Evidence that God exists

[fr0d0]

You did not ask me anything; you told my that I maintain a "twisted" point of view and that should "go outside and smell the mustard." That is an insult.

Fair enough

I do not ask repeatedly what has been answered, but I will certainly ask repeatedly what has not been answered.

Hmm.. atheist terrier! (joke)

I asked, "Does it bother you that the supposed god never does anything, and never shows up?" and you reply "it would be a logical impossibility." I fail to see why. Didn't he make the Sun stand still at Jericho? Didn't he part the waters of the Red Sea? Didn't he give Moses the Ten Commandments? Didn't he raise Lazarus from the dead? Apparently the authors of the Bible didn't have your understanding of logic.

Good points. Necessarily though, none of those events are provable. Hence the authors of the bible are still on plan.

If it's a logical impossibility that the supposed god would ever do anything, or ever show himself, then this poor god must really be a frustrated and lonely fellow.

So God needs to show himself because he needs the company?! I'll mark that down in the back of the bottom book in my pile about truths about God k. ()

For the record, I haven't said that God would never do anything or show himself; just that any such event couldn't be provable.

Further, essentially at no time in history has anyone ever seriously proposed the worship of a god that had no actual influence on nature and on human affairs. Historically worship, and obedience to a supposedly divine code set forth by a priesthood, was invariably based on the supposition that this would bring about good real effects, or at least that failure in this would cause bad real effects.<snip>

Actual effects are indeed tangible, if not provable. Enrichment of life isn't guaranteed, just available. In my understanding, failure isn't rewarded with punishment, but simply by lack of positive benefits.

It is only within the past two hundred or so years, as science gradually demonstrated that all that was formerly supposed to be an effect of god (e.g. plagues, comets, the various species of life) originates in fact in a chaotic nature blind to human interest. So modernly, people who want to maintain their religious belief and yet not deny science have retreated to this remarkable idea that it's not necessary that God have any real effects, because he's God anyway, and you should just, well, worship him. Because it, um, feels good.

Superstition was never what religion was about. That's a nice misconception that conveniently fits your theory.

It's the incredible shrinking God, really, a pathetic figure. In the old days He could smite Egypt with a plague of locusts and part the Red Sea; He could make the sun stand still so that the last remnants of heathen army could be slaughtered; but today all He can do is listen people's prayers. But be sure not to pray for anything that requires his intervention in nature, because it is not something that He is capable of delivering.

Given the above this doesn't follow.

What has changed between those days and these, of course, is not the powers of God but mankind's knowledge and command of nature.

Only if you take a literalist view. We arrogantly trash perfect rational reasoning and replace it with nothing.

But I rather suspect that if Moses has stood before the captive Jews in Egypt and called them to the worship of a god who would never once intervene in this world on their behalf, but would, at best, cause their hearts to feel his wonderful love during periods of communion with him, they would have soaked him in the latrine.

LOL

At the time people had far far greater understanding of faith and God. In this society we are like babies in our understanding in comparison. Maybe you and I can only aspire to a greatly watered down experience. This is a direct result of our ignorance, I'd suggest.

---

@fr0d0: Is faith in Baal the Destroyer a tool for understanding the world? Is atheist belief a tool for understanding the world?

Yes

[Mark]

@fr0d0: Well, this is the first time I have ever seen an advocate of religion take refuge in the notion that the miracles reported in the Bible might not have happened.

I find it odd though, that you advance the view that since these reported events were miracles, therefore they could not have happened. God might perhaps work changes in the ongoing world, you say, but necessarily these could not be known to to be of divine origin. The "necessary" part of your argument seems utterly irrational to me. It could happen, one fine morning, that Baal the Destroyer in the form of massively gigantic brass golem would rise up out of the sea, shouting in a monstrous voice, "I am Baal the Destroyer, thy Lord and Master, and thou shalt obey me!" and then breathe fire onto anyone who tried to resist. It could further happen that he destroyed all the world's armies, set himself up in, oh, the Taj Mahal, and consumed large quantities of human flesh while people bowed down to him seven times a day. It could happen that the only people he left alive were those necessary to supply him with meat, and the thousands necessary to carry him around on a big golden platform that he had built for him. Finally it could happen that he became present in men's minds and caused agonizing headaches whenever they thought of anything besides serving him. I believe that no one then would say, there is no God; no one would say that these events were natural; nor do I think many people would continue to worship a god other than him. I see no way to maintain that this hypothetical set of events is logically impossible.

Further let's take Jesus' birth. Do you think this was to a virgin mother somehow inseminated by God? If so, then clearly God is capable of working changes upon the natural world. If not, then in what sense can Jesus, a mortal born not only of woman but also of man, be called God?

[Kyuuketsuki]

No EvF. Both yourself and others stated that everything, without exception, required evidence, and now it appears that this is far from the case. We've moved on. Of course Maths isn't the same as faith, I was in no way saying that.

I'd like to see you refer to a remark where someone has, and I stress in context, has actually said that.

Show Me The Money Frodo.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

Hi Mark. That's a nice bowl of word salad you're tossing there. I dunno, the extents one has to go to to find a good reason to dismiss theism these days huh!

So you think miracles are provable do you? You're the first person I've known that does. You're stretching the meaning of words to make a point. A misguided approach. It would be simple for our small brains if a god gave evidence like you say, but then doesn't that go completely against the overwhelming evidence? I'm constantly shocked at logical minds that continuously fall at this hurdle.

Jesus' birth fits the religious model of unprovable. I believe God intervened in this world and became a regular bloke. That belief cannot be proven.

---

I'd like to see you refer to a remark where someone has, and I stress in context, has actually said that. (everything, without exception, requires evidence)

Show Me The Money Frodo.

Kyu

Here ya go:

Everything else in life depends on evidence for it to be held true, but this one thing needs complete faith and the abandoning of all things rational.

Evidence is the only rational reason for believing in the existence of something that I know of.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Here ya go:

Everything else in life depends on evidence for it to be held true, but this one thing needs complete faith and the abandoning of all things rational.

Evidence is the only rational reason for believing in the existence of something that I know of.

Firstly my reading of Adrian's post doesn't imply to me that he meant truth as an absolute (to my mind you're taking his remarks out of context, who's being the literalist now?); secondly, even if they did, no one here is claiming any one of us represents the views of every other one of us and thirdly; EvF's remarks don't even mention truth.

Kyu

[Tiberius]

As Kyu has pointed out, I didn't mean truth as an absolute, I meant truth as in the scientific sense of the word. For something to be believed, it has to have evidence behind it. This rule applies for global warming, evolution, thermodynamics, etc. It even applies for people who claim to have won the lottery. Why would I believe someone who claimed to have won the lottery when they have presented no evidence? More importantly, all evidence presented must be open to challenge. Psychics have presented evidence that has convinced millions they can talk to the dead, but when that evidence is examined (as James Randi has done on countless occasions) it turns out to be subtle trickery, whether the "psychic" knows they are doing it or not.

I certainly think there are absolute truths, but science is not the method for determining them. Science can only be used to ascertain the most likely laws, theories, facts, etc that operate in our universe. Only an omnipotent mind could know absolute truths, and such a mind does not exist (as far as we know - our knowledge being limited).

[fr0d0]

What's this sudden attraction to the word 'truth'?

We were all talking about 'evidence', not truth. God/ Faith/ Belief couldn't exist because for anything to exist necessitated evidence. This is what was being strongly defended.

Truth is a good philosophical term. Evidence is scientific. Don't confuse the two.

[Tiberius]

What's this sudden attraction to the word 'truth'?

You brought it up by claiming that I said that everything required evidence to be true, which I didn't. I said that everything required evidence to be held as "truth" in the scientific sense of the word.

Truth is a good philosophical term. Evidence is scientific. Don't confuse the two.

I'm not, I just spent the last post explaining how they were different. Whilst scientific truth might be close to absolute truth (or even spot on) it can never know for certain.

[fr0d0]

What's this sudden attraction to the word 'truth'?

You brought it up by claiming that I said that everything required evidence to be true, which I didn't. I said that everything required evidence to be held as "truth" in the scientific sense of the word.

I didn't claim. I quoted you word for word!

The request from Kyu was to back up my claim that more than one person on this forum had said: "everything, without exception, requires evidence", which you and EvF did.

Truth is a good philosophical term. Evidence is scientific. Don't confuse the two.

I'm not, I just spent the last post explaining how they were different. Whilst scientific truth might be close to absolute truth (or even spot on) it can never know for certain.

That was aimed at Kyu

[Tiberius]

"everything, without exception, requires evidence", which you and EvF did.

And my exact words were "everything else in life depends on evidence for it to be held as true". That is not the same as saying "everything, without exception, requires evidence", although I'd love to see you argue how it does...