Here is a 30 minute video from Matt Dillahunty's take on what it would take to change his mind about god.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/09/01/watch-matt-dilla...
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I appreciate what Matt is trying to say here, and I do understand the viewpoint from which he is coming.
However,
There are basic fallacies in the two primary premises Matt presents here. The issue is best summarized like this:
As to Matt's first premise:
Question: What would change your mind as to the existence of God? Matt: Evidence and argument.
Question: What kind of evidence and argument? Matt: Don't know. But even witnessing events outside of the realm of explainable science "miracles" would not do it, because there could always be another explanation other than god of which I am not aware.
Conclusion: No evidence, up to and including "miracles" will suffice to change Matt's mind as to the existence of god.
Therefore, we must conclude that there will never be enough "evidence and argument" which could ever change his mind.
As to Matt's second premise:
If there is a god that created me, it/he/she should know what it would take for me to believe in it/him/her.
Since god does has not revealed it/him/herself to me in a way that would change my mind, therefore it is god's problem because either god does not exist, or does not want to reveal it/his/her existence to me at this time.
The fallacy in this case is of course found in the fact that Matt has, by this statement effectively removed all personal responsibility and free will for his own actions and beliefs. As such, he is laboring under the faulty assumption that if there is a god, it/he/she is completely responsible for the actions and beliefs of all creatures. The problem is that this removes free will from the equation.
Is it possible that the evidence and argument for the existence of God is in fact sufficient to justify a rational belief in such a being even though some to not accept it?
There are some scientist who do not believe that the evidence for certain scientific premises/theories is sufficient to warrant acceptance, while other scientists believe there is. This may not necessarily indicate a problem with the evidence, as much as it may suggest that there are differences in how evidence is processed by individuals.
Bottom line: There are some Atheists, for whom literally no amount of evidence and argument will ever be enough. You could propose to them the wildest of miracles as a hypothetical scenario, from writing in the sky to answered prayer, to rising from the dead, to which they could casually answer "Well, just because we don't know how that happened does not mean there is a god."
Matt states that he is not certain what kind of evidence and argument would be sufficient for him to chance his mind. I believe I do know the answer to that question. It is this: For some, no amount or magnitude of evidence and argument will ever be enough for them to come to believe in god. This however does NOT mean that belief in god is not a rational position, it just means that what is sufficient evidence and argument to some is not for others.
In the end, every argument regarding atheism vs theism ultimately boils down to the dissonance between differing views of epistemology.
It is a difficult topic, most people I know who are atheist where once believers and they tend to have a vague notion for what could sway them.
Personally having grown into adulthood without any religious dogma or indoctrination, I have no idea really as even the notion that there may be a god, to me is childish.
I don't mean that to come across as harsh but it's just the truth.. It feels to me as if someone is trying to convince me that Santa really is coming this Christmas.
I suppose from what I've read of theist I would say, that if she indeed existed, then she would know what it would take to convince me and would have the power to make it happen.
That's the only possible option I can conceive, but I would say there is more chance of any alien civilisation colonizing the moon and turning it into a death star then there being an all powerful deity.
Matt is right that a god would know what it takes to change his mind. If a god doesn't know what it takes to change Matt's mind, then that god is not all knowing.
As to Matt's premise that states:
If there is a god that created me, it/he/she should know what it would take for me to believe in it/him/her.
Since god does has not revealed it/him/herself to me in a way that would change my mind, therefore it is god's problem because either god does not exist, or does not want to reveal it/his/her existence to me at this time.
The fallacy in this case is of course found in the fact that Matt has, by this statement effectively removed all personal responsibility and free will for his own actions and beliefs. As such, he is laboring under the faulty assumption that if there is a god, it/he/she is completely responsible for the actions and beliefs of all creatures. The problem is that this removes free will from the equation.
Is it possible that the evidence and argument for the existence of God is in fact sufficient to justify a rational belief in such a being even though some to not accept it?
There are some scientist who do not believe that the evidence for certain scientific premises/theories is sufficient to warrant acceptance, while other scientists believe there is. This may not necessarily indicate a problem with the evidence, as much as it may suggest that there are differences in how evidence is processed by individuals.
"The fallacy in this case is of course found in the fact that Matt has, by this statement effectively removed all personal responsibility and free will for his own actions and beliefs"
That would be assuming we actually have free will...
@ Freeslave: Matt's responsibility.
You don't have a clue what your talking about nor what constitutes a fallacy. It is not an atheist's job to assert what would convince them on a non-falsifiable claim. "God exists." What would convince you that blue omnipotent invisible non-corporal universe creating bunny rabbits that you could not detect in any way at all were sleeping with you in your bed at night? The question is absurd and any response to the question is equally absurd. It is not like you have asked, "what would convince you that the coffee is hot?"
There is no reason to accept any responsibility at all for an absurd question when in fact the person being asked is an atheist and does not accept the premise that a god exists. "I don't know is an excellent response." Then, followed up with. "If your god is all powerful, omnipotent, omnipresent, and knows everything like you claim, he should in fact know exactly what it would take to convince me." What's wrong with your god?
All Matt has done is thwart an attempt at shifting the burden of proof. You want to know what it will take for me to believe in your god? Prove it is real. It's just that simple. You can't prove it? Well, your god is all powerful so he should be able to prove it to me. NOTHING FALLACIOUS AT ALL.
There is not a fallacy in anything being said but for the assertion that something called a God exists without evidence. An appeal to the supernatural perhaps. Atheists do not have to take responsibility for your drivel.
I am pretty clear now on what would change my mind.
More evidence for god creating man, then man creating god.
In my mind, currently the evidence that man created god versus god created man currently sits at least a 1000 to 1 (that man created god over god created man.)
So a reversal of this constant "drumbeat" of evidence over the last couple of millenniums of steady flow of evidence that man created god. And that reversal continues on until there is more compelling new evidence found that god created man, then old evidence that man created god.
All this new evidence finding will have to happen awful fast too for the scales of evidence to tip towards god within my life time.
It doesn't matter to me if God (referring to Yahweh) is proven to exist. It isn't even within the realm of consideration because it depends on my free will acceptance ... not of the evidence, per se, but of God. I will never, ever accept a god to rule over and dominate me!
As I previously posted in another thread, even if God was proven to exist, I would reject him/her/it on the basis of having been, being, and forever will be an amoral asshole.
Whether God exists, or does not exist, has no affect on my thinking, belief or life whatsoever. Either way, he/she/it does not and never will exist in my realm of being.
@mbrownec - I must complement you on giving one of the most honest presentations of the Atheist position I have ever hear. Kudos to you for your candor. In my discussion with Atheists, this is indeed what it usually boils down to.
One essential piece of proof for me would be historical evidence of a theistic religion arising spontaneously in a human population and surviving peacefully thereafter without any use of coercion, force, terror, or violence. I think that eliminates Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.
@Algebe. Interesting comment. May I ask why such a thing would constitute proof to you?
I fully agree with Matt D. If your god is real and has all that power, then he knows exactly what it would take to get me to believe. So where is this god thing you speak of. If if you are asserting the God of the Bible or Quaran - That asshole, even if he does exist, is not worth worshiping.
It is difficult to think of anything that would make me change my mind other than sentimental arguments or coercion. The supernatural is not something that can be proved with facts.
"What would it take to change your mind about god?"
A demonstration of objective evidence that was commensurate to the claim.
The captivating beats in https://abgerny.io Incredibox pull you in, creating an unforgettable musical experience.
ohh, it is useful for almost people like snow rider 3d