Do Christians actually want evidence?

[Sword of Christ]

Yeah, yeah. Just what I thought during my many years as a devout Christian. I realized later that I had been reading the bible, as I express it, with my mind on cruise control. You know how you drive along without really paying attention and then you see something striking or interesting, and you pay attention for a moment.

It was the experience of going to seminary which disengaged the cruise control on my mind. I had to slow down and read the bible carefully, some of it in the original languages. No, I didn't go to one of those liberal seminaries where the professors poke holes in the bible. Quite the opposite, it was an ultra-conservative seminary committed to biblical inerrancy. It was just that I finally had to pay attention to every word, not just the comforting proof texts which Christians lap up from their pastors. And I came to the conclusion which is embodied in my signature line.

I'll let you into a secret, the Bible is not not actually a book of literal history. There will be some history in there of course though what exactly happened to who and when is beside the point. What matters is whether this was a text that inspired through a relationship of a people with God, the creator of the universe. The bulk of Christians may not be reading it that way and of course you have the Young Earthers who have ended up taking the Book of Genesis literally, but God gave us these brains to actually use and discover the facts of the universe for ourselves. God provides the underlying context to what we discover and learn we don't argue with the facts here.

You may be able to restore your faith in God if you tackle it a little differently, if you're well educated in the modern Western scientific perspective you have to put in a little extra work but you'll see should eventually this atheism business is built on a crock of over self inflated opinion and it has nothing of any real substance behind it. There are a couple of good points here and there you can certainly afford to be a little more open minded when it comes to certain subjects. What matters is whether is in general the truth of life or is in general just a book of ancient myths and nonsense. There may well be some ancient myths and nonsense in there but overall I feel Gods word speaks for itself. I am pretty well versed in the Western secular/atheist perspective, skeptical inquiry, critical thinking and all that business. Any objection you have I will have already factored in.

Yes, the bible has some fine noble thoughts in both Old Testament and New Testament. However, they are no better than you will find in other religious traditions, and they are seriously outweighed by all the faults.

Other religions can contain revelations from God as well, that's another secret to let you into. That's not to say they all do or are equally as good however.

For the most part, the Old Testament is a compendium of

• ridiculous rituals practised by ignorant people in the early Iron Age, see Exodus 29:19-21
  
• a lot of cruel and unusual punishments, see Deut 19:20-21 & Deut 25:11-12
  
• one genocide after another commanded by Yahweh, see 1 Sam 15:3
  

True enough you will find all that in there, real people from a real culture that was a little different from our own did write it. You have a number of different authors over a thousand years. Still the overall narrative and theme hangs together and the central message which is essentially good comes through.

The major theme of the New Testament is that the world would end shortly in that era. Jesus thought so, Paul thought so, and so did the crazed author of Revelation. This is a complex subject; it's treated in detail in the thread Poll for Christians: Are the End Times Imminent?

The end of all things is a theme but it doesn't specify a date it could be billions of years from now for all we know and Revelation is clearly using colorful metaphor and mythical allegories to portray a spiritual message.

"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Matthew 16:28

That could have been referring to the events surrounding the Resurrection whatever that was people experienced, though certainly there was a profound experience/revelation at the heart of it when certain kind of truth was revealed. The gospel stories represent that truth.

[Mudhammam]

Either it was or it was a one in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 trillion coincidence of pure chance. That would work if you had an infinite assortment of random universes I suppose but if you want to apply Occams Razor you can just say there is one universe and it was purposely made to generate life, intelligence, civilizations and that kind of thing. So that's an opinion I have but I supported it with some reasoning. I could have just said "No God done it" and expect that to be a hard hitting point which is the equivalent of most of your own points.

Actually, Occam's Razor in relation to the scientific method: "As a logical principle, Occam's razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data. Science prefers the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time, but the simplest explanation may be ruled out as new data become available. That is, science is open to the possibility that future experiments might support more complex theories than demanded by current data and is more interested in designing experiments to discriminate between competing theories than favoring one theory over another based merely on philosophical principles." (emphasis mine)

So basically, using your misapplication of Occam's Razor, you should believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster of Pastafarianism because FSM's are a much simpler explanation than a "Triune God."

[Sword of Christ]

Actually, Occam's Razor in relation to the scientific method: "As a logical principle, Occam's razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data. Science prefers the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time, but the simplest explanation may be ruled out as new data become available. That is, science is open to the possibility that future experiments might support more complex theories than demanded by current data and is more interested in designing experiments to discriminate between competing theories than favoring one theory over another based merely on philosophical principles." (emphasis mine)

So basically, using your misapplication of Occam's Razor, you should believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster of Pastafarianism because FSM's are a much simpler explanation than a "Triune God."

Why insist on making life more complicated than it necessarily needs to be in order to avoid reaching a certain conclusion? Are you not believing in God because it's rational or because you don't like the idea? You would like the idea if you knew what the non-existence of God would mean.

[Mudhammam]

Why insist on making life more complicated than it necessarily needs to be in order to avoid reaching a certain conclusion? Are you not believing in God because it's rational or because you don't like the idea? You would like the idea if you knew what the non-existence of God would mean.

Your question boils down to: Why believe there is an explanation for lightning when Thor is so much more simple? Please, tell me something the non-existence of God would mean. I bet I can tell you a few things as well.

[Sword of Christ]

Your question boils down to: Why believe there is an explanation for lightning when Thor is so much more simple?

It would be far more straightforward to have a natural order created by a purposeful intelligence than a universe ruled over by various different gods controlling each and every part of nature. The Bible really goes to great lengths to dissuade people from believing in gods such as Thor. There is page after page of emphasis on this, it repeats this point over and over again trying to drill it in. The Jews kept trying to worship gods of fertility such as Baal or whatever so the prophets came along from time to time to tell them to stop doing that. They were told this because it was bloody stupid, these were just man made gods of wood and stone who could do nothing at all. God was telling them to stop looking to those and look to him.

Please, tell me something the non-existence of God would mean. I bet I can tell you a few things as well.

Do you like the idea of having your own rational logical freethinking mind? I don't mean the illusion of a rational logical freethinking mind but the real thing. Do you like the idea of being genuinely able to make your own rational moral decisions? Do you like like the idea of people being genuinely responsible for themselves and their own actions? Of course you do but if you were to understand that there would be no naturalist or material basis for these things you quite to experience a high degree of cognitive dissonance as you try to fight against what you subjectively know.

[Mudhammam]

Please, tell me something the non-existence of God would mean. I bet I can tell you a few things as well.

Do you like the idea of having your own rational logical freethinking mind? I don't mean the illusion of a rational logical freethinking mind but the real thing. Do you like the idea of being genuinely able to make your own rational moral decisions? Do you like like the idea of people being genuinely responsible for themselves and their own actions? Of course you do but if you were to understand that there would be no naturalist or material basis for these things you quite to experience a high degree of cognitive dissonance as you try to fight against what you subjectively know.

If it is an illusion or not, who cares? It does the trick pretty damn well. So good in fact, that most of the big questions once relegated strictly to God until 400-500 years ago have seen their shores drying up like a lake in the desert.

Finally, have you ever heard of naturalistic dualism? David Chalmers? I don't agree with his position but he certainly shows that there is nothing logically impossible with developing a separate ontology for consciousness without appealing to some Divine Creator.

[Sword of Christ]

If it is an illusion or not, who cares?

Well I care. Perhaps being bothered enough to care is the idea. What happens if we all stop caring?





I think this has largely happened to Europe which is why undergoing something of a slow death. In a few centuries I doubt there will be anything left of the former culture. It could happen in the US as well if this contagion of not giving a damn about anything takes hold.

It does the trick pretty damn well. So good in fact, that most of the big questions once relegated strictly to God until 400-500 years ago have seen their shores drying up like a lake in the desert.

Rest assured God has not been damaged by science, if belief in God is on the decline it has nothing to do with that it's something else. It will probably end up destroying us as a culture, the collective will power of not caring will tend do that. You can see the population decline.

Finally, have you ever heard of naturalistic dualism? David Chalmers? I don't agree with his position but he certainly shows that there is nothing logically impossible with developing a separate ontology for consciousness without appealing to some Divine Creator.

Nature is the world of matter we can see anything that isn't the world of matter we can see wouldn't be the world of matter we can see. So that wouldn't work by the definition of what nature is.

[Mudhammam]

Well I care. Perhaps being bothered enough to care is the idea. What happens if we all stop caring?

My guess is that the world will go on, as it does now for most people who don't wonder how their mind operates at the neural level.

I think this has largely happened to Europe which is why undergoing something of a slow death. In a few centuries I doubt there will be anything left of the former culture. It could happen in the US as well if this contagion of not giving a damn about anything takes hold.

Cool, keep your Christian culture. We can celebrate it the same way we do medieval culture or Indian culture during various festivals. Just don't conflate your culture with the work with of science, which is universal, and includes the various origin questions such as "How did the universe begin?" "How did life begin?"

Rest assured God has not been damaged by science, if belief in God is on the decline it has nothing to do with that it's something else.

You are fooling yourself.

Nature is the world of matter we can see anything that isn't the world of matter we can see wouldn't be the world of matter we can see. So that wouldn't work by the definition of what nature is.

Naturalism assumes there is a lot regarding the nature of matter and energy that we don't yet understand.

[Ryantology]

It would be far more straightforward to have a natural order created by a purposeful intelligence than a universe ruled over by various different gods controlling each and every part of nature. The Bible really goes to great lengths to dissuade people from believing in gods such as Thor. There is page after page of emphasis on this, it repeats this point over and over again trying to drill it in. The Jews kept trying to worship gods of fertility such as Baal or whatever so the prophets came along from time to time to tell them to stop doing that. They were told this because it was bloody stupid, these were just man made gods of wood and stone who could do nothing at all. God was telling them to stop looking to those and look to him.

Stop worshiping those fake gods and worship my fake god (or we'll kill you)!

[MitchBenn]

Can we at least agree that we have evidence of something and there are various ways of interpreting the evidence?

Produce some evidence and we'll talk about how to interpret it. You've had two thousand years...

We have evidence that the universe, life and humanity exists for a start

Okay...

and there is a good reason for all that.

WOAH there. What do you mean by reason? Do you mean that the existence of the universe is potentially explicable? I'll grant you that... If you are declaring that "Everything is here for a reason", that the mere fact of existence demonstrates a PURPOSE to existence then nope, sorry. Unsupported assertion.

Yes there is evolution and all that business but these are interesting details not proof or disproof of anything.

We-ell, evolution and "all that business" may not disprove the existence of A God (or gods) but they do rather disprove the accuracy of the Bible, which is kind of a big deal as it's your sole source of "information" regarding YOUR god.

We have various other kinds of evidences as well

Okay...

just from what we can observe of the world,

Such as?

of history

I'll grant you that we live in a world where religion has dominated for centuries, and that a study of people's evolving beliefs is a worthwhile enterprise. However, how many people have believed or still believe in what gods, or how strong that belief was or is, or what they have done or continue to do as a result of those beliefs, has absolutely no bearing WHATSOEVER on the truth of those beliefs. Reality is not a democracy; something doesn't get more or less true dependent on how many people believe it. It's either true or it isn't.

and from what people subjectively experience.

NOT evidence. Or we'd have to believe everyone who thinks they've experienced anything, whether it's alien abduction, ghosts, visions of previous lives...

Besides, people all over the world throughout history have had subjective experiences "confirming" all KINDS of beliefs and faiths, some directly and irreconcilably contradicting yours. Since not all such experiences can possibly be authentic, can you honestly claim that only such experiences as confirm YOUR beliefs were genuine and all the others were delusions? What are the odds?