Simple question to all non-Christians:

What would it take to convince you that Jesus Christ died for your sins and rose again on the third day?

Beyond some kind of 'life after death' experience, I can't think of anything that could convince me of this. If there is something, all I can say is that it would not be a translation of a copy of a collection of ancient writings.

The bar is set at the same height for believing any of the other made up stories about the thousands of deities mankind has invented over the course of millions of years.

(Note - I am not calling Jesus made up, just the idea of his divinity)

LK, I don't think you've answered the question?

He's saying he wouldn't be convinced. There are no gods among men. Tough way to look it, but true.

Well, I'm sorta saying that I'm as open to believing in the divinity of Christ as any Christian is to believing that Zeus sits atop Mount Olympus hucking lightning bolts down to earth.

It's like the one thing I have in common with religious folk.

Can't see how it could ever happen, short of brain surgery followed by some form of hypnosis.

Same for any other character from fantasy.

If he came back to earth and did the stuff in the book of Revelations that might do it. Course they could be an alien impersonating and acting out the book. So...

I see this question this way: At what point would I trust my perceptions and believe in one of the gods rather than acknowledging that I could be experiencing a delusion or in some way being tricked by my senses/perceptions, having been thoroughly primed by the culture I live in to experience this exact type of experience'?

Or something like that.

Honestly, how could you ever really know? Does it take other people also sharing the belief before people trust themselves?

He needs to rise from the dead again and personally convince me that everything was formed in 7 days.

You might as well be asking creationists what would convince them that evolution exists.

Do you really know for sure that you're not sitting in a dreary room, paint peeling from the walls, eating a rotting banana and dribbling all over your crusted clothes, hallucinating your entire life up to this point while a man in a white coat peers through the slot in the door?

Its strange that most atheists don't understand that their proclamations that nothing could occur to convince them of God or Jesus or whatever plays right into theists hands. And it should because the comment is ridiculous. As long as you could eliminate the possibility that you were dreaming or hallucinating there are many occurances which should make you believe that Jesus came back from the dead. The moon turns into a human face, starts talking, and proclaims it is the voice of God and by the way Christians are correct and Jews and Muslims aren't. Tom McEvoy winning the main event a second time. Anything along those lines.

While DS usually sets a too low bar with what is effectively "any low probability thing with some Christianish explanation" (such as a meteor killing a soon to be murderer, an example from a previous thread) the general point that a huge range of things would be convincing is correct.

My personal favorite cute example is if an angel appeared before me causing me drop my class of milk in astonishment and to have the angel restore it to its original condition - seemingly in violation of thermodynamics - before me.

those sorts of examples are what I should have referenced when I said that if God exists, it seems like it must be the case that she doesn't want her existence to be proven (or lacks the capacity, I suppose, to be complete)

Although there's some room between "proven" and "completely undetectable" within which to do a little work maybe

I'd have to be able to place my fingers in his wounds from the crucifixion after he returns from the dead.

If TM won the WSOPME for a second time (or one of the other even less likely situations you mentioned), you would put a higher probability on Christianity being true over your own sanity being compromised (or some elaborate hoax was being run...or basically ANY other explanation)? "As long as you could eliminate the possibility that X" - might be close to impossible to meet.

As I said above, I can't think of anything that would convince me, meaning if there is something, it is outside of my ability to conceptualise what it would be (if God does exist, God should know what it was). Additionally, the stranger the examples given, the less they seem to fit with Christianity itself (at least as I understand Christianity). e.g. God making an appearance in some form is not Biblical.

You don't think the Bible is uniquely set apart from other works of literature?

There are acceptable theological theories for creation that differ from seven 24 hour periods. After all, the sun and moon weren't even created until the fourth day. One theory is that the Hebrew word for day should be translated as meaning a period of time. (1000 years, for example) Another is a theory of theistic evolution -- that God created the world through Darwinian evolution. Yet another is progressive creationism -- that God made bird, fish, and people and they have adapted over time.

Every relationship in life requires a commitment that transcends the evidence and becomes self-validating. A relationship with God is no different.

Those pretty words have nothing to do with entities that may not exist. This isn't the same as believing your wife isn't cheating on you. In fact even you need evidence that Jesus was resurrected before you believe it. Your evidence is the words of the bible.

Check out Urantia and the resurrection

The only way I can think of is that it has been repeatedly translated with a political purpose more recently than, say, any written works of other older religions.

It's exactly the same thing. I can't prove to you my wife loves me. That's like trying to smell the color nine. It's not possible. The only way for you to know for sure that my wife loves me is by being in my marriage.

It is in part, yes. It is also in the uniqueness of the Bible itself -- how it was constructed, how it has thrived in circulation throughout the centuries in the face of persecution, how parts of it have been verified historically and archaeologically. Things like that.

I don't think 'persecution' means what you think it means. See: Constantine the Great

The point is that while the evidence for God is "everything around you", the evidence for Jesus being God comes only from the bible. And atheists have good reason to think that this evidence isn't strong. Possibly more importantly, Jews and Muslims think it isn't either, And they think they are sinning and will displease God if they think otherwise.

Realize what I am saying here. If you accept Jesus without strong evidence of him that's similar to rejecting Jesus because God thinks you want him to reject even if you have no strong evidence that he does. If instead you claim that you believe because the objective evidence is extremely strong you are contradicting your initial assertion that it need not be strong.