Evidence that God exists

[fr0d0]

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 "Jurisdiction" as it were?

Sam

No problem Sam.

I wouldn't want to stop anyone exercising their freedom. Maybe I'd even try myself if I thought of a way. I do see it as a foolish act, as to me personally, my current experience and reasoning is strongly coloured with thinking that it's impossible.

That's not ruling out the possibility, or pre judging God.

If there were scientific proof then how could I not accept it? As there's overwhelming proof that he doesn't, it only serves to bolster my argument. Win win. Truth.

[Kyuuketsuki]

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.

I restate that if miracles occur there must, in principle at least, be evidence for them.

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.

That is only because scientists can't currently fully visualise brain activity, recent research (in Japan as I recall) has managed to get visual feedback from human subjects ... the visualisation is poor but it seems to me it's only a matter of time before people's thoughts, dreams and personal religious experiences" become something that we can all view in glorious three-dimensional Technicolor.

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.

It would be nice to discover anything about "him" at all including whether or not "he" actually exists.

"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.

And faith is all you have, faith without (and often in spite of) the evidence.

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.

Yeah, yeah, "God's" plan is ineffable ... yawn!

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

Nothing, in principle, is beyond scientific investigation.

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

And this of no value whatsoever.

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

And only theists can think in that fashion. You know it's a really simple concept ... in order for something to happen it must affect our universe, if something affects our universe then it MUST leave evidence, if there is evidence then it is (at least potentially) investigable by science. Given that a phenomenon itself is evidence, you are in essence saying we can't even see "God's" miracles ... if so, what's the point? They might as well have never happened.

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.

You mean like a flasher? Sorry ... that just slipped out!

You know I've looked across the street, in the parks, in the countryside, in the cupboard, in my drawers, in my pockets, my socks and even my undies and I have never, anywhere at all, seen the vaguest sign of your god or any other. So no, you god is most definitely not everywhere.

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.

And the free will argument raises it's head.

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.

An unsupported biblical claoim.

None of this addresses the real nature of God though.

Which is (and I'm betting you won't say)?

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.

So just a twist in the usual fairy tale nonsense?

As there's overwhelming proof that he doesn't, it only serves to bolster my argument. Win win. Truth.

Sigh! Only a theist could use the lack of evidence as proof.

Kyu

[Tiberius]

If there were scientific proof then how could I not accept it? As there's overwhelming proof that he doesn't

Ok...so if there is a "proof" that God doesn't exit, and that proof is "overwhelming" (I have no idea how a proof can be any better than it already is), yet you remain a theist...

[Mark]

I apologize to all, but it is necessary for me to quote so as to keep clear what argument applies to what previous discussion.

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.

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.

But is it not an implication of your position that if God did indeed do the miracles reported in the Bible, they could not have been clearly recognizable as miracles by the persons beholding them? Had they been so, then these individuals would have seen proof of divine agency, hence of God himself. Is that not so? Surely today if we saw a man truly raised from the dead, or a man walk across water, or the Red Sea parted, we would say, this is clear evidence of the divine hand, would we not? So how is it possible that the authors of the Bible gave true reports of miracles, given that any such miracles would constitute an instance of God's direct revelation of himself, leading to clearly to the conclusion that he exists?

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.

Well here I think you lapse into an unbecoming solipsism, where everything that is directly experienced can nevertheless be doubted. Granted that hallucination and mass hysteria are possible, the Biblical account doesn't suggest that the various miracles reported there were possibly the product of those things. You would argue a very barren case indeed, if your point were that even if very striking miracles were performed before one's eyes, one nevertheless could doubt their reality. It is possible to imagine miracles so striking and so subject to confirmation that the only sense in which I could doubt them would be the sense in which I could doubt the reality of my wife or my own children.

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..

Do you know what logical necessity is? It is that the contrary is self-contradictory. It is not I, but you, who said that logically nothing could happen that would confirm god's existence. I continue to see no reason why that should be the case, and that has led us into this discussion of possible miracles.

Perhaps you meant that merely as a matter of fact, there is no evidence of miracles (that is very different from the logical necessity of the same). I agree, but that leaves open the question of the truth of the Bible, and also whether the supposed god might yet still choose to perform a miracle. You will be aware, I suppose, that science does not comment with any authority upon what might happen in the future; it only says what is implied by observation to date.

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.

The the point was never at issue as to whether it is necessary that god works miracles. The point at issue was that it is an implication of the unprovablility of God, asserted by you, that that he either persistently refuses to work or cannot work miracles. A miracle by definition is an even so strikingly inconsistent with the operation of natural forces, and so equally illustrative of divine agency, that the presence of the divine hand cannot reasonably be doubted. Any such event, e.g., Jesus appearing above Detroit and, by his blessing and by the wave of his hand, causing the entire city to be encrusted with gold and jewels, would be universally recognized as clear proof of God's existence. Therefore, according to you it would seem, it cannot happen. What I am trying to understand is why, according to you, it cannot happen.

"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.

We are talking not only about history but about what can happen now and in the future. But again, the miracles described in the Bible would seem to be direct counter-examples to your claim that God cannot (or persistently does not) do anything that would support a valid claim that he exists.

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.

In the first place, you seem to equivocate between "a miracle" and "a miracle that would be provable." Most people use "miracle" in the way that I define the term above. They don't use in the sense of "a divine act but one that is nevertheless incapable of being known to be divine" -- a very special usage and one that would seem to be somewhat vacant of possible significance. It would be nice if you would just keep in mind my Jesus and Detroit example. Could this event ever transpire?

In the second place, question at hand was not whether the supposed god will ever work a miracle, but upon what basis one could know this. In particular, upon what basis do you know that Jesus/Detroit will never happen? Is not the best that can be said, "We do not know?"

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.

I do not know what it means, to "know in any provable sense," some thing that is a matter of fact. Since we are not talking about conventional truth (e.g. logic or mathematics), there is no question of proof. I am using "know" in the empirical sense; in the same sense in which we know that the sun is a star or that it is 93 million miles from the earth. Can we know in this sense whether God will at some future time perform the Jesus/Detroit thing?

But if you will concede that there is no sense in which we can know this, then upon what basis can you say that nothing can ever happen that would confirm the existence of god, in the same way that things happen every day that confirm the existence of the sun?

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.

Will you then explicitly agree that this claim is for you, an article of faith?

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.

I concede that the given proposition is incorrect, but it is nothing I claim. I merely claim that if the supposed god did any of the things that I list here, this would be very convincing evidence of his existence. And since it is an article of your faith that god is either incapable or unwilling to give any such evidence, the implication is that he cannot or will not do any of the listed things. Do you agree?

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.

The question is not whether the supposed god is constantly revealing himself and his truth, but whether he is doing so in a manner that would clearly and convincingly cause anyone to conclude that he exists. Is he speaking directly into anyone's mind, for example? For if he is, then this is a counter-example to your claim that he either cannot or will not act so as to lead anyone to a factually-supported conclusion that he exists.

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)

Well, exactly what do you suppose it was that Jesus did to convince some people that he was resurrected from the dead and yet allow others to reasonably reject this conclusion? If what is reported in the Bible actually happened, it would seem to have lead rather forcibly to the conclusion that Jesus was resurrected. I don't recall, does it say in the Bible that some people who saw Jesus resurrected nevertheless doubted it?

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.

Well you're welcome to your beliefs, but they would seem to be rather dull dishwater compared to orthodox Christian doctrine. You also seem to have worked yourself into a box whereby your faith is something of a tautology, a thing that cannot possibly be supported by anything besides itself; and whereby there would be absolutely no difference in the world if the object of your faith did not exist. It seems to me that you've conceded so much of the ground usually defended by Christians that you might as well become an atheist and save some time for reading the newspaper on Sunday mornings.

[Kyuuketsuki]

It seems to me that you've conceded so much of the ground usually defended by Christians that you might as well become an atheist and save some time for reading the newspaper on Sunday mornings.

Careful Mark ... he'll construe that an insult and put you on his ignore list, LOL hock:

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

So you think the Dawkins quote supports your assertion considering that it says that all existence claims are scientific claims so God is a scientific claim and since there is no evidence; then there is no reason to believe he exists?

How does there being no evidence of God when he DOES need evidence - because the above stated its a scientific claim - support what you say, considering you seem to believe the very opposite?: that God is not a scientific claim and that you don't require evidence. That's the bloody opposite statement - so how does that support your view?

Now if you mean it supports your view if you cherry-pick it carefully then I dunno. Kind of like with the bible eh?

Dawkins says God is a scientific claim and needs evidence. You seem to say that God is not a scientific claim and DOESN'T require evidence. And the Dawkins quote is supporting you?! Its in total conflict! Its opposite! Its a contradiction! So how on earth is that supporting you?!

Wtf?! ?

Bloody hell. If you can reconcile that and do that amount of a doublethink then no wonder you can reconcile the contradictions and horror in the bible. No wonder your views are "changeable" its blatant cherry-picking it seems to me at least!

EvF

[fr0d0]

Hello again Mark.

I think if you look at any miracles in the Bible, all of them could be explained away logically. If they were as undeniable as reported then surely there would be some record outside the Bible? Your search for substantial natural phenomenon is mirrored by common anti-theist dogma stating the opposite. No one has yet ever successfully asserted miracles happened. This is proof enough for now.

Call that solipism if you wish. I call it realism.

So... Gold & jewel encrusted Detroit. I would say that it could happen, that God could do it, but God would also make it explainable by science. To my mind, this is entirely consistent with what the Bible says. Proof I think is on my side.

I don't see how anyone's definition alters the facts. Significantly the idea ties in exactly with Biblical accounts.

Why hang so much on the article of faith question? An article of faith is far more, in my opinion. It's a core definition, which this is far from being. I have said, quite strongly I think, that I don't think miracles, for one, can be supported by hard evidence.

...and since it is an article of your faith that god is either incapable or unwilling to give any such evidence, the implication is that he cannot or will not do any of the listed things. Do you agree?

From precendence, I would suggest that in the future, God would do the same as he has done in the past, yes. This is why the Bible strives to understand his nature, so that we can know what God is like. He can of course also do anything at all, including things that the Bible says he's already done, plus infinitely more. He is neither incapable nor unwilling. He is observed to be following this rule. It would be inconsistent if he did not.

Yes absolutely God is constantly revealing himself. He speaks directly but not in any way that would leave you in no doubt that he exists, because that wouldn't be in line with scripture. You wouldn't need faith. If he did, then the Bible would need to be thrown away and a new religion created. That goes for most if not all other religions too. Monotonously it follows the logic.

I don't recall, does it say in the Bible that some people who saw Jesus resurrected nevertheless doubted it?

Thomas, one of Jesus' main men, doubted it.

Now let me get this straight. You're telling me what Christianity is? Orthadoxy.. you talking Catholicism? Dull dishwater? I take it you have a need for chastisement and threats of hell & high water. It doent surprise me that you truly fear the real thing, but I think it beneath you to level that at me. I concede no ground at all. You have concluded that I have, but I have countered every notion.

Kind regards.

[Demonaura]

One point I'd like to poke in again in responce to Fr0d0. You said when we die we live on in the memories of others and in the articles we leave behind.

Well we know that's not really true without twisting words around quite a bit don't we. However there are two seperate things to be said about this kind of statement, first is the point that we live on in others memory so I'll do it first.

Those who were alive when you died will remember you but, they won't likely go around telling stories of you. So even if this point were true your legacy is short lived indeed. However, their memory of you is also simply not you. Theres no thought or action and to top it all off no two people remember you the same way. What people remember is the experiences they had where you happened to be present as well so, their memories of you are biased from their viewpoint and do not reflect who you really are. They instead reflect the person that they thought you were.

The second part of the statement is that we live on in the artifacts we leave behind. Again this is not life by any definition but, your onto something else here. As we live, even a short or insignifigant life as most do, we affect things and cause change. People may act differently when we are around which changes the course of history. However this all comes into the last words of the last point, everything does this it's nothing special about us. And the things we leave behind are quickly lost to the sands of time as other people continue to live and affect the world without you.

I want to be clear on my intention of this post, I'm not trying to shoot ya down or anything. I just want to put another spin on the concept of living on without living, and I'm aware that you are probably aware of what I'm saying and using the phraise more to show that you don't hold crazy ideas about the afterlife.


What I do find rather interesting is now it seems you're saying you're christian without beleiving in a literal heaven (hell aside for now, it's a whole different point) while previously defined a christian as one who follows christ. I can accept that last bit but, christ spoke of heaven and his father and following him was the path to that place. So is it that you follow christ, or that you simply have good morals and are giving the credit elsewhere?

[Kyuuketsuki]

So... Gold & jewel encrusted Detroit. I would say that it could happen, that God could do it, but God would also make it explainable by science. To my mind, this is entirely consistent with what the Bible says. Proof I think is on my side.

I'm sorry if you deem this to be insulting but you (and I do mean you) have to be raising some of wackiest arguments in support of your chosen deity that I have ever seen. In essence there is no proof and that, that that is exactly what it would do if it were real, supports your god? That's insane!

He can of course also do anything at all, including things that the Bible says he's already done, plus infinitely more. He is neither incapable nor unwilling. He is observed to be following this rule. It would be inconsistent if he did not.

Nothing but fairy tale gobbledegook.

Yes absolutely God is constantly revealing himself. He speaks directly but not in any way that would leave you in no doubt that he exists, because that wouldn't be in line with scripture. You wouldn't need faith. If he did, then the Bible would need to be thrown away and a new religion created. That goes for most if not all other religions too. Monotonously it follows the logic.

Strange then that no one can verify such revelations. Logic? There is none that I can see in your arguments.

I don't recall, does it say in the Bible that some people who saw Jesus resurrected nevertheless doubted it?

Thomas, one of Jesus' main men, doubted it.

Now let me get this straight. You're telling me what Christianity is? Orthadoxy.. you talking Catholicism? Dull dishwater? I take it you have a need for chastisement and threats of hell & high water. It doent surprise me that you truly fear the real thing, but I think it beneath you to level that at me. I concede no ground at all. You have concluded that I have, but I have countered every notion.

Whilst Catholicism (n some ways) s one of the "worst" (at times near fundamentalist I feel) it is somehow simultaneously one of the better mainstream religions in that at least it embraces and mostly even encourages independent scientific thought (OK, the recent Pope seems to have reoriented slightly but there you go.

You concede no ground because your arguments fly in the face of any real logic and therefore cannot (logically) be dealt with apart from to point out how daft some of your arguments are.

Of course, since you've now put at least two people on ignore (Mark you really need to watch out for this guy), one wonders if you actually know how to debate rationally at all?

Kyu

[fr0d0]

I agree with your conclusions Demonaura. I'm a Christian in the accepted sense that I follow Christ yes. With all that goes with that.

I'm not talking about my own personal interpretation of heaven and hell there, the idea is widely accepted. I happen not to see the point of an afterlife, although I keep an open mind. How does that affect me here and now? Not at all as far as I can see. It ties in with the idea of the soul and that being eternal. If you read it as applying to our lives here and now, then it makes perfect sense.