Quote of the Day, by Bob
What evidence would I accept for the claim that god exists? That's easy. All he would have to do is show up, once, -or- he could supernaturally change the way my brain works so that I no longer need evidence and am willing to accept as fact, wild claims that are based on ancient religious documents.
94 comments:
This is something I've thought a bit about, and most of the "miracles" people suggest to prove Gods existence, I would be way more likely to attribute to aliens or something like that. It's that old Arthur C. Clark quote about "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I would need something that somehow disproved the theory of being tricked by a more advanced being, so the supernatural brain change would be the way to go for me.
Oh, just thought I'd mention it's Blasphemy day and I and some other bloggers are doing blasphemy themed posts. I know that is sort of your bread and butter but I hadn't seen if you had mentioned it or not.
~Rhaco
When I was first asked this question I came up with similar answers but the more I think about it, the more my answer changes. The problem is really that humans are bad observers and we jump to conclusion and I know it. If I saw "god", my first thought would be to question my observations not to conclude God exits, which ties nicely in with the second point. Let's face it, humans are generally willing to accept wild claims but we've grown and learned what a bad methodology this is for acquiring knowledge.
I'm now at the point where I think that the evidence against gods is so strong and the evidence for our faulty observation is likewise so strong that I would be very hard-pressed to think of anything at this point which would convince me that God exists. Some powerful alien maybe, but God? I don't know, I can't think of anything. It's like asking what would convince you that the world was flat.
In my first days of doubt when prayer was still present in my life, I simply prayed, "Jesus, give me something I can't deny." That's all it would take.
I expect a lot of people will cry foul and state that god will not override one's free will. I have thought a lot about this... believers have whatever evidence is needed to believe for them personally. Plain and simple. It might be that their parents were believers. Or that they think god saved their van from driving over that cliff. Or felt some warm presence.
But the point is that something has either led them to, or kept them in belief.
But all happens under god's will. He provided whatever was necessary to believe and thus met what I call their "threshold of belief." Just because mine his higher does not mean that meeting it would override my free will anymore than the fact that others have had it met means that god overrode theirs.
My standards aren't nearly that demanding. I'd start believing if theists could simply make a philosophically coherent case.
But that is not a worry of mine because they very rarely or very poorly deal with the problem of many religions and the equivalence of claims (one of the strongest arguments against religion in my estimation).
For instance, I'd be willing to entertain the claim that prayers are answered in a non-detectable way if the same type of claims weren't made for almost all other gods, religions, spirits, magics, and superstitions. With the equivalence of these claims of magical/ supernatural causation, the rational explanation is a common psychological propensity, not an underlying but self-contradicting supernatural realm.
Yes, let's start with something simple : give us a coherent, sensible, ethically acceptable book that we can call "Holy Scripture".
It sounds like some people (including the OP) are answering "what would it take you to believe" and not "what evidence would you accept". Clearly mucking with your mind would satisfy the former but would be a poor answer for the latter.
Philosophical consistency and coherent definitions are always a nice start but we've scrapped uncountable numbers of these ideas already so I think we can agree that while this may be necessary, it's far from sufficient. It is telling that theists haven't bothered to meet even the first steps, indeed many apologists seem to think this creates an aura of mystery (it's not a crap answer, it's a "paradox", oooooooh, spooooooky).
God demonstrated his presence when Elijah asked, right? Fire from above would still be an impressive feat.
The next time there's a Christian conference filling a sports arena in your area, put up a billboard challenge. Let's see some heavenly fire, believers. Let JREF help you set up the experiment. If you're afraid to take the test, well, we understand.
Then just keep putting up billboards...
Of course, there's the potential for unbelievers to be killed by the thousands if God does show up, but I'd take my chances.
Have you ever said, "I couldn't become a Christian even if I wanted to?"
I think that's a true statement.
Mucking with the mind (John 6:44) is what brings people to Jesus. Coming to Jesus is the proof of His existence.
I can't remember how many naturalists I've hear say they want Jesus to just appear in front of them, "And then I'd believe."
But you see, you wouldn't believe because of that. As a naturalist you'd come up with a naturalistic explanation for why you "thought" you encountered Jesus.
Jesus said to a crowd one day, "Even when I rise from the dead, some of you won't believe."
One of our friends was complaining to her doctor about becoming ill after a lifetime of perfect health. He said, "Well, we're all healthy until we aren't."
Virtually all believers, including me, said they'd never become a follower of Jesus - until they did.
My wife, who became a believer several years before I did said she wrote in her journal, "I doubt if Rod will ever come to Christ." And then Jesus made Himself real to me in a manner that I couldn't discount or block out or push away.
Unless God causes you to believe, you won't. And that is the proof of His existence.
And that is the proof of His existence.
So basically you're going with option 2: a magical lobotomy which removes your memory of human foibles, biases, and fallacies.
Alrighty, still not evidence and whatever might pass for evidence is given with the handwaving: "real to me in a manner that I couldn't discount". Curious how coy believers can be about something they say is of vital importance and which they donate their time and money towards, yet can't be bothered to offer more than a couple words describing when it actually matters. Good stuff.
I'm saying, you won't know the proof of His existence until you're given the proof of His existence.
As Paul says in Romans 9:16 - "It does not therefore depend on man's desire or effort but on God's mercy."
And if you try to fake it, all you'll be is a John Loftus or Bart Erhman - people will lots of info but nothing of substance and sooner or later you'll just pack it in.
Thesauros - "But you see, you wouldn't believe because of that. As a naturalist you'd come up with a naturalistic explanation for why you "thought" you encountered Jesus.
I would come up with a "naturalistic explanation" if there was a "naturalistic explanation".
If there is knock at your door and when you open it no one is there, do you think it is an angel, demon, invisible man, or someone playing a trick on you?
If you were writhing on the floor in the middle of a seizure, would you want medical treatment to be put on hold while people prayed and waited to see if God intervened?...don't answer that.
Thesauros - "And if you try to fake it, all you'll be is a John Loftus or Bart Erhman"
Here we go...
Here we go...
What, are you saying there's a problem with Christians accusing others of personal failings when their wink-and-a-nod "proofs" are treated as jokes?
Isn't it enough to try to take away their religious delusions without attacking their petty rationalizations as well? Damn you heartless bastards!
So what's the issue here? I'm describing exactly what you say that you observe and for some reason that isn't good enough.
===========
"I would come up with a "naturalistic explanation" if there was a "naturalistic explanation"."
No, if you are a naturalist you will say there is a naturalist explanation EVEN if you have to say, "We don't have one now but there will be one at some point in the future."
Again, look at origins of the universe. There is no natural explanation for how matter came into existence.
“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD where their voice is not heard.” Psalm 19:1-3
That's why the Bible says "No one is without excuse [for not acknowledging the existence of Creator God]."
In fact current scientific evidence points AWAY from a natural explanation but that does not, nor will it ever prevent atheists from saying that the beginning of the universe has an explanation that coheres with naturalism. That is where their commitment lies and nothing will change that commitment until God alters that picture on an individual basis.
In fact current scientific evidence points AWAY from a natural explanation
No it doesn't. Technically speaking, the evidence doesn't really point towards or away from a naturalistic explanation. And the reason it doesn't point either way, is because our understanding of how it happened is woefully incomplete. We have several competing natural theories right now, one of them, none of them, or something else not currently be considered might be the right one. Or, while very unlikely, but not totally out of the ball park is some theistic explanation. You're totally jumping the gun on that one.
Thesauros wrote: "Coming to Jesus is the proof of His existence." ... "you won't know the proof of His existence until you're given the proof of His existence."
Even if we grant that this reasoning is valid, since it is self-referential and self-contained the apologist using it cannot claim exclusive truth (if they are honest) since the same reasoning can be used to bolster claims of any belief system. E.g. "You won't know the truth of Islam until you submit to the will of Allah."
Put simply it is a tautology. "You won't believe in X until you believe in X."
thesauros- "Again, look at origins of the universe. There is no natural explanation for how matter came into existence." so since there is no explanation, YET, the absolute answer is GOD did it? interesting arguement. up until modern times, everything was explained that way. lighnting hit someone? god did it. tornado drops out of the sky and tears up a village? god did it. the plague? god did it. people drop dead for no reason? (an anurism for example) god did it. all these things have been explained and proven how they happen scientifically. and sooner or later, the last castle of creation that you christians point to will fall,will be explained and proven, before jesus supposedly comes back to save you, i will wager. then what will you point to and say "now this proves god exists", I wonder?
There is no natural explanation for how matter came into existence.
That's simply not true. Our theories explain how matter came into existence and they have been extremely successful in predicting the ratios of the elements and the distribution of that matter. I suspect that the unselfconscious arrogance you display in these statements stems from a deep ignorance of science, particularly physics and cosmology. If you had even a little bit of education you might say "theories about the origin of matter are unpersuasive" which would be wrong but to flat out deny that they exist...? You show yourself to be a fool.
“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Please be more specific. How do they declare this?
The heavens and the earth declare pitiless indifference. Is that the work of his hands?
That's why the Bible says "No one is without excuse [for not acknowledging the existence of Creator God]."
I know it says this, but as with everything else, we should ask ourselves "is this true?" and "why should I believe it?". Can you answer those?
Since we're saying that we don't see evidence and you don't present any, I think you're proving our point that a reasonable, unbiased person would not accept these claims (hence John's OTF).
“That's simply not true. Our theories explain how matter came into existence”
Which one? Not a single one of these is workable. Not the Oscillating universe - Baby universes - Multi verses - The Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario - The Chaotic Inflationary universe - Brane-cosmology - Inflationary multi-verse - Bubble universes floating in a sea of false vacuum -The many worlds hypothesis - The black hole hypothesis - Quantum gravity models - Vacuum fluctuation models - Imaginary time and imaginary space.
Every single one of them requires a singularity, a definitive space time boundary, a moment of coming into being from nothing.
There is no “natural” explanation because nothing natural existed until the singularity. Can you not get that? Matter / energy / space and time did not exist until the singularity.
If nothing material existed then the cause of matter must have been immaterial.
. You do understand - don’t you - that the material infinite does not exist?
. You do understand - don’t you - that matter cannot preexist itself?
. You do understand - don’t you - that matter cannot bring itself into existence.
Yes? You get this?
These are our choices:
. Either matter is eternal OR
. The cause of matter is eternal.
The universe requires an explanation and saying “We just don’t know” won’t make the need for an explanation go away. We may not know what caused the universe to begin but we can and do know what DIDN’T make it begin - some natural / material did not bring nature / material into existence.
No tell us, won't you? When you say, "Our theories explain how matter came into existence" just what theory(s) are you referring to?
======
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." Please be more specific. How do they declare this?
I just explained it. An immaterial (spiritual), eternal, omni everything cause is the only thing that make sense. Or do you suppose that our's (human)is the only intelligence that has ever existed?
------------
The heavens and the earth declare pitiless indifference.
It’s only pitiless indifference if a Creator does not exist. “He works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will." Ephesians 1:11.
Because a Creator does exist everything that exists including the universe itself has meaning and context and purpose.
--------
That's why the Bible says "No one is without excuse [for not acknowledging the existence of Creator God]." I know it says this, but as with everything else, we should ask ourselves "is this true?" and "why should I believe it?". Can you answer those?
Mmm, I don’t know. I do know that I’m not going to try.
----------
Since we're saying that we don't see evidence and you don't present any, I think you're proving our point that a reasonable, unbiased person would not accept these claims (hence John's OTF).
Whatever!
Every single one of them requires a singularity, a definitive space time boundary, a moment of coming into being from nothing.
That's certainly not true which you'd know if you'd even read just the Wikipedia pages on those theories. Heck, if you just spent a few seconds thinking about the names of those theories.
But still, you are confusing the origin of matter with the origin of the universe. We know where the matter came from and we know how it came about, and that doesn't change much regardless of which of these theories ultimately pans out.
These are our choices:
. Either matter is eternal OR
. The cause of matter is eternal.
Definitely not the first and I don't know what the second means. Matter arose during the inflationary expansion of the universe and required no net input of energy and no net input of matter as the net energy of the universe is zero. What needs explaining has been explained.
The universe requires an explanation and saying “We just don’t know” won’t make the need for an explanation go away.
No, but then neither does our ignorance (or imagined ignorance, in this case) mean that God didit. That's absurd on its face, a clear God of the Gaps.
It’s only pitiless indifference if a Creator does not exist. “He works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will." Ephesians 1:11.
Because a Creator does exist everything that exists including the universe itself has meaning and context and purpose.
Cute. Even you can't look outwards and see the signs of God and can't detect any pattern beyond indifference. You in fact refuse to look outwards and look only to your books, imagining that the scribblings of an ancient should overrule what we actually observe.
Fact is, if the universe speaks to a God then we don't need the bible to tell us about it, we can infer much about its character through observation. And the best description of the universe towards humans is indifference.
Whatever!
Oh snap.
We know where the matter came from and we know how it came about"
I'm still waiting.
Do you know why there have been so many Atheist Origin Of The Universe Mythologies? Because every single one of them (meaning the one that came just before the last one) is unworkable. If they found one that, that did not carry the metaphysical implications that the Big Bang Model carries and was workable we hear a "Ta Da! We've done it."
Google "Borde, Guth, Vilenkin Theorem." I'll give you the hightlight.
Because, in the eyes of biassed and bigoted atheists, I’m just a stupid Christian who couldn’t possibly know anything of value in this area, because they are even willing to disregard the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and say that our universe is the one exception to that Law, I leave you with the words of Vilenkin himself.
“It is said that an Argument is what convinces reasonable men, and a Proof is what it takes to convince an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of the cosmic beginning.” Alex Vilenkin, “Many Worlds In One - The Search for Other Universes,” 11
We know where the matter came from and we know how it came about"
I'm still waiting.
You're waiting for what? You've come in here, made all sorts of outrage pronouncements, declared huge swaths of cosmology to be false and now you declare that you're waiting, presumably for us to educate you? I don't think so. If you are humble enough to learn, you will learn, perhaps by reading "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. What have you done to learn? What do you know of Inflation?
they are even willing to disregard the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and say that our universe is the one exception to that Law, I leave you with the words of Vilenkin himself.
Don't be stupid, that has absolutely nothing to do with thermodynamics. Do you even know what the "thermodynamics" means, let alone what the other laws might be? That bit of idiocy is what six year olds use to demolish evolution, somehow imagining that they're able to pierce what highly educated and motivated scientists are not. While that naive arrogance is cute in a child, it's embarrassing in an adult. If you're going to try to overthrow an entire field of science, at least show some respect and consider that any "proof" which a grade 10 student thinks is obvious has already been dealt with by professionals.
I don't really get the "God could prove his existence by appearing to me" argument. I heard Dan Barker argue something similar. Surely that would be no different from the millions of personal testimonies of supposed encounters with God that skeptics discount precisely because they don't cohere with the scientific evidence?
Thesauros said,
"...Google "Borde, Guth, Vilenkin Theorem." I'll give you the hightlight."
I'll go you one better:
Here's the paper.
The quote you posted:
Vilenkin: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)"."
I went back and read the paper AGAIN, and here is what they said IN THE PAPER:
"...Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order
to determine the correct conditions at the boundary.
This is the chief result of our paper."
Tentative. Says that "some new physics is necessary".
and
"...The result depends on just one assumption: the Hubble parameter H has a positive value when averaged over the affine parameter of a past-directed null or noncomoving timelike geodesic."
Tentative: "...result depends on just one assumption...", but it's still an assumption.
then,
"...The class of cosmologies satisfying this assumption is not limited to inflating universes. Of particular interest is the recycling scenario, in which each comoving region goes through a succession of inflationary and thermalized epochs...One must look carefully, however, at the possibility of discontinuities where the inflationary and thermalized regions meet. This issue requires further analysis."
This includes the possibility of cyclical recurrences of universal manifestation, and he says himself, that
"This issue requires further analysis."
Tentative!
Is the quote you posted even referring to this paper? Or are you just counting on the hope that we wouldn't continue to pursue your obfuscations?
"All he would have to do is show up, once, or..."
Actually, that is not all that would need to happen. What would also need to happen, is for Bob to withold from dismissing the incident as "mere
unexplained phenomena that "surely" has a naturalistic explanation yet-to-be discovered and I will wait (or even die waiting) until it IS discovered LEST I make the mistake of appleaing to the god-of-the-gaps! "
And that was basically Thesauros' point about the implications of an atheist's commitment to naturalism.
What MIGHT be your greatest defense against credulously falling for what you see as "god-of-the-gaps disguised as evidence", can also be your greatest BARRIER to accepting genuine evidence for God.
For those of you who are atheists, and who SAY that you will come to believe in God if and only if evidence for his existence is presented to you, you need to do some serious reflection...asking yourselves how the evidences/arguments for God's existence that theists cite (which you freely denounce as being god-of-the-gaps fallacies) are fundamentally any different from YOUR hypothetical evidence for God that you claim would convince you.
Sometimes, the only barrier to accepting evidence, is the self.
One thing that seems quite obvious worldwide, is any God that actually exist, obviously far prefers to be anonymous and unknown to men.
Any God that can also build a whole universe, is very unlikely to ever have any problems becoming know by men, if indeed that was what was actually intended by God.
There isnt even any scientific objective type evidence available, suggesting that maybe Gods really do want men to even know about Gods.None ,Nada, Zilch, nil there is absolutely nothing scientific, suggesting anything about maybe Gods do exist and want men to know and understand about them.
None.
All we have left is remenants of some ancient cultural religious thoughts in holy books, born in many ancient mens heads,thats been passed on, recorded written and combined within the very memory and memorial writings of our historys and traditions.Leaving us no real great surprise, that certain information is seen to match some historical places and advents.
Yet.
1,The best sientific type evidence available today would still tend to suggest, if any Gods exists, then obviously they also must simply far prefer to stay being completely unknown and be totally anonymous to humans.
2,One thing for sure is there is absolutely no scientific type evidence at all, that would tend to suggest, Gods are actually obviously existent, and also obviously prefer to be known by men.Science observes no phenomena suggesting any evidence of Gods trying to make their contact with men.None
Considdering the theory of God from a scientific type point of view.A Hawkings type opinion of God is not really so very far fetched or so far wrong.
Because considdering the vast ammount of modern scientific observational technology thats available for men to use these days.That can be used to observe the greats deep of the universe around us.
So far sure seems like Gods are looking pretty non existant!.Sure seems like even mere hope of some "possible sign of Gods" ,sure seems like its pretty non existant also.
The only actual evidence suggested to exist as being sign of God,always seems it remains locked away out of public view or scrutiny.Secluded and hidden away from any scientific tests, in the deceitful minds and experiences and memorys of all the faithful humans.Faithful humans that historically sadly have also often! later been proven as being blatant liars and sex molestors and the likes of any general human scum looking to take advantage of a situation.
Ana said.."Actually, that is not all that would need to happen. What would also need to happen, is for Bob to withold from dismissing the incident as "mere
unexplained phenomena that "surely" has a naturalistic explanation yet-to-be discovered and I will wait (or even die waiting) until it IS discovered LEST I make the mistake of appleaing to the god-of-the-gaps! "
But maybe you fail to understand there is actually some very good and valid reason why Humans like Bob might feel they have a great need to try to be so sure about the facts of such matters happening in our lives around us.
Our whole survival network has evolved depended on us trying to be learning, how to become involved in double checking up on all situations happening around us.
If we didnt do this life would have turned more toward chaos and in turn lots more grave danger also.
The reasons this nature of double checking is become such an extremely important trait humans have needed to adopt and promote, is really exposed! when we think back about some ancient incidents among faiths that once even saw some humans trial the practice of throwing their own live babies off into the flames of fires.Hoping it would somehow help bring their lives more fertility, as the "prophets" of their day had told them would likely happen.
It was but one! instance that helped brought home hard the fact of just why us humans should all NEED learn to double check matters around us more, and learn to look for real evidence first.
I was far more about a real human NEED ,and not so much about any humans personal want.
Better human survival = our NEED to learn to look for evidence rather than relying on word of prophet or witch doctor or reliance on decision of dominant rule of local tribal elders.
With the very presence of all these ancient beliefs, we see the real great importance shineing through each and every one of those faiths , of our human need for great vigilence in being extra sure of first looking for far more good evidence before even agreeing to believe and follow.
It is only the foolish that still continue to try to suggest,maybe modern day humans should still have good reason for ability of belief without needing good evidence.
No we human should not return back toward the dark ages!, where matters of faith ruled the earth.
History even remains itself! as a fine written witness!, to try and remind us of the great stupidity! involved in such foolish practice of our pasts.
Suggesting humans should be able to live by faith without need of any good evidence ,is like suggesting maybe a kiwi should still learn to fly like a bird does, even though a kiwi doesnt have any real wings.
The kiwi obviously didnt evolve finding the wings to be helpful,neither has man evolved finding faith being so reliable and safe.
Humans life is better desiged for survival by use of modern day knowledge.
Our whole past history is riddled with faithful religious failures! and everlasting reminders! of all the great pain and suffering that evolved from the great ignorance of the past and utter stupidity involved in human people trying to live by method of faith.
The whole "experience" of our evolution of humans history of belief by faith ,has pushed humanity further and further away from this type of living by faith.
Even our medicines have moved away from faith in the potions of witch doctors and prophet healers, towards the more proven remedies.Very many products we humans all use every day now days, we also expect to be proven as being quite ok for our human use.
It is simply because we humans soon learned there is actually much better promise of our human survival, through learned use of this type of "evidence" method.
There is nothing abnormal about Bobs human need for obtaining evidence first.
@Tyro
thesauros is just spilling the drool he is spoon fed by apologists like Bil Craig.
I like reading your replies to him though.
@thesaurus
You wrote:
And if you try to fake it, all you'll be is a John Loftus or Bart Erhman - people will lots of info but nothing of substance and sooner or later you'll just pack it in.
my reply
You know what I say, "Fuck You" you piece of shit. I was not faking anything you judgmental bastard.
sorry John.
"What evidence would I accept for the claim that god exists? That's easy. All he would have to do is show up, once"
Many people report that he has shown up for them. Not all of whom are mentally unstable. This is true in other controversial areas too. Many otherwise perfectly sane people claim to have had direct personal contact with aliens. we usually think these people are "crazy" but who knows?
If God showed up for you how would I know? How could I believe you? Your test here is clearly inadequate.
"he could supernaturally change the way my brain works so that I no longer need evidence"
Maybe he changed everyone else's brain except for you. Maybe you are defective. Maybe god maliciously changed your brain so you *couldn't* believe. Or maybe you're just not that bright.
Ya'll haven't given this much thought have you?
There is another way of looking at this problem.
"What does it take for someone to believe in a horror movie?"
I'm middle aged, I've seem 'em all and it's pretty darn hard for me to suspend disbelief and *really* be scared by a movie. The thing is, I *want* to be scared, it's kinda fun, but still... it's very hard to really believe and drop my disbelief. But kids these days... they'll swallow anything.
So... even when I want to believe it's hard to do, but sometimes I can. I don't think it has anything to do with rationality.
The reason that I drop my disbelief and allow a horror movie to scare me is for psychological reasons. There has to be a hook, something about me that allows the movie to get inside of me and do it's thing.
Reason is the slave to the emotions, not he other way around kiddies.
People lose or gain their faith not due to arguments but to powerful events in their lives that affect them at a deep psychological level.
Generally, adolescent boys abandon their faith because it serves as a rebellion to parental authority. Then later in life they may pick it up again when the patriarch is old and feeble.
Or... people lose or acquire faith due to traumatic events. Most atheists I've met online are glib and seem to me to live pampered lives. They've never had their whole world unravel before their very eyes. They can't even frame such a concept and have no way of imaging what that would even be.
The ego is a fragile thing, easily shattered. Faith in something greater than ourselves is the glue that holds us together.
American is a pampered nation. It's wealth has so far enabled many of it's citizens to avoid the really hard questions of life. Instead we have the silliness of fundamentalism and the equally silly atheists.
I have to wonder if that isn't going to change sooner or later.
What we atheists ask for is real evidence--that's not an unreasonable request given the magnitude of the claim and its implication. But all we get instead
is lots of revolving-door arguments by legions of apologists; and those arguments are supposed to account for the evidence, and if we don't accept them then we're damned--that's an
unreasonable expectation.
David L Rattigan - I don't really get the "God could prove his existence by appearing to me" argument. Surely that would be no different from the millions of personal testimonies of supposed encounters with God that skeptics discount precisely because they don't cohere with the scientific evidence?
David, during my 25 years as a bible believing Christian, I never met a single believer who claimed to have a visual or audible "encounters with God". So, where are these "millions" you speak of?
And why do you refer to these encounters as "supposed" :)
And for what it's worth, I don't see how someone else's claim of an encounter with god could be dismissed by me on scientific grounds. I could offer possible explanations for 2nd, 3rd, 4th person claims of such encounters, which I would be perfectly justified in doing, just as I can't help but to remain skeptical of so many claims of encounters with space aliens.
Ana - Actually, that is not all that would need to happen. What would also need to happen, is for Bob to withold from dismissing the incident as "mere unexplained phenomena that "surely" has a naturalistic explanation yet-to-be discovered and I will wait (or even die waiting) until it IS discovered LEST I make the mistake of appleaing to the god-of-the-gaps!
Ana, if God came to you and I in the form of a homeless man, or a rich mega church minister, or a weeping statue of Mary, can you offer any predictions as to how you and I would mentally respond?
If God came to you and I in the form of a talking donkey, or a disembodied hand writing on the wall, or a pillar of fire-pillar of smoke-parter of seas, or if he bodily floated down out of the sky, sat down beside us and gave us the opportunity to test him to see if he had supernatural powers, do you honestly think I would not lean toward believing that this god who was before me, was real?
I think it is convenient for you to offer that pretty much nothing would convince the non believer. But actually, you are just as confident as we are that God will not show up. Correct?
I plan on spending some time reading your blog. Looks interesting.
Brenda - Maybe he changed everyone else's brain except for you. Maybe you are defective. Maybe god maliciously changed your brain so you *couldn't* believe. Or maybe you're just not that bright.
Ya'll haven't given this much thought have you?
Ouch! A whole lot of "maybe's" in there Brenda. Why don't you pick one and stick with it.
And no, obviously we, none of us, have given this much thought :)
Evangelism isn't high on your list of priorities is it Brenda?
Brenda - Most atheists I've met online are glib and seem to me to live pampered lives. They've never had their whole world unravel before their very eyes. They can't even frame such a concept and have no way of imaging what that would even be.
Brenda, why don't you simply ASK us atheists about our lives? You might find that a lot of us have had some pretty sad experiences. We may not of had our "whole world unravel" (what ever the hell that means) but I can guarantee you that if you think most of us have "live pampered lives", you are ignorant and prejudicial.
"What we atheists ask for is real evidence--"
No you don't. You have real evidence in the form of the universe - the origin for which there is no natural explanation because nothing natural existed until the universe was brought into existence.
As soon as you see this evidence, you refuse to accept it saying, as Ana explained, "I won't accept God as the answer even if I have to die waiting for a naturalistic answer.
Ana said,
"...What MIGHT be your greatest defense against credulously falling for what you see as "god-of-the-gaps disguised as evidence", can also be your greatest BARRIER to accepting genuine evidence for God."
What, pray tell, is this "genuine evidence"?
If you give me a list of things that only an individual might subjectively percieve, then you haven't shown 'evidence'.
Thesauros said,
"As soon as you see this evidence, you refuse to accept it saying, as Ana explained, "I won't accept God as the answer even if I have to die waiting for a naturalistic answer."
And you're going to die waiting for the Rapture, so we're even, since we'll both be dead.
Interested in hearing more about that Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theory, and why the conclusions IN THE PAPER all sounded so...
tentative.
Brenda,
Some days I'm tempted to believe that but I don't think the evidence bears it out despite its anecdotal appeal. A few observations which I think need to be taken into account: large cities are more secular than small, societies with better health care and less poverty are more secular than those without, people who feel in control of their lives are far less superstitious and religious than those who do not.
I don't see trauma or youthful rebellion playing a significant factor in any of these. In particular, I don't see any inherent religiosity nor any fixed tendency towards faith, rather I see societal factors which can change very quickly and I see people changing their beliefs over time, sometimes quickly.
Anecdotally, I do see people changing their faith through reason. It's when they start to realize that it's blind faith and that, despite what they've been told all their lives, it is opposed to reason not in agreement. As we've seen from the Pew study, most US Christians are quite ignorant (and as we've also seen, US is a huge outlier for income inequality, health care and financial security). Imagine if those factors were to change - Americans learned more about religions and they gained some social security. Either or both look like game changers to take the sting out of religion.
We can work on the former one-on-one, just remember that this won't happen before our eyes. Give it time, but change does happen.
You have real evidence in the form of the universe - the origin for which there is no natural explanation because nothing natural existed until the universe was brought into existence.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You are obviously just trying a God of the Gaps argument which can have no evidence since it's merely your own personal ignorance of counter evidence. That ignorance is double ridiculous as you yourself have proved it wrong: many theories do have natural things existing prior to the BB. In Brane cosmologies for instance, membranes slowly pulse and occasionally collide, triggering off an expanding universe. The Cyclical theories, well, I'll let you look that up in the dictionary so you don't look foolish next time.
I do wonder at the chutzpah you must have to come here an recite some theories which refute your claims in their very titles! Impressive. Most people would spot that and have the decency to blush or edit them out, but not you. Was that because you didn't even read them before you pasted them here?
Evidence, actual evidence, requires that you state a coherent theory which makes testable predictions. Then you go out and make observations and if those observations confirm your predictions, you get to call that evidence. It isn't, and I want to make this very clear, waving your hand at a bunch of shit and saying "there's your answer. Somewhere. Look harder, the Bible says it's out there." In University, this was called a "hand waving proof" and would provoke derisive laughter and contempt. Because I like you, I'll save the contempt but you've earned that derisive laughter.
tentative"
This conslusion sounds tentative to you?
"With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of the cosmic beginning.” Alex Vilenkin, “Many Worlds In One - The Search for Other Universes,” 11
tyro - these atheists are describing inflationary models of the universe - each model you describe is inflationary and each one is unworkable for several reasons but the main one is that each and every inflationary model requires a definitive space / time boundary, a beginning, a singularity.
Are you old enough to remember the Steady State Model? Do you know what it is? It's a model that says the universe(matter / energy) has always been. It was a wonderful model for atheists because it did away with the necessity for a cause. It was a great model UNTIL the evidence began to be examined.
. Background radiation
. 2nd Law of T
. red light shift and of course
. The expansion of the universe, an expansion that because of dark matter is speeding up no less.
This is a terrible blow to atheism as is shown by the comments on this post and by these comments by atheist driven scientists.
Astronomer Arthur Eddington - “The concept of the Big Bang is preposterous, incredible, repugnant.”
Physicist Philip Morrison - “I find it hard to accept the Big Bang theory. I would like to reject it.”
As BGV in no uncertain terms have described, there is no more hiding. Matter / energy had a beginning and that means that they had a Cause outside of themselves. A Cause that was immaterial.
Why is it that I can present to you nothing but findings from science but because they point in a direction you don't like you laugh in derisve manner?
Tyro,
You won't get very far with Brenda. She just thinks you're an Xbox playing, libertarian objectivist geek who's never studied the humanities, and therefore you have no concept of the important things about human nature.
And when you show her up, she'll start insulting you (and your intelligence) and start playing "the religion is more moral than atheism pissing contest."
What's worse, she can't even get her fallacious set of moral arguments put together correctly.
She also may contradict herself, claiming she's an agnostic in one post, and denying it another. She's not very self aware, that's for certain.
"This conslusion sounds tentative to you?"
You didn't read the paper, did you?
these atheists are describing inflationary models of the universe - each model you describe is inflationary and each one is unworkable for several reasons but the main one is that each and every inflationary model requires a definitive space / time boundary, a beginning, a singularity.
Before we get lost, let's take a moment to remember how we got here before this Gish Gallop takes us too far. You declared that we could not account for the presence of matter, I replied and instead of continuing on this path, you've launched an entirely new attack on the origin of the universe itself. This is completely different. I mentioned this "oversight" before. If you withdraw your previous claim, please do so explicitly, otherwise we'll see you as a dishonest troll instead of merely a misinformed one. I think you can do better.
[The Big Bang overthrowing Steady State] is a terrible blow to atheism as is shown by the comments on this post and by these comments by atheist driven scientists.
Dude, you're again undermining your own points. You're showing that scientists follow the evidence and not dogma!
To make matters worse, you're listing the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as evidence supporting the BB when yesterday you were saying it was evidence against it! Is it too much to expect a little bit of consistency?
Matter / energy had a beginning and that means that they had a Cause outside of themselves. A Cause that was immaterial.
Nothing you've said even begins to touch on any of these wild leaps. You haven't once even hinted at problems with the origin of matter, you haven't once dealt with the total energy of the universe.
Yes, from the beginning I agreed that matter had a beginning, but this came *after* the BB, and since it's balanced out by negative energy levels, the net energy of the universe is zero so there is not only no need for some "immaterial cause", out theories for the origin of matter work perfectly well without any external forces whatsoever. All this blather about the BB has nothing whatsoever to do with matter.
And yet again I must observe that even if you were right about everything (ha!), you still haven't presented a case for a god or an immaterial cause. It would be like saying that the Ekpyrotic theory is false therefore M-Theory must be right. Okay, your argument is even stupider since at least there is an M-Theory.
"...each model you describe is inflationary and each one is unworkable for several reasons but the main one is that each and every inflationary model requires a definitive space / time boundary, a beginning, a singularity."
From the paper:
"...Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order
to determine the correct conditions at the boundary.
This is the chief result of our paper."
Tentative. Says that "some new physics is necessary",
AND
says explicitly that the conditions at the boundary remain to be determined.
"This is the chief result of our paper."
Again, I ask:
Is the quote you provided (the one about the "proof... [being] in place" even referring to THIS PAPER?
You won't get very far with Brenda. She just thinks you're an Xbox playing, libertarian objectivist geek who's never studied the humanities, and therefore you have no concept of the important things about human nature.
I object, I barely play Xbox at all.
(Thanks for the heads up.)
i wish DM was still around. i'm still trying to figure out which "mother****er" killed mickey mouse, let alone how the universe came into existence.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
What word? Evidence? Is it not atheists who tell God, “Give me something my senses can identify and then I’ll believe.”
If matter and energy, space and time (the universe) don’t qualify as evidence then what would?
If a mathematically precise universe with physical laws governed by constants and quantities that were put in place in less than the blink of the eye doesn’t qualify as evidence then what would?
-----------
"You're showing that scientists follow the evidence and not dogma!"
They aren’t. Almost every effort since the BB model (I gave you about a dozen examples) have been an attempt to do away with a beginning. A desperate need to reinstate the Steady State is alive and well in every atheist who has ever lived. Even Hawking’s latest book “assumes” a multi verse (for which there is zero evidence) and posits that our universe came from that.
So let me ask, Do you think that you follow the evidence?
==========
"Thermodynamics as evidence supporting the BB when yesterday you were saying it was evidence against it!”
Either I wrote something wrong or you misunderstood what I wrote but I assure you, I have never seen the 2nd Law as working against BB.
=======
"Is the quote you provided . . ."
Why do you avoid the implications of what Vilenkin said in his conclusion? Ty is saying that atheists go with the evidence and here you are, pushing, pushing, pushing for a universe without a cause.
"Everything came from nothing by nothing." It's atheism of the gaps.
Or maybe you just don’t understand the difference between “nothing” and “something.” I've actually had an atheist tell me that "nothing" means a tiny speck of matter / energy surrounded by a tiny bit of space that suddenly inflated into what we today call the universe.
Is that where you reside?
If matter and energy, space and time (the universe) don’t qualify as evidence then what would?
Why don't you tell us - what other predictions does your theory make. Wait, what was your theory again which you're gathering evidence for?
Almost every effort since the BB model (I gave you about a dozen examples) have been an attempt to do away with a beginning
And the third time's the charm.
You started off by saying matter and energy proved there was a god, you even open this discussion by saying that matter and energy are evidence and yet when I've pointed out three times now that we know where matter comes from, you've ignored it.
Ignore it once, maybe that's a rhetorical flourish. Ignore it twice and maybe you're uncomfortable. Ignore it three times and you've conceded the point.
So I'll take it that you do know that matter arose without God, that your so-called-evidence is actually best explained without invoking deities and this obsession with the Big Bang is a big smoke screen. Sorry dude, not biting.
Now we all know you are just trolling since you're still fighting even though you know you've lost.
Either I wrote something wrong or you misunderstood what I wrote but I assure you, I have never seen the 2nd Law as working against BB.
Do you even know what the other laws of thermodynamics are? Do you even know the second law which you hammer on about? It's about.... wait for it ... heat transfer! Yes, another one of those tricky theories where the clue was in the name. (Just like those cosmological theories which pwned you in their titles.) Now would you care to explain where heat is being transfered in this case? Perhaps you imagine there's a second universe.
Oh I know, you're saying God supplied thermal energy to the early universe. How much energy did God lose, how efficient was the transfer and where did it all go if there wasn't matter to transfer the heat to? And I'm confused - if God was a source of thermal energy, where did it acquire it? Maybe it found some immaterial firewood in the immaterial divine forest and made an immaterial universe bonfire?
Do please enlighten us about the thermal properties of immaterial beings, I so want to learn.
Some quotes from this page should shed some light on what I'm saying. Note especially what Vilenkin himself said about the quote you keep holding up as "proof":
"...the author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning, and Vilenkin responded:
"[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning."
And WLC is still an idiot, I don't care how many PhD's he has.
John
I noticed you deleted my cuss filled comment.LOL. It just frustrates me to no end when people like thesauros say that you and I never believed in the first place.
@Tyro
Have you watched John's debate on "The existence of God" with David Wood? John hypothetically concedes that "God created the Universe". Even if we grant them that assumption, it doesn't mean squat. I mean it's a huge leap to go from a creator, to the Fundamentalist crack pot view of God.
Does that make sense?
And one more time, the quote you keep holding up is NOT in the paper you referenced.
The conclusions they advanced IN THE PAPER are reflected in the abstract.
And the abstract says it too:
"Many inflating spacetimes are likely to violate the weak energy condition, a key assumption of
singularity theorems. Here we offer a simple kinematical argument, requiring no energy condition, that a cosmological model which is inflating – or just expanding sufficiently fast – must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions. Specifically, we obtain a bound on the integral of the Hubble parameter over a past-directed timelike or null geodesic. Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime."
Read the last sentence again.
I'll translate it into English for you:
'What we know now doesn't define the past boundary conditions, and inflationary models don't help us understand it either.' (Remember that Alan Guth was one of the first proponents of "Inflation Theory" in the first place...)
Or, even shorter:
We still don't KNOW.
@exreformed - no, I don't think I saw that debate but I completely agree with your point. It's bizarre to see so much ink wasted by know-nothings attempting to undermine cosmology and for what, to establish a non-interventionist deist god? It's absurd.
exreformed, anyone subscribed to this thread got your comment. I didn't delete it. It went into the spam box.
I used to get frustrated when they said I was never a Christian. Here's what I say now. I say that's just one of the delusions you have, and usually leave it at that.
Otherwise, I ask them why I was never saved even though God promised that when I believed he would save me? Why promise me something and never deliver? You see, these people are usually Calvinistic. They don't claim we never believed, or tithed, or read the Bible, went to church, witnessed, prayed, and worshipped Jesus. They just deny God saved us. Then I ask them why? Why didn't he? Can't he keep his promises? Why promise and not deliver?
@ Gearhead - so what does that mean to you? When you read what vilenkin said, what do you hear?
I hear, 'yes matter / energy came into existence' (not transfered from another source - the laws of thermodynamics didn't have ANY application until the singularity) but as an atheist Vilenkin is still hopeful that a natural explanation will be forthcoming - no - MUST be forthcoming even though the evidence points away from such a conclusion.
That fact is:
Matter / energy / space / time did not exist.
Then they did exist.
======
Atheists seem to be saying that even though matter / energy didn't exist at one point, they actually must have existed since here they are.
That's what atheists have to say because when your mind is closed to any other possibility other than the material, a material answer is all you've got even when you KNOW that the material didn't exist. You've painted yourself into a corner where you simply can't go where the evidence leads because your world-view doesn't allow it.
Even Hawking, a few years ago, said, "Look, if you insert imaginary numbers and imaginary time, the universe doesn't need a beginning."
And then someone pointed out, but you're using imaginary numbers with imginary time, Stephen. To which he had to shake his head and say, "Oh ya. I guess it doesn't work with real numbers and real time."
I mean someone really must have a vested interest in the Steady State to go that far into woo.
It's around this point where most atheists say, "Well, all you've done is indicate a Deistic universe," and I say, I wasn't trying for anything more - at this point.
"...so what does that mean to you? When you read what vilenkin said, what do you hear?"
I told you at the beginning:
theists like to use the BGV theorem as confirmation of their pet theories (yes, theists engage in confirmation bias, too! I know...) like WLC's Kalam Cosmological Argument, and hold up that quote
"With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of the cosmic beginning.” Alex Vilenkin, “Many Worlds In One - The Search for Other Universes”"
as if Vilenkin is quoting directly from the paper. He's not.
You need to see what else Vilenkin says, and not blindly follow William Lane Craig. The page I linked in my last comment (it's not my blog; I don't have a blog) has many links and related information.
But if you don't read it (saying, "Vilenkin said it was proved, WLC agrees, that's good enough for me!" doesn't help your case), you won't advance your own knowledge.
I'm suspicious of anyone who spouts off something that basically says "I have the correct answers", especially when qouted out of contexrt and supplied to us to reinforce your position.
I'm skeptical; you're credulous. You heard what you wanted to hear, and you stopped looking any further.
This:
"I hear, 'yes matter / energy came into existence' (not transfered from another source - the laws of thermodynamics didn't have ANY application until the singularity) but as an atheist Vilenkin is still hopeful that a natural explanation will be forthcoming - no - MUST be forthcoming even though the evidence points away from such a conclusion."
Is bald-faced equivocation.
You hold up Vilenkin's words to support your position when what he says is what you want to hear
("With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of the cosmic beginning.” Alex Vilenkin, “Many Worlds In One - The Search for Other Universes”")
then say things like this
"...but as an atheist Vilenkin is still hopeful that a natural explanation will be forthcoming - no - MUST be forthcoming..."
Using the same guy to promote both sides of your argument.
So, either Vilenkin is confused, or you are. Take your pick.
I don't think Vilenkin's atheism (if he even IS an atheist!) says anything about his mathematics. If what a physicist says is mathematically sound, belief systems of the physicist have no bearing on the implications of his work.
Or are you accusing him of an anti-God bias?
If so, then why quote his "proof"?
gh -
Do you believe that the material infinite can / does exist?
Do you believe that there can be an infinite regress of cause?
Do you think that "we just don't know" regarding these two questions?
"Do you believe that the material infinite can / does exist?"
Contradiction in terms. Probably not. If something is material, it can be measured. If it can be measured, it cannot be infinite.
Do you believe that there can be an infinite regress of cause?
Postulating God does nothing to alleviate the problem. It just moves it back one more step. To say that God is uncaused explains nothing.
Do you think that "we just don't know" regarding these two questions?
There's a lot that we don't know. I'm comfortable with that. What's the urgency to KNOW everything? It's impossible, as even a short visit to a local library demonstrates.
@thesauros
You: The Bible says ‘No one is without excuse [for not acknowledging the existence of Creator God].’”
This is a triple negative. I suspect you meant it to be a double: Do you mean to say there is no excuse for not believing in God?
Brenda wrote: "Many people report that he has shown up for them."
So reports of Apollo and Xenu count as instances of Jesus now?
Brenda wrote: "Reason is the slave to the emotions, not he other way around kiddies."
That may be true, but that statement belies the true complexity of the issue and it is non-sequitur to simply use that statement as a get-out-of-reason-free card that you seem to be using it as.
Brenda wrote: "Generally, adolescent boys abandon their faith because it serves as a rebellion to parental authority. Then later in life they may pick it up again when the patriarch is old and feeble."
I'm always astounded at the the psychological theories of atheism in that they fail to realize their own premise. (I have a particular interest in psychological, or more accurately cognitive, theories of belief so I pay close attention.)
Even if we assume the accuracy of such arguments (similar to Paul Vitz's) your premise shows gods to be merely ideas and not existent - something that atheists already claim.
GH - "Postulating God does nothing to alleviate the problem. It just moves it back one more step. To say that God is uncaused explains nothing."
It’s one or the other or (as modern atheists love to postulate) it might be something that no one has ever thought of to date, but will think of real soon.
Either matter is infinite / eternal or
The cause of matter is infinite / eternal
You and I and science and philosophy all agree that matter cannot be and is not infinite / eternal.
To think that suggesting God pushes it back one step is simply not true.
To ask, “What created an eternal being,” or “When did and eternal Being begin to exist?” are incoherent questions.
Incoherent statements are something that atheists usually take great pains to avoid, except when they’re confronted with the reality of Creator God. Then, it seems, all bets are off. The fact remains, and it remains a fact that is based on what science tells us is true, that everything that begins to exist, including the universe, had its cause from something outside of itself. There are no known exceptions to this observed and consistently verified rule.
To accept that matter / energy cannot be eternal and then turn around and say, "Matter / energy must be eternal because my world-view dictates that nothing but matter / energy exists" is -well - it's embarassing.
Either matter is infinite / eternal or
This one. Or rather the net amount of energy is unchanging as far as we can tell.
To accept that matter / energy cannot be eternal and then turn around and say, "Matter / energy must be eternal because my world-view dictates that nothing but matter / energy exists" is -well - it's embarassing.
Wait, you say energy is eternal or it isn't? I forget which one you're arguing for. (Possibly because I haven't seen a real argument :) )
@thesauros
“You and I and science and philosophy all agree that matter cannot be and is not infinite / eternal.”
Agreed. But to repeat a comment in another thread: The nature of “matter” is not the issue. The issue is can “material existence,” or, better, “natural existence,” be infinite / eternal?
Science’s answer: Maybe, maybe not.
Philosophy’s answer: Maybe, maybe not.
My answer: Maybe, maybe not.
Your answer: No! No no no no no no no!
bob,
You offered hypothetic scenarios of how God could reveal himself and then asked me: “do you honestly think I would not lean toward believing that this god who was before me, was real?”
This depends upon to what degree you would retrospectively rely on your senses and/or are tempted to accuse yourself of “almost falling for a fallacious god-did-it”.
I’ll borrow an example from Exodus. Suppose I saw a bush on fire (and yet it was unharmed) and heard a voice speaking from it that I had a conversation with.
I am not going to disbelieve my immediate experience simply on the basis that it MIGHT be a hallucination, or a dream, or that I am insane.
If I were to SERIOUSLY consider insanity as the explanation, I (or the people hearing my story) would have to FIRST ask:
“Did I have a pre-existing condition of mental instability?
Prior to this experience, was I already clinically determined to be mentally impaired?”
If I were to seriously consider hallucination as the explanation, I would have to ask myself “Are there any signs (BESIDES the experience itself) that I was under the influence of drugs or some other hallucinogenic item? OR, what is it about the particular circumstance I was in, that indicates I was prone to having a hallucination and thus explains away my experience?”
If I were to seriously consider dreaming as the explanation, I would have to ask myself “Do I remember (or did somebody see me) awaking? Do I recall finding myself on a bed? Or lying down SOMEWHERE? Or finding myself in a chair, having jerked up, after the experience? Was I under sedation? If so, where is the evidence of the sedatives? Who sedated me?”
In the absence of direct or circumstantial indications that I was insane, that I hallucinated, or dreamt up the experience, I can reasonably conclude that my experience was real, not imaginative, and supernatural.
But see, this is where I differ with naturalists. Because some naturalists would say, “EVEN IF there are NO indicators (apart from the experience itself), that what I saw was imaginative, I should STILL conclude it was imaginative OR (at best) that it is a natural phenomena that there currently isn't an explanation for.”
bob,
>>I think it is convenient for you to offer that pretty much nothing would convince the non believer. But actually, you are just as confident as we are that God will not show up. Correct?<<
No no, I am not suggesting “nothing” will convince the unbeliever. (Because truly, this is one of those case-by-case issues. Differs from unbeliever to unbeliever. What would be persuasive to one unbeliever, may be unpersuasive to a fellow unbeliever).
Read below what I write to Ed to see what my point was and is.
(and no, I don’t share the confidence)
Ed,
>>What, pray tell, is this "genuine evidence"?<<
When I made reference to “genuine evidence”, I wasn’t alluding to a specific example.
I was making a general statement that: If genuine evidence exists, it may easily be warded off by some as “non-evidence that merely looks like evidence for God (right now), but is actually just a mystery that science will eventually resolve”.
So Ed, I’m pleading that committed naturalists ask themselves and reflect deeply on their own time, this question: What criteria is it that I’m appealing to, that can distinguish between “FAKE” evidence (i.e. god-of-the-gaps fallacies) from “REAL” evidence for God if I were to encounter it?
It doesn’t seem to me that there IS a criteria, Ed.
I don’t think God ever intended to provide convincing proof of His existence to every person on earth. In fact, one of the reasons that Jesus spoke in parables was to HIDE the truth from those who had no interest in accepting Jesus as the truth.
Now it's true that the Bible describes the existence of the universe as proof enough of God's existence that to reject such a proof is warrant for condemnation. But no where that I'm aware of is the promise that everyone would be provided with enough evidence to ignite a saving faith.
I think it was Pascal or Plato who said something like, “God has provided just enough evidence of His existence so that those looking for Him will be able to find Him and just enough evidence so that those who don’t want to find Him won’t be able to find Him accidentally.
Again, as Paul explains in Romans chapter 9 - “It doesn’t depend on a person’s effort of desire.” God will reveal Himself to those of His choosing based on His foreknowledge of those who will and will not accept Him.
Those of us who have been chosen can't brag because it has nothing to do with our value or effort and those who haven't been chosen can't complain because they aren't willing to accept God on His terms in the first place.
I mean think about it! "I deny the reality of your existence and I demand that you prove yourself to me on my terms and in agreement with my agenda."
Ya, right. Now who thinks they're God.
@thesauros
You said: “Those of us who have been chosen can't brag because it has nothing to do with our value or effort and those who haven't been chosen can't complain because they aren't willing to accept God on His terms in the first place.”
Wait a minute: What exactly are God’s terms? Elsewhere you’ve said “Unless God causes you to believe, you won’t.” You even included yourself in this number! So apparently, God has no terms. He will, or He won’t.
So in the end, salvation has nothing to do with “value or effort,” and avoiding damnation depends on whether God chooses to “cause you to believe" for reasons known only to himself, and based on characteristics for which he is totally responsible.
And this actually makes sense to you. ‘Tis a wonder.
Worse, this apparently actually seems fair to you. ‘Tis a horror.
Now it's true that the Bible describes the existence of the universe as proof enough of God's existence that to reject such a proof is warrant for condemnation. But no where that I'm aware of is the promise that everyone would be provided with enough evidence to ignite a saving faith.
So either the universe is evidence like you say and so we should be able to recognize God's hand, or it isn't and we need faith. One might almost imagine that was contradictory.
One might, unless one was firmly committed to the idea that the bible is revealed truth and is not contradictory. (Unless God is a deceiver and designed a universe to look undesigned, just like YECs say he designed animals including humans to appear evolved even though they aren't.) With a lying jerk like that in control, is it any wonder there are so many religions and so many sects?
Thesauros: "You and I and science and philosophy all agree that matter cannot be and is not infinite / eternal.
To think that suggesting God pushes it back one step is simply not true."
1. I didn't agree to that. No one really knows, which was the entire point of the BGV discussion we just had.
2, Nice refutation by bare assertion.
Ana,
Without copy/pasting your whole comment to bob, I just thought I'd point out a couple of things.
"I’ll borrow an example from Exodus. Suppose I saw a bush on fire (and yet it was unharmed) and heard a voice speaking from it that I had a conversation with.
I am not going to disbelieve my immediate experience simply on the basis that it MIGHT be a hallucination, or a dream, or that I am insane."
Leaving the generally acepted scholarly date of the writing of Exodus vs. the date of the actual events aside for now, I gotta ask:
In the ancient world, when someone caught a fever or other disease, it was accepted that evil spirits were inhabiting the sick person's body and causing the illness. Is it not also safe to assume then, that when someone was under the influence of some hallucinatory substance that it would also be ascribed to the same type of 'spiritual' cause? And if someone saw a burning bush but was tripping on ergot (a hallucinatory fungus that grows on rye), wouldn't that person, who arguably had preconceived notions of God to begin with find reason to believe that his hallucinations were God talking to him?
I don't know about you, but I have experience with this; in my younger days, I experimented with some heavy drugs, and tripped a lot. But I was an atheist first, so don't bother going there. Since then, I don't do those things any more (I have kids, and while they know about my early exploits, they understand that it's not very wise).
But hallucinations can be pretty convincing if you don't know what the source is.
clamat - You left out (on purpose?) a very important sentence. Can you think of what it is?
========
"fair"
There will not be one person in heaven who deserves to be there and there will not be one person in hell who doesn't deserve to be there. The invitation for salvation is open to you right now. If you reject that invitation, how can you blame God for giving you what you want?
==========
"to look undesigned,"
Do you have any understanding of what is being talked about when the term "fine tuning" is used?
=========
"I didn't agree to that."
It doesn't matter whether you agree or not. While mathematics is able to deal with abstract or theoretical or conceptual or potential infinities, reality holds no such possibility for us.
The material infinite does not exist - period!
Thesarious - "There will not be one person in heaven who deserves to be there and there will not be one person in hell who doesn't deserve to be there. The invitation for salvation is open to you right now. If you reject that invitation, how can you blame God for giving you what you want?"
So basically, your god is a monster that willfully created beings that are absolutely incapable of meeting his impossible standards, then punishing us for eternity for failing to meet those standards? But here's the kicker, if you love, worship, and submit yourself to him he might let you live with him is paradise, but if not he'll torture you forever.
Such a god is not worthy of worship even if it did exist. If the choice is between spending an eternity with such a monster and burning in hell, I'd choose the latter.
A truly loving god would not force itself upon its creations. If it wanted to offer eternal life, the only just thing to do would for those who reject its offer would be to actually let them reject the offer--to let them die, to let them stop existing.
Your god does not let us reject his advances. If you don't worship and adore him, he rapes you, by giving you eternal life anyway, but making it a living hell. Threatening to rape me will not earn my love. It may in the end force my submission, but this is not love.
There is no difference between your god and Satan if you truly believe what you posted.
"I'd choose the latter."
Good luck with that!
Orthogonal;
Hear, hear! You know, that's exactly what the Bible and Christian dogma/doctrine show beyond any doubt. And trolls like Theosauros know it; otherwise, they would actually attempt to make an intelligent argument, instead of saying "Good luck with that!".
It's so sad when people can't face the reality of their own beliefs...
And you think that because you don't like the way He does things, it proves that God doesn't exist?
So go with that belief. Oh, and - good luck.
Thesauros said...
And you think that because you don't like the way He does things, it proves that God doesn't exist?
That isn't what I said, and I think you know it. I said that if your god did exist, I would refuse to worship it because I find it to be morally repugnant. Such a gesture may well be futile, but fortunately for me, it doesn't appear to me that your god exists.
If I misunderstood your statement, or if you don't think that your statement makes god out to be morally repugnant you had the opportunity to correct me.
Instead you consigned me to hell. This says to me that you agree with my assessment--though perhaps not my wording. If this is the case I pity you and those around you. I know what it is like to live in that kind of fear.
"Such a gesture may well be futile, but fortunately for me, it doesn't appear to me that your god exists."
I don’t think that it’s fortunate at all. Again, you are saying that because it “doesn’t appear” to you that god exists, therefore He must not exist. It's eternity we're talking about son. You might want bit more than, "It doesn't appear to me."
==========
"If I misunderstood your statement, or if you don't think that your statement makes god out to be morally repugnant you had the opportunity to correct me."
Your God and mine, you Creator and mine, has made the condition for your salvation possible - at His expense - at a cost that you nor I will ever be able to comprehend.
You call Him a monster for doing that. He pays the price for your sins and you say He's morally repugnant. You say you'd rather go to hell instead of worshipping the One who came to save you and when He says "Ok, have it your way," you cry some crocodile teas like something unfair has taken place.
========
“Instead you consigned me to hell.”
“I” consign you to hell? What are you, a child? This is your decision. Your Decision. You yourself say that you see your Creator as a monster whom YOU will never agree to worship and then you try to blame God for you going to hell and you try to blame me for you going to hell. You seem willing to blame ANYONE but the only one who has the power to move you from death to life - You.
It’s your decision - not mine.
You know in a crystal clear manner what the rules of the game are and you refuse - just as though spending eternity in paradise was something awful.
=====
As to "fear" I don't know what you're talking about. You may know something about fear but I most certainly do not.
Silly Thesauros, tricks are for kids!
You misrepresent me again. You are putting words into my mouth. I was not in any way proposing a proof for your god's nonexistence. I do not think that your god exists, but even if I did think that your god does exist, I would not worship it given your statements concerning your god.
Does calling me a child make you feel big? My age has nothing to do with the conversation, nor does yours. Perhaps I used 'consigned' incorrectly. I was not blaming you for sending me to hell, and I'm a little bit surprised you seemed to think that is what I meant. What I did mean was in your mind I am going to hell, and with that impression of me your sarcastically remark: "Good luck with that," avoiding any real discussion. This does not anger me in the least, it simply shows me what kind of a person you are.
As for blaming god, well... My actions do, to a certain extent, determine my fate, and I accept responsibility for that. In you view, however, god wrote the contract and compelled me to be bound by it. He is the one that created me with my supposedly sinful nature (perhaps I was created sinfully only indirectly)--I never asked to be created--and he is the one that determined the rules in the first place. Also, as you stated in an earlier post, "Unless God causes you to believe, you won't." The implication of this is that HE makes the decision whether or not I'll believe. By human standards this is unjust to say the least.
Is there something wrong with me speaking out against a perceived injustice? I think not, unless you wish us back into the dark ages.
So, what price did you god pay for my sins? If your god is infinite, any price, no matter how huge, would be as nothing to it. Also, since your god is supposedly the architect of everything, it did not have to create us as flawed as we are, and would therefore been able to avoid paying such a high price.
The rules of the "game" were never clear, even when I was a Christian. I mean, which edition is the really official one? Maybe I should have just kept on playing the one I was given when I was baptized, but I doubt you would agree it was the right one.
By the way, I refer to your god as "your god" so as not to confuse your idea of god with the many other ideas out there. I wouldn't want kind Christians, like my spouse, to think I'm calling their god the monster I'm calling yours.
Silly Thesauros, tricks are for kids!
You misrepresent me again. You are putting words into my mouth. I was not in any way proposing a proof for your god's nonexistence. I do not think that your god exists, but even if I did think that your god does exist, I would not worship it given your statements concerning your god.
Does calling me a child make you feel big? My age has nothing to do with the conversation, nor does yours. Perhaps I used 'consigned' incorrectly. I was not blaming you for sending me to hell, and I'm a little bit surprised you seemed to think that is what I meant. What I did mean was in your mind I am going to hell, and with that impression of me your sarcastically remark: "Good luck with that," avoiding any real discussion. This does not anger me in the least, it simply shows me what kind of a person you are.
As for blaming god, well... My actions do, to a certain extent, determine my fate, and I accept responsibility for that. In you view, however, god wrote the contract and compelled me to be bound by it. He is the one that created me with my supposedly sinful nature (perhaps I was created sinfully only indirectly)--I never asked to be created--and he is the one that determined the rules in the first place. Also, as you stated in an earlier post, "Unless God causes you to believe, you won't." The implication of this is that HE makes the decision whether or not I'll believe. By human standards this is unjust to say the least.
Is there something wrong with me speaking out against a perceived injustice? I think not, unless you wish us back into the dark ages.
So, what price did you god pay for my sins? If your god is infinite, any price, no matter how huge, would be as nothing to it. Also, since your god is supposedly the architect of everything, it did not have to create us as flawed as we are, and would therefore been able to avoid paying such a high price.
By the way, I refer to your god as "your god" so as not to confuse your idea of god with the many other ideas out there. I wouldn't want kind Christians, like my spouse, to think I'm calling their god the monster I'm calling yours.
@orthogono
Of course thesauoros is putting words in your mouth, that's the name of the game for fundamentalists. If you don't say what they want or think you are saying, then they will try and force you to say what they say your saying.
I think I am going to collect ton's of various comments by fundamentalists on atheist blogs. I will categorize them and start a blog called "Fundamentalists are Ass Holes!
@thesauros
You: “clamat - You left out (on purpose?) a very important sentence. Can you think of what it is?”
Ah, simultaneously coy and condescending. Coy might offer power in the sexual arena, where one who holds out a vague promise with no intention of delivering is known as a “tease.”
In this arena, however, coy condescension is no substitute for actual evidence and arguments, and I dub you “vacuous blowhard.”
Don’t waste everyone’s time trying to get me to debate myself. If you have an actual point to make, make it.
For everyone’s amusement (well, maybe just my own), a catalog of thesauros’ rigorous, wholly consistent analysis of the manner in which one may come to know God, and thereby achieve salvation / avoid damnation:
“The heavens declare the Glory of God” so “[n]o one [has any excuse for denying] the existence of Creator God.”
And…
“The invitation for salvation is open to you right now.”
And…
“[T]he only one who has the power to move you from death to life [is Y]ou…you know in a crystal clear manner what the rules of the game are and you refuse.”
Buuuutt…
“Jesus spoke in parables…to HIDE the truth from those who had no interest in accepting Jesus as the truth.” [emphasis in original]
and…
“Unless God causes you to believe, you won’t.”
and…
“[Y]ou won’t know the proof of His existence until you’re given the proof of His existence.”
and…
“It does not depend therefore on man’s desire or effort but on God’s mercy.”
and…
“Mucking with the mind is what brings people to Jesus.” [“Mucking” – man, all this hyper-technical terminology!]
and…
“God will reveal Himself to those of His choosing based on His foreknowledge of those who will and will not accept Him.”
But…
And this is from me. And even though it will never register on believers of the ilk of thesauros, aka, Sgt. Schultz, it bears repeating:
God created me, and all of my characteristics and abilities, including my capacity to believe in Him.
Even though it would seem a trivial matter for God to simply make me believe, either he cannot or will not.
If the former, God is not omnipotent.
If he could have created me with the ability to believe, but chose not to, the only explanation I can come up with is that he would rather see billions of his children burn.
If so, God is not good.
Take your pick, thesauros.
Inane Christian Psychobabble at It's Best. Gotta love them trolls...
@ clamat
“a catalog of thesauros’ rigorous, wholly consistent analysis of the manner in which one may come to know God, and thereby achieve salvation / avoid damnation:”
You've said it exactly correct. If you weren’t theologically illiterate you’d see that none of these statements contradict each other. Each of them express the process of salvation from different vantage points.
Because you're still on the outside, you choose to ask, "Why does God allow billions of people to burn in hell?"
A far better question is, “Why does God save for eternity in paradise billions of people who deserve to burn in hell?”
Here's the situation:
. You're on your way to hell
. Jesus has provided the means for you to escape that scenario.
. What are you going to do about it?
@thesauros
You’ve described the means to salvation as “crystal clear” and at the same time purposefully “hidden.” Likewise, the stars are tangible evidence of God’s existence…but at the same time the only evidence of God’s existence is personal revelation.
If you weren’t so incompetent in every form of logic but theo- you’d see your “theology” is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocations and Generally Made Up Shit. (E.g. "Different vantage points.") Of course, in this way it’s no worse than any other theology.
What makes it worse is that it allows you to believe that your smug satisfaction at my purported damnation is further evidence of your righteousness, and not evidence that you just get off thinking about other people going to hell.
You: “Jesus has provided the means for you to escape that scenario. What are you going to do about it?”
You’ve already said, in explicating your “theology,” that there’s nothing I can do about it. Either god will reveal himself to me or he won’t, depending on whether he chose to create me with the capacity to accept his revelation in the first place.
Even assuming your “theology” is consistent, you nevertheless dodge the conclusions to which it inevitably leads. Unlike you, I won’t play the childish game of trying to make you guess what I mean:
God created me, including my capacity to believe in Him. Even though it would seem a trivial matter for God to simply make me believe, apparently he cannot. So God is not omnipotent.
Or…
He could have created me with the capacity to believe, but chose not to. Sending people to hell for things for which he is entirely responsible is evil. That there are undeserving people in Heaven does not change this. So God is not good.
Which is it?
Which is it?"
Romans 9:22-24
@Thesauros
I contend that by the lights of your "theology," God either is not omnipotent, or is not good, and asked "Which is it?"
You respond (succinctly, at least): “Romans 9:22-24.”
Let’s see…
9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Responding to a question with a question. How typical.
But I was asking for your oh-so-literate theological analysis. I mean, the very reason sophisticated theologies such as yours exist is because the words of the Bible need explication.
Surely someone as theologically sophisticated as yourself can offer something more cogent and with more explanatory power than a simple, reflexive regurgitation of chapter and verse?
Or not.
He made it possible to save your sorry ass from eternity in hell. He's both omnipotent and good.
@Thesauros
Under your theology, your God condemned my sorry ass before I even had one. Under your theology, I can't achieve salvation by "effort or desire," and will only avoid the fire if God decides to change his mind, for inscruatble reasons totally his own.
Your God is the master of of a rigged game. Into this game He placed pieces of His own design, and intentionally hid the rules from them. And then he condemns his pieces for not playing the game right.
Your God is a tyrannical maniac. I owe him no thanks. Rather, your God deserves nothing but a lifelong (note, please, not eternal!) upraised middle finger.
I think I'll start now, even though it will slow down my typing.
Your God is a tyrannical maniac.
Regardless, He's still your Creator. Hate on brother!
@Thesauros
Well, he's your God, so your Creator. My co-creators were Mr. and Mrs. clamat.
Yours in unjustified tyrranic oppression.
clamat
Post a Comment