Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
All your speculation is made up. You take perfectly normal science and then slap "conclusion" on the end of it and insert any old made up nonsense.
Stick to the facts, not your "conclusion" from the facts, and we will be fine.
Who is "we"? Last time I checked boards was an online community where members can express their opinions and not a peer reviewed science journal.
The definition of speculation in the context I am using the word is: An opinion, conclusion, or theory based on incomplete evidence or conjecture (a guess).
Let me give you an example of a speculative theory; the multiverse theory. There is no evidence for any other universe other than the one we observe. To provide an answer to the question why our universe appears fine tuned, some cosmologists have speculated that there are an infinite number of universes, and ours just happens to be the one suitable for life as we know it. We have no way to test for such universes, so no scientific validation is possible. As Paul Davies said in A Brief History of the Multiverse: "The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but requires the same leap of faith as invoking an unseen creator".
What is your view of the multiverse theory? Is it "made up"? If some of the finest cosmologists on the planet can speculate to their hearts content in peer reviewed science journals, do explain why it is unacceptable for me to speculate on an internet forum?0 -
Added to my to read list, thanks. It may be rubbish, or I may never get to it read but it does sound interesting.
No problem. I've not read it myself but I've heard him speak on a number of occasions and he has always been engaging and winsome. He's actually a fairly recent convert to Christianity, which is also interesting.0 -
Who is "we"? Last time I checked boards was an online community where members can express their opinions and not a peer reviewed science journal.
"We" as in you and me. As it is we keep having the same conversation over and over, as you keep doing this with every subject area we are discussing, be it evolution, quantum physics or the brain.The definition of speculation in the context I am using the word is: An opinion, conclusion, or theory based on incomplete evidence or conjecture (a guess).
If you want to say that the science does not support your speculation, that it is purely your made up guess, then that is fine. The problem comes when you pretend that your made up guess is some how supported by the science or is a sensible conclusion from the science.What is your view of the multiverse theory? Is it "made up"?
It is made up, but the scientists who propose it also take pains to think about how it would fit inside the current models they already have about what we know about the current universe. Which makes the multiverse theory different to simply suppose we are all floating on the back of a turtle.
Your speculation is far close to the back of a turtle kind.0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Listen/view/read just about any of the the links I gave above. In particular the resources featuring Richard Bauchkam as these are about his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. (The clue is in the title.) John Dickson, as I've said already, also mentions the extra-Biblical references to Jesus.
Generally telling someone to go off and read something some where else in order to find the answer to a question is considered bad form on Boards.
Can you point out where any of the people you mention make a claim that we have first hand eye witness accounts of Jesus, or non-Biblical record of his existence. It should be relatively easy to simply state what these documents are (ie well we have his birth cert from Roman, or we have a statement given by his executioner etc)Fanny Cradock wrote: »Again, how do you know what the reaction of countless historians would be to a news event that has never happened? Where is your evidence that they would not bat an eyelid?
I've already explained it.
If I asked you would many Christians be upset if it turned out that Jesus was a fraud, you could answer that without relatively easily (yes being the answer), without having to quiz each and every Christian or wait for that event to happen because of what you know about them by virtue of them being Christian.
Do you disagree?Fanny Cradock wrote: »I think the word you are looking for is inerrancy. I also think that you need to read up on the doctrine. From what you wrote it looks as if you have not understood it nor the range of views held about it.
If you say so.
Maybe point out the passages of the Bible that contain errors, that would certainly demonstrate that it is not considered inerrant by at least one Christian.Fanny Cradock wrote: »This is irrelevant to our discussion. People believe things for all manner of reasons. So good, some not so good.
You claimed they just happened to be Christians. But of course being Christian has a significant influence on how one approaches the historical study of these claims.Fanny Cradock wrote: »I certainly have considered the possibility> I have, at times, had my trust in the evidence shaken. And yet I still don't think that they lied nor do I think that they made a mistake when they thought that they saw their crucified and dead friend walking about the place.
Do you think anyone in the Bible ever lied, made a mistake, or recorded anything down incorrectly while writing the books of the Bible?
Do you think any of the authors of the gospels, or Paul, lied, made a mistake or recorded anything incorrectly in the New Testament?Fanny Cradock wrote: »For those interested I would add another resource to the the list I gave in a previous post. This would be Cold Case Christianity by Jim Wallace, a cold case detective. (I thought they only had them in ghastly shows like CSI). As an atheist he decided to investigate the Jesus story as if it were a cold case. It's quite a unique angle to take on the debate.
Isn't he now a Christian pastor?0 -
...as you keep doing this with every subject area we are discussing, be it evolution, quantum physics or the brain.
The only consistency among those subjects is you are always on the wrong side of the argument.
Evolution: I merely stated that evolution was a scientific fact independent of the theory of evolution and you argued that it was a fact due to Darwin's theory. A theory explains or tries to explain a fact, for example we have various theories of gravity but nobody doubts if you drop a rock it will hit the ground (even in Australia where it is falling up relative to down in the northern hemisphere). Since Darwin's time the theory of evolution has been greatly extended, most significantly by the discovery of genetics and DNA. There are exciting fields opening up like epigenetics, is junk DNA really junk?, etc. Evolution will remain a fact but the theory will ciontinue to evolve, and either continue to strengthen or be overthrown by a new theory, as always in science.
QM:I'm not sure I understand your issue with this topic. QM itself is a mathematical description of subatomic states. We cannot fully explain what it is telling us from the perspective of our classical world, thus there are at least 12 interpretations, most of which are highly speculative. I happen to have a bias towards the interpretations that include the factor of a conscious observer. In my view (shared by many physicists), it is impossible to exclude the conscious observer, as a measurement device is a proxy for the conscious observer. If I were more biased towards the many worlds interpretation where the universe splits in two everytime you make a choice would that be more sensible to you?
The Brain: I agree this is a tough one. I actually have no strong opinion here, as the evidence is vague and open to much interpretation. However, based on the most recent research I have seen, I tend to believe the meta cognitive functions the modern human brain is capable of are due to parallel processing type activity that cannot be facilitated by electrochemistry, as it is too slow. When it was first proposed that EM signals in the brain might have a role in communication or consciousness, the idea was rejected by most. There's now a lot of research in this area suggesting EM communication within the brain may be a thing. If it were true that there was wireless type communication in the brain, why would we be surprised? Why would we ever be surprised at ingenuity in nature?0 -
Advertisement
-
The topic can't even be touched if it is continually broken into one liners and certainly not misleading one liners like that. Evidence/ proof refers something helpful in forming a conclusion or judgement or statement or argument used in such a validation whether definitive or not. To say there is no proof is akin to stating there are no trees in Ireland.
Misleading? You don't see the irony.
It is impossible to disprove the existence of something made up (i.e. something believed in despite not a single shred of hard evidence).
I think this quote says it well. John McCarthy: "An atheist doesn’t have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can’t be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the god question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."Mitch Hedberg: "Rice is great if you're really hungry and want to eat two thousand of something."
0 -
Generally telling someone to go off and read something some where else in order to find the answer to a question is considered bad form on Boards.
It's not my intention to be rude. However, I'm not interested in offering a synopsis of the arguments presented by people like Wright, Baukham and others. The reasons are:
a) I don't believe you would be convinced and therefore it is a waste of my time;
b) I'm not confident that I can do justice to their arguments. I don't claim any special knowledge in the area of textual criticism or Biblical history. The can literally speak for themselves.
You have offered your opinion, I have offered mine. I've also provided links to a number of links to resources that both argue for and against some of the positions I hold, and I've encouraged people to do their own investigation. If you think this is rude then so be it.Can you point out where any of the people you mention make a claim that we have first hand eye witness accounts of Jesus, or non-Biblical record of his existence.
But I've done so already. You can read the book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. If you don't want to pay the money or devote the time (it's about 500 pages long so I understand) then you can listen to the two part discussion linked to previously.
I personally lean towards the view expressed by people like Wright or Witherington. I see this as more of a middle ground to the view that you expressed or those on the other side.
Not to my satisfaction. But I'll leave it there and let those reading make up their own minds if you have justified your position.I've already explained it.If I asked you would many Christians be upset if it turned out that Jesus was a fraud, you could answer that without relatively easily (yes being the answer), without having to quiz each and every Christian or wait for that event to happen because of what you know about them by virtue of them being Christian.
But of course a Christian isn't analogous to a historian so your point fails. Christians by definition hold a position on the existence of Jesus. Historians don't. And that is why I don't accept that you can possibly know how a diverse group of people with all manner of world-views would react to an event that hasn't yet happened and I suggest never will.Maybe point out the passages of the Bible that contain errors, that would certainly demonstrate that it is not considered inerrant by at least one Christian.
You seem not to have taken on board what I said about inerrancy.You claimed they just happened to be Christians. But of course being Christian has a significant influence on how one approaches the historical study of these claims.
What I actually said was that your point was irrelevant to our discussion.Do you think anyone in the Bible ever lied, made a mistake, or recorded anything down incorrectly while writing the books of the Bible?
Do you think any of the authors of the gospels, or Paul, lied, made a mistake or recorded anything incorrectly in the New Testament?
It's a possibly.Isn't he now a Christian pastor?
I think that up until very recently (a matter of weeks) he was still an officer working on his last case (possibly NSFW).0 -
Misleading? You don't see the irony.
It is impossible to disprove the existence of something made up (i.e. something believed in despite not a single shred of hard evidence).
I think this quote says it well. John McCarthy: "An atheist doesn’t have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can’t be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the god question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."
Irony? I am not sure what part of the definition of proof you don't grasp.. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2.
a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
3.
a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proof
Werewolf? Seriously? The average person reading that is going to deduce for themselves contempt or just plan insecurity.0 -
Irony? I am not sure what part of the definition of proof you don't grasp.
Werewolf? Seriously? The average person reading that is going to deduce for themselves contempt or just plan insecurity.
I think you should disabuse yourself of that notion.
Bu the way may I ask do you believe in Islam ?0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »It's not my intention to be rude. However, I'm not interested in offering a synopsis of the arguments presented by people like Wright, Baukham and others. The reasons are:
a) I don't believe you would be convinced and therefore it is a waste of my time;
b) I'm not confident that I can do justice to their arguments. I don't claim any special knowledge in the area of textual criticism or Biblical history. The can literally speak for themselves.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but what I asked for should be relatively simple, what are either the documents that we know were written by witnesses to Jesus, or the documents recording Jesus' existence (directly, not records of believers) that are not Biblical.
It shouldn't really be necessary to "do justice" to any arguments to answer that question.Fanny Cradock wrote: »You have offered your opinion, I have offered mine.
Well no, you said I was wrong and then told me to go off and read a whole lot of books to understand why I was wrong.
I don't think it is rude, I think it is bad form. If I stated someone like We know Jesus didn't exist because of artifacts found from the time, and you reasonably asked what artifacts I imagine you would find it bad form as well if I just linked you to a load of books.Fanny Cradock wrote: »If you think this is rude then so be it.Fanny Cradock wrote: »But I've done so already. You can read the book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. If you don't want to pay the money or devote the time (it's about 500 pages long so I understand) then you can listen to the two part discussion linked to previously.
I did. The claim from Bauckham, if I'm understanding correctly, is that the authors of the gospels talked to people who claim to have witnessed Jesus.
You appreciate I hope that this isn't the same thing as being written by people who have witnessed Jesus. It is the difference between asking me what Tom Cruise is like because I claim my mate Bob met him and I asked him, or asking me what Tom Cruise is like because I met him.
Or to take another example, talking to someone who has abducted by aliens, and someone who talked to someone abducted by aliens.Fanny Cradock wrote: »But of course a Christian isn't analogous to a historian so your point fails. Christians by definition hold a position on the existence of Jesus. Historians don't.
Historians, by definition, hold to the common standards of modern historical study which are reasonably well defined and known. Or at least most of them do, in the same way a Mormon might claim to be a Christian, even if that is rejected by both Christians and non-Christians alike.Fanny Cradock wrote: »And that is why I don't accept that you can possibly know how a diverse group of people with all manner of world-views would react to an event that hasn't yet happened and I suggest never will.
Well then you don't understand that modern historical study is a far more methodologically unified field of study that you imagine.Fanny Cradock wrote: »You seem not to have taken on board what I said about inerrancy.
I understand exactly what inerrancy means. Can you point out which parts of the Bible you believe are in error or not true.
And I explained why it is. An historian will be constrained in his interpretations of historical documents by his religious faith, for example faith in the inerrancy of the Bible. It is silly therefore to say a historian just happens to be a Chrisitan.Fanny Cradock wrote: »What I actually said was that your point was irrelevant to our discussion.
That isn't what I asked you. I asked you do you think any of them did, and which ones.Fanny Cradock wrote: »It's a possibly.
To avoid the inevitable question tennis I suspect you are setting up, the point is that it is ridiculous to hold that a work of a large number of books, written across thousands of years, would be inerrant. Can you think of any other set of books that would hold to such a property. But as your video says, this view is one of the few constant unifying notions of Christian belief.
The idea that this wouldn't effect historical study of these works is again ridiculous.Fanny Cradock wrote: »I think that up until very recently (a matter of weeks) he was still an officer working on his last case (possibly NSFW).
But he is a Christian preacher now. He is no longer an atheist, this isn't a non-Christian view of the Bible.0 -
Advertisement
-
The topic can't even be touched if it is continually broken into one liners and certainly not misleading one liners like that. Evidence/ proof refers something helpful in forming a conclusion or judgement or statement or argument used in such a validation whether definitive or not. To say there is no proof is akin to stating there are no trees in Ireland.
Well proof outside of maths or science, generally means something that is impossibe or very difficult to dispute in any reasonable fashion. If you say the sky is blue and show someone the sky that would be considered proof that it is blue. Of course either a crazy person or a philosopher might have something to say about that, but generally if an argument is considered air tight by most reaonsble means it is considered proven.
There is absolutely no proof that anything of the Bible is true. People can claim it makes sense to them that it is true, but that is an entirely different matter.
A way to demonstrate this is to simply take arguments for why any particular part of the Bible is true (for example why would the witnesses of the resurrection lie) and apply that to another religion that cannot be true at the same time.
I've yet to come across an argument for the truth of Christianity that doesn't automatically prove the truth of a heck of a lot of other religions if you simply apply that argument to those other religions. Thus this argument cannot be proof of the truth of Christianity if it also proves the truth of religions that cannot be true if Christianity is true.
And more importantly, there must be something else going on if a Christian applies said argument to Christianity as a justification for why they find Christianity rationally convincing, but is unmoved in belief when the same argument is applied to other religions.0 -
Well no, you said I was wrong and then told me to go off and read a whole lot of books to understand why I was wrong.
Yes Zombrex, it is my contention that you are wrong. But to clarify, I did not tell you to "go off and read a whole lot of books". What I actually did in my opening post was to offer to anyone inclined to investigate further a list of video and audio links, some of which don't support my position. In terms of reading material I linked to two books - one written by a historian who happens to be a Christian, the other written by a Jesus mythicist. I provided an audio link to a discussion on Jesus and the Eyewitnesses as I completely understand that people probably would not be inclined to ruch out the door and buy it. Later I recommended to no one in particular another book called Cold Case Christianity. Finally I recommended one blog and that is because I could be bothered looking for a suitable audio link.
That you are unable to accurately reflect what I have actually done suggests to me that you didn't bother to click the provided links (and are therefore speaking in ignorance) or are engaging in histrionics in hopes of scoring a point or two.I don't think it is rude, I think it is bad form. If I stated someone like We know Jesus didn't exist because of artifacts found from the time, and you reasonably asked what artifacts I imagine you would find it bad form as well if I just linked you to a load of books.
Again, I didn't link to a load of books and tell you to read them. Please stop repeating something that is demonstrably false. I have offered my opinion, elaborated on it and provided links to resources in the form of video, audio and text. In some cases these resources support my opinion while in others they argue against it. I believe that in presenting a range of scholarly (and no so scholarly) input I have been fair. On the other hand, apart from complain about what I have or have not done, you have offered nothing but your opinion.
That's not correct. Bauckham's contention is that the John the Elder is both the author of the the Gospel of John and the "Beloved Disciple" mentioned therein. If you read answer/ question 4 in this link you can get a very brief synopsis of his view. While I find his reasoning quite compelling, I have clarified my position as leaning more towards the "we don't know" camp.I did. The claim from Bauckham, if I'm understanding correctly, is that the authors of the gospels talked to people who claim to have witnessed Jesus.
Bauckham (amongst others) also thinks that the synoptic Gospels were written by people close to the original eyewitnesses. For example, Luke, in the opening sentence of his Gospel, states that he interviewed the witnesses in order to produce an orderly account. Similarly, Paul mentions in Galatians 2 that he met the eyewitnesses (Peter and James are mentioned) to see that what he had been preaching for all those years was actually correct.An historian will be constrained in his interpretations of historical documents by his religious faith, for example faith in the inerrancy of the Bible
Again, I don't think that you understand inerrancy or the range of views held by Christians regarding the doctrine. Not all Christians believe that the Bible is inerrant. Others might believe that the Bible as we have it now could contain errors and yet still believe that the original manuscripts were without error. There are probably more views beside this.That isn't what I asked you. I asked you do you think any of them did, and which ones.
OK, so it's not what you asked me. But as I don't under stand the question I'll expand on what I wrote in hopes that this provides an answer. I think that it is possible that the original manuscripts contained contained unintended errors. I think it is possible that the authors lied. Of those two options I think that the first is more likely. I'm personally not sure where I stand on the doctrine of inerrancy. For example, I think that some of the apparent contractions in the NT can be reasonably explained away. Others, are more difficult and remain as so called tension points.But he is a Christian preacher now. He is no longer an atheist, this isn't a non-Christian view of the Bible.
Unless you think I should only offer non-Christian reading suggestions (and I already have offered a number of non-Christian and anti-Christian resources) then I fail to see your point. By this logic I should never read Jewish history books on the holocaust.
Cold Case Christianity is a reading suggestion offered to anyone interested in investigating the matter further, just like the resources in my opening post. I'm happy that at least one person appreciated the suggestion, even if they may not agree with the conclusions reached in the book.
I suspect that our conversation has run it's course, Zombrex. Let's have that game of tennis questions another time.0 -
Zombrex,
One of the difficulties here between God and Science, is that we are mixing the absolute with the relative.
There are so many things that Science cannot answer. I am not talking about the difficult stuff, but the things we take for granted. Things so engrained in our every day lives that we do not or cannot question them and expect an answer.
These primitive concepts are a matter of faith, or credulity, to use a less religious related word.
For example, what IS time? Don't tell me how to measure it or something correlated to it, tell me what time IS. Also, don't ask what "IS" is!:p
Can you tell me in which "direction" time flows? It feels like it flows in to the future, however, with the time reversal equations of Physics, it could well be flowing backwards and due to some trick of our mind, our awareness or realization results in the perception of time flowing forward.
How could we scientifically test that time flows forward and not back?
This again brings me to another fundamental issue with our brain of which you weredismissing the significance.
There is no scientific test to demonstrate that our memory works properly.
Again, as you know, I am not talking about forgetfulness, mental illness, or the plethora of issues that cause us to forgetf. Rather, a far more fundamental question. How can we test that what we think we remember is correct?
For all we know, God constantly reveals himself to us, but due to the limitations of our brain, that information, although, actualized at some instant in time, may not be stored for any time.
You may dismiss this as philosophical, however, I see the dilemma as being logical and reasonable and an Achilles heel for science.
If science cannot offer us a means by which we may test our memory, why should expect science to afford us a test for the God of the Universe?
That just doesn't make sense to me.0 -
Zombrex,
One of the difficulties here between God and Science, is that we are mixing the absolute with the relative.
There are so many things that Science cannot answer. I am not talking about the difficult stuff, but the things we take for granted. Things so engrained in our every day lives that we do not or cannot question them and expect an answer.
But that is just a different way of saying there are so many things we cannot know.
Which I agree with. The problem comes when people pretend they can know them, but come up with methodologies to justify this that are deeply flawed. For example divine revelation. If all you needed in order to know a religion was true was someone claiming divine revelation from the god of that then every religion with a god would be considered true, since the only way humans claim to even know gods exist in the first place is through claims of revelations from those gods.
The point I was making above was about the inconsistent fashion religious people (in this case Christians) apply these concepts. So a Christian might think it is obviously ridiculous that Zeus was revealing messages to the oracle at Delphi, but apply a completely different standard of assessment to the claims that Moses received messages from God.For example, what IS time? Don't tell me how to measure it or something correlated to it, tell me what time IS. Also, don't ask what "IS" is!:p
But this is the thing, I'm happy to say I don't know what time is.
I could turn to a religious book and look for what some other human claimed time was based on what he claimed was a revelation from a supernatural being. But does that increase my understanding of the world?
Does someone, say a Christian, genuinely think they understand how the world really is any better after reading what someone 4,000 years ago in Arabia thought a god was telling them about something (for example the origin of the different languages).
People often charge atheists with being arrogant about what science will reveal to us. But that charge rarely comes from people who think we know less about the world than the atheists does. It often comes from people who believe they actually know far more about how the world really is than the atheist because their religion has told them so, and the annoyance at the atheist is not that they are over reaching in terms of knowledge, but in fact that they are ruining the fun by pointing out that actually the religious person has little grounds for claiming the knowledge they do.This again brings me to another fundamental issue with our brain of which you were
There is no scientific test to demonstrate that our memory works properly.
This has come up before, either by yourself or another poster I can't remember. And the answer was we already know our memory doesn't work "properly"
And no there is no scientific test to demonstrate that the universe didn't just appear 5 seconds ago with all our memories intact as false memories. But then science doesn't claim that this didn't happen, so it is a moot point.
Science deals with how reality appears to be.. If the universe is lying to us and this is undetectable, science cannot tell. Nor does it claim to be able to.For all we know, God constantly reveals himself to us, but due to the limitations of our brain, that information, although, actualized at some instant in time, may not be stored for any time.
Well that is possible in a anythings possibly sort of way, but seems unlikely given that it would have been God himself who created our brains and for him to create something that doesn't work in tantrum with another process of his (revelation) seems unlikely, like supposing God made a train track and then made a train too big to fit on the train track. Odd behaviour for an omnipotent being.
Only if you suppose science is attempting to say something that it isn't actually.You may dismiss this as philosophical, however, I see the dilemma as being logical and reasonable and an Achilles heel for science.
I can appreciate coming from a religious background that you expect other philosophies to be claiming things with equal certainty as religion does.
But science makes no pretense about the limits of human cognitive ability to understand the world around us. As has already been pointed out science doesn't assume our memories work properly in the first place, which is handy given that we already know they don't.If science cannot offer us a means by which we may test our memory, why should expect science to afford us a test for the God of the Universe?
You shouldn't expect science to afford you a test for the God of the universe.
The point is though that if you cannot test the falsifiability of the claim that such and such God exists and did something, then why do you believe the truth of this claim in the first place, and how would you tell the difference between a reality where the claim is true and a reality where the claim is false.
And before you ask, we cannot tell the difference between a universe that has existed for billions of years and a universe that sprang into existence 5 seconds ago but for some reason we sprang into existence already with memories of events longer ago than 5 seconds.
This is entirely possible in a anything is possible sort of way. But since we cannot tell this is the case it makes no sense to suppose it is. All the evidence is for a universe that is longer than 5 seconds old, so Occum's Razor comes into play. Otherwise you are left supposing a universe that came into existence 5 seconds ago, 6 seconds ago, 20 minutes ago, an hour ago etc etc to infinity.
Science can only work with how the universe appears to be. And this drives religious people nuts because there doesn't appear to be a God, but religious people want there to be a God, so they say there must be something wrong with science, it must be "limited" in what it can tell us because it isn't telling us there is a God and they "know" there must be. In fact though the real question is why, and on what basis, do religious people think there is a God in the first place when everything we know from studying how the universe appears to be isn't telling us there is a God. It is not telling us there isn't a God either, God is absent. But in the case where something is absent from something why assert it's existence at all?That just doesn't make sense to me.
I don't think you understand what science is saying. If you think science is saying we know for certain that the universe didn't just spring into existences 5 seconds ago with all our memories pre-created, you are not understanding science very well.
As Richard Feynman put is
0 -
Well proof outside of maths or science, generally means something that is impossibe or very difficult to dispute in any reasonable fashion. If you say the sky is blue and show someone the sky that would be considered proof that it is blue. Of course either a crazy person or a philosopher might have something to say about that, but generally if an argument is considered air tight by most reaonsble means it is considered proven.
There is absolutely no proof that anything of the Bible is true. People can claim it makes sense to them that it is true, but that is an entirely different matter.
A way to demonstrate this is to simply take arguments for why any particular part of the Bible is true (for example why would the witnesses of the resurrection lie) and apply that to another religion that cannot be true at the same time.
I've yet to come across an argument for the truth of Christianity that doesn't automatically prove the truth of a heck of a lot of other religions if you simply apply that argument to those other religions. Thus this argument cannot be proof of the truth of Christianity if it also proves the truth of religions that cannot be true if Christianity is true.
And more importantly, there must be something else going on if a Christian applies said argument to Christianity as a justification for why they find Christianity rationally convincing, but is unmoved in belief when the same argument is applied to other religions.
I do hope what you mean to say is there is no proof that the supernatural events in the bible are true. Even this isn't strictly true. For historians the principal record are documentary sources. So the bible is evidence in itself but of course in no way is one source necessarily going to be enough to prove many events.
Regarding other religions why see it as binary? Why do you think that religious people believe that if one is true the other must be false. Heck even Benedict has writings where he stresses there must be significant amount of truth in some of the other major religions, and he is seen as conservative. I am not talking common ethics either. of course some aspects are incompatible but how much exactly is incompatible? I am in a rush to go somewhere so I can't really develop this properly but I hope you get my drift.0 -
I do hope what you mean to say is there is no proof that the supernatural events in the bible are true.
There is no proof I'm aware of that the supernatural events in the Bible are true.
If you have some I'd be interested in hearing it.Even this isn't strictly true. For historians the principal record is documentary sources. So the bible is evidence in itself but of course in no way is one source all going to enough on many events.
But it is not proof. All the supernatural stories in the Bible could be made up or imagined. Since the only thing we have to go on in support of these claims is the testimony of humans, who are entirely fallible, this cannot be considered proof by any use of that term, since was I mentioned proof requires that at least on some level there is no reasonable alternative. And the idea that humans imagine things, make up things and lie about things is very reasonable considering all the evidence we have of this (and all the other religions that by definition cannot be true if Christianity is true)
The existence of all the other human religions, which rely on nothing more than the Christian religion relies on (humans claiming something supernatural happened) are in fact the primary reason why Christianity cannot be considered proven, since you would have to apply the same standard to all the other religions. If a human claiming something supernatural happened proved that it did happen then that would prove all religions. And since they are mutually exclusive you run into serious philosophical problems.
Or to put it another way, the fact that we know humans must have made up other religions makes Christianity inherently untrustworthy given that belief in it is based on the same shaky foundation.Regarding other religions why see it as binary?
What, other than the first Commandment :P
Christianity already makes it binary.Why do you think that religious people believe that if one is true the other must be false.
That is a good question. Probably because religion is a process of control and authority, and this is weakened if believers are given the option of moving away to another belief system while still being considered acceptable by the original religion.
Most religions, particularly the monotheistic religions, have very strong rules against the worshiping of other gods. As I said, it is the first commandment of the Judo-Christian religions.Heck even Benedict has writings where he stresses there must be significant amount of truth in some of the other major religions, and he is seen as conservative.
Well you will have to define "significant amount of truth". I don't think Benedict would have got very far if he professed the existence of other gods. But heck, we don't know why he resigned really :P0 -
Irony? I am not sure what part of the definition of proof you don't grasp.
Werewolf? Seriously? The average person reading that is going to deduce for themselves contempt or just plan insecurity.
Proof - the key words are "factual evidence" -- the very thing you and your ilk completely lack.
I'm sure the average person would have embraced logic and reason.
You have accepted miracles therefore every scientific explanation is out of the question. You are fully armored against logic with ignorance.
You mock my werewolf quote after your dribble:...To say there is no proof is akin to stating there are no trees in Ireland.
AronRa: "Science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything."Mitch Hedberg: "Rice is great if you're really hungry and want to eat two thousand of something."
0 -
Proof - the key words are "factual evidence" -- the very thing you and your ilk completely lack.
I'm sure the average person would have embraced logic and reason.
You have accepted miracles therefore every scientific explanation is out of the question. You are fully armored against logic with ignorance.
You mock my werewolf quote after your dribble:
AronRa: "Science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything."
What an absurdity. Religion can know anything through divine revelation. Nothing is impossible for God.
This God exists/doesn't exist debate will always be unprovable either way, it's always going to be a matter of faith. Unless you can describe to me how science can disprove existence itself (YHWH), that is pure spirit. God is a meta-physical enquiry, not a scientific one. Such an easy concept to grasp but atheists don't want to accept it.
Maintaining there is no God <
> Maintaining there is = both articles of faith.0 -
There is no proof I'm aware of that the supernatural events in the Bible are true.
If you have some I'd be interested in hearing it.
But it is not proof. All the supernatural stories in the Bible could be made up or imagined. Since the only thing we have to go on in support of these claims is the testimony of humans, who are entirely fallible, this cannot be considered proof by any use of that term, since was I mentioned proof requires that at least on some level there is no reasonable alternative. And the idea that humans imagine things, make up things and lie about things is very reasonable considering all the evidence we have of this (and all the other religions that by definition cannot be true if Christianity is true)
The existence of all the other human religions, which rely on nothing more than the Christian religion relies on (humans claiming something supernatural happened) are in fact the primary reason why Christianity cannot be considered proven, since you would have to apply the same standard to all the other religions. If a human claiming something supernatural happened proved that it did happen then that would prove all religions. And since they are mutually exclusive you run into serious philosophical problems.
Or to put it another way, the fact that we know humans must have made up other religions makes Christianity inherently untrustworthy given that belief in it is based on the same shaky foundation.
What, other than the first Commandment :P
Christianity already makes it binary.
That is a good question. Probably because religion is a process of control and authority, and this is weakened if believers are given the option of moving away to another belief system while still being considered acceptable by the original religion.
Most religions, particularly the monotheistic religions, have very strong rules against the worshiping of other gods. As I said, it is the first commandment of the Judo-Christian religions.
Well you will have to define "significant amount of truth". I don't think Benedict would have got very far if he professed the existence of other gods. But heck, we don't know why he resigned really :P
If not up to you to redefine the meaning of the word 'proof'. 'Proof /evidence' is not equal to 'proof beyond doubt'. There is a hell of a difference. I am not even arguing for truth of these supernatural events just a more honest framing of the debate.
Most religions are no more a process of 'control' than membership of the local GAA team or having a nationality. It s not a case that belief in multiple gods is required for Christian to find significant truth in other religions. In fact the existence of different gods in monotheistic systems is a logical fallacy. there may be different names but the same fundamental concept means it is the same God. For instance although Allah is commonly perceived to be the God of Muslims, actually the word is used by Arab Christians and Maltese Catholics alike. About 70% of world's religious subscribe to Abrahamic systems, which follow essentially the same deity. Its worth reflecting on that nugget. Of course even there are large difference in their respective understanding of divine revelation and meta physics.
The origins of the world's religions are highly diverse and evidence for each are not necessarily shared as you suggest. All positions are subject to biases and prejudices. Atheism is not a neutral position in anyway. There is no neutrality here.
Assumption ridden and offensive. Not worth dignifying with a serious rebuttal.Proof - the key words are "factual evidence" -- the very thing you and your ilk completely lack.
I'm sure the average person would have embraced logic and reason.
You have accepted miracles therefore every scientific explanation is out of the question. You are fully armored against logic with ignorance.
You mock my werewolf quote after your dribble:
AronRa: "Science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything."0 -
-
Advertisement
-
If not up to you to redefine the meaning of the word 'proof'. 'Proof /evidence' is not equal to 'proof beyond doubt'.
Which is precisely why I'm purposely avoiding proof in the context of maths and other areas where you can be sure of something beyond all doubt.
Most people when using proof acknowledge that it doesn't cover all philosophical alternatives. I mean if you say we proved that an iPad's battery lasts longer than the battery on a Google Nexus 10, most people appreciate that is within reasonable criteria, it doesn't include such things as we are all in the Matrix or brains in jars.
You seem to be using "proof" and "evidence" as meaning the same thing, which is ridiculous. We might say that there is evidence it might rain tomorrow, but that is not the same as saying it is proven it will rain tomorrow, though you might say we can prove it is raining right now by looking out the window.There is a hell of a difference. I am not even arguing for truth of these supernatural events just a more honest framing of the debate.
Well then be honest about it. Something is not proven, even in the loosest usage of that word, simply by there being evidence one way. What you need is that evidence to over rule the other evidence.
I might have evidence my wife is cheating on me (an odd email, boxers that aren't mind left in the wash etc), but I wouldn't confront her until I had proof (photos of her kissing another man for example). Even that I might be wrong, but to most people "proof" means an overwhelming weight of evidence pointing to one conclusion.
Do you seriously want to argue we have overwhelming evidence pointing to the conclusion that the supernatural events in the Bible are accurate?Most religions are no more a process of 'control' than membership of the local GAA team or having a nationality.
Really? Most GAA clubs have strict commandments on correct morality (mostly about correct sexual activity) and instruct that if you break those rules you are considered an immoral person worthy of punishment by the benevolent creator of said morality, punishment that is either eternal torture or annihilation depending on your interpretation?
GAA must have gotten tougher since I played ...It s not a case that belief in multiple gods is required for Christian to find significant truth in other religions.
How much truth Christians find in other religions they don't follow is rather irrelevant. By definition these Christians are not members of said religion, thus do not follow the core principles of it.
For example, Christians might think that Hindus are misguided in their worshipping of gods that the Christian knows don't exist, but may feel that the Hindu's search is ultimately a search for the real God, and prays that they will hopefully one day find him.
Which is all well and good from the Christian point of view. But the point is that isn't what the Hindu's believe. The Hindu religion doesn't teach that it is itself a misguided search for Christianity.In fact the existence of different gods in monotheistic systems is a logical fallacy. there may be different names but the same fundamental concept means it is the same God.
Which is what Christians might believe about polytheistic religions. But it isn't what the polytheistic religions teach, nor what their followers believe. If you went to a Greek or Roman 2000 years ago and said isn't wonderful that we are both ultimately searching for the truth of the one true monotheistic god he would probably slap you. Or maybe just put you to death.0 -
Oh dear!Religion can know anything through divine revelation.
Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"Nothing is impossible for God.
That makes no sense.Unless you can describe to me how science can disprove existence itself...
I find that to be a foolish and arrogant statement.Such an easy concept to grasp but atheists don't want to accept it.
You are saying not believing in something because there is zero evidence of it is faith? :eek:Maintaining there is no God <
> Maintaining there is = both articles of faith.
Now I've heard it all.Mitch Hedberg: "Rice is great if you're really hungry and want to eat two thousand of something."
0 -
Oh dear!
Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
That makes no sense.
I find that to be a foolish and arrogant statement.
You are saying not believing in something because there is zero evidence of it is faith? :eek:
Now I've heard it all.
No actually, I never said that. That's what you said.0 -
-
Correction: It is what is implied by what you said. You can not say what you did without the implication. And it's a fairly explicit implication.
Got it wrong again.
"You are saying not believing in something because there is zero evidence of it is faith?
Now I've heard it all."
Believers have evidence, based on personal knowledge of God through their lives. It's not counted as evidence though because of the obvious inability to prove it to others. Believers have very good reasons to believe, they'd be lying to themselves if they didn't. My point is one side is actually seeking an experience, and so report back with something. Therein lies the difference.
Quit positing your atheism as a more rational position. To never seek God in your heart is irrational and clearly out of avoidance, not wanting to know God. Because unbelievers know exactly that's where they'll find him.
And that will always be a thorn in the side of atheists, they never cared about reality or truth to sincerely seek God. Just sat back with science books claiming it's impossible. It's an easier position to hold after all, no judgement, no moral law. Pantheism even, will and has always been very popular with humanity.0 -
Got it wrong again.
"You are saying not believing in something because there is zero evidence of it is faith?
Now I've heard it all."
Believers have evidence, based on personal knowledge of God through their lives. It's not counted as evidence though because of the obvious inability to prove it to others. Believers have very good reasons to believe, they'd be lying to themselves if they didn't. My point is one side is actually seeking an experience, and so report back with something. Therein lies the difference.
Quit positing your atheism as a more rational position. To never seek God in your heart is irrational and clearly out of avoidance, not wanting to know God. Because unbelievers know exactly that's where they'll find him.
And that will always be a thorn in the side of atheists, they never cared about reality or truth to sincerely seek God. Just sat back with science books claiming it's impossible. It's an easier position to hold after all, no judgement, no moral law. Pantheism even, will and has always been very popular with humanity.
Without meaning to insult you but this is just rubbish. For instance how do you explain atheists who have fallen away from belief , which is, I would guess is most atheists in the western world ?0 -
Without meaning to insult you but this is just rubbish. For instance how do you explain atheists who have fallen away from belief , which is, I would guess is most atheists in the western world ?
There is a very simple explanation for this marienbad, they were likely never believers to begin with. I base this not on some image I have of what an atheist is but on my own experience and the testimony of most atheists I know, in particular Irish atheists who were formerly Catholics. The comprehension gap here is the difference between participating in a religion and actually believing, they are not necessarily related.
For example, I was raised a Catholic and stopped participating at the age of ~14. However, I would say there was no difference in any consideration of God because of that event, I just gave up participating in what I saw at the time as a shallow and frankly hypocritical organization. I never considered God until much later in life and would have described myself as an atheist for many years, actually now that I reflect on it, for a few decades.
You have to consider God to believe in God. I can only speak for myself but in my experience belief in God is absolutely rational from both a subjective and objective perspective. The mistake many atheists make imo is in having rejected a specific idea of God they cannot allow themselves conceive of another. This results in a retreat into scientism and the belief that if science cannot prove God then God cannot exist. If you reflect on what all the major mystical traditions tell us, starting with Hinduism the oldest of the major religions, you see the same theme that "God is not part of nature, God is the reason for nature".0 -
I suppose you met the true scotsmans too?
In my experience of people, they come in all flavours. Saying a person was never a true Fianna Fail supporter, or a true spiritualist, or a true atheist is kind of completely misunderstanding people. There are no true persons. You can generalise them but each time at the back of your mind must be that idea that every generalisation has limitations.0 -
There is a very simple explanation for this marienbad, they were likely never believers to begin with. I base this not on some image I have of what an atheist is but on my own experience and the testimony of most atheists I know, in particular Irish atheists who were formerly Catholics. The comprehension gap here is the difference between participating in a religion and actually believing, they are not necessarily related.
For example, I was raised a Catholic and stopped participating at the age of ~14. However, I would say there was no difference in any consideration of God because of that event, I just gave up participating in what I saw at the time as a shallow and frankly hypocritical organization. I never considered God until much later in life and would have described myself as an atheist for many years, actually now that I reflect on it, for a few decades.
You have to consider God to believe in God. I can only speak for myself but in my experience belief in God is absolutely rational from both a subjective and objective perspective. The mistake many atheists make imo is in having rejected a specific idea of God they cannot allow themselves conceive of another. This results in a retreat into scientism and the belief that if science cannot prove God then God cannot exist. If you reflect on what all the major mystical traditions tell us, starting with Hinduism the oldest of the major religions, you see the same theme that "God is not part of nature, God is the reason for nature".
And without meaning to insult you nagirrac this is just more rubbish and the complete giveaway is your use of the word ''likely'' . How is it believers such as your self have such a clear window into other men's souls ?
I too was brought up catholic and I can assure I both participated and believed in it for the first 14 years of my life and for you or anyone else to infer that the reason I stopped believing is because of ''a comprehension gap'' or because I did not ''consider God'' or any other half-baked psychobabble is just arrogance of the highest order. Next just like Mao you will be advocating re-education camps until we all ''concieve'' the proper answer.
Actually re-reading your post the mind boggles your ( unintended I am sure) arrogance.0 -
Advertisement
-
And without meaning to insult you nagirrac this is just more rubbish and the complete giveaway is your use of the word ''likely'' . How is it believers such as your self have such a clear window into other men's souls ?
Actually re-reading your post the mind boggles your ( unintended I am sure) arrogance.
There was certainly no arrogance intended, but if it came to a choice I would always favor unintended or perceived arrogance over ignorance. I clearly said my opinion on the question is based on my own experiences. Talk about pot and kettle, calling people's opinions "rubbish" is the height of both arrogance and ignorance but work away.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement