ROUND 1: frodo’s Opening Statement
Kyu requested the debate on this subject, so any credit for that is solely his. Whilst I first saw little point in it, I succumbed as Kyu obviously saw mileage in it, and it would occupy him enough to shut him up for at least a while. Seriously, I look forward to Kyu presenting his thoughts and responding to them. Hopefully I can learn something in the process.
What goals do I hope to achieve in this debate..?
Well clearly, as you’ll see if you don’t already know, I believe strongly that evidence for the existence of God is a red herring when considered as it usually is, from an atheist’s perspective… That atheist also holding dear that science possesses, or will probably possess at some point in time, most or all the known answers to life, the universe and everything; and that science alone should be the measure, and final judge of such knowledge.
I seek to dispel the idea that science and theology overlap.
“Science uses physical evidence to answer its questions and relies on modern humans to make inferences from that evidence. Religions, on the other hand, commonly use divine inspiration, interpretation of ancient texts, and (in some cases) personal insight as the source of the answers to their questions. Science and religion thus are not, or should not be, competing approaches, because they seek to accomplish different things, and by different methods.”
From http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html
I feel that I should say that I believe the Bible to be absolute truth, and I believe that Jesus lives and that he died for me.
Opening Statement:
There is only one God. There are several gods, in my understanding. God, big 'G', is for me the God of the Christian Bible. His nature described there, and also his effects on this world/ Universe. gods, small 'g', are other deities also described in the Christian Bible. Deities unknown when the Bible was written I believe are covered generally and to these Biblical guidelines apply.
Why not other gods? Although I personally explored many ideas around faith and spirituality in my formative years; whatever lead me to Christianity also leads me to accept the Bible as wholly true in spiritual terms. Not that I dismiss other expressions of faith. I don’t.
An early influence in my Christian life was a book by a then retired leader of my own denomination exploring faiths from Animism in the form of it’s most basic practice through primitive faiths up to the big faiths and everything in between. This book detailed reasons Christians would be foolish to ignore the wealth of knowledge to be found in other faiths. This book was also on the curriculum for young people to study that were interested in taking their faith further and perhaps into ministry. (I was a Salvationist: a member of the Salvation Army, a Church founded in 1865)
So I don’t dismiss other faiths outright. I have chosen my allegiance, so to speak; but part of my belief is that doubt is a core element of my faith. Without doubt my faith would be very weak. I believe that God requires me to doubt and question as without this I would be displaying a lack of care for him. I’ve also asserted that faith, doubt and questioning are integral pieces of my faith jigsaw. All interdependent on each other.
Science... I know little about. I'm in awe at what I understand of science. My religious views don't in anyway encroach on scientific knowledge: to the best of my understanding. To me my faith deals only with matters of faith, and definitely not with anything in the scientific realm. The God and the spiritual life I have faith in might need to be 'real' ultimately (and I’ll discuss that later), but that sense is necessarily disconnected from our provable grasp, to be true to it's nature.
Evidence when talking about my/ the Christian God needs definition. There isn't, nor can there be, provable evidence of God's existence. This is the nature of God described in the Bible.
From http://www.religionfacts.com/christianit...fs/god.htm
“God in the New Testament
The authors of the New Testament took for granted the existence of the God of the Old Testament. They believed in Yahweh, "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," whom the Jews worshipped as the one true God (Ac 13:32; Ro 3:29, 4:3).
Like the Old Testament, the New Testament teaches that there is only one God (Mk 12:29; Eph 4:6; Jas 2:19), who is pure spirit (Jn 4:24; 1 Jn 4:12), the creator of the world (1 Ti 4:4; Heb 3:4), holy and good (Ro 3:4; Eph 4:24; Rev 4:8), all-powerful (Mt 19:26; Mk 2:7, 10:18) and worthy of mankind's worship and love (Mt 6:24; Mk 11:22; Lk 2:14).
God expects ethical behaviour (Jn 6:29; Ac 8:21, 24:16; 2 Co 9:7; 1 Th 4:9; Jas 1:27; 1 Jn 3:9) and will judge wrongdoers (Ro 2:16, 3:19).
The New Testament especially emphasizes God's love for the world and his desire to save all people (Jn 3:16; Ro 5:5,5:8; Php 4:191 Jn 4:7-9).
Where the New Testament differs from the Old Testament in its teachings about God is in its proclamation that God has chosen to reveal himself to mankind through Christ, the Incarnation of God. Especially in the Gospel of John, it is emphasized that Jesus alone knows the Father completely and he came to help humans know God ("the Father") better:
• John 3:35 - "The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands." (John the Baptist)
• John 7:16: "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me."
• John 14:9-10: Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father?' Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?"
• Romans 1:17: "For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed." “
Scientists address theology talking of provable evidence. People demand the use of scientific method to prove existence, because even though no person ever has had proof, what people declare via faith, is not just an idea, but an actual real 'thing'. The scientist surmises that if something is real, then it has to be testable as real.
So let's look at what we have to go on here.
The Bible: Documented, agreed description of God.
Real life experience: Confirmation of Biblical statement. After all God is supposedly real now for Christians, and not past tense.
Now depending on particular viewpoint, there could be very many interpretations of these two sources of information. I guess you're going to have to consider my standpoint, not as though it's fixed at all, I learn all the time, but that this is what makes sense to me. I can't defend what doesn't stack up logically for me. Similarly I expect Kyu to be true to himself and present what he concludes to be his understanding.
I in no way decry Kyu's standpoint. Every person has to be true to themselves, and sharing our perspective's helps us to learn and grow, hopefully.
I don't take the Bible literally. (I don't think anyone does. It's a book of a variety of styles from poetic to historical prose narrative. There are parts that deny simple pigeonholing, such as Genesis one. You may already be ahead of me here. I'm saying that those parts of debatable genre some claim to be historical, I do not.) If none of it were based on actual fact then it'd make zero difference to me. I stand to be corrected, but personally I need it to be true in matters of human spirituality and describing God's nature. I'm not looking for a history lesson. This after all is the raison d’être of the Bible. It's a book for spiritual guidance. It isn't a book on science (even Christian creationists of every flavour agree with this).
You could be forgiven for thinking that Jesus didn't seem to take this view. But that would be to colour your perception of his claimed words with a particular brush. He took his arrival and the events described in the Bible as crucial. Everything he did and was logically fits what went before. He 'was' at the beginning as part of the God entity. His claims observed using scientific measures would be fantastic. Taken in context; as they were intended, a spiritual statement, isn't incredulous. It all follows logically.
Where does this leave our scientist and his measuring apparatus? No where yet it seems.
It seems almost a theological position to state that science may some day be able to measure what we don't understand now. Scientifically literate people will be able to fill you in on some of the wonders of modern science. I'm certainly not advocating any 'God of the gaps'. A purist scientist (a person that believes there is nothing to be understood outside the realm of scientific understanding, no other form of reasoning to be applied) may say that spirituality will one day be understood fully by science. Some would reduce spirituality to emotional response. Why should science make such special pleading? Why can't science co-exist with every other aspect of human understanding? Why can't science stay with what is scientific? Why is science, as some seem to claim, so bent on supremacy? Demanding the annihilation of anything not concerning science?
“Science has no business making inferences about souls, about afterlives, and about deities, because those are not physically detectable or measurable entities about which hypotheses can be tested.
Religions that treat their ancient texts' stories as allegorical rather than literal have little or no conflict with science.”
(paraphrased from http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html)
If God created this reality we experience, and is in and around us, as is the definition, then this reality is packed full with God. What special signature should we be able to see of this integral being? Is every minute detail in the scientists perception really evidence?
All this of course is of zero interest to me. I don't need to prove God. I can know God without proof. (I as in a Christian, a believer with similar experiences to other believers who share common experience)
Real life experience falls into the personal realm. Although this is shared experience common to other people holding similar beliefs. Frustratingly for the bloke in the sidelines wearing the white coat and holding a clip board, again none of this can be provable.
Maybe we should look into what is referred to as NOMA. Non-Overlapping Magisteria as put forward by Gould in his book "Rocks of ages".
Scientists claim that if God was real, this would presume that 'real' would equal 'composed of a matter that exists within or without this reality'. If the subject of our faith that God actually exists in this reality, that has to be an entity that exists in this reality, then it is scientifically possible to quantify that entity.
As Adrian has said on this forum recently, with the definition of God, among other things being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent; these attributes put the God entity outside of the realms of natural science. We would need God like measuring tools to measure God.
I don't discount the possibility that humans could evolve into gods. That then the term 'god' would need to be re-defined if such a thing was even possible, or we would need to adopt the label for ourselves.
This being highly improbable. Perhaps as improbable as the existence of God from a scientific perspective, maybe scientists could logically dismiss such a proposition much like they do God's existence.
From this point I concede that it is within the realms of almost impossible probability that science could theoretically one day be able to measure those infinite attributes of God.
Like many atheists though, I jump on the overwhelming logic that the extremely improbable is just that, and I can feel quite confident in dismissing the idea from sensible consideration that should bother my waking rational process.
So alternatively, what about the rational atheist and their equally dismissible problem?
A scientist wishing to explore the problem of creating celestial measuring implements may find it hard to secure funding. Possibly this would curtail any serious intent on the behalf of the serious practitioner to take such study seriously.
The reason for this is the very obvious one of obscurity. Quite rightly you'd think that a scientist would sensibly steer clear of such a crackpot pursuit.
The theologian however, finds that such a pursuit is actually central to his purpose.
Switching subjects suddenly gives the idea legs. There are very many sources of relevance. Where science fails, theology thrives. Where science concludes that the topic isn't sustainable or viable, theology concludes the opposite.
To the extreme of this reasoning sits Professor Richard Dawkins with his notion that theology shouldn't be a subject at all. He fully endorses the idea that science is impotent when it comes to philosophy, religion and spirituality. And he's right, for science. It doesn't take a genius to see the skewed logic used there. If only we could dismiss everything we didn't like so easily!
Kyu requested the debate on this subject, so any credit for that is solely his. Whilst I first saw little point in it, I succumbed as Kyu obviously saw mileage in it, and it would occupy him enough to shut him up for at least a while. Seriously, I look forward to Kyu presenting his thoughts and responding to them. Hopefully I can learn something in the process.
What goals do I hope to achieve in this debate..?
Well clearly, as you’ll see if you don’t already know, I believe strongly that evidence for the existence of God is a red herring when considered as it usually is, from an atheist’s perspective… That atheist also holding dear that science possesses, or will probably possess at some point in time, most or all the known answers to life, the universe and everything; and that science alone should be the measure, and final judge of such knowledge.
I seek to dispel the idea that science and theology overlap.
“Science uses physical evidence to answer its questions and relies on modern humans to make inferences from that evidence. Religions, on the other hand, commonly use divine inspiration, interpretation of ancient texts, and (in some cases) personal insight as the source of the answers to their questions. Science and religion thus are not, or should not be, competing approaches, because they seek to accomplish different things, and by different methods.”
From http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html
I feel that I should say that I believe the Bible to be absolute truth, and I believe that Jesus lives and that he died for me.
Opening Statement:
There is only one God. There are several gods, in my understanding. God, big 'G', is for me the God of the Christian Bible. His nature described there, and also his effects on this world/ Universe. gods, small 'g', are other deities also described in the Christian Bible. Deities unknown when the Bible was written I believe are covered generally and to these Biblical guidelines apply.
Why not other gods? Although I personally explored many ideas around faith and spirituality in my formative years; whatever lead me to Christianity also leads me to accept the Bible as wholly true in spiritual terms. Not that I dismiss other expressions of faith. I don’t.
An early influence in my Christian life was a book by a then retired leader of my own denomination exploring faiths from Animism in the form of it’s most basic practice through primitive faiths up to the big faiths and everything in between. This book detailed reasons Christians would be foolish to ignore the wealth of knowledge to be found in other faiths. This book was also on the curriculum for young people to study that were interested in taking their faith further and perhaps into ministry. (I was a Salvationist: a member of the Salvation Army, a Church founded in 1865)
So I don’t dismiss other faiths outright. I have chosen my allegiance, so to speak; but part of my belief is that doubt is a core element of my faith. Without doubt my faith would be very weak. I believe that God requires me to doubt and question as without this I would be displaying a lack of care for him. I’ve also asserted that faith, doubt and questioning are integral pieces of my faith jigsaw. All interdependent on each other.
Science... I know little about. I'm in awe at what I understand of science. My religious views don't in anyway encroach on scientific knowledge: to the best of my understanding. To me my faith deals only with matters of faith, and definitely not with anything in the scientific realm. The God and the spiritual life I have faith in might need to be 'real' ultimately (and I’ll discuss that later), but that sense is necessarily disconnected from our provable grasp, to be true to it's nature.
Evidence when talking about my/ the Christian God needs definition. There isn't, nor can there be, provable evidence of God's existence. This is the nature of God described in the Bible.
From http://www.religionfacts.com/christianit...fs/god.htm
“God in the New Testament
The authors of the New Testament took for granted the existence of the God of the Old Testament. They believed in Yahweh, "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," whom the Jews worshipped as the one true God (Ac 13:32; Ro 3:29, 4:3).
Like the Old Testament, the New Testament teaches that there is only one God (Mk 12:29; Eph 4:6; Jas 2:19), who is pure spirit (Jn 4:24; 1 Jn 4:12), the creator of the world (1 Ti 4:4; Heb 3:4), holy and good (Ro 3:4; Eph 4:24; Rev 4:8), all-powerful (Mt 19:26; Mk 2:7, 10:18) and worthy of mankind's worship and love (Mt 6:24; Mk 11:22; Lk 2:14).
God expects ethical behaviour (Jn 6:29; Ac 8:21, 24:16; 2 Co 9:7; 1 Th 4:9; Jas 1:27; 1 Jn 3:9) and will judge wrongdoers (Ro 2:16, 3:19).
The New Testament especially emphasizes God's love for the world and his desire to save all people (Jn 3:16; Ro 5:5,5:8; Php 4:191 Jn 4:7-9).
Where the New Testament differs from the Old Testament in its teachings about God is in its proclamation that God has chosen to reveal himself to mankind through Christ, the Incarnation of God. Especially in the Gospel of John, it is emphasized that Jesus alone knows the Father completely and he came to help humans know God ("the Father") better:
• John 3:35 - "The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands." (John the Baptist)
• John 7:16: "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me."
• John 14:9-10: Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father?' Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?"
• Romans 1:17: "For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed." “
Scientists address theology talking of provable evidence. People demand the use of scientific method to prove existence, because even though no person ever has had proof, what people declare via faith, is not just an idea, but an actual real 'thing'. The scientist surmises that if something is real, then it has to be testable as real.
So let's look at what we have to go on here.
The Bible: Documented, agreed description of God.
Real life experience: Confirmation of Biblical statement. After all God is supposedly real now for Christians, and not past tense.
Now depending on particular viewpoint, there could be very many interpretations of these two sources of information. I guess you're going to have to consider my standpoint, not as though it's fixed at all, I learn all the time, but that this is what makes sense to me. I can't defend what doesn't stack up logically for me. Similarly I expect Kyu to be true to himself and present what he concludes to be his understanding.
I in no way decry Kyu's standpoint. Every person has to be true to themselves, and sharing our perspective's helps us to learn and grow, hopefully.
I don't take the Bible literally. (I don't think anyone does. It's a book of a variety of styles from poetic to historical prose narrative. There are parts that deny simple pigeonholing, such as Genesis one. You may already be ahead of me here. I'm saying that those parts of debatable genre some claim to be historical, I do not.) If none of it were based on actual fact then it'd make zero difference to me. I stand to be corrected, but personally I need it to be true in matters of human spirituality and describing God's nature. I'm not looking for a history lesson. This after all is the raison d’être of the Bible. It's a book for spiritual guidance. It isn't a book on science (even Christian creationists of every flavour agree with this).
You could be forgiven for thinking that Jesus didn't seem to take this view. But that would be to colour your perception of his claimed words with a particular brush. He took his arrival and the events described in the Bible as crucial. Everything he did and was logically fits what went before. He 'was' at the beginning as part of the God entity. His claims observed using scientific measures would be fantastic. Taken in context; as they were intended, a spiritual statement, isn't incredulous. It all follows logically.
Where does this leave our scientist and his measuring apparatus? No where yet it seems.
It seems almost a theological position to state that science may some day be able to measure what we don't understand now. Scientifically literate people will be able to fill you in on some of the wonders of modern science. I'm certainly not advocating any 'God of the gaps'. A purist scientist (a person that believes there is nothing to be understood outside the realm of scientific understanding, no other form of reasoning to be applied) may say that spirituality will one day be understood fully by science. Some would reduce spirituality to emotional response. Why should science make such special pleading? Why can't science co-exist with every other aspect of human understanding? Why can't science stay with what is scientific? Why is science, as some seem to claim, so bent on supremacy? Demanding the annihilation of anything not concerning science?
“Science has no business making inferences about souls, about afterlives, and about deities, because those are not physically detectable or measurable entities about which hypotheses can be tested.
Religions that treat their ancient texts' stories as allegorical rather than literal have little or no conflict with science.”
(paraphrased from http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html)
If God created this reality we experience, and is in and around us, as is the definition, then this reality is packed full with God. What special signature should we be able to see of this integral being? Is every minute detail in the scientists perception really evidence?
All this of course is of zero interest to me. I don't need to prove God. I can know God without proof. (I as in a Christian, a believer with similar experiences to other believers who share common experience)
Real life experience falls into the personal realm. Although this is shared experience common to other people holding similar beliefs. Frustratingly for the bloke in the sidelines wearing the white coat and holding a clip board, again none of this can be provable.
Maybe we should look into what is referred to as NOMA. Non-Overlapping Magisteria as put forward by Gould in his book "Rocks of ages".
Scientists claim that if God was real, this would presume that 'real' would equal 'composed of a matter that exists within or without this reality'. If the subject of our faith that God actually exists in this reality, that has to be an entity that exists in this reality, then it is scientifically possible to quantify that entity.
As Adrian has said on this forum recently, with the definition of God, among other things being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent; these attributes put the God entity outside of the realms of natural science. We would need God like measuring tools to measure God.
I don't discount the possibility that humans could evolve into gods. That then the term 'god' would need to be re-defined if such a thing was even possible, or we would need to adopt the label for ourselves.
This being highly improbable. Perhaps as improbable as the existence of God from a scientific perspective, maybe scientists could logically dismiss such a proposition much like they do God's existence.
From this point I concede that it is within the realms of almost impossible probability that science could theoretically one day be able to measure those infinite attributes of God.
Like many atheists though, I jump on the overwhelming logic that the extremely improbable is just that, and I can feel quite confident in dismissing the idea from sensible consideration that should bother my waking rational process.
So alternatively, what about the rational atheist and their equally dismissible problem?
A scientist wishing to explore the problem of creating celestial measuring implements may find it hard to secure funding. Possibly this would curtail any serious intent on the behalf of the serious practitioner to take such study seriously.
The reason for this is the very obvious one of obscurity. Quite rightly you'd think that a scientist would sensibly steer clear of such a crackpot pursuit.
The theologian however, finds that such a pursuit is actually central to his purpose.
Switching subjects suddenly gives the idea legs. There are very many sources of relevance. Where science fails, theology thrives. Where science concludes that the topic isn't sustainable or viable, theology concludes the opposite.
To the extreme of this reasoning sits Professor Richard Dawkins with his notion that theology shouldn't be a subject at all. He fully endorses the idea that science is impotent when it comes to philosophy, religion and spirituality. And he's right, for science. It doesn't take a genius to see the skewed logic used there. If only we could dismiss everything we didn't like so easily!
