by Bill Noorlander
As I’ve become a regular reader of Unreasonable Faith, and waded in to the comment threads, I keep asking believers the same question. It’s really a pretty straightforward question, and it goes to the core of my atheism.
Where’s the evidence for god?
Show me some quantifiable, measurable, testable evidence that god exists and I will gladly go back to being a believer. Show some solid evidence that your god exists and I will come to church, synagogue or mosque with you.
Curiously, the responses from believers have been lacking.
When I was a believer I didn’t think about this question much. I assumed that my parents who raised me in belief, and all the adults and authority figures who believed, knew things I didn’t. I thought they could be trusted to tell me the truth about something as fundamental as the existence of god.
But as I matured, learned, and asked questions, that nagging evidence problem always came back. When I finally turned to fully examine the evidence, my journey to atheism was relatively quick. I assume this process is fairly common, but that believers who have thought about evidence for god have found it to be sufficient.
Overwhelmingly, the most common response from believers is to ignore my question. Obviously that’s not very helpful.
The closest I’ve gotten to an actual response is something along the lines of “I just feel god/holy spirit/jesus in my heart.” But that is subjective evidence. It is not evidence of anything except the existence of the feeling itself. Can you imagine the state trying to prosecute a criminal based solely on evidence that the arresting officer “just felt in his heart” the defendant was a murderer? I didn’t think so.
So rather than trying to ask this in different comment threads, Daniel has been kind enough to lay it out here.
What say you believers?
Can you give us some evidence?
Bill Noorlander is a lawyer in Milwaukee, where he live with his wife and four kids. He blogs at Bill Post.
I suspect the reason you get few satisfying answers is that a belief in god is just that: a belief. A belief, by definition, exists even in the absence of evidence (and sometimes, because of the absence of evidence). Someone who truly has faith in an idea will believe it regardless of the evidence for or against it. Someone who prefers to base his/her philosophy and life on evidence is, by definition, not a believer.
It’s like asking a person who has been blind since birth to describe the colors he or she sees, or asking a hearing person to describe a sound to someone deaf. They’re completely different ways of looking at the world.
The reality is, if you need evidence to believe in god, then you’re probably not “wired” to be a believer. And believers are probably not “wired” to need evidence to believe.
The usual response I get is – “well you need faith, if God just gave you all the evidence then he’d be interfering with your free will & choice of belief” – or something similar *facepalm*
There is no direct empirical evidence for string theory either, but (nearly) nobody makes fun of physicists for positing those crazy theories.
On the other hand, nobody so far as I know has been killed for agnosticism towards strings, so there’s that.
$5 says that the closest thing you’ll get is a poorly thought out interpretation of the big bang.
I think this is two separate issues, and I think Noorlander conflates them:
1) show me evidence of a god and I will believe it.
2) show me evidence of a good/deserving god and I’ll believe and worship it.
I’d be willing to believe in (for example) the god of the biblical old testament if evidence were forthcoming, but I would not consider it worthy of any kind of respect, in the same way that modern-day christians believe in devils but don’t worship them.
Didn’t you listen to Ray Comfort’s bannana evidence? And you’re still not convinced? : )
I’m an atheist. I’m prepared to believe, though, that God might exist but that we’re just looking in the wrong way. Our understanding of the size and structure of the universe is so recent that some of the people who realized that there’s more to the universe than just the Milky Way are still alive.
Slightly freaky example, and I really don’t want to sound like a crystal pendanted hippy cretin, but what if we decided that stars were alive? They have a lot of the characteristics of life, they’re incredibly complex systems, they reproduce, they have a ‘lifecycle’, they process other matter, they transmit a vast amount of data.
Not saying they are, just saying that it’s not impossible. Suddenly, the Fermi Paradox gets instantly resolved – where’s the alien life … right there in the night’s sky. It’s a question of better defining the question and the terms.
I think we need better definitions of what this ‘god’ is meant to be. Just some basic necessary properties. What’s the absolute minimum standard for a god?
The best I can come up with is ‘a being not part of the material world that can hear prayers’.
If that works, then all we have to do is work out how god hears prayers – which is something within the scientific realm – or rule it out. Rule it out, there is no god. Work out how, then the worst case scenario is that gods are possible, the best case scenario is we build a radio to talk to him. Well, no, actually, best case is that we build a radio jammer, isolate him, attack, impound His stuff and put him on trial for serial genocide and criminal negligence. But let’s cross that bridge when we get to it.
Bill / Daniel,
Interesting website and interesting question you pose here.
In all likelihood, there is not an answer that will satisfy you. There have been numerous debates on this topic between scholars and I’m sure there is ample re-hashing of the debates on websites all over the world. These debates probably don’t sway many Christians or atheists; they likely just serve to harden each side’s opinions.
To attempt to answer your question, I could point out a number of things that you’ve heard before. The wonder of nature; the miracle of birth; miracles in general, etc., etc., etc. Again, though, you’ve heard all of these and more and I’m sure you would not be swayed.
I am a follower of Christ; I read and believe the Bible. Put another way, I believe Jesus was born of a virgin, is God’s son, lived a sinless life, died on a cross and was resurrected. I say all that to say this, I believe there is a God because the Bible tells me so. Sure, I can trot out all sorts of supporting evidence, but at the end of the day, I just believe.
You would have to admit that American society has been heavily influenced by Christianity. As a result, many in our country (and in certain regions especially) would identify themselves as Christians, but they are probably not. They are just affected by the culture around them. Why do I write this? Because if you are expecting a spell-binding debate on this topic from the general American populace, it probably won’t happen.
I can completely understand your desire to have these questions answered. I wish I could write something that would persuade you. The answers are found in the Bible. My hope is that you will find them.
Have a good day,
BD
deist.info there are so many explanations if one does not want to believe that is fine if you need more proof as a former Christian, now, I question, why people (reliigionsts) need a book, Bible Quaran / koran or a book to believe. I’d prefer people have the social freedom to be upfront about what they believe, rather than have to suffer covertly. Regardless of what they believe. Surely it is possible to be mature about the other guy being wrong, right?
But could you explain your belief if the bible never existed?
BD. Where to start.
“To attempt to answer your question, I could point out a number of things that you’ve heard before. The wonder of nature; the miracle of birth; miracles in general, etc., etc., etc. Again, though, you’ve heard all of these and more and I’m sure you would not be swayed.”
I think that’s exactly what Bill wants. Some evidence!
Miracles prove nothing on their own. To take one famous example, how does the story of a dancing sun at Fatima (lets assume it could be independently verified as true) prove that Yahweh created the universe? Would this “miracle” prove to you that Catholicism is correct?
What about the Hindu Milk miracles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_milk_miracle) do they prove that Ganesh is the deity we should all worship?
Things happen all over the world all the time for which there may be no obvious explanation or there is conflicting or insufficient evidence to investigate properly. That which we call a miracle is likely to be based on some sort of unusual event but when examined there is often a much more prosaic explanation.
Miracles by themselves are of no use in proving anything other than the existence bad logic and reasoning powers in people who jump to hasty conclusions.
Birth a miracle? I think you conflate the word miracle with the word amazing. The development of egg and sperm cells into a child is a well understood process which happens in humans thousands of times every day and is a totally natural process – wonderful and awesome I agree – but not miraculous in the common sense of the word.
Nature is wonderful I agree, but how does this prove that Jesus died for our sins and I should give thanks to him?
I’ll leave others to comment on the remainder of your post.
I may well be opening Pandora’s box but here goes:
“Show me some quantifiable, measurable, testable evidence that god exists and I will gladly go back to being a believer.”
I think nullifidian made the point quite well, I think the issue in the end is not belief but loving and worshiping God. As pointed out, deists and others can believe in some great supernatural force and not worship. The other thing often missed is that taken at face value the Bible acknowledges a place for miracles(raising Lazarus) but by it’s own account people aren’t as moved by them as we would think(Israel rebelled after being freed, Pharisees didn’t believe after Lazarus was raised).
Evidence for me is in the form of an overall case. Standing alone the moral argument or the teleological argument might not be completely overpowering but taken as a whole with all the other arguments for God they become stronger. We do this all the time with law cases, we might not have the smoking gun, but cases can be built with circumstantial evidence. We have to be much more rigorous in such cases but we shouldn’t dismiss them out of hand.
Some philosophers such Plantiga think that the idea of having concrete evidence is an assumption that doesn’t have to be granted. He places the idea of God in the category of basic belief. Its much the same as accepting the validity of your memories or accepting the existence of other minds. We all live with these beliefs but they can’t be proven in a rigorous philosophical manner. Hence you have the famous ghost in the machine and brain in a vat mind experiments and such. The great objection to Plantiga has been the Great Pumpkin and I would add the Flying Spaghetti monster. If belief in God is properly basic than any belief no matter how irrational can be considered basic. The charge is indeed a powerful one and I think Plantiga definitely has some work still to do in this area. But there is also work for those that demand hard evidence for God and accept other beliefs without such “concrete” evidence. Think of trying to prove you love your wife, you can tell us what you’ve done, but they could be replicated by someone even if they didn’t care for her the way you do.
When these type of debates come up though I like to think of one of my favorite movies, with a couple of guys named Jules and Vincent. Now that’s a debate on miracles that should be in a Bible college theology classes. Notice that though there was evidence, the two men explained the evidence in different ways, and that’s the way of our world. Till we gain the omniscient viewpoint of the movie watcher/God things will only be viewed in the way we want to see them.
The most convincing proof for me as a Christian was a summation of little tiny things. Times I needed help or support, and God was there; times I stepped out in faith and God didn’t let me down. Each on their own proves nothing, but a lifetime of experience becomes powerful proof; although it’s not something you can communicate to someone else.
The trouble is that it’s not true. It’s viewing the random events in your life through the filters of any number of psychological biases which are all centre on reinforcing a belief you already hold. A lot of this belief was also second hand, hearing the amazing testimony of amazing people. Of course I wouldn’t want to call them liars, but I’m convinced that subtle post hoc changes in the retelling of such stories makes them seem more miraculous than they were at the time.
The most persuasive argument I have for the existence of God is a friend of mine who felt that God had told her to give quite a lot of money to charity (it wasn’t to the church, incidentally). She was pretty hard up at this time, and when she gave the money she found she didn’t have enough for nappies (uhh, diapers for the ‘merkins) for her 3 month old son. That evening, completely unsolicited, a friend of ours who had recently had a daughter (and therefore was in no need of the male-shaped nappies they had bought as a precaution), offered her a large pack of nappies completely free. This wasn’t a case of “we knew you were struggling so here’s some money”, but a case of what was specifically needed being provided at the perfect time.
That is the best evidence I have for God. Considering I am now an atheist, you can see how much value I place in it.
I agree with you that God helps us when we pray true to the heart. I have personally experienced this. Then I started thinking how God could listen to me when I am a negligible person amongst crores in the world. God listens to prayers of all those who have faith in Him, worship Him and believe in Him. I have no proof but what I thought is that our mind is connected to God. God is an energy which exists in tiny quantities in all of us. God keeps us united with him just like interatomic forces keep the particles in atoms together. They are interlinked and still seperate, but depend on each other. This power of God acts through the minds. Mind has tremendous speed of thought. When we concentrate our mind, this power works on the wish we have, and we get positive results. We can not see God in person, because it is in our minds. It does not have any dimensions. It is a form of energy we can not see but only feel if you believe. Yes, some people claim to have seen Him in the form they worship Him. That is because this energy can take any form when the mind is concentrated on that form. Generally people worship God to fulfil their wishes which are very worldly. But those who understood God well do not believe in worldly wishes. They are so happy with their finding of God that they forget everything and even their own existance and remain in ectassy for ever.
To quote BD “The wonder of nature; the miracle of birth; miracles in general, etc., etc., etc. Again, though, you’ve heard all of these and more and I’m sure you would not be swayed.”
I used to believe in miracles, but as I gained a better understanding of large numbers and percentages it explains medical miracles pretty well. It’s great when somebody’s cancer “miraculously” disappears, but it doesn’t point to the divine. What would really point to the divine would be for an amputee to be healed. Why has god chosen to NEVER once in history heal an amputee? If I saw an amputee verifiability healed, then I’d believe in the divine… or the next stage of evolution? :)
“I can completely understand your desire to have these questions answered. I wish I could write something that would persuade you. The answers are found in the Bible. My hope is that you will find them.
Have a good day,
BD”
BD,
you too, also have a good day.
Now, back to the evidence of God in regard to christian faith, remember doubting Thomas? Jesus appeared to him in a ressurrected body with wounds countary to 1Cor:15, Doubting Thomas had that evidence and assurance though he was not blessed, for Jesus had said” blessed are those who has not seen, yet believe”. Is it unreasonable to ask for that evidence as unbeliever?
Now, faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not see. For you God truly said, “I do this so that: ‘They will look and look, but never really see; they will listen and listen, but never understand. If they saw and understood, they might change and be forgiven.’”, there is nothing you can do or write of your own faith, for the Bible’s NT faith comes from God and it is He that stood in the way.
The book of Acts spoke about many miracles, jumping forward to the book of Revelation, there are angels calling repentance in the last days testified by many evengelical leaders and followers that hunmans are living in the period. The best evidences and assurrances of the non-existence of blibical God is found in the Holy Bible, we need not other proofs or evidences, let alone assurances.
The words of a human.
Side note @ Dr. Kate’s comment:
‘The reality is, if you need evidence to believe in god, then you’re probably not “wired” to be a believer. And believers are probably not “wired” to need evidence to believe.’
I tend to agree with Dr. Kate, and, as such, isn’t that unfortunate at some fundamental level? It seems that the world is filled with people in both camps, yet it seems odd that wiring would be determinative, or at least highly influential, in the whole God debate. After all, we are all allegedly made in the image of God, right? Yet many people, in “good faith”, simply want some evidence in their lives to back up various major claims, be they scientific, financial, legal, historical, theological, or otherwise. Seems rather harmless in the final analyisis.
And I suspect that those “not wired” still want some evidence to back up claims, e.g. this uncomfortable medical treatment will very likely be effective…Trust me, I’m your accountant…or, Hey! I love you!
(sigh) I guess the Calvanists were right…
A skilled xtian proselytizer and apologist is armed with the full armor of logical fallacies to defend his unreasonable faith. It took only one encounter with an apologist who answered all of my questions with a counter-question for me to realize that I was wasting my time arguing with him.
Don’t waste your time trying to counter Barry’s argument, “Think of trying to prove you love your wife, you can tell us what you’ve done, but they could be replicated by someone even if they didn’t care for her the way you do.” His argument is a fallacious comparison, comparing apples to oranges.
An eternal, omni-everything god would be the most objective of all entities. Such a being, if he existed, would be amenable to objective proof.
God believers have no objective proofs. Their only weapons are the distractions of logical fallacies. That’s why you don’t encounter many of them on these types of blogs. Put on your full armor of logic to deflect their slings and arrows of superstition.
I enjoyed reading all of your follow-up comments.
Just a few follow-ups:
1) Yes, I understood the question. Yes, I didn’t attempt to offer any proof. That doesn’t mean I don’t have any. I was taking the lazy approach and saying that you’ve probably already heard it all anyway. :)
2) Evidence of an amputee being healed? On the night Jesus was betrayed by Judas, Paul took an ear off with a sword and then Jesus healed the guy. It’s not exactly an arm or a leg, but it works for me.
3) The Bible is the best evidence I can offer anyone. Miracles, wonders, nice fuzzy feelings or whatever: I suppose those are all nice, but I, likewise, do not put a lot (any?) stock in what one person or another may term a “miracle.” To a couple struggling to have a baby, seeing their newborn hatch qualifies as a miracle, despite history recording billions of other births. To the person receiving the death sentence of a terrible illness, each new day may be a miracle. A baseball announcer describes a “miracle catch,” but is it really? Nah. Was it a miracle that the guy recently survived in the Gulf of Mexico for 46 or so hours? Heck if I know. [However, it is a miracle that my spouse stays with me and that to me, indeed, points out that there is a God. :) ]
4) Most of you reading this blog believe there is no God. Perhaps if more people who claim to follow Jesus Christ actually lived Biblical lives (= can of worms), maybe that would be the second best form of evidence.
Again, I hope today is a good one for all of you.
BD
“Yes, I understood the question. Yes, I didn’t attempt to offer any proof. That doesn’t mean I don’t have any. I was taking the lazy approach and saying that you’ve probably already heard it all anyway. :)”
You don’t know what we have and haven’t heard. If you can’t be bothered offering any evidence, why even bother commenting? That was the whole point of the post.
What people call “miracles” are just coincidences of factors of probability that they do not understand or rarely occur in their everyday lives. It is this lack of understanding that leads them to take the easy way out by labeling it a miracle. Or for religious believers, arrogantly asserting that they have been chosen and blessed by God with a relatively unlikely child (for example).
Jesus has said and it is written to this effect,”My kingdom is not of this world, if it is so, my followers would have take up arms and fight”
Non believers have not denied believers to the right to exist in this world, the right to vote, the right to live, the right to morality of humankind, the right to love, the right to make profit, the right to be protected, the right to be percecuted, etc.
So, do not deny our rights to humanity, if you truly love us, humans, for we know you, too, are humans.
BD – “The Bible is the best evidence I can offer anyone.”
Have you ever read ALL of the Bible? I find the Bible the best evidence for not believing in God.
“But as I matured, learned, and asked questions, that nagging evidence problem always came back”.
We are all grown up. This is a severely limiting factor. We are told that “unless we become like little children (in trust, in innocence) we will not see the kingdom of God. Paradoxical paternity.
The evidence you seek is (literally) not attainable within the realm of reason. I realize this is not the answer you had hoped for. The natural man perceives in one plane only. In fact, the very suggesstion that there is another, higher plane than the faculty of reason itself is offensive to the natural man.
Upon the plane of the mystical, reason no longer possesses that strength and power, which it has within philosophy, for then it is upon a trans-rational plane. A man, caught up into the mystical plane, into a mystic contemplation, then “becomes bereft of the reliance upon reason”, he surmounts reason.
Does reason become altered or otherwise enlightened by revelation in what has been received upon the mystical plane?
Assuming you are sincerely wanting evidence of this “Christian” God, and if He is in fact God, then it stands to reason that you would have to come to know Him in the very way that He says you can know Him. The problem is you seek to prove Him by natural, empirical evidence. He is not natural, He is super-natural, but you can know Him still. Can know, be known.
Instead of hammering believers for knowing Him in the very way He says we can, maybe you should consider “proving” Him…His way. But of course, that would require child-like innocence, trust and humility on your part. Fortunately, He is trustworthy.
There is more, there is a life.
For anybody who’s interested, I’ve explained (in great detail) exactly how beliefs and knowledge differ, and why science is the only possible path to reliable knowledge. It’s a two part series, and you need to read both parts to get to my rebuttal of religious claims:
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/on-science-and-knowledge-part-i/
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/on-science-and-knowledge-part-ii/
An eternal, omni-everything god would be the most objective of all entities. Such a being, if he existed, would be amenable to objective proof.
For a person who harps on logical fallacies, you sure do know how to commit them with the best of ‘em.
This is a classic compositional fallacy, of the form “objects have property x, thus exhibit behavior y, if there is an object that is the most x, it would exhibit behavior y exceptionally”.
e.g.
1. Atoms are invisible to the naked eye.
2. The Earth is made of nothing but atoms.
3. Therefore, the Earth is invisible to the naked eye.
Even if I granted the supposition that an omni-omni God, if he were to exist, is the “most objective entity” (which I don’t), it is not clear what “most objective” would even mean, or what sort of consequences would logically follow from such a status. It’s like saying something is the “most green” or “most original”. Superlation of adjectives is often meaningless precisely because all qualitiative judgments are situation by compresence of opposition. Something that is large by some measure is small by some other measure, and so forth. And immeasurable qualities are even worse in this sense, because there can be no mereological composition; something is either original or it is not, green or not green, objective or not objective. Not only in those cases is superlation impossible, comparative relation is difficult.
John C – “Blah, blah, blah.”
I heard that same crap fifty years ago. What you are actually parroting is that to be a believer, you have to be stupid and ignorant. Well, unfortunately for the religion business, when I became less ignorant, I became a non-believer.
No matter how much you wrap that Bible crap in high sounding rhetoric and obscurantism, underneath the shiny wrapper it’s still a smelly turd.
@ Elemenope
To spell the omni out, God is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. That would be in and of everything objective and subjective everywhere.
This is not my logical fallacy. It is the fallacy of most xtians and of the believing posters here. I am just following their beliefs to their logical or illogical conclusion.
John C – “Love…thats His true nature.”
And that’s why he is going to send billions to eternal damnation.
I ask you the same question I asked BD, Have you ever read ALL of the Bible?
Let unnatural things be confined to unnatural men, even mystical things to the confine of the church. Mostly, NT of the Book, they are written to believers of your God.
We have no problems with humanity, humans interaction with humans, nor have we problem understanding your solitarity with the mind of your Messiah. We also understand your maturity of the evidences of God that can not be proven even with the bible and our love for humanity is evident.
Let that is more, that life be human, not elohim as he think he is.
Elemenope – “An omni-omni deity would have *who-knows-what* sort of epistemological characteristics and consequences. It’s not a scientific hypothesis, this God hypothesis, it makes no testable predictions, and *has no empirical consequences*.”
Why wouldn’t it be just the opposite? Every test would prove his existence. How would he hide his omni-ness?
Well, maybe he could make us totally unaware, like rocks. We might as well be rocks if he is omniscient. That doesn’t work too well with the (trademark) Plan of Salvation.
I really hate to be a vain spoilsport here, but as I have already pointed out, there simply is no way for any human being to find ultimate “true” evidence on favour of god(s). We are simply not up to the task.
Now, if any of you brilliant people out there (absolutely no sarcasm intended here) could please point out any/all logical and other fallacies I have comitted while arguing this way, feel free to do so.
Invalidating this reduces the number of ideas constantly swhirling (did I just made that up?!) through my mind by one. Doing so gives me more time to enjoy internet pr0n, so please tell me that my approach is entirely (or at least partially) fallacious!
I will answer you.
Really interesting discussion, I don’t have any answers, but if I may be so bold, I think summing up some of the main points of the discussion might help. First off, the initial question was “What say you believers? Can you give us some evidence?” Most of the responses, including most of the religious responses said “no.” Now I’m going to guess a little and say that what most of religious posts were saying is that the reason for believing in some God, or supernatural state of affairs, cannot be found in any scientific pursuit. I suppose a religious person begins by assuming (for some reason? I’ll get back to this) that reality is dualistic, that there is a……world (not sure if that’s the best word here) which we inhabit and interact with through our five senses, and a world (again, I think there is a better word for this idea) which our five senses cannot penetrate, but which religious people think is basic and obvious to all. The question moves then to what causes people to assume a reality which science cannot define entirely by it’s nature? Historically religion has been used to explain things which people could not understand, and as science moves forward there are fewer and fewer things that we do not understand. However an important point needs to be made here. I think it would be a fallacy to say that since we no longer need religion to explain most phenomena, then an “invisible realm” does not exist. All we’ve done is show that it, if it exists, does not interact with the world as much as religious people have historically thought. So if we understand so much of the world, and have explained away most phenomena, what causes some people to move to religion? Personal experience, testimony, unexplained phenomena in their lives? It would be interesting to me if some of the religious people, I think most of them are christian, would explain why they made this assumption in the first place, what made them decide that something they could not detect with their senses existed?
however I’m not asking to be proselytized here, just hoping to move the conversation back to the main point, which was interesting
Neither is there direct empirical evidence for atoms. Many behaviors of matter can be (and have in the past been) explained through other hypothetical models. It is only by having a detailed model of an atom that explains all of our empirical results so well that the notion that they exist has any credibility.
But I would argue that atoms are not real in the same mode that the chair I’m sitting on is real. In Surely You’re Joking…, Feynman talks about sitting in on a philosophy seminar about essential objects and is asked whether an electron is an essential object. He intended to ask, “Is a brick an essential object?” followed by “Is the inside of a brick an essential object?” In the book, Feynman elaborates by saying that no one has ever studied the inside of a brick — once you crack it open, you’re looking at the outside again. The inside of a brick is a hypothesis meant to explain the nature of the brick (weight, compressive strength, etc.), and that electrons are hypotheses in the same way. I seem to recall Hawking taking a similar view in the introduction or first chapter of A Brief History of Time.
I would say that God could be real in the same sense as atoms, but there is absolutely no empirical reason to believe that he is.
So why aren’t physicists criticized for cooking up theories about strings? They’re theoretical physicists, and right now their job is to reconcile relativity with QED and QCD. To do so, they posit entities that are consistent with the material theory of matter and the theory of general relativity. Now first of all, you don’t need the molecular theory of matter or relativity if God exists. The hypothesis of God in no way predicts the results of these theories. But string theory does. So already these crazy physicists are miles ahead of theologians. Furthermore, there are (of course) in principle tests we can do to falsify it. The only God hypothesis that still seems plausible at this point is one that can’t in principle be falsified.
The other point to make is that the people I’ve heard who are most critical of string theory are other physicists. So I don’t know how much the “church of science” implication applies here.
Show me some quantifiable, measurable, testable evidence that god exists
Oh dear.
The rational mind is limited. It is the fear of the unknown, the fear that there exist things that are unknowable, that drives us to seek refuge in our own intellect, in our ability to decipher, make predictions about and ultimately control, that which we perceive.
Perception is limited. scientists discovered that some animals “see” differently to humans and went on to devise machines that would allow us to see what is reflected under infra red or ultra violet light, things that we could not see before. But how much more could there be to see that we have yet to discover?
Experience is limited. Our rational mind as a tool is useless for contemplating what is totally outside our experience. Those famous words, “there are things we don’t know we don’t know” are of course quite true.
Knowledge is limited. But those who believe in God are not looking for knowledge, they are looking for truth. Does your rational mind tell you that knowledge equals truth, or must it draw the conclusion, as I have, that the only rational definition of truth is simply ‘all that is’?
Our ability to communicate about our experience and ideas is limited. What is God? My rational mind tells me that it is significant that all cultures through the ages share the same element; a mythology based around the idea of one or many gods. In all cases it appears to me that this mythology is an attempt to explain the unknown and the unknowable, whatever that happened to be in any particular place and time. It is difficult to have a rational discussion about God when we can’t be sure that we are all talking about the same thing. Not everybody believes in a god, for example, who listens to your prayers.
Much of what was once attributed to one god or many is now understood by science as the wonder of nature. Many people experience a feeling of awe when they contemplate nature. Where will you look to find the evidence that explains that experience?
Many people, if asked for evidence of the god or gods they believe in will point to some relic belonging to an organized religion. Others will quite happily concede they have no evidence, and suffer no inner conflict believing without it.
Can you come up with a definition of god that transcends all religions, all beliefs? The only one I can think of is ‘truth’. If god is truth, and truth is all that is, then what we are really asking when we ask “is there a god?” is “what is my relationship to all that is?”
When you ask “does god exist?” you are asking what it is that we cannot know with our rational mind.
An interesting question. Good luck.
Oh and John C, how do you know you’re a spiritual entity? Do you have evidence for such an assertion? Any kind of argument from first principles? Anything?
I bet if you had one of your adrenal glands surgically removed, the personality change would be obvious to those who know you well. Or do your adrenal glands follow you to the “mystical plain”?
If spirits can hear, why are there deaf people?
My personality has changed remarkably in the last 7 years (and before that certainly, but I can be more specific about how if I limit to the 7). Is this my spirit changing, or simply (as it seems to me upon introspection) the accumulated results of my life’s experiences? Is my spirit immutable? How do you know?
Most importantly: does my spirit interact with the physical world? If so, by what mechanism does it do so? If the first answer is “yes,” then the answer to the second question is very important to me. No religious work or religious person has ever been able to answer it. Science has done more to illuminate how my mind works than religion ever has, even though science has barely scratched the surface, to resort to cliche. So where does your “spiritual existence” get me, exactly?
@Bill
Great Question! As a believer many of my thoughts of God have been clarified and shaped by the Bible… I know, another one of those ignorant people you guys don’t like.. but unlike many of the readers of this blog, I find the Bible to be compelling.. confusing and difficult at times but a book of substance when it come to practical answers that honest truth seekers desire.. I grew up as an unchurched kid and didn’t have much exposure to the church or the Bible until college.. enough about me
The greatest evidence I see for the existence of God is creation.. from sunrise to sunset, to examination of the details of the natural world around me… not to mention the complexity and wonder of the human body… all these point to a Creator in my opinion… the chance that all I see coming from “chance and time” is ludicrous.. one passage I like is in Romans 1
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Yes, Bill, there is a God and His existence is trumpeted everywhere around us… in my humble opinion
The application of Romans 1 is not carefully thought of, neither has the applications of the chapter are deligently studied to the approval of their God by christians, to the dismay of their God.
7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
-Romans was written to the believers in Rome, not unbelievers.
————–
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for GOD HATH SHEWED IT UNTO THEM.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
-Who are these men? Believers, they have the truth. God had shown them that He is God, not men or a pastor or a debater, etc, examples of some of the things are found in the gospels and the book of Acts. SO CERTAIN BAD THINGS will happen to believers if them reject their imaginary God.
————–
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
-What happens when believers reject or leave their God?
They become gays, lesbians, crazy, evil, greedy, jealous, murderer, debater, etc. Maybe that is why they are trying so hard to put these crazy stuff on non-believers and atheists by trying to get us see their imaginary evidences of God so that we may also be scared like them. Imagine waking up one day suddenly desiring to have a person’s manhood inside 2 your of your body organs, the mouth and rectum.
————–
We don’t have to worry, as long as their God does not appear before us, we are safe. But, what if you suddenly believe their imaginary evidences, be careful, you might suddenly turn into gay or lesbian, but if you are homosexual, you will become straight if you stop following their crowd.
If I am a surgeon, I am very sure that if I do a a thorough dissection on a so called true believers, I will not find any hidden treasure but organs for transplantation, maybe a hidden genie would pop up saying” You are destroying my home, sew him up and I will give you 3 wishes, or the other way round?
There are two compelling arguments for the existence of god – to me – although not compelling enough – for me.
1. The fine tuner:
part 1
http://www.2flashgames.com/f/f-Law-of-Nature-3100.htm
part 2
http://www.2flashgames.com/f/f-Law-of-Nature-2-3110.htm
2. The Prime Mover
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
summed up as – everything is moving – something had to cause the movement.
Thanks for all the replies – and apologies for not being around while they flooded in.
It strikes me that while there has been a lot of very intelligent discussion here by non-believers, there have been very few believers who have taken up the challenge. The closest we got was the argument from creation and – well – that just isn’t very good evidence of god’s existence. (Indeed, it’s not evidence at all as others have pointed out above.)
Maybe atheists really are “wired differently” but I kind of doubt it. I know a lot of believers who are athiests on all but one god. Often they are athiest as to all other gods for the very reason I am as to all gods – lack of evidence.
The willingness to turn a blind eye to lack of evidence on one god continues to confuse me.
Exactly. Theoretical physics has a basis in mathematical arguments that are eventually proven empirically or else chucked. That’s what’s so great about science. NOT so great about religion, though.
I know exactly why no Christians have really been able to put out a logical argument to satisfy the atheists in the crowd.
Any Christian who claims to have some sort of logical or reason-based argument for the existence of God is either delusional or a liar (but not for the reasons you may think).
As a lifetime left-brainer and cynic, I can say that I’ve finally found a balance between my cynical, logical, left-brained nature and my faith. And the key is just that, faith. I define faith as belief in God with the complete and utter absence of physical or logical evidence.
I would argue that not only is there a complete lack of evidence for a faith in God, but also that lack of evidence is precisely what makes a true faith in God so powerful.
I would further argue that the absolute worst thing that could ever happen to the Christian faith would be some evidence so revealing that any rational person would have no reason but to believe in God.
Faith is the antithesis of logic. Nothing about a belief or relationship with God is logical. It is often paradoxical and even sometimes nonsensical. But, in my opinion, that does not diminish its value in any way.
The crux of a faith in God is not about defining God in the ways that make sense to you or that fit into a nice proof. Faith is about believing in something that is bigger and serves a higher purpose than anything humans can care to comprehend.
Why do bad things happen to good people? For the same reasons that good things happen to bad people. The idea of good or bad, in my opinion, is not only a subjective measure, but also of a complete lack of importance to an omni being who is interested only in their own will being achieved.
There are no real arguments for or against a faith in God, because in a pure sense, faith is an intimately personal decision.
I may be a Christian, but I’m probably in the minority in that I believe that evangelism is a waste of time and that the Bible is leaned on way too heavily. Neither of those things, however, could ever separate me from the faith that guides my life on a daily basis.
http://mefeedia.com/entry/the-four-horsemen-hd-hour-1-of-2-discussions-with-richard-dawkins-ep-1/14718921
The above video is very interesting. Iy talks anout many things discussed in this blog.
‘Not prone to hyperbole, are we?’
No. Believing things that reality tells you aren’t true is the definition of psychosis.
‘If you have no questions on why things happen’
I’m fascinated by why questions, but there are ‘why questions’ that are nonsensical and there are ‘why questions’ that atheists can resolve in three words that baffle theologians.
Seriously, try answering one of your why questions with the assumption that there aren’t gods, and the answer you end up with usually makes more sense.
‘over-generalizing my personal faith and correlating it to all the whack-jobs out there isn’t exactly fair.’
No it isn’t. But your post celebrated exactly the mindset that enables those nutjobs. The way society celebrates people motivated by ‘faith’ is a huge problem.
“The point is they do believe what you call lies, and Iam suggesting you are unlikely to change that by arguing from the point of rationality.”
Nope, arguments from rationality saved me from a live of pointless superstition, and I am incredibly grateful to the people who took the time to counter and rebut the many false ideas I’d been fed.
Don’t listen to naysayers like Wren here. Keep it up, guys. It does work, and life is so much better without the blinders on.
…. But one could never transition from the spirit led life to one of unbelief. ……
mark …. why do you make claims that amount to lying. you know full well that this forum is full of ex-christians including myself.
im wondering how come your god dosent inspire you to provide more coherent answers and observations.
when you say spiritually blind exactly who are you talking about.
are you talking about anyone who has or does not accept jesus christ.
if so how come he didnt open the eyes of the-
chinese,
japanese,
koreans,
indians,
native north and south americans
or any of native peoples living in the carribean before the europeans established colonies and trade relations with these populations.
were talking millions, possibly billions of people whos eyes were never opened by your christian god. they were never exposed to your chrisitan god.
are all of those people going to burn in hell or not go to heaven when they were never exposed to christianity in the first place.
I take that back:
“the Ecumenical Council of Florence said that anyone who dies in mortal sin or only original sin descends immediately to Hell. That would mean that infants who didn’t get baptism or died due to miscarriage would all suddenly realise that they’re burning in eternal fire suffering everlasting punishment for nothing they have personally done.”
Jesus said you MUST be baptized or else. So for these poor infants there is no hope, get the soul, then suffer enternal fire…sucks. There is also a concept of limbo, but that was conjured up out of thin air by st. Augustine…
IIRC the previous pope dude got rid of the concept of limbo.
Sayin that, seeing as people can make up or destroy “spiritual” realms for absolutely no outlay and without having to provide any evidence whatsoever, that’s not particularly surprising.
“Sunny Day
It is clear by the tone of your posts”
TL DR
Nulli…
When Christ used the term “rich” he was speaking in this manner: The rich are those who are self content, satisfied in and of themselves with who they are apart from Him. There is simply “no room” at the “inn” of their hearts (spirit) to inherit His presence.
Like the parable Jesus gave, having discovered the whereabouts of ‘the treasure’ (in the field – our bodies) we sell all we have (external values, identities) in order to purchase the field wherein the treasure lies, US.
Christ IN you is the mystery of the ages. The question is…will we make room, will we sell out to possess this “treasure in earthen vessels”.
Bill Noorlander,
“Show me some quantifiable, measurable, testable evidence that god exists and I will gladly go back to being a believer…”
Evidence given by many Christians moves from the things we find in the universe around us and in history to the existence of the Christian God. What more can you ask from a proof?
I am not about to get in another running argument on this web site. The last time I did, I had 24 (!) people commenting on what I said. Further, if I failed to address any one small point made by any of them, they all accused me of lying / intellectual dishonesty / basic stupidity. Was not a good experience.
Go to my blog (www.jkjonesthinks.blogspot.com). Poke around under the search label “God’s Existence.” Argue with me there.
The evidence and arguments are there. They are not circular. They are reasonable and true. When taken together, they prove Christianity and Christianity only.
As the many references you will find buried in the posts shows, they are also not original to me. I have refined and restated, but other, more competent philosophers use them as well.
The evidence is real. The arguments are cogent. You are without excuse in your unbelief.
Sunny Day,
Obviously the problem here is that you are too lazy to follow the links. Or perhaps you are afraid of what you might find.
I apologize. I had assumed you were intelligent enough to find your way.
If the link “God’s Existence” was to difficult for you to follow, try “Nine Reasons Why…”
I politely attempted to engage Mr. Jones on his own terms, on his own turf, and he was polite in return. This did nothing to convince me, however, that what I was reading was anything new. The arguments have been discussed to death, the anecdotes are like old standards. Mr. Jones is a strong believer tied up in theology and theistic ontology. I am not sure how anyone would benefit from further discussion.
I apologize to Mr. Jones for wasting his time, and in turn wish that I had not wasted my own time.
So you take the approach that it is best to either make fun of me or write me off as a hopeless case / waste of time. Doesn’t seem mature to me, but do what you like.
I could just a easily turn the tables and accuse you of using the same old false, throughly refuted counter-arguments. I could also say you are so tied up in naturalisum that you can see nothing else.
Just doesn’t seem the way to proceed.
James, I do appreciate you being polite.
“I could just a easily turn the tables and accuse you of using the same old false, thoroughly refuted counter-arguments. I could also say you are so tied up in naturalism that you can see nothing else.”
You could try, but given the quality of your arguments, you would still be laughed at.
Sunny Day,
Yeah, right.
James P.,
The scientific method relies on certian non-physical assumptions that cannot be proven by experimentation. Namely: universal laws of logic / mathematics, basic reliability f sense perception, uniformity of nature (things are the same tommorow as the are today as they were yesterday), transcendent rationality arissing from physical interactions, and a few others. These things must be assumed before scientific investigation even begins.
The notion that science makes no metaphysical foundation idles not follow.
Boone, especially not me, says that an athiest cannot live a moral life. I know of many athiests who have lived much more moral lives than me. What I do question is that athiests again make assumptions about universal, abstract laws / entities that are not justified by the scientific method. They then say they make no such assumptions, and that is the source of my frustration.
These very same assumptions about morality must be made in order to criticize God for His action or
non-action in the world. Despite this athiests constantly assert God’s lack of morality in a world they say is devoid of the non-material.
The Christian faith allows a rational basis for immaterial assumptions like these. God established them. That is why Christians use the scientific method. It makes sense for us to do so in light of God’s underpinning of these assumptions. That holds for ethics as well.
There are other religions which say many true things which my argument can and have defended. But there are some Christian distinctives which are more reasonable to hold that distinguish it from the other religions. Those arguments are off the subject here, but would be appropriate for other posts.
I do wish you all well, and I pray for your health and well-being. I hope the notion that I pray for you is not offensive. The idea is that I hope for your best
“The scientific method relies on certian non-physical assumptions that cannot be proven by experimentation. Namely: universal laws of logic / mathematics, basic reliability f sense perception, uniformity of nature (things are the same tommorow as the are today as they were yesterday), transcendent rationality arissing from physical interactions, and a few others. These things must be assumed before scientific investigation even begins.”
Ah, another god of the gaps argument, how tired, boring, and typical of a theist.
“There are other religions which say many true things which my argument can and have defended. But there are some Christian distinctives which are more reasonable to hold that distinguish it from the other religions.”
Christianity: We’re 5% less batshit insane than the other religions.
“but (nearly) nobody makes fun of physicists for positing those crazy theories.”
*raises hand*
Hi, I’m Nearly.
Yeah, the term String Theory is a misnomer. It’s not not a theory so much as a model – a method of describing the world that seems to give decent results, but hasn’t been tested.
I’ve seen string theory tossed out before in response to this kind of question, usually along the line of “well scientists believe in things without evidence too!” The analogy seems lacking to me.
I don’t think (and people with more knowledge than I can feel free to correct me on this if I’m wrong), that string theory is regarded by large populations as absolute truth. It’s a novel theory that may or may not ultimately be regarded as accurate.
Am I wrong on this?
With one tiny little difference: String theory is a mathematically (i.e. logically, reasonable) hypothesis, constructed to explain certain effects we’ve already found and lack a proper explanation for, while at the same time making falsifyable predictions about certain other phenomena (a very important element of all scientific hypotheses).
With the god(s) hypothesis, things are slightly different.
So, in short, that’s the reason why (nearly) nobody makes fun of physicists for positing those crazy theories. [Which tells me that you've probably never been attending an informal physicists meeting. Boy, these guys (and occasionally gals) can be mean :) ]
And I’ve been known to make fun on occasion as well. That’s why I threw in the “nearly”. :)
Point was, there are beliefs without evidence that are widely ridiculed, and then there are beliefs without evidence that are taken as “kinda neat”.
And the only determinant in our society for distinguishing between the two is that one comes from a religious frame and one comes from a scientific frame. As I’ve said before, while we still wallow in the vestiges of old religion, science is our *true* religion. The priests are oracular and the masses are amazed.
I would change that last to “but cannot be tested“. The reason I picked string theory is that it makes no empirical predictions.
In that way, it is on parallel with the God hypothesis.
This is a very good point – and one I would agree with you on. If the evidence showed god was evil, I wouldn’t worship her either.
There is a range of options for a deity outside “good” and “evil”. I think of Aristotle’s unmoved mover, which exists in an eternity of self-contemplation. If I understand correctly, such a God might not even be aware of our existence.
Then there’s Lovecraft’s Azathoth, a blind, idiot God that represents the mindless functioning of natural forces. There’s a reason that Azathoth’s few worshipers are all completely insane.
Anyway, I think there would have to be some evidence that worship would do some good, either for us of for the deity.
I want to echo this:
“Show some solid evidence that your god exists and I will come to church, synagogue or mosque with you.”
This idea is completely absurd to me. I’ve been asked before what I would do if Jesus came to my house and proved that he was Jesus. Would I worship him then? Absolutely not, he would need to explain himself quite a bit before I could believe he was really the embodiment of love and should be worshiped. Personally I don’t think he would be able to do it, there’s no explaining away much of the evil that has happened and continues to happen in the face of an all-knowing, benevolent god.
Actually, it does make some predictions, but we’re not yet capable of testing them. For example, different flavours predict different fine-structure in the background microwave radiation, but at levels too subtle for us to measure. Loop Quantum Gravity (one of the forerunners for unifying QM and relativity) predicts slight differences in the spped of light at different wavelengths.
If we can get close enough to a black hole, the exact structure of Hawking radiation (even within our current ability to measure it) should be able to provide evidence for or against string theory. Or at least, certain sub-theories.
“A belief, by definition, exists even in the absence of evidence (and sometimes, because of the absence of evidence). ”
I disagree with this – I have certain political beliefs because I have examined the evidence and come to the conslusion that certain political systems are better for society than others.
I believe that touching a hot surface will burn me because I have seem evidence that it happens.
I believe my computer is in front of me right now because I can see and touch it.
Faith exists in the absence of evidence. Beliefs can be based on faith or evidence I suppose, but not all beliefs are based on faith.
But isnt that where the difference lies?
Its called String “Theory”, so up front its telling you, “we don’t know for sure”
What If places of worship had signs that said “God Theory”, “Allah Theory” etc?
There are scientists very worried that string theory is more like a religion than science:
http://www.amazon.com/Not-Even-Wrong-Failure-Physical/dp/0465092764/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236951961&sr=8-1
Theists often say ‘oh, people worship science’, but there’s an absolutely crucial difference: ‘science’ is self-correcting. It defines terms, it experiments and adjusts the theory if the facts don’t fit.
If string theory proves to be a dead end, scientists will abandon it. Very clearly, at the moment, string theory is a work in progress. But not one scientist is saying the current models are *definitely* and *exactly* the way things have to be.
Yeah this may be a misnomer though. We also call it the Theory of Evolution, but the word theory in science has a very different meaning than in every day use. Evolution is accepted in scientific circles as near absolute fact.
I’m not sure if the word is being used in the scientific sense when describing string theory, but my understanding is that it isn’t. That it would be more accurate perhaps to call it a string hypothesis.
But as I mentioned above, there are people more knowledgable on string theory who can enlighten us. I’m not even close to an expert.
Yeah, that’s not really what “theory” means to scientists. Compare the heliocentric theory, the germ theory of medicine and the atomic theory of matter.
String theory is misnamed because it doesn’t have sufficient evidence to be a rigorous hypothesis, let alone a theory.
I think the difference lies in that, even if people did take string theory as absolute divine Truth, it would make no difference to their lives. They wouldn’t have to tithe to the Church of Very Small Strings, they wouldn’t have to think that non-Stringists were going to go to Stringy Hell, they wouldn’t have to adopt certain behaviours, or attend services, or try and convince others as to the rightness of their beliefs.
Whether or not string theory is an accurate description of the world is of purely academic interest, and therefore not terribly important to the vast majority of people.
agreed,
I try to lay low in an attempt to not come to the fights unarmed. =)
Thanks for clarifying that, although I feel that I should point out that the most basic of evidence that any gods exist do nothing to confirm their opinion that same either want, require, demand nor deserve adoration. That would require a whole other batch of evidence.
One step at a time… ;-)
Fair enough. Some parts of the model are testable, though not within the practical range of our current or likely near-future capacities.
My thing is that absent the capacity to test the (few) evidential predictions that this group of models suggest, why do physicists cleave so strongly to it? Is it it’s mathematical beauty? It’s explanatory elegance?
The impression I get is that within 20 or 40 years, we’ll have good evidence for or against string theory, so it’s not hugely remote.
The former, mostly. It doesn’t (at present) do any more than any other set of equations, but it does so with a parsimony and simplicity as yet unmatched. It may turn out that it’s simply a decent approximation that works on the scales we can currently measure (as Newtonian mechanics was), but it’s a lot easier to work with than the mish-mash of models that’s needed otherwise.
“… why do physicists cleave so strongly to it? Is it it’s mathematical beauty? It’s explanatory elegance? …”
It’s ability to generate funding? …
Seriously, everything I read stresses the elegance of the theory. I think that many physicists expect the Theory of Everything to look this simple.
I remember hearing a physicist explain that major problems in physics are explained by finding a deeper level of understanding that makes the conflict go away. Relativity did this, and people expect the solution to the conflict between it and quantum mathematics to lead to an even deeper understanding. String Theory seems to do that elegantly.
I’m convinced Comfort is a cretinous imbecile, but I don’t think that’s what you’re aiming at. ;-)
Of course, and I would hope that what I wrote didn’t imply any kind of dichotomy.
I was merely talking about those gods that their legions of fans claim as “good” and needing/wanting/demanding the kind of grovelling that we see so often.
Other gods could indeed not need/want/demand any of that nonsense. But as with all theistic claims, let them first demonstrate that their gods exist, and then we could get down to the business of working out what they expect of us.
“Of course, and I would hope that what I wrote didn’t imply any kind of dichotomy.”
You weren’t, I just think part of the whole problem of God is figuring out what words like “good” mean in that context. We have enough problems defining what “good” means at our level – particularly if we’ve just seen Watchmen.
Before I start worshiping a God, we’re going to have to hammer out a way to talk about it without equivocating. None of this, “God is all good, just not good in the way we understand it.” The way we understand it is the only way we’ve got. If you mean something else, choose a different word. The process of “working out what they expect of us” is probably going to require a whole new vocabulary.
Certainly. I was merely using the colloquial theistic idiom of “good” (not that they have any unequivocal definition that isn’t either lame, nonsensical or circular).
Science as done by scientists is (somewhat) self-correcting. When Theists (and Atheists like myself) talk about science being a religion, what we generally mean is science as a sociological construct quite apart from its process. The lay understanding of science is famously weak, and the tendency to apotheosize that which is clearly powerful but is poorly understood is a well-recorded tendency in humans.
I mean, do you really think that a majority of people believe in anthropogenic global climate change because they considered the evidence? The priesthood told them it was so, and they trust the priesthood. (BTW, I’m not arguing by any means that global warming is not real. I’m just saying that evidence is *not* why most people believe it.)
And for what it’s worth, empirically-based religions are *every bit as scary* as the faith-based ones. Comte and Spencer (and their intellectual progeny) present a world where everything can be measured, valuated, and characterized by standard deviations from the mean. In many ways, I’d be more comfortable in a theocracy than in a world of quantitative measure uber alles in der Welt. And I’d likely be killed in a theocracy, so that’s saying something.
Douglas Adams preferred the term ‘understanding’ to ‘belief’ as in ‘I understand that there is no God’.
It’s implying that you’ve thought through the information at your disposal and come to a conclusion, but it’s useful, partly because it leaves a little wiggle room. If more information appears, you can change your mind – a boss can say ‘I understand that you were an hour late this morning’ and his underling can say ‘no, I was here, I just had to go to accounts before I went to my desk’ or something like that.
Understandings have a rational basis. They don’t have to be correct, but they are built on thinking through the evidence.
There are people who ‘understand’ that God exists. So it’s absolutely fair game to ask how they reached that conclusion.
I understand that there is no God. Here’s why, in a nutshell: every world religion makes claims of various kinds that boil down to asserting that the universe acts the way it does because there are gods, but we now know enough about the universe to see that it acts exactly as it would if there were no gods.
I could change my mind in an instant, if there was one ‘miracle’, an event that could only happen if there was a god.
http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/illinois-pastor-deflects-gunshot-with-bible-before-being-killed
Doesn’t count as a ‘miracle’ for two reasons: 1, it can be explained in terms of ballistics and that a ream of paper is actually quite good at stopping a bullet. 2, it doesn’t really count as a miracle if the gunmen has four bullets and your Bible is only good for stopping one of them.
If *one* angel had intervened, I wouldn’t be an atheist. And the difference is that theists queue up to excuse God for not jamming the gun, sending an angel or just diverting the shots into the wall – for a pastor, in a church, at a moment of prayer, when God’s meant to be tuned in and watching.
I can explain why very simply. Theists can’t. And that is one example of why I understand that there is no God.
Bill,
You don’t believe something will burn you, you know it will burn you, because either you’ve been burned before by touching something hot, or you’ve seen it happen.
You don’t believe your computer is in front of you, you know it is there because you can see, touch, taste it, etc.
Political views are formed against the ambiguity of what actions will have what effects on people and societies. You might believe one course of action will result in “x”, but that is not the same as believing or not believing in the existence of a supernatural being.
I like my amazing, wise friend’s definition;
“Believing is the activity of accepting something as real. This activity is a choice: you choose to believe something. A belief is something accepted as real, subject to change upon getting new information.
Some beliefs are highly measurable, testable, and verifiable. Some have 100% verification so far, based on what we can observe. An example is that humans are born, have a life cycle, and die. (And we have observed none that were born of virgins.)
Other beliefs are highly abstract, based on abstract words with no referent, and which are defined by other words. Examples of these are ‘God’, and ‘love’ and ‘justice’. (There are real referents for the activity of love and justice – such as the perfectly ‘just’ way that cells in an organism cooperate- but our highly abstract concepts are so distorted there is no referent in reality for them.)
So the statement ‘”God” “loves” me’ is a nonsense statement, because the abstract words have no reference in the process universe. [Which he does NOT say is limited to what we can perceive with our senses.]
The scientific model – though it has its arrogance, and clings to old hypotheses – is still the best model we have so far, because it measures, tests, and verifies, and when something proves inaccurate, it does more of the same to discover more information.
We should subject our religion to the same tests – measure and test it to discover: what mal-effect is it having on people? Do we want to continue to apply this to people, given the effects?”
ah, thanks for the explanation!
To an extent, this depends on how you define “life”, which sounds like an easy question but really isn’t. For example, fire meets most common definitions of life: It consumes, metabolises and excretes; it reproduces and dies… and yet, everyone is very happy in agreeing that fire is not alive.
We can come up with perfectly sensible definitions of life that mean that stars are alive. But is that really meaningful. Better, I think, to ask if they’re self-aware. Even if that does exclude bacterial, plants and probably a lot of invertebrates.
Massive fail. First, BD assumes that Bill and Daniel haven’t read the Bible, which ignores Daniel’s own bio right on the sidebar of this blog. Second, BD fails to even honor the request laid out by Bill: SHOW THE EVIDENCE (I keep having flashbacks to math class: “Show your work!”). BD says he can trot out supporting evidence but retreats to the old canard, “I just believe.”
Well, shoot. I just believe that I’m the best darned academic in the whole wide world. Proof? Oh, I have proof, but I won’t tell you. I just believe it.
Anyway, back on the fail train, BD then says that American society has been heavily influenced by Christianity. So. What? What does that have to do with the price of Twinkies in Sarasota? And finally, the Greatest Fail of All: the answers are found in the Bible.
Um. No. No, NO, NO. The Bible is no more the proof of God’s existence than the Lord of the Rings is proof of the existence of Ents.
My question to you would be, why believe in what the bible says? All the evidence points to the bible as being written by men, for men, in a time when humanity’s understanding of the universe was severely flawed.
Isn’t that what this thread was asking for?
BD:
I can completely understand your desire to have these questions answered. I wish I could write something that would persuade you. The answers are found in “Life, the Universe, and Everything” by Douglas Adams. My hope is that you will find them.
One of them is “42″.
Again, though, you’ve heard all of these and more and I’m sure you would not be swayed.
Of course Ents are real! Who else could have destroyed Orthanc? And if you don’t believe that happened, then kindly point to Orthanc on a map for me.
QED.
The Ents ARE real! I know — they changed me! I used to cut down trees, man!
/sarcasm
“The Bible is no more the proof of God’s existence than the Lord of the Rings is proof of the existence of
EntsIluvatar.”Fixed!
Even if that does exclude bacterial, plants and probably a lot of invertebrates.
And the vast majority of vertebrates, by the definitions of self-aware that I know of.
Yeah … I stress that I don’t think stars are alive, and that I don’t think it’s likely that they are. I agree with you – we need good, rigorous definitions. My main frustration with theology is that *none* of their buzzword are defined, not even ‘god’ or ‘soul’.
They see that as a strength, but I think it’s a survival strategy in an argument. If you don’t have an argument, you can’t have your argument proved or disproved.
Another reason I don’t believe in God … if God existed, we wouldn’t *need* to debate whether God existed. The God we’re told about in the Bible is *blindingly* obvious and constantly demonstrating His existence. Theologians wouldn’t be skulking around with logical loopholes and quirks of language, they’d be saying – look at that sea that just parted, see the lepers instantly cured when they were prayed for, watch the sinner being struck by lightning, doctors would call in priests to cast out demons that cause mental illness, your flight will be delayed this morning by half an hour because the sky is just so *fucking full of angels today*. And that’s not me being silly or unrealistic or demanding – that’s the world we’re told about in the Bible. That’s what Christians tell us the world *is* like.
Yeah, I was trying to keep “self-awareness” a lot more vague than most formal definitions allow.
Barry, I hear that argument all the time. The one about “prove you love your wife” and I don’t see what the issue is.
If you employed a person to secretly follow me (without telling him/her why, it should be double-blinded), and note down my behaviour then if I show certain traits and behaviours that are deemed beforehand to be common to humans “in love” with their wives, then you could be reasonably certain that I do or do not love my wife. Why is this so difficult?
You could also measure my physiological responses to proximity to or absence from my wife, you could also conduct brain scans.
All these are quantifiable, measurable and objective.
All these methods could give you a picture of whether I lie when I say I do or do not love my wife with a reasonable certainty.
Could you prove to me you feel pain if I was to jab a knitting needle into your arm? You could only do that by allowing me to measure your response and physiological states when performing the action – but of course you could be lying…
I think there are more points to be raised, but for now I’ll contain my response to this
“Evidence for me is in the form of an overall case. Standing alone the moral argument or the teleological argument might not be completely overpowering but taken as a whole with all the other arguments for God they become stronger. We do this all the time with law cases, we might not have the smoking gun, but cases can be built with circumstantial evidence. We have to be much more rigorous in such cases but we shouldn’t dismiss them out of hand.”
I think that first it needs to be pointed out that even if you are correct and all of these arguments work together, they do not say anything meaningful about the identity of the first cause/designer/greatest conceivable being/moral lawgiver. Second, I do not think that you can simply assert that these arguments do in fact work together–it seems to me that not only does asserting one usually preclude asserting another, but they can also hamstring each other with regards to common objections to theism.
For instance; one of the more controversial premises in the first cause argument is that actual infinities cannot exist, but the ontological argument concludes with the actual existence of a being whose possess infinite attributes–so a case could be built that you can only assert one at a time consistently. If you believe the teleological argument is sound, then you believe that god designed organisms like the loa loa worm, which makes whatever it is responsible for a set of circumstances that can only be called evil, in direct contravention of the conclusion of the ontological argument, and creating a number of problems for the moral argument (which isn’t all that hard considering what an awful argument that is.) Especially when you start to get into the metaphysical meat of these arguments, they tend to rely on a lot of controversial and mutually contradictory positions on various issues. This doesn’t even count the problems that are created by needing to respond to various atheist objections/arguments.
when you treat the arguments for god’s existence as a cumulative case, they actually get much weaker, not stronger.
McB,
I could be wrong, but I think Bill is sussing out the technical term “belief” from the more general sense of the word. In philosophy, knowledge is a special subclass of beliefs, namely “justified true belief”. All the thoughts that we use to construct the world are beliefs, and many of the ones that we think are *wise* to hold are confirmed by some manner of justification that causes us to be confident in its relative truth. We call those “things which are smart to believe” as species of knowledge.
BD assumes that his “evidence” will seem silly to us, so he keeps it to himself.
I see this as a cowardly approach because he is afraid to hear what our response to this evidence will be, so he doesn’t even offer it.
I understand that he is saying that what one might consider evidence, another might not, but that is probably what we are attempting to discuss here!
You are tossing out the fundamental difference. In my opinion, the difference that makes faith in one infinitely superior to faith in the other.
If tomorrow a scientist ran an experiment that showed string theory to be entirely false, that would end it.
Yes, science makes guesses. Yes, they assume things that later turn out not to be true. Yes, they have an incomplete knowledge of the universe.
But they test, all the time. They try to falsify their own beliefs. And when one is falsified, they abandon it.
At no point will science ask you to believe something on faith.
I trust science because I know it’s self correcting. The process may be slow and painful sometimes, but it is always going on.
Religion is its philosophical opposite. It states as fact things that are utterly unprovable and unfalsifiable, and it rejects any attempt to question its assertions. In chooses to correct its followers, rather than its beliefs. If a belief comes to seem more true to you, its because YOU have changed, not the belief.
If I have to choose a priesthood, I’ll pick the one running experiments and willing to say, “Wow, were we wrong about that! Let’s try this new idea.”
Word!
(Read my wise friend’s dscription of scientific process in my above blog on his definition of belief.)
Hold on.
If tomorrow a scientist ran an experiment that showed string theory to be entirely false, that would end it.
The history of science puts the lie to that in a serious way. Vorjack earlier hit on why; the politics of science dictates that because all practitioners in all disciplines are competing for finite (if not actually scarce) resources, like funding, equipment, and personnel, scientific theories *never* have historically died over one or even a small set of experiments.
Actual change in scientific frameworks often takes decades, as those scientists whose research programs were heavily invested in the old paradigm are gradually replaced, when ad hoc helper observational hypotheses to explain away anomalies gradually become less credible and more strained due to parsimony requirements, and when tools and experiments are designed *and* funded to assess the claims of competing theories.
And to be frank, evolution in religious thought was only retarded in the West due to a temporary monopoly. I would submit to you that religions today in our interconnected pluralistic world change about as fast in response to outside pressure as the average scientific paradigm.
Or the short short version: Scientists are human, and humans are (as Aristotle astutely observed) first and foremost, political animals.
Do you seriously equate change in science due to testing, falsification, and peer review to evolution of church beliefs due to social pressures? Seriously?
“Actual change in scientific frameworks often takes decades, as those scientists whose research programs were heavily invested in the old paradigm are gradually replaced, when ad hoc helper observational hypotheses to explain away anomalies gradually become less credible and more strained due to parsimony requirements, and when tools and experiments are designed *and* funded to assess the claims of competing theories.”
Nope is talking about Kuhn’s idea of scientific revolutions. The problem is that most paradigm shifts actually incorporate the previous theory and become more comprehensive in the process (ie Einstein’s theory of relativity incorporates Newtonain physics)
Despite Kuhn, usually systems are NOT overthrown. This is where Kuhn proved himself to be a philosopher of science and NOT a scientist. Science is self correcting and so the overthrowing of systems CAN’T happen, given the evidence. As I said, systems only grow.
(In fact the only systems that ever get overthrown are religious ones. Case in point: Galileo said that the earth circled the sun (heliocentric) but according to the bible, the sun circled the earth (geocentric). Thus, the catholic church forced Galileo to live under house arrest for the rest of his life. You know, because empirical evidence disproves the bible and people can’t handle it (ID anyone???)
Lots of weak evidence adds up to one piece of convincing evidence, right?
Just like all the easily refuted claims of alien abduction add up to solid proof that aliens are abducting people.
No, it was one of the many things they needed. Had an equivalent value of food been provided, or their mortgage payment been made for them, the effect would have been the same, and it would have been equally miraculous.
“This wasn’t a case of “we knew you were struggling so here’s some money”, but a case of what was specifically needed being provided at the perfect time.”
I know you aren’t arguing this; as you say, you’re now an atheist.
I hate this kind of argument. Let’s say she had decided that she could afford everything but nappies, so the gift was particularly appropriate. In other words, let’s take it at face value, even though we don’t have proof that nappies were the ONE THING she couldn’t afford that was needed. What if the person had brought food? Then money spent on food could be diverted to nappies, and god gets the credit. What if she had decided that some other need was going to be left out, and the person brought nappies? Then the money saved on nappies would be diverted to the other need, and god would get the credit.
It’s a specious argument, and not evidence at all.
In the Eddas, we learn that Thor could kill, skin, cook and eat the goats that pulled his chariot, and the next morning they’d be regenerated and in perfect health.
Do you think that’s evidence that Thor exists?
BD,
Thanks for sharing. I am familiar with the Bible, and curiously it seems more human than divine.
Anyway, thanks for responding to criticism. If only more people would try that…
1) We don’t live identical lives, so there may be “evidence” that some of us are not aware of. Sounds like you’re excusing yourself from supplying it.
2) Evidence of an amputee being healed? Pandarus injured Diomedes’ hand with an arrow, but Pallas Athene healed it so he could go on fighting. It’s not exactly an arm or a leg, but it works for me.
3) The Iliad is the best evidence that Zeus, Apollo, Ares, Pallas Athene, Aphrodite, Hera and Artemis that I have to offer.
4) I’ll bet that most reading this blog believe there is no Zeus. Perhaps if people followed the example of those lives documented in the Iliad, maybe that would be the second best form of evidence (after all the other evidence I have that you must have all heard before, which I won’t bother even try to present).
Sheesh.
@ your point 2. (and 3)
That was not what happened. Someone in the church later edited that in.
If anybody was really ever able to do things like that, we would not need docters now.
A believer would simply pray and vavavoom.. everything would be ok and fixed and healed.
Just because someone wrote it down, and many others edited it over the period of over 2000 years doesn’t make the bible true and certainly NO evidence of a god.
@ point 4.
A lot of people who claim to follow jesus christ are amongst the biggest hypocrites this world has ever seen.
Just picking the things you like and forgetting about what you don’t like is not how you’re supposed to do things.
Besides that, people thinking there is a god and a jesus and at least trying to live their lives according to a book written by men a long time ago and edited over and over again is no proof of god either.
dont forget the evidence people had for the world being flat
I couldn’t agree more. But it is difficult to accept that when you really want something to be true. And even if confronted on it, there’s a temptation to say “it may not be enough for you, but to me, as the one who’s lived it, it constitutes proof”.
That and the fact that christians have a holy book that says unhelpful things like “the word of the cross is foolishness to those who perish”. Translation: “it’s okay if our arguments don’t make sense to you, the bible says that you won’t understand unless you’re saved”.
‘Lots of weak evidence adds up to one piece of convincing evidence, right?’
If science teaches us anything, it’s that the plural of ‘anecdote’ isn’t ‘truth’.
Winter…
The bible without the illuminating light of the Holy Spirit will not make much sense. We have had similar discussions, but it is true. Particularly the OT.
So, thats why I say…its not so much about the external print (bible), but rather the internal blue…print (His nature) within.
The bible is not our (only) intended guide, the spirit within is the key…Christianity is an internal LIFE.
What “plane of the mystical”?
There are two issues: what is the positive evidence (from reason, physical evidence, mystical, or whatever) for a Christian God, and why does this “evidence” not apply to Vishnu, Nirvana, Odin, Asherah, FSM, IPU, etc.?
For that matter, why are you not worshipping me? I could be the supreme ruler of the universe, justified by whatever mystical process you use to justify your other beliefs. Or maybe you’re just not praying hard enough …
‘In fact, the very suggesstion that there is another, higher plane than the faculty of reason itself is offensive to the natural man.’
Yeah, because it’s gibberish. That’s the only reason it’s offensive.
Christians shy away from the word ‘rational’ like a vampire from sunlight. Here’s all it means: words mean roughly what they say and there’s a basic standard of logic involved. Things possess properties, and can’t both possess and not possess those properties.
Christians and the Bible make rational/scientific claims. ‘God created the universe’, ‘man was created in God’s image’, ‘it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven’, ‘Christ was born of a virgin’, ‘bats are a type of bird’, ‘the universe was created in its present form quickly and recently’, ‘Noah’s Ark existed’, ‘God hears our prayers’.
You just said ‘He is trustworthy’, and that is a claim with a rational underpinning. OK … what can you trust him with, and how does he manifest this trust? Is he so trustworthy that, say, if there were any lies, mistakes or misrepresentations in his official biography that you can trust him to sort them out for any reprint? He has the power to intervene to save people … so you can *trust* him to do that, ie: he’s reliable?
Is God ‘trustworthy’ like people, or ‘trustworthy’ using some special god definition that, if a person did what god did, would see them prosecuted for criminal negligence and abandonment on a good day, war crimes and genocide on the other days?
From one ‘brother’ worn out from deflecting these distractions to another:
True Word!
rAmen!
That’s how people talk before they put on white shoes black shirts and take pills so they can meet the aliens.
When my soul changed planes, I was late once, and my soul had to change planes in Chicago.
(Credit to Omni Magazine and a long memory.)
“But we speak the hidden, mystical wisdom of God, which God ordained before the world unto our glory”. 1 Cor 2:7
One of the consequences of the “fall”, the deterioration from our original condition is the loss of the spiritual sensitivities. This is what Christ restores. The ability to see and hear the heavenly (spiritual) language…again opens up a whole new (ancient) world to us.
Christ did not come to bring religion which I define as pointless rule-keeping dogma devoid of the motive of love and the absence of a changed nature. Religion is external, true spirituality is an internal life, His nature within.
This is a mystery and can not be grasped within the natural realm of the flesh. The attributes of childlike wonder, innocence, trust, humility are the gate-keepers into the spiritual kingdom that we can not see with natural eyes.
He opens the “eyes of the blind”.
The question is…do we really want to see? See like we did in the paradaisical state, the original matrix, in innocence. This is the origin of fairly tales…laugh all you want but they are very rich in symbolism, even truth.
Once upon a time…
The “Plane of the mystical” is that special dimension of woo that wooists love to trot out in order to show that the woomonger of their choice exists. Mind you, they can’t theorize or demonstrate the existence of this “plane of the mystical” anymore than any one of us could demonstrate the existence of freakin’ Middle Earth, Radagast the Brown, or any of the Nine Rings of Power. That, however, doesn’t stop the purveyors of woo from coming up with pseudo-scientific spiritbabble to try to bolster their tissue-thin arguments for the existence of various woomongers.
Love…thats His true nature. But of course, you have to KNOW Him to know that. Think what you want, but a renewed mind is in agreement with the One mind.
What bombastic twaddle.
Either you have evidence, or you don’t. Couching something that you pretend to know in new-agey gobbledygook adds to and demonstrates nothing.
Ah, thank you for the edumacation!
No, but I bet he makes a damned good curry.
Im going to be saying bombastic twaddle all weekend now
Try proving Him in the way He says you can. There is your answer sir.
“Bombastic twaddle”–I am SO using that the next time I hear/read some nonsense.
I think it’s what you say if you don’t even have the minimal mental capacity for really studying religion (e.g. Daniel’s background), and you’re too lazy to think or challenge yourself.
Sheeeit, man, anyone can whup himself up into a right good warm fuzzy feeling! Then say all that thinkin’ stuff’s fer sissies!
Does all the stuff you spout come in quote marks and mean absolutely nothing?
Theonasm at it’s pointless best.
I think I’m going to try and steer conversations in that direction, just so that I can use it. :-)
Did you hear it, or did you just read it?
And what I’m saying is, you aren’t bearing out what you think you’re bearing out. An omni-omni deity would have *who-knows-what* sort of epistemological characteristics and consequences. It’s not a scientific hypothesis, this God hypothesis, it makes no testable predictions, and *has no empirical consequences*.
So one is to already believe to have evidence, and then one gets the evidence required to believe?
Damn, images don’t work. :-/
Great argument you have there…
Again: bombastic twaddle. Do you enjoy paddling about with one paddle and a leaky boat?
And that is what makes it awesome.
Oh. You mean “bullshit”. Why didn’t you say so? ;-)
The only “door” He shows up at is the door of your heart (spirit, inner man). The question is…will King Herod (in you) open the door or not?
He is glorious, nothing in you can stand against His brightness in defiance to Him, He is God.
The audacity, the pride to think He owes you an explanation. We are accountable to Him.
Fortunately, mercy triumphs over judgment.
I already said…it will not make sense to you within the realm of reason, how clearer can I be? You want “proof” of this Christian God but wont “prove” Him in the way that He says He can be known?
Then dont ask, dont seek since you have no sincere desire to know only ridicule, mock.
Believe first, then look for proof to validate what you already believe.
That’s the John C way.
We’re supposed to do the dirty work for “him” to demonstrate “himself” to us?
What a pathetic cop out from responsibility and a prime recipe for self-delusion. I’d be better off with a heroin addiction. At least I know that exists.
Yes, faith (trust in Father) is always rewarded. You love your children right?
Would you be disappointed to have your kids believe otherwise? What if, instead of believing you loved them they insisted that you despised them or that you didnt even exist?
What if only hatred and contempt were returned in place of your love?
He is trustworthy, He is real.
You know, as much as I might have wished my father didn’t actually exist, he kept actually, you know, SHOWING UP.
Even he kicked gods ass at that.
What absurd inanity. If I had children (which I don’t) I wouldn’t be so obtuse and petulant as to expect them to think that they are supposed to know me and my desires despite hiding from them, nor expect them to love me unconditionally.
At least armed with a knowledge (later on) of how children come about, they would have a high confidence that I, at one time, did actually exist even if I ceased to do so at some point.
And the wheels keep spinning…
Speaking for myself (and seeing as I don’t think “he” exists) I don’t think “he” owes us any explanation: I think you and your ilk owe us an explanation for making the claims to knowledge that you make.
You claim we’re “accountable” to “him”, yet you refuse (or, if I may be so bold, fail) to provide such any objective explanation or evidence of “him” without resorting to unimaginative and vapid metaphors, tedious scripture quoting and trite assertions.
The second you can provide compelling evidence that I am accountable to your god that I can’t use to assert that you are accountable to that dirty sweat sock I found under my laundry basket yesterday, I will start accounting.
In the meantime, my sweatsock thinks you’re doing a bad job of convincing anyone, and thinks you owe it an explanation.
Many times. You need to understand that w/o the illuminating aid of the Holy Spirit the OT especially is futile, will seem harsh, etc.
But God saves His true character/nature for those who will be so foolish as to believe. The OT is rich in symbolism.
There is more than meets the eye.
John C ain’t not never gonna read no bible.
But he ought to at least read C.S. Lewis’ “The Screwtape Letters” and “The Great Divorce”.
Lewis’ Christian premises made me gag, but I will give him credit: he was a thinking Christian. He held himself up to self-examination and high standards – an attempt at “Reasoning Faith”.
Best of all, he really called bullshit on Christians. I bet lots of Christians won’t like him. No problem – they just won’t read him!
Try reading just one, John – “it is wafer thin!”
You mean your invisible friend, the Spook, part of the trio of Big Daddy, JC, and the Spook, whispers in your ear.
Not only is the believer required to be stupid and ignorant, but insane as well.
Translation:
“Unless you actively delude yourself that you’re understanding the OT like me, because it gives me the warm fuzzies, you’re obviously going to think that it’s insane.
“I can read into it anything that fits my preconceptions, because I like it like that, and I think it’s great!
“Don’t look behind the curtain.”
Oh do you mean pink dellusional glasses that suddenly make whole passages you don’t really want to be there dissapear?
Behind the veil, the garment of flesh…there is more than meets the eye. You dont have a soul, you have a body, you are a soul.
The first revelation is that your body is not you.
That would be a good place to start.
Then why can I utterly change your personality and memories by cutting pieces out of your brain?
John C, are you a computer program?
The physical faculties are impaired, the spirit/soul realm is not subject to physical harm…they can still “hear” when the mind is limited.
Actually, if I hadn’t already read the scripture quote-mining, I might be tempted to think John C was a scilon hippy.
“The physical faculties are impaired, the spirit/soul realm is not subject to physical harm…they can still “hear” when the mind is limited.”
Another utterly unprovable assertion.
Ha…no I am not a pc program…lol. I am just crazy in love with Him…or just crazy as you might think…
I will admit to too little sleep and too much caffeine today if that helps you at all to reconcile my words.
Love..its so cool!
Let’s not be too hasty, I thought the point of the OP was to let them provide such, if they can.
The fact that they, especially John C, have completely failed with so much certain aplomb so far shouldn’t lead us to presume that they can’t.
I grok that waiting is. ;-)
@ true scots
“Barry, I hear that argument all the time. The one about “prove you love your wife” and I don’t see what the issue is. ”
The issue is not as simply known as you lay out and that is proved by the number of times men and women had no earthly idea that their spouse was cheating on them. Even in your secret behavior experiment in which the subject would be unaware of the test, a person could still fulfill all of the exterior actions that we would normally associate with love and still not care for the other person other than a means to an end.
My main contention was that we don’t even have a rigorous philosophical proof of other minds that the majority of philosophers could agree on. If we can’t do that, then how am I as believer supposed to provide such a proof for the existence of a supernatural mind.
You might reply that with humans we have culture or behavior the would lead us to infer that they have minds, but play Deep Blue and a chess master in a double blind study, and let me know if you can tell the difference. Evidence is a double edged sword as my Pulp Fiction reference was meant to show.
@GBM
Can there be contradictions between versions of arguments, yes. Can they be handled, yes. To be brief I’ve never seen Bill Craig caught between the horns of his defense of Kalam and the existence of an eternal God. I realize that’s not an explanation of the particular problem, but that could take pages, and I’m simply evidencing that they can be held without irrationality.
What Christian would attack Lewis, we never turn on our own, lol.
Though I loved the two titles you name, I really liked the Perelandra trilology.
You dont have a soul, you have a body, you are a soul. CS Lewis
I am very familiar with both the Bible and Lewis…but I prefer his self proclaimed “master”, the Scottish lover of God, poet, writer George MacDonald 1824-1905…love his work, his wit.
Ah, I thought we had a mutual Flashman connection there: I almost misread that as George MacDonald Fraser.
Damn.
They had a full stocked larder and money coming in later in the week. The money she had donated to charity was modest, but it was all she had to buy the one necessity she was missing.
I guess it’s a “daily bread” thing. The idea is that you are given enough to survive each day as it comes. I don’t know why, but I’ve heard it a lot in testimonies where people have given stuff up for God.
Actually, scripture more accurately contrasts the spiritual man against the natural (one plane) man.
Not so much about saved vs unsaved but spiritual vs natural.
When you really understand what this means it becomes very significant to our discussions.
As mentioned above, full stocked larder and money coming in later in the week; only one necessity required urgently. They didn’t need food, and even if they’d been given food, they had no spare cash, so it wouldn’t have solved the problem.
It’s not good evidence. It’s biased, subjective and flawed evidence. But to a believer, this kind of thing is very convincing.
Of course, again, I only have her word for what she needed; we were close friends but I wasn’t exactly keeping her accounts. As I suggested in my original post, I have a suspicion that christians do tend to massage the facts a little to make this kind of thing seem more miraculous; but I can vouch for the fact that the giving money she didn’t have and being supplied with nappies part happened.
Yes, you can know in exactly the way He says you can know. Btw…that word “know” in scripture is best interpreted in an intimate, even sexual kind of way.
Like this…Adam KNEW his wife and the result was a son. I’d say he KNEW her pretty well huh?
So when God says “this is LIFE, that you KNOW the Father and the Son”…this means intimate knowing. The only way this can be accomplished is layed out in Col 1:27…Christ IN you, the mystery of the ages.
Its a beautiful mystery indeed for any fool willing enough, empty enough (of himself) to want to know Truth. Or didnt you know that Truth is a Person?
We’re not up to the task … if there was a God, presumably he would be able to, because it would be within his powers to demonstrate his existence to his own satisfaction in a way impossible to fake.
If all this ‘mystical plane’ hogwash wasn’t hogwash and God somehow existed in a way that was ‘above’ rationality, and he wasn’t bound by logic and he was truly omnipotent – as opposed to capable of all that is possible – he could, of course, also prove to his utter and ultimate satisfaction that he *didn’t* exist.
As it is, if God existed, he would have to be bound by rationality. He could not create something that both had and simultaneously had not a property. He could not create something that, by definition, couldn’t exist (like a feline dog) or something that made a category error (like a blue Thursday).
Then why don’t you then explain it, without the incoherent jibber-jabber?
I don’t think it does. When we are considering the problem in terms of biases, simply calling the parties “saved vs unsaved”, “spritiual vs natural” or “initiated vs uninitiated” is completely irrelevant. It might be more relevant if you’re trying to work out exactly who is expected to understand the meaning, but not where the point is to criticise the message of this passage. It says *they* will not find this meaningful, *you* will; therefore don’t worry if they are unsatisfied with your evidence, and don’t be surprised when they find it unpersuasive.
It’s a cop out, a smug, self-satisfied cop out, an attempt to counter a criticism not by addressing it’s problems but simply saying “look, we knew you weren’t going to understand before we started, so ner!” Given the gospels were written (even with the most generous estimates in your favour) at least twenty or thirty years after it’s authors had been out preaching and knew what kind of objections they were coming across, it’s looks to me like a blatant attempt to lend credence to their cop out by writing it down as the words of their saviour.
…aaaand I just remembered moments after posting that wasn’t in a Gospel. Damn, now I feel really stupid, especially since I specifically looked up where it was from when posting it. I was getting confused with my objection to the treatment of Thomas after the resurrection.
Still, my point still holds in the context of the message given. It’s a post hoc reassurance to people who are already out preaching, rather than existing wisdom before they started.
Holy crap, that sounds like moonshine-induced prison talk!
Dude, I don’t want to know>/i> you that well… Not that I am being homophobic, but I don’t want to know any of this jebus stuff. I just want to know if there’s any fallacy involved with my line of argumentation that no human being (no physical being, for that matter) is able to absolutely for sure determine whether god(s) is/are real upon ‘sufficient’ proof. In other words, that no (conceivable) human being is able to produce any scientific proof of the god(s) existence…
It only seems that way to an unrenewed mind. Like most, you dont know the true offer, not a clue with all due respect. Have you been in this land all these years and still dont know? Dont you want to? Where’s the hunger for truth? The passion to know? Or are you content to know what…you know?
Christ IN you is the mystery of the ages.
Its not about religion….its about life, His.
I would guess that John C’s internal thought process is not only stranger than we know, it is stranger than we CAN know.
*nod*
Yeah, and I mixed up my post on behalf of a foreign keyboard design… Darned creationists…
….. Where’s the hunger for truth? The passion to know? Or are you content to know what…you know?
Christ IN you is the mystery of the ages. ……
mark….. the incoherence is strong in you my friend.
but i would really appreciate if you would please explain why your loving all knowing father sky god -
would make his word so unapparent as to be a mystery, especially if we wants all of his children to find him.
and especially since according to christian theology my eternal soul is on the line.
especially given the fact that if i pick the incorrect religion out of the thousands he allows to exist i will suffer for eternity.
what i cant understand john is this, if your god is really serious about converting me, then how come he isnt inspiring you to present a more convincing argument.
i mean come john god has sent you here to share the gospel with us and we cant even get you to explain why your just and moral god is advising people on how to sale thier child into slavery.
dont say his word is not a mystery because thier are non believers like the folks who post on this
Oh, excuse us poor, benighted simpletons for daring to question your impossibly superior gnosis, John C! It’s just that we’re not accustomed to post upon post of incomprehensible woobabble without a shred of empirical evidence offered in support. Please forgive us, possessor of the gnosis, for questioning your superiority–as evidenced by the many, many words you use.
Let me rephrase: finally, your self-righteousness reveals itself. And, like the proverbial emperor, it is as naked as a jaybird. Many of us have pressed you (for what, months?) for specifics, empirical evidence, proof, and the like for your deity. You’ve responded with NOTHING but woobabble, gobbledygook, and semi-literate New Age shite as though you’re some kind of shaman. More like a shyster. And finally, in a post which, frankly, has you and your other woopatriots back-against-the-wall, you claim that those who have challenged you “don’t want to know.” Of course, such a cop-out IGNORES the central question which governs the subject of this post.
Again, John, PRESENT PROOF AND EVIDENCE OF YOUR DEITY or cease your demented woospoutings.
You’re right. I don’t have a clue. No offense taken to your pointed observation.
I’ve been in a land for all of my years, and still have no idea what your christ fellow is supposed to have done, or do.
Having a christ in me sounds like some kind of condition that perhaps I should have seen to by a medical professional. Needless to say, I don’t feel any abnormalities, but as you insist I will see my GP shortly.
You say some thing about “his” life, but who the hell is “he”? I’m starting to think some kind of underwear gnome, or possibly a kidney stone you’ve taken as a pet. A quick X-ray should help.
Thanks!
Yes.
I’ll disagree here. Anyone who’s done any kind of basic electron scattering experiments will attest to at least subatomic particles existing in a predictable and measurable way.
Just because we can’t see them directly (with the eye) doesn’t mean they’re imaginary.
If you doubt this then please allow me to fire an electron beam directly at you.
I’ll be gentle. The supposed “electrons” I can’t vouch for, but if you knew them like I know them, they’re not too kind.
I get your point about sub atomic particles, and it is a good point!
But I do want to say that I have directly observed electrons. It’s called lightning. ;)
Yes.
One of my favorite rebuttals to theist claims is to say, “Give me one evidence of your god that does not also apply to Zeus.”
No, I’m Spartacus.
No, wait…
Wren, “We can’t know/perceive everything,” is an answer that is correct for nearly any question, and is therefore a meaningless answer to nearly all questions. Do you have something meaningful to say?
I would have thought that “nice story” would have been a better definition that fits all of the mythology over history …
‘Can you come up with a definition of god that transcends all religions, all beliefs?’
No, but I can come up with properties that gods are meant to have. Then we can see whether those claims stand up.
God, for example, didn’t create mankind quickly or recently as part of a process unique in the animal kingdom. That’s what the Bible claims, and it’s the exact opposite of observable, measurable reality. Either the Bible is wrong or something has faked up reality to make it look wrong.
But lets go for an absolute basic one – do you you believe that your god can hear your prayers? It’s a scientific claim, if you do.
Dan…
For me, candidly I can never recall not being aware that I am a soul, a spiritual being. It’s not so much that I can offer you anything that you will appreciate (you have no interest in ancient holy writ as I understand) to substantiate my knowing, I have always known. To me it’s plainly evident, as foolish as that may sound to you. So how could I be a spiritual being and you not be as well?
I contend that man essentially lost his sensitivity to the divine (spiritual) realm in the “fall”. Christ restores us to the original matrix, design. Far less a “religious” matter which I define as endless rule-keeping dogma devoid of the motivation of love and w/o an internal change of nature. Religion being an external thing (rule-keeping) and spirituality an internal life and change of nature, His within. This more closely parallels the real message and offer of Christ, restoration to the original intention…man living from his original spiritual nature as opposed to his fleshly, soulish aspect. The spirit is the deepest part of us, the soul more exterior and “human” in that it comprises our mind, will & emotions.
Does your spirit interact with the world? Your spirit is designed to be united with Christ (your true person…he who is united to the Lord is one spirit with Him 1 Cor 6:17) and then expressing Him, His nature, love, etc to the world manifested through your flesh. This all goes back to the true meaning/transaction/purpose of the cross which the world does not comprehend. So Paul says it like this (paraphrased) ” I live, but its not me actually doing the living, its Christ in me, thru me, as me” Gal 2:20.
Jesus said “if you seek to save your own life (greek psuche meaning inherited, human soul life) you will lose it, but if you lose your life for my sakes, you will find it. Like the parable Jesus gave, having discovered the whereabouts of ‘the treasure’ (in the field – our bodies) we sell all we have (external values) in order to purchase the field wherein the treasure lies & 1 Cor 3:9 “…you are God’s field”.
So there is someone in each of us worthy of “mining”, discovering. What a shame to live one’s whole life and never know this other, uncreated life within. I find it amusing that all the precious metals, gold, siver, diamonds, etc are always found deep in the earth and then harvested, brought up to shine for all the world to see. The physical realm illustrates the spiritual, gives clues.
So that’s why I often close with this “jewel”…Paul says in Col 1:27 that the mystery of the ages, of all time is…Christ IN you.
Sorry so long.
‘The reality is, if you need evidence to believe in god, then you’re probably not “wired” to be a believer.’
I’m not wired to be a believer.
So, we agree that there are two types of people – people who can believe and people who can’t.
I can come up with a sensible explanation why evolution operating in an atheistic universe would wire up some people like you to be a believer in something false …
… now, give me a sensible reason why God would create a group of people like me without the wiring to be a believer in Him, something that’s true.
I wouldn’t mind that it was so long if you had only said something. What you are actually saying when you say you have “always known” is that you have “never doubted” — never considered the idea critically to see if can really hold any water…whether it means anything at all!
You’re either dodging or you completely missed the point of the question. You seem to be positing supernatural causation, i.e. a spirit that is not subject to scientific law is compelling my body to move around in certain ways. Tell me how my spirit compels my body to move. That is what I am asking.
And please, why do you always resort to arguments that assume the divinity of Christ? If I don’t believe in God or any sort of Biblical accuracy, why would Col 1:27 or Cor 3:9 mean anything to me?
I couldn’t POSSIBLY believe in any of that gobbledygook about souls and what not unless I had some kind of understanding of how my spirit influences my body. As you say, “you are a soul, you have a body.” How does this relationship actually work? Is it like operating a vehicle? Is the brain a spirit antenna? There’s a lot of work in neurology you’ll have to explain away to arguing a dualistic explanation for the mind. Unfortunately, I’m foreseeing a bunch of scripture being quoted…
In all fairness, Zeus didn’t have a kid he called Jebus (or Yeshua, or whatever the name of their zombie-god-man-thing is called these days).
But he did have one called Heracles.
Which was pretty much the same thing.
They’re not “pink”, they’re “rosé”. ;-)
A bit of a false dichotomy there. To use a C S Lewis-ism (albeit paraphased) “or you’re a loon”.
Fixed. :-)
I didn’t say they were imaginary and I certainly didn’t say they weren’t measurable. They’re real, but at least epistemologically, I don’t believe they’re real in the same way that objects and sounds and tastes, etc. that I can sense directly are real.
Subatomic particles are very unlike anything at our scale of existence. They’re indistinguishable; while some objects at our scale are difficult to distinguish, there are never two of anything that are exactly the same. It’s only aggregate behaviors of these things that we can directly sense – they don’t really look or sound or taste like anything on their own. However, the existence of the subatomic particles is pretty much the only explanation for the behavior observed.
They’re hypotheses to reconcile the results of electron scattering experiments, if you desire — I certainly wouldn’t want to be the subject of any such.
My mistake, the first sentence only was aimed at you.
I do agree — somewhat — with your epistemological stance. However, on a personal level, electrons (which were the first thing to spring to mind) and photons are as real to me as my own hands. Perhaps that’s just my experience with them. I’ve certainly performed more experiments with them than I’ve had hot dinners, and they’re definitely more reliable!
The rest of my comment… well, I presume you can work out who that’s aimed at (not that I’d expect they’d pay any attention whatsoever, but hope springs, etc.)
And yes, it’d definitely other physicists who are most at odds with string theory. They often won’t admit it, though, just in case — bloody hedge betters.
“The greatest evidence I see for the existence of God is creation.. from sunrise to sunset, to examination of the details of the natural world around me… not to mention the complexity and wonder of the human body”
… but that’s not evidence for a creator let alone you version of the creator.
” the chance that all I see coming from “chance and time” is ludicrous”
Which is more ludicrous … the idea that an all powerful creator was involved for which there is absolutely zero evidence or for example a solid explanation that is backed by evidence oh how stars are formed. Just because you find something difficult to believe does not make the evidence go away.
Howitzer – You find the bible has practical answers? Take these short quizes:
Children who curse a parent must be
A. counseled for 40 days
B. killed
Children
A. are precious to God
B. may be enslaved for life
God punishes people
A. as one would lovingly correct a child
B. by starving them to the point of eating children
God values
A. humans as priceless
B. young males at 20 pieces of silver and females at 10
Everyone “unconditionally dedicated” to the LORD
A. is blessed
B. must be killed
Leviticus 20:9, 25:44-46, 26:27-29, 27:1-7, 27:28-29
God met Moses at a camping place to
A. bless him
B. kill him
God is a
A. man of peace
B. man of war
God says daughters
A. are to be loved and respected
B. may be sold as slaves
Beating a slave to death is
A. murder
B. o.k. if the victim suffers a day or two before dying
Moses commanded his followers to
A. teach the world of God’s grace and mercy
B. kill family, friends, and neighbors
Ex 4:24, 15:3, 21:7, 21, 32:27-29
Jesus reminded people about the command to
A. love and protect children
B. kill children who curse their parents
Jesus referred to a mother and her sick child as
A. his precious sheep
B. dogs
People tortured in hell will be
A. released into the arms of angels upon repenting
B. eaten forever by worms that never die
Fathers who leave their children for Jesus’ sake will be
A. reprimanded for abandoning their families
B. rewarded with 100 times more children
Drinking poison and picking up snakes is
A. foolish
B. safe for believers
Mark 7:10, 24-28, 9:48, 10:29-30, 16:17-18
Upon entering the city of Jericho, God’s people
A. shared a message of hope and forgiveness
B. killed everyone, men and women, young and old
Given the city of Ai, Joshua
A. built a temple, hospital and schools
B. killed everyone and torched the city
God made the sun stand still while his people
A. distributed food and clothing
B. committed genocide
Needing a place to live, God’s people
A. searched for uninhabited land flowing with milk and honey
B. attacked a city, killed its people, and claimed it for themselves
Joshua determined God’s will by
A. praying
B. drawing lots (rolling dice)
Joshua 6:20-21, 8:24-28, 10:12-14, 19:47, 18:6,10
Serve God with fear or
A. he will be sad
B. he will be angry and you will suddenly die
The righteous are joyful to
A. do justice and love mercy
B. wade through the blood of the wicked
God will bring his people’s enemies back so
A. they can share God’s Word with them
B. their dogs can drink their spilled blood
God looked upon Egypt’s firstborn and
A. blessed them all
B. killed them all
Happy are those that take babies and
A. teach them the ways of the LORD
B. smash their heads against rocks
Psalm 2:11, 58:10, 68:21-23, 78:44-51, 137:9
@jabster- why is creation not a evidence for a creator.. you see the wonders of earth and wonder where did this come from… if we observed a watch it would be an evidence of a watchmaker..unless we believe there was an explosion in a watch factory and out popped a watch
that the beauty of science (and I would add the thing that is common ground between the atheist and the creationist) that men and women see thing around them and try to understand how something works, where it came from etc… related to the physical world it is my hypothesis that something or someone created it.. I think Someone.. the problem for the scientist is that you have to see it to believe.. you are never going to see creation.. no matter what method of observation you have… so concrete evidence is a tough thing to find.. for the creationist or the non-creationist..
I am not a scientist so I know you probably can take me to task on a lot of issue that I am not aware of .. but my question related to this issue is where did the first star come from.. where did the first everything come from
you say just because you find something difficult to believe does not make the evidence go away. I agree with you completely.. just because you find something hard to believe does not make the evidence go away
@jabster
the interesting thing that I see in most discussion on the site it that the atheist’s world view doesn’t allow for a God who creates and therefore everything to the contrast is as you say “making stuff up”
You say “The easy answer is of course the reason none of the answers put forward actually make any real sense is because there is no creator and essentially the answers are ‘making stuff up’.”
As a Bible believing creationist.. my world view doesn’t understand your position.. it seems so obvious.. but we are looking at the same issue from completely different positions.. I guess I agree that we disagree..
It’s not evidence for a creator for the very fact that it’s the creator one is supposed to explain.
We know watchmakers exist. We don’t know that universe creators exist.
To posit a universe creator as the explanation of a universe creator is the most fallacious kind of circular reasoning.
“you are never going to see creation.. no matter what method of observation you have… so concrete evidence is a tough thing to find.. for the creationist or the non-creationist..”
Now this is where the difference lies. Non-believers don’t claim to know how the universe was ‘created’ or whether this is even a valid question — yes there are some ideas around based on our current information but nothing that could be considered as a fact. Creationists on the other claim as a cold hard fact that everything we see was created by not only an entity but the entity as described in their holy texts — evidence for this is precisely zero and indeed no scientific endeavour is made to discover any evidence and this is why it’s faith based.
The argument from the watchmaker is just another one of the tired arguments that is put forward but is not evidence in any real sense — do you believe that hills and mountains have a designer?
@nullifidian- who says that the Creator is supposed to explain.. is that a rule you made up? How do you know that a watchmaker exist.. because you met one or know one? what if you hadn’t met one would they not exist? you never met the guys who made the pyramids but you believe they exist.. right?
to say that a created one.. you and I .. have the right to determine what the creator has to do is pretty bold don’t you think?
@The Howitzer
I’m not the one positing a “creation”.
And, yes, I have met a watchmaker: my grandfather (amongst many other talents).
Your pyramid argument is specious sophistry, so I won’t even bother to address it.
You call yourself “created” if you like. That doesn’t make it so. Perhaps it’s true that a stork dropped you on your “parents” lap from the magic baby factory in the sky.
@The Howitzer
“to say that a created one.. you and I .. have the right to determine what the creator has to do is pretty bold don’t you think?”
Yet mainstream religions are based on this premise — in your terminology the created have assigned attributes and wishes to the creator that by this line of reasoning “it’s pretty bold don’t you think?” You can’t have it both ways with on the one hand saying god wants us to do X and then when a difficult questions arises claiming that we can’t possible hope to understand the mind of god etc. etc. The easy answer is of course the reason none of the answers put forward actually make any real sense is because there is no creator and essentially the answers are ‘making stuff up’.
@nullifidian
You call yourself “created” if you like. That doesn’t make it so.
You and I have similiar thoughts we just come to different conclusion.. I say you call yourself “uncreated” if you like .. that doesn’t make it so..
I like the specious sophistry that was pretty good .. did you have to look that up? I did!
False attribution. You claimed to be created, I didn’t claim anything. If I do claim anything, it will to have been “born”. You know, the usual way that every single person in history came about: boy meets girl, boy and girl get jiggy, boy gets girl up the duff, about 9 months later girl pops sprog.
Oh, my mistake. Except the magic people who claim not to have had a dad. People like Krishna, Attis, Zoroaster, Siddhartha Gautama, Perseus.
Sadly, no. But then again I read books other than scripture.
@nullifidian and @jabster
not sure how we got to spaghetti monster and implied intellectual superiority of “reading other books than the scripture” but my intent is to state that my position is that one proof of the existence of God is creation..
you may not agree with that.. but that doesn’t make it wrong
“but my intent is to state that my position is that one proof of the existence of God is creation..
you may not agree with that.. but that doesn’t make it wrong”
Whether I agree with it doesn’t make it right or wrong the definition of proof is what makes it wrong. Firstly evidence for creation as described in the Bible is so weak as to be no existent. Evidence against creation as described in the Bible is overwhelmly against.
Secondly your ‘proof’ does not take into account who is the creator — any beleiver could claim this as proof for their own god so what makes you think you happen to be right?
Aside from the fact that I implied ignorance, not “intellectual superiority” (for all I know you have a framed MENSA certificate above your mantelpiece) the reason that the FSM was brought up was because there is just as much evidence (i.e. none whatsoever) that the FSM “created” anything as there is for your (preferred) god of your scripture (ignoring all the other ones, of course).
The very best argument you could make is that “something” created the world around us, because it pleases you to think so.
This is despite the fact that this contradicts every single branch of science, not just biological evolution which those of your ilk seem to have some kind of fetishised obsession over.
How you made the jump from that assumption to your specific idea of a god, based solely on a badly re-translated collection of writings from a variety of pre-scientific Middle Eastern tribes is, frankly, beyond me.
You can know in the very way He tells you that you can know. How is it Vid? Do you really want to know? How did He say we could know?
JC – in order to know what you know I think I would need some serious acid. As a matter of fact a friend of mine took DMT and described it simply as seeing and touching the face of god. All barriers vanished and he was one with the universe. The artificial constructs of this world were gone – he spoke to god and god was all that there is – the universe. This is the same drug that fills our brain when we die. For many that have this experience they find it very difficult to come back and fit into society. Society no longer has meaning, our world is trivial after you’ve experienced god.
http://www.rickstrassman.com/dmt/
For a video description of what this is like watch this:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html
“As a Bible believing creationist.. my world view doesn’t understand your position.. it seems so obvious.. but we are looking at the same issue from completely different positions.. I guess I agree that we disagree..”
Why should you agree to disagree. You believe something as a fact and not only that — this fact informs the way you live. I suspect the reason is that you have absolutely zero evidence to support it. What other aspects of your life do you treat in the same many. My guess would be none.
“it seems so obvious..”
… and yet there is zero evidence and therefore you have provided none except I don’t understand so goddidit and yes that is making stuff up whether you like it or not. Do you believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as plausible idea as your god and if not why not?
“If science teaches us anything, it’s that the plural of ‘anecdote’ isn’t ‘truth’.”
OK, that is such a quotable bit of spot on! Props to you!
Yeah, I drank lots of beer once and became *amazingly* witty and attractive to women.
“I think it would be a fallacy to say that since we no longer need religion to explain most phenomena, then an “invisible realm” does not exist.”
If there is no observable evidence for this “invisible realm,” how could we ever reliably believe it exists? This is pure conjecture, which shows imagination but does nothing to prove the existence of the un-observable.
Presumably in the same way that the certain knowledge that I can’t actually fly unaided trumps my desire to want to fly like a bird.
Damn you gravity, damn you!
In other words, “Prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est”.
“There are no real arguments for or against a faith in God, …”
The is also a strong case against faith in a god when then is taken to mean imposing arbitrary rules based on interpretations of a holy text in particular moral activity.
“… because in a pure sense, faith is an intimately personal decision.”
It removes itself from being a personal decision when the leader of the most powerful nation in the world has to by default belong to a certain religion.
‘I define faith as belief in God with the complete and utter absence of physical or logical evidence.’
Yes, so does Dawkins in The God Delusion.
The ‘God delusion’ isn’t ‘it’s possible there’s a god’, it’s exactly what you just said there ‘the lack of evidence is exactly what validates my belief’.
And it’s precisely what you are talking about there that is the most terrifying thing about religion, because it means that you’ve placed yourself in the position that in fight between *all the evidence in the world, all the testimony, data, observations, logic and what society holds to be true, all the diversity of what other people think and say and do* v *your own belief*, your own belief has to win.
And, when people like that get in positions of power, the rest of us get caught in the crossfire of the people who believe that if they’re martyred they go to heaven, that just because there’s no evidence of WMDs they’re still there, that if a hurricane is coming you should send prayers instead of rescue boats and bottles of water, that it’s OK to firebomb clinics, that there’s no need to take their son to the doctor.
The state of mind you have described there is not admirable, it’s a serious psychosis. It’s also specifically anti-Biblical and against virtually all Christian teaching. Faith is a virtue (they say), but not unquestioning faith.
Josh – “I would argue that not only is there a complete lack of evidence for a faith in God, but also that lack of evidence is precisely what makes a true faith in God so powerful.”
Do you not SEE how scary and delusional this belief is? This is EXACTLY what the 9/11 suicide bombers believed! Against all evidence, they had “faith” that there wiould be many virgins waiting for them if they blew up some buildings.
And I would bet that you don’t have “faith” in any other areas of your life. Wiould you give your child medication that had not been empirically tested? What if the doctor said – “we don’t need evidence that this pill works – we just need faith”. You would think he was crazy.
Then why, on this most important issue, is “faith” a good thing (in the absence of evidence)? If there is admittedly no evidence, why on EARTH do you think it’s true?
I can have “faith” in pink bunnies circling Venus. I pray to this bunny. Granted, there is no evidence (but I challenge you to prove it does NOT exist). You may say this is a ridiculous example. But if you are a christian, you believe that seas can part, that a loaf and 5 fishes can feed thousands, that people can be in a fire and not burn, that Jonah lived in a fish for 3 days and lived to preach about it; that Adam and Eve sinned and now we are all sinners, that somebody has to be tortured to death so that we can be “forgiven”; that same person originated from a virgin; etc. If you had not grown up with this belief, would you not consider it rather silly too?
Its one thing to simply believe IN God, and another to believe God…get it? Many people believe in a God, a “deity” but the ones who benefit and enter into relationship believe God. Of course I’m speaking here of the Christian faith.
When Christ’s disciples asked Him saying “tell us what the work of God is that we may do it”, He answered them saying “this is the work of God…that you believe in Him whom He has sent”. John 6:29
He was addressing the one hurdle so many have…to simply believe Him. We dont believe because we dont trust Him, dont know His true heart/nature/character for us.
I can tell you after 25 years…He is trustworthy.
It’s not really fair to judge theoretical physics against christianity. Theoretical physics has mathematics as its primary language. Religion has no coherent system of communication.
Case in point: Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was just mathematics until the experimental disintegration of the Tau muon.
String theory is called theory because of the mathematical support for it.
The problem is that most christians do not understand the word “theory”.
Sorry, guys, but string theory is a proper theory because the MATHEMATICS behind it are very convincing. Yes, we need empirical evidence, and the theory needs to be further verified, but I think its classification as a scientific theory is not so much in doubt.
@LRA
I think the point being made is the distinction between the use of the term theory in string theory and when it’s used for other theories that due to solid evidence can be considered as facts. String theory just doesn’t have the data to back it up. Think of it this way when did the Bib Bang cross the line between being a model and being a theory?
well, I thought I did! I am not a nihilist. It seems to me there are things that we know we know. The question was, where is the quantifiable, measurable, testable evidence for the existence of god and I am trying to point out that by (my) definition, there is none.
To comment generally on the direction(s) this debate seems to be taking, there is little honest inquiry into the possible existence of god, and more focus on critiquing organised religion with science. I know that mythologies are ‘nice’ (and often not so nice) stories. I didn’t read the question as asking me to defend any particular doctrine. But if you can’t agree on what god is you are wasting your time, no?
I realise now that I waded into this debate focussed only on that question and missed the background. With respect, (and I sincerely mean that not as a platitude) this is a site for wounded ex-believers. I am a committed conscientious objector to all religious, or any other form, of doctrine or dogma. My S.O. (also a survivor of the Catholic school system) says that whenever you have more than one person believing the same thing (with regard to religion) you have a cult. I kind of agree.
To my mind, critiquing any religion is the intellectual equivilent of shooting fish in a barrel.
Sadly I have to go now and can’t continue my response, but I will leave you with this thought. Forget about what other people say about god. The fact that lots of people have crazy ideas about religion tells you nothing about the existance of god one way or the other. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
Life is mysterious. Get comfortable with it.
The answer is now in, and it is “NO”.
Wren – “I don’t assume god wants anything.” well said. Why would an omnipotent being want anything at all? Anyway I assume your point is that the little clump of neurons we call our brains is incapable of imagining certain things, especially when it concerns god. That is a common cop out. We simply can’t comprehend certain things. Oh well. “the rational mind is limited” I guess we just accept that our little brains are limited and move on? When confronted with a serious question like, why would god create devils? we commonly see that response – ‘we just don’t know and are foolish to think that we can know such things….’ We are just little creatures not much more advanced than jungle apes living on this tiny ball of dirt we call earth. To think, there may be a trillion planets and god cares about your sex life right here and now! We are small Wren, we are very small, we are insignificant in this grand universe…it is our own ego and insecurity about this insignificance that causes religion to flourish.
Apparantly new evidence has come to light that evolution can happen far more quickly that previously thought. Have you heard?
My rational mind does not accept the bible as evidence of the existance of god. That does not prove to me that god does not exist.
I believe that prayer is very powerful. I don’t consider that to be evidence of the existence of the god Christians believe in, for example, either.
Is there a god who hears my prayers? How the … should I know?! Who can answer that but with the strength of their own experience?
Thanks for your response, Steve. Cool to see someone putting their own name to their thoughts. (Am I a wren or a chicken?!)
…
‘My rational mind does not accept the bible as evidence of the existance of god. That does not prove to me that god does not exist.’
No, and there are limits of language and human perception that make proving that something doesn’t exist impossible.
So you have to approach the problem from the other direction – Christians don’t claim that the *only* property that their god has is that you can’t conclusive prove he doesn’t exist. What sort of god would that be?
So we have to come up with a list of those other properties, and see what we can find out about those. He’s said to have created the universe in six days, we know he didn’t. He’s said to have created mankind in a unique way that distinguishes him from all other life, we know that’s not true.
So we keep working down the list – if you pray to him, you get better medical outcomes than someone identical who doesn’t. No you don’t. And so on.
Every *testable* question, god fails to manifest when Christianity predicts he should.
It’s not about *conclusively* proving God’s existence or not. It’s about weighing up the evidence. As the original article says, there’s masses of evidence for ‘no’, not a single piece of evidence for ‘yes’. All ‘yes’ needs is that single piece of evidence. It’s like a card game where if player two *has* one card, they win, regardless of what hand player one has.
Back again.
I have been thinking about the ants in my kitchen. Imagine, if you will for a moment, that they have a human-like ability to wonder and reflect on the world around them. What possible sense could they make of me tapping a spoon on the counter to make them run away so I can wipe it down? Even if I lay my finger on the counter and let them crawl around and over me, what hope do they have of using any means of perception or rational thinking available to them to fully understand what it is?
They may be able to gain a partial understanding by approaching the problem in a scientific way, if I give them time to become sufficiently acquainted with the spoon tapping and my finger, but what of the rest of me? How could they fathom the purpose of the spoon tapping, i.e. my desire for a clean counter? It seems to me they have at least two options: they can accept only what they can understand rationally, and deny the existence of the rest of me, denying as well that there is any reason for the appearance of my finger or the spoon; or they can use their imagination to create an explanation that seems to them to work on some level.
Some of them may start to preach that the finger and the spoon are manifestations of a great and omnipotent ant in the sky, who benevolently warns ants of the impending danger of the great damp thing, and angrily punishes those who do not heed the warning. Others may point and laugh at these faithful ants and scoff that there is no evidence to support that belief.
There might be a third way. There might be ants whose minds can stay open enough to encompass the notion that the faithful and the rational could be both right and both wrong. They might embrace scepticism and imagination in equal measure, and long for the day when the rest of the ants stop their table thumping and name calling, and give up trying to foist their belief systems on each other.
BTW apologies for my inconsistent spelling of ‘existence’. Very embarrassing.
… Even if I lay my finger on the counter and let them crawl around and over me, what hope do they have of using any means of perception or rational thinking available to them to fully understand what it is? ….
mark ….. i think your analogy is a bad one because humans have ways of measuring and testing the world around us that ants do not have access to. your thought of what if god is to big for us to understand can be remixed into
what if god expects us to use the brains he gave us to discover things that we currently dont know.
the bottomly is this, you have no idea what god wants and as far as i know he has been a little unclear as to exactly what he wants man to do. the proof that god is unclear about what he wants is evident in the fact that he allows more than one different spiritual concept to exist that states if you dont believe in it specifically you are not saved or you are going to burn in hell forever. simply for choosing the wrong one or not choosing any of them because one dosent believe.
now if dont mind please present some reasoning for your oppinion on this matters. what if is not a reason.
….. They might embrace scepticism and imagination in equal measure, and long for the day when the rest of the ants stop their table thumping and name calling, and give up trying to foist their belief systems on each other.
BTW apologies for my inconsistent spelling of ‘existence’. Very embarrassing. ……..
@markbey
you said: i think your analogy is a bad one because humans have ways of measuring and testing the world around us that ants do not have access to. your thought of what if god is to big for us to understand can be remixed into
I say: whether it’s good or bad is moot point. I think the question here is always still floating around “Do things exist if we can’t observe and document them empirically?” Or in this case, can ants not know things simply because they can’t know them in the same way as us?
The weakness I see in the ant analogy is that wren didn’t create the ants. The question of God isn’t whether something that much bigger than us can ever be known by us (though in a meta- sort of way, it kind of is), but whether the creator of anything, regardless of size, has the ability to communicate knowledge to its creation. And further, whether the created being can ever know or understand anything meaningful or useful about its creator…
I had a feeling the ant thing would go down badly.
“I think your analogy is a bad one because humans have ways of measuring and testing the world around us that ants do not have access to.”
Imagine, if you will for a moment, that they have a human-like ability to wonder and reflect on the world around them. This is meant to include ‘ways of measuring and testing’. Sorry if that was not clear.
“your thought of what if god is too big for us to understand can be remixed into what if god expects us to use the brains he gave us to discover things that we currently dont know.”
I really do not see how that follows. Remixed in a coctail shaker perhaps, with a little brandy? (just keeping it light). I am not sure if ‘too big’ is exactly the right phrase. Maybe ‘unavailable’?
“you have no idea what god wants and as far as i know he has been a little unclear as to exactly what he wants man to do.”
I don’t assume god wants anything.
I wasn’t trying to say anything about the existence of god, specifically. I was trying to illustrate that I think it is rational to bear in mind the limitations of our present system of scientific inquiry.
For that reason I don’t accept Jame’s critique that ‘I didn’t create the ants’. He is much closer, well, right there I think, when he asks:
“Do things exist if we can’t observe and document them empirically?”
What do you think Markbey?
“The is also a strong case against faith in a god when then is taken to mean imposing arbitrary rules based on interpretations of a holy text in particular moral activity.”
I couldn’t agree more, but your assumption is that a faith in God always implies imposing arbitrary moral rules. Whereas, though I know that it exists and is detestable, my own personal faith does not compel me to do so.
“It removes itself from being a personal decision when the leader of the most powerful nation in the world has to by default belong to a certain religion.”
I’m as sickened by this as you are – I promise, but it doesn’t make it any less of a personal decision.
Actually, there are many arguments against the existence of God. Read anything by Dawkins – he explains it much better than I can. If you are going to balance actual facts, there is no contest. But most christians go out of their way to avoid exposure to these facts becauase they do not want to shake their faith. I don’t blame them – it shook mine and now I’m an atheist :)
“…that in fight between *all the evidence in the world, all the testimony, data, observations, logic and what society holds to be true, all the diversity of what other people think and say and do* v *your own belief*, your own belief has to win.”
You’ll have to take me at my word, but all the evidence in the world, all the testimony, data, observations, and logic do indeed inform my views and decisions. The difference is that they answer different questions. For instance, I fully believe in evolution (admittedly putting me in the minority at my local church), because I believe it answers the questions of what and how, whereas my faith is what answers the questions of why. If you have no questions on why things happen, or if you feel that there is no need to ask that question, then i won’t try to convince you otherwise.
“…that just because there’s no evidence of WMDs they’re still there, that if a hurricane is coming you should send prayers instead of rescue boats and bottles of water, that it’s OK to firebomb clinics, that there’s no need to take their son to the doctor.”
While I readily admit there is a vast truckload of criticism that can be leveled against organized religion, over-generalizing my personal faith and correlating it to all the whack-jobs out there isn’t exactly fair. I have as many issues with the behavior of people I get unfairly roped in with as you do, if not more. That is a failure of organized religion, not faith.
“The state of mind you have described there is not admirable, it’s a serious psychosis. It’s also specifically anti-Biblical and against virtually all Christian teaching.”
Not prone to hyperbole, are we?
Steve, very well said. I too believe that religion, or any non-sensical “faith-based” belief system, becomes dangerous. This is why as an ex-christian I feel I have to speak out against christianity. I remember growing up hearing ministers speak fondly about the apocolypse! This means total destruction of this beautiful earth. It’s truly sick. And that’s only ONE thing among many that drives me to keep pointing out the dangers of religion even though I often despair that religious people simply aren’t listening. They are too brainwashed to even question. Then I remember that I used to be like that too, and I keep going (like the energizer bunny)
@LRA:
Yes, we can see lightning. We can also see water. The point is that our eyes simply aren’t of seeing water molecules or individual electrons.
For another example, we can’t hear noises above a particular frequency, though we can easily put together devices that prove their existence pretty thoroughly. I still wouldn’t say that we directly experience these “sounds”.
I know– I was just teasing!
Hey Bill, thanks for the reply, I’m still terribly interested in this forum, I’ve been taking my sweet time to reply because I’m still thinking this over. My current reading for school, I’m actually about to finish a Bachelor of Theology, is really applicable to this conversation. I’m currently reading The Pelican Guide to Modern Theology, and the “invisible realm” is one of the main issues in a sense. Another term for this idea that Philosophy of Religion uses is “the Hiddenness of God.” There are a whole lot of paper and theories on that specific idea, but I’m more interested at the moment in what I’m reading. From a historical standpoint again, this was all hashed out at the end of the nineteenth century. Previous to that, the (christian) church believed that the idea of god was obvious and rested this belief on two things, the authority of the church and scripture, and the metaphysical arguments for god (the cosmological and ontological). The nineteenth century however produced Kant and Hegel, who’s work tore down those two pillars. Basically Kant said we could not know god apriori and Hegel set the framework for biblical criticism which showed that the scripture was an unreliable historical document. Karl Barth was arguably the most important response to these problems, and his work relates back to my original point about the “invisible realm.” Now I haven’t actually finished reading the section on Barth, but my understanding so far is that Barth criticized the church for it’s previous stance, that it could know something about god apart from god’s revelation. This was Barth’s main idea, that god is indeed hidden, and that any knowledge of him must come from him (interestingly, this is sort of what John C. was saying.) Barth called this knowledge revelation and split it into two main categories, special and general revelation. Now, I’m not done reading this section, and I could be a little off in my interpretation so far, so don’t take this as final, I’ll get back when I’ve finished reading. The reason I bring all this up is in reply to you Bill, about having knowledge of this “invisible realm.” If god is hidden (for reasons which have been debated in the realm of Philosophy of Religion) and we are unable to find him/her/it (for the pc) using any of our faculties, then if we are to know anything about him/her/it, that knowledge must come from him/her/it. Now this, of course, could apply to any religion. It could be argued that the Bhagavad Gita, or any other religious document was “revelation.” I know this isn’t evidence, which was the original question, but I think it is relevant to the question to talk about what evidence would look like, or what evidence for a god means. I know this is an incomplete thought, so I would welcome comments as I try and hash these thoughts out the next few days. On a related note this article popped up on my rss feed for New Scientist and is pretty relevant, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16769-concept-of-hypercosmic-god-wins-templeton-prize.html
Paragraph breaks are your friend.
@ random
” I know this isn’t evidence, which was the original question, but I think it is relevant to the question to talk about what evidence would look like, or what evidence for a god means. ”
mark: Random do you not think that an all powerful god can provide the type of evidence that would be obvious to everyone or evem the overwhelming majority of people.
My problem with believing in god is I would have no idea of which one to prove.
I think a better question random is this, why would god leave the same type of evidence for more than one type of religion if god wanted man to follow a specific doctrine.
Why would the smartest, most intelligent bieng that has ever existed provide no way to distinguish between Chritianity vs Islam vs Judiasm vs any other type of god belief that has ever exist which specific belief is true.
This makes no sense comming from a loving god that wants man to find him.
random thoughts – “I’m actually about to finish a Bachelor of Theology” …
“if we are to know anything about him/her/it, that knowledge must come from him/her/it”
Just wanted to point out that an omnipotent being would not have a gender. Surprised they didn’t teach you that yet. Not only that but an omnipotent being would not have human emotions, as is prevalent in the bible.
Also, you say ‘that knowledge must come from him/her/it’ So we are to wait around for an omnipotent being to share some knowledge of itself before we know anything about said being? If you’ve read some of the great philosophers you would know that they attempt to understand god by trying to determine what god is NOT.
@markbey
It helps to ask nicely. You’ve done nothing but berate and ridicule these gentlemen without offering anything of substance in return.
I’d love to take a shot at answering a couple of your persistent inquiries, if I might, though. Perhaps there will be something in them that will satiate you. (all quotes are [sic])
[markbey] mark ….. you will no them by thier fruits seems to me to mean compared to believers of other religions chrisitians should be at least as prosperouos as those who arent chrisitans. under that prophecy i would not expect christians to be amongst the poorest in any country they are free in.
[James] This is a gross misinterpretation of the meaning of the Greek word “karpos.” “Karpos” in this instance does not refer, in any traditional interpretation ever, to material possessions. “Karpos” here has always been understood as referring to actions and personal attributes. A useful guide would be the fruits (again, same “karpos”) of the Spirit, delineated in Galatians 5:22-23. (“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.”) These are, coincidentally or not, attributes we all tend to hold in esteem and/or wonder when we encounter them.
God is absolutely not concerned with your material prosperity, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a huckster. Check for your wallet. I’d like to personally apologize for anyone who’s ever taught that as a promise of financial prosperity. Jesus makes it clear that the Gospel is good news to the poor and downtrodden, and difficult for the rich to swallow. Why would a promise of prosperity be difficult for the rich young ruler, for example, to swallow?
[markbey] i would also think it would mean that a noticably higher number of christians would stay married than other religions, but of course that is not the case, christians in this country get civorced just as much as anyone else.
[James] Setting aside the speciousness of your claim (unless you have a link to your data, which isn’t really all that important), someone (it may have been Howitzer) already sort of answered this, inadvertently. We’ll have to play semantics here, but there are a lot of self-identifying Christians who don’t know a damned thing about Christ, and don’t make any tangible effort to follow the things he taught. That they do in fact self-identify as Christians is good news for your claim, bad news to Christ.
If you should, at some point, decide to follow Christ, you will be glad (on the one hand, saddened on the other) to know that many of the people who identify themselves as Christians don’t know Christ, don’t care to know Christ. Jesus promises to deal with them in this way:
“Not everyone who says unto me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers.’” [Matt 7:21-23]
What I’m saying is that lots of people claim to be adherents of lots of different ideologies and world views. Some of them do really good things under those banners, some do very bad things. Those who perpetrated the Crusades were acting in political self-interest, not in any manner that could be traced back to the teachings of Christ (see: Sermon On the Mount, Matt 5-7).
Most of us sense that something is not right with the world, I think… that people are too selfish, too cruel, too violent… Christ offers not only the explanation as to why, but the prescription toward setting the world to rights. If he is our creator, we would do well to listen.
I hope that helps some.
(In the interest of full disclosure, for those who care, I am a new follower of Christ–5 years, and associate freely with a community of believers, but do not have allegiance to any “big-C” church. My faith in Christ is not a political thing, and I will not be goaded by any political organization that claims to speak for God. I believe that you, I, and everyone else has the opportunity to gain wisdom and discernment through what’s written in the Bible, and particularly through the counsel of the Holy Spirit–I believe someone here has referred to him as “Spook.” There you go. My wooiness disclosure.)
@markbey
don’t mean to interrupt your conversation with random but your question caught my eye
Why would the smartest, most intelligent bieng that has ever existed provide no way to distinguish between Chritianity vs Islam vs Judiasm vs any other type of god belief that has ever exist which specific belief is true. This makes no sense comming from a loving god that wants man to find him.”
I think the answer to that question is Jesus Christ.. he is the distinguisher between the religions.. he is either who he said or not.. he claims to be the one and only son of God.. the loving God you describe points to his son Jesus and says listen to him
And a Muslim would say that the answer is “Mohammed” with exactly the same logic. A Sikh would say that the answer is “Guru Nanak”.
How are we to choose between these answers? Why is your answer more compelling than theirs?
@wintermute
in the world today there is such a disdain for the exclusive claims of Christ that I hesitate to share my true opinion.. add to that the disregard of the Bible by most of the contributors on this site and it is difficult to answer your question without the whistles from the cheap seat beginning..
“How are we to choose between these answers? Why is your answer more compelling than theirs?”
for me the answer of why Christ is more compelling is connected to his person hood.. his teachings have stood the test of time.. where ever his true teaching have gone and been practiced life has gotten better.. on this site there is much said about the hypocrisy of his followers and to be sure there are many wrongs done by the hands of “Christians”… I am sure there are many wrongs done by the hands of “atheists” as well… but in every case the wrong was done in contradiction to the ideals of Christ.. I have found that people are out of control whereever you go.. we struggle as a race and many do not even struggle well.. christians as well as atheists.. I can tell you this .. if athesism is a product being sold on this site as a viable lifestyle I am still waiting to read a contributor who has an ounce of grace.. or humility or respect of others whose opinion they differ with that would compel me to want to become one..
the thing though that makes me view Christ different than the leaders of other world religions is the recorded claims he made in the Bible (I know the Bible is not reliable you say, but that is the basis for me beliefs in this area)… when he says I am the way, the truth and the life and no one come to the Father except through me.. he makes mankind make a decision.. what will you do with Christ… he is either who he says he was or he is liar or a lunatic… my speculation is that most on this site would pick the 4th option.. he is legend.. he never said such things and his followers just made it all up.. It’s one thing to claim to be a messenger of God is another to claim to be “THE” representative of God.
but as I have done my research and examined the world around me I am compelled by the first option.. that he is who he says he is.. for me the compelling part of him is that he is full of grace and truth.. grace to be patient to a struggling race (mankind) and truthful enough to say it like it is.. I wish I was more like that..
I don’t know if that answers your question.. but that is my story and I am sticking to it..
….. his teachings have stood the test of time.. where ever his true teaching have gone and been practiced life has gotten better.. ……..
mark …… if that is the case i have 2 questioins
1. what teachings would those be. please be clear about what you mean jesus true teachings, im willing to bet that i could find those same principle in other religions. im talking about the true teachings of those other religons.
2.. i guess this is the you will know them by thier fruits. if this is the case then how can you explain the fact that the bible belt is amonst the most impoverished regions of the country.
at howitzer
…. the loving God you describe points to his son Jesus and says listen to him ……
mark …. to me your argument is extremely silly, insilur and biased. how do you no you are correct how do you know that it isnt the zoroastian god that is saying listen to him.
exactly how many other religions have you been exposed to.
someone could say the loving allah points to his son/prophet/messenger and says listen to him.
for instance a muslim could say if you dont listen to him you are going to hell which your god also claims.
now scientologist, jews, hindus, bhudist, followers of amon ra could all use a remixed form of your argument and claim the same thing.
you have to give a better argument as to what would make it clear that following your religion will keep me from bieng sent to hell. or however else you define heaven/hell.
also i have another question for you. if your god is perfect and all knowing, and wants us to find him.
dont you think your god is bieing extremely deceptive by allowing thousads of deffirent religions to exist.
isnt your god powerful enough to only allow christianity to exist. especially if that is the one he wants man to follow.
howitzer please answer my questions
@markbey
you have a lot of questions
related to your questions about the teaching of Christ.. If he is who he claims to be his teaching would be found throughout the Bible, I think we find the teaching from his incarnation in the Gospels primarily. The continuation of these teaching is found throughout the rest of the New Testament through the teachings of his disciples. There is no doubt that some of these principles are spread throughout the world in a number of world religions. It is not surprising that there would be a common set of moral values shared by mankind.. Cultures are not isolated and that which is good and true is recognized by most reasonable men.. no one ever claimed that things Jesus taught were not present anywhere else.. but his teaching as presented say in the Sermon on the Mount were remarkable.
As to your question in another post about my exposure to other world religions, I am no expert but have had some exposure with a number of them. I spent a summer in India and a summer in Turkey and had a lot of international students as friends over the years.
Related to why is the Bible belt amongst the most impoverished regions of the country. I don’t know the answer to that. I live in the south, and our impoverishment is nothing compared to the poverty I have seen around the world.. not sure what you are trying to measure with that statement..
Related to “how do I know that it isnt the zoroastian god that is saying listen to him”… I don’t.. except that the God of the Bible is distinct and is identified as the creator of heaven and earth.. the context of the passage I was referring to identifies the speaker as that God..
Maybe I am silly but on this site that seems to be commonplace.. I think most of the verbiage on here is extremely silly, insular and biased.. but that what opinions are.. right? Yours is not right just because it’s yours.. how do I know I am right.. I never said that I was right.. I just said what I thought.
You said, “you have to give a better argument as to what would make it clear that following your religion will keep me from bieng sent to hell. or however else you define heaven/hell.”… are you an atheist? I thought you guys didn’t believe in heaven or hell..
Related to my perfect, all knowing God who wants us to find him.. I do not think he is being deceptive.. his presence is everywhere.. he is powerful enough to allow only the path he wants us to follow. But he allows man a certain measure of freedom to choose.. if the Bible is true someday there will be a multitude of people from every tribe tounge and nation who will be around the throne of God that no one can count.. maybe even a few atheists.. that doesn’t sound real exlusionary
Let me ask you one question: Why should I become an atheist?
at howitzer
….. I think we find the teaching from his incarnation in the Gospels primarily. ….
mark … im still going over your comments however it looks as if you haent answered my question.
to be specific i would like you to tell me what leasons specifically you are refering to. some qoutes perhaps. thank you.
you are vague stop playing games.
…. Related to why is the Bible belt amongst the most impoverished regions of the country. I don’t know the answer to that. I live in the south, and our impoverishment is nothing compared to the poverty I have seen around the world.. ….
mark ….. you will no them by thier fruits seems to me to mean compared to believers of other religions chrisitians should be at least as prosperouos as those who arent chrisitans. under that prophecy i would not expect christians to be amongst the poorest in any country they are free in.
i would also think it would mean that a noticably higher number of christians would stay married than other religions, but of course that is not the case, christians in this country get civorced just as much as anyone else.
@The Howitzer
I’m sure that slaves in times past and those who remain under such a yoke today really appreciate the glorious piety of their masters when reading Colossians. And 1 Timothy. And 1 Peter. And Ephesians.
I never thought that I’d ever actually meet a christian that really did sold all of his belongings as directed to (Luke 18:22).
You have sold all your goods and given the proceeds to the destitute, haven’t you? Kudos to you.
Atheism isn’t a “product”. It isn’t “for sale”. All atheism is, is doubt. Doubt in your claims. Doubt in the claims of all flavours of christians. Doubt in the claims of islam. Doubt in the claims of zoroastrianism. Doubt in the claims of the norse. Doubt in the claims of the of the hindus. Doubt in the claims of the ancient Achaeans. Doubt in the claims of Tom Cruise and Hubbard’s bad sci-fi schlock. Doubt in the claims of every pious man and woman. You’re not being singled out, and you’re not much different to us to all of those other gods and the claims of their followers.
However, and I do realised that this may be impossible for you to understand, but it’s not you that is being disrespected, it’s the ideas you hold onto and claim profound and unimpeachable knowledge about. You might not be able to distinguish between the two, but we do and we can.
Your god claims are no different to us than any other claims you would hold over, for example, economics or nationhood, or how to bring up children, or which way to sit on the toilet, or what is the best food for your dog. If you want to convince us that Pedigree Chum is the best for your hound, and think we should buy it too, then we’re likely to want evidence that our god would be better off with your recommendation.
The exact same criteria goes for your gods. However, because christians insist that their gods are invisible, can’t be examined, can’t be discovered by the faculties each of us have that haven’t already accepted the contents of your scripture as an accurate and precise record of history, geography, geology, astronomy, physics, biology, philosophy and metaphysics, then don’t be surprised when expect more evidence — evidence that your gods exist, evidence that the claims in your scripture match every other observation we see about the world around us and the universe in general, evidence that your scripture is something more than the writings of bronze age desert-dwelling goat herders.
We find it wanting. We find them all wanting.
You can’t believe how happy I am to see that you can see beyond Lewis’ fatuous trilemma, even if you don’t accept it yourself.
However, you’ve made the circular argument of using your scripture as evidence of your god, and then using the supposed sayings of your god to support the scripture as being “true”. If you can’t see why this isn’t at all compelling to us (and especially those of us that were never christians in the first place) then I don’t think you’ll ever understand it.
So no amount of counter argument or evidence to the contrary would cause you to rethink your position? That’s rather saddening, although I thank you for your honesty.
“… we’re likely to want evidence that our dog would be better off with your recommendation.”
Mea culpa.
[nullifidian wrote:] I never thought that I’d ever actually meet a christian that really did sold all of his belongings as directed to (Luke 18:22).
You have sold all your goods and given the proceeds to the destitute, haven’t you? Kudos to you. [/nullifidian]
This was probably tongue-in-cheek, but it deserves mention anyway. You’re taking this passage out of context. Jesus knew this man and knew that he wanted to follow, but also knew that he was deeply attached to his wealth to a point that it would be a distraction–a lens, if you will–that would hinder his commitment.
The message is a broader “hang on loosely” one to all of us. The rich young ruler’s hangup was his wealth. To you or I, it may be esteem, job security, intellect, or any number of other things by which we measure or prop up our success or personhood.
Yes, it was tongue in cheek.
However, in context, the advice was given despite the “ruler/official/etc.” being rich because, according to the scripture, he became sad after (Luke 18:23) given this supposedly sage advice. Obviously, considering the context, and having already admitted to adhering to the other requirements (Luke 18:20-21) this requirement was given in addition to his prior adherence. If he was supremely rich (and obviously so) then this is missing from the text and, I can’t help but think, is a simplistic apologetic (or, in other words, making stuff up to make the text that is there make sense).
Claiming a “broader” meaning is, again, you deciding to read into the text something that agrees with your presuppositions, and not something within the text itself.
You can, I suppose, argue that the author meant something else, but then again if one is to treat it as a supposedly factual reportage of an actual event, that seems fantastically ambitious for such an epigrammatic account.
However, if it’s merely allegorical, then claiming it as “fact” (as many are wont to do) is disingenuous and it holds no more weight than the Best Of… Aesop, despite the name of the supposed central character (not that Aesop talked shite, but nobody claims talking tortoises are demons, etc.).
In the grander scheme of things, those little numbers next to individual sentences have never seemed to stop christians from taking things “out of context” before.
Go figure (pun somewhat intended). ;-)
Perhaps—as John C claims—I don’t have the “spirit” magically telling me what’s “in context”, “out of context”, “literally true”, “allegorical”, “metaphysical” or plain just “made up”. Who am I to say what the hell it’s supposed to mean?
Somehow you seem to have such a guiding “spirit”. Perhaps you should write a “howto” for the christian bible and let the rest of us know exactly how one is supposed to interpret such things, what the context is, etc. It would certainly help the likes of me out.
@nullifidian
Here’s a link to a guy who, at least as far as letters next to his name, has more authority to speak to this episode than I do. He’s not the first place I heard that explanation, just the first reasonably reliable one to pop up on a google search. FWIW, of course.
I can see you pushing back against the things I’ve said about scriptural passages today, and I want to apologize sincerely if I’ve presented myself as some kind of interpretive oracle–I’m not and I know it. I sometimes take for granted the years I’ve spent reading and trying to make sense of this stuff… so yeah, I’m sure I presented it as a presupposition, and I didn’t mean to put you in a position to accept that. I’m sorry.
But I do think you draw a false dichotomy in giving the two options a) that the author meant something other than what he said, or b) this is allegory. It clearly is one episode between Jesus and one man that *becomes* part of a broader lesson. Notice that Jesus did not follow that exchange up with “Verily I say unto you, liquidate your assets and give everything away.” He made an example of the rich young ruler. The link goes into more detail.
In trying to construct a god-concept, one thing I think humans would probably do is set up a to-do list of seemingly virtuous things that *surely* God would want us to do. (see: Islam, LDS, even, to an extent, the doctrine of karma in the far east) The Pharisees, who Jesus made sport of rebuking, were a legalistic, self-righteous bunch. In Jesus’ most famous sermon (Mt 5-7), he lays out the reality of how far we are from perfection, even when keeping the law. (Adultery? What about lust? Murder? What about anger?) That is, after all, why Jesus needed to come in the first place.
I think it bears mention that this is a tactic Jesus uses a lot in his teachings, and it’s something that those who were with him, constantly listening, would have seen.
So the rich man says that he’s kept the commandments since he was a child, and Jesus knows that he’s trapped in a legalistic mindset. So he challenges the young man in a way that he knows will distress him to set up that lesson again to those who are with him.
But again, and the link speaks to this point, the idea wasn’t that everyone should sell everything he owns. There are instances where Jesus does not ask wealthy people to sell everything, and it doesn’t seem to be a problem. This was an isolated incident with a broader message that I don’t think I’m superimposing without cause.
You’re right, by the way, that those little numbers have never stopped Christians from taking things out of context, but I disagree that pointing to a broader meaning is necessarily me inserting meaning where none existed. As I pointed out above, when you read the gospels (and I think you said you have), you see Jesus do this sort of thing repeatedly. You start to know the lesson he’s getting at, because he’s done it before. Dense as some of those around him (and most of us) were, he’s got to approach it from a handful of angles before it finally locks in… if it ever does.
Anyway, thanks for what I’m taking as kind words near the end there. Some call this sort of thing Spirit-guided… maybe it is, but I just think it’s good solid reading comprehension. It’s easy to go in, find the passage in question, read 6 or 7 verses to either side and believe you’ve placed it in context. It’s wholly another thing to read the four gospels repeatedly and watch for patterns to emerge. I’ve got more homework to do in this area, but I like to think the few years I’ve really put behind this have given me some sort of insight here. Who knows? Maybe I’m just your average idiot.
Thanks for responding, nullifidian. I enjoy hearing from you.
@James
Aside from the obvious argumentum ad verecundiam, the link you present (no matter how many honorifics the author has) offers nothing that couldn’t be considered “made up” after the fact.
As you say, he presents a “reasonably reliable” explanation. This doesn’t preclude that it’s still only a possibility that his explanation is right: clearly you accept that he could be wrong, which is my point.
How is one supposed to tell?
No apologies necessary. I’m not “pushing back” because the text has no more import to me than the koran, The Iliad, or Harry Potter. As you say, “I sometimes take for granted the years I’ve spent reading and trying to make sense of this stuff“, I can see where that might become part of the problem, rather than the solution.
If you are determined to try and “make sense” of something that, on the face of it, doesn’t make sense yet is supposed to be the most important thing that we can know about existence then, have you not considered that it doesn’t make sense because it’s not “divine” or “inspired” but simply the tales of those in the pre-scientific bronze age trying to make sense of the world?
Indeed, my opinion may very well be a false dichotomy, and I didn’t mean to suggest that that was any kind of “correct” interpretation. My point was that any and all interpretations are suspect when they rely on “filling in the blanks” that the text leaves. Those holes can be happily filled with anything that one with an axe to grind to “prove” their opinion about what it’s supposed to mean.
Again, you’re selectively using certain aspects of the text, AKA cherry picking, to demonstrate what you think it means, which is circular and unconvincing.
And although I don’t want to open this particular can of worms, this idea goes against traditional biblical understandings (not that I’m saying you hold such) that morality (the “seemingly virtuous things” you mention) comes only and directly from le dieu de jour (depending on context, etc.) It does sound as if you are positing that the Jesus character is merely a literary vehicle as an embodiment of the aforementioned virtues…
Or, to make you sentence more correct: “But again, and I have come the opinion that the link speaks to this point, my impression of the idea wasn’t that everyone should sell everything he owns and I agree with this interpretation.”
Notwithstanding, and going from the most to least sympathetic objections, that not everything ever said by the Jesus character was recorded (no 24-hour scribal paparazzi), nor that the recordings are accurate on anything more than a superficial level (hearsay, disagreements or contradictions), nor that the saying attributed are actual quotes from an actual person (claims made without external verification) leastwise from someone claiming (or being claimed) to be a god.
Yes, I’ve read those four books, and most of the rest of the collection (all the “begats” bored me almost to tears). They are, on the face of it, unconvincing. However, I’m sure if I read any text often enough, I’m sure I could convince myself that it means something other than what it says merely by virtue of familiarising myself with it, seeing where the holes are and asserting my own interpolation and, as long as it doesn’t disagree with the existing text, come up with an “interpretation” that can mean almost anything I want it to mean. Again, this is my point.
I’m not saying that your experience hasn’t given you insight, but my point remains that, no matter what insight you think you have, without confirmation (whether directly from the text itself, from the world outside the scripture, from reality at large or a even from a direct visitation from the alleged god who’s decided to clarify the matter—and of course any and all that can be checked by anyone else, regardless of any preëxisting underlying theological biases) that even the most “sophisticated theological” interpretation is nothing more than that, and has no more weight for being “correct”, although it may appear more convincing depending on one’s biases, than the most primitive fundamentalist/literalist lay interpretation.
I appreciate your opinions and pointers, but this still doesn’t go to addressing the original point as to where the evidence is, if any. Scripture may be convincing to some, but to the rest of us they’re just-so stories—in part pretty and poetic, in part nothing more than primitive anthropomorphism of animistic superstitions—but stories nonetheless.
The question was posed, where is the evidence for god? It’s a good question.
Humans have developed systems for seeking truth and the one we are using here is scientific method. To proceed:
The method begins with asking a question about something. Now, normally, scientific method is applied to observable phenomena, because that is what it is designed to do. Here we are going to try to apply it to something far less tangible, the definition of which we cannot be sure we agree upon. None the less, we are pressing on.
Next we come up with a theory. If we know other people already have theories, we can examine them first to see if they can save us any trouble.
We make a sincere attempt to understand the theory, and examine the evidence provided. We use different techniques to evaluate the evidence to decide if it seems valid.
If we find the evidence for existing theories lacking, our next step is to try to formulate our own, which then has to be put through the same process, until you find one that satisfies. Or until you give up on the question.
Humans have always asked: is there a purpose to my existence? What, if anything, exists beyond that which I can perceive with my physical senses? Are there other ways of being, perceiving, creating than the ones I know and understand?
God is a name we give to our experiences. So trying to tell people it doesn’t exist is telling them that their own experience is not valid. But what do we understand god to be? The fact that people come up with crazy sounding theories to make sense of the questions surrounding their own experience does nothing to alter the question.
The kind experiences that gave rise to this line of inquiry are ethereal and hard to describe. You cannot find any evidence of them in the physical world, but I don’t think that is a good reason to give up asking.
But reflect on your methodology. If you have refuted all the existing theories, have you completed the testing of your own? And if so, are your results conclusive? If not, are you still asking or have you abandoned the project?
If you are having trouble with the question still, may I suggest you ask yourself if you have chosen the right tools? If you have, can someone please give me a mathematical formula proving that ‘existence’ must be spelled with three ‘e’s?
oops I mean four ‘e’s!!!
oh bugger. going back to kinder. or getting my eyes checked. or maybe just shutting up now.
@littlewren
Well, certain religions do make certain claims that could be scientifically tested, or at the very least we could draw certain observations about the plausibility of the various claims.
Yes, people do have “spiritual” experiences. However, these experiences are relatively the same for all people, without regard to individual religion practiced by the individual.
Would that not suggest that there are some underlying factors which transcend the individual religions themselves?
Also, if one or more religions are valid, shouldn’t there be obvious differences between the behavior of a group of religious followers for a valid religion and the behavior of everyone else? But do we ever encounter such a difference?
We have observed the formation of new spiritual/religious movements, we have chronicled the fractionalization of religious traditions, we have witnessed intra-religious conflicts…we have plenty of evidence which suggests that religion is a human construct.
Yes, there are many things involving religion that humans may never be able to prove or disprove. However, that does not mean that we cannot study religion and learn something about it (and whether many of its individual claims are accurate).
wren “God is a name we give to our experiences. So trying to tell people it doesn’t exist is telling them that their own experience is not valid.”
Very well put. If someone experiences something profound in their mind and they attribute that to god, then trying to convince them otherwise is futile. It is as true and real to them as their own breathing. Can you deny your next breath? Even though it is just an emotion occurring in their brain, nonetheless it is very real to them and has to power to provide great comfort in times of distress.
[Steve Jeffers said:] He’s said to have created the universe in six days, we know he didn’t. [/Steve Jeffers]
He’s said by some, yes. But the Hebrew word used there has either 3 or 4 (I can’t remember, but I can look, if you really care) different meanings, 2 or 3 of which agree completely with what we know about the universe’s origin.
[Steve Jeffers said:] He’s said to have created mankind in a unique way that distinguishes him from all other life, we know that’s not true. [/Steve Jeffers]
Really? Which part isn’t true? That we’re unique from earthworms, for example? Or that we were created? I don’t think we’ve got either of those totally hammered out yet, Steve.
I think I have said all I can say to answer the original question in response to you above, but I would love to hear the three word answer to some of the questions I have wondered about.
But this isn’t all about serious inquiry; this is about getting ‘crazy religious people’ off your back and trying to ward of the serious threat they represent to your freedom and peace of mind.
I don’t think you will have much luck taking a rational stance with these people. And it isn’t necessary. Just say “no thank you. I don’t agree.” That is all you have to do, because that is your right, and that is what you need to defend, not your rationality.
Now, best wishes to you. I am returning to my nest.
Steve – I agree that faith is far too respected. It’s the sacred cow – and still gets tax breaks! That really p*sses me off.
“I don’t think you will have much luck taking a rational stance with these people. And it isn’t necessary. Just say “no thank you. I don’t agree.” That is all you have to do, because that is your right, and that is what you need to defend, not your rationality.”
Wrong!
Rationality must always be defended. Why allow lies to stand unopposed?
because people have a right to think and believe whatever they want.
Sunny, sunny…you said “Why allow lies to stand unopposed”?
My sentiments exactly.
“because people have a right to think and believe whatever they want.”
You have no problem with people believing lies and telling them to other people?
It is irrelevent what I personally think. The point is they do believe what you call lies, and Iam suggesting you are unlikely to change that by arguing from the point of rationality. What you can defend is your right to your own freedom, and not to have the beliefs of others forced upon you. If you want to live in a world like that, I think you are going to have to bestow the same right on others.
“Just say “no thank you. I don’t agree.” That is all you have to do, because that is your right, and that is what you need to defend, not your rationality.”
This is just another variation of “sit down and shut up”. I’m so fucking tired of hearing it from mealy mouthed appeasers.
It doesn’t work. If you don’t stand up and speak out against idiocy then you get people who think we should study “Both sides of”, Evolution, Holocaust, Immunizations & Equal Rights.
Littlewren – yes, some people do need religion. Like some children need an “imaginary friend” to get them through the hard times. The problem is when people hang on to their superstitions way past the point where it is helpful. We should eventually grow out of these needs, and take responsibility for our own lives. There is no big daddy in teh sky who is going to take all the bad people and burn them forever. We need to try to create justice here. I now care about this life – because it’s all I really know I have. I used to not look after my health much – it didn’t matter because it was the soul & afterlife that really counted. I didn’t look after the earth because the 2nd coming was arriving soon and the earth would be destroyed anyway. My whole viewpoint was CRAZY!!!!! This is the result of christianity. Now, I have love, empathy, and mutual respect in my life. I have the joy of mystery; I have the humility of not knowing and being ok with it. I hope that others reading these posts will start to question the basis on which they live their entire lives.
Don’t you also think in addition to studying “both sides” of creation vs evolution, we should also study both sides of “gravity” vs “not-gravity”; “round earth vs. flat earth”; “disease – demon possession or bacteria/viruses?”; “slavery – pro or con”? It’s amazing how it is ALWAYS the christians who are the last to see the light. They fought all of these things in their time! It was only when reason/science evidence became so strong that it became ridiculous, then christians came on board. Then they try to take credit for having tried to change things for the better – rewriting history.
I agree, although I personally don’t care what others think and if they want to keep the blinders on it means nothing to me either way. I managed to take my blinders off all by myself, via logical thinking. It took some time but the tipping point for me was when I realized an all powerful god would not get angry…would not have human emotions or any other human like qualities whatsoever. The bible immediately became a collection of fairy tales. That was huge, and incredibly liberating.
Yea, He opens the eyes of the (spiritually) blind. One can easily go from religion (rule-keeping dogma) to atheism. But one could never transition from the spirit led life to one of unbelief.
What am I saying nay to?
I am in favour of using your rationality to navigate the material world.
I am in favour of being guided by your feelings in matters of the heart.
I am in favour of keeping your mind open, your sense of wonder intact, and using your imagination to explore the realms of the possible.
And I am in favour of exercising humility in all your dealings with others.
Ty, I could not agree more!!!!
markbey – according to the catholic church they will suffer forever in purgatory – based purely on bad luck. Sucks to be them huh! lol
This reminds me of the many times I was approached by people interested in my previous life or my life energy. Not living in a predominantly Christian country makes one aware that “spiritually blind” is not an accusation monopolized by Christians: in fact, Christians can just as well be accused of being “spiritually blind”.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t believe in your god (or any gods) is not because I don’t have any trust in it, it’s simply because I see absolutely no reason to do so.
Simple as that, and the entire point of the original post if I read it correctly.
He is “trustworthy” – I know of children in war-torn countries who have only known death, destruction, and despair. I know of people who were raised in such abusive homes that they OD’d on drugs – couldn’t cope with the pain. God admits in the bible that he is the alpha and the omega – also claims to be the creator of evil. Wonder how “trustworthy” he seems to these people???? And I would be easy to convince – just one real miracle and I would believe in Jesus. I’ve prayed all my life; my parents are still evangelical christians. I’ve never yet seen a miracle. Now if Jesus would grow a limb back for an amputee – well, that might get you a few converts. But everything else can be attributed to placebo, chance, strong will, etc. But I do understand you because when I was a christian (until age 35) I also claimed that God/Jesus was “trustworthy”. Now I realize that I was putting my faith in something that does not exist – it only existed in my head.
“But one could never transition from the spirit led life to one of unbelief.”
‘Sorry, “spirits” have nothing to do with whether one believes a proposition true, or not. What you are (dishonestly) attempting, is to make a distinction between believers, and “True Believers”. And according to you, you have no free will once you become the latter; you cannot change your mind.
Robots for Christ.
Not sure what you mean by “spirit-filled life” – I was a bible believing christian for many, many years. Asked “jesus into my heart” countless times. I witnessed – did everything I was supposed to. Once I started to question, though, it was like a domino effect. All my prior assumptions/beliefs came crashing down. I have now (happily) put those fairy tales behind me. Now I really feel “spirit-filled” in the sense of a sense of freedom, joy, connectedness with others, mystery, etc. No fear of rapture or hellfire if I ‘backslide”. You can’t go back to a life based on “faith” once you see that “faith” means “no evidence” – and in fact, the evidence is stacked high against there being any kind of a conscious god, let alone the specific christian god. “when I was a child, I thought as a child…now I have let childish things go” (loosely translated). I used to think I needed a daddy in the sky to make sure everything is fair and that I stayed good! Now that I am all grown up, I realize that there is no god or devil; life is our responsibility – life is what we make it. And I’ve never been hapiper.
@ John C
I have to ask… do you have anything in your verbal arsenal that isn’t the Sermon on the Mount?
I know you’re not seeking salvation from a bunch of atheists, but it would make the conversations a little more fun if you didn’t sound like Jules at the end of Pulp Fiction at every turn.
Sunny Day
I certainly don’t want you to sit down and shut up. If that is what I meant, that is what I would have said. I didn’t even say that you should never defend your rationality. You can if you like, but in this case it is not necessary. You already have the right to think as you do; you don’t have to justify it to anyone.
Religion fills a need in some people that rationality cannot. So you are unlikely to change their minds with rational arguments. You may well change the minds of some individuals, sure, but right behind them there are more people turning to religion to find answers, comfort, community, whatever.
They have a right to do that. Is sounds to me like you think that if you argue long and hard enough, everyone will see sense and think just like you.
Please read carefully what I said again. Religious extremists who want to take control of a society are DANGEROUS. Fight vigorously for your right to be free of them. Just make sure you choose the right weapon.
To answer each of your paragraphs in order.
No, you have to justify it to the people who are telling you to be quiet about it.
Because I cant reach all of them I need to shut up?
WRONG!
Read carefully what I said you silly appeaser.
Its not the believing/thinking lies that’s the problem. It’s in the telling of them. By staying silent about it compounds the problem.
When someone spouts nonsense, or in your case appeasing twaddle, some need to stand up against it. I’m not arguing for the benefit of the person I’m speaking against, but for the listeners.
Again, without an opposing view the undecided listeners start thinking we should study “Both sides of”, Evolution, Holocaust, Immunizations & Equal Rights.
” So you are unlikely to change their minds with rational arguments.”
This just isn’t true. every ex-believer I know was ultimately persuaded by rationality. You may not convince everyone, but you will convince some.
This is the beauty of humanity. Lies in religions are not absolute, for to each is truth.
A person in humanity has his right in whatsover he chooses, apart from breaking laws in the country he lives in.
Feelings apart from human “spaghetti” can never be a reliable judgement.
I agree with Bill.
I haven’t seen any of those from littlewren yet.
Sunny Day
It is clear by the tone of your posts that this is a very emotion-charged debate for you; I’d like to recognise that.
To get straight to the point I would like to say that I am in favour of open discussion on any topic, which is why I am here.
Emotions such as fear and anger can cause us to lose intellectual honesty. This is not a battle. This is just a chat. If I understand the term ‘intellectual filter’ to mean the ability to apply the rules of rational thinking to my experiences, then I think mine are ok. Unlike many of the people commenting here, it seems, I have never believed Christian mythology or dogma as being literally true. Nor do I live in a part of the world where there is imminent danger from religious nuts threatening to destroy my way of life, so maybe that is why I am a bit more chilled about it.
I want to return to the original question, in order that I might put these most recent (and apparently far more interesting) comments into context.
The question was, where is the “quantifiable, measurable, testable evidence that god exists”? So you all start slinging mud at Christianity. Big deal. As I said, that seems to me the intellectual equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel. I had that pretty sorted when I was nine. Move on.
But it seems you are not ready to move on because you are one angry brother. And this has caused you to get stuck justifying a mode of inquiry that is (for now at least) not up to the task of moving on.
Forget about the Christians for a while will you? Are you looking for evidence of god still? What is god? Have you got a theory of your own? Why aren’t we talking about that?
I suspect we are not talking about it because the conversation would reveal that scientific method, as it exists today, only gets you so far since you are asking questions specifically about what, if anything, lies beyond the physical senses.
So it seems to me we have abandoned the original question, and are content to settle for telling Christians how silly they are. So in that case let me try to explain again why I think it is better to focus on freedom, rather than truth.
If you meet a Christian (or a member of any other religion) in the street and they want to talk to you about god, by all means, speak your mind. And maybe, try not to add to the agro that fuels destructive conflict. I just don’t think that approach is going to save you from a malevolent religious regime.
If you wish to defend yourself against the serious threat that fundamentalists, extremists and evangelists pose to your freedom, you can try to do it by convincing them one by one. Go ahead. I don’t think you will succeed and here are just some of the reasons why. The people who stop believing, they have their minds open enough to let in other voices. As long as there are other voices around, they will hear them. Yours is one of them and I am glad to hear it. (I NEVER told you to shut up.) But the people whose minds are not open, they will not listen. I fear there are plenty of them. So while you are metaphorically door knocking for science, the problem continues to loom large.
And it is an urgent problem. Another reason that relying on science won’t work is because I suspect there are people running theses religions who have very non-spiritual agendas indeed. They sure don’t care about your rational arguments. You can stand there with all your scientific journals, but if they get into power, they’re just going to throw you in jail. You need to protect the freedom that allows you to continue with your scientific inquiry, is what I am saying. Your right to freedom precedes any other argument that you may care to get into. This seems to me like your strongest defense.
We all need that freedom, the freedom to ask stupid questions and the freedom to try out crazy answers. Yes we do. I am worried that you are so angry at Christians that you will close your mind to questions, close your mind to possibilities, and to the good things that may come from contemplating the question of god. I am worried that your anger spills out onto innocent bystanders like me. Maybe I am wrong, and we should all go out shouting the ultimate supremacy of scientific method from the rooftops. It just sounds to me like a prelude to gunfire.
littlewren wrote:
There’s something to what littlewren asks. The problem that I think they (I can’t/won’t assume a he/she) are getting at lies with the framing of the original question. If I may be so bold, let me fill in the blanks of that question:
“Where is the [objective axiomatic] evidence of [the generally-held christian versions of a] [g]od?”
It seems pretty obvious to me that Noorlander was asking about the specific christian triune gods (OT Yahweh/”holy spirit”/NT Jesus) as mentioned in the OP:
This is most likely because that was the basis of his prior god-concept, is most likely the basic god-concept of most of the current and ex-believers discussing the question here (please correct me if I’m wrong) so it’s not unsurprising to me that the christian gods are those that are under general consideration here.
As an atheist, I don’t have a definition of a god: I can only reply and comment on those god-concepts previously defined and asserted.
For example, if someone is going to be all Spinoza-esque and call the cosmos “god” then I’ll probably not disagree about the existence of such, but I might make the point that using the arguably loaded label of “god” (with it’s various ethnocentric biases) doesn’t help anyone and only confuses the issue, and nobody comes away with any better idea than that which they approached the discussion with.
However, making the point that “god” is an almost meaningless term without a concrete conceptual referent as littlewren has done and taking the conversation off on a different tangent could (and I’m not saying it is) be seen as simply dodging the issue.
If we can assume, and I think we safely can, that the god-concept under discussion is the christian triune gods, then to ask for evidence of the claims that christians make with regards to these gods is a legitimate point.
It’s a legitimate point because, in various places in the world, there are those who call themselves “christians” (and this goes for any number of other religions too, but they don’t appear to be under discussion here) who claim some sort of special-only-available-to-them knowledge (John C’s pointless esoteric blabbering being an excellent example) that their “god” exists, what their god “is” but also what it “wants”, and they then consider themselves qualified to tell the rest of us (those who don’t consider ourselves “christians”, or even the same flavour of “christian”) what we should and should not do, what we can do with our genitals, what gender of person we should have feelings for, how we should treat and punish those who break the rules set out in their holy writ (or, as we non-christians see it, unsubstantiated story books) and how we are otherwise supposed to act, based on nothing that the rest of us can see but the claims of a collection of old stories.
Stories that are otherwise unsubstantiated, despite the extraordinary claims they make with no evidence whatsoever, despite the self-congratulatory navel-gazing vainglory of their “theologians”, despite the fact that these people have no right to use their superstitions to make demands of the rest of us.
If they have arguments for society that we all can appreciate (in other words, “secular”) then let them make them. If they insist on referring to their superstitions, then before the rest of us accept them at face value, they’d better back up their claims with tangible evidence that anyone can evaluate, without having to make claims to “special knowledge”, without having to spend decades studying their scriptures and apologetics, and without simply asserting their claims as “true” simply by fiat.
littlewren also suggests that we “move on”, which is nothing more than presumptuous hubris. Those of us who are not christians here are more than likely to have already “moved on”, either having been christians and since rejected the idea, or never having been christians in the first place, having found their claims inadequate and wanting in the first place.
I’m not sure what the “good things” are that you think can come from “contemplating the question of god”, nor even what the “question” nor the “god” that you mention are supposed to mean, but then suggesting that supporting rational enquiry and that considering the ever-increasingly useful and self-correcting knowledge gained by implementing the scientific method rather than deferring to “answers” supplied by the self-absorbed certainty of pious theology and effete non-answers of theistic “spirituality” would be a “prelude to gunfire” is the most repellent and offensive of alarmist bullshit.
Why not go the whole hog and simply call us dogmatic militant fundamentalist atheists?
I am having trouble understanding your words. There are abstract beliefs with no referent, like god, love and justice. But there are real referents for the activity of love and justice.
So, you are saying that you cannot point to anything that is love, god or justice, is that right? But you can point to, for instance, someone doing something out of love or justice?
It is not clear to me how god is different in this case. How do we know an action is born out of love or justice, and not expedience or self-preservation? It seems to me we must accept an individual’s interpretation, so if they say, “God inspired me” that would have the same validity.
“…our highly abstract concepts are so distorted there is no referent in reality for them.)”
Which highly abstract concepts are you refering to here, and what do you mean by them being distorted, and do you mean that the act of distorting them destroys the referent, or that distorted abstract concepts have no referent….?
“So the statement ‘”God” “loves” me’ is a nonsense statement, because the abstract words have no reference in the process universe. [Which he does NOT say is limited to what we can perceive with our senses.]”
I am afraid I don’t understand that statement at all. Are you simply saying “there is nothing you can point to that says god exists, so it is nonsense to refer to god”? If the process universe is not limited to what we can perceive with our senses, how do we know there is no referent for god? Or does that misrepresent what you were trying to say? I am genuinely confused, and if you are still hanging around this post, I would really appreciate clarification.
It seems you’re saying nay to any sort of intellectual filter, the same thing that stops me from believing in the existence of Enma or acting as if I must be a brain in a jar.
In my case, you were naysaying the value in actively confronting and rebutting the beliefs of others.
Rude or not, active confrontation works. It certainly did in my case.
I don’t follow. Please explain.
Yes.
“And I’ve never been happier.”
QFT
Congratulations on your amazing path, Janet. I like your definition of ‘spirit filled’.
I would like to know what evidence there is against any kind of conscious god. I think that would be an intersting conversation.
I don’t know if I would associate christian beliefs with childish things though, since that does an enourmous diservice to children. They usually have their balance of scepticism and imagination well in hand, unless adults come and mess with their heads.
JoshF – How can you believe in evolution and the bible? The bible clearly states that the earth was created in 6 days. It even provides all the “begats” – the geneology after Adam and Eve. Even if you say that a “day” could represent thousands of years, it still doesn’t explain it because we are talking about 13.7 BILLION YEARS. I appreciate that you are trying to incorporate rationality into faith, but they are always in conflict. Unless you do not believe the bible, in which case I’m not sure how you call yourself a christian.
You are not without witnesses and in all humanity you are not alone, except for extremism, that’s a different story.
I feel now that I was “spiritually blind” when I was trying so hard to be a good christian. Now I think I might have figured out what “spirit” means. For me, it refers to good mental, physical, and emotional health; brain chemistry (“feel-good” hormones) in good working order; good relationships with others; self-love with humility; living with love and integrity; giving to others (but making sure that I am also nurtured); balance; a love of mystery in the universe; laughter. This is what “spirituality” means to me now. When I was a christian, I never got it. Never felt anything – but couldn’t tell anyone that. It is good to be free.
I’m curious: what happens to all the non-baptized babies that went there before the re-write?
You go, Janet!
“Christians don’t get along with facts.”
I am not saying it has no value. I am saying it won’t stop the crazy folk from trying to take away your freedom. Do you think the Jews could have stopped the Nazis with rational debate?
I would not have credited that I could come in for so much criticism for supporting the notion of freedom for all.
Oooga boooga.
Or some such.
Hi littlewren – thanks for your comment.
The idea of a conscious god does not make sense to me. I have read most of the bible, and this was enough to convince me that the bible itself is not true. But the idea of a god, in any form, is another issue. I do not believe “he” exists, but if “he” does, he certainly is not a god of love.
There are a lot of arguments in favor of there not being a god – and like I’ve said, many authors have covered the high points. Here is one website that encapsulizes some of the arguments:
http://www.dpjs.co.uk/god.html#Suffering
Thanks Janet, will take a look.
[VidLord said:] Just wanted to point out that an omnipotent being would not have a gender. Surprised they didn’t teach you that yet. Not only that but an omnipotent being would not have human emotions, as is prevalent in the bible. [/VidLord]
Says who? I’m not agreeing or disagreeing, but you seem to be insisting he accept this as prima facie true when it most assuredly is not.
VidLord, really? Was that called for? I asked you a reasonable question. Didn’t realize I’d hit some kind of sore spot… assumed we were trying to avoid presuppositions here.
And yes, I think it’s reasonable to think that a being that is all-knowing might have emotions.
Maybe show me WHY you think it’s so idiotic rather than berating me? I mean, it’d save time and space, and would reflect better on your intellect to avoid personal attacks. I learned somewhere that people think you’re out of material when you go there.
Thanks.
Wow, well there was a lot of discussion while I was gone it seems. Sorry for taking so long to reply, I’ve got way too many papers due for school these days. I think in my reply I’m going to skip most of the middle debate, try answering some of the questions pointed at me, and move on with where I left off.
First off, I think the context of this discussion is useful, we are simply continuing a discussion that has been going on for ages and ages, I do tend to stick to other people’s thoughts and opinions, but that is simply because I think there are a great deal of people who have done more research, more thinking, and have come to better conclusions than I have, or possibly will. Anything I think, say or post, is simply a step by me in a direction, my thoughts and opinions are constantly evolving and changing. I would hesitantly say that this seems to be a good thing, and hence, it is the main reason why I call this a discussion, or dialect (new word I learned from Barth, not sure if I spelled it right).
First off, Markbey- your questions are good and very valid, they are dealt with very specifically in Philosophy of Religion, the hiddeness of god thing again. If I had more time I would point you to some articles I read, in lieu of that, maybe google could find you something, at the moment I admit I am too lazy to look. Maybe I’ll get back to this at a later date.
Secondly, Vidlord – they did teach me that most theologians/philosophers don’t think of god as having any particular wiring down there. But this is a large can of worms. We postulate that god has no gender or emotions mostly because of the platonic model for thinking about ….”it” (whatever makes you happy). The omnis do not necessitate any kind of physical description or lack of one, which is what I think James was saying. You have an excellent point about us making “it” in our own image though. This relates to the “biology” of god, because most religions actually portray god as having gender of sorts. Christianity is the most interesting example here because they teach that god became a man, that Jesus was fully man and fully god. Therefore the christian god, did have a penis(circumcised at that) and emotions, and since the mainstream christian church believes in bodily resurrection, then one member of the trinity currently has a gender, and emotions. Now to briefly return to the emotive aspect of god, it is a good question, and again christian theology has the most interesting answer. They would say that it relates to the Imago Dei, or the image of god, which basically teaches that we are like, in some way, god. Therefore, emotions exist in us because they exist in god. Now there are all sorts of interesting points here about biology, and what do emotions and gender mean, etc… but I’m not getting in to it. As to your third point, yes, the great philosophers do, but I’m reading Barth these days, and it’s his theory, not mine. (and I’m probably not doing justice to his ideas anyway)
Back to my main point, I left off by saying that, no, I don’t think anyone has “evidence” of god. But I think it is interesting to look at what we mean by evidence. I finished reading the section on Barth, and was a little disappointed because Barth seems quite clear that he has very little interest in apologetics. This seems to be his most reactionary position to the 19th century scholastic free for all. Remember, we had all these philosophers and theologians trying to deal with Kant and Hegel, including, Kant and Hegel, who both postulated their own arguments for the existence of god, despite their own critical work. So coming into the twentieth century, Barth goes out and writes his Church Dogmatics, the very title an affront to the nineteenth century scholasticism.
I was right in saying that his big point was revelation, but I was wrong in saying he was the first to split it into the categories of “special” and “general.” Sorry about that. Talking to one of my proffs, Barth didn’t actually like the idea of general revelation. Interestingly, Barth didn’t follow the 19th century trend, in systematic theology, of starting with some kind of argument, metaphysical or otherwise, for god. He completely disagreed with this approach because (and here is my interpretation) to start from natural theology is to put god in box. Barth was christocentric in a sense, not jesuscentric, thus avoiding the dillema of the historical jesus. He started from the ASSUMPTION that jesus was the christ, and therefore the fullness of the gospel, or the heart of the christian theology, could be found in christ’s existence and the central aspects of his story, i.e. the birth, life, death, and resurrection. (Barth was fine with textual criticism to a point, accepted miracles etc…)
Now I know this isn’t evidence, and that Barth started from an assumption etc.. you don’t need to tell me that his reasoning could be the same for any religion, that the bible is mythical, etc… The reason I’m talking about it is that it relates to my question of what evidence could look like. I think it’s interesting that Barth threw out natural theology. If a god existed, can we reach “it” (just for you VidLord) through philosophy, or any other type of reasoning?
Now that line of thought leads me to ponder my own epistemology, similar to Descarte’s evil demon theory. It seems here that we could simply use Occam’s razor and say that if we can’t know, we can’t know. It seems that if natural theology is thrown out, then the only other way to know anything about god would be to look at anyone claiming to be god, or be from god. I know there are plenty of claims to both.
I’m not sure where these thoughts are leading, but I thought they were interesting and possibly relevant. If I have time I will try and find some more interesting authors to comment about. Till then let the discussion continue. (Thanks Ty, I hope this post is a little easier to read)
James – sorry to berate you. You’re right, not the best way to approach a logical argument. If you believe the creator of all there is can get angry then by all means feel free to do so.
random thoughts – “Christianity is the most interesting example here because they teach that god became a man, that Jesus was fully man and fully god. Therefore the christian god, did have a penis(circumcised at that) and emotions, and since the mainstream christian church believes in bodily resurrection, then one member of the trinity currently has a gender, and emotions.”
Thanks for the reply. Many Muslims I know abhor the idea of the almighty God becoming a lowly human being. This to them is the most repulsive idea of Christianity a the most valid example of why Christianity is total nonsense.
Think about it, can you imagine the creator of the entire universe, uncountable stars and galaxies, life on earth and all the beauty of nature… having wet dreams at the age of 12? Or having a scratchy voice at the age of 14? Or lusting after an attractive female? Or crying for any reason at all? Was he not human?
http://www.livestrong.com/article/12464-wet-dreams/
Kinda funny to think of it in those terms isn’t it? The creator of the universe crying? The maker of everything stubbing his toe. Not to mention he was for a time a disciple of another human being – John the baptist. Maybe John taught him the ropes and how to lead people?
It is natural for us humans to think of god as us…after all, what else can we imagine?
“markbey] i would also think it would mean that a noticably higher number of christians would stay married than other religions, but of course that is not the case, christians in this country get civorced just as much as anyone else.
[James] Setting aside the speciousness of your claim (unless you have a link to your data, which isn’t really all that important), someone (it may have been Howitzer) already sort of answered this, inadvertently. ”
Here’s you link: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistfamiliesmarriage/a/AtheistsDivorce.htm
Christians actually get divorced at a higher rate than atheists according to a conservative chirtian study by the Barna Research Group. BTW – the point IS actually important.
“We’ll have to play semantics here, but there are a lot of self-identifying Christians who don’t know a damned thing about Christ, and don’t make any tangible effort to follow the things he taught”
Wow – you may have set a record for the number of words used to express the “not a true christian” argument.
Want to take a shot at answering my original question?
Got Evidence?
Bill, yeah, sorry for being verbose. I defer to their “not truly following Christ’s teachings” as my argument. But I disagree that the marriage thing is relevant.
As far as evidence? I suppose not quantifiable, bag-n-tag evidence, no. I’ve never seen him, he never left a note or a fingerprint on anything.
I am curious, though, as to whether you believe anything can be true or real that’s not material, and empirically verifiable. Seems to me there are different kinds of knowledge that point to truth, and to insist that everything be put in front of you in a spreadsheet is a peculiar and futile form of controlling the elements of a universe that’s too complex for us to fully understand.
So, can immaterial things be real/true? Of course they can, and of course you know they can, right?
” It helps to ask nicely. You’ve done nothing but berate and ridicule these gentlemen without offering anything of substance in return. ”
mark: What exactly are you talking about. I usually ask question that apply directly to the extraordinary claims of Christians.
I have ridiculed folks though I admit. But that is specifically in response to rebutted answers and statements that believers act like they don’t see.
For instance. I have read statements such as ” god is love” from Christians.
When I and others ask what do Christians base that statement Christians who have god on their side refuse to answer.
Under those circumstance I will ridicule non sense from believers. Also its a free Internet I can ask any question I want.
“So, can immaterial things be real/true? Of course they can, and of course you know they can, right?”
1. You aren’t using the word immaterial correctly here. I think you mean non-material.
2. Realness and trueness are two different concerpts.
3. 2 + 2 = 4 is a true statement, but it’s an expression of an idea. It’s not real in the sense that it exists (except as ink on a page.)
4. Things are real if they actually exist, like oh say a tree. There is measurable evidence for things that are real. That’s why we have measurable evidence of trees but not of dragons.
5. If your argument is that god is real, you should be able to produce measurable evidence of his existence. If your argument is that god is true, then you have conceded he is a man made idea and you have yet to prove why he is true. Even if you could prove the “trueness” of the idea of god you haven’t come close to proving god is real.
Bill, I want to be you when I grow up.
“Bill, I want to be you when I grow up.”
I appreciate the thought, but you don’t want to be me.
I’m an atheist, which means I lack morals.
Plus it’s really hard to find a fresh supply of babies to eat.
; – )
I read on your blog that you have four. I assume this is to keep a supply ready for feasting.
I don’t eat babies though. I eat evangelicals.
I also lack morality, which according to John C may in fact mean that I am god.
Well if you are god, please let me know asap. I’m guessing there actually is tangible evidence of your existence!
James: “Says who? I’m not agreeing or disagreeing, but you seem to be insisting he accept this as prima facie true when it most assuredly is not.”
So you think an omnipotent being, for whom nothing is a challenge, would have human emotions do ya? You must also believe said being would have hunger, curiosity, and jealousy? Maybe the omnipotent god is just like us ya think? Possibly because we invented him? Why don’t you think before you post something here. Use your brain a little.
I think the divorce rates mentioned at from the Barna Research Group (an evangelical christian organisation) in 2004.
This is in answer to nullifidian. I don’t know why there is no reply button next to your comment…
“prelude to gunfire” is the most repellent and offensive of alarmist bullshit.
Why not go the whole hog and simply call us dogmatic militant fundamentalist atheists?’
Sorry about that; you are probably right. Emotions can cause us to lose intellectual honesty, and there is your example. I was tired and wanted to finish. I regretted the last line after I posted but there was nothing I could do about it. I sincerely apologise if I offended you. I won’t try to defend the inappropriately emotive nature of the words I used, but if I may try to offer a calmer version of what I was trying to say it would be something like; if you don’t respect the rights of others to believe what they choose, there is a danger that it will lead to very destructive conflict.
I haven’t followed the link to find out more about dogmatic militant fundamentalist atheists. It did make me chuckle though. I don’t know if that is what you are, but I do wonder what people like Sunny Day think about the principle of freedom for all. I don’t think anyone has addressed this and I find that curious. I tried to make the distinction, perhaps not clearly enough, between the many believers who go quietly about their religious practice, harming no one, (perhaps you don’t agree there is such a thing as a harmless believer?) and those who pose a threat to your freedom.
It is quite right to say I have nothing to add to a debate between atheists and Christians. Maybe I could come up with some new point but it hardly seems worthwhile: I would just point to all the other stuff that has been discussed here and elsewhere and sign it QED.
That doesn’t stop me from wondering about god, and that is what I meant by moving on with the question. If we can’t find evidence to back up other people’s theories, then can we come up with our own?
‘It seems pretty obvious to me that Noorlander was asking about the specific christian triune gods’
Indeed, and I mentioned elsewhere that that fact had escaped me before I began to comment. My mistake. Certainly the discussion would have been far more intellectually taxing, and from my point of view at least, far more interesting, if it weren’t limited to the Christian idea of god.
As for what is good about discussing the question of god, well, I think that you have demonstrated this. I would have thought that honest inquiry into any honest question was a ‘good’ in itself from the rational standpoint. As to the meaning of the terms ‘god’ and ‘question’ in this case, more on that below.
‘However, making the point that “god” is an almost meaningless term without a concrete conceptual referent as littlewren has done and taking the conversation off on a different tangent could (and I’m not saying it is) be seen as simply dodging the issue.’
I am not sure that ‘god’ is a meaningless term because it has no concrete conceptual referent, because I don’t know what a concrete conceptual referent is. It sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. That notwithstanding, I am not trying to dodge the issue of scientific evidence for the Christian god, as I said, I thought that was quite enough done. So perhaps it is a different tangent. It seems to me a logical offshoot of a question that has been settled, and this is where I originally hoped I might learn something.
“For example, if someone is going to be all Spinoza-esque and call the cosmos “god” then I’ll probably not disagree about the existence of such, but I might make the point that using the arguably loaded label of “god” (with it’s various ethnocentric biases) doesn’t help anyone and only confuses the issue, and nobody comes away with any better idea than that which they approached the discussion with.”
This is an example of the kind of thing I had hoped to discuss. If it is an unwelcome tangent, then I shall bow out gracefully. It is interesting to me that the label ‘god’ is loaded, as you say. Perhaps it is a fair comment that it confuses the issue. Can we not, for the purposes of this inquiry, leave aside the emotionally charged connotations and ethnocentric biases? I am intrigued by the idea that god and the cosmos might be synonymous. I wonder how we are going to apply scientific method to that theory? I wonder if there is a different mode of inquiry that we could use to proceed? Is there no value in comparing and reflecting on subjective experience?
I didn’t come here to make fun of anyone’s beliefs or ideas. I didn’t come here to push any of my ideas as irrefutable truths, but to humbly submit them for the consideration of others who may have different or similar ideas, or who may know stuff that I don’t, or who have thought about it more clearly than I.
As it is, I think I am no more likely to do that than I am to go down to the local church and discuss my sex life with a priest. Sorry, maybe that was inflammatory too. At least I am not calling anyone names. (Although I found some of the names I have read here highly entertaining, I don’t think they are wise or helpful.)
One thing I notice whenever I encounter atheists is that they are angry, angry, angry. I have a certain amount of empathy for this, but I think it is regrettable none the less. Anger closes the mind. So in closing I say, without any reference to any deity, may you go in peace.
Did you just Godwin yourself? You should avoid that.
And how is what I said a rebuttal off freedom for all?
You can belief any silly thing you like. And I am free to point and laugh.
Ain’t freedom grand?
Ty: (re comment below. can’t work out this reply system sometimes. apologies)
I may well have done. What does it mean, godwin? Will it hurt?
I am quite happy for you to point and laugh, Ty. I sometimes laugh at myself. No shortage of opportunities there!
I don’t go much on smileys but here is one just for you. :)
Vid…didnt you say that you were in the process of earning a degree in theology/divinity? Did I get that right?
VidLord
“I assume your point is that the little clump of neurons we call our brains is incapable of imagining certain things, especially when it concerns god.”
I was trying to illustrate that I think it is rational to bear in mind the limitations of our *present system of scientific inquiry*, as distinct from what the human mind may or may not be capable of. I understand that there remains a great deal that science has yet to explain about our own grey matter.
“…it is our own ego and insecurity about this insignificance that causes religion to flourish.”
This may be true, but I think it is worth remembering that the same can be said for some people’s blind faith in science and indeed in many other ‘authorities’. Not that I don’t want science to flourish. On the contrary.
It seems to me that a lack of scientific evidence does not constitute an end to the inquiry, unless you feel that the outcome of scientific method (so far) represents the whole truth.
I am thinking now of a little boy I knew who died of cancer. The doctors told his mother repeatedly that there was nothing wrong with him, while she ‘knew’ in the absence of any scientific evidence, that there was. Viewed dispassionately, this was indeed a very sad and unfortunate situation. I understand enough about the worldly issues surrounding it to refrain from apportioning blame. I have no reason to believe the doctors were not well-meaning and competent, and, as it turns out, they would have been unable to help him in any case. But some of the doctors were dismissive, even disrespectful towards the mother because they did not accept her ‘evidence’ which was nothing more than her understanding of her own experiences.
I have noticed mention of placebo effect on another thread. I have also heard that scientists now have reason to believe that a person’s physical and emotional (and one might possibly also suppose mental) experiences can affect the very structure of their DNA. Woo woo indeed.
How are we, as human beings, *really* interacting with the world? The cosmos? How is it really interacting with us? I think it is unfortunate to dismiss the evidence of personal experience as ‘subjective’, as though our personal experience was of no value. Elsewhere it is written: “… in [the] fight between *all the evidence in the world, all the testimony, data, observations, logic and what society holds to be true, all the diversity of what other people think and say and do* v *your own belief*, your own belief has to win.”
Well, yes. How else are you going to live? I call it being true to myself, and I think scientists and priests, not to mention teachers, doctors and countless other authorities collectively have a lot to answer for in their contribution to undermining the individual’s belief in him or herself. In the material world, you can bet if I break my leg, I am going straight to the doctor. Believing in yourself doesn’t necessarily make you stupid. But there is a very wide area of grey where it is up to me to choose between a great deal of conflicting information, and possibly a whole other region where simply no one but me has the answer.
Many people understand what they think of as their relationship with god as an intensely personal experience. If we can set aside ‘religion’ which I understand to be ‘theories of god’, and look at people’s *experiences* I think we would do well to keep our minds open until such time as we have an explanation that satisfies. For me, as yet, the lack of ‘quantifiable, measurable, testable evidence’ does not.
JC – nope never said that. How do you get a degree in divinity? lol Good to see you’re still around. You provide welcome balance here.
Sorry…I was mistaken. I remember someone earlier today saying that, thought it might be you…my bad.
I think comments can only be nested ‘so’ deep (whatever that means) hence the lack of “reply” button. But I appreciate the reply.
FWIW I do appreciate the more measured response, and agree with your point, if not with the language you used, which I understand may have been emotive.
If you’re interested, the link I presented (which you said you didn’t follow, but it seems that you did if I’m interpreting you as it seems you did) was to a (admittedly self-drawn) cartoon highlighting the difference (as we atheists see it) between a “tolerable” atheist and a “fundamentalist, etc.” atheist (the difference being that the “fundamentalist, etc.” atheist says “prove it” rather than keeping mum.
I, and I’m sure many other atheists, have no problem with people holding whatever (to anyone else’s reckoning) bizarre or weird beliefs they want or feel the need to.
However, as I hope my previous comment pointed out, it’s when they try to use those as reasons to enforce their unsubstantiated beliefs on everyone else, that’s when I an those like me have an issue. This is where things go beyond the “your fist/end of my nose” demarcation point.
Sure. I have no problem with this at all. However, it’s a red herring as per the original discussion point, and clearly something for an alternative discussion. Perhaps you should ask Daniel for your own guest post spot?
Ok, imagine the question was about a “shoe”. Each culture (and even subculture) has an idea as to what a “shoe” is, but in general we can almost all, as a species and inasmuch as we understand such things, agree what the idea of a “shoe” represents: a covering for the foot; a protective sole, etc. At least, it is if anyone has any idea as to what a “shoe” is, even if that’s not their word for it.
However, the idea of a “god” is not even vaguely universal, except, perhaps, from the claim of being “better” or at least “different” than the generalities of humankind (even the otherwise semi-mortal demigods of the ancient Greeks were “better” than even the most heroic of “merely-mortal” Greek heroes, and who knows how many animistic gods there are?). If one wants to argue the existence of a specific god, one needs to posit more properties and attributes, and with far greater precision that any that I can see have done so far, than just “better/more/different than I can comprehend”.
It seems that approximately 80% of the human population of this planet have not “settled” such a matter. Personally I think this is a cause for concern given my previous response. If you think the matter is settled to your satisfaction, good for you (as it appears to be for me also, at least until they can come up with actual evidence, rather than simple edictal claims). But, again, it diverges from the OP. Hell, I offer you a guest spot on my blog if you want it. :-)
As I would mention, this is probably not the thread for it, having a specific purpose (from a specific guest poster with a specific question). That’s not to say that the question isn’t interesting (myself, I’m obscenely fascinated by people’s spiritual beliefs, even though I have nothing like that myself—perhaps because I have nothing like that.)
I think your questions (albeit without clarification) are, on the face of it, interesting, but again: here isn’t the right venue. At least not right now (topic, yadda, yadda).
In an unasked answer to your question, I’m not angry per se unless there is a desire to enact religious (or in fact any ideological) limitation on myself that I don’t choose for myself (and even if I do, I’ll argue against it if other people do—”do unto others”, etc. as the christians would supposedly have it.)
However, considering the de-conversion stories I’ve seen (again, an interest of mine, for equally perverse reasons) I’m not surprised that anger is an issue: what I very often see is people who have been subjected to lies, deceit, coercion, hypocrisy, pressure and who-knows how many other underhanded tactics to attempt to control their behaviour, all in the name of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving “god” that none of them have seen yet have been convinced exists by their “elders and betters”, and usually those that they trust the most.
Getting back to the core topic, I offer up this:
Sam Harris (who I appreciate for being able to get to the core of a matter without hyperbole very quickly, although not necessarily without offense to some) observed at the Aspen Ideas Festival 2007:
VidLord, Jesus also said to one of the two thieves crucified with him–whom he had just met–”today, you will be with me in paradise.” I don’t know for sure, but it seems as though a just god (which is what [we] Christians posit) would have a plan for dealing with those who never had the opportunity to know. (one of the many reasons I reject much of Catholic doctrine)
When he talked about baptism, Jesus was of course talking to people who *had* heard, and had an ability to make a rational, personal decision one way or the other. Not to mention that the line I think you’re referring to only says that those who don’t believe will be condemned, not those who aren’t baptized.
Just trying to show that there’s not really an incongruity there.
Thanks very much for your comments.
There is so much I could say, but I am starting to feel like I have taken up enough space.
It is really late here now, and I have been ‘on the turps’ as we say; the party is going on without me, so you’ll forgive me for not hanging around to do justice to what promises to be an intersting read in the morning.
Just the words ‘dogmatic militant fundamentalist atheists’ made me chuckle. I looked at your cartoon later. You have given me an insight into what it is like to be in the shoes of an atheist and having people tell you to shut up, or imply it in their reaction, so I am a little less surprised at the responses some of my comments solicited.
I didn’t think you sounded all that angry.
By the way, I meant before that if you push your ideas onto others, (specifically atheist against extremist) they are going to want to shoot you (since they appear to be the ones with all the guns, and you’d be very vulneralbe on a roof top I should think) not that it necessarily makes you the sort of person to shoot at others.
I don’t know if that makes it any better.
This is why John Lennon sang “Imagine” and not “measure, test and justify”.
The problem isn’t that the scientific method is the end-all and be-all of knowing things that will always give us answers, but that there is no indication that any other way gives us knowledge about reality.
(Case in point: what about all the other parents who denied what was happening to their child and watched them die, despite what the doctors said and with viable treatment available?)
Yoo
I disagree that there is no other way than science to know about reality. The mother of the sick and dying child knew there was something seriously wrong with him without any scientific or medical knowledge. She knew about the fact of his illness without having any knowledge of how or why. As it happens, the scientific evidence was there, but it was for a time unavailable.
I have heard about examples of your ‘case in point’. What of it?
I would like to see some evidence that some method other than the scientific method is a good way to gain knowledge about reality. I don’t think it would be easy, considering that the scientific method is basically “check your knowledge against reality”, but if you have any other method that really is divorced from having to be checked against reality …
It means your example of parents knowing better is a crappy one.
And he never sang “My squid wears a Orange Hat.”
Wow, you must really know the mind of God and/or Jesus! Are you by any chance either of them?
John – I agree that being “rich” means people who are content, happy, at peace, and know how to experience joy. All things that I gained when I discarded christianity. I’m glad you’re happy – but it’s probably not because you are christian. People are happy when their neurological hormones are happy. Resentment, issues from the past we refuse to deal with, anger, fear, and guilt prevent us from being obtaining good mental health. Christianity told me I was a sinner from birth – born bad. I no longer believe that – it’s a sick foundation for living. People who believe they are bad tend to act that way. If we believe we are good, we act that way. It’s a self-fulfilling prophesy. Christianity is like a mad scientist who creates a disease so that he can make a ton of money on the antidote. Christianity gives us the “problem” (we are sinful, fallen, evil!) and the solution (believe in the lord jesus christ with all your heart, might….etc etc etc – depends on where you look in the bible – salvation can be belief, repentance, works, combination, nobody’s really sure). I don’t believe in original sin, so I don’t need a saviour. Thank “god” for that.
As a matter of fact, and in a certain way…yes I am, errh He is…in me.
And He wants to be the same in and thru you.
Love, is there anything else?
“Love, is there anything else?”
Yes.
Saith John: ‘God is “all in all” and if God is Love (1 Jn 4:16) then Love is really all there is…’
No. And I find it self-righteously sick to assert that “Love is really all there is…” when very clearly there are many who (regardless of faith, class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, height, weight, eye color, personal tastes, etc. etc. etc.) suffer horribly.
You keep talking about what “god” wants, what “god” is, and I’ve yet to see any real addressing of—no, not the problem of ‘evil’ per se, but—the problem of horrible, pointless, sterile, ugly, prolonged suffering. Amorphous twaddle about your feel-good “god” is is about as convincing as any two-bit Top 40 song about love. To those in love all things are lovely, so they say. Well, take those lovebirds to Lagos someday, or Manila, or any number of places like, say, the Sudan. Spend a day in the shoes of a woman whose husband and children have been butchered like pigs in front of her just before she’s been gang raped.
Your “god” is “love”, eh, and “love is all there is”. I didn’t buy it when the Beatles sang it, either, so I’m surely not going to buy it from someone who sounds like he’s high on MDMA half the time.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m happy for you in a dismissive kind of way. It’s the same kind of dismissiveness I have for rich people who think those in poverty just need to work harder, or for those yahoos who think that self-help books are all you really need for your depression.
But what do I know? Maybe you’re like this because some terribly trauma destroyed you at some point and this is how you cope. If so, I am truly sorry. But I still can’t stomach another minute of what feels to me to be insufferable god-soppy treacle and pablum.
[I knew there was a reason I'd stopped reading this thread.]
God is “all in all” and if God is Love (1 Jn 4:16) then Love is really all there is…
or did he?
In Imagine John Lennon sings (and I paraphrase) ‘imagine no religion, no heaven, no hell’. I should have thought you’d approve. But I guess you aren’t around any more.
1. Have “holy” book that says stuff.
2. See how things in the universe (e.g., trees, sheep) are also in said “holy” book.
3. ????(wtf)???
4. Prophet!
@JK Jones – what evidence are you referring to? Do you think atheists can’t appreciate a beautiful sunset, or the amazing way our bodies work, or the fact that planets spin around in the universe with nothing holding them up? Of course we notice these things. But I don’t subscribe to the following argument:
1. Things exist. Some are pretty cool.
2. Therefore, god exists.
3. therefore, christianity (or insert other religion here) is true.
Religion has always tried to stifle knowledge about the universe. It is science that has tried to understand without an agenda. It used to be that religious people would look in amazement at a storm and believe that god was punishing them or demonstrating his power. Now we know how weather systems work. It used to be that religious people attributed mental illness or epilepsy to demon possession. They were positive aboiut this. What other evidence do you need that god/the devil exists? Well, turns out that there is a scientific explanation for that too. The church fought the idea that the world was round – because the bible assumes a flat earth. Every time there was a new scientific discovery, the church fought it because it threatened a belief that is based on “holy books” written thousands of years ago rather than the plain truth. The fight between what is true (ie evolution) and what is fantasy (ie creationism) rages on. As science progresses, we will find more and more answers. And religious people will continue to fight it.
“Evidence given by many Christians moves from the things we find in the universe around us and in history to the existence of the Christian God. What more can you ask from a proof?”
Your dodging of the question shows you to be a liar.
I see what you did there. ;-)
“I am not about to get in another running argument on this web site. The last time I did, I had 24 (!) people commenting on what I said. Further, if I failed to address any one small point made by any of them, they all accused me of lying / intellectual dishonesty / basic stupidity. Was not a good experience.”
You’re right its a much more Honest position to claim evidence, provide none, and accuse everyone of ganging up on you.
“Go to my blog (www.jkjonesthinks.blogspot.com). Poke around under the search label “God’s Existence.” Argue with me there. ”
But you claimed your evidence here. You’re obviously not willing to back up your claims. why post them here in the first place?
“As the many references you will find buried in the posts shows,”
You’re unwilling to defend yourself here, but I’m supposed to dig for them in your site? If you can’t even make an argument here why expect you to make them elsewhere?
I get it you’re just trying to drive some site hits… good luck with that.
But you claimed your evidence here. You’re obviously not willing to back up your claims. why post them here in the first place?
I’m sorry you don’t have the integrity to back up your words.
You point me at a scripture filled pile of mush that you use for a website and then tell me to dig for your arguments. This is what you call cogent? You are a laughable moron.
But you claimed your evidence here. You’re obviously not willing to back up your claims. why post them here in the first place?
Oh give us all a break. All those philosophical arguments have been refuted time and time and time again. Now, if you have empirical, scientifically verifiable evidence of God’s existence, please share it.
Took the bait, went to the site read some twaddle.
“1. God is who He is.
2. He has done what He has done.
3. He makes possible logic, rational thought, and science.
4. Jesus is the best teacher and example.
5. Christianity explains the presence of evil.
6. It gives a certain promise of heaven.
7. It changes the world for the better.
8. It leads to joy.
9. It has changed my life.”
I followed the logic, got spun around and around and around, I got off the merry-go-round of logic and Barfed.
“The evidence is real. The arguments are cogent. You are without excuse in your unbelief.”
HA HA HA.
Here’s the thing, Mr. Jones. From my position, “knowledge of the physical world can be nothing more than a generalization from particular instances and can never reach more than a high degree of probability” [source]. The empirical method, the method of science, aims for the highest probability. It does so by never resting on its laurels. For instance, Darwin’s theory of evolution has been worked on for a century and a half, and we know where Darwin was wrong or not entirely right. Science has corrected for Darwin’s errors. Science does the same thing for every branch of knowledge. But those who hold to there being some metaphysical/transcendent capital-t Truth do not provide the sort of evidence that can be falsified, so science can say nothing about it. Only when someone makes a falsifiable claim about something can the scientific method be brought to bear and the result can be tested, studied, considered and recorded.
As for whether or not people are being mature when they decide to write you off, I think it’s important to understand how frustrated a lot of people are, how frustrating people find your arguments. I am not saying that this is necessarily any different than your frustration with those who continue to promote ideas that you feel are disproved. But there is a psycho-social issue at play here, too. Atheists like me (I won’t here speak for anyone else) are surrounded by people who believe in “God/s”, people who feel it is perfectly A-OK to just talk about their beliefs without ever worrying about contradiction. When someone of some faith or another says something about how the theory of evolution is stupid or makes no sense or whatever, they seem genuinely surprised when I contradict them. The surprise comes because they think that everyone else is either like them or is very obviously unlike them. I have been told that I cannot be a moral or good person if I don’t believe in “God”, yet I find murder, rape, genocide, war, theft and lying to be abhorrent. I have a moral sense because that’s how I was raised, and it is how I am helping to raise my step-son. So, my point is that it is very frustrating overall, and I am less inclined to go over the same ontological and epistemological topics time and again when they have no bearing on my everyday life.
Your argument regarding a “First Cause” and “Prime Mover” does not lead necessarily to your “God”. Your arguments that it does are, I found, steeped in sticky, subjective, anecdotal material. They did not convince me, not even on rationalist grounds. It may well be convincing to some large slice of the 33% of Christians in the world, but it is far less likely to convince the remaining 67%.
I mean you no disrespect as a person, but I do not find much to endear me to your beliefs qua beliefs. You come off in your blog as being just as cocksure (in the 16th cent. sense) as any of the snippier atheists here. I don’t see where there’s a way for the impasse to be breached. At the end of the day it’s all just arguments between people on blogs and in books and the price of tea in China is what it is regardless.
If you are going to make any kind of real impact here (or with someone like me), you are going to have to provide straightforward, non-anecdotal, falsifiable arguments that clearly and unequivocally/unambiguously support your assertion that “there must be a Prime Mover” leads ineluctably to “Jesus is Lord”. And, as many have said before, even if you convinced me that you were right, I would then want more than anything to get my hands on Jesus and make him answer for all the horrible, stupid, senseless, hateful crap of the world.
Again, I appreciate how frustrated you must be. Please, I hope that you will try to appreciate just how truly frustrated I am.
Take care, and be well.