The God or Not God Discussion

[Brigit1]

What makes you think that we live in an ordered universe, or a universe that can be understood? Logic and reason are tools. What your foundation?

 

Could it be the idea that there is an almighty rational God who created the universe, and imposed a set of laws for us to discover them. On what other basis would you have a universe guided by a set of laws? I believe the Buddhists concluded that the universe is unpredictable, and cannot be understood.

 

This is a very good point.

[Weezy1973]

I understand. I recommend you just focus on the Bayesian probabilities and not worry about the belief of the individual. The Bayesian probabilities are something objective which you can dissect empirically. It would be as if I, a Christian, were running a RCT. You could study the data very easily without even concerning yourself with my religious affiliation...even if I threw in my christian assumptions into the discussion of the paper. That’s why I thought you would be interested in the exact formulations.

 

So first, I just need to express how much I've enjoyed this discussion with you. It really has pushed me to look at things I hadn't known before, and learning new stuff makes me happy. And also nice to chat with someone so knowledgeable and open to discussing these topics. Also thanks to the OP for opening this thread up to tangents!

 

So, I have looking into Bayes' Theorem, and I still want to study it more, but it is fascinating. The one thing I did notice is that, in regards to the resurrection of Jesus, it seems that Bayes Theorem has been used both to show that the resurrection was probable and also that the resurrection was improbably by others. So basically gets us back to the same point (doesn't it always?).

 

 

No problem, I guess out of this entire discussion I would request you do study these issues. Just a request. I think you are someone that would really benefit from taking a survey of the scholarly work on the historicity of Jesus.

 

I've also started looking into this. I can't say I'll ever study it in depth, but so far the surface research I've done has pretty much confirmed what I already though (possibly confirmation bias on my part). That the only consensus seems to be that Jesus lived, was baptized, taught, and was crucified. So if we want to agree on historical facts, these are the ones we can agree on.

 

But, as always, it does bring more questions, and maybe you can answer them for me.

 

1. Were certain books in the bible written by historians? Or in a fashion that would be consistent with how historians wrote at the time?

 

2. If not, what is the best guess as to the purpose for the authors to write their various books? More specifically, what was the purpose for the authors of the gospels to write those books? Or at least our best guess?

 

 

Good question. One thing to recognize is that Christians should recognize that our knowledge of God increases and changes over time. The bible shows a revelation about God that transpired over many thousands of years. So for example, opinions about how to interpret Genesis are permitted to change. Here is an exert from BioLogos, the thinktank started by Francis Collins:

 

How was the Genesis account of creation interpreted before Darwin? | BioLogos

 

In fact you can see many of the early church fathers wrote volumes on this topic. Augustine wrote a series called “the literal interpretation of Genesis” describing how to go about interpreting the text (before they had any knowledge of the age of the earth).

 

Yes, very interesting. It's very strange to me that Christianity is so fractured. You'd think if knowledge of something increases with time (and evidence) it would build a consensus. But this isn't happening in Christianity. Why do you think that is?

 

However, there are certain core doctrines, which represent orthodox Christianity, so there are boundaries to these topics. For example, a core doctrine of Christianity is that Jesus, literally, and physically rose from the dead.

 

This I do know, and likely why we're discussing this particular doctrine in more depth.

 

 

I agree which is why you should not in my opinion, discount something right off the bat.

 

I try not to, but I'm just a prone to bias as anyone else. I do acknowledge it though, whereas many others do not.

 

 

However, we should also be honest that all methods and processes for analyzing information is based on assumptions. For example, RCTs (the most rigorous experimental designs) which I use in my research, have issues with attrition. We can use intention to treat analysis to attempt to overcome attrition, however, that approach reduces our studies’ power. So there are trade-offs. At the bottom of all of these various quantitative approaches there are assumptions.

 

I've acknowledged all along that there are limits to science. But you must acknowledge that some types of evidence are better than others. Something that is repeatedly observable is going to hold much more value than something that potentially only happened once.

 

 

The main thing I wanted to say is there are methods for conducting internal evaluation of various religions. So they not all the same in that regard. For example, we can examine the historical evidence for the death of Jesus and compare that against the Islamic claim that Jesus did not really die (but fell into a coma). Please note, I am not claiming anything with absolute certainty. But there is data to work with. Not necessarily the scientific data you may want, but other forms such as historical and philosophical.

 

I do see this, but what I'm saying is the data that we do have reliable enough to make any concrete statement about it? To have any level of certainty, or at least to the level that a lot of religious folks have on the existence of God (i.e. absolute certainty)?

 

 

I guess I wish you would stop using this “throw the baby out with the bath water” approach. To keep comparing religions in this way is spurious.

 

I can understand why this might be annoying, but I assure you there is a purpose. Namely to continue to point out that religion (not just Christianity) is a phenomenon that must be accounted for as a whole. Why are people religious in general? Not just Christians. Is there a pattern? Does evidence, reason, and logic seem to be the determining factors in religious belief? Can we draw parallels between religious belief and other beliefs in the supernatural?

 

 

I am familiar with Popperian philosophy, Hill's criteria of causality, as well as all of the short comings of rigorous experimental designs.

 

Short comings of rigorous experimental designs I know about, Popperian philosophy and Hill's criteria of causality I've never heard about...

 

Yes, I can be wrong, right, and wrong. However, please note I do accept other forms of evidence aside from only scientific evidence. Historical evidence and philosophical evidence is also acceptable to me.

 

And this is the crux of our difference. Not that historical evidence and philosophical evidence don't have value; they do. It's just what weight can we put on the evidence. Historical evidence is not inferior in kind, but the farther back we go, and the less historical evidence / artifacts etc. we have, the less weight that evidence should hold in our level of certainty. And philosophy should be saved for areas that are beyond our physical reality. Morality for example, is largely the domain of philosophers at the moment. Although I suspect one day there will be a scientific explanation for morality as well.

 

 

So may have a wider range of evidence and methods for analysis I am willing to work with than you? Maybe it’s my many years of training in science that helps me see beyond science as the only way to acquire information. Please note, I am not saying any historical evidence is 100% true, only that it is meets a threshold of satisfaction for me.

 

As stated above, you must acknowledge that not all historical evidence can be seen as equal. The further back we go, the less we have to go on, and therefore the less confidence we should have on the accuracy. Historical evidence pertaining to events ~2000 years ago will never be as accurate as historical evidence pertaining to events that happened 10 years ago. And we should not have the same level of confidence for both.

 

An interesting question…if you did have all of the evidence you requested. Would that in anyway interfere with your free will to reject God?

 

So the OP did mention we could tangent, but I fear a discussion on free will could really spiral out of control... I will say, as I always have, that I would certainly change my belief about the existence of a god or gods if there was good evidence. Let me put it this way - I think we both acknowledge that in terms of certainty all we can do is make best guesses. So for example:

 

The certainty that tigers exist would be about 99.99% (that's likely an underestimate). The certainty that the tooth fairy exists would be 0.001% (that's likely an overestimate). How certain do you think most people's certainty that their particular god exists? For the OP it's 100% - so they're more certain that God exists than they are that tigers exists. Where should it be?

 

Could it be as Pascal said that God has made the evidence sufficiently clear to those that want to believe and sufficiently vague to those that do not? Just an interesting thought to entertain.

 

People that want to believe in something will, regardless of the evidence. And there's a lot of evidence to support that claim...

 

Have a good one!

 

You too!

[pie2]

I agree there are other forms of evidence, but we definitely can't say all evidence is equal when it comes to trying to figure out what is true. And our certainty has to be mitigated by the strength of the evidence, regardless of what type of evidence it is.

 

We use what evidence we can to make the best decision.

 

Besides Jesus' life, do you hold other historical events to the same level of scrutiny (especially things that happened thousands of years ago)?

 

 

Although I agree with this in the most general sense, I'd say the things that the vast majority of us believe without evidence are more of the philosophical nature (ex. how do we know anything we experience is actually as we experience it?) than anything else. What do you consider to be a common non-evidence belief the people hold that isn't purely philosophical in nature?

 

All the things I have mentioned, and more. Are eggs good or bad for us? What role does salt really play in our health? Do vitamins make a difference? These sorts of things have been studied, but the conclusions are often conflicting. So, we believe what we hear, but it's not necessarily the truth.

 

If in 2014 eggs are bad for us, and we believe it, but in 2015 they're OK, we obviously held on to a belief that wasn't true. We didn't know it, and I'm not blaming anyone, but our perception wasn't based in the ultimate reality of egg safety.

 

I don't judge Christians at all. It's ideas that I judge (or more accurately, assess), not people. Never people.

 

 

Although I don't advocate completely believing anything based on one study, I do think that a study from a peer-reviewed journal or a reputable source should certainly be paid attention to. We should take that seriously and incorporate it into our opinion of whatever it is the journal article is speaking to.

 

Well, I also have a lot of respect for reputable science. But sometimes the studies (or at least the conclusions drawn) are wrong. And thus, belief was put into something not based in reality. We didn't fully test it, experience it, etc. We sometimes put our faith in the research done by "science". And, the tool (science) may not be the problem, it's that those who are using the tool (humans) are completely imperfect.

 

And I think that's a problem. I'm glad that the one I ultimately put my faith in is infallible. He has a much better track record .

 

The speaks more to scientific illiteracy than anything else. And people aren't being persuaded by the research, they are getting persuaded by the media reporting the research. One should always go to the source before believing anything. Read the actual study rather than just how the media chooses to portray it.

 

But we don't. The general masses don't do that. It would be impossible to research every single thing that makes up our reality. The information we consume must be edited, condensed and made palpable for the general masses. We absolutely cannot take the time to read every study ever conducted.

 

So we must trust as best we can. But, as mentioned, there are times when it's wrong.

 

Of course there are "holes" in scientific research and science hasn't been able to tell the whole story!! Nobody knows this better than scientists! Why do you think they're doing the research? Anybody that is learned in science does not consider it gospel. In fact in the world or science, nothing is ever "proven". We can only ever get close to the truth through evidence. It tends to be religious folks who claim to know the absolute truth. Like the OP.

 

Yes, but we all have faith at times. The question remains: in what do you choose to put your faith? Science conducted by fallible man, or an omniscient God? Or something else? (I've heard there's a spaghetti monster people like).

 

A Christian may say that they know the absolute truth about God's existence, but remain open to the possibility that that whole reality could be altered with new evidence. Why is that a bad thing?

[Robert Z]

We use what evidence we can to make the best decision.

 

Besides Jesus' life, do you hold other historical events to the same level of scrutiny (especially things that happened thousands of years ago)?

 

I have a real problem with this notion of evidence. What evidence? You seem to be equating warm fuzzy feelings, with evidence.

 

Even if we look to the story of Jesus, the only "history" of Jesus comes from the Bible, not historical evidence. And we know the Bible is loaded with false claims.

 

I understand making a leap of faith based on feelings but that isn't evidence. But to say that God intervened in events is again a total faith statement. You can point to stories like the parting of the Red Sea as evidence, but a story told from thousands of years ago from a book known to be full of flaws and "parables"??? And at the same time one would question a scientific study that is duplicated many times over by many different scientists? How is this more than wishful thinking?

 

I tend to believe there is something greater but that isn't a belief that can defended with logic, and I would never attempt to do so. That is the difference between me and a lot of Christians.

[Robert Z]

What makes you think that we live in an ordered universe, or a universe that can be understood?

 

 

For starters, the computer that you are using. Do you have any idea how much of science has to be right for your computer to work?

 

We have been spectacularly successful in discovering and applying the laws of physics. What more evidence could you ask for than all of the technology we have today?

 

You really have to appreciate the irony of people dissing the success of modern science, while using a device that depends on deep principles from Quantum Mechanics in order to operate. I couldn't even begin to guess at the number of Ph.D. theses that address just how a transistor operates.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Robert Z

[pie2]

I have a real problem with this notion of evidence. What evidence? You seem to be equating warm fuzzy feelings, with evidence.

 

Even if we look to the story of Jesus, the only "history" of Jesus comes from the Bible, not historical evidence. And we know the Bible is loaded with false claims.

 

I understand making a leap of faith based on feelings but that isn't evidence. But to say that God intervened in events is again a total faith statement. You can point to stories like the parting of the Red Sea as evidence, but a story told from thousands of years ago from a book known to be full of flaws and "parables"??? And at the same time one would question a scientific study that is duplicated many times over by many different scientists? How is this more than wishful thinking?

 

I tend to believe there is something greater but that isn't a belief that can defended with logic, and I would never attempt to do so. That is the difference between me and a lot of Christians.

 

From what I've read, the difference between you and a lot of Christians is that you don't actually seem to have faith in Christ (in Christ's love, power, plan for good in your life, etc). Really, that's the important difference, unfortunately.

 

The bible is a manuscript of accounts of past events (and other topics). We have manuscripts that hold evidence to other people's past existence as well. Do you believe in Plato? Aristotle? Do you hold those figures to the same unattainably high degree of required evidence in order to believe in their existence?

[Robert Z]

Could it be the idea that there is an almighty rational God who created the universe, and imposed a set of laws for us to discover them. On what other basis would you have a universe guided by a set of laws? I believe the Buddhists concluded that the universe is unpredictable, and cannot be understood.

 

Existence has its own requirements. We discover how it is possible.

 

 

There is only one argument for a god that I know of that emerges from physics: The values of the physical constants. That is a genuine mystery. How they all came to be precisely the values needed for atoms and the rest of the universe to exist is not known. But it may well emerge from a grand unified theory [theory of everything] and we will understand why they have the values that they do. One physicist name Heim did propose such a model that is currently being scrutinized by scientists. So it may all make sense eventually. And we do have alternate explanations that are worthy of consideration now. The most notable being that universes [an infinite number of them] are constantly bubbling out of the void, and every once in a while everything is just right so that matter can form. It may simply be a matter of the odds. Every now and then a universe emerges that can support life.

[writergal]

Top 10 ways that you know God is a human-made social construct:

 

(Great video boils down 10 reasons that prove God is a human-made-up construct)

 

 

10. Eternal God - If God were real, would there have been other Gods invented by other cultures?

 

9. Political God - Is it a coincidence that God is the same political stance as the political structures of the culture that worships that God?

 

8. Nosy God - humans have defined a God that is concerned with our affairs. If God were real, would God really be that curious about our welfare?

 

7. Vain God - humans have made Gods as vain as humans. If God were real, would God be so similar to humans?

 

6. Emotional God - God is defined and described as having emotions like humans. But would an Omnipotent God really be that emotional?

 

5. Humanoid God - God looks just like humans. Coincidence?

 

4. Loving God - God supposedly has the same needs that humans do.

 

3. Gender God - God is depicted as a 'he' because society has been patriarchal for centuries.

 

2. Talking God - Coincidence that God can talk to humans using actual understandable language.

 

1. Racial God - The greatest way you know that God is made-up by humans is due to the fact that God's race is the same as each race and ethnicity that worships God.

[FleshNBones]

For starters, the computer that you are using. Do you have any idea how much of science has to be right for your computer to work?

 

We have been spectacularly successful in discovering and applying the laws of physics. What more evidence could you ask for than all of the technology we have today?

 

You really have to appreciate the irony of people dissing the success of modern science, while using a device that depends on deep principles from Quantum Mechanics in order to operate. I couldn't even begin to guess at the number of Ph.D. theses that address just how a transistor operates.

Any by "We", you mean someone else. For some reason, I am convinced you contributed nothing to the fields of science and technology.

 

I sincerely doubt you have anything more than a superficial understanding of computers. I suppose you can point to a wing nut and call yourself an expert in all things mechanical. It might as well be magic.

For your information, computers predate transistors.

 

If it is magic, then I suppose the scientists are the priests who wield these magical thunderbolts. I guess we have zealots desperately trying to assert the gods of this nebulous thing called science are somehow greater. I don't see more evolved humans, but instead, silly people regressing into more primal form of superstition.

[pie2]

If it is magic, then I suppose the scientists are the priests who wield these magical thunderbolts. I guess we have zealots desperately trying to assert the gods of this nebulous thing called science are somehow greater. I don't see more evolved humans, but instead, silly people regressing into more primal form of superstition.

 

 

I'm still working out if I understand this paragraph, but it sounds cool, lol. Such a powerful statement .

 

Personally, I don't see great evidence of evolution or regression in modern man. As stated in the bible, 'there's nothing new under the sun'. I think superstition is just part of human nature, and it's always been there, and will be for years to come. Belief in the almighty (God, scientist, nature, etc) helps alleviate many anxieties.

[Robert Z]

Any by "We", you mean someone else. For some reason, I am convinced you contributed nothing to the fields of science and technology.

 

I sincerely doubt you have anything more than a superficial understanding of computers. I suppose you can point to a wing nut and call yourself an expert in all things mechanical. It might as well be magic.

For your information, computers predate transistors.

 

If it is magic, then I suppose the scientists are the priests who wield these magical thunderbolts. I guess we have zealots desperately trying to assert the gods of this nebulous thing called science are somehow greater. I don't see more evolved humans, but instead, silly people regressing into more primal form of superstition.

 

 

Well let's see, I am a physicist by degree and I do programming as part of my job. So how shall we think of you?

 

Care to discuss Josephson or shot noise?

 

But being that you are a good Christian, I can understand why you made it personal.

 

 

Ah yes, I once worked with a direct descendent of Babbage. He was working on PID loop control for complex [non-linear] systems.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Robert Z

[Robert Z]

From what I've read, the difference between you and a lot of Christians is that you don't actually seem to have faith in Christ (in Christ's love, power, plan for good in your life, etc). Really, that's the important difference, unfortunately.

 

I should have said the difference between me and those who impose their faith on others... and who impose their faith on their children. I was once a Christian but I got over it. But the brainwashing from early childhood is difficult to escape. It has taken a good part of a lifetime. And it required setting aside fears of eternal damnation for logic. But it is hard. When you threaten a child with eternal torment, every day, for all of those developing years, it isn't easy to shake. In my view it is child abuse.

 

When I think of all of those years that I thought I was surely going to hell for masturbation, it still makes me angry!

 

The bible is a manuscript of accounts of past events (and other topics). We have manuscripts that hold evidence to other people's past existence as well. Do you believe in Plato? Aristotle? Do you hold those figures to the same unattainably high degree of required evidence in order to believe in their existence?

 

So then because Plato wrote about Atlantis, we take it as a fact that it existed? And do we take Greek mythology as fact? How about ancient Gods that visited earth? Do we take all of those claims as fact as well. And if so, which god shall we worship? There are so many!!! No, we don't take stories from Plato or Aristotle as fact. We do recognize their contributions to logic and philosophy because that can still be appreciated. But logic and sound reasoning do not require faith. Stories do.

 

You know one that is really easy that makes me laugh: God made the world in seven days? In whose frame of reference?!?! Seven days to one observer could be a million years to another depending on one's frame of reference. And there is no absolute frame of reference - we specifically used the language "there is no God frame". God never gets specific about Relativistic frames of reference and that annoys me.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Robert Z

[Robert Z]

I don't have a problem with beliefs. But this notion that they are any more that leaps of faith, is total nonsense. And that is why people have worshiped everything from cats and cows to the sun and the stars.

 

It has long been my position that the reason we create gods, is that we can sense a greater presence. But I won't try to defend that inclination with logic because it is just how I feel about things. However, I do see religion as a futile attempt to quantify and qualify that which is beyond us... not to say that it will always be beyond us to understand.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Robert Z

[Robert Z]

Here are about 2.5 million hits on a search for scholarly papers on transistors.

transistor - Google Scholar=

[Robert Z]

One caveat about logic and belief: There is emerging a logical argument that the universe itself is conscious. That is the closest thing to God that I can accept... because it makes sense.

 

 

The basic argument is, what we know about consciousness and how we think it will emerge, or perhaps has already emerged in computers, suggests that nothing limits this to brains and electronic circuits. Those same essential processes can be found at large scale as well. And by extrapolation, we have to consider that all of "creation" itself is conscious. I find that idea to be largely consistent with the definitions of God! It is a beautiful concept.

 

Imagine even a multiverse of universes that is all self aware. WHAT A CONCEPT! But that one's just for fun. But, dammit, it is hypothesized by some [in some models] that gravity communicates from one universe to another, which would seem to open the door to a "multiverse consciousness". It suggests the possibility that our entire universe is like a brain cell in an infinitely large brain.

 

 

But I prefer to choose my beliefs without being told that I'll go to hell if I don't accept one particular belief out of thousands. And that is the trap of religion - if you don't believe you'll go to hell!!! What a con job!

Edited June 28, 2015 by Robert Z

[pureinheart]

I'm still working out if I understand this paragraph, but it sounds cool, lol. Such a powerful statement .

Personally, I don't see great evidence of evolution or regression in modern man. As stated in the bible, 'there's nothing new under the sun'. I think superstition is just part of human nature, and it's always been there, and will be for years to come. Belief in the almighty (God, scientist, nature, etc) helps alleviate many anxieties.

 

I agree... and want to say at this point in time I really needed to see the power also in your second paragraph. Thank you Jesus!

 

Looking at 'man' in his/her entirety throughout the millennia, I see (as in a graph chart) ups and downs, no matter what going no where fast, BUT thinking they are all that...

[Weezy1973]

We use what evidence we can to make the best decision.

 

True. We should also be aware of the difference between good evidence and bad evidence, or at least faulty evidence. If you're on the jury of a murder trial and the only evidence you have is that somebody in a car 100 feet away says they saw a person that looks kind of like the accused enter the victim's apartment, you can't draw any reasonable conclusion from that. Even if it is the only evidence you have.

 

Besides Jesus' life, do you hold other historical events to the same level of scrutiny (especially things that happened thousands of years ago)?

 

I hold all supernatural claims to the same level of scrutiny. That a man named Jesus lived, I can accept fairly easily. That gods exist I can't. That a man named Jesus was crucified, I can accept. That he rose from the dead I can't. Etc. I when I say, I can't accept those (or any) supernatural claims, all I'm saying is that there isn't enough evidence to one to believe they did occur. And knowing that there is a rich history of people in the past attributing supernatural causes to what we now know are normal, natural events, it is reasonable to suspect the same is true for the supernatural claims made in the bible. Or the Koran. Or really made by any religion. Or supernatural claims made by anybody regardless of religion.

 

All the things I have mentioned, and more. Are eggs good or bad for us? What role does salt really play in our health? Do vitamins make a difference? These sorts of things have been studied, but the conclusions are often conflicting. So, we believe what we hear, but it's not necessarily the truth.

 

Of course. This is the whole point I'm trying to make. If you believe things based on evidence, then you must be open to changing your mind or beliefs based on new evidence. And you must accept uncertainty as there is always a possibility that new evidence will be discovered that might make you change your mind. The examples you give above are just cases where new evidence has come in, and people have changed their minds. And of course it's not necessarily the truth. But it is rational.

 

 

If in 2014 eggs are bad for us, and we believe it, but in 2015 they're OK, we obviously held on to a belief that wasn't true. We didn't know it, and I'm not blaming anyone, but our perception wasn't based in the ultimate reality of egg safety.

 

But, we were going on the best evidence we had at the time. And we were wrong. So that's why being open minded about our beliefs is vital. But people who subscribe to a certain religion tend not to be open that they might be wrong about it. Again, refer to the original post as an example. In most everything else we do, we will change our minds based on new evidence.

 

Well, I also have a lot of respect for reputable science. But sometimes the studies (or at least the conclusions drawn) are wrong. And thus, belief was put into something not based in reality. We didn't fully test it, experience it, etc. We sometimes put our faith in the research done by "science". And, the tool (science) may not be the problem, it's that those who are using the tool (humans) are completely imperfect.

 

Agreed (except for the faith part). But again, it's the best we've got. It delivers.

 

And I think that's a problem. I'm glad that the one I ultimately put my faith in is infallible. He has a much better track record .

 

Yup, being to base one's beliefs on evidence, reason, and logic, inherently means that you must be comfortable with uncertainty. You don't seem to be someone that is comfortable with uncertainty, so a belief in a god makes sense for your.

 

But we don't. The general masses don't do that. It would be impossible to research every single thing that makes up our reality. The information we consume must be edited, condensed and made palpable for the general masses. We absolutely cannot take the time to read every study ever conducted.

 

This is true - but that's where reason plays an important role. If there is a report that scientists have found a new species of beetle in Australia, there would be no reason to doubt the report. It might not be true, but it's certainly reasonable. If someone were to claim that they had been dead for a few days, and then came back to life, that defies everything we know about biology. So a reasonable person would demand a lot of evidence before believing it.

 

Yes, but we all have faith at times. The question remains: in what do you choose to put your faith?

 

You still haven't shown me an example of when people have faith, not in a religious or philosophical context. I think, by and large, are are evidence processing machines, and most of our beliefs come from that.

 

Science conducted by fallible man, or an omniscient God? Or something else? (I've heard there's a spaghetti monster people like).

 

Again, faith and science are opposites. One is believing in something without evidence (faith) and science is precisely the opposite of that!

 

A Christian may say that they know the absolute truth about God's existence, but remain open to the possibility that that whole reality could be altered with new evidence. Why is that a bad thing?

 

When the belief in God is made without any evidence in the first place, how could new evidence change the belief?

[TheFinalWord]

So first, I just need to express how much I've enjoyed this discussion with you. It really has pushed me to look at things I hadn't known before, and learning new stuff makes me happy. And also nice to chat with someone so knowledgeable and open to discussing these topics. Also thanks to the OP for opening this thread up to tangents!

 

So, I have looking into Bayes' Theorem, and I still want to study it more, but it is fascinating. The one thing I did notice is that, in regards to the resurrection of Jesus, it seems that Bayes Theorem has been used both to show that the resurrection was probable and also that the resurrection was improbably by others. So basically gets us back to the same point (doesn't it always?).

 

Thanks for the kind words. I would also like to say the same for you. I think it is challenging to discuss any conflicting ideas, let alone over an electronic medium (I personally think its the ultimate communication challenge). I have really enjoyed your leadership in this discussion and how respectful you are (highly intelligent too!)!!

 

I've also started looking into this. I can't say I'll ever study it in depth, but so far the surface research I've done has pretty much confirmed what I already though (possibly confirmation bias on my part). That the only consensus seems to be that Jesus lived, was baptized, taught, and was crucified. So if we want to agree on historical facts, these are the ones we can agree on.

 

I think those are good points. A couple others I think are important is the empty tomb (this is argued as the enemies of Jesus never attempted to show the body, but concocted a story to cover up the apparent missing body), the origin of the disciples faith to the point of death, and the disciples belief they had experienced postmortem appearances of Christ (historians have pointed out that the idea of a resurrected Messiah was a totally foreign "non-Jewish" doctrine).

 

But, as always, it does bring more questions, and maybe you can answer them for me.

 

1. Were certain books in the bible written by historians? Or in a fashion that would be consistent with how historians wrote at the time?

 

2. If not, what is the best guess as to the purpose for the authors to write their various books? More specifically, what was the purpose for the authors of the gospels to write those books? Or at least our best guess?

 

A lot of historical events were passed down via oral transmission. Interesting, many of the sayings of Jesus were given in a way that (in Aramaic) rhymed, making them easier to recall. Here is a link giving an overview of that method:

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=W8ryhaT1tnUC&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=the+sayings+of+jesus+rhymed&source=bl&ots=5SiGOVYNEB&sig=h8cgfFq6tzgTGc6Cf3aXD8E9W_w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PiSPVaGrGMKYsAXrkYD4AQ&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=the%20sayings%20of%20jesus%20rhymed&f=false

 

Those are good questions. In terms of question 1, the gospel of Luke was written by Luke (a companion of Paul) specifically to put together an account of the life of Jesus. Luke appears to have used Greek historiography (a method to track and record historical events). The remainder of the synoptic gospels were written by the apostle Matthew, Mark (Peter’s interpreter). None of the original manuscripts exist. P52 is the oldest manuscript known at this time. Here is an image: http://www.narrowgate-rmartin.com/theo10_classnotes/images/p52.jpg

 

One of the functions of textual criticism is to determine how closely the copies get to the original.

 

In terms of question 2, not getting into the historicity (this link summarized it fairly well), a lot of times the gospels tell us their primary function. For example, the gospel of John states.

 

Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

Others appear aimed at particular audiences. For example, the Gospel of Luke in the opening statement reads:

 

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

 

Of course, historians disagree as to the identify of Theophilus. I investigated this a few years back and I felt the majority of scholarship found Theophilus to be the brother in law of Ciaphas, the high priest that condemned Jesus. Luke also appears to focus much of his gospel on Jesus’ teachings of justice and concern for the poor, which would be important in the context of temple politics.

 

For example, the story in Luke of the poor widow and her two mites:

 

Yes, very interesting. It's very strange to me that Christianity is so fractured. You'd think if knowledge of something increases with time (and evidence) it would build a consensus. But this isn't happening in Christianity. Why do you think that is?

 

Well, first I suppose I would like to determine the differences in central doctrines required of Christianity. Secondly, history teaches us the church does come together during times of persecution. That can open a whole other can of theological worms, so I will leave it at that.

 

But it interesting thing is the New Testament allows, and often even promotes, diversity. Paul gives methods for establishing boundaries (most of his letters to the churches are written to edify them and to correct errors in their interpretation of doctrine). As well, Paul states that diversity should not be viewed as a form of superiority, that we all brothers. If it leads to jealous and fighting, we know we have taken it too far. Often, these divisions center around certain individuals rather than ideas. Here is Paul’s argument to the church at Corinth. There were also divisions centered around whether or not the gentiles (non-Jews) had to follow the law of Moses in addition to believing in Christ (settled by the apostles, with a definitive “no), as well as heretic doctrines presented by the Gnostics (Paul dismantled them in his epistles). So the new testament deals a lot with these divisions including the context of the New Covenant in light of the Old Covenant, heretical doctrines, as well as how to properly contextualize diversity on the non-essentials (primarily in terms of our freedom, e.g. how grace fits in with our lifestyle choices: "All things are permitted, but not all things edify"). I won’t quote a bunch of scriptures to you just one regarding divisions among Christians.

 

You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings? What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.

 

I've acknowledged all along that there are limits to science. But you must acknowledge that some types of evidence are better than others. Something that is repeatedly observable is going to hold much more value than something that potentially only happened once.

 

Sure I can agree with that. What you are basically discussing is the concept of generalizability, or external validity of scientific studies. Ultimately, the greater the external validity, the better we can ascertain cause and effect. I do think it matters what kind of questions are being addressed, mainly i in translating efficacy to effectiveness of scientific studies. For example, we can conduct a triple-blind, RCT study (gold standard), examining the various effects of drugs. Limitations here are phase 4 trials which examine long term effects of drugs, which oft leads to their being pulled from the market. There are also unintended consequences of efficacious drugs, such as the epidemic of addiction to opiates. Scientifically, opiates work well for controlling pain, but lead to addiction. Ethically, there are also problems with randomization, in that if a drug is suspected to work, a certain subject may be restricted to its access in order to adhere to the protocol of the trial, ultimately resulting in death of a participant. There is also the issue of cost-effectiveness. There are many drugs that scientifically speaking are efficacious, but are not cost-effective to bring to market. I say all this to point out that there are limitations to scientific evidence, particularly in translating it to the real world. Other forms of knowledge must come into the picture to tell us how to contextualize scientific data. In and of itself, scientific knowledge is restricted in its interpretability when bringing scientific knowledge out of the laboratory into the real world.

 

I can understand why this might be annoying, but I assure you there is a purpose. Namely to continue to point out that religion (not just Christianity) is a phenomenon that must be accounted for as a whole. Why are people religious in general? Not just Christians. Is there a pattern? Does evidence, reason, and logic seem to be the determining factors in religious belief? Can we draw parallels between religious belief and other beliefs in the supernatural?

 

Good questions. Haha not annoying, just a bit too simplistic. Religions make radically different claims and a lot of them can be tested, historically and philosophically. One thing that is interesting is that no matter how separated cultures are, all people groups seem to have a proclivity towards incorporating the divine into their cultures. I think you could take this a lot of different ways. Philosophically, the bible states God has provided what we call general revelation (as opposed to special revelation), which could help explain why people seem drawn to developing religions no matter their geographical context.

 

Short comings of rigorous experimental designs I know about, Popperian philosophy and Hill's criteria of causality I've never heard about...

 

Karl Popper essentially built off work by David Hume for developing the idea of falsifiability for determining what science is and what is not. Philosophically, if theories cannot be falsified, they are not scientific according to Popper (we will not get into the Raven Paradox lol). This idea was carried forward by Sir Bradford Hill in developing criteria for how to determine if there are causal connections between variables. Hill and Doll demonstrated that smoking leads to lung cancer, in a time when the medical community mocked this idea (they thought materials used in paving roads were causing lung cancer). Hill asserted that causality is determined by the strength of evidence. Hill laid out criteria for evaluating claims of causal relationships particularly for medical and biological research.

 

And this is the crux of our difference. Not that historical evidence and philosophical evidence don't have value; they do. It's just what weight can we put on the evidence. Historical evidence is not inferior in kind, but the farther back we go, and the less historical evidence / artifacts etc. we have, the less weight that evidence should hold in our level of certainty. And philosophy should be saved for areas that are beyond our physical reality. Morality for example, is largely the domain of philosophers at the moment. Although I suspect one day there will be a scientific explanation for morality as well.

 

It may be interesting to discuss certainty in this regard.

 

As stated above, you must acknowledge that not all historical evidence can be seen as equal. The further back we go, the less we have to go on, and therefore the less confidence we should have on the accuracy. Historical evidence pertaining to events ~2000 years ago will never be as accurate as historical evidence pertaining to events that happened 10 years ago. And we should not have the same level of confidence for both.

 

Sure, but again, I am not claiming absolute confidence. I also do not contextualize the reliability of documents from antiquity, with say modern methods of collecting historical evidence.

 

So the OP did mention we could tangent, but I fear a discussion on free will could really spiral out of control... I will say, as I always have, that I would certainly change my belief about the existence of a god or gods if there was good evidence. Let me put it this way - I think we both acknowledge that in terms of certainty all we can do is make best guesses. So for example:

 

The certainty that tigers exist would be about 99.99% (that's likely an underestimate). The certainty that the tooth fairy exists would be 0.001% (that's likely an overestimate). How certain do you think most people's certainty that their particular god exists? For the OP it's 100% - so they're more certain that God exists than they are that tigers exists. Where should it be?

 

I do not know about other people. I do not see my belief as static in that regard but more dynamic. If I am going through a really hard time in life, I may feel more detached from my certainty in the belief in God. Not saying my belief reaches zero, but I know for me, belief exists on a continuum.

 

People that want to believe in something will, regardless of the evidence. And there's a lot of evidence to support that claim...

 

That I agree with. That phenomenon carries over into a lot of things, including people’s proclivity to assess their abilities at a much higher level than they actually are (Kruger-Dunning effect). Most people also rely on heuristics and a variety of biases to make decisions.

 

Good discussion friend!

 

PS: Ironically, I think our signatures summarize our positions perhaps better than our diatribes in these threads haha What is that rule about parsimony in science??

 

I found a fatal flaw in the logic of love...

 

So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

 

 

Edited June 28, 2015 by TheFinalWord
Bolded: Theophilus

[FleshNBones]

One caveat about logic and belief: There is emerging a logical argument that the universe itself is conscious. That is the closest thing to God that I can accept... because it makes sense.

You can make sense of it because it is tangible and quantifiable.

This is a silly concept because we don't understand consciousness.

Why would a conscious universe give rise to life? Seems pointless. Why would living organisms die if their matter is alive anyway. What would be the point of having a brain if all of the cells are conscious?

If the universe were conscious, shouldn't you be arguing in favor of intelligent design.

 

This seems to be a step above sun god worship.

The basic argument is, what we know about consciousness and how we think it will emerge, or perhaps has already emerged in computers, suggests that nothing limits this to brains and electronic circuits. Those same essential processes can be found at large scale as well. And by extrapolation, we have to consider that all of "creation" itself is conscious. I find that idea to be largely consistent with the definitions of God! It is a beautiful concept.

More nonsense. Computers are not conscious. They may seem magical, but they are not. If you had any understanding of the inner workings of a computer, you would know that to be the case.

Imagine even a multiverse of universes that is all self aware. WHAT A CONCEPT! But that one's just for fun. But, dammit, it is hypothesized by some [in some models] that gravity communicates from one universe to another, which would seem to open the door to a "multiverse consciousness". It suggests the possibility that our entire universe is like a brain cell in an infinitely large brain.

Models are models.

But I prefer to choose my beliefs without being told that I'll go to hell if I don't accept one particular belief out of thousands. And that is the trap of religion - if you don't believe you'll go to hell!!! What a con job!

Life is not without risks. What makes you think death is any different?

The irony here is you chose a religion where death is assured.

[pie2]

If you believe things based on evidence, then you must be open to changing your mind or beliefs based on new evidence. And you must accept uncertainty as there is always a possibility that new evidence will be discovered that might make you change your mind. The examples you give above are just cases where new evidence has come in, and people have changed their minds. And of course it's not necessarily the truth. But it is rational.

 

You still haven't shown me an example of when people have faith, not in a religious or philosophical context. I think, by and large, are are evidence processing machines, and most of our beliefs come from that.

 

Again, faith and science are opposites. One is believing in something without evidence (faith) and science is precisely the opposite of that!

 

 

IMO, there is an absolute truth. Firstly, our brains are too limited to capture the absolute truth of our existence. And the limited amount that we do "understand" is based on our own perceptions, but may not be based on the actual truth. We gain perspective and perceptions based on input and analysis (imo). But again, those perspectives don't always reflect the absolute truth.

 

Sometimes, as we gain perspective on our reality, we take information from others. And the opinions we gather that way aren't because we fully tested the theory ourselves. We put FAITH in the other person's experience (experiment, science, etc). We faithfully believe what someone else has tested and told us. But we don't have first-hand factual experience to base that opinion on.

 

I've mentioned salt. I think there is probably one amount of salt that is healthy for each individual. Meaning, each person can tolerate a certain amount of salt in order to maintain a healthy existence. But that amount of salt isn't (and probably can't be) tested for each individual. I haven't personally tested how much salt I can tolerate! BUT, I faithfully listen to the experts who make recommendations. I moderate my behavior by faithfully listening to the guidance of others.

 

I'm not saying that faith and science are comparable concepts. Neither do I think they are opposite concepts (I don't think the opposite of faith is science). I think we put faith in science and faith in scientists and the scientific method.

 

Another example: When a patient is in the hospital room being treated for an illness, and is given a placebo, the patient may recover. Not because of any intervention except the presence of a specialists. We have FAITH that the expert is able to cure. No meaningful interventions were actually administered. The patient just had so much faith in the expertise, that the faith altered the outcome of the condition.

 

 

When the belief in God is made without any evidence in the first place, how could new evidence change the belief?

It is your opinion that belief in God is made without any evidence. But in actuality, I think belief in God is based on many pieces of evidence that anyone can consider. Yes, ultimately, belief in God does require an amount of faith. But there are many pieces of evidence that one can look at before making such a decision.

 

And then after opening one's heart to God, the experience solidifies the evidence, in most cases. But I'm sure there are people who experience something that denies God's existence. Many people lose faith, for one reason or another.

Edited July 1, 2015 by pie2

[Weezy1973]

IMO, there is an absolute truth. Firstly, our brains are too limited to capture the absolute truth of our existence. And the limited amount that we do "understand" is based on our own perceptions, but may not be based on the actual truth. We gain perspective and perceptions based on input and analysis (imo). But again, those perspectives don't always reflect the absolute truth.

 

I agree that there probably is an absolute truth, but I think the jury is still out on whether or not our brains (at least with the aid of technology) can capture it. Perhaps not.

 

Sometimes, as we gain perspective on our reality, we take information from others. And the opinions we gather that way aren't because we fully tested the theory ourselves. We put FAITH in the other person's experience (experiment, science, etc). We faithfully believe what someone else has tested and told us. But we don't have first-hand factual experience to base that opinion on.

 

Often these discussions boil down to semantics and I think this may be the case here. You seem to be equating faith with trust. Faith is believing in something without evidence. In other words, there's no particular reason to believe it, but you do anyways. Trust on the other hand, is built because of facts, knowledge, observations etc. You trust doctors to deliver medical advice because everything you've learned has let you know that doctors are the best ones to go to for medical advice. That's not faith. Faith would be forgoing a doctor and just relying on the power of prayer. Also, trust can be broken (given the proper evidence) and faith can't be (at least not in the same way).

 

I've mentioned salt. I think there is probably one amount of salt that is healthy for each individual. Meaning, each person can tolerate a certain amount of salt in order to maintain a healthy existence. But that amount of salt isn't (and probably can't be) tested for each individual. I haven't personally tested how much salt I can tolerate! BUT, I faithfully listen to the experts who make recommendations. I moderate my behavior by faithfully listening to the guidance of others.

 

Same as above, you're describing trust, but calling it faith.

 

I'm not saying that faith and science are comparable concepts. Neither do I think they are opposite concepts (I don't think the opposite of faith is science). I think we put faith in science and faith in scientists and the scientific method.

 

We trust experts in their given field because they are experts. We basically trust that they know more than we do about it. This is very different than having faith. I agree that we should trust experts - when biologists the world over agree that evolution is a fact, we should all take notice. It takes faith to ignore the experts and believe in creationism.

 

It is your opinion that belief in God is made without any evidence. But in actuality, I think belief in God is based on many pieces of evidence that anyone can consider. Yes, ultimately, belief in God does require an amount of faith. But there are many pieces of evidence that one can look at before making such a decision.

 

Except there is no evidence. This whole thread has been discussing whether or not their is a god, and the lines of evidence that have been presented here to support the existence of god have basically fallen into three categories, all of which don't actually constitute any sort of evidence:

 

1. Using the bible to prove the bible is true (you often see this with Christian apologetics as well). This is a circular argument and therefore invalid.

 

2. God of the gaps. Science can't explain "blank" therefore it must be God. This again is meaningless. First, just because we can't explain something in no way means a god is the best hypothesis. Secondly, historically we've seen many times that cultures have attributed certain things to being the work of gods, which has later been discovered by scientists as just natural phenomenon.

 

3. Subjective experience that someone interprets to prove God exists. Although no one can deny that we have subjective experiences, it's interpreting that to suggest a truth about our universe (i.e. that god exists) that is the problem. And of course, in no way is actual evidence of the existence of any gods.

 

So really, how does evidence play a role in believing God exists? It seems like people (in this thread at least) are trying to say their belief is based on evidence, but from what I can see at least, it seems like they held their belief first (likely because that's how they were raised) and are now trying to justify it by trying to get the evidence conform to their prior belief. But, they're failing to do so.

 

And then after opening one's heart to God, the experience solidifies the evidence, in most cases. But I'm sure there are people who experience something that denies God's existence. Many people lose faith, for one reason or another.

 

Once somebody believes in anything, that is the filter through which they see things. But it doesn't mean it's true. For example, I had a Christian friend whose brother had a seizure when they were quite young. He was brought to the hospital and was in a coma. The doctor told the family that in cases like this there is not much chance that he would come out of it without some sort of brain damage. They prayed and prayed, and when her brother came out of the coma, he didn't have any brain damage and the whole family "knew" it was a miracle and that God answered their prayers. She asked me how could I explain something like that.

 

I said - sounds like the doctor made a mistake. We know doctors make mistake, both false negatives and false positives. A very reasonable explanation would be that the doctor was mistaken. No need to invoke anything supernatural. But to the Christian family, they were convinced it was a miracle. And they were very likely wrong.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Weezy1973

[TheFinalWord]

Often these discussions boil down to semantics and I think this may be the case here. You seem to be equating faith with trust. Faith is believing in something without evidence. In other words, there's no particular reason to believe it, but you do anyways. Trust on the other hand, is built because of facts, knowledge, observations etc. You trust doctors to deliver medical advice because everything you've learned has let you know that doctors are the best ones to go to for medical advice. That's not faith. Faith would be forgoing a doctor and just relying on the power of prayer. Also, trust can be broken (given the proper evidence) and faith can't be (at least not in the same way).

 

The Greek word for faith is pistis, which means "firm persuasion; to come to trust". Faith is based on evidence. The sources of evidence may not always be the repeatable, empirical evidence you desire, but that does not mean by default it is not built on evidence.

 

Except there is no evidence. This whole thread has been discussing whether or not their is a god, and the lines of evidence that have been presented here to support the existence of god have basically fallen into three categories, all of which don't actually constitute any sort of evidence:

 

1. Using the bible to prove the bible is true (you often see this with Christian apologetics as well). This is a circular argument and therefore invalid.

 

The bible can be evaluated for its reliability as a historical document. It is not a circular argument to use a historical document as a source of historical evidence. The fallacy here is you are asserting the bible has no historical value and therefore can not be used a source of historical evidence. Please recall, there are indeed several facts from the New Testament that both secular and Christian historians confirm are factual. That cannot just be dismissed as a circular argument.

 

So really, how does evidence play a role in believing God exists? It seems like people (in this thread at least) are trying to say their belief is based on evidence, but from what I can see at least, it seems like they held their belief first (likely because that's how they were raised) and are now trying to justify it by trying to get the evidence conform to their prior belief. But, they're failing to do so.

 

You are simply asserting that is what people are doing. Instead of evaluating a claim on its own merit, you impute a genetic fallacy and advance that as a refutation. In other words, if I give you evidence for the Christian faith, you dismiss it, not because of the evidence, but because I was born in America? The fact I was born in America has nothing to do with whether Christianity is true of false. Killing the messenger does not invalidate a claim.

 

 

What about our signatures? Have a good Fourth Weezy (apologies if you don't live in USA).

Edited July 2, 2015 by TheFinalWord

[OpenBook]

You seem to be equating faith with trust. Faith is believing in something without evidence. In other words, there's no particular reason to believe it, but you do anyways. Trust on the other hand, is built because of facts, knowledge, observations etc.

 

The Greek word for faith is pistis, which means "firm persuasion; to come to trust". Faith is based on evidence. The sources of evidence may not always be the repeatable, empirical evidence you desire, but that does not mean by default it is not built on evidence.

 

I have to disagree with both of you gentlemen on the above bolded.

 

Speaking for myself here - my faith in God isn't based on evidence. If it was, I would be a die-hard atheist! Because I have no evidence. I look up at the sky on a starry night and believe; the breathtaking majesty of the universe is all the evidence I need. But I know that is unacceptable evidence to others.

 

My trust in God isn't based on the recognition of facts, knowledge and observations either - if it was, I would be running for the hills! Most of Jesus' disciples met with horrible horrible deaths. Paul was a sadistic jerk before he got zapped by God, and for all I know that quality helped him spread the Gospel afterwards.

 

No, my faith and trust in God is completely based on HOPE - that there is a sentient being in charge of all this, and that He is the source of all things good and true and right... and maybe some of that might rub off on me.

[pie2]

I agree that there probably is an absolute truth, but I think the jury is still out on whether or not our brains (at least with the aid of technology) can capture it. Perhaps not.

 

I agree. I think this is more of a philosophical question. Until we're in heaven, we won't know for sure.

 

Often these discussions boil down to semantics and I think this may be the case here. You seem to be equating faith with trust. Faith is believing in something without evidence. In other words, there's no particular reason to believe it, but you do anyways. Trust on the other hand, is built because of facts, knowledge, observations etc.

Faith and trust seem to be almost synonymous.

 

Except there is no evidence.

I suggest reading up on the validity or accuracy of historical knowledge and evidence. I imagine that there are many things that you willingly believe that have been verified with archeology etc. But when it comes to religion, you probably have an extra-stringent barometer for what can be accepted as evidence. Doesn't seem to create an even playing field.

 

This whole thread has been discussing whether or not their is a god, and the lines of evidence that have been presented here to support the existence of god have basically fallen into three categories, all of which don't actually constitute any sort of evidence:

 

1. Using the bible to prove the bible is true (you often see this with Christian apologetics as well). This is a circular argument and therefore invalid.

So, if Plato wrote an auto-biographical work, and many of the events he wrote about were confirmed through many other avenues (alternate writings, archeological finds, sociological studies, etc), would you discount it?

 

A written work isn't in and of itself enough to understand the past. But when that work is paired up with other verifiers, it becomes stronger in its historical accuracy.

 

Again, it might help if you research how events claimed in the bible have been studied.

 

2. God of the gaps. Science can't explain "blank" therefore it must be God. This again is meaningless. First, just because we can't explain something in no way means a god is the best hypothesis. Secondly, historically we've seen many times that cultures have attributed certain things to being the work of gods, which has later been discovered by scientists as just natural phenomenon.

Science will never answer the "why" about this life. God does.

 

If anyone doesn't like that God can explain the more ambiguous topics, God has give the free will to not believe.

 

3. Subjective experience that someone interprets to prove God exists. Although no one can deny that we have subjective experiences, it's interpreting that to suggest a truth about our universe (i.e. that god exists) that is the problem. And of course, in no way is actual evidence of the existence of any gods.

That is your opinion, I guess. People always use their subjective experiences to form their reality.

 

Are you saying that it would be better if scientists could just program our minds to believe "truth" and just the "truth"? Then we wouldn't have any of these messy disagreements!

 

But what about free will? If you're free to think how you want, why does it bother you if a Christian does?

 

Once somebody believes in anything, that is the filter through which they see things. But it doesn't mean it's true. For example, I had a Christian friend whose brother had a seizure when they were quite young. He was brought to the hospital and was in a coma. The doctor told the family that in cases like this there is not much chance that he would come out of it without some sort of brain damage. They prayed and prayed, and when her brother came out of the coma, he didn't have any brain damage and the whole family "knew" it was a miracle and that God answered their prayers. She asked me how could I explain something like that.

 

I said - sounds like the doctor made a mistake. We know doctors make mistake, both false negatives and false positives. A very reasonable explanation would be that the doctor was mistaken. No need to invoke anything supernatural. But to the Christian family, they were convinced it was a miracle. And they were very likely wrong.

Yes, it's important not to get caught up in emotion. But sometimes even doctors are flabbergasted at certain medical "events" (aka miracles).

 

 

 

 

Speaking for myself here - my faith in God isn't based on evidence. If it was, I would be a die-hard atheist! Because I have no evidence. I look up at the sky on a starry night and believe; the breathtaking majesty of the universe is all the evidence I need. But I know that is unacceptable evidence to others.

 

My trust in God isn't based on the recognition of facts, knowledge and observations either - if it was, I would be running for the hills! Most of Jesus' disciples met with horrible horrible deaths. Paul was a sadistic jerk before he got zapped by God, and for all I know that quality helped him spread the Gospel afterwards.

 

No, my faith and trust in God is completely based on HOPE - that there is a sentient being in charge of all this, and that He is the source of all things good and true and right... and maybe some of that might rub off on me.

 

If you don't mind me asking, how did you come to know Christ in the beginning? Did you grow up in the church?

 

I agree that the night sky "declares God's glory" (Psalm 19:1) , but was there anything else? I only ask, because the life of following Christ isn't easy. I find I need a lot more that the sky to help me try to stay on the "narrow path".

Edited July 3, 2015 by pie2

[TheFinalWord]

I have to disagree with both of you gentlemen on the above bolded.

 

Speaking for myself here - my faith in God isn't based on evidence. If it was, I would be a die-hard atheist! Because I have no evidence. I look up at the sky on a starry night and believe; the breathtaking majesty of the universe is all the evidence I need. But I know that is unacceptable evidence to others.

 

My trust in God isn't based on the recognition of facts, knowledge and observations either - if it was, I would be running for the hills! Most of Jesus' disciples met with horrible horrible deaths. Paul was a sadistic jerk before he got zapped by God, and for all I know that quality helped him spread the Gospel afterwards.

 

No, my faith and trust in God is completely based on HOPE - that there is a sentient being in charge of all this, and that He is the source of all things good and true and right... and maybe some of that might rub off on me.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

 

OpenBook,

 

I think you are using some evidence to inform your faith. Like Woggle said earlier, it might just be some semantics issue

 

Not everyone requires the same type or quantity of evidence.

 

Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. Romans 14:5

 

Why?

"each of us will give an account of ourselves to God."

 

This is why we must each determine for ourselves what is satisfactory. We can determine this based on self-reflection and humility.

 

Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves.

 

God knows what is adequate for each of us, and we will be judged based on what we do with the information God gives us. I as a human do not know if a person's refusal to accept God is based on pride or based on a true deficit of knowledge. God is just and He knows the truth so we can leave it to him. But that is why if a skeptic tells me they do not believe because the evidence is lacking, I take them at their word and do not judge as I am not qualified to do so.

 

He that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know? The Lord knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.

 

Should we build knowledge to solidify our faith? Does knowledge do anything for us Paul?

 

And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight,

 

Should we build knowledge in order to puff ourselves up and brag like the Pharisees Paul?

 

...so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God.

 

Peter what do you have to say?

 

For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

You stated at least one observation as informing your faith (the majesty of the universe). Natural theology and general revelation are forms of evidence. My guess is you also heard the gospel through preaching or reading the word (special revelation); in other words you received knowledge, or evidence that convinced you.

 

Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.

 

If you have hope in God, than according to Peter you should be able to give a reasonable defense of that hope to others. If not, no problem. We should work on building that knowledge so we can do so.

Always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect

Edited July 3, 2015 by TheFinalWord