Thanks for your post Mark. Haven't we covered this? Seemingly from your points we haven't.

I didn't concede or suggest that God couldn't intervene in this world at all. I said if he did intervene that it wouldn't be provable, ..following precedent. So you seem to have completely misunderstood me there. This is an important point. I need you to understand where I'm coming from here.

So, then you're second point, that I assert that miracles written in the bible didn't occur... no I do not. Necessarily those miracles are not provable, because, as is the theme of this thread, that would invalidate faith. Again, another important point.

I think that God is a God of natural laws. God created everything meaning the natural laws as we know them, and as we are discovering. I agree with you that to science, the consideration of God's existence cannot be a valid pursuit. From that point of view, I agree with Dawkins. But then that is to miss the point of religion, which to me, doesn't ever deal with scientific type explanation of the world. If you think it does then I fail to see your case.

Interesting yes, that this is a limit of God's ability, that he cannot intervene in this reality and also leave provable evidence. This though is a logical aspect of God. If that were to be the case, that God was a known entity, testable etc., then this existence would be totally different.. the natural laws we live by would be thrown on their head and this would be a different reality. All this is pie in the sky of conjecture of course. We're talking about something we know not to be true so far. So why bother? Why not think about this reality and what concerns us now, than all this talk of fairies, dragons, pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters and spatula wielding monsters. Why not debate the guts of the matter which can be a real topic for serious debate?

I'd be interested to hear your reply.

Regards

Yes EvF, yes I am. I thought the comment appropriate to start the post.

(March 9, 2009 at 9:58 pm)Demonaura Wrote: Yes EvF, yes I am. I thought the comment appropriate to start the post.

Lol

Appropriate whether it's true or not!!

EvF

(March 9, 2009 at 5:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I didn't concede or suggest that God couldn't intervene in this world at all. I said if he did intervene that it wouldn't be provable, ..following precedent. So you seem to have completely misunderstood me there. This is an important point. I need you to understand where I'm coming from here.

You see that is simply an unsubstantiated assertion ... if something happens (and it doesn't greatly matter if it's explainable or not) it MUST leave evidence of it's occurrence. For something to affect our universe, to be present in it, it must leave a trail, everything does and if that is not so YOU (the claimant) must provide solid reasoning (and perhaps a little evidence) to support the assertion ... perhaps something else accepted (universally) as actual in this world yet leaves no evidence trail?

(March 9, 2009 at 5:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So, then you're second point, that I assert that miracles written in the bible didn't occur... no I do not. Necessarily those miracles are not provable, because, as is the theme of this thread, that would invalidate faith. Again, another important point.

Perhaps but it doesn't invalidate the above.

(March 9, 2009 at 5:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I think that God is a God of natural laws. God created everything meaning the natural laws as we know them, and as we are discovering. I agree with you that to science, the consideration of God's existence cannot be a valid pursuit. From that point of view, I agree with Dawkins. But then that is to miss the point of religion, which to me, doesn't ever deal with scientific type explanation of the world. If you think it does then I fail to see your case.

Your god is a god of natural laws but is not explainable scientifically? That is absolutely non-sensical.

(March 9, 2009 at 5:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Interesting yes, that this is a limit of God's ability, that he cannot intervene in this reality and also leave provable evidence. This though is a logical aspect of God. If that were to be the case, that God was a known entity, testable etc., then this existence would be totally different.. the natural laws we live by would be thrown on their head and this would be a different reality.

So you're saying your god has limits? Doesn't seem like much of a god to me if it has limits.

(March 9, 2009 at 5:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: All this is pie in the sky of conjecture of course. We're talking about something we know not to be true so far. So why bother? Why not think about this reality and what concerns us now, than all this talk of fairies, dragons, pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters and spatula wielding monsters. Why not debate the guts of the matter which can be a real topic for serious debate?

All religions views seem "pie in the sky" to me (at all times) so comparisons with Santa Clause, leprechauns, faeries and unicorns seem to be entirely valid.

Kyu

I am going to invoke Dawkins here

Because I agree on the matter of God not being separate from science - especially considering when God is said to interfere with the natural world and operate by natural laws - and I think the following is a valid point:

'Richard Dawkins has criticized the NOMA principle on the grounds that religion does not, and cannot, steer clear of the material scientific matters that Gould considers outside religion's scope. Dawkins argues that "[a] universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. [...] Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims." These "existence claims" include miracles such as the Catholic Assumption of Mary: whether Mary's body decayed when she died or was physically lifted to Heaven is a material fact, and thus outside the moral magisterium to which NOMA would limit religion. [50]'

From wikipedia on the NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) part of the Stephen Jay Gould article.

I will also add on the side, on the matter of theology, a Dawkins quote in response to the Theologian Alister McGrath's book, Dawkins God :

Response from Dawkins

'In response to the book in general, and to the accusation of being ignorant of Christian theology in particular, Richard Dawkins stated:
“

Yes, I have, of course, met this point before. It sounds superficially fair. But it presupposes that there is something in Christian theology to be ignorant about. The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a non-subject. [2]'

From the wikipedia article about McGrath's book - Dawkins' God.

I know the Dawkins quote, and I think it supports my statements above EvF. Dawkins consistently quotes Catholic dogma some of which isn't accepted mainstream Christianity, which is not to say he is in error, just educated in a poor example of Christianity. Whilst I regard the Catholic Church Christian I'm also aware of their many errors/ anti biblical teachings/ practices. All Christian churches are united by their acceptance of a certain Nicaean creed.

(March 9, 2009 at 5:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Thanks for your post Mark. Haven't we covered this? Seemingly from your points we haven't.

I didn't concede or suggest that God couldn't intervene in this world at all. I said if he did intervene that it wouldn't be provable, ..following precedent. So you seem to have completely misunderstood me there. This is an important point. I need you to understand where I'm coming from here.

So, then you're second point, that I assert that miracles written in the bible didn't occur... no I do not. Necessarily those miracles are not provable, because, as is the theme of this thread, that would invalidate faith. Again, another important point.

I think that God is a God of natural laws. God created everything meaning the natural laws as we know them, and as we are discovering. I agree with you that to science, the consideration of God's existence cannot be a valid pursuit. From that point of view, I agree with Dawkins. But then that is to miss the point of religion, which to me, doesn't ever deal with scientific type explanation of the world. If you think it does then I fail to see your case.

Interesting yes, that this is a limit of God's ability, that he cannot intervene in this reality and also leave provable evidence. This though is a logical aspect of God. If that were to be the case, that God was a known entity, testable etc., then this existence would be totally different.. the natural laws we live by would be thrown on their head and this would be a different reality. All this is pie in the sky of conjecture of course. We're talking about something we know not to be true so far. So why bother? Why not think about this reality and what concerns us now, than all this talk of fairies, dragons, pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters and spatula wielding monsters. Why not debate the guts of the matter which can be a real topic for serious debate?

I'd be interested to hear your reply.

Regards

I am trying to figure out what the "guts of the matter" could possibly be, given that the god in which you believe appears to be not only impossible of being encountered, but even somewhat disingenuous, since he had it put in his divine book that he has worked miracles at various times, miracles which you allege he is unable to have done.

But it appears that you do not, after all, think that it is a logical necessity that the supposed God cannot work miracles -- deeds which, when beheld, lead clearly to the conclusion that he exists. It is just that, as a matter of fact does not do so. Am I right?

Do you agree that there is no way to know whether God might someday work a miracle (as defined above)? That is, we cannot know whether the supposed god is incapable of doing miracles or whether, for the time being, he merely chooses not to do them? And so, that god will never work a miracle is a claim incapable of being supported by fact, but is instead an article of faith? (I do not use this term in a pejorative sense, since I among the articles of my faith are not only that there will never be any miracles, but that there are no gods to do them.)

Taking this article of faith as a starting point, then, do you agree that it is an implication of your position that the supposed god can never answer prayer in any consistent way, or systematically favor the faithful over the unfaithful, or the good over the wicked, since doing so would create a empirical basis for proving his existence?

Do you agree this particular article of faith implies that the supposed god cannot convincingly and consistently address a person in his mind, still less directly reveal divine truth, since doing so would permit that person to draw the quite reasonable conclusion that he exists? Or is it only groups of people to which the supposed God is incapable of revealing his existence?

Do you agree that if this is true, then it must be that Jesus gave no clear sign to men that he was a god? In particular, that he was not resurrected from the dead?

You say, "Why not think about this reality and what concerns us now?"

Well all right, let us address the question of whether the supposed god can have any effects at all upon this reality of ours. You have said, god perhaps can have effects so long as they are do not lead to the conclusion that he exists. But how are these possible divine effects different from the operation of the blind natural forces that are widely supposed to be the exclusive mechanisms of this world of ours? Would not any difference at all be a basis for inferring his existence? And upon what basis then, can it be said that the supposed god has the power to work any such effects? Do you agree that the strongest possible statement that can be made in this regard is that we do not know whether or not the supposed god is capable of working any real effects whatsoever?

Do you think that there is a life after death, and if so, do you maintain that it will be possible to know at that time, for certain, whether or not the supposed god exists?

(March 10, 2009 at 10:16 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I know the Dawkins quote, and I think it supports my statements above EvF.

That your god is a god of natural laws but is not explainable scientifically? I will say again that that is absolutely non-sensical.

(March 10, 2009 at 10:16 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Dawkins consistently quotes Catholic dogma some of which isn't accepted mainstream Christianity, which is not to say he is in error, just educated in a poor example of Christianity.

Please supply specific examples.

(March 10, 2009 at 10:16 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Whilst I regard the Catholic Church Christian I'm also aware of their many errors/ anti biblical teachings/ practices.

Please supply specific examples.

Kyu

If you'll permit me to take a few steps back here,

Regarding NOMA and Dawkins assertions surrounding this theory. Fr0do, since you argue that God isn't provable by scientific method would you refuse to accept a scientific proof of God? On the ground that science has no "Juristiction" as it where?

Sam

Hi Mark.

Forgive me quoting you this time. Your answer was too packed with goodies!

(March 10, 2009 at 11:35 am)Mark Wrote: I am trying to figure out what the "guts of the matter" could possibly be, given that the god in which you believe appears to be not only impossible of being encountered, but even somewhat disingenuous, since he had it put in his divine book that he has worked miracles at various times, miracles which you allege he is unable to have done.

The "guts of the matter" is a subject worthy of debate, rather than a very hollow substitute.

I allege the opposite to what you are stating. I think God did do the miracles recorded in the Bible. I also think that it's poignant that these miracles are not provable.

Jesus said "you see me, yet you still don't believe" (fr0d0 paraphrase ©) . Even with a personal encounter, there is no proof even to the person experiencing it, that it happened. God says again and again about the necessity of faith to reap the rewards offered. This is very different from a scientific subject of study.

(March 10, 2009 at 11:35 am)Mark Wrote: But it appears that you do not, after all, think that it is a logical necessity that the supposed God cannot work miracles -- deeds which, when beheld, lead clearly to the conclusion that he exists. It is just that, as a matter of fact does not do so. Am I right?

Forgive me. I find it difficult to get a clear idea of what you're trying to say in this paragraph. Hopefully I read you correctly here..

It's not a "necessity" that God works miracles. That he has, is very nice, thankyou. Our only hope would be that this would lead us to discover more about him.

"As a matter of fact", in the sense of provable fact, no, God does not supply. So in that sense you are right. A factual historian will never ever be able to prove the existence of God. I, on the other hand, have faith, and I believe that God did (and does) indeed do miracles as described in the Bible.

(March 10, 2009 at 11:35 am)Mark Wrote: Do you agree that there is no way to know whether God might someday work a miracle (as defined above)?

I wouldn't be able to predict the workings of God. That would be impossible of course. Given precedent however, I could assume that God will never work a miracle that would be provable, yes.

(March 10, 2009 at 11:35 am)Mark Wrote: That is, we cannot know whether the supposed god is incapable of doing miracles or whether, for the time being, he merely chooses not to do them?

You cannot know in any provable sense, is my point, No.

(March 10, 2009 at 11:35 am)Mark Wrote: And so, that god will never work a miracle is a claim incapable of being supported by fact, but is instead an article of faith? (I do not use this term in a pejorative sense, since I among the articles of my faith are not only that there will never be any miracles, but that there are no gods to do them.)

It is indeed a claim incapable of being supported by fact. Precisely.

(March 10, 2009 at 11:35 am)Mark Wrote: Taking this article of faith as a starting point, then, do you agree that it is an implication of your position that the supposed god can never answer prayer in any consistent way, or systematically favor the faithful over the unfaithful, or the good over the wicked, since doing so would create a empirical basis for proving his existence?

You presume that God could not provably doing anything = God not actually doing something. This is incorrect.

(March 10, 2009 at 11:35 am)Mark Wrote: Do you agree this particular article of faith implies that the supposed god cannot convincingly and consistently address a person in his mind, still less directly reveal divine truth, since doing so would permit that person to draw the quite reasonable conclusion that he exists? Or is it only groups of people to which the supposed God is incapable of revealing his existence?

God is constantly revealing himself to everyone, in every moment. You are like a naked person in a desert with no possible shelter, and he is the Sun.

The implication is that the revelation of truth is constantly available, It is up to the individual to accept it or not, with complete choice. It would be correct, given the model, for either choice to be perfectly reasonable.

(March 10, 2009 at 11:35 am)Mark Wrote: Do you agree that if this is true, then it must be that Jesus gave no clear sign to men that he was a god? In particular, that he was not resurrected from the dead?

To some it was clear, and yet to people standing next to them, seeing and hearing exactly the same thing, it was not. This perfectly follows my proposition I think.
I believe he did and was, you believe the opposite (or don't accept it to any degree)

---

(March 10, 2009 at 11:35 am)Mark Wrote: You say, "Why not think about this reality and what concerns us now?"

Well all right, let us address the question of whether the supposed god can have any effects at all upon this reality of ours. You have said, god perhaps can have effects so long as they are do not lead to the conclusion that he exists. But how are these possible divine effects different from the operation of the blind natural forces that are widely supposed to be the exclusive mechanisms of this world of ours? Would not any difference at all be a basis for inferring his existence? And upon what basis then, can it be said that the supposed god has the power to work any such effects? Do you agree that the strongest possible statement that can be made in this regard is that we do not know whether or not the supposed god is capable of working any real effects whatsoever?

In the realm of provability, "we do not know". I'm really happy/ comfortable with that. None of this addresses the real nature of God though.

(March 10, 2009 at 11:35 am)Mark Wrote: Do you think that there is a life after death, and if so, do you maintain that it will be possible to know at that time, for certain, whether or not the supposed god exists?

Thankyou for asking. I was avoiding the other thread on this as I didn't want to confuse things by adding my personal feelings on that. But since you ask, I'd be happy to say here.

To me the effects of Christianity are immediate, in a sense. Life and death as defined as heaven and hell aren't to do with some heebie jeebie unknown life after death nonsense, they're about our lives now. You can live both by the choices you make; you either grasp life or you rot and decay letting it go. This isn't my unique idea BTW, it's a mainstream one.

When you die, you'll carry on in the memories of those you affected, and in the artifacts you leave behind. That's all.

Thanks for this Mark, I'm enjoying it.