Atheists, if God used science instead of miracles, then would you believe in Him? [Spirituality & Religion]

@ViciDraco there's no lack of evidence, just people denying the truth because they don't like it

@th3r0n It’s the same evidence involved in the existence of ghosts or UFOs. Possible but nothing concrete. And a lot of people would happily accept solid proof that there’s a higher power. They’d [b]love[/b] for that to be so. 🥺

@bijouxbroussard no, not really

That broad statement honestly just sounds uneducated on the bible

There's tons of proof and other circumstantial evidence also, but like I said, people want to say there's not proof so they can live their own life

Just like people pretend that a woman can be a man or vice versa, we know it's not true, but many play along with it

@th3r0n The Bible is a book written by men. Flawed human beings. It only qualifies as [b]proof[/b] to those who already believe. A rather circular logic. I mean no disrespect, but people of faith believe what’s in the Bible because their faith tells them that book is the authority. Same with Muslims and the Koran. If one doesn’t believe, the holy books’ text saying so is meaningless.

@bijouxbroussard The existence of it and it saying something, that's no proof

The fact that every word it says is true and so much can be verified including knowledge that's just now being discovered by science, that however is proof

@th3r0n Oh boy! Where do I begin?

I've read the Bible from cover to cover three times, three different versions.

I do not see how it can be its own evidence; this argument has never made sense to me.

I can accept that the Aramaic peoples of circa 1,000 BCE to the birth of Jesus evolved a Jewish faith along with their nomadic Bedouin and town-dwelling lifestyles. There's plenty of archeological evidence for that.
I can accept that there was a catastrophic flood in ancient times which was recorded in all the mythical stories of each of the cultures, and for which there is also geological evidence around the areas of the Black and Caspian Seas.
I can accept that the Romans did record the birth of a son to Mary and Joseph at Bethlehem, and that Jesus was crucified by the Romans at the request of the Pharisees, though the dates are not clear due to discrepancies in the ways the scribes recorded them.
I can accept that Jesus probably did teach a radical re-interpretation of Judaism, one which emphasised universal compassion and love over the strict details of the Mishnah and Mosaic laws.
I can accept that "love others as thyself" is probably one of the wisest guidelines ever coined, providing a person can love themselves, knows what love is, and knows how to love. Many don't.

But I can't accept any of the rest of it - for far more reasons than I could write here.

Unfortunately, different people have different ideas about what constitutes truth and what constitutes evidence or fact. By definition, the two are not the same thing.

For rationalists and atheists, the evidence for God would have to be measurable, reliable and repeatable - in other words, God would have to be a physical being.

@hartfire having thousands of prophecies none of which were false is not "being its own evidence"

Giving knowledge about biology and other things that we just learned is not "being its own evidence"

That's nothing but ignorance, whose root word is in "ignore", you ignore the truth to remain lost

@th3r0n Ha ha!
I don't accept even one of them as a prophecy.
For anyone who can read human nature, every one of them is an unavoidable consequence of collective human behaviour.

Even prophesying a messiah is just a part of humanity's craving to be rescued. The Hindus promise endless avatars of Vishnu, and the Mahayana Buddhists prophesise a future Buddha.
All the "signs" of Jesus as messiah are based on loose interpretation, but none has ever been literally fulfilled. Jesus did not die by the sword as prophesied, therefore he could not be the messiah. There is no independent evidence (meaning outside the New Testament) that he rose from the dead.

@hartfire you find excuses and muddy the issue to make yourself look right

It won't be an excuse in the end, and you only bring judgement on yourself with your foolishness

You have no desire for the truth, only to hide from it

I'm done here

@th3r0n They're not excuses.

I'm not sure how you see my thoughts as muddying the issues, but it probably doesn't matter. To me, they're as clear as sunlight.

I was raised as an atheist, rationalist and existentialist.
Having studied all the world's religions when young, I discovered that don't have the capacity to believe anything that can't be perceived with the senses or the tools of science.

I don't mind how others judge me; if I did, I wouldn't participate here because I know that answering as I do will draw at least once response like yours.
I answer questions and posts only because I find it interesting to do so.

You and I have different notions of what defines truth.
For me, truth exists is fact and fact only; for you it is perceived through faith.