A Serious Question: Exhibit A

This week's Serious Question is directed toward the Weak Atheists. I'm giving the theists the week off.

The Weak Atheist's position is summarily characterized as a lack of belief in God due to a lack of compelling evidence for his existence. One way in which the Weak Atheist distinguishes himself from the Strong Atheist is that the Weak Atheist holds that it is conceivable that one day he might encounter sufficient evidence for God's existence; the Strong Atheist asserts that there could be no such evidence.

Question: What would constitute or be an example of compelling evidence for God's existence, sufficient to make you change your mind?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
This week's Serious Question is directed toward the Weak Atheists. I'm giving the theists the week off.

The Weak Atheist's position is summarily characterized as a lack of belief in God due to a lack of compelling evidence for his existence. One way in which the Weak Atheist distinguishes himself from the Strong Atheist is that the Weak Athei ...[text shortened]... an example of compelling evidence for God's existence, sufficient to make you change your mind?

Although I couldn't rule out a fit of insanity, I agree with Doug Krueger think that if I looked into the sky and saw the stars had been arranged to clearly spell a message saying, "[my name], it's God. I'm real." And then if I said, rubbing my eyes, "Wow! I can't believe it!" and the stars changed their position to read, "Well, believe it," I'd be pretty convinced that such a person existed.

That's just sufficient evidence. Not necessary evidence.

Originally posted by telerion
Although I couldn't rule out a fit of insanity, I agree with Doug Krueger think that if I looked into the sky and saw the stars had been arranged to clearly spell a message saying, "[my name], it's God. I'm real." And then if I said, rubbing my eyes, "Wow! I can't believe it!" and the stars changed their position to read, "Well, believe it," I ...[text shortened]... vinced that such a person existed.

That's just sufficient evidence. Not necessary evidence.

You obviously have no knowledge of the very poetic "Star"speak otherwise you would have understood their message a long time ago. 😛

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
This week's Serious Question is directed toward the Weak Atheists. I'm giving the theists the week off.

The Weak Atheist's position is summarily characterized as a lack of belief in God due to a lack of compelling evidence for his existence. One way in which the Weak Atheist distinguishes himself from the Strong Atheist is that the Weak Athei ...[text shortened]... an example of compelling evidence for God's existence, sufficient to make you change your mind?

Question: What would constitute or be an example of compelling evidence for God's existence, sufficient to make you change your mind?

If every, single Christian Bible on the face of the planet simultaneously disappeared in a puff of smoke.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You obviously have no knowledge of the very poetic "Star"speak otherwise you would have understood their message a long time ago. 😛

Same to you, Sun-worshipper. 😀

I see a trend based on telerion's and David's answers: the miraculous.

Must sufficient evidence to convince the Weak Atheist exhibit miraculous features, or could the Weak Atheist possibly accept some non-miraculous evidence as sufficiently compelling?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Must sufficient evidence to convince the Weak Atheist exhibit miraculous features, or could the Weak Atheist possibly accept some non-miraculous evidence as sufficiently compelling?

Like what, a special appearance by Jesus on the Oprah Winfrey show? Help me out, Doc...give me a for instance of some non-miraculous evidence that YOU might consider sufficient.

Originally posted by David C
Help me out, Doc...give me a for instance of some non-miraculous evidence that YOU might consider sufficient.

I don't know, hence the Serious Question. If I knew the answer, I wouldn't have to ask. I'm not a Weak Atheist, so I'm not obligated to defend the position that there could conceivably exist evidence, miraculous or otherwise, that would convince me. I want to find out if the Weak Atheist could be swayed by the non-miraculous. If the answer is No, then it's No; I'm not saying that it's Yes.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I don't know, hence the Serious Question. If I knew the answer, I wouldn't have to ask. I'm not a Weak Atheist, so I'm not obligated to defend the position that there could conceivably exist evidence, miraculous or otherwise, that would convince me. I want to find out if the Weak Atheist could be swayed by the non-miraculous. If the answer is No, then it's No; I'm not saying that it's Yes.

The point, IMO, is that if god existed in the context that most members of this forum define, then dancing stars or mass librocide should be common occurences. Nothing miraculous about a miracle maker tossing about miracles, you know? Now, if you're talking about an archaeological discovery, like say...a empty hidden garden guarded by eternal flaming swords, I might take a closer look.

Those swords would probably have to be considered miraculous, though, so nevermind.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
This week's Serious Question is directed toward the Weak Atheists. I'm giving the theists the week off.

The Weak Atheist's position is summarily characterized as a lack of belief in God due to a lack of compelling evidence for his existence. One way in which the Weak Atheist distinguishes himself from the Strong Atheist is that the Weak Athei ...[text shortened]... an example of compelling evidence for God's existence, sufficient to make you change your mind?

It would probably be a series of incidences which would lead me closer and closer to believing. One good start would be a very influential Christian who is immune to poison; who spontaneously becomes fluent in new languages; and who can heal the sick by laying on of hands; and that at least the first and last qualities were verifiable by experiment.

Evidence that the Earth really is only a few thousand years old might help. Mathematical proofs that hold water in the face of rigorous critical analysis showing cells could not self assemble.

Verifiable scientific techniques that allow contact with the afterlife which are peer reviewed and found to work consistently.

Any number of supernatural occurences that are scientifically verifiable.

These are all possibilities, but of course I can't be sure.