God: Does He/She/It exist

[WarrenHill]

@gerv

God has spoken to us, most clearly in the person of Jesus Christ. The question is, are we listening?

You are basing this assertion on a religious text written by man. To pickup on a point raised earlier by @neuro earlier Hindus, Sikhs and just about all other religious groups can point to their own texts which they believe, just as strongly as you do, reveal the intentions of their own particular interpretation of God.

Many of these interpretations are incompatible with each other so they cant all be correct. What makes you think your version is any more true than any of the other religions? I’d say all these texts are equally true in the description of God: Not at all true, but you are free to follow your faith if you wish.

Saying God is true because this book says God exists is a circular argument and does nothing to forward the argument.

I was once at a lecture with the great British philosopher Bertrand Russell who explained this alternative religious story.

Dr Who, for he is a real time-lord (and not a character made up by the BBC), took the sacred tea pot from Josiah Wedgewood and placed it in orbit about half way between Mercury and Venus as a sign and we should all worship it for it will bring us good fortune.

Now Bertrand was not suggesting anybody should actually believe this statement, he was merely pointing out it is no more or less testable than the claims of Christianity or other religions.

[jonobacon]

@gerv

But that point needs a supporting argument; you can’t just assume it. In fact, it’s not true - God has spoken to us, most clearly in the person of Jesus Christ. The question is, are we listening?

@gerv, do you see the irony here in that you are saying I am wrong for assuming that god has no interest in communicating with us (which, by the way, I didn’t say), yet you outright state that he has spoken to us via Jesus Christ?

You simply don’t know this. You don’t know whether Jesus was a man or whether he was the son of god. Your view is that he was the son of god, my view is that he wasn’t - neither of us is right or wrong because we just don’t know - there is evidence of Jesus, but no evidence that he was the son of god.

This is why I go back to my original position: I think there very well may be a god, and he/she/it very well may communicate to us in different ways, but in the absence of evidence, we don’t know, and I don’t think we will ever know. This is why I would never categorically take a position that god exists or that god doesn’t exist: I think all of this exists on a higher plane that we will never really understand.

[oldgeek]

My dad once talked to a man who had majored in philosophy. He concluded he would have been better off majoring in basket weaving.

The question keeps coming up here about the Bible, so I’ll relate why I, one who tends to be quite skeptical and is not the easiest to convince, believe it is much more than human wisdom.

First, I had to think that since, for me, it is obvious that this universe and the life in it just could not be a product of spontaneous chance, that there is a creator, that the qualities of that creator would be evident. Now, what is the most outstanding quality that I see in humans? That would be love. How could such a quality come about by chance, I’ll let others try to explain it, but, for me, it just couldn’t have happened, it must have been put in us. So, if love is a quality that was bestowed upon mankind by a creator, then would it be loving of him to cause so much confusion as to who he is, what he is and how he thinks? What parent would do that to his children? So, I concluded that he would give instructions to his earthly children.

What would I expect then? It should be widely available, wouldn’t it? That availability would extend to not only geographically, but also to languages. The Bible is the most produced book in history, available to over 95% of the languages on earth.

What else? In researching the Bible, I find it historically accurate. Wouldn’t that be expected? Myths are quite vague as to who, what, where, when. The Bible gives names, places, years, months and days. An example is the first few verses in Luke: “In the 15th year of the reign of Ti·beʹri·us Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Ju·deʹa, Herod was district ruler of Galʹi·lee, Philip his brother was district ruler of the country of It·u·raeʹa and Trach·o·niʹtis, and Ly·saʹni·as was district ruler of Ab·i·leʹne, in the days of chief priest Anʹnas and of Caʹia·phas, God’s declaration came to John the son of Zech·a·riʹah in the wilderness.” This can be pinpointed to the year 29CE.

I am impressed by the candor of the ones used to write the Bible. To this day, it is the tendency of historians to put a bias on history, expanding on success and minimizing, if even mentioning, failures. That has always been the case. The Bible writers were very candid about the failures of their people, even themselves. An example is the book of Mark. It is believed that Peter was the source of this book. It very candidly relates how Peter denied Jesus, something that, no doubt, he was quite ashamed of.

The Bible is also remarkable in its internal harmony. It is remarkable in that there were some forty men, from varying backgrounds, over a time of a millennia and a half. However, from the first to the last there is a constant theme, and it harmonizes.

The Bible is not a scientific textbook. However, when it touches science, it is accurate. The order of events in the first chapter of Genesis is accurate. How did Moses know, not only what these events were, but the order in which they happened? The odds are staggering. The laws concerning hygiene, quarantining, waste disposal, the handling of dead bodies were centuries a head of it’s time and contrary to the thinking of the contemporary nations around them. Centuries before it was theorized, the Bible said that the earth is round and also that it has no visible support.

I find the most outstanding aspect is fulfilled prophecy. Scores of prophecy about the messiah was fulfilled in Jesus, and while there were a few that he made sure he did, most was quite out of his control. The odds of just a few of these being fulfilled in one person are staggering. One of these is that, in the book of Daniel, the year of when the Messiah would come was foretold, and that was 29CE. Two hundred years before the event, it foretold the fall of Babylon, which was, at the time, a secondary power. It named the person that would do it and how it would be done. Some may think that if you make lots and lots of prophecy that some will end up sticking in a manner. But that is really not the case here.

I have just barely touched on these reasons why I think that the Bible is not just a human invention. Much, much more I can relate. I am just showing that my reasons are sound. They may not be for you, and I’m fine with that.

[gerv]

@jonobacon

there is evidence of Jesus, but no evidence that he was the son of god.

What sort of thing would you count as valid evidence for that claim?

You say that there is no evidence, but I suspect you get there by taking all the evidence and deciding it’s not proper evidence, in “no true Scotsman” fashion. What evidence would you accept?

[jonobacon]

@gerv

What evidence would you accept?

Scientific evidence.

[gerv]

But then you are assuming your conclusion before you start. Science is ths study of the natural. God, by definition, is super-natural - he is beyond nature, because he created it. So if scientific evidence is the only sort of evidence you accept then, before you start thinking about whether God exists, you have already hidden the conclusion that he doesn’t exist inside your premises. So it’s not surprising you reach that conclusion at the end, if you assume it at the beginning.

Would you say all of your beliefs are based on scientific evidence?

If so, what is the scientific evidence for this belief (which I am asserting you have based on your last statement): “Scientific evidence is the only evidence which counts for anything”?

[jonobacon]

@gerv, I think you make a valid point that if god is a supernatural entity that science may not be able to provide sufficient evidence for his/her existence.

The challenge with this argument is that by the same logic people could justify that seemingly ludicrous things may exist too…Santa, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, etc. It is similar to the issue with conspiracy theories - people who are so convinced that the government control what we understand means that people can question all kinds of things we should arguably consider fact, and we get people who deny the moon landings exist, deny that the world is round etc.

This is the reason why I don’t ever categorically say that god does or does not exist. While we have no scientific evidence to suggest god may exist, to your point, science may not be equipped to prove god, but in the absence of scientific evidence I would argue that your conviction of your belief in god is entirely based around faith.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with this - a faith in god gives millions comfort, confidence, and perspective. But as is always the case with faith, there will be many who find it easy to question it.

Thus, going back to my original point, I don’t think anyone can categorically state that god does or does not exist, and as such I respect all views here.

[oldgeek]

There have been many definitions of faith, usually ones more closer to credulity, but the scriptures define faith as the certain expectation of things hoped for, the convincing evidence of realities not seen. With that, everyone has faith! To illustrate, you look into the sky and see dark clouds coming your way. You see lighting and then hear the thunder. Even though you are not yet seeing any rain, you take action, usually looking for cover. Why? Evidence in the form of experience tells you that rain is coming. Your taking cover is a form of faith.

I thought that you might find that bit of information interesting.

[WarrenHill]

@jonobacon

The challenge with this argument is that by the same logic people could justify that seemingly ludicrous things may exist too…Santa,

Hold on I’m not having that, there is clear evidence that Santa exits: how else do I get presents every Christmas ?

@jonobacon

Thus, going back to my original point, I don’t think anyone can categorically state that god does or does not exist, and as such I respect all views here

I stated much earlier in this thread that the existence of God can neither be proved or disproved and while I accept that religion helps many people it must be remembered that it is not always a force for good. Religion has been used to justify terrible actions and is presumably part of the thinking behind the man who blew himself up and killed many children at a concert in Manchester earlier this week. I’m not suggesting Muslim faith justifies these actions but clearly this individual’s distorted view convinced him he was doing gods bidding.

Much of what religion teaches, such as love for your fellow man, is good but I don’t need a book to tell me we should be excellent to each other (and party on dude) as Bill and Ted have taught us.

[grenorange]

@oldgeek

If you happen across such references (no pressure!)

Here we go. Note, this is a secondary source, however they provide references at the bottom.

@oldgeek

Centuries before it was theorized, the Bible said that the earth is round and also that it has no visible support.

This can be observed simply by watching ships go hull first beyond the horizon. I think ships were around before this was written. Again with hygiene; the writer could have observed that infection spreads from person to person and thought of quarantining sick people. They don’t need to know the mechanism of germ theory.

I’m not saying these aren’t amazing insights, they are. However they don’t have to be God inspired.

[oldgeek]

Thanks for the reference. I’ll try to read it sometime soon. Kind of dealing with brain fog lately, and am looking forward to a vacation. Hope I don’t forget!

As to the earth being round, documents about it, other than this, didn’t appear till the 6th century BCE, about 300 years after the Bible mentions it. And, the context really wasn’t about science. It was just mentioning it as a fact. The same with mentioning that the earth has no visible means of support, which was written in the 16th century BCE. In the 16th century BCE, contemporaries had some pretty odd notions as to health, like using feces in medicine, but, people weren’t really unintelligent, so your remark about observation of the sick is valid. You may chalk it up to coincidence, and that’s fine, but, like I said, it’s the overall evidence, of which includes what I mentioned, that has me convinced.

[gerv]

@jonobacon

The challenge with this argument is that by the same logic people could justify that seemingly ludicrous things may exist too…Santa, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, etc.

Except that there is no reason to think that such things exist. (WarrenHill’s presents notwithstanding But you are here. The earth is here. It contains creatures tinier than a grain of sand with more complexity than humans can ever fathom. The universe is specifically arranged such that life is possible. Humans tend to believe in objective universally-applicable good and evil. We have a sense of beauty. There are things which need explanations. Science’s current explanation for the fine tuning argument (to take an example) is “millions of universes”, an explanation notable for the fact that it’s entirely unproveable because if any of these other universes were scientifically observable, they’d by definition be part of this universe. And so belief in multiple universes is just as much or more a matter of faith as belief in God. So a scientist criticising belief in God because “it’s based on faith” seems somewhat the pot calling the kettle black.

This is where Russell’s teapot falls down. It is an attempt to place the burden of proof on the person who claims God exists, wrongly in my view.

Anyway, Jono, you do think that some sort of creator being exists, so that belief isn’t (for you) in the same category as belief in Santa. I think your strong desire to be even-handed (you are still very British in that regard - like many of us, a strong adherent of the fallacy of the middle ground, Your logical fallacy is middle ground ) means you are unwilling to investigate whether God may have spoken to us because if you found he had, that would mean taking a position which says that other people are wrong.

However, your current position, “respectful” as you say it is, still says that people who claim certainty on this subject are wrong, even if you don’t express it that baldly. So I don’t think it would be as much of a change as you think

[ralight]

@gerv

God, by definition, is super-natural - he is beyond nature, because he created it.

Well that’s one definition, it doesn’t mean it’s correct though.

[grenorange]

@gerv

It contains creatures tinier than a grain of sand with more complexity than humans can ever fathom.

This is what I hate about religion, it teaches people to accept ignorance.

@gerv

Science’s current explanation for the fine tuning argument (to take an example) is “millions of universes”, an explanation notable for the fact that it’s entirely unproveable because if any of these other universes were scientifically observable, they’d by definition be part of this universe. And so belief in multiple universes is just as much or more a matter of faith as belief in God. So a scientist criticising belief in God because “it’s based on faith” seems somewhat the pot calling the kettle black.

You have a valid point here. However, even if this is the only universe, if it’s laws of physics didn’t allow for the evolution of life, we would not be there to observe it. It doesn’t really matter what the odds were, because we observe it, we either got (very) lucky, or there must be a multiverse. (or we are Boltzmann brains, simulations etc)

@gerv

attempt to place the burden of proof on the person who claims God exists, wrongly in my view

Why wrongly? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Most of what religion once claimed as evidence has now been explained via natural processes. I personally think there rest is just a matter of time.

Proving that there is no God is impossible, by your definition he/she is beyond nature and therefore can never be observed, you have given me an impossible task. Anyone who says they have evidence against god is falling into the same trap those who say they have proof. There is no way to proof either way. Therefore the most useful explanation should be used. Just as ancestor simulations are possible, so to is God. However neither ancestor simulations nor God leads to any useful predictions of explanations.

[oldgeek]

@grenorange

It doesn’t really matter what the odds were, because we observe it, we either got (very) lucky, or there must be a multiverse. (or we are Boltzmann brains, simulations etc)

Or, it was made that way. This whole discussion is getting quite circular. To think that everything is a result of a creator is a belief. But, to think that ‘it all just happened,’ that life, the universe and everything came about spontaneously, is also a belief. I make that point since there is not any data to show that it can or did. None. All that has been related is what could have happened from such a standpoint. I see the same and see evidence of a creator. All of us have free will. I choose, by free will, to think that life can come about only from previous life, as that is all that has been actually observed. You, using your free will, choose otherwise, and you feel that there is sound reason to do so, as you have been relating.

Unless it is a simulation, then, darn it, why did the coders let me get fat!

What I am glad for, is that this discussion didn’t turn too contentious. I feel everyone who has disagreed with me has been kind, even though I’m sure you all think I’m completely bonkers! Of which, I’m use to that.

And I’m still going to read that last article you referenced, I’m just stopping my routine for a moment to express my appreciation.

[grenorange]

@oldgeek

What I am glad for, is that this discussion didn’t turn too contentious. I feel everyone who has disagreed with me has been kind, even though I’m sure you all think I’m completely bonkers! Of which, I’m use to that.

Yes, thanks everyone. This has got to be about the most respectful discussions about religion on the internet. I don’t think of religions people as bonkers either, after all, my family is, and they’re lovely. I’m sure many people think I am. Anyway let’s agree to disagree.

[WarrenHill]

@oldgeek

What I am glad for, is that this discussion didn’t turn too contentious. I feel everyone who has disagreed with me has been kind, even though I’m sure you all think I’m completely bonkers!

Firstly Greg, I don’t think you are bonkers, and I don’t think anybody else does either. If god in your life helps you then I hope your god goes with you. I don’t see or feel a need for god and I’m sure you appreciate that too.

I was more than a little cautious when creating this topic because I have seen similar topics become “nasty” on other forums. My confidence in “Bad Voltage” has been shown to be justified (again), we can disagree significantly but are able to do this in a respectful manner.

I don’t feel I have anything more to add to this thread, though if anyone else does feel free to keep posting. Thanks everyone for your input to this discussion.

I discovered last night that the wife of a friend, and his two children, were were at the concert in Manchester on Monday where a man blew himself up killing 22 others and injuring a lot more. Luckily they were not near the blast so were uninjured but it lifts ones heart to see the wave of love when such events happen and we rally round to help.

I MCR.

[WarrenHill]

@oldgeek

Unless it is a simulation, then, darn it, why did the coders let me get fat!

One final thought if it’s not a simulation and god is real why did he let you get fat? Clearly you are are beautiful human being, why did he limit that to your personality and mental abilities and not extend it to your physical appearance?

I could make similar comments about myself.

[gerv]

@grenorange

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Depends on what you mean by “extraordinary”. Do you mean “out of the ordinary”? Having discussed the limitations of what science can tell us, above, I don’t see why the existence of God is a particularly out-of-the-ordinary claim. If by “extraordinary” you mean “non-scientific”, then you are saying “Non-scientific claims require non-scientific evidence”, but I’m not even sure what that would mean.

Same question I asked Jono: what would count as evidence, for you?

Jono said “scientific evidence”, but then agreed that this didn’t make sense, so it seems like no evidence would count for him. Therefore, his fence-sitting isn’t really fence-sitting, he’s actually dogmatically on one side of the fence. “Whatever you show me, whatever I see in the world, whatever history I read, I will nonetheless never be convinced of the existence of God.” Is that also your position?

[grenorange]

@gerv

Same question I asked Jono: what would count as evidence, for you?

I going to have to say scientific evidence. Sorry, that’s not very satisfactory, but if there is a God who really cares, and can do anything, they can make some substantial scientific evidence.

@gerv

Depends on what you mean by “extraordinary”. Do you mean “out of the ordinary”? Having discussed the limitations of what science can tell us, above, I don’t see why the existence of God is a particularly out-of-the-ordinary claim.

I’d rather not play word games here, I think you know what I mean. For example when the big bang was first proposed it was extraordinary. Until then, physicists thought of the universe as eternal, unchanging. Not many first accepted it. But it has extraordinary evidence, and multiple lines of it: Cosmic Microwave Background, galaxies moving away, smaller still forming older galaxies as you look further back in time, and the exact proportions of hydrogen and helium as predicted by the big bang theory. This is what I would call extraordinary evidence supporting an extraordinary claim.

As to God being an extraordinary claim, I think it is. (And we will agree to disagree here) Everything we see around us is a result of purely natural processes which can be explained by the sciences. Why invoke a supernatural being?