vs I saw a tree in the forest) should be treated with more skepticism, even introspectively. External circumstances also affect these claims. In particular, claims that have reasonable alternative explanations (ie. suddenly being scared someone is following you because there's been car behind you for a few minutes) claims that, induced under similar circumstances, produce false beliefs (ie. religious experiences of the Christian God vs. Zeus), and claims that are widely disputed (ie. ESP) are all claims that should be treated with initial skepticism. Since most religious experiences fit into almost all of these categories, I don't think they generally support the rationality of theistic beliefs. Thinking I saw a God of a very specific kind is not like perceiving a table in front of me. If that really were true, then it would lead to a permissiveness about rationality such that all sorts of crazy things could be credulously accepted ie. ESP, UFO religions, fairies in the forest, bigfoot, etc. Claims about religious experience can be modified to avoid some of this, but not in satisfactory ways. For instance, if the claims made about the content of the experience are much less specific (ie. I accessed something supernatural), then they will be thereby less problematic, but they won't support belief in Christian theism. Additionally, most religious experiences fall into one of two categories: first, the relatively mild sort ie. feeling in touch with God while listening to a sermon or hearing Christian music. These experiences, however, can easily be explained naturalistically and are unreliable due to the fact that they variously produce incompatible beliefs. On the other hand, one could amp up the content so it's something enormously intense and mystical, and thus hard to explain naturalistically. But these experiences are very rare for most people and usually induced under unreliable circumstances, and they still variously produce incompatible beliefs.
To add onto your excellent answer; how do I know what a religious experience is let alone if one is even possible to exist? How do I know that what I am experiencing is in fact a religious experience? when it comes to believing in say a table, we need to know what a table is, what it’s made of, etc. for the sake of simplicity let’s assume that tables are only made out of wood. So in order for me to believe in tables I need to believe that wood exists, and where does wood come from, it comes from trees, and I can see trees and validate that they do in fact exist. So trees = wood = tables. If we run the same parallel process with a religious experience, we soon find an issue, and that is we simply don’t know whether god exists or not. Just as tables depend on the existence of wood, religious experience depend on god’s existence, but we don’t know whether one exists or not, I mean that’s the whole issue we’re trying to solve here; whether he exists or not.
I fundamentally agree with your post- but to uh, play “Devil’s advocate” 😈👹, what if while you were just about to go to bed, a man with what you believe Jesus would look like appeared at your bedside, and told you he loves you, wants what’s best for you, and proceeded to address every concern you’ve been having about your life, using knowledge anyone but you couldn’t possibly have. And if he were to instantly heal you of some serious, measurable ailments, such as, diabetes, or cancer, and then at the end of this session, he levitated up and through the ceiling. And to top it off, your significant other was in bed and witnessed all this. Now, this is far fetched, and I don’t expect it to happen anytime soon, but would this be convincing? It would be a doozy for me. But, what if Jesus really were a god, but it’s just that humanity wrote the Bible incorrectly, and he’s actually not quite what they say he is- but that he’s actually much better, in that he doesn’t represent the bad ideas of the Bible?
I generally agree with this; however, I do believe it is a rational conclusion from an individuals perspective. I only say this because the only experience that I personally would except as a supernatural experience would be one that passes all of my checks for BS. But, personal experience should not be used in an apologetic sense.
The plausibility of an experience bares little relation to the truth of the experience. It has been proven time and time again that witness testimony is extremely unreliable. Even in the most mundane of situations. For example, people in a crowded restaurant see an assault. You will find that none of them will agree 100% on obvious details. Human memory is reconstructive. Natural and subjective biases will always dominate any experience. And most people will embellish their stories to make them more interesting, And, if they hear other witnesses talking about what they saw, they may go along with whatever the rest of the group believes. Just to agree and to be part of the 'in' group. (The bandwagon effect.) Even if they did not see it themselves. So, it should not be said, "EXTRAORDINARY claims require EXTRAORDINARY evidence," rather, "ALL claims require EXTRAORDINARY evidence." In fact, what makes a claim ordinary in the first place is that it is already supported by extraordinary evidence. However, ordinary claims can be very dangerous because they can lead to extraordinarily bad consequences when the stakes are high if they can be made without the need for scrutiny or supporting evidence. Sometimes improbable things happen. Profound spiritual experiences can be easily induced with drugs, medical interventions and deep brain stimulation, with strong magnetic fields applied to specific areas of the brain. These can re-enforce pre-existing beliefs and thus produce detailed experiences compatible with prior held beliefs. If you already believe in aliens, you will see aliens. If you believe in Jesus as your personal saviour, you will see Jesus. People have even had deep philosophical conversations with their delusions. There are things like temporal lobe epilepsy that can lead to delusions interpreted as religious experiences. Seeing may be believing. But it does not mean it is reality. It is the sort of thing that can lead to mass hysteria and can re-enforce the religious beliefs of large numbers of people. Even confirming the beliefs of people who were not present.
This is specifically why I would only say from an individuals perspective (It is very unreliable, but you'll probably trust yourself). So, would you not agree with someone saying they have to see to believe? For me, if I were to have a, "Come to Jesus moment" I would probably believe, only because there are no biases to support that I would see YHWH or Jesus. (I'm an Agnostic Atheist). Nevertheless we are slaves to our brains, so it is rational to say that I'd trust my Personal experience over anyone else's.
I agree with the Christian Aliens evidence, but contend that this experiment has been run before, circa 1492. I am open to a rerun of the experiment however.
You are SO Balanced and Reasonable! Many atheists just call me dumb for believing in God. You're more like Hume or Carl Sagan:" Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence".......
The problem with experience of God is that people just assume they experience God based on some vague feelings etc. because they were raised in a culture talking about God. If they were unbiased in interpreting the experience they would not say it was definitely God. How do you distinguish between God and something else? We have evidence that people can hallucinate etc. How a mere experience of talking to someone can validate the Creator of the Universe? Moreover a specific Christian God? That is the problem.
Yeah, aside from the good point of religious aliens these are all options I have also personally noted. Any god with both the desire (omni1) and the ability (omni2&3) to convince people it exists would, by definition, have no trouble doing so -- yet isn't achieving its own goal. Modify the world, for all to see: even just a face in the sky. Or verifiable religion-dependent miracles, like those pesky amputees. Personal experiences can be valid evidence -- personally. I have a decent idea of how fallible human perception and memory are, so I consider my view of the anecdotal side with contradictions both within and between religions to be extremely unconvincing.
I thought for the longest time that I had been visited by the holy spirit when I got this funny flighty feeling in my chest during service when I felt seen by the pastor. I found out later that such feelings aren't unique to Christianity and in fact burning incense has been known to increase the likelihood of having such an experience. Since then, "Having a religious experience" doesn't cut the mustard for me. I've had those, I had one in a mosque once. I need The Man himself to come down and give it to me straight to start believing again, nothing less.
I don't Understand Why ":Unique to Christianity: is somehow the Metric. as if People having Similar Experiences in Different Religions means Christianity is False. Especially since You People are also Arguing God shou;d have made everyone the same Religion by talking to Everyone. But if God Gave everyone The Holy Bible and made Them Christian You'd just Dismiss that because it can't be true, since everyone was Christian, Therefore it must Not be God but Common to Humanity Thus Purey Naturalistiuc. its a double Bind.
@@skwills1629 So you're telling me its unclear why the "True Religion" having the exact same evidence as the mutually exclusion "Fake Religions" would be problematic? And if God himself came down and had a conversation with me Job/Paul style, I wouldn't somehow twist that to being naturalistic, as I can't conceive how you could possibly do that short of finding out you were incredibly high.
@@krusk3544- Atheist are Dishonest Sociopaths. "So you're telling me its unclear why the "True Religion" having the exact same evidence as the mutually exclusion "Fake Religions" would be problematic? " No, You Morally Degenerate Liar, it is Very Clear that This is Not what I said and You are a Bigoted Morally degenerate Sociopath. "And if God himself came down and had a conversation with me Job/Paul style," God is Already Here. You are just an iduota. Also, While Jesus is The second Person of The Trinity, There is a Difference when We Speak of God coming down and Jesus since You Morally Degenerate Sociopath Atheists tend to say Nonsense like God tortured His son Jesus, so even You Know there is a Distinction between God in General and Jesus., Jesus also did not come to Convert Paul you Morally Degenerate Lying Sociopathic Atheist, and I am Getting Tired of How You Morally Degenerate Sociopath Atheist pretend God came done and personally Visited Paul with the Objective being to Convert Him when in Reality, Jesus Confronted Saul Of Tarsus, Not Paul yet, because Saul was Killing Christians. The Objective was to get Saul of Tarsus to Stop Killing Christians. Jesus did not simply Visit Paul to have a Conversation with Ho and Convert im you Morally Degenerate Lying Atheist Sociipath. The same basic problem exists for the Other Example You copy about Thomas. Jesus did not Ressurect from the Dead just to Visit Thomas and Convertt Him. You are disgusting Liars. And as for Job, Really, see Above. God did not Com down and Visit them Personally to Convert Them. You are a Morally Degenerate Sociopathic Atheist and a Liar. " I wouldn't somehow twist that to being naturalistic," You'd call it a Hallucination. Even if Not You'd say God is so Evil he is unworthy of Our Worship. You are after all Not an original Tinker and just Quote the same garbage i See others in Your tribal Atheistic Religion Say, and We All Know how Absurd You are. You are a Sociopathic Atheist Scumbag. " as I can't conceive how you could possibly do that short of finding out you were incredibly high." You;' Contrive an Excise. Really You'd just Copy One from Matt Dillahunty or AronRa or some other Bigoted Sociopath Atheist.
The thing we need to keep in mind when asking theists for evidence, is that, to them, God is the author of all things, so EVERYTHING is evidence for God. While we don't have naturalistic explanations for EVERYTHING, we DO have naturalistic explanations for most of the things that were, in Biblical times, attributed to the actions of one or more supernatural entities. For the handful of gaps that remain, there is no more reason to assume a supernatural explanation, than there is for the questions we have already answered. So the best evidence for the existence of a supernatural God would be ANY occurrence or phenomenon that can be VERIFIED to have actually happened, for which the BEST explanation (and by "best" I mean that which most completely fits the available data) is a supernatural one. Of course, apologists can appeal to any event or miracle claim in the Bible and say that it can't have a naturalistic explanation, but they also can't demonstrate that thing actually happened. And, of course, apologists will misrepresent and distort the naturalistic explanations we DO have, to try to make the supernatural seem more plausible. "Atheists can't explain how life got here / how the universe started / how the laws of the universe are so finely tuned" arguments are only convincing to a) those who already believe, b) those who don't understand what we actually DO know about these things and c) those who just want to believe in something but aren't quite sure what. If anyone can provide an example of a verifiable miraculous occurrence that simply CANNOT be explained in naturalistic terms, or for which a supernatural cause is the BEST or ONLY explanation that can be made to fit, that would be good evidence for the existence of a God. Would I then convert to Christianity, as the narrator of this video says that they would, if Christianity could be demonstrated to have permeated to other worlds? No. It's one thing to have evidence that a God exists, it's another to join that God's fan club and worship it. Even Christian Aliens could be explained - if a sufficiently advanced alien race had been monitoring our radio transmissions and so on for the last few decades, they would likely have been bombarded with countless advertisements, political campaign videos, infomercials, megachurch broadcasts, etc., all proclaiming the glory of one God or another. It's not entirely implausible that, given this unfiltered, unsorted influx of media, being absorbed uncritically by an alien species that has no other context in which to frame it, they would end up being convinced of the truth of an Earthly religion and worshipping its God. EDIT: further into the video and the "miracles" part is, I guess, pretty much what the narrator is saying - that is, a miraculous event that is unequivocally, unambiguously supernatural. As for the religious experience, no you should not trust your faculties. There are many examples that I could use to illustrate just how easily our senses can be fooled, and how we can construct false memories. The invisible gorilla experiment, optical illusions, the Mandela effect, felt presence (the sensation that there's someone else with you - often experienced by mountain climbers and the like). Knowing this, if I had a religious experience, I would still go through a lot of self-examination before I'd settle on a supernatural conclusion.
Solid truthful answers, It was religious experiances that led me to a provisional position toward theism that I thought deserved honest exploration. Monotheism and Christianity had flawed logic and incoherent issues, but polytheism I had always overlooked as ancient and debunked, I was quite surprised at how it avoided most of the issues that plague the Abrahamic faiths. Might be worth looking at, even just for a fun mental exercise. Ocean Keltoi has a great series covering the philosophy that I think you might enjoy.
It seems like the thing you’re missing is that an unambiguous religious experience would be so far outside the realm of normal experience that doubt should be the reasonable default unless you have good reason to believe. I mean, honestly: is it more probable that a perfectly loving god finally got around to saying “hi” to you for the first time as an adult, or that you’re imagining things? I *_know_* my senses lie to me all the time.
So, The lack of Religious Experiences is Proof that God does Not Exist, but a Religious Expeince is Not Proof that God Exists. Right. And what about People Who have Many of them Oh that's Right, that means You have a Mental Illness and Hallucenate. I am sorry but I Find it hard to take Atheists seriosuy when it is Obvious You decide in Advance to Reject God's Existence, and Decide i God does Exist God is Evil and Doesn't Deserve Our Worship, so This Really is not Rationality, its an Excuse.
What’s interesting for the skeptic is that in order to say God is “silent and distant/hidden” the non-believer, by necessity, in order for his claim to make sense, must know what God is like when He is near and does speak and is not hiding. How does the non-believer know any of that? In addition, Schellenberg posits there are non-resisting non-believers. But from where does he get this? From non-believers who say they’re open to theism or Christianity? If so, why does he just accept what they say? After all, if a Christian tells a skeptic she has a personal relationship with God through Christ, the skeptic is instantly suspicious, begins to pick apart the Bible and is quick to point out and dismiss the subjective nature of the woman’s experience. So Schellenberg’s argument is something of a double standard. Subjective personal experience of the non-believer merits epistemic weight (I do not resist God, I think God is hidden, silent, distant). To force his point, Schellenberg seems to take the non-believer’s experiences as objectively axiomatic. But if a Christian says they believe Jesus is Lord, that God speaks to them through His word, that He is not silent and that God raised Jesus from the dead, suddenly the personal experience of the believer is subjective, questionable, and virtually irrelevant, epistemically speaking.
What would I need? The same as if it was Godzilla. What do you need to be convinced that Godzilla isn't just a fictional character? Then the same applies to any other fictional character as God. But, for that to happen, the whole Bible must be demonstrated to be 100% true to the real world, as much as it would need the Quran or the Bahatva Gita, the words of Zarathustra, etc. Because we are talking about specific characters, not sofistic incongruent and general concepts.
The issue I have with religious experiences is that they are almost always described as, “something odd or unlikely or emotional happened, and as my community taught me, I attributed the cause to the supernatural and specifically to my interpretation of the Christian god.” If religious experiences were god unambiguously appearing, identifying itself with a specific religion, and chatting for a while, fine. I recently had a Christian tell me that a big pot fell off a rack in the kitchen where he worked, for no apparent reason, and that this counted as an experience that he considered evidence for god. It’s so lame.
This is of Course what Atheist Say, but Really, when You say This,m it is a Lie. “something odd or unlikely or emotional happened, and as my community taught me, I attributed the cause to the supernatural and specifically to my interpretation of the Christian god.” Why on Earth Should I Take This Seriously? What are You even basing this on? And What is with You Bigoted Sociopaths calling God It? Or saying if God showed itself. God is not an it. \I Know Atheist are all moral Degenerates, but when You Scum call God it, it means I Have No Reason to Respect You. You Sociopathic Atheists don't lack belief in God due to a lack of Evidence, You just hate God. And No, You Bigoted Sociopath Atheists, I am not so Indoctrinated by Religion that I just can't Understand a lack of belief in a god. You call God It, and You Only Call God it to express Hatred and Contempt its Disgusting. It is also a way to Virtue Signal to Your Tribe You Pretend doens't Exist. You never even Back up the Dogmas from the Holy Religion of Atheism is Not A Religion, You Just Spew them as Fact.
aliens landing here 2 thousand years ago and creating the jesus myth and escaping unseen would be more plausible than christianity being real, if christian aliens were to suddenly appear. at least to me
I usually give your answer number three. In fact, what I normally say is, “Some type of Damascus Road experience. It doesn’t have to be quite as ostentatious. Just some clear and unmistakable interaction with the Almighty, where I would know what I experienced even if nobody else did.” Sometimes I’ll even economize it into something as pithy, as, “He could say hello every now and then. “I get the same kind of feedback you do - I’m asking too much. Or, perhaps he’s done this for me, and I just wasn’t paying attention.
What would convince me? If god created a world without suffering, evil, people getting false beliefs, no sin, eternal loving relationship. In this world everyone would be convinced.
My question for apologists is: what would convince you to change beliefs? If you’re Mormon, what would it take to be Muslim? If Catholic, what would make you become Hindu? Once we establish standards of evidence that are acceptable, I feel safer from typical apologetic scripts and can have a real conversation
As a believer, these are all totally fine answers. The "what would convince you?" question is meant to confront resistant nonbelievers about their poor epistemology. Similarly, a Christian should be able to rattle off things that would deconvert them, like Jesus' corpse or Muslim aliens.
I don't think anyone is under any such obligation to rattle off any number of things that would convince them to adopt a wholly different set of beliefs about reality to the ones they currently hold. Even having an answer wouldn't necessarily make that answer right (indeed, it's probably more likely that it'd be wrong), because nobody is omniscient and nobody knows what other factors might come into play that might invalidate one or more of the items on any list they might be able to "rattle off", nor indeed could they be sure that such a list was exhaustive. Nor would I consider it necessary that a single datum would be sufficient to convince someone. In some cases, it can be the cumulative effect of a number of considerations (and having listened to TH-camrs who have - I believe the term these days is "deconstructed" - it appears to be _very often_ not a single datum but a whole series of things). And the last four words of the second sentence really don't give a good impression (unless the intent was to sound condescending and elitist), and leave one open to retorts of standing in a glass house while throwing stones. The statement is much better without them. Not everyone is a philosopher, nor is anyone required to be (as your own Bible, I believe, points out on several occasions, with its remarks about "the wisdom of this world").
1. The problem with Christian aliens: Well, the problem is that you yourself have pointed out the problem and that would be: there are other plausible and naturalistic explanations for the existence of Christian aliens, other than Christianity being actually true. And you saying "But, come on, that would be spectacular evidence for Christianity" doesn't do anything for the God hypothesis. I would agree it would actually be spectacular evidence, but wouldn't be conclusive. It would STILL not warrant belief. 2. The problem with miracles: I didn't check your other videos and you haven't detail this topic, so idk exactly what you mean by miracles or what type of miracle would convince you. But I have never seen anyone describe a miracle exhaustively (aka it doesn't have any other explanation other than "this is 100% proven supernatural and links to God". Most proposed miracles so far have other potential and plausible explanations. Those that don't, don't and that's exactly the point: they don't. Which means you can't call them supernatural or link them to God or Christianity or any other religion. Because they're simply unexplained events. 3. The problem with personal experience: I'll focus precisely on the murder example, because that appears to be your strongest point. My problem with that example is that it seems impossible. I have never heard of a case where the prosecution can prove with physical evidence beyond the shadow of a doubt that someone is guilty, yet the individual has no recollection of the events. FURTHERMORE, he can recall everything he did in that day when he was supposed to have committed the crime. This has never happened. But let's say it can happen. Let's say your example is possible. What would that tell you? You know what? That you're wrong and that your memories are flawed. Because empirical evidence > one person's subjective experience. They weigh more. If the prosecution can provide exhaustive evidence, proving your guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt, with DNA, first-hand witnesses, video recording, everything, then your memories are demonstrably false. Sure, you may be justified to believe you didn't do it based on your experience, but that's the fault of this position - it's that you would be demonstrably wrong. This is why we cannot use personal experience to determine an objective truth like the existence of something outside of yourself, in the reality around you that everybody else shares. I don't want to advertise my channel in your comment section, but I've just posted recently a video on this exact problem: what would convince me that God exists. Check it out and maybe you can comment on it :). Keep up the good work!
The problem is you can’t use the argument from evil. It simply doesn’t work. The argument from evil, intentionally or not, denies the power of free will. God did not make us flesh robots, he gave us the ability to choose entirely for ourselves. This is because we were made to praise him willingly, but to do so there has to be the option to do the opposite, which is evil, and spawns more evil.
I'm aim to be a consistent Pyrrhonist (classical skeptic), so I literally can't imagine what evidence could make me believe in God. There might be evidence that made me think God was a good theory, worth using for predictive or explanatory power, but that's not true belief. There's also the question of the word "god." If it involves worship, I'm immediately out, nothing worthy of worship to me, would ever not actively shun worship (which it could universally across time if it were an omniscient & omnipotent being). If this God that was omniscient & omnipotent existed, I'd have questions about its moral reasoning & decision-making, but more than that, I'd feel bad for anything that knew everything & was always all-powerful. The poor thing could never experience growth, it could never know the joys of learning, never know the pains of failure & the eventual glory of successive training & improvement beyond previous limits. To be the most common idea of God would be a hell worse than the worst ideas of Hell. It'd have no free will, even its own actions known in advance & so predetermined. It's easy to feel pity for this tragic thing, & even excuse all the horrific behavior it (he, from now on, to respect the sexless incorporeal being's pronouns), committed throughout the various scriptures. I don't believe anything, so I also don't believe there is *nothing* that can't convince me the Christian God is real. That doesn't mean I'm not doubtful from my extreme lack of imagination on this question.
I am Really Tired of people calling Themselves Sceptics when it is Obvious that You aren't Sceptical at all, You've just Decided to Reject the Existence of God, and Especially of Christianity, so Decided it can't be True thus No Evidence can be Permitted. You Will Always Invent an Excuse to Dismiss it. And No, You'd not feel Sorry for God. That is Copy And paste Pseudo-Wisdom. Calling God it is an Insult of Course, and Demeaning, which is Why You do it. You do not lack beleif, You simply Hate.
I wonder how religious a religious experience would have to be to convince me. I'm really sure nothing supernatural is possible so if God brought me to heaven or something i might explain it as being a dream or something, he would have to do something more complicated than just showing up and talking to me.
There are still fallacies in this reason, but the following would convince me: If sometime before I die all Christians come to an agreement on the correct Christian denomination. Why risk joining the wrong one? I'm not expecting Christians to agree on everything, but things like salvation, the Trinity, Heaven and Hell, baptism, communion, the resurrection, spirits, please come to some consensus so I can believe. It would also help to know in which language and which Bible version is the most accurate depiction of God's word, so I can learn that language and read it.
Honest question Have you read the bible? There are some questions about God's reasons to choose to do something or another, that the Bible just explain. "Why the Christian God decided to do A instead of B? Why don't the Christian God doesn't B?" It's answered in the Bible. I think it's better to just read instead of me trying to explain You could still argue that you would make a different choice than God. Or argue that this is not a loving choice. But anyway, the answer is there For me personally, I believe that based on what He said, the choice to not grant visions to anyone, and to be letting animal suffer right now it's coherent, and I trust Him
I hope I’m welcome to speak on this even though I’m not an atheist or agnostic. I guess, as an especially unconventional sort of Christian who many people would probably say isn’t truly a Christian at all, my short response would be this. Maybe this is the best possible outcome. I mean, if we were all worshiping God and asking him for the answers to all our questions, knowing for sure that he was there to just hand us whatever we need, what would even be the purpose of everything at that point? The uncertainty generates different perspectives on life. People don’t have to worship him if they don’t want to, and given the evil in the world, a lot of people might not want to. And people who simply choose not to believe in something without evidence may observe things in ways they wouldn’t be able to otherwise. I don’t know. I just never saw the good in going around telling people that they would be eternally punished unless they sing the praises of their invisible creator every weekend, but I never saw that as a reason why God couldn’t exist. I’m a Christian for no other reason than because it makes sense to me, and because God, the way I see him, is actually pretty cool. But so far he hasn’t been insecure enough to tell me to go defend his honor on internet forums. Maybe the best way for us to learn right from wrong is to figure it out for ourselves. Or maybe I’ve got it wrong and Poseidon is going to eternally drown me in the afterlife for not kissing his sandals at high tide like I was supposed to. Or maybe I’m just some weirdo who talks to his imaginary sky daddy. I don’t think anyone can truly say for certain, but if I were God, I probably wouldn’t want to force every single one of my creations to worship me either.
It makes sense that God, if they exist, may not want to convince everyone of their existence - after all, God might not be all-loving nor all-powerful (this is touched on in the video). As such I can understand believing in God broadly, but not in believing the Christian one specifically.
@@Rikri I would go along with this. A God that wasn't particularly interested in convincing everyone of their own existence might be compatible with any number of human concepts of God - but it is not compatible with one that is also supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, cares about humanity and wants a personal relationship with humans, especially in a scenario where the stakes are so high, where unbelief results in (at best) annihilation or (at worst) eternal torture. So such a God could not - at least on the face of it - be the God of Christianity.
This was well thought-out. I noticed you don’t spend much time on a specific flavour of God, to which I agree that the more meaningful plausibility is for a God no human has accurately conceived of. Still, there is a glaring absence of direct evidence for a God in any form.
If you are a "Believer", you already you have accepted that Yahweh can replace true memories with false ones (Tower of Babel). This demonstrates that Yahweh is a powerful being yes, but not OMNI anything. Any "Testimony" may be based on actual experience, or a false implanted memory. You have no way of knowing.
@kriegmesserdclxvi2833 Which is why it's a biconditional for both parties, either both testimonies are useful or neither of them are. I dont see how simply arriving at the belief in theism or atheism solves the problem of "secret resistance" or other "alternate explanations" for ones belief.
"What would change your mind and convince you to convert?" Those are two separte questions. As for what would convince me that not only God exists, but it's the abrahamitic one, and is univocally one of the various version of the abrahamitic gods, he needs to show up, do stuff and give me tangible, observable proof that he exists and is the one. Then, even if he shows up and convinces me that he's real and is really the abrahamitic god, I would still not "convert" or worship him unless he actively uses his power to do good deeds and amend for all the atrocities he made, maybe even by retroactively change the timeline; only in this way will he prove to me that he's actually the omnibenevolent deity apologists claim him to be, and not the evil sadistic bloodthirsty bipolar monster that is depicted in the sacred texts.
While I agree that a religious experience could be sufficient to convince me of the existence of a God, that would come with some caveats. Given the existence of others that as far as I can ascertain have not had such an experience and sincerely do not believe, a God showing up and having a relationship with me still doesn't, in my opinion, justify me believing that there is a good God that created a world in which everyone that DOESN'T have that personal relationship will suffer eternally. That's my problem with what a lot of Christians try to justify with their personal experiences. Their idea of what God must be has too many implausible additional ideas attached to it that I don't see any way to justify based on the experiences they have had. In fact, I think their belief in a God with such characteristics casts significant doubt on how much truth can come from their experiences, as a God that created such a world appears to me to be inherently untrustworthy. It seems those theists should doubt whether what they believe they are hearing from that God actually is intended as a true representation of his character and reality for their benefit, or if they are being misled by a being that based on their own claims does not appear to prioritize the best interests of all the beings he created.
Miost Christians don't even say "Personal Relationship with God", In Fact, even Evangrlicals say "With Jesus Christ", who WhIle God, is still Not the same Terminolohgy.I find Atheists to be Unconvincing when they Make basic Terminological Errors. Like calling Hell Eternal Torture. And Really, No one can Suffer Eternally in Hell. Hel is itself Not Eternal since it had a Beginning, and if You Go to Hell, You can't have Always been there. Eternal means No beginning and No Ending. Honestly though, You are a Typical Follower of The Holy Religion of atheism, and WIll pretend to be an Expert on Christianity, Wo has Read The Bible Multiple Times and Who Knows it better than The Average Christian. You haven't Read The Bible of Course, You've Read Atheist Websites and WIll Recite the same Handful of Well Word Nonsense about it. "While I agree that a religious experience could be sufficient to convince me of the existence of a God, that would come with some caveats." It Only comes with One Caveat, that it not be "The Christian God:, and that's it. " Given the existence of others that as far as I can ascertain have not had such an experience and sincerely do not believe, " This is an assumption since Most Atheist i Know are Never Sincere in their Supposed "lack of beleif", Atheists are the most Dishonest People I Know. "a God showing up and having a relationship with me still doesn't," Somene lalready Said i was Denying The trinity and all that but, Honestly, Christians do ot see God as a Man. One of the Biggest Strawman Postings Atheists Set Up is this Silly idea that God is Somehow Not here and has to Show Up, as if God is a Man Who can Walk Up to you and "Have a Relationship", when God is a Spirit Not a man, and is Already present in Your Life. It is Not Really True that God is Not there and needs to Show Up to have a Relationship with You. God is Already There, and You already have a Relationship with God. The Question is what Sort of a Relationship is it? " in my opinion, justify me believing that there is a good God that created a world in which everyone that DOESN'T have that personal relationship will suffer eternally." That's Not what Christians Actually Teach. And I Really Resent how Atheist take a Handful of Misrememnered Slogans like ":personal relationship with God": and Recreate Christian Theology as Nothing but Having a "personal Relationship with god" , This is Really Not addressing what Christianity traches, and No Not even the :Fundamentalists" teach This, and it is Really just a Cheap, pathetic Cop Out for Atheist to reduce Christianity to this. Try reading The 39 Articles of religion, or The Westminster Confession Of Faith, or The three great Creeds, The Apostles Creed, The Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, You won't Find Any Reference to "A Persoal relationship with God": or that being what Saves You, or that All Who do not have a "Personal Relationship with God": are Damned. " That's my problem with what a lot of Christians try to justify with their personal experiences. " No its Not. Its a Ridiculous Caricature of Christianity You Learned to Mock from Other Atheists. "Their idea of what God must be has too many implausible additional ideas attached to it" No, it really doesn't. " that I don't see any way to justify based on the experiences they have had." I resent when An Atheist tells Me I am a Christian because of My Warm Fuzzy Feelings. I Really get Tired of Hearing how Christians Only have Emotion and personal Expeirnces. Tjis is Ridiculous and Clearly not True since its Not all about Personal experiences and Warm Fuzzy Feelings. It is Modern Day I Am So Rational Athesm that is Actually Emotionally Rooted. " In fact, I think their belief in a God with such characteristics casts significant doubt on how much truth can come from their experiences," You don;t even Know what Christianity teaches. Much less Why People are Christian. " as a God that created such a world appears to me to be inherently untrustworthy." In Reality, of Course, God can't be shown to be Untrustworthy and "The Way God Created the World" is Not the problem We see today. All you did was Admit I was Right and You have No idea what Christianity even teaches. " It seems those theists " Why do Atheist Use the term Theist as a Synonym for Christian? "should doubt whether what they believe they are hearing from that God actually is intended as a true representation of his character and reality for their benefit," Why? Because a Sociopath Athist Said so? And would this be Applicable to someone from the Churches of Christ? do You even Know Why I Asked? " or if they are being misled by a being that based on their own claims does not appear to prioritize the best interests of all the beings he created." This is You being a Liar. Christians do Not Claim God Acts Agaisnt The best Interest of Those he Created. Thats what You Sociopathoic, Morally Degenerate Atheists Say About Christianity, and it is Why I Call You Sociopathic and Morally Degenerate Atheist since its Simply a Lie.
Thank you for this thoughtful video. I have often stated that before discussing the existence of some particular god or set of gods that I would like to see compelling evidence of the supernatural. This should be easy to provide if there do indeed exist supernatural entities. Causing my refrigerator to continue to operate after being unplugged from a power source would do the trick. For me there is practically no difference between a supernatural entity that never does anything supernatural and a supernatural entity that does not exist.
Oh Please, its Hard for me to take Seriously Atheist Wo Claim there is No evidence and Repeating the Dogma of The Hoy religion of Atheism that a god tat does Nothing does not Exist, when We have Reports of Miracles You Summarily dismiss without Really Any Valid Reason to Other than an A Pruori Assumption that Miracles do not happen. In 2013, in Legnica, Poland, a Eucharist Miracle Occurred, and You can look This Up I Copied from a website. "The three apparent Eucharistic miracles that have undergone the most extensive scientific analysis happened in Buenos Aires, Argentina (1992, 1994, 1996); Tixtla, Mexico (2006); and Sokólka, Poland (2008)." You Ignore that. And Several Other examples. Why would I Think You'd Not Ignore Your Refrigerator or Contrive an Excuse for it Instead
I’d really love to see you in dialog with Caleb Jackson again, but actually get into some specific miracle cases and talk about why you do/don’t find them compelling.
Isn't the "a religious experience would convince me" pretty similar to the "god would know what would convince me" answer? Religious experience seems pretty vague and the next obvious question would be to ask for details.
There is a thin veil that allows us to ignore the experience of eternity. Look around, eternity is resting gently on on you. You are in it and it is in you. The deep and profound feeling of dissolving into eternity like a drop in the endless sea is what i think believers experience. It's overwhelming. Christians call it Yahweh , Jehovah or Jesus, Muslims call it Allah, Hindus call it Vishnu, Brahma or Krishna. No one owns it and it has no name you can call it great. The word God is entirely appropriate.
@@stephenolan5539 that was kind of the point. The concept of god that i described doesn't fit the Christian or Muslim or Hindu god completely but may well be the root that they grew from. Most believers say it is a feeling that makes them believe and the feeling of eternity is definitely god like
To convince me of any God, you first need to convince me that a mind can exist without a body (the problem of souls). Once you do that, we can work out the details of how powerful those souls are, and you can try to convince me of a tri-omni soul. After that, you just have to convince me that the Jesus story is more likely truth than myth.
Honestly for me it would take the old showman side of God reviving. I mean like knocking down the walls of Jericho at the sound of a horn and/or breaking open the tombs and raising the Saints when Jesus died. But even then I don't know that it would help me then because I wouldn't have faith at that point I would likely have knowledge which depending on interpretation might leave me lacking when judgement comes because faith is the requirement.
God did not Raise Anyone when Jesus Died. The Dead Rose from their Graves After The Resurrection of Jesus., not at His Death. That is Also Not a Small Detail. Also, Why would You Really Expect Any of that? God is not an "Old Showman". The Bible Never Depicts God as Constantly Working Large Scale Miracles. Those are Rare, and Done On Very Rare Occasions. Even the Two Examples You Listed were over a Thousand Years Apart from Each Other. Between then You had Several Other Events that Never Remotely Displayed Large Scale Miracles, such as Gideon, Who before He was called had to Steal Grain Left Over at the Bottom of a Grinder Mill to Survive,. Most of The Biblical Text in what We call The Old Testament shows God as more Passive than that, and We don't see Constant Miracles All the Time, and Certainly not Massive Large Scale Ones. Sure, Things like Jericho Happened, but then We go Centuries when such Things did Not Happen. Also, Please stop Pretending if You Know something then You can't have Faith. I Realise it is Dogma of The Holy Religion of Atheism is Not A Religion but, Faith does Not mean Beleif Without Evidence. Faith is Not Believing in Something You have No Evidence for. Faith means Trust. It also mean s Confidence or Loyalty. Hence Why if You Betray Someone it is called Breaking Trust. The Faith that is Required in Christianity is not to Believe in Christianity with no Evidence, it means Remaining True to the Teachings of Christ. One can Know with Absolute Certainly that God Exists based on Evidence and Still have Faith. Reason and Evidence are actually what Faith is supposed to be Based on. N o One Really bases their Religion on Faith, Either, even Though the Modern Not-Religion Religion insists All Religion is based on Faith, in Reality Faith is Given After You become Convinced.
As for rationality and God experiences, I think you are short-selling the counterargument. The way I understand it (or would make it), *if* that experience fits several criteria, it should probably be convincing - but as far as I can tell, it almost never does. That is, there is not any attempt by the one with the experience to question if the experience is real - that is, can one interact with it, is there stuff that could not possibly have been produced by one's own mind, et cetera; also, the experience seems to be in conflict with what we know about the world we experience otherwise. Given that, the arguments against the reality of the experience are, in fact, overwhelming; it's just that the one having them seems to lack the motivation to do these checks. Also, for me, there is a sharp difference between believing God exists and converting. Given the current claims about the Christian god, the afterlife, and the contents of the bible, succeeding in the former is unlikely to achieve the latter for me - but of course, the former might also convince me that said god differed in key aspects from the description, in which case, who knows?
What are You Basing This on? " if that experience fits several criteria, it should probably be convincing - but as far as I can tell, it almost never does. That is, there is not any attempt by the one with the experience to question if the experience is real - that is, can one interact with it, is there stuff that could not possibly have been produced by one's own mind, et cetera;" Because it seems the Opposite to Me, and Unlike You I can show Plenty of Cases where such QUestioning did Occure. You also Take Our Own Ideas about The World as a Given Fact that cannot be Questioned. "also, the experience seems to be in conflict with what we know about the world we experience otherwise. " What if We aren't Correct abut what We Think in Terms of The World? "Given that, the arguments against the reality of the experience are, in fact, overwhelming; " So if We Start with the Assumption that We Live in a Material World and Nothing Supernatural Exists, then All Religious Expoeiurnces can be DIsmissed as Hallucinations. I Really don;t THink Very Highly of Such, as it is a CIrcular Argument. Its bad Enough all "Religious Expeurnce" is seen as Supernatural, but do We Have to Start with the Assumption that They are Not Real then Using that Conclusion Guide How We Understand Them? You haven't Shown Real Evidence that These Experiences are Not Real , You just Assumed They weren't Real based in Assumptions about Them being in Conflict with what You Assume We Know About How the World Works. "it's just that the one having them seems to lack the motivation to do these checks." You Assert as a Fact that People Who have these Experiences have No Motivation to Check Them, but Why should We Believe You when You say This? What Real Evidence do You Have apart from the Assumption that This is So? "Also, for me, there is a sharp difference between believing God exists and converting. Given the current claims about the Christian god, the afterlife, and the contents of the bible, succeeding in the former is unlikely to achieve the latter for me - but of course, the former might also convince me that said god differed in key aspects from the description, in which case, who knows?" This is a Variation of the God is So Evil He is Unworthy of Worship Canard and is Why I Think Atheists just Hate God. Its not because I am so indoctrinated by Religion that I can't Understand How Someone lacks beleif, its Rubbish like This.
All we have to do is perform the thought experiment of flipping the script. What would make a believer stop believing? I'd be surprised if a lack of evidence was ever mentioned by a believer. All the usual tropes would be there - angry at god, want to sin, not a true believer, etc...
I Really do Find it Hilarious that You Sociopathy, Morally Degenrate Atheist lecture us on How Awful "The Religious" Are, all using The same Scripted Lines, but are all "Free Thinkers". Face Reality, what You say is not Really True, and All the Rubbish You learned from Your atheist Not Religion is Rubbish.
Let’s look at this religious experience reasoning, because yes, I don’t like that answer but for another reason. It has to do with you saying God is t doing all that he could. 1. If he did “all that he could” he could simply force you to believe, denying you free will. So obviously doing “all that he could” isn’t a standard we should be applying here. I personally as a Christian have doubts about those who say they believe because of a religious experience, it’s not proof they don’t believe, but when that is their first go to, it’s worrying, because many could have the same experience in a different environment and end up in an entirely different religion. So religious experience would be better as a confirmation of existing belief, which I have had. In conclusion, a better standard should be that God should provide the evidence necessary for a reasonable person with a honest view to believe. And I don’t mean provided all at once, or directly into your mind, I mean the information is available, which it is.
Since when is saying " I had a Personal Experience with God' the same Thing as "God is doing All he could"? Atheist's Really Love to Twist Things. And Really, saying God can Remove Our free will? I Know You Lying Sociopaths say God di This to Pharoah, when Really No, when it says God hardened Pharaohs heart is it not saying He Removed His free Will and Mind controlled Him, thats just a stupide Way Read the text, but Honestly, its silly. And This is just a silly Atheist Argument. saying I Am a Christuan doens;t Change that.
Even if we all agreed tomorrow that god exits. Nothing fundamentally changes. The excuse just shifts to because you don’t truly believe. With or without god the world looks the same.
God is.. and will reveal Himself to people who really want to know. But God will not do tricks to convince you.... He will not act like a poodle to jump through your hula-hoop. He doesn't have to... being who He is. But if you approach Him sincerely and honestly, then God will respond. You can hear His voice. For atheists... see especially the 7th paragraph down. "For atheists.... " It's all about having a real vibrant relationship with God. One where you speak... He will hear you, and responds. And as you know... it's Not about using rote repetitive prayers. What you say, not say to God,... what you think about God - will determine where you go in the next life. Careful with your words friend. Your words are even more important than what you do.... This is because God knows that sometimes we get addicted to stuff / bad habits or vices. God wants to help people to be loving. People say that 'all paths lead to God'... This is simply not true. If it were, then heaven would be just like earth, but with God sitting in the middle of it, and being largely ignored. Ain't gonna happen. Not. How to find out Who this God is for sure... Let's see. You can try to use intellect and reason to figure Him out(?). The point is... is that it's Ok if you don't know for sure. God understands where you're at right now, but don't leave it like that. He may have much more for you. How would you find out? Keep reading. The easier and more sure way to know - for sincere followers/seekers of truth, is to ask Him directly. For atheists say this out loud: God, the Most High God... I'm not sure Who You are, or even if You exist. But if You do, and if You Love me, then I want to know. Please show me... so that I never doubt Your existence again. Remember, this is God that you are dealing with. If God wants to respond... it should be easy for Him.. Him being God and all. If God does not respond, then you have your other answer. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Also, to help with your relationship with God not be stagnant, ask these out loud as well: - To the Most High God, if you Love me, then just in case I'm not Your child, make me into one. - To the Most High God, if you Love me, then prepare my heart for whatever is coming, so that I'm ready. - To the Most High God, if you Love me, then show Yourself to me. I know You from my head. Help me to know You from my heart as well... - To the Most High God, if you Love me, and if the Christian Jesus is important to Your plans and to my life, then please let me know. - For Muslims... don't say A__h. As I've heard that he's hard to hear from anyways. Just address your concerns to the Most High God... Don't worry... God knows who He is. He's not confused. Just keep in mind that what you say, or don't say to God - will determine if you go to heaven or hell. Yes it's that important. Ask audibly. Ask humbly. What is that, you ask? Ask as if you were God, and one of your creation were asking you important questions. Don't let your (bad) daddy-image be projected onto God the Father. Too many do this. Remember, God the Father is Perfect. Good luck. You're gonna need it. Because you are now responsible to get closer to God. Let's say that God gives you - 50-60-70-80 years... and you never hear His voice once. What do you think will happen when you 'pass'? Do you think that God will swing open His gates and say: "Come on in!?!?". Why would He do that? Because if He never speaks to you... like most anybody else... then you don't have a real relationship with Him. Try to remedy that ASAP.
it's called NOVEL(means NEW) TESTABLE PREDICTIONS , ANYTHING you can think of or ask your god to help you with , that we can test in the future , that's all it takes , and it CAN BE ANYTHING AT ALL , as long as it can be tested and repeated , ANYTHING AT ALL , just to be sure the religious ... got the point
Hey! Stumbled upon this video and was pleasantly surprised by your answer. As a Christian I will admit it is a tough situation. I agree with you that there are people out there who would convert if they had an "experience" and don't get what they are looking for. I will also admit that part of Christian belief is the fact that humans are easily deceived even by their own hearts/minds. Now, I will not say this applies to you, but we can certainly imagine an individual that says "If God would just reveal Himself to me then I would believe" and they may honestly believe that to be the case in their heart and mind at the moment they say that. God could then reveal Himself and the person could then after that experience possibly still doubt that was God. To highlight this point Gideon in the Bible when questioning whether God would deliver Israel by his hand said the following in Judges 6:36-40 Then Gideon said to God, “If you will save Israel by my hand, as you have said, behold, I am laying a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece alone, and it is dry on all the ground, then I shall know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you have said.” And it was so. When he rose early next morning and squeezed the fleece, he wrung enough dew from the fleece to fill a bowl with water. Then Gideon said to God, “Let not your anger burn against me; let me speak just once more. Please let me test just once more with the fleece. Please let it be dry on the fleece only, and on all the ground let there be dew.” And God did so that night; and it was dry on the fleece only, and on all the ground there was dew. So, we have here an example where God performed a miracle and Gideon didn't believe even though he got exactly what he wanted. So, he asked God to perform a second miracle. Now, God obliged perhaps knowing 2 miracles would be sufficient. But my point with all that is to say, sometimes we ask for things and think we are genuine in the request but it turns out even if we get what we want we still doubt. We can imagine this little "miracle" process going on longer than 2 miracles for some people. And if that is the case who is "God"? If a human can direct God to do exactly as he pleases for as long as he wants all under the banner of "God revealing Himself" where does it end? Also, must God do this for every human on an individual basis? Certainly there are a lot of people who would like to have these experiences, is God then obligated to do this for everyone, else suffer the charge that He "doesn't REALLY want everyone to believe"? It may appear subtle, but I would say that this creates a false dynamic in the relationship between man and God. Additionally, according to Christianity, God quite literally did what you're asking. He came down and spoke with His creatures. He performed miracles, He prophesized and foretold of future events, He read people's mind etc. He then died and rose with His own power. So, if we believe those accounts (not saying that you should), God actually did come down and interact with humanity. He truly wanted a relationship with all of us. Of course He isn't going to come down and meet individually with every human ever born to let them know He exists (even if that would be nice) but is that even a reasonable request? I would argue it isn't. We believe plenty of things based on personal accounts or second hand information. Most of what I know about the world I didn't experience directly. I read it in books, I trusted the "experts", I heard it from someone else. I am not saying I verified nothing, but most of what I know wasn't verified by me personally. I have some knowledge I directly verified and trust strongly as a foundation and most of what I know after that is based on whether or not it "fits" with other things I know. If someone tells me the earth is flat for example, that doesn't fit with the fact that I've looked around and can't see all the way to Asia even with a telescope. I have also been in a plane and notice the earth's horizon etc. But I haven't personally circumnavigated the globe to assess the validity or the curvature or done the complex math to prove it to myself theoretically. I take the "experts" word and my little personal experience and validate the claim. And I think that there is sufficient evidence available to validate the existence of a "God" even if that isn't the Christian God. Then the work becomes determining "which" god to believe in, and that I will admit is a little trickier. If you got this far thanks! I will end with this, just to validate your position even though it puts "Christianity" in a tough spot but I will mention it because it is what God Himself says is the "truth" consider the following verse: John 6:44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." Basically, God is saying you can't find Him unless He "draws" you. Any apologist that tells you that it is "your" job to find God is not truthfully sharing the Gospel message with you. It is a one-way street, but God is the one driving. I won't sugar coat that. Any reason I could give you for why God doesn't call everyone would just be me trying to bend the truth of Christianity into something more palatable. All I can do is share the message and pray God calls you and provides you with whatever it is that you need to be "convinced". Anyway, you seem genuinely searching for answer and I pray and hope you find them. I can't tell you how or when but I believe God reveals Himself to hearts that are truly open to His presence. Perhaps the verses are contradictory, they appear that way, I won't try and reconcile them only to provide you with what I consider the "truth". Matthew 7: 7-8 "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened."
You don't care about Empirical Evidence, and Auguste Compte was Wrong Anyway as Empirical evidence is Not The only valid Form of Evidence. Still, You have Empirical Evidence for God, You jut pretend You Don't.
dont think its a cop out. i can honestlt dont tell what would convince me there is a god, but the god in question would know. so at least for me, it simply is the correct answer. so i will definitly continue to use it.
See, I agree with the notion he would know how to convince me, but I know what would convince me too. 1: He appears as my favorite character in anime. 2: Not a dream. When I am awake exactly at 12:45 pm. 3: He knows hyper-specific things about me. 4: No, the design must be 1:1 for the character even the coloring. Which would look fucking weird in reality; 5: It has to be provable not to be a hallucination. So I want to be able to record it and confer with my neighbors that this is happening. 6:Fulfill six requirements that I personally would know 'and have never told anyone (Not even here) to prove it. 7: Lastly, prove that heaven and hell exist. ^^^ None of this will happen. I don't care about some bullshit when we're talking about someone with unlimited power and potential here. If people can wrap their minds that someone on that scale could do this like we fucking breathe that's their problem. Those are my requirements. No amount of human question beginning or bible pandering will change them. If they don't happen. Tough shit. If he's too weak for them to happen tough shit. As far as I am concerned he ain't real to begin with. Some might wonder why I ask for impossible shit. Because nothing is impossible for an all-powerful God. If it were, he wouldn't be all-powerful. If this doesn't happen. He doesn't want me to "know" him. Because my knowing of him as of now is the same as Goku. Except Goku has been far more impactful on my life in good ways. So one fictional character is better than the other. Go Goku.
@@Dock284 God would know what I mean. However, in this case my bargain is specifically with the Christian God. If Allah wants to deal, he can eliminate migraines. Odin can rid the world of dementia. If you have a God, I can make a deal.
I’m not too sure if I agree with Alvin Plantinga. To be rational, overwhelming evidence must be considered. If there’s overwhelming evidence that you did commit a crime, then it’d be rational to rely on the evidence more than your own faulty memory. At some point, insisting you didn’t commit the crime because you don’t remember doing it will start becoming irrational. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying you have to right out confess to the crime, I’m just saying you have to begin considering that your memory is wrong.
To be Rational You Must First be Honest with Yourself. People Wo call Themselves Atheists Today Insists They merely lack belief in a god, make No Claims, and have No Burden Of Proof when in Reality they say God doen't Exist , call people Delusional for Believing in God and Refer to God as People's Imaginary Friend. Lets face Reality, Atheists Decide Ahead of Time to Reject Any Evidence for Gods Existence, and Decided even if They can't Reject God's Existence, that God is Evil and Doesn't Deserve Worship. Atheists are motivated Today by Emotion, not Rationality and Logic, and Evidence means Nothing, There's Plenty of Evidence for God's Existence, which is ignored, or Dismissed with an excuse.
So if Christian aliens would convince you, what about other religions? Specifically, what about less specific religions? Taoist aliens, for example. Taoism doesn't have a specific god so it's easier to write off a coincidental development. Or what about pantheistic aliens? Personally I don't think finding pantheistic aliens would be very convincing. And if it's not convincing for all religions then I wonder if maybe it's not a good criterion after all.
The evidential weight of Christian aliens comes from the specificity of the beliefs. The more specific they are, the less likely it would be a coincidence. So pantheist aliens would be less evidence than orthodox aliens.
I agree that "theist" aliens wouldn't convince me. If aliens on a distant world independently came upon a very specific story of Christ's resurrection, that would be different.
![[UNCUT] ชาวบ้านถาม “นายกอุ๊งอิ๊งค์” ประชาชนมีกิน มีใช้ กี่โมง? I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 16 ส.ค. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tKZvOzLIJJc/mqdefault.jpg)
I was once talking with someone about my religious doubts and she said something like, "It sounds like you wouldn't believe unless you got a revelation from God." And it was said almost sarcastically like I was putting up an incredibly high bar where I was not willing to listen to answers from people.
That got me thinking, if they claim that God wants a relationship with me, that's a testable claim. Talking to me to let me know that he exists is a very low bar for having a relationship.
@PiRobot314 That's very true. And that person seems to not have read her Bible well cause all the prophets, kings, and whatever in the Bible believed, taught & worked miracles BECAUSE they had revelation. For me, I just wish a fitting revelation & relationship was what God granted all humans and all living beings of all time.
@@baonemogomotsi7138 I don't think it's fair to say that she hasn't read her Bible. I was raised Christian with a Christian community around me. The apologetic I would hear had to do with the fact that Noah may have talked with God, but it took 600 years, so we need to be patient. But even still, taking one every 600 years is not much of a relationship
I mean, he has spoken a plethora of wisdom for us all to read, whether we choose to read it or not is up to us. He does guide and speak to us through scripture. Its His word there for us to read. He can (and often does) point us to verses that answer our concerns, or with anything that troubles us.
@@reubensearle8200Does he?
@@reubensearle8200 That's your experience, not the truth. God doesn't ''guide and speak'' to the Christians who abuse, mistreat, misuse, hurt & are hurt by others. Your God is as real to you as Brahma is to the Hindu All personal & theological belief, no evidence.
One of the biggest problems I run into when considering this question is precisely what God (or Christianity) we're talking about. The only versions of Christianity that seems palatable to me include the doctrine of universalism, and yet most Christians do not affirm this belief. So I feel that from the get-go I'm answering their question disingenuously by contorting their religion into something that it just isn't. And I doubt Christian aliens would change this. It seems so overwhelmingly implausible that a loving god would forake most of his children, many of whom have and still afe crying out in all earnest for for mere recognistion.
Great food for thought here, Emerson. Thanks!
I do think some universalists dismiss the Christian tradition a little too glibly. How is it not a big deal that most Christians who ever existed were completely wrong about the afterlife? (Well, not completely wrong, since there is still a hell on universalism.) But I think it’s not an insurmountable problem. Christians can be wrong about Christianity, as any Christian knows. And I don’t buy the arguments that universalism is outright incompatible with Christian theism. Universalism exists in the tradition, and is arguably present in the New Testament.
Thats a good point. When christians ask this question they could either mean just the core doctrine of christianity, or their specific interpretation of it.
@@EmersonGreen Yeah, it's certainly not an insurmountable problem. That's true. Good point. I guess for me it comes down to the specificity, which you covered, to be fair. If the specificity of the alien religion is exactly the same as Christianity, with an almost one-to-one correspondence with doctrines, then this would suffice, but I'd have to exercise a lot of faith in many areas still.
If it was simply a story of resurrection, though, something that Christians would interpret as God playing out the same motif in a different intelligent species, then I doubt this will cut it for me. It wouldn't surprise me if other social species have very similar archetypes and even religions to us. The "love your neighbour" message is, in more cases than not, a feature of religions because, as I see it, it's beneficial to a social species; venerate those who protect our collective lineage.
Finding that an alien species has a very similar religion to Christianity would certainly be a major piece of evidence in its favour, but I don't think it would, for me, at least, surmount the seemingly incongruent state of an all loving god and so many of his children being forsaken. Combine this with the seemingly overwhelming gratuitous evil in the universe, and the moral relativity of Christianity's supposed objective morals, and I think I'd need the alien religion to be almost, if not entirely, a one-to-one with Christianity on earth.
@@rationalityrules Fascinating that you would find the idea of Christian Aliens to be sufficient evidence for Christianity, when one could come up with many different explanations that all seem more sensible than Christianity being true.
For example, ancient aliens who for whatever reason wished to interfere in the developpment of certain intelligent species by masquerading as divine beings using their advanced technology and creating the same narrative accross all species they interacted with resulting in Christianity every time.
Another one would which isn't naturalistic would be an evil God, working through sentient organisms of all planets to make them get the same religion, filled with all the contradictions, inhumane instructions, etc, after which he would punish those who wouldn't be convinced of his purposefully ridiculous religion.
Although these scenarios certainly seem ludicrous, they would account for Christian Aliens and wouldn't require throwing logic out the window and believing that a tri-omni God created a world filled with unecessary suffering.
Wouldn’t a one-to-one correspondence with christian doctrines be a little too suspicious?
Of course it can be used as evidence for Christianity, but it could also be used as evidence against it. I’m getting into pretty wacky territory here, but we’re talking about aliens after all lol.
Couldn’t it be that those aliens were the ones who created Christianity to begin with and spread it across the galaxies like cosmic missionaries. Perhaps they created this myth and wanted to test its effects on certain complex intelligent lifeforms like humans, over thousands of years.
The mere existence of Christian aliens doesn’t automatically mean that Christianity is true or that god exists; there are many possible explanations for why they could exist.
Here’s my answer:
He needs to show up in my life. Simple as that. I would need him to show that he cares like I’m told he does.
If I were told that some man named Bob really loved me, but he never visits with me, never messages me, never takes any time whatsoever to contact me, then I will doubt that he loves me or even exists. You don’t ghost someone you love.
Agreed. That's what my second and third answers were all about: Seeing the hand of God in your life.
I just want a billion dollars in my bank account. For a god, this should be a trivial 'miracle'. However, I do have a "due date" and well... these theists have still not managed to get their god to perform said miracle. Either they're lying or they're going to hell and thus, their god won't answer their prayers to make me a billionaire.
BOB IS REAL. HE COMES THROUGH MY WINDOW AT NIGHT.
@@jakfan09you should call the police my guy. 😅 😅
yep, the ways humans treat the other is only as seriously as they can when in person, just like how people are rampaging online, without seeing the person face to face, nothing is real, and if this goes for any relationship that a human can form, same goes for this, and as much as they deny it, they consider it a father figure, why? coz it's most relatable, their god is basically their own biological father but in transparent floating form, fortunately or unfortunately, many people don't have great father figures and that makes for either a discernment between believing in an alternate figure or completely dismissing it all and walk away
Maybe a bit of a digression, but wasn't Paul a resistant nonbeliever? God had no problem converting him.
God should be able to convince non believers if they a) exist and b) want to.
Or he had a seizure or fell and hit his head.
Space aliens have no trouble abducting some people...
Paul is a character.
@@definitivamenteno-malo7919
As much a character as L. Ron Hubbard.
"God converted Paul" ... according to the Bible, which is part of the problem, not evidence of God's existence.
Evidence for me would be communication with human beings, not just alone but in groups. A recordable event. Not just once but multiple times over years.
I am unable to comprehend how we are supposed to have a relationship with this being without a buildup of trust. This trust is earned from COMMUNICATION, not from a third party book.
Consistent communication not everyone being told different things.
Of course We have such Accounts and You Dismiss them, so its Not Really True.
@@stephenolan5539 - You mean like at Guadelupe?
@skwills1629
You missed the "and other example".
Consistent requires at least two examples.
Why do Catholics say Aposolitic Succession is important but Southern Baptists do not?
@@stephenolan5539 - No, I didn't Miss it, and I Really Resent how All Atheist Know How to do is Attack. Why should I Bother Answering the Apostolic Succession Question when You won't even Address what I said Properly? All Atheist do is Attack, and Never Defend. You Sociopaths want Special Privledge for Hour Silly Nonsensical Beliefs. Well I am Done with that. What You said is Absurd. It is Wrong on its Face. I don't have to Pretend its Not juist because You changed the Subject.
For the Christian God specifically: moving a mountain with faith alone will be enough for me.
We can even repeat the test and have control groups praying to another gods for moving the mountain in a different direction, and one not praying at all. Then we compare the results.
Er.... Why would 'Jedi powers' impress you? Don't have to be a 'god' to have them...
@@DJTheTrainmanWalkerJedi powers are impressive, but regrettably the acts are not at the level of the claims, in any religion .
@@TheCheapPhilosophy True enough...
Though... How many narratives deal with the power of stories themselves? Certainly the stories the Nazi's told the German folks were pretty disastrous... 'Powerful' if you will.
But clearly not psychokinetic notions. Fun for stories tho.
Let us not test the Father. If we refuse to humble ourselves to Him, why would HE (the father almighty, creator of all things) have to prove Himself to US?
We are all headed for death, we dont even deserve what the Father has given us, not only through His word but through salvation.
@@reubensearle8200 I can't see much humility in the notion of a 'god'. A better description would be unmitigated human egotism.
The idea that a god that wants a relationship with everyone, would make itself known via a religious experience to one but not to another, makes zero sense to me. The fact that there are so many different religions with so many different ideas as to what their god wants or expects and that every person on the planet isn't on the same page in regards to their belief is the biggest reason I'm convinced that either there is no god, or if there is, that it couldn't care less about us.
If I was able to build a life-like simulation; I would be very curious about the entities that would "live" inside of this simulation if it could simulate life - another example; if you had a child would you want to have a relationship with him/her?
If the Abrahamic God were able to convince me that he were real, which he certainly could if he chose to, I don’t see how he could possibly convince me that he is moral, loving, consistent, or worthy of praise. Through his own words he’s an absolute beast. I wouldn’t want someone like that as a neighbor. I wouldn’t want someone like that outside of a maximum-security prison.
I wish atheist debaters would start each debate with a public prayer, asking god (if it exists) to show up at that debate, and finally settle the question. No more abstruse logic-chopping about the Kalam, or Contingency arguments, etc.,-just show up! If WL Craig can end each of his debates with an invitation to convert, we should begin with something just as practical.
I’m almost certain I’ve seen various hosts of “The Atheist Experience” do this very thing while debating theist callers.
It’s been done.
Also, many of us have personally, SEVERAL TIMES, done this very thing on our own, only to be ignored, as usual.
They point to the passage about "not testing god" if you try this, btw.
@@plattbagarn They have a plethora of 'get out of jail free' cards.
@@geoffmoon2903anything so Mr. Almighty doesn't have to take responsibility for _his_ actions.
Calling God It is done to be Insulting. Its WHy I do not Respectt Atheists.; And Honestrly, God is already There, so doens't need to Show Up. Atheists are Bigoted Sociopaths.
By the way, None of You even Understand Kalam, You Ridiculous it because You Think its Easier than Addressing it.
And I Really Know You do not Listen to WIlliam Lane Craig. He's just a Buzz Word and Someone You are Programmed to Hate.
After All, Craig does Not End each Debate with an Invitation to COnvert. But You;d Know that if You Knew Craig and not just Atheist Prattle.
Before I watch this, my easy answer would be "the rapture" which understandably isn't answering the spirit of the question
However, according to every Christian movie about the rapture, this would not convince many atheists lol
should look up the origin of the concept of the rapture, very funny how it's extrapolated, so few christians even believe it now
@@WonderfulDeath It's even funnier when you realize that the few passages that it's based off of aren't even referring to anything like what they describe as the rapture at all.
@@EmersonGreen
Jesus power ❤ starting now
We can ask the same thing to Christians. If the God that exists is not the Christian or Biblical God, what would it take to convince you?
One thing I feel that was not touched on which I found allowed for a better conversation when I have this conversation with theist. There is a difference between belief and worship, and the way you phrase the question it appears you (like many of the theist) use them interchangeably. The key point being even if I believe in God, does not mean I will convert in Christianity or worship him it merely means I will acknowledge his existence. Once worship and existence are dis-entangled, it is easier to talk about what are good reasons to believe something (is the belief justified and reasonable) separate from the if the god described is worthy of worship.
As to what would make me believe, he would need to show up in my life some demonstrable manner which which has the same amount of evidence behind it as me knowing my dad exists. This is not the only thing that would make me believe, but it is the most succinct. Though as you mentioned it is a bit of a moot point, God would know what would convince me even if I do not know and has the power to do so. Further more if the bible is to be believed God knowingly created me requiring this level of evidence (and was able to create me differently) from the start and chose not to provide the evidence, so if I do not believe its not my fault, its God's. So as far as I am concerned, if God wants me to believe, its on him to make the case. Keep in mind this is not worship, this is just belief. As you said in your video many theist do not like when you point out how God is culpable, however, because I am using the claims of the bible itself it puts them in a bit of corner.
As far as once I believe what would get me to worship, I would have to have a long chat with God about all the genocide, slavery, terrible reasons to do things, why he did nothing to correct the mistakes, etc. and it would depend.
An all loving, all powerful god.
Then why am I an atheist?
If he doesn't want to convince me, then he's not all loving.
If he can't convince me, then he's not all powerful.
I love the way you present your ideas
@@ILoveLuhaidan how are you doing bro , do u remember me?
ممكن تفتحي تويتر
I had been writing probably too long of a comment as I listened to this video, only to have you state my overall point pretty succinctly in the last couple minutes.
I’ll say this: for me, the rationality or irrationality of the believe in the assertion is in some respects beside the point. I and many others have had religious experience which we rationally attributed to god, only to later reattribute those experiences. The inherent subjectivity of it, to me, undercuts its potential for truthfulness, especially in light of how confident I had been in my prior Christian assertions.
"I don't know but God would Know" is not a cop-out. I am faced with the very real possibility that another society might possess technology that I could not distinguish from the supernatural. I lack the ability to contrive a test for God.
I think it is logically impossible for *any* being to know it is the ultimate foundation of reality with certainty. So if God couldn't profe this to itself with certainty it also couldn't prove it to us.
But possible if the aliens were powerful enough we'd be wise to just go ahead and treat them as gods.
Working on my own video on this topic, so I thought I'd watch again. And I noticed something. You kinda give the best argument against religious experience earlier on in the video: "If I really try to convince myself that God exists without God doing much of anything, how can I be sure that I didn’t just play on my own cognitive biases and work myself up into believing." Or, I might add, working myself up into having a religious experience. I did exactly that when I was a Mormon. As for trusting our senses, do I really have to tell you or anyone who's scientifically literate why that's a terrible idea? I hope not. Love your channel and content. Keep it up!!!
First time listener to you. Interesting & relatable to me. I am one who lost faith starting in Bible College in early 1980s - from reading the Bible fully & terrified that the character depicted as God is in no way (practical to humans anyway) Good or Love or “unwilling that any should perish.” I’m obsessed ever since in leaning more and proving my perceptions wrong. Agnostic about the existence - and still not convinced I should willingly worship the Monster if proven He does exist. But I very much appreciate your acknowledgment that personal experience is VERY rational to the experiencer.
I don't Believe People Who claim to have become Atheist from Reading The Bible or that call God Terifying or Evil. I Have Read The Bible, and God is Locving in The Bible. The Cherry Picked God Ordered General-Cide The Flood was General Cide and Killed Innocent Babies Slavery and all that is Tommyrot.
God is Not a Monster, and I Really don't Buy Into You being Honest.
The whole If God exist and is as Described in The Bible He is Unworthy of Worship Routine is from The Atheist Experience, so IKnow its Not Really Your Thoughts.
Spare Me the Great Minds Think Alike Claptrap.
But if the alien race also includes buddhism, islam, and maybe even a slew of other otherworldly religions, I think we're back to square one. It would require that Christianity is the only religion of the alien race or, at the very least, is the only religion shared by our races.
I dont think it would be square one exactly, since the fact that aliens have the exact same religions is still completely unexpected of naturalism and may at least narrow the possible gods that could exist.
Basically, it may not convince me of one religion, but it would be a huge coincidence on naturalism.
That's fair, but I'm mostly responding to Emerson's notion of a total conversion to Christianity specifically. I don't think 'Christian aliens' is the slam dunk evidence he implied it was without some major caveats. Not to mention the question of whether or not their story of Jesus pertains to his time on earth or did he also live, die, and resurrect on their planet.@@igbo925
I have trouble imagining how we would decide an alien religion is "Christian" and we're not just projecting Christian ideas onto it. It's a bit like claiming correspondences between Norse and Olympian gods and such. Do we demand that their history includes a Roman empire, an Easter feast, a practice of crucifixion? How do we identify their savior with Jesus as opposed to Prometheus or Mithras or Odin?
The Idea of Religion You are using is a Western European Creation from the 1500's, and is More a Result of The Protestant Reformation and How We Conceptualised The Different Churches in The Reformation Era Legally. Historically it was less about being in "The One TRUE Religion TM", with all other Religions being False, but was about what was actually Taught, with Christianity being Understood as both Universal principles and Culturally Distinct Specifics. No One in Christianity before the 1500's Thought of God as "The Christian God", or though "The Muslimn god Allah" was a different god. And even in THe Colonial Period The Jesuit and Francistcin Missionaries to The Natives did not say The Great Spirit was a false god from a False Religion, but was simply Their Understanding of The Holy Spirit. And this was Not just a Trick to Convert The Natives, I Know How You Lot Love to Demionise Christians, but How They Wrote to The Roman Curia about it.
Even in More Modern History the Concept of Religion We use did not Enter Asia Until the Late 29th Century.
Christianity is Understood as True because it Reflects Principles and Facts and a History in The Real World, and whole the History and Culture is Unknown Outside of Those Who have been Exposed to it, the principles it is Rooted In are Understood to be Universal.
Based on How Christians Historically Understood Christianity, and How Mist Still approach It, We'd not Expect Aliens to be Christian, Specifically, We'd Only Expect Them to be aware of God and Certain Universal principles or Truths.
How those are expressed are Ultimately less Important.
@@TrueFork I don't think the idea works even in concept. Aliens would not be Christians because they are not humans. Christianity is about solving a problem humans have since Eden. Aliens would have an adjacent religion like how Judaism is. Believe the same God but have a different relationship with him than humans do. Also wouldn't we be projecting every idea onto them to some extent.
As for personal experience from a theistic perspective we would say god does reach out to us in the world we live in. That he has given us what we need to reach him through the world he made and his scripture. Like a man who lives away from a village may want people to come and visit him. He may gi out and invite them directly sure. He might put up a sign or flyer leading to his house. You could say the signs and flyers doesn't prove a man is down the road and that he didn't reach out to you personally. But it is not reasonable to say he did not reach out at all.
Personally i have a problem with atheist saying that personal experience will convence them is often disgenuine. Many atheist say that if the had one they will simply conclude they hallucinated. Or they will be so skeptical og god that if they were consistent in their skepticism they would not believe most of what they do. In other words i think it is something atheist will claim to win an argument. Thats obviously not eveyone. But i have personally found that to be the case with many atheist. This is from someone who believes because personal experiences. Btw i use atheist to refer to agnostics and atheists. Just because many agnostics refer to themselves this way.
As a Christian, I had some such experiences. They were very confirmative. Then I heard testimonies from persons of other faiths and of no faith at all that were similar enough to cast doubt on the value of mystical experiences in determining what's real.
Banger vid as usual Emerson.
Considering your interest in non classical theism and philosophy of mind, i would love to hear your thoughts on the combo of simulation theory with theism.
Thanks
@@EmersonGreen awesome, I really like that guy but didn't know that was an area of interest for him. I'll look into his stuff more.
If Joseph Smith was a zoomer, I definitely think he'd be cooking up some simulation theory Mormonism
✌️♥️
I wonder if the apologist is frustrated because a religious experience is outside of there ability to produce. In a way it is telling them there is nothing they could do to change your mind, but not that your mind can't be changed.
That’s interesting, I wonder if that’s a part of it. I once voiced my frustration with my lack of seeing any divine activity in my life, and Tyler McNabb said he was praying that I had the religious experience I was after. I thought that was a pretty good response, I wish more theists reacted that way.
Hey brother, great video as always, I am an agnostic turned heretic of sorts and would absolutely love to have a conversation with you about theism, the problem of evil and the hiddenness of God as well as any other topic you would be interested in, keep up the good work, looking forward to your next video!
Lots of competing people claim to have religious experiences, so I'm not certain me having one would be valid grounds for conversion. I wonder what the nature of the religious experience would have to be. I don't think it could just be a singular, brief, and emotionally powerful event; after all, I've had very powerful dreams and people who take DMT receive exactly that kind of experience, so how would I know I wasn't just dreaming or drugged? So I'm not really sure. Is it too greedy to ask that it's unambiguous, repeated, and specifically clears up my personal confusions with Christianity?
But, I wouldn't need to have a religious experience to have that. Like you said, there are facts about the world that make belief in Christianity reasonable, but there are also facts about the world that make it seem impossible. If I get convinced by arguments/new discoveries that the facts about the world that make it seem impossible go away, then yeah I'd be Christian. Probably get a real good existential crisis over which kind of Christian to be though. I've heard good arguments for and against all sorts of versions and have no idea how I'd make a choice.
What would convince me of God's existence? That I would pray together with others and that we would hear exactly the same thing in an audible voice or a voice inside our heads. That would demonstrate that there is speech from God apart from our personal thoughts. But over the course of about 15 years as a believer, having prayed countless times with others, that never happened. And they call it a 'relationship'.
Except that when This does Happen You dismiss it as Hallucination, Delusion, coaching, or some Other excuse.
Before I can be convinced of God, I need a consistent and coherent definition of it, with detail sufficient to analyze whether it could exist.
The fact that it is the bible that is our sole source to develop that, doesn't lead me to think that we even have enough knowledge to get that far.
I am not saying that the bible couldn't be used to make such a definition, but that it can be interpreted in very different ways.
There are so many critically important matters, that the bible leaves vague, or even contradictory, that it is hard to have any confidence in it's trustworthiness.
And then there's that Romans 1:20 verse, saying we shouldn't even need to be convinced. If the bible is reasonably true, God should be clearly apparent.
As you pointed out, the bible is making an assertion about what is in my head. One in direct contradiction to my experience and understanding.
Finally, why don't we turn the question around for our theist questioner. What would it take for them to be convinced that God doesn't exist?
What if the God that exists doesn't care about a relationship or worship or belief? What if the virtues Christians take to be extremely profound, are not even connected to the God that exists? What then?
Then it's reasonable that a God might exist - it just might not be tied to any particular religion on Earth.
That was a really great video. Lots to think about.
Just toying with the idea and its ramifications atm but what if the Christian aliens were not universalists?
It seems to me that this might be some additional evidence in favour of Christianity granted its generally non universalist tradition. And yet not a welcome discovery for anyone who holds that universalism is the only plausible form of Christian theism.
What do you reckon?
Would it lead you to reconsider alternative explanations or would you still convert?
I’d convert and then start arguing with the aliens about universalism
@@EmersonGreen Haha fair enough.. Though I'd say you might have your work cut out for you once they realise we also have the same general tradition. Having said that, I imagine basically every point of symmetry would be considered far more seriously so there would no doubt be many who might be caught out regardless
Hi Emerson. Incredibly fun… Some astrophysicists study exo planets. Some brave souls study exo biology. But you are inventing exo religious studies!
This is so intellectually amusing that I shall don my best silk smoking jacket, retire to my library, tamp my meerschaum with that Dubai cherry tobacco I’ve been saving, draw up the comfortable leather chair, and indulge myself in long languid reflection upon the nature of nature itself. My good man, do accept my most hearty thanks. I am in your intellectual debt… Cheers.
A few answers:
1. A road to Damascus experience
Paul could
- Ask his friends who “saw/heard” it
- Keep the “scales” that fell from his eyes
- Get his blindness documented
- Talk to Ananias and confirm details
2. Clear-cut experiences of independently developing Christianity on other planets, or in pre-Colombian Americans, or just in indisputable cases where there was a supernatural revelation
3. I like the Catholic mass miracle by CA. Certainly it would be difficult but not impossible to satisfy all conditions to show it wasn’t a hoax.
I had a "religious experience". It convinced me that all religions are human made constructs. While it was a glorious, liberating surge of understanding there was no hiding from the realisation that the voice I was hearing was my own.
I asked God to give me a sign because this was the last time I was asking and I meant it. This was after I went on quite a long journey, both physically and metaphorically, searching him out. The response broke me for a while. Seeing his back leaves you blind, seeing his face destroys you, and apparently hearing him talk shakes you for days and leaves you broken and crying on the floor for a good 20 mins or so hoping your wet shower puddle doesn't reach the plugged-in fan that's sitting in the middle of the floor. Maybe that's just me?
You say the back of other people's beliefs.
I dunno, but what was described above sounds kinda like abuse.
How did you rule out other possible causes of what you experienced?
Aliens that believed in Christ has been my go to argument for a long time.
See that one still wouldn't convince me. I explained why in a longer comment, but if aliens observed us from afar, then they'd likely do so by picking up our various radio transmissions. If they absorbed enough Christian media content (and let's face it, it's not as if we don't pump out a lot of it), they might become convinced that it's true. That's the TL,DR version, but I think it shows that Divine revelation is not the only means by which ET could come to Christianity.
The biggest problem with religious experience is that every day our understanding of the mind increases and we have better explanations to what people would call "religious experience", so that a supernatural explanation becomes unnecessary and, eventually, insufficient by itself to be a plausible "conversion reason".
But, in the same vein, this is a very clear case of non-commutativity, in the sense that if someone has the mental framework and the necessary baggage to understand those "heightened states", what can cause them and how they can manifest a priori to the religious experience, this person would be very unlikely to be persuaded by it. But if the knowledge comes a posteriori to the religious experience, the person is much more likely to reason that "such a thing is what happens to people from *other* religions, but mine is the true one", so the religious experience conversion is something that preys on the ignorance(with no value judgement) of the person in question.
Exactly, when you understand how easily our brains can create false memories, or how readily our senses betray us, then your first reaction upon experiencing something apparently supernatural is going to be to pull back the curtain and look behind it.
Well, keep diving in to Craig Keener and JP Moreland on miracles! :D and Caleb Jackson's upcoming book
Do you think Near-Death Experiences would as plausibly convince you as these other things?
I think Phenomenal Conservatism is basically the foundation of the second and third point. Fair enough. I personally am basically as sceptical as can get and although I do have reasons for that, maybe we all are just pushed towards these positions by our psychology. Trusting or agreeable people would tend to be more favorable to PC, whereas Radical Scepticism is more appealing to people who have trust issues.
If PC has any truth in it at all, it would be in a descriptive form. That is, I do think it is the case that we take phenomena for granted unless there's any defeater, but I don't think we _should_ do this.
I have no problem granting rationality for cheap, but that just cheapens rationality. Rationality has worth for me because I think that by being rational I can attain truth.
At this point we're again faced with a difference in disposition I think. There's "My worldview is just as plausible as any other" and "My worldview is just as implausible as any other".
In my web of beliefs there is are several *very small classes of seemings* which I put at least some credence in. The entire rest of seemings are worth *exactly zero* to me. They're in the "no better than flipping a coin" category.
@@user-qm4ev6jb7d What do you mean by small classes of seemings?
@@cynicviper Some clear categories of seemings which have "earned their pay", so to speak.
One part of my web of beliefs is the belief that *most seemings are wrong.* But I also have other beliefs of the form "seemings about X are usually right". Where each and every X is justified *separately,* with no over-arching "super-justification".
For example: seemings which are concerned with perceptions of movement of roughly human-sized objects, at low speeds, in normal atmospheric conditions. Justified by the fact that the human perceptual system evolved to correctly report these objects.
For example: seemings about mathematical problems. Justified by the fact that I personally have a math-related education, thus I have a more-than-average trained intuition for these things.
@user-qm4ev6jb7d Alright, I can get behind that, although I personally don't think "this seeming is right" means anything. There are seemings, some of which are immediate and others that occur because of some other seeming. I can say a lot of things which I would call true, e.g. "It seems to me I have two hands" is true. It really seems that way to me, but I wouldn't say that seeming is right, not only because I don't know if it is, but also because I don't know if it being right is a definite matter.
@@cynicviper What, in a "total sceptic" kind of way? Do you actually believe there is no objective reality?
There is a disconnect in the mindset of many (if not all) theist apologsts when it comes to non-believers. The concept of `God` they believe in, is of paramount importance in their worldview. As such, they tend to think it deserves attention and consideration to excessive levels. However, I don't believe in gods. The concept is not the cornerstone of my worldview, so sitting around wondering what would convince me, really doesn't make much sense anyway. If there is a god and it wants me to know it exists, I'll know. To quote a religious saying "For who can resist his will?" Also, it amazes me that I've yet to hear a Christian say "I became a Christian because someone told me I should." Not a one. There is always some `testimony` of a religious experience. So, if they didn't simply take someone's word for it, why would they expect anyone else to?
I had many “religious experiences” as a believer. That is one reason having one again would not be sufficient. I know how amazing they are, when you are poised to believe. From my later experiences, as a music lover, a lover of good argumentation, as a musician who sang and played on worship teams, though, I feel like I saw how the sausage is made. I know too much about how strong emotions can be stirred up by everyday things.
That said, if I had an experience, and in it, a god revealed to me something I don’t already know, and no one else does, but I could verify it, that would convince me. Like a theory that explains some phenomenon we don’t have an explanation for yet, an equation that we haven’t figured out. Something like this that had hard predictive capacity that could be verified.
The Silly Atheist trope that Music can give You The same Feeling You get from Religious exeifnces comes Up, I Know its Bogis. Religious Experiences are Not Purely about How You Feel Emotionally, and frankly, I find it Disgusting's You Think You Know How the Sausage is made" based on This, is Why I don't Think Atheist Use Reason or Care for Evidence
@@skwills1629I get that. I had very real experiences that convinced me that Jesus was Lord and that asking forgiveness and giving my heart to him was the only way to live free. Those experiences were more than just feelings to me. When I heard people giving talks and testimony at Ichthus and Young Life meetings, I felt that warmth rush over and through me, and the words from God telling me about my own heart and spirit. I know what people mean when they say that “I know that I know that I know.” I learned all the songs and started going to a church where a lot of my born again Presbyterian and Catholic friends had started going. It was a church where there were amazing with services, people speaking in tongues, laying on of hands, and loads and loads of prayer. Eventually, I played and sang in the worship team. This was my life. These are my people. I was surrounded by love and the spirit. It’s very real. We had multiple intercessional prayer (redundant?) sessions every week. I. Loved. It. When doubts about some aspects crept in, and it came from many angles, I felt like I was being tested. Once those things started to add up, which took years -the nature of spirits and brains, the similarities to other religions, the nature of prayer vs Gods Will, the realization that much of the experience could be summed up to very natural occurrences- I started to disbelieve. I wanted to believe. Not believing meant choosing between pretending and losing my whole friend base, the people I shared everything with. But, yeah. Those religious experiences were all way too similar to natural experiences that can be reproduced outside of the church and explained by natural brain function. That was one of many bricks that tumbled out of my faith wall. If you’d known me way back then, you wouldn’t have doubted my faith. Not until I lost it.
@@skwills1629and, disgusting? How so?
@@jonathanramsey - I Already Explained How. Why not Address the Rest of what I Said?
When it comes to religious experiences, in my case it would have to be something quite special. The reason for this is that I had certain deep feelings towards God when I was a Christian but years later I had almost the same feelings when I became interested in Buddhism. At that point I decided that both experiences were probably just psychological phenomena, as I saw no reason that 2 contradicting religions could both give me religious experiences that were caused by anything supernatural.
6:43 For non-believers who are analytical and rely much on logic and reason in forming propositions about God, it always surprises me that they will use “I’m not convinced” as an argument against God’s existence. I am surprised because it’s a basic non sequitur.
“I’m not convinced” is a statement about one’s personal epistemological state towards a proposition. Just as “I am convinced” is likewise just an epistemological condition about a proposition. Neither say anything about the proposition itself.
The _proposition itself_ stands independently of the epistemic attitudes and mental states of individuals.
One may or may not be convinced that aliens exist. But their existence is utterly independent of what any earthlings may think about them. It then does not follow to blame the aliens for the state of an earth-bound skeptic’s non-belief regarding their existence.
Lastly, how do non-believers _know_ what God would do or could do or has already done? Specifically? Not extrapolating generic omni properties from all the god claims out there, not extrapolating from classical theism, but from where are skeptics (or Schellenberg) getting this very niche specific idea that God wants a relationship with _everyone?_ Says who? What God is that? How does the non-believer know? How does the non-believer know he’s got the right attributes of God? How does the non-believer know his expectations he has about this God whom he claims not to be resisting are accurate?
My issue with the question is that Christians will act shocked if I say miracles happening wouldn't convince me of Christianity but if miracles are evidence for Christianity then a lack of miracles is evidence against it and they never seem to accept that as an argument. Also I find that while people have a sense that miracles are more expected under Christianity they struggle to explain why exactly a given miracle is expected without contradicting some other part of their beliefs, for example many people argue that God can't make himself obvious without taking away free will but if thats true then some massive cosmic sign is really unexpected and if its not true that loads of other atheist objections become more powerful.
This is Asinine.
"My issue with the question is that Christians will act shocked if I say miracles happening wouldn't convince me of Christianity"
In Reality, Christians would Not be Shocked that Someone Who Obviously Hates God and Pretends to not be Able to Hate God since You Defined Atheism as a lack of Beleif in a god and Pretend a Label Changes Reality won't be Convinced by Evidence. Christians Already Know People like You aren't Really People Who Merely lack beleif in a god, and do not lack beleif due to a lack of Evidence.
" but if miracles are evidence for Christianity then a lack of miracles is evidence against it "
Not Really. Especially given Not All Christians even Believe Miracles occur today. I for example Grew Up in The Churches Of Christ. The Churches Of Christ Teach that Miracles Ended at the Close of The Apostolic Age so when The Last Apostle Died and Last Person They Conferred Miraculous Gifts to Died, Miracles Ceased. Would the Abscence of Miracles disprove the Beliefs of The Churches of Christ? It would seem to be what We'd Expect if The Churches Of Christ were Right.
The Churches Of Christ are also Not Alone in This Beleif.
Then there's the Fact that the lack of Miracles is not the same as lack of God's Existence. This is like saying Alien Life does not Exist Off of Planet Earth because I Personally have Not Seen it.
Besides, Miracles are Reported as still Occurring, Atheists dismiss This and say All Miracles are Proven False Eventually but, This is a Lie, there are Plenty of Miracles that Simply have Not been shown to be Fraudulent. Atheists like You just Decide to Reject All Miracles as Fraudulent, then pretend if Anyone shows You a Miracle it must be a Fraud whilst Insisting We see You as Open Minded and a Critical Thinker Who merely lacks beleif, when it is Obvious You Decided in Advance what is True and what is Not True.
"and they never seem to accept that as an argument. "
Why would They ? Its a Logical Fallacy, and is Also Obviously a False Premise. People do Report Miracles Happening Today, and Not All Christians Believe Miracles occur Today. I am Not Contradicting Myself saying That Either, I am being Broad and Considering the Things You did not.
The Fact is, You are Not Really being Rational in This.
"Also I find that while people have a sense that miracles are more expected under Christianity"
Is This Really True, Though?
"they struggle to explain why exactly a given miracle is expected without contradicting some other part of their beliefs,"
No, Christians do Not Struggle with This. You Certainly haven't Demonstrated This to be the Case, At Any Rate. It is simply an Assertion.
" for example many people argue that God can't make himself obvious without taking away free will "
The Only Time I see This is when an Atheist Claims This is a Common Christian Argument. Can You Show Me ANy Actual Christians Saying This?
"but if thats true then some massive cosmic sign is really unexpected and if its not true that loads of other atheist objections become more powerful."
So, You go from "A Mircle" to "COsmic Sign"? You do Know a Miracle is Not the same Thing as a Cosmic Sign, Right?
A Miracle Healing is Not the same as some Cosmic Light Engulfing the Entire Earth, for example.
You are Moving The GOal Posts.
I think a God would be able to show themself. After all, I can show myself and I am not a goddess.
It wouldn't matter what the experience is or how resistant I would be to it being a god; a religious experience directly from a god, especially a tri-omni one, would stand up to any scrutiny.
I think it was Erik Hovind who said he was lying on the hood of his car, looking up at the night sky and asked for a sign when he saw a shooting star and just went "yep, that proves god is real all right". Just... no. He can define it as a religious experience however much he wants but I wouldn't do that.
Loving the idea of Christian aliens, though. An extreme version example of how a person in India wouldn't have hallucinations about Jesus if he's never heard of him, but the absurdity of it drives the point home better. Gonna start using that one.
Thank you for the perfect video. This topic is something I've been trying to come to my own conclusion for a couple of months now as an atheist. While I have my own criteria/standard, it still wasnt clear cut ebough for me. I really appreciate what you laid out, I find the christian aliens reason to be an amusing abd great response.
I never liked the God would know what it would take to convince me argument. I really had to think about this question for sometime and what I came up with is that it wouldn't be one thing or one fact it would be a series of facts that fit together into a comprehensive theory that contain no internal contradictions and doesn't contradict any of our understanding of reality / theories. You know just like everything else I accept to be most likely true.
Great video. A brief critique of the idea that religious experiences make religious belief rational:
Suppose we do accept some kind of principle of credulity. It will still be true that we ought to treat perceptual claims differently depending on their content. For instance, claims with extremely specific content (ie. 'I saw a hispanic male who was around 44 with a mustache vs 'I saw a man') and extraordinary content (ie. I saw pixies in the forest vs I saw a tree in the forest) should be treated with more skepticism, even introspectively. External circumstances also affect these claims. In particular, claims that have reasonable alternative explanations (ie. suddenly being scared someone is following you because there's been car behind you for a few minutes) claims that, induced under similar circumstances, produce false beliefs (ie. religious experiences of the Christian God vs. Zeus), and claims that are widely disputed (ie. ESP) are all claims that should be treated with initial skepticism. Since most religious experiences fit into almost all of these categories, I don't think they generally support the rationality of theistic beliefs. Thinking I saw a God of a very specific kind is not like perceiving a table in front of me. If that really were true, then it would lead to a permissiveness about rationality such that all sorts of crazy things could be credulously accepted ie. ESP, UFO religions, fairies in the forest, bigfoot, etc.
Claims about religious experience can be modified to avoid some of this, but not in satisfactory ways. For instance, if the claims made about the content of the experience are much less specific (ie. I accessed something supernatural), then they will be thereby less problematic, but they won't support belief in Christian theism. Additionally, most religious experiences fall into one of two categories: first, the relatively mild sort ie. feeling in touch with God while listening to a sermon or hearing Christian music. These experiences, however, can easily be explained naturalistically and are unreliable due to the fact that they variously produce incompatible beliefs. On the other hand, one could amp up the content so it's something enormously intense and mystical, and thus hard to explain naturalistically. But these experiences are very rare for most people and usually induced under unreliable circumstances, and they still variously produce incompatible beliefs.
To add onto your excellent answer; how do I know what a religious experience is let alone if one is even possible to exist? How do I know that what I am experiencing is in fact a religious experience?
when it comes to believing in say a table, we need to know what a table is, what it’s made of, etc. for the sake of simplicity let’s assume that tables are only made out of wood. So in order for me to believe in tables I need to believe that wood exists, and where does wood come from, it comes from trees, and I can see trees and validate that they do in fact exist. So trees = wood = tables.
If we run the same parallel process with a religious experience, we soon find an issue, and that is we simply don’t know whether god exists or not. Just as tables depend on the existence of wood, religious experience depend on god’s existence, but we don’t know whether one exists or not, I mean that’s the whole issue we’re trying to solve here; whether he exists or not.
I fundamentally agree with your post- but to uh, play “Devil’s advocate” 😈👹, what if while you were just about to go to bed, a man with what you believe Jesus would look like appeared at your bedside, and told you he loves you, wants what’s best for you, and proceeded to address every concern you’ve been having about your life, using knowledge anyone but you couldn’t possibly have. And if he were to instantly heal you of some serious, measurable ailments, such as, diabetes, or cancer, and then at the end of this session, he levitated up and through the ceiling.
And to top it off, your significant other was in bed and witnessed all this.
Now, this is far fetched, and I don’t expect it to happen anytime soon, but would this be convincing?
It would be a doozy for me. But, what if Jesus really were a god, but it’s just that humanity wrote the Bible incorrectly, and he’s actually not quite what they say he is- but that he’s actually much better, in that he doesn’t represent the bad ideas of the Bible?
I generally agree with this; however, I do believe it is a rational conclusion from an individuals perspective. I only say this because the only experience that I personally would except as a supernatural experience would be one that passes all of my checks for BS. But, personal experience should not be used in an apologetic sense.
The plausibility of an experience bares little relation to the truth of the experience. It has been proven time and time again that witness testimony is extremely unreliable. Even in the most mundane of situations.
For example, people in a crowded restaurant see an assault. You will find that none of them will agree 100% on obvious details. Human memory is reconstructive. Natural and subjective biases will always dominate any experience. And most people will embellish their stories to make them more interesting, And, if they hear other witnesses talking about what they saw, they may go along with whatever the rest of the group believes. Just to agree and to be part of the 'in' group. (The bandwagon effect.) Even if they did not see it themselves.
So, it should not be said, "EXTRAORDINARY claims require EXTRAORDINARY evidence," rather, "ALL claims require EXTRAORDINARY evidence." In fact, what makes a claim ordinary in the first place is that it is already supported by extraordinary evidence. However, ordinary claims can be very dangerous because they can lead to extraordinarily bad consequences when the stakes are high if they can be made without the need for scrutiny or supporting evidence. Sometimes improbable things happen.
Profound spiritual experiences can be easily induced with drugs, medical interventions and deep brain stimulation, with strong magnetic fields applied to specific areas of the brain. These can re-enforce pre-existing beliefs and thus produce detailed experiences compatible with prior held beliefs. If you already believe in aliens, you will see aliens. If you believe in Jesus as your personal saviour, you will see Jesus. People have even had deep philosophical conversations with their delusions.
There are things like temporal lobe epilepsy that can lead to delusions interpreted as religious experiences. Seeing may be believing. But it does not mean it is reality. It is the sort of thing that can lead to mass hysteria and can re-enforce the religious beliefs of large numbers of people. Even confirming the beliefs of people who were not present.
This is specifically why I would only say from an individuals perspective (It is very unreliable, but you'll probably trust yourself). So, would you not agree with someone saying they have to see to believe? For me, if I were to have a, "Come to Jesus moment" I would probably believe, only because there are no biases to support that I would see YHWH or Jesus. (I'm an Agnostic Atheist). Nevertheless we are slaves to our brains, so it is rational to say that I'd trust my Personal experience over anyone else's.
I agree with the Christian Aliens evidence, but contend that this experiment has been run before, circa 1492. I am open to a rerun of the experiment however.
Also 1606 with Australia.
Doesn’t count. That was with primitive, highly superstitious people who had zero knowledge of how anything works.
@@theunknownatheist3815were they so far behind a bunch of goat herders living in the desert?😊
You are SO Balanced and Reasonable! Many atheists just call me dumb for believing in God. You're more like Hume or Carl Sagan:" Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence".......
Sagan was a Clown and Expradordinary Claims do not Really Require extraordinary Evidence.
The problem with experience of God is that people just assume they experience God based on some vague feelings etc. because they were raised in a culture talking about God. If they were unbiased in interpreting the experience they would not say it was definitely God. How do you distinguish between God and something else? We have evidence that people can hallucinate etc. How a mere experience of talking to someone can validate the Creator of the Universe? Moreover a specific Christian God? That is the problem.
Yeah, aside from the good point of religious aliens these are all options I have also personally noted. Any god with both the desire (omni1) and the ability (omni2&3) to convince people it exists would, by definition, have no trouble doing so -- yet isn't achieving its own goal. Modify the world, for all to see: even just a face in the sky. Or verifiable religion-dependent miracles, like those pesky amputees. Personal experiences can be valid evidence -- personally. I have a decent idea of how fallible human perception and memory are, so I consider my view of the anecdotal side with contradictions both within and between religions to be extremely unconvincing.
I thought for the longest time that I had been visited by the holy spirit when I got this funny flighty feeling in my chest during service when I felt seen by the pastor. I found out later that such feelings aren't unique to Christianity and in fact burning incense has been known to increase the likelihood of having such an experience. Since then, "Having a religious experience" doesn't cut the mustard for me. I've had those, I had one in a mosque once. I need The Man himself to come down and give it to me straight to start believing again, nothing less.
I don't Understand Why ":Unique to Christianity: is somehow the Metric. as if People having Similar Experiences in Different Religions means Christianity is False. Especially since You People are also Arguing God shou;d have made everyone the same Religion by talking to Everyone. But if God Gave everyone The Holy Bible and made Them Christian You'd just Dismiss that because it can't be true, since everyone was Christian, Therefore it must Not be God but Common to Humanity Thus Purey Naturalistiuc. its a double Bind.
@@skwills1629 So you're telling me its unclear why the "True Religion" having the exact same evidence as the mutually exclusion "Fake Religions" would be problematic? And if God himself came down and had a conversation with me Job/Paul style, I wouldn't somehow twist that to being naturalistic, as I can't conceive how you could possibly do that short of finding out you were incredibly high.
@@krusk3544- Atheist are Dishonest Sociopaths.
"So you're telling me its unclear why the "True Religion" having the exact same evidence as the mutually exclusion "Fake Religions" would be problematic? "
No, You Morally Degenerate Liar, it is Very Clear that This is Not what I said and You are a Bigoted Morally degenerate Sociopath.
"And if God himself came down and had a conversation with me Job/Paul style,"
God is Already Here. You are just an iduota. Also, While Jesus is The second Person of The Trinity, There is a Difference when We Speak of God coming down and Jesus since You Morally Degenerate Sociopath Atheists tend to say Nonsense like God tortured His son Jesus, so even You Know there is a Distinction between God in General and Jesus., Jesus also did not come to Convert Paul you Morally Degenerate Lying Sociopathic Atheist, and I am Getting Tired of How You Morally Degenerate Sociopath Atheist pretend God came done and personally Visited Paul with the Objective being to Convert Him when in Reality, Jesus Confronted Saul Of Tarsus, Not Paul yet, because Saul was Killing Christians. The Objective was to get Saul of Tarsus to Stop Killing Christians. Jesus did not simply Visit Paul to have a Conversation with Ho and Convert im you Morally Degenerate Lying Atheist Sociipath.
The same basic problem exists for the Other Example You copy about Thomas. Jesus did not Ressurect from the Dead just to Visit Thomas and Convertt Him. You are disgusting Liars.
And as for Job, Really, see Above.
God did not Com down and Visit them Personally to Convert Them. You are a Morally Degenerate Sociopathic Atheist and a Liar.
" I wouldn't somehow twist that to being naturalistic,"
You'd call it a Hallucination. Even if Not You'd say God is so Evil he is unworthy of Our Worship. You are after all Not an original Tinker and just Quote the same garbage i See others in Your tribal Atheistic Religion Say, and We All Know how Absurd You are. You are a Sociopathic Atheist Scumbag.
" as I can't conceive how you could possibly do that short of finding out you were incredibly high."
You;' Contrive an Excise. Really You'd just Copy One from Matt Dillahunty or AronRa or some other Bigoted Sociopath Atheist.
The thing we need to keep in mind when asking theists for evidence, is that, to them, God is the author of all things, so EVERYTHING is evidence for God.
While we don't have naturalistic explanations for EVERYTHING, we DO have naturalistic explanations for most of the things that were, in Biblical times, attributed to the actions of one or more supernatural entities. For the handful of gaps that remain, there is no more reason to assume a supernatural explanation, than there is for the questions we have already answered.
So the best evidence for the existence of a supernatural God would be ANY occurrence or phenomenon that can be VERIFIED to have actually happened, for which the BEST explanation (and by "best" I mean that which most completely fits the available data) is a supernatural one.
Of course, apologists can appeal to any event or miracle claim in the Bible and say that it can't have a naturalistic explanation, but they also can't demonstrate that thing actually happened. And, of course, apologists will misrepresent and distort the naturalistic explanations we DO have, to try to make the supernatural seem more plausible. "Atheists can't explain how life got here / how the universe started / how the laws of the universe are so finely tuned" arguments are only convincing to a) those who already believe, b) those who don't understand what we actually DO know about these things and c) those who just want to believe in something but aren't quite sure what.
If anyone can provide an example of a verifiable miraculous occurrence that simply CANNOT be explained in naturalistic terms, or for which a supernatural cause is the BEST or ONLY explanation that can be made to fit, that would be good evidence for the existence of a God.
Would I then convert to Christianity, as the narrator of this video says that they would, if Christianity could be demonstrated to have permeated to other worlds? No. It's one thing to have evidence that a God exists, it's another to join that God's fan club and worship it.
Even Christian Aliens could be explained - if a sufficiently advanced alien race had been monitoring our radio transmissions and so on for the last few decades, they would likely have been bombarded with countless advertisements, political campaign videos, infomercials, megachurch broadcasts, etc., all proclaiming the glory of one God or another. It's not entirely implausible that, given this unfiltered, unsorted influx of media, being absorbed uncritically by an alien species that has no other context in which to frame it, they would end up being convinced of the truth of an Earthly religion and worshipping its God.
EDIT: further into the video and the "miracles" part is, I guess, pretty much what the narrator is saying - that is, a miraculous event that is unequivocally, unambiguously supernatural. As for the religious experience, no you should not trust your faculties. There are many examples that I could use to illustrate just how easily our senses can be fooled, and how we can construct false memories. The invisible gorilla experiment, optical illusions, the Mandela effect, felt presence (the sensation that there's someone else with you - often experienced by mountain climbers and the like). Knowing this, if I had a religious experience, I would still go through a lot of self-examination before I'd settle on a supernatural conclusion.
Solid truthful answers, It was religious experiances that led me to a provisional position toward theism that I thought deserved honest exploration. Monotheism and Christianity had flawed logic and incoherent issues, but polytheism I had always overlooked as ancient and debunked, I was quite surprised at how it avoided most of the issues that plague the Abrahamic faiths. Might be worth looking at, even just for a fun mental exercise. Ocean Keltoi has a great series covering the philosophy that I think you might enjoy.
It seems like the thing you’re missing is that an unambiguous religious experience would be so far outside the realm of normal experience that doubt should be the reasonable default unless you have good reason to believe. I mean, honestly: is it more probable that a perfectly loving god finally got around to saying “hi” to you for the first time as an adult, or that you’re imagining things? I *_know_* my senses lie to me all the time.
So, The lack of Religious Experiences is Proof that God does Not Exist, but a Religious Expeince is Not Proof that God Exists. Right. And what about People Who have Many of them Oh that's Right, that means You have a Mental Illness and Hallucenate.
I am sorry but I Find it hard to take Atheists seriosuy when it is Obvious You decide in Advance to Reject God's Existence, and Decide i God does Exist God is Evil and Doesn't Deserve Our Worship, so This Really is not Rationality, its an Excuse.
What’s interesting for the skeptic is that in order to say God is “silent and distant/hidden” the non-believer, by necessity, in order for his claim to make sense, must know what God is like when He is near and does speak and is not hiding. How does the non-believer know any of that?
In addition, Schellenberg posits there are non-resisting non-believers. But from where does he get this? From non-believers who say they’re open to theism or Christianity?
If so, why does he just accept what they say? After all, if a Christian tells a skeptic she has a personal relationship with God through Christ, the skeptic is instantly suspicious, begins to pick apart the Bible and is quick to point out and dismiss the subjective nature of the woman’s experience.
So Schellenberg’s argument is something of a double standard. Subjective personal experience of the non-believer merits epistemic weight (I do not resist God, I think God is hidden, silent, distant). To force his point, Schellenberg seems to take the non-believer’s experiences as objectively axiomatic.
But if a Christian says they believe Jesus is Lord, that God speaks to them through His word, that He is not silent and that God raised Jesus from the dead, suddenly the personal experience of the believer is subjective, questionable, and virtually irrelevant, epistemically speaking.
What would I need? The same as if it was Godzilla. What do you need to be convinced that Godzilla isn't just a fictional character? Then the same applies to any other fictional character as God.
But, for that to happen, the whole Bible must be demonstrated to be 100% true to the real world, as much as it would need the Quran or the Bahatva Gita, the words of Zarathustra, etc. Because we are talking about specific characters, not sofistic incongruent and general concepts.
The issue I have with religious experiences is that they are almost always described as, “something odd or unlikely or emotional happened, and as my community taught me, I attributed the cause to the supernatural and specifically to my interpretation of the Christian god.”
If religious experiences were god unambiguously appearing, identifying itself with a specific religion, and chatting for a while, fine. I recently had a Christian tell me that a big pot fell off a rack in the kitchen where he worked, for no apparent reason, and that this counted as an experience that he considered evidence for god. It’s so lame.
This is of Course what Atheist Say, but Really, when You say This,m it is a Lie.
“something odd or unlikely or emotional happened, and as my community taught me, I attributed the cause to the supernatural and specifically to my interpretation of the Christian god.”
Why on Earth Should I Take This Seriously? What are You even basing this on?
And What is with You Bigoted Sociopaths calling God It? Or saying if God showed itself. God is not an it. \I Know Atheist are all moral Degenerates, but when You Scum call God it, it means I Have No Reason to Respect You.
You Sociopathic Atheists don't lack belief in God due to a lack of Evidence, You just hate God. And No, You Bigoted Sociopath Atheists, I am not so Indoctrinated by Religion that I just can't Understand a lack of belief in a god. You call God It, and You Only Call God it to express Hatred and Contempt its Disgusting.
It is also a way to Virtue Signal to Your Tribe You Pretend doens't Exist.
You never even Back up the Dogmas from the Holy Religion of Atheism is Not A Religion, You Just Spew them as Fact.
aliens landing here 2 thousand years ago and creating the jesus myth and escaping unseen would be more plausible than christianity being real, if christian aliens were to suddenly appear. at least to me
I usually give your answer number three. In fact, what I normally say is, “Some type of Damascus Road experience. It doesn’t have to be quite as ostentatious. Just some clear and unmistakable interaction with the Almighty, where I would know what I experienced even if nobody else did.” Sometimes I’ll even economize it into something as pithy, as, “He could say hello every now and then. “I get the same kind of feedback you do - I’m asking too much. Or, perhaps he’s done this for me, and I just wasn’t paying attention.
What would convince me? If god created a world without suffering, evil, people getting false beliefs, no sin, eternal loving relationship. In this world everyone would be convinced.
My question for apologists is: what would convince you to change beliefs? If you’re Mormon, what would it take to be Muslim? If Catholic, what would make you become Hindu? Once we establish standards of evidence that are acceptable, I feel safer from typical apologetic scripts and can have a real conversation
As a believer, these are all totally fine answers. The "what would convince you?" question is meant to confront resistant nonbelievers about their poor epistemology. Similarly, a Christian should be able to rattle off things that would deconvert them, like Jesus' corpse or Muslim aliens.
I don't think anyone is under any such obligation to rattle off any number of things that would convince them to adopt a wholly different set of beliefs about reality to the ones they currently hold.
Even having an answer wouldn't necessarily make that answer right (indeed, it's probably more likely that it'd be wrong), because nobody is omniscient and nobody knows what other factors might come into play that might invalidate one or more of the items on any list they might be able to "rattle off", nor indeed could they be sure that such a list was exhaustive.
Nor would I consider it necessary that a single datum would be sufficient to convince someone. In some cases, it can be the cumulative effect of a number of considerations (and having listened to TH-camrs who have - I believe the term these days is "deconstructed" - it appears to be _very often_ not a single datum but a whole series of things).
And the last four words of the second sentence really don't give a good impression (unless the intent was to sound condescending and elitist), and leave one open to retorts of standing in a glass house while throwing stones. The statement is much better without them. Not everyone is a philosopher, nor is anyone required to be (as your own Bible, I believe, points out on several occasions, with its remarks about "the wisdom of this world").
1. The problem with Christian aliens:
Well, the problem is that you yourself have pointed out the problem and that would be: there are other plausible and naturalistic explanations for the existence of Christian aliens, other than Christianity being actually true. And you saying "But, come on, that would be spectacular evidence for Christianity" doesn't do anything for the God hypothesis. I would agree it would actually be spectacular evidence, but wouldn't be conclusive. It would STILL not warrant belief.
2. The problem with miracles:
I didn't check your other videos and you haven't detail this topic, so idk exactly what you mean by miracles or what type of miracle would convince you. But I have never seen anyone describe a miracle exhaustively (aka it doesn't have any other explanation other than "this is 100% proven supernatural and links to God". Most proposed miracles so far have other potential and plausible explanations. Those that don't, don't and that's exactly the point: they don't. Which means you can't call them supernatural or link them to God or Christianity or any other religion. Because they're simply unexplained events.
3. The problem with personal experience:
I'll focus precisely on the murder example, because that appears to be your strongest point. My problem with that example is that it seems impossible. I have never heard of a case where the prosecution can prove with physical evidence beyond the shadow of a doubt that someone is guilty, yet the individual has no recollection of the events. FURTHERMORE, he can recall everything he did in that day when he was supposed to have committed the crime. This has never happened.
But let's say it can happen. Let's say your example is possible. What would that tell you? You know what? That you're wrong and that your memories are flawed. Because empirical evidence > one person's subjective experience. They weigh more. If the prosecution can provide exhaustive evidence, proving your guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt, with DNA, first-hand witnesses, video recording, everything, then your memories are demonstrably false.
Sure, you may be justified to believe you didn't do it based on your experience, but that's the fault of this position - it's that you would be demonstrably wrong. This is why we cannot use personal experience to determine an objective truth like the existence of something outside of yourself, in the reality around you that everybody else shares.
I don't want to advertise my channel in your comment section, but I've just posted recently a video on this exact problem: what would convince me that God exists. Check it out and maybe you can comment on it :). Keep up the good work!
The problem is you can’t use the argument from evil. It simply doesn’t work. The argument from evil, intentionally or not, denies the power of free will. God did not make us flesh robots, he gave us the ability to choose entirely for ourselves. This is because we were made to praise him willingly, but to do so there has to be the option to do the opposite, which is evil, and spawns more evil.
I'm aim to be a consistent Pyrrhonist (classical skeptic), so I literally can't imagine what evidence could make me believe in God. There might be evidence that made me think God was a good theory, worth using for predictive or explanatory power, but that's not true belief. There's also the question of the word "god." If it involves worship, I'm immediately out, nothing worthy of worship to me, would ever not actively shun worship (which it could universally across time if it were an omniscient & omnipotent being). If this God that was omniscient & omnipotent existed, I'd have questions about its moral reasoning & decision-making, but more than that, I'd feel bad for anything that knew everything & was always all-powerful. The poor thing could never experience growth, it could never know the joys of learning, never know the pains of failure & the eventual glory of successive training & improvement beyond previous limits. To be the most common idea of God would be a hell worse than the worst ideas of Hell. It'd have no free will, even its own actions known in advance & so predetermined. It's easy to feel pity for this tragic thing, & even excuse all the horrific behavior it (he, from now on, to respect the sexless incorporeal being's pronouns), committed throughout the various scriptures. I don't believe anything, so I also don't believe there is *nothing* that can't convince me the Christian God is real. That doesn't mean I'm not doubtful from my extreme lack of imagination on this question.
I am Really Tired of people calling Themselves Sceptics when it is Obvious that You aren't Sceptical at all, You've just Decided to Reject the Existence of God, and Especially of Christianity, so Decided it can't be True thus No Evidence can be Permitted. You Will Always Invent an Excuse to Dismiss it. And No, You'd not feel Sorry for God. That is Copy And paste Pseudo-Wisdom. Calling God it is an Insult of Course, and Demeaning, which is Why You do it. You do not lack beleif, You simply Hate.
I wonder how religious a religious experience would have to be to convince me. I'm really sure nothing supernatural is possible so if God brought me to heaven or something i might explain it as being a dream or something, he would have to do something more complicated than just showing up and talking to me.
There are still fallacies in this reason, but the following would convince me: If sometime before I die all Christians come to an agreement on the correct Christian denomination. Why risk joining the wrong one? I'm not expecting Christians to agree on everything, but things like salvation, the Trinity, Heaven and Hell, baptism, communion, the resurrection, spirits, please come to some consensus so I can believe. It would also help to know in which language and which Bible version is the most accurate depiction of God's word, so I can learn that language and read it.
Honest question
Have you read the bible?
There are some questions about God's reasons to choose to do something or another, that the Bible just explain.
"Why the Christian God decided to do A instead of B? Why don't the Christian God doesn't B?"
It's answered in the Bible. I think it's better to just read instead of me trying to explain
You could still argue that you would make a different choice than God. Or argue that this is not a loving choice. But anyway, the answer is there
For me personally, I believe that based on what He said, the choice to not grant visions to anyone, and to be letting animal suffer right now it's coherent, and I trust Him
Nothing would convert me to Christianity. Even if I became convinced that that god actually exists, nothing could convince me to worship it.
I hope I’m welcome to speak on this even though I’m not an atheist or agnostic. I guess, as an especially unconventional sort of Christian who many people would probably say isn’t truly a Christian at all, my short response would be this. Maybe this is the best possible outcome. I mean, if we were all worshiping God and asking him for the answers to all our questions, knowing for sure that he was there to just hand us whatever we need, what would even be the purpose of everything at that point? The uncertainty generates different perspectives on life. People don’t have to worship him if they don’t want to, and given the evil in the world, a lot of people might not want to. And people who simply choose not to believe in something without evidence may observe things in ways they wouldn’t be able to otherwise. I don’t know. I just never saw the good in going around telling people that they would be eternally punished unless they sing the praises of their invisible creator every weekend, but I never saw that as a reason why God couldn’t exist. I’m a Christian for no other reason than because it makes sense to me, and because God, the way I see him, is actually pretty cool. But so far he hasn’t been insecure enough to tell me to go defend his honor on internet forums. Maybe the best way for us to learn right from wrong is to figure it out for ourselves. Or maybe I’ve got it wrong and Poseidon is going to eternally drown me in the afterlife for not kissing his sandals at high tide like I was supposed to. Or maybe I’m just some weirdo who talks to his imaginary sky daddy. I don’t think anyone can truly say for certain, but if I were God, I probably wouldn’t want to force every single one of my creations to worship me either.
It makes sense that God, if they exist, may not want to convince everyone of their existence - after all, God might not be all-loving nor all-powerful (this is touched on in the video). As such I can understand believing in God broadly, but not in believing the Christian one specifically.
@@Rikri I would go along with this. A God that wasn't particularly interested in convincing everyone of their own existence might be compatible with any number of human concepts of God - but it is not compatible with one that is also supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, cares about humanity and wants a personal relationship with humans, especially in a scenario where the stakes are so high, where unbelief results in (at best) annihilation or (at worst) eternal torture. So such a God could not - at least on the face of it - be the God of Christianity.
“I’ve been Emerson Green” - Nice try, FBI/alien/FBI alien 🕵️♂️👽
Guess I should go full theist now, innit 🙏
This was well thought-out. I noticed you don’t spend much time on a specific flavour of God, to which I agree that the more meaningful plausibility is for a God no human has accurately conceived of. Still, there is a glaring absence of direct evidence for a God in any form.
"Personal testimony matters if and only if it matters across the board" is something both new atheists and many apologists have yet to understand.
If you are a "Believer", you already you have accepted that Yahweh can replace true memories with false ones (Tower of Babel). This demonstrates that Yahweh is a powerful being yes, but not OMNI anything. Any "Testimony" may be based on actual experience, or a false implanted memory. You have no way of knowing.
What’s your point OP?
@kriegmesserdclxvi2833 Which is why it's a biconditional for both parties, either both testimonies are useful or neither of them are. I dont see how simply arriving at the belief in theism or atheism solves the problem of "secret resistance" or other "alternate explanations" for ones belief.
So would these christian aliens need of had to sacrifice JC, or the alien version of JC? :P
"For God sent his son to a planet called "earth" where he died for their sins"
Emerson, you missed the point! You're supposed to say which of the existing apologetic arguments would convince you.
Why do Atheists need to just be Anti-Christian Bigots that Spew Endless Hatred and Mockery to Christians?
"What would change your mind and convince you to convert?"
Those are two separte questions.
As for what would convince me that not only God exists, but it's the abrahamitic one, and is univocally one of the various version of the abrahamitic gods, he needs to show up, do stuff and give me tangible, observable proof that he exists and is the one.
Then, even if he shows up and convinces me that he's real and is really the abrahamitic god, I would still not "convert" or worship him unless he actively uses his power to do good deeds and amend for all the atrocities he made, maybe even by retroactively change the timeline; only in this way will he prove to me that he's actually the omnibenevolent deity apologists claim him to be, and not the evil sadistic bloodthirsty bipolar monster that is depicted in the sacred texts.
While I agree that a religious experience could be sufficient to convince me of the existence of a God, that would come with some caveats. Given the existence of others that as far as I can ascertain have not had such an experience and sincerely do not believe, a God showing up and having a relationship with me still doesn't, in my opinion, justify me believing that there is a good God that created a world in which everyone that DOESN'T have that personal relationship will suffer eternally. That's my problem with what a lot of Christians try to justify with their personal experiences. Their idea of what God must be has too many implausible additional ideas attached to it that I don't see any way to justify based on the experiences they have had. In fact, I think their belief in a God with such characteristics casts significant doubt on how much truth can come from their experiences, as a God that created such a world appears to me to be inherently untrustworthy. It seems those theists should doubt whether what they believe they are hearing from that God actually is intended as a true representation of his character and reality for their benefit, or if they are being misled by a being that based on their own claims does not appear to prioritize the best interests of all the beings he created.
Miost Christians don't even say "Personal Relationship with God", In Fact, even Evangrlicals say "With Jesus Christ", who WhIle God, is still Not the same Terminolohgy.I find Atheists to be Unconvincing when they Make basic Terminological Errors. Like calling Hell Eternal Torture. And Really, No one can Suffer Eternally in Hell. Hel is itself Not Eternal since it had a Beginning, and if You Go to Hell, You can't have Always been there. Eternal means No beginning and No Ending.
Honestly though, You are a Typical Follower of The Holy Religion of atheism, and WIll pretend to be an Expert on Christianity, Wo has Read The Bible Multiple Times and Who Knows it better than The Average Christian. You haven't Read The Bible of Course, You've Read Atheist Websites and WIll Recite the same Handful of Well Word Nonsense about it.
"While I agree that a religious experience could be sufficient to convince me of the existence of a God, that would come with some caveats."
It Only comes with One Caveat, that it not be "The Christian God:, and that's it.
" Given the existence of others that as far as I can ascertain have not had such an experience and sincerely do not believe, "
This is an assumption since Most Atheist i Know are Never Sincere in their Supposed "lack of beleif", Atheists are the most Dishonest People I Know.
"a God showing up and having a relationship with me still doesn't,"
Somene lalready Said i was Denying The trinity and all that but, Honestly, Christians do ot see God as a Man. One of the Biggest Strawman Postings Atheists Set Up is this Silly idea that God is Somehow Not here and has to Show Up, as if God is a Man Who can Walk Up to you and "Have a Relationship", when God is a Spirit Not a man, and is Already present in Your Life. It is Not Really True that God is Not there and needs to Show Up to have a Relationship with You. God is Already There, and You already have a Relationship with God. The Question is what Sort of a Relationship is it?
" in my opinion, justify me believing that there is a good God that created a world in which everyone that DOESN'T have that personal relationship will suffer eternally."
That's Not what Christians Actually Teach. And I Really Resent how Atheist take a Handful of Misrememnered Slogans like ":personal relationship with God": and Recreate Christian Theology as Nothing but Having a "personal Relationship with god" , This is Really Not addressing what Christianity traches, and No Not even the :Fundamentalists" teach This, and it is Really just a Cheap, pathetic Cop Out for Atheist to reduce Christianity to this.
Try reading The 39 Articles of religion, or The Westminster Confession Of Faith, or The three great Creeds, The Apostles Creed, The Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, You won't Find Any Reference to "A Persoal relationship with God": or that being what Saves You, or that All Who do not have a "Personal Relationship with God": are Damned.
" That's my problem with what a lot of Christians try to justify with their personal experiences. "
No its Not. Its a Ridiculous Caricature of Christianity You Learned to Mock from Other Atheists.
"Their idea of what God must be has too many implausible additional ideas attached to it"
No, it really doesn't.
" that I don't see any way to justify based on the experiences they have had."
I resent when An Atheist tells Me I am a Christian because of My Warm Fuzzy Feelings. I Really get Tired of Hearing how Christians Only have Emotion and personal Expeirnces. Tjis is Ridiculous and Clearly not True since its Not all about Personal experiences and Warm Fuzzy Feelings.
It is Modern Day I Am So Rational Athesm that is Actually Emotionally Rooted.
" In fact, I think their belief in a God with such characteristics casts significant doubt on how much truth can come from their experiences,"
You don;t even Know what Christianity teaches. Much less Why People are Christian.
" as a God that created such a world appears to me to be inherently untrustworthy."
In Reality, of Course, God can't be shown to be Untrustworthy and "The Way God Created the World" is Not the problem We see today. All you did was Admit I was Right and You have No idea what Christianity even teaches.
" It seems those theists "
Why do Atheist Use the term Theist as a Synonym for Christian?
"should doubt whether what they believe they are hearing from that God actually is intended as a true representation of his character and reality for their benefit,"
Why? Because a Sociopath Athist Said so?
And would this be Applicable to someone from the Churches of Christ?
do You even Know Why I Asked?
" or if they are being misled by a being that based on their own claims does not appear to prioritize the best interests of all the beings he created."
This is You being a Liar. Christians do Not Claim God Acts Agaisnt The best Interest of Those he Created. Thats what You Sociopathoic, Morally Degenerate Atheists Say About Christianity, and it is Why I Call You Sociopathic and Morally Degenerate Atheist since its Simply a Lie.
Thank you for this thoughtful video. I have often stated that before discussing the existence of some particular god or set of gods that I would like to see compelling evidence of the supernatural. This should be easy to provide if there do indeed exist supernatural entities. Causing my refrigerator to continue to operate after being unplugged from a power source would do the trick.
For me there is practically no difference between a supernatural entity that never does anything supernatural and a supernatural entity that does not exist.
Oh Please, its Hard for me to take Seriously Atheist Wo Claim there is No evidence and Repeating the Dogma of The Hoy religion of Atheism that a god tat does Nothing does not Exist, when We have Reports of Miracles You Summarily dismiss without Really Any Valid Reason to Other than an A Pruori Assumption that Miracles do not happen.
In 2013, in Legnica, Poland, a Eucharist Miracle Occurred, and You can look This Up I Copied from a website.
"The three apparent Eucharistic miracles that have undergone the most extensive scientific analysis happened in Buenos Aires, Argentina (1992, 1994, 1996); Tixtla, Mexico (2006); and Sokólka, Poland (2008)."
You Ignore that. And Several Other examples. Why would I Think You'd Not Ignore Your Refrigerator or Contrive an Excuse for it Instead
I guess the real question is how the way I think of things do you want there to be God
I’d really love to see you in dialog with Caleb Jackson again, but actually get into some specific miracle cases and talk about why you do/don’t find them compelling.
Isn't the "a religious experience would convince me" pretty similar to the "god would know what would convince me" answer? Religious experience seems pretty vague and the next obvious question would be to ask for details.
There is a thin veil that allows us to ignore the experience of eternity. Look around, eternity is resting gently on on you. You are in it and it is in you. The deep and profound feeling of dissolving into eternity like a drop in the endless sea is what i think believers experience. It's overwhelming. Christians call it Yahweh , Jehovah or Jesus, Muslims call it Allah, Hindus call it Vishnu, Brahma or Krishna. No one owns it and it has no name you can call it great. The word God is entirely appropriate.
Appropriate but doesn't fit.
@@stephenolan5539 that was kind of the point. The concept of god that i described doesn't fit the Christian or Muslim or Hindu god completely but may well be the root that they grew from. Most believers say it is a feeling that makes them believe and the feeling of eternity is definitely god like
To convince me of any God, you first need to convince me that a mind can exist without a body (the problem of souls). Once you do that, we can work out the details of how powerful those souls are, and you can try to convince me of a tri-omni soul. After that, you just have to convince me that the Jesus story is more likely truth than myth.
Honestly for me it would take the old showman side of God reviving. I mean like knocking down the walls of Jericho at the sound of a horn and/or breaking open the tombs and raising the Saints when Jesus died. But even then I don't know that it would help me then because I wouldn't have faith at that point I would likely have knowledge which depending on interpretation might leave me lacking when judgement comes because faith is the requirement.
God did not Raise Anyone when Jesus Died. The Dead Rose from their Graves After The Resurrection of Jesus., not at His Death. That is Also Not a Small Detail. Also, Why would You Really Expect Any of that? God is not an "Old Showman". The Bible Never Depicts God as Constantly Working Large Scale Miracles. Those are Rare, and Done On Very Rare Occasions. Even the Two Examples You Listed were over a Thousand Years Apart from Each Other. Between then You had Several Other Events that Never Remotely Displayed Large Scale Miracles, such as Gideon, Who before He was called had to Steal Grain Left Over at the Bottom of a Grinder Mill to Survive,. Most of The Biblical Text in what We call The Old Testament shows God as more Passive than that, and We don't see Constant Miracles All the Time, and Certainly not Massive Large Scale Ones. Sure, Things like Jericho Happened, but then We go Centuries when such Things did Not Happen. Also, Please stop Pretending if You Know something then You can't have Faith. I Realise it is Dogma of The Holy Religion of Atheism is Not A Religion but, Faith does Not mean Beleif Without Evidence. Faith is Not Believing in Something You have No Evidence for. Faith means Trust. It also mean s Confidence or Loyalty. Hence Why if You Betray Someone it is called Breaking Trust. The Faith that is Required in Christianity is not to Believe in Christianity with no Evidence, it means Remaining True to the Teachings of Christ.
One can Know with Absolute Certainly that God Exists based on Evidence and Still have Faith.
Reason and Evidence are actually what Faith is supposed to be Based on. N o One Really bases their Religion on Faith, Either, even Though the Modern Not-Religion Religion insists All Religion is based on Faith, in Reality Faith is Given After You become Convinced.
As for rationality and God experiences, I think you are short-selling the counterargument. The way I understand it (or would make it), *if* that experience fits several criteria, it should probably be convincing - but as far as I can tell, it almost never does. That is, there is not any attempt by the one with the experience to question if the experience is real - that is, can one interact with it, is there stuff that could not possibly have been produced by one's own mind, et cetera; also, the experience seems to be in conflict with what we know about the world we experience otherwise. Given that, the arguments against the reality of the experience are, in fact, overwhelming; it's just that the one having them seems to lack the motivation to do these checks.
Also, for me, there is a sharp difference between believing God exists and converting. Given the current claims about the Christian god, the afterlife, and the contents of the bible, succeeding in the former is unlikely to achieve the latter for me - but of course, the former might also convince me that said god differed in key aspects from the description, in which case, who knows?
What are You Basing This on?
" if that experience fits several criteria, it should probably be convincing - but as far as I can tell, it almost never does. That is, there is not any attempt by the one with the experience to question if the experience is real - that is, can one interact with it, is there stuff that could not possibly have been produced by one's own mind, et cetera;"
Because it seems the Opposite to Me, and Unlike You I can show Plenty of Cases where such QUestioning did Occure.
You also Take Our Own Ideas about The World as a Given Fact that cannot be Questioned.
"also, the experience seems to be in conflict with what we know about the world we experience otherwise. "
What if We aren't Correct abut what We Think in Terms of The World?
"Given that, the arguments against the reality of the experience are, in fact, overwhelming; "
So if We Start with the Assumption that We Live in a Material World and Nothing Supernatural Exists, then All Religious Expoeiurnces can be DIsmissed as Hallucinations.
I Really don;t THink Very Highly of Such, as it is a CIrcular Argument.
Its bad Enough all "Religious Expeurnce" is seen as Supernatural, but do We Have to Start with the Assumption that They are Not Real then Using that Conclusion Guide How We Understand Them?
You haven't Shown Real Evidence that These Experiences are Not Real , You just Assumed They weren't Real based in Assumptions about Them being in Conflict with what You Assume We Know About How the World Works.
"it's just that the one having them seems to lack the motivation to do these checks."
You Assert as a Fact that People Who have these Experiences have No Motivation to Check Them, but Why should We Believe You when You say This? What Real Evidence do You Have apart from the Assumption that This is So?
"Also, for me, there is a sharp difference between believing God exists and converting. Given the current claims about the Christian god, the afterlife, and the contents of the bible, succeeding in the former is unlikely to achieve the latter for me - but of course, the former might also convince me that said god differed in key aspects from the description, in which case, who knows?"
This is a Variation of the God is So Evil He is Unworthy of Worship Canard and is Why I Think Atheists just Hate God. Its not because I am so indoctrinated by Religion that I can't Understand How Someone lacks beleif, its Rubbish like This.
All we have to do is perform the thought experiment of flipping the script. What would make a believer stop believing? I'd be surprised if a lack of evidence was ever mentioned by a believer. All the usual tropes would be there - angry at god, want to sin, not a true believer, etc...
I Really do Find it Hilarious that You Sociopathy, Morally Degenrate Atheist lecture us on How Awful "The Religious" Are, all using The same Scripted Lines, but are all "Free Thinkers". Face Reality, what You say is not Really True, and All the Rubbish You learned from Your atheist Not Religion is Rubbish.
Let’s look at this religious experience reasoning, because yes, I don’t like that answer but for another reason. It has to do with you saying God is t doing all that he could. 1. If he did “all that he could” he could simply force you to believe, denying you free will. So obviously doing “all that he could” isn’t a standard we should be applying here. I personally as a Christian have doubts about those who say they believe because of a religious experience, it’s not proof they don’t believe, but when that is their first go to, it’s worrying, because many could have the same experience in a different environment and end up in an entirely different religion. So religious experience would be better as a confirmation of existing belief, which I have had. In conclusion, a better standard should be that God should provide the evidence necessary for a reasonable person with a honest view to believe. And I don’t mean provided all at once, or directly into your mind, I mean the information is available, which it is.
Since when is saying " I had a Personal Experience with God' the same Thing as "God is doing All he could"? Atheist's Really Love to Twist Things.
And Really, saying God can Remove Our free will? I Know You Lying Sociopaths say God di This to Pharoah, when Really No, when it says God hardened Pharaohs heart is it not saying He Removed His free Will and Mind controlled Him, thats just a stupide Way Read the text, but Honestly, its silly.
And This is just a silly Atheist Argument.
saying I Am a Christuan doens;t Change that.
Even if we all agreed tomorrow that god exits. Nothing fundamentally changes. The excuse just shifts to because you don’t truly believe. With or without god the world looks the same.
How do You Know The World looks the same With or without God?
Why would it change?
God is.. and will reveal Himself to people who really want to know. But God will not do tricks to convince you.... He will not act like a poodle to jump through your hula-hoop. He doesn't have to... being who He is. But if you approach Him sincerely and honestly, then God will respond. You can hear His voice.
For atheists... see especially the 7th paragraph down. "For atheists.... "
It's all about having a real vibrant relationship with God. One where you speak... He will hear you, and responds. And as you know... it's Not about using rote repetitive prayers.
What you say, not say to God,... what you think about God - will determine where you go in the next life. Careful with your words friend. Your words are even more important than what you do.... This is because God knows that sometimes we get addicted to stuff / bad habits or vices.
God wants to help people to be loving. People say that 'all paths lead to God'... This is simply not true. If it were, then heaven would be just like earth, but with God sitting in the middle of it, and being largely ignored. Ain't gonna happen. Not.
How to find out Who this God is for sure... Let's see. You can try to use intellect and reason to figure Him out(?).
The point is... is that it's Ok if you don't know for sure. God understands where you're at right now, but don't leave it like that. He may have much more for you. How would you find out? Keep reading.
The easier and more sure way to know - for sincere followers/seekers of truth, is to ask Him directly.
For atheists say this out loud: God, the Most High God... I'm not sure Who You are, or even if You exist. But if You do, and if You Love me, then I want to know. Please show me... so that I never doubt Your existence again.
Remember, this is God that you are dealing with. If God wants to respond... it should be easy for Him.. Him being God and all. If God does not respond, then you have your other answer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also, to help with your relationship with God not be stagnant, ask these out loud as well:
- To the Most High God, if you Love me, then just in case I'm not Your child, make me into one.
- To the Most High God, if you Love me, then prepare my heart for whatever is coming, so that I'm ready.
- To the Most High God, if you Love me, then show Yourself to me. I know You from my head. Help me to know You from my heart as well...
- To the Most High God, if you Love me, and if the Christian Jesus is important to Your plans and to my life, then please let me know.
- For Muslims... don't say A__h. As I've heard that he's hard to hear from anyways. Just address your concerns to the Most High God... Don't worry... God knows who He is. He's not confused.
Just keep in mind that what you say, or don't say to God - will determine if you go to heaven or hell. Yes it's that important.
Ask audibly. Ask humbly. What is that, you ask? Ask as if you were God, and one of your creation were asking you important questions.
Don't let your (bad) daddy-image be projected onto God the Father. Too many do this. Remember, God the Father is Perfect.
Good luck. You're gonna need it. Because you are now responsible to get closer to God. Let's say that God gives you - 50-60-70-80 years... and you never hear His voice once. What do you think will happen when you 'pass'? Do you think that God will swing open His gates and say: "Come on in!?!?".
Why would He do that? Because if He never speaks to you... like most anybody else... then you don't have a real relationship with Him. Try to remedy that ASAP.
it's called NOVEL(means NEW) TESTABLE PREDICTIONS ,
ANYTHING you can think of or ask your god to help you with , that we can test in the future ,
that's all it takes , and it CAN BE ANYTHING AT ALL , as long as it can be tested and repeated , ANYTHING AT ALL , just to be sure the religious ... got the point
Hey! Stumbled upon this video and was pleasantly surprised by your answer. As a Christian I will admit it is a tough situation. I agree with you that there are people out there who would convert if they had an "experience" and don't get what they are looking for. I will also admit that part of Christian belief is the fact that humans are easily deceived even by their own hearts/minds. Now, I will not say this applies to you, but we can certainly imagine an individual that says "If God would just reveal Himself to me then I would believe" and they may honestly believe that to be the case in their heart and mind at the moment they say that. God could then reveal Himself and the person could then after that experience possibly still doubt that was God. To highlight this point Gideon in the Bible when questioning whether God would deliver Israel by his hand said the following in Judges 6:36-40
Then Gideon said to God, “If you will save Israel by my hand, as you have said, behold, I am laying a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece alone, and it is dry on all the ground, then I shall know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you have said.” And it was so. When he rose early next morning and squeezed the fleece, he wrung enough dew from the fleece to fill a bowl with water. Then Gideon said to God, “Let not your anger burn against me; let me speak just once more. Please let me test just once more with the fleece. Please let it be dry on the fleece only, and on all the ground let there be dew.” And God did so that night; and it was dry on the fleece only, and on all the ground there was dew.
So, we have here an example where God performed a miracle and Gideon didn't believe even though he got exactly what he wanted. So, he asked God to perform a second miracle. Now, God obliged perhaps knowing 2 miracles would be sufficient. But my point with all that is to say, sometimes we ask for things and think we are genuine in the request but it turns out even if we get what we want we still doubt. We can imagine this little "miracle" process going on longer than 2 miracles for some people. And if that is the case who is "God"? If a human can direct God to do exactly as he pleases for as long as he wants all under the banner of "God revealing Himself" where does it end? Also, must God do this for every human on an individual basis? Certainly there are a lot of people who would like to have these experiences, is God then obligated to do this for everyone, else suffer the charge that He "doesn't REALLY want everyone to believe"? It may appear subtle, but I would say that this creates a false dynamic in the relationship between man and God.
Additionally, according to Christianity, God quite literally did what you're asking. He came down and spoke with His creatures. He performed miracles, He prophesized and foretold of future events, He read people's mind etc. He then died and rose with His own power. So, if we believe those accounts (not saying that you should), God actually did come down and interact with humanity. He truly wanted a relationship with all of us. Of course He isn't going to come down and meet individually with every human ever born to let them know He exists (even if that would be nice) but is that even a reasonable request? I would argue it isn't. We believe plenty of things based on personal accounts or second hand information. Most of what I know about the world I didn't experience directly. I read it in books, I trusted the "experts", I heard it from someone else. I am not saying I verified nothing, but most of what I know wasn't verified by me personally. I have some knowledge I directly verified and trust strongly as a foundation and most of what I know after that is based on whether or not it "fits" with other things I know. If someone tells me the earth is flat for example, that doesn't fit with the fact that I've looked around and can't see all the way to Asia even with a telescope. I have also been in a plane and notice the earth's horizon etc. But I haven't personally circumnavigated the globe to assess the validity or the curvature or done the complex math to prove it to myself theoretically. I take the "experts" word and my little personal experience and validate the claim. And I think that there is sufficient evidence available to validate the existence of a "God" even if that isn't the Christian God. Then the work becomes determining "which" god to believe in, and that I will admit is a little trickier.
If you got this far thanks! I will end with this, just to validate your position even though it puts "Christianity" in a tough spot but I will mention it because it is what God Himself says is the "truth" consider the following verse:
John 6:44
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."
Basically, God is saying you can't find Him unless He "draws" you. Any apologist that tells you that it is "your" job to find God is not truthfully sharing the Gospel message with you. It is a one-way street, but God is the one driving. I won't sugar coat that. Any reason I could give you for why God doesn't call everyone would just be me trying to bend the truth of Christianity into something more palatable. All I can do is share the message and pray God calls you and provides you with whatever it is that you need to be "convinced".
Anyway, you seem genuinely searching for answer and I pray and hope you find them. I can't tell you how or when but I believe God reveals Himself to hearts that are truly open to His presence. Perhaps the verses are contradictory, they appear that way, I won't try and reconcile them only to provide you with what I consider the "truth".
Matthew 7: 7-8
"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened."
Empirical evidence,&/or repeatable tests, I have that for everything else. What I get is broken arguments.
You don't care about Empirical Evidence, and Auguste Compte was Wrong Anyway as Empirical evidence is Not The only valid Form of Evidence. Still, You have Empirical Evidence for God, You jut pretend You Don't.
I’m so sick of being saturated with the Christian mythology and hypocrisy!!
What about life after death? If you die and still exist, would that be evidence to you?
dont think its a cop out. i can honestlt dont tell what would convince me there is a god, but the god in question would know. so at least for me, it simply is the correct answer. so i will definitly continue to use it.
See, I agree with the notion he would know how to convince me, but I know what would convince me too.
1: He appears as my favorite character in anime.
2: Not a dream. When I am awake exactly at 12:45 pm.
3: He knows hyper-specific things about me.
4: No, the design must be 1:1 for the character even the coloring. Which would look fucking weird in reality;
5: It has to be provable not to be a hallucination. So I want to be able to record it and confer with my neighbors that this is happening.
6:Fulfill six requirements that I personally would know 'and have never told anyone (Not even here) to prove it.
7: Lastly, prove that heaven and hell exist.
^^^
None of this will happen.
I don't care about some bullshit when we're talking about someone with unlimited power and potential here. If people can wrap their minds that someone on that scale could do this like we fucking breathe that's their problem. Those are my requirements. No amount of human question beginning or bible pandering will change them. If they don't happen. Tough shit. If he's too weak for them to happen tough shit. As far as I am concerned he ain't real to begin with.
Some might wonder why I ask for impossible shit. Because nothing is impossible for an all-powerful God. If it were, he wouldn't be all-powerful.
If this doesn't happen. He doesn't want me to "know" him. Because my knowing of him as of now is the same as Goku. Except Goku has been far more impactful on my life in good ways. So one fictional character is better than the other. Go Goku.
If my sister-in-law is cured of cancer i'll believe. I don't care if that makes sense, im willing to bargain.
You mean mysteriously out of the blue for no apparent reason. Could be good evidence for a god although not any specific god.
@@Dock284 God would know what I mean. However, in this case my bargain is specifically with the Christian God. If Allah wants to deal, he can eliminate migraines. Odin can rid the world of dementia. If you have a God, I can make a deal.
I’m not too sure if I agree with Alvin Plantinga. To be rational, overwhelming evidence must be considered. If there’s overwhelming evidence that you did commit a crime, then it’d be rational to rely on the evidence more than your own faulty memory. At some point, insisting you didn’t commit the crime because you don’t remember doing it will start becoming irrational. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying you have to right out confess to the crime, I’m just saying you have to begin considering that your memory is wrong.
To be Rational You Must First be Honest with Yourself. People Wo call Themselves Atheists Today Insists They merely lack belief in a god, make No Claims, and have No Burden Of Proof when in Reality they say God doen't Exist , call people Delusional for Believing in God and Refer to God as People's Imaginary Friend. Lets face Reality, Atheists Decide Ahead of Time to Reject Any Evidence for Gods Existence, and Decided even if They can't Reject God's Existence, that God is Evil and Doesn't Deserve Worship. Atheists are motivated Today by Emotion, not Rationality and Logic, and Evidence means Nothing, There's Plenty of Evidence for God's Existence, which is ignored, or Dismissed with an excuse.
So if Christian aliens would convince you, what about other religions? Specifically, what about less specific religions? Taoist aliens, for example. Taoism doesn't have a specific god so it's easier to write off a coincidental development. Or what about pantheistic aliens?
Personally I don't think finding pantheistic aliens would be very convincing. And if it's not convincing for all religions then I wonder if maybe it's not a good criterion after all.
The evidential weight of Christian aliens comes from the specificity of the beliefs. The more specific they are, the less likely it would be a coincidence. So pantheist aliens would be less evidence than orthodox aliens.
I agree that "theist" aliens wouldn't convince me. If aliens on a distant world independently came upon a very specific story of Christ's resurrection, that would be different.