This Convinced Even the Most Adamant Atheists That God Is Real | Out of Neutral

It’s amazing how many things we accept on faith. In science class, we’re taught about the existence of molecules and dark matter, and we all nod our heads in acceptance. In history class, we learn about the lives of Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte, and no one questions their reality. But when it comes to the existence of God or the life and message of a person like Jesus, the standard changes. We need evidence and confirmation. And rightly so. We recognize that there’s more at stake. The challenge is to figure out what that evidence might look like. What could God, if He exists, do to convince us that He’s real?

FOLLOW Grace Baptist Church:

[velkyn]

The supposed convincing event was Paul's conversion. Well, since poor Paul couldn't even keep his "origin story" straight, and repeatedly contradicted what JC supposedly said, no reason to be "convinced" that chrsitianity is true at all. All there is as "evidence" for Paul's claims, is just the claims themselves. And claims can't be used as evidence for themselves.

Lots of lunatics make up nonsense. No reason to believe it.

[Bill_Garthright]

_"This convinced even the most adamant atheists that God is real"_

Yeah? Well, here's my prediction: that you won't provide even *one* piece of good evidence that actually happened.

So, am I a prophet, then? :)

_"In science class, we're taught about"_

In school, you're supposed to be given a general grounding in established science and history. That's all. There isn't time for anything else, and most students aren't interested in even learning _that_ much. But if you go to college and get an advanced degree in one of those fields, if you make that your profession, then you don't have to rely on what you were taught in grade school.

Science and history are both based on evidence. If you wish to become a scientist and test any of that stuff for yourself, go right ahead. It's not like religion. Science _welcomes_ continued testing of established dogma.

The existence of Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte are also based on evidence, not faith. And even a _little_ bit of searching online could demonstrate that to you. Of course, to become an expert, to really examine the details of either person, you'd need to become a historian. You'd need to get an education in history and then focus on that person. None of us can become an expert in _everything._

But it's just silly to compare that to belief in magic, it really is. There's a _reason_ why science comes to a worldwide consensus on issues. There's a _reason_ why historians all accept the existence of Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte.

It's not like religion, where theists _overwhelmingly_ tend to believe in whatever religion and whatever god or gods they were taught to believe as a child. That's why 83% of Italians are Christian, while 90% of Egyptians are Muslim and 80% of Indians are Hindu, but science is the same in all three countries.

_"the standard changes"_

No, it does not - in either direction. The only thing that changes for evidence-based people is how extraordinary the claim is. If you claim to own a pet dog, that's very different from claiming that you own a pet fire-breathing dragon.

And for faith-based people, the only thing that seems to matter is if they _want_ something to be true. (Of course, belief isn't a choice. I understand that most of them were just taught to believe in their religion as a young child who hadn't even developed the _capability_ of thinking critically.)

_"It would require asking God to appear to every person on the planet in every generation in history"_

So what? He's supposed to be a _god, _ right? All-powerful? All-knowing? Even if that were _true, _ so what? How puny is your god that _that_ would be too much for him?

In reality, I just ask for evidence - _good_ evidence - that your god is real, rather than just imaginary. Typically, I ask theists for just *one* piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself. But *one* is always too much to ask.

Still, we hear that Jesus supposedly appeared to Saul/Paul. The little bit about it in the Bible certainly _sounds_ natural. In fact, it's exactly what we'd expect if all gods are just imaginary. But suppose that Jesus had appeared to _every_ Roman and _every_ Jew who was persecuting Christians? No, suppose he showed himself to everyone in the whole world, all at the same time?

If he's supposed to be a _god, _ he could do that. I mean, how puny can a god _be?_ And he'd only have to do it _once, _ too. Obviously, _that_ couldn't be a perfectly natural hallucination. Everyone in the whole world, all at the same time, even all of those people who'd never even _heard_ of Jesus (and wouldn't hear anything about him until other human beings told them stories)?

_"Did I imagine that?"_

Exactly! That's why a _real_ god would appear to everyone in the whole world, all at the same time. That's how everyone would know it _wasn't_ just a hallucination.

If I were the only person in the world who had ever seen a dog, I'd question that, too. After all, I saw a "ghost" once - not an actual ghost, of course, but something that seemed quite real at the time (until I figured out the actual answer). We _can_ be fooled. But _everyone_ sees dogs. That's *evidence* that dogs are real.

_"Many people have been moved to faith after Jesus appeared to them in a dream"_

Maybe. You're being extraordinarily vague here. But so what? Lots of people have been "moved to faith" by dreaming about _other_ gods and _other_ religions, too. Does that mean _those_ religions are true? I've had lots and lots of dreams in my life. Should I believe that all of them were real, then? That's just silly.

No, that's why I ask for *evidence.* Evidence is how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking. Evidence is how we distinguish reality from what we _want_ to be true. And evidence is why we understand that dreams aren't real.

_"Would you find it convincing if Jesus appeared to someone prominent?"_

Nope, not even a little bit. Would _you_ find it convincing if Ganesha appeared to someone prominent? :)

_"And there would need to be others there to corroborate the event and record it"_

Yeah? Too bad you have none, huh?

I'm sorry, but the rest of this is just silly. Do you have *one piece of good evidence* that this actually happened? Just *one?* After all, as far as we know, there was _no one_ there to "corroborate the event and record it." So, already, your _own_ requirements weren't met.

But this wouldn't be convincing to any rational person even if it _did_ happen, because this is exactly the kind of thing we'd expect to happen naturally, if all gods are just imaginary. _One_ person had a hallucination which changed his life. Yeah, that happens sometimes. Of course, we only have Paul's word about it, and as I recall, he doesn't say much about it, himself, right?

The other stories about it were written much later by anonymous authors who don't even _claim_ to have witnessed anything themselves. But even if it _did_ happen, this sounds more like a perfectly natural medical event - normal, natural, uncommon, but not magical - than it does anything else.

After all, if it were a _god, _ then he could have showed himself to _every_ Roman who was persecuting Christians - and every Jew, too. He could have shown himself to everyone in the whole world, all at the same time.

Instead, we get a story about something we don't even know happened. And even if it _did_ happen, it seems exactly like the kind of thing we'd expect - occasionally - if all gods are just imaginary.

You know, like the visions that _other_ religions claim happened? It's odd how you don't believe _those_ claims, isn't it? <LOL>

[Diviance]

Well, I watched and I am convinced.

I am convinced that Christianity is false.

Thanks!

[sandrajackson]

I may not be able to tell you exactly what sort of evidence would be required to convince atheists but in the least there should be evidence that is proportional to the claim with either the same or similar occurrences like what the Bible describes or any other holy book. If a god felt it was necessary that he appeared to the people in the Bible so they could believe than what makes us any differnt from people of those times? Surely this god would have known hearsay would not convince us because it's alway those making extrodinary claims about their god but want to either lower the bar when the burden of proving it placed on them, or strongly discourage evidence being a requirement simply because they cannot come up with any. I would expect to see at least one event that may not happen often but at least enough to where it wouldn't seem totally inconsistent with reality unlike sceince or people existing such as the historcal figures you mentioned. Nothing at all unusual about a man named Jesus existing but when you talk about him walking on water and raising from the dead then obviously it becomes questionable.

How does a god not appearing in any detectable way to the human senses even begain to address the issue of disbellief? Supposing there is a god we can assume this god gave us a mind in which to reason for it is vital in navigating the reality in which this god has placed us along with the 5 senese we possess as humans for us to have knowledge of what is. Requiring the human mind to accept something is real that's indiscernible to our senses (in which this god could have either given us a sixth sense to detect his presence or appeal to the senses we currently possess) would go against the very nature of how this god created the mind to operate and is a clear violation to the rules of logic. Totally backward reasoning. If it causes believers to doubt and atheist to not be convinced altogether than surely this hands-off approach is not working. It seems way more likely that man has created gods to worship just as they have done since the beginning of time to explain the unknown and to provide themselves with emotional comfort than a god existing and requiring that we know of his existence while playing hide and seek.

.

[scottgodlewski]

You know what would prove god is real? God. Why does the most powerful being conceivable rely on bad arguments to prove his existence when the eternal lives of the people who are supposedly most important to him depend on believing in him?

[jimmygravitt]

The thing about the historicity of Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte versus Jesus "the Christ": First, the Napoleon comparison is laughably false. The amount of documents we have DOCUMENTING Bonaparte is TREMENDOUS. Not only do we have Bonaparte's own words, we have dozens of other books written during the life, and immediately after the death of Napoleon. We have birth and death records. I can PERSONALLY trace my ancestry back to Napoleon in an unbroken chain. And, then the biggest piece of evidence we have for Bonaparte's existence is that modern world history does not make ANY sense without him. How did France become such a dominant force in the 19th century? Why were there so many deaths in Europe during his reign? Why did relations between France and other countries become strained? Why were so many countries paying tribute to France during this time? NONE OF IT makes any sense without Napoleon Bonaparte.

The same could be said for Caesar. First, we have a lot of writings, by a LOT of different people, but, because we are talking about more than 2000 years here, paper objects are hard to come by. Luckily, we do have stone and metal inscriptions attesting to him dating to his time. Why would his name be on coins minted ONLY during the time it was thought Caesar reigned? And, why did coins show up celebrating the assassination of Caesar, right about the time Caesar was believed to have been assassinated? And, again, ancient history does not make sense without him. Why did Rome go from a Republic to an Empire? Who bridged the Rhine River? Who started the civil war with the Roman senate? Without Caesar, this whole period makes NO SENSE.

And, let's also compare the claims that are being made here:

1) Bonaparte: a man was born to human parents, in a normal birth. The man grows up and gains expertise in military matters. The man gains significant political power until he exercises dictatorial power over an entire country. The man then tries to ruthlessly expand his power by invading nearby countries. Eventually, a coalition of forces band together and overthrow him.

2) Caesar: a man was born to human parents, in a normal birth. The man grows up and gains expertise in military matters. The man gains significant political power until he exercises dictatorial power over an entire country. The man then tries to ruthlessly expand his power by invading nearby countries. Eventually, a coalition of forces (this time a coalition of senators instead of a coalition of nations) band together and assassinate him.

There is NOTHING exceptional in ANY of these claims. This sounds like EVERY page of the history books to me. Now let's compare that to the claims of Jesus:

3) Jesus: a celestial being is born of part God and part virgin woman. The man grows up being in communion with the almighty God itself. During his life, he performs frequent acts of magic. He feeds 5, 000 people with merely 7 loaves of bread and a few small fish. He turns water into wine. He heals sick people, sometimes in droves. He made paralytics walk, blind people see, deaf people hear, and mute people talk. He cured leprosy 2, 000 years before a cure was developed. Oh yeah, and he brings people back from the dead, like a lot. He even himself dies for 3 days, then came back to life on the third day, rolling away a boulder that was blocking his tomb. He appeared to a bunch of people to give them some final directions, then poof, off to heaven he went. And, most remarkable of all, despite there being several historians covering that time period and region, NONE of them manage to make mention of of this raiser of the dead. Truly incredible indeed.

So, stop with your false comparisons and take some logic and philosophy classes. All you know is that one book. Learn something else.

[velkyn]

let's see, what failed apologetics will be used. The citing of Romans 1 as "evidence"? the cosmological argument?

[jimmygravitt]

"In Saul's case, he had everything to lose, and nothing to gain." He became the head of a minor religious organization. Sounds like reason enough for any religious fanatic. I mean, he formed his own cult, this happens all the time. And, sometimes these cults blow up (which is every modern religion). I mean, look at Joseph Smith with the Mormon Church. He obviously fabricated that whole religion.

Why is it so hard to believe that Paul (I don't know why you call him Saul, I mean, yes, that was his birth name, but calling him Saul is like calling Oprah Winfrey, Orpah; or Voltaire, Francois-Marie Arouet; or Brad Pitt, William; or Woody Allen, Allen Konigsberg; you get the point) fabricated his stories in order to become a prophet instead of a mere religious leader.

After all, A LOT of the story of Jesus is ripped off from preceding, ancient Greek "salvation cults". The stories of Jesus's life are mirrored in alleged Gods that preceded Paul's claims. Just for quick example, the stories of Mithras, Zoroaster, or Horus.

The possibility also exists that Paul was not lying, only crazy. He could have hallucinated his experiences with Jesus after his death. After all, right about the time Paul had his visions is ALSO right about the time that schizophrenia starts affecting people. So, there are plenty of MUCH BETTER.

The two claims that A)Paul fabricated his stories—OR—2) Paul suffered from mental illness. Are incredibly mundane claims. They are mundane because EVERY human alive is aware of the commonness of humans lying for self-serving motives. We see this occur on a regular basis. Further, we see people who suffer from mental illness every day. These two claims are NOT EXTRAORDINARY, therefore they only require ordinary evidence. This evidence is the writings themselves. There is no logical error here.

—HOWEVER—

When you start to claim that magical events occurred, events for which we have no everyday-analogy, these claims are extraordinary—therefore, they require EXTRAORDINARY proof. This is where EVERY religion, UFO claim, and paranormal claim utterly fail. These claims are NEVER furnished with GOOD evidence, let alone EXTRAORDINARY evidence. Just because extraordinary claims are mentioned in 2000 year old writings does not make them any less impeachable.

People lie all the time, people are mentally ill all the time. I have never seen nor heard of a person raising from the dead. This does not happen. The age of the claims do NOTHING to lend to their believability. In order for me to believe that these magical events occurred, I would need a LOT more than the writings of interested parties several decades after the events allegedly happened.

[scottgodlewski]

Also, your video title is dishonest. Not a good look.

[scorttino]

We don’t just take history or science on faith. It’s measurable. You keep moving the goal post. Saying that measuring if someone lived a couple hundred years ago vs measuring peoples dreams is similar is very ignorant.

[UnconventionalReasoning]

I thought Christians are supposed to avoid lying. Why did this representative of a church lie in this video?

[maxdoubt]

Who should decide what constitutes good evidence for a god? I'll let any faith-head! You say what you would accept as definitive, objective proof FOR - or short of that, compelling justification for belief IN - a god _other than yours_ and we'll set that as the standard. This should be easy...unless you're _biased._

[maxdoubt]

Yes, I have different standards for accepting the reality of things like atoms, dark matter, dreams and feelings as opposed to _beings._ So what? It's 🍎🍏& 🍊🍊