Let's suppose the scientists will say in the future: time travel has been proved, psychokinesis has been proved, precognition is real, there are enough proves that say telepathy is real.

Would you become a religious person in these conditions? If yes, why? If not, why? I have an atheist friend and he said yes, he would become a christian. But I still wouldn't become a christian even if those things would be accepted by science.

What does any of that have to do with Christianity, or God for that matter?

There is nothing inherent to atheism that states time travel, psychokinesis, precognition, and telepathy can't be a part of the universe. So, no, I wouldn't become a Christian (or whatever) if those things were accepted by science.

Maybe, maybe not. Probably not. It would depend on the way in which they were real.

^ This?

Your friend is being irrational. Those would be reasons to start believing that time travel, psychokinesis, precognition, and telepathy were real. The reason to start believing a god exists would be if we found out a god were real, not a bunch of unrelated stuff. And certainly none of that has anything to do with whether or not a god, if it did exist, were the Christian one.

I'd probably accept that Philip K Dick was god in that case.

If the Loch Ness monster was proven to be real tomorrow, would you then believe that leprechauns are real?

Visiting this forum is like being on crazy pills sometimes.

If time travel vacations were ran by the Bluth company and if Jesus was a man with a bunch of psychic powers and was sent back in time by Gob - should that make me more or less likely to be Christian?

If suddenly the sky turned purple and rainbows started raining gumdrops wait I'm getting hungry.

What you're forgetting is that the laws of science and nature are like magic to us anyway. We don't even understand water.

Agreed.

No. In the same way that alternative medicine isn't proven to work until it is and then it promptly becomes Medicine, those subjects would simply enter the realm of Naturalism and no longer be considered supernatural. They would be within the remit of science whilst the existence of gods would still be outside of it.

These things all sound like witchcraft.

Would witchcraft improve the plausibility of the Bible?

Even if it was a true religion, hinduism is older than judaism. Which means there are higher chances between hinduism and judaism or christianity that the true religion is hinduism. Before hinduism there were other unrecorded religions, all of them are more likely to be true than christianity (of course if someone is naive enough to think one of them must be true). So even if I would want to choose a religion I wouldn't choose abrahamic ones. Hinduism say the universe is very old, science says the same, abrahamic religions say the universe was created a few thosands of years ago. If someone believed one of the main religions must be true he should choose hinduism over christianity or judaism.

What does age of tradition have to do with likelihood of truth?

If god was all powerful it's likely that his religion would have come first.

Not sure what this has to do with your OP but in any case, it's a fallacy to assume that because something came first that it must be correct where later versions are not. By that logic, any theory you care to name that has been superceded by a new version or an entirely new theory based on new knowledge and understanding, must actually be the correct theory and the new ones wrong since they didn't come first. Is the Earth actually flat then?

If you're arguing that the Christian God actually exists and that's why Christianity should have come first, you have to take Free Will into account which explains how we got it wrong for all that time before He sent his son to point out the error of our ways.

I don't think you can justify this.

God might be more liable to bring revelation when civilisation is much better equipped to understand the philosophy, record it, and spread it. Perhaps makes more sense than expecting people whose only records were cave paintings to write a gospel.

That seems as ad hoc as xxl's reasoning. Why didn't God just create us able to understand his revalations in the first place?

If it hasn't already been stated; An atheist can also be religious already.

My friend said he would become a christian if supernatural was proven.

Religion is a story not a theory. It has nothing in common with science. You can't compare religious stories or historical facts with scientific theories (for example someone who lived in the year 100 knows better what happened in the year 98 than someone who lived in 1100, if god created the human the oldest people would know more about him than the other people who lived in different eras). I said it's more likely that the first religion is the true one not that it's impossible for other newer religions to be true (supossing we would know that a religion is true but don't know for sure which one). Btw I'm 100% sure all of them are just stories and I hope in the future all will disappear.

Why god didn't appear in the last century? Now we have better technology. He could even appear on tv.

According to the bible Adam lived a few thousands of years ago. Are there historical proves that humans lived before Adam?

From what I know buddhists are atheists because they don't believe in god.

Which has little to do with your theory as based on the chronology of the various religions, which is what your post was about, hence my asking what it had to do with the OP.


Technically it's a Hypothesis.

I'm not.

Yes you did. And I pointed out that I think this is fallacious reasoning. There are many reasons why earlier religions may not have been any more 'right' than Christianity or that the Christian God might have allowed 'false' religions to exist prior to sending Jesus to redirect us.

You should know that I'm an atheist and I'm disagreeing with you because I don't think that you're being logical, not because I'm religious and think you're wrong.

What I want to say is: if god created the human the oldest people would know more about him than the other people who lived in different eras. Thus the first religion would be the true one. Of course this isn't available for scientific theories where usually the opposite is true. The scientists from 2200 will know more things than the scientists from this century.

If I was the first man created by god and I was speaking with god I would know the true. And it's very unlikely that god would tell me to lie the other people and to teach them false religions.