You know, hard evidence that you can show to people. No "warm feelings" or philosophical arguments, but actual physical evidence.
Can anyone here think of any such evidence at all?
Cheers, Tom.
-
-
VanchaMarch
- http://VanchaMarch.com
- 2008-05-28 @ 23:13:56
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro - 2008-05-28 @ 23:23:40
That's a remarkably unpleasant answer:
"if God is not real christians have lost nothing but became better people"
I dispute to the uttermost that Christians are "better" people than I am.
You have just insulted me and I don't like that. Furthermore, you have focussed on merely one religion from the thousands that exist and have effectively insulted all the followers of other religions as well as me.
And you have no evidence either. Hmmm.
Tom.
Tom.-
-
technomist
- 2008-05-28 @ 23:40:00
Being better doesn't necessarily mean better than you or me. I took it to possibly mean better than they would have been if they weren't Christians, Exactly how good that makes them in fact will vary.
The problems I have about the question about evidence is we don't all agree what actually constitutes 'evidence' and even if we did agree on what would constitute evidence, we don't agree on the standard of proof: does the evidence have to show it's possible there is a God, likely, probable, more probable than not or that there is no doubt about it?-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-28 @ 23:50:41
That doesn't help:
"better than they would have been if they weren't Christians"
That's still hubristic, insulting and shows a lack of knowledge of the many moral codes that exist, and of other religions than Christianity.
And asking for evidence isn't a "problem" it's a very basic question. I haven't even mentioned "proof". There is a degree of individuality to "evidence" and I hope everyone reading interprets it how they see fit, and provides evidence how they see fit.
So do you have any evidence to bring to the table?
Cheers, Tom.-
-
technomist
- 2008-05-29 @ 10:44:24
None so far, I'm afraid.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-29 @ 12:31:35
Why do you say "I'm afraid"? Would you actually like it to be proven that god exists? That would rather remove the point of faith as far as I can see.
Cheers, Tom.-
-
technomist
- 2008-05-29 @ 13:15:32
Its a useful interjection which in spoken English enable me to ensure I have the listener's attention before I say the important bit. Its sometimes a way of signaling to the other person that I am about to say something where I do not know for sure what their response will be but I will be saying it anyway. It also helps add a rhythm to speech. Do I say it because I'm polite, or because I am not thinking?
I don't like anything to be 'proven'. This is a participle for the verb 'to prove' which for some reason I never use myself: I prefer 'proved'. Must be where I was brought up.
If Gods existence was not in doubt, there would be no 'free will' and a lot less stupidity or other forms of human behaviour in the world, I expect. Life would no doubt be more peaceful, but not be as interesting or as amusing as it is.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-29 @ 13:38:27
Your usage "None so far, I'm afraid" in it's normal usage carries the implication that you wish it were different: "my team lost, I'm afraid", for example. Perhaps that wasn't the meaning you intended to convey.
My personal view is that no-one is able to provide any evidence for the existence of god because s/he doesn't exist. Ditto the Troll that lives under my nephew's bed and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In the absence of any evidence for any of them, all three are equally unlikely to exist.
Cheers, Tom.-
-
technomist
- 2008-05-29 @ 14:58:16
I think I just say things like that out of habit.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster. I like that. Could have the beginnings of an interesting cult....-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-29 @ 15:20:32
OK, no worries mate. If you follow the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you are a Pastafarian :-)
It was invented in 2005 as a reaction ogainst the Kansas School board's decision to teach Intelligent design in schools. The inventor made this cracking quote:
"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence"
HAHAHAHAHA!
Cheers, Tom. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
unless for some people Christianity is the only therapy available?
-
-
Questions:
1. What is better?
2. What God are we talking about. The Christian God? This is only one view of God. Because the Christian view is not about God, but a God who cares about us, who listens to us and our prayers. This is an entirely different God from the real ones, those who fight and have sex, and use us for their amusement.
-
-
-
VanchaMarch
- http://VanchaMarch.com
- 2008-05-29 @ 09:59:18
I am sorry that I have insulted you I didn't mean to insult anyone.
It is true that i have only focused on one religion. I did that because I know more information on Christains then anyother religion.
I don't have any evidence.
And I oppologise to you and anyother pesron that has read this that I have offended and/or insulted-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-29 @ 10:10:50
Thanks for being so gracious about it :-)
So if there is no evidence, what made you start believing in the first place? Were you taught Christianity as a young child?
Cheers, Tom.-
-
VanchaMarch
- http://VanchaMarch.com
- 2008-05-29 @ 11:42:26
Yet again I truely am sorry for what I said and I will take more time in commenting on people's blogs.
I wasn't taught Christianity as a young child. I was having a lot of problems in my life and needed help. One of my friends took me to church and I heard some of the people's stories that were worse than mine. And they managed to change their lives around, I though I'd give it ago. I'm still not sure if there is a God of any religion. But I know a number of different people from a few religions and they all believe in one or more Gods, I thought if they were truely happy them maybe I could get something out of it too.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-29 @ 12:30:22
Thanks for explaining, and I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I love talking to people here, and as someone once said: "I've never learned anything from someone who agreed with me". Very true, that.
Cheers, Tom. -
-
-
-
-
You are lucky to be insulted. Until not so long ago you'd be burnt on the stake by the better people
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-01 @ 10:22:47
Indeed. Thankfully those particular Dark Ages have passed...in this country anyway.
Tom.-
In some parts of the world they seem to be coming back
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-01 @ 10:56:38
The USA now it is pretty much political suicide for a candidate to say they aren't religious. There seem to be only 2 acceptable religions too.
Tom. -
-
-
-
-
-
If God doesn't exist, For nearly 1500 years Christianity has killed million of people for no reason at all. And if God does exist, I don't think he could grant eternity for that.
-
-
-
359Rabbit
- 2008-05-29 @ 07:16:45
I am very much an atheist and have not seen any evidence that God exists in which ever religion you choose. However, if you look around at the many wonderful things in nature I am sure that many religious people will point out that they are Gods creature. For me it just evolution!
Rabbit-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-29 @ 08:58:07
I'm with you there, Rabbit, 100%. The big mystery for me is how people choose which supernatural being to believe in, since there is no evidence for any of them.
Some are fed religion with their mother's milk of course, and it's not surprising that those people don't ask too many questions and have blind faith.
If you are taught as a child that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real and cares about you, then perhaps you will always feel that way.
Cheers, Tom.-
-
359Rabbit
- 2008-05-29 @ 09:27:16
Very true Tom, I can remember being forced to attend church when I was young and I did have to suffer RE at school which in retrospect was good in that it did teach me the religions of the world however it also focused my mind and I came to the conclusion that’s despite what had been forced on me there was no God.
Unfortunately there are too many fanatics who force their believes on others and do not allow them the freedom of choice, this is where religion falls down, many people who believe in religion are good people who go out of they to help people, but you don’t need religion to do that. The small majority murder in the name of religion (you don’t need religion to murder either) but I believe it is the source of a lot of misery in the world.
Sorry I seem to have deviated somewhat from your original post, but religion is a subject that sometimes makes my blood boil, if you know what I mean.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-29 @ 09:37:21
I was forced to church as a child too and I also rebelled quite young. I couldn't see or hear this god they were talking about, so it made no sense to believe in him.
People should have completely free choice to believe in whatever they like, and I totally agree with you that beliefs shouldn't be forced on others. There is no way of stopping parents from indoctrinating their kids if they want to, of course, and nor would I want to. But I do disapprove of this practice.
Cheers, Tom.-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-05-30 @ 10:48:58
Sorry to intervene into this seperate conversation, but I don't believe either of you when you say 'people should beleive what they like.' What you hope to happen of course is that religion is NOT taught to anybody and your belief is that this will mean people will naturally become aetheists. That's fine, but that still isn't freedom, it's just another doctrine.
The way I see it (and I'm sure you will vehemently deny it) people who are bought up religiously are (in the majority of cases) more open minded. Allow me to explain. (I don't know why I do this, I seem to be in the mood for making difficult arguments for myself these days): A person bought up as a Christian comes to the age of 18 or whenever and makes certain decisions, they can either stick at their religion, choose another or reject it and become an aetheist. Nowadays, in this country anyway, most choose the latter. Fine. But if you are bought up and Aethiest, in all liklihood this decision will never be made; it is HIGHLY unlikely that someone bought up with no religion will ever begin to later believe in God or take up a religion, unless something drastic happens to them which makes them change their mind. So, you end up with aethiests who have no understanding (and by that I mean first hand experience) of religious concepts (such as faith) and a serious disregard for religious practices or history. This is illustrated by the rather dismissive attitude that many aethiests have towards certain belief systems as absurd, idiotic, rather 'quaint' or at worst damaging. This attitude can be just as damaging towards humankind as it creates another rift between us, just as religions do. In this day and age tolerance and understanding is called for, and while I cannot speak for all religions everywhere, I know that running to the other side of the boat in a mass rejection of religion will cause just as many problems. It is perfectly ok to disagree and debate the subjects, but insulting and angering religious types only backs them into a corner where they fight or the more desperatly.
In recent years, Christianity has taken the brunt of every joke, insult and deconstructive criticism aimed at religion, and that's fine. It has however weakened it more than they'd like to admit, but as freedom of thought and expression is a basic right (yes, even for Christians) they have to be strong enough to take it. Islam on the other hand has not had the benefit of the same history. In my view many recognize that once you allow certain things to 'slide' it opens the floodgates to a whole host of criticism. This occured to me after the uproar following the Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed. Christianity has taken shit like that for years and years, and it has been considerably weakened in Europe but tries to fight back, Muslims can see that if that stuff is allowed to be aimed at them, a similar decline will follow - it explains also Scientology's extreme defensive mechanisms.
Where was I? So please do not presume that you are religions are ridiculous and just mere fallacies, what we have to do is work together (now I'm sounding hippy) as we essentially believe the same: democracy, freedom of expression etc etc. Religion does not retrict these things, only if you want it to, just as you might argue that an aethiest does not want to stop people from believing what they like.
Sorry for the rambling nature of that, I am at work, so I'm pretty much writing blind and as I think of it.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-30 @ 10:59:45
What a jolly unpleasant chap you are. Not only have you been lying yourself in this thread, you've accused me of being dishonest too and misattributing things to me that I haven't said.
I don't like talking with liars and those unable to discuss honestly and you lose on both counts.
Good day to you. -
-
first time I hear that religion makes you open minded. I feel that history proves otherwise.
-
-
CassandraofTroy
- 2008-06-01 @ 19:15:27
Not sure how anybody can reach adulthood in this country without any knowledge of religion.
Once they are adults, they are in a position to make up their own minds about religion, politics, football or anything else.
both my children received religious education at school. If they ever asked me any questions, I answered honestly to the best of my ability - as I did about sex - but it didn't arise much.
I certainly never tried to force my views on them about religion or anything else.
Does that make me a bad parent?
-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-06-01 @ 19:25:46
of course not, bringing your children up within or without a religion is not bad parenting. in my view seculrism is just as much a 'teaching' as religion, but that doesn't matter. i just resent peple who blame religion for the ills of this world simply because it is such an easy scape-goat. As i say at the bottom of this thread, I do not believe that it is the pinacle of human achievement to realize there is a god, just as it isn't to realize there isn't one. Our greatest achievement is getting along harmoniously in this world - getting all fired up about religion is not helping, it is merely adding fuel to the fire.
Can I just say for the last time I AM NOT ADVOCATING A BELIEF IN GOD, merely saying that belief in one is justified in so far as it is no more irrational than to believe in science.
I feel I'm coming across as some religious zealot here and that is far from the truth - of course I believe in the scientific priciples, I believe in free speech and of course I'm not a creationist or anything wierd - I'm just defending religion (and the majority of people on this planet) of being poor, delluded fools with no control over their lives and who are too thick or bloody minded to think for themselves.-
-
CassandraofTroy
- 2008-06-01 @ 19:42:59
I have never tried to 'teach' my children 'secularism'.
I have always encouraged them to think for themselves.
And, thank god
, that is what they have grown up to do.
I would never say that people who believe in religion are 'poor, deluded fools with no control over their lives who are too thick or bloody minded to think for themselves'. If it works for them and helps them make sense of their lives, fine, it just doesn't do that for me. And I would have exactly the same response if one of my children decided to follow a religious path - it's their choice. Nor do I blame religion for all the ills of the world (only some of them).
what I do object to is hearing science characterised as 'no less irrational' than religious belief. Rationality may not be the be all and end all of life, but it is at the heart of science - otherwise, what is the point? -
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-01 @ 20:02:00
"in my view seculrism is just as much a 'teaching' as religion"
My dictionary says secular means "not pertaining to or connected with religion". So that would mean that teaching "seculrism" would be the teaching of everything except religion. So that's every class apart from RE then.
Cheers, Tom. -
-
-
-
-
Melinda_blog
- 2008-06-01 @ 19:27:01
So, basically, what you are saying, is that people will only believe in religion if they are indoctrinated as children?
Do you think this is a positive recommendation? -
-
regarding your last point
'religion does not restrict these things'
I hate to disullion you, but the pope being Anti Condoms - does that not restrict peoples freedom to express themselves safely and sexually?
All the religions that suggest women to be less important than men, that women should'nt have an opinion/education? Does that offer democracy or freedom?
Religion where 13 year old girls are expected to marry 50 year old men?
All the cults that induce murder/sacrifice/polygamy/forced marriage? They all have their claims in 'religion' when it seem to be power that the founders want more.
Religions that make death/suicide bombings 'normal'?
If individuals want to have a 'faith' then that is fine, you pour scorn on people who are atheists but maybe they are as entitled to the freedom of expression as the next religious person?
And, no I have no evidence of a god. I make my own mistakes, I learn from them. Science is wonderful and has evidence to back it up. Why would a god allow all those families to die in Burma/China/any other natural disaster? Surely not for their sins as the bible suggests of the great flood?-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-02 @ 17:59:55
Amen, Sister :-)
Tom. -
-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-06-03 @ 08:56:09
I didn't pour scorn on aethiests, I was one myself, I simply said not to take the piss out of religion. You can believe all that stuff you want about religion, but don't go about spreading hatred towards it out of ignorance and misundertanding cos you are only adding to the animosity.
Of course you'd say that religion sucks - you're an aethiest, I never 'poured scorn' on aetheism, i merely called for a bit of understanding not reactionary paniciking that has all the hall-marks of what you think of as religions. -
-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-06-03 @ 12:46:49
Religion does not restrict these things. I can speak for every religion everywhere, but I'm pretty sure most of those things are just recieved through heresay and misunderstandings. Sure, there is a lot of evil in the world, but don't lay it all on religion, that's just being reactionary.
Yes, the Pope is anti-condoms, but if you're a Catholic, you'll agree with the teaching that sex is something that is meant to be within marriage only. If you don't agree, you can leave, or wear a condom if you want to.
"Religion where 13 year old girls are expected to marry 50 year old men?" - Spain's legal age of sexual consent is 13 - not a religion but a government. Can you name a religion that encourages what you say, I am not aware of any, sorry.
"All the religions that suggest women to be less important than men, that women should'nt have an opinion/education? Does that offer democracy or freedom?"
World average of women in Parliaments (or eqivalent) Lower and Upper House - 18%. Government, not religion.
"Religions that make death/suicide bombings 'normal'?" Welcome to G.W. Bush world. Thanks for the insight. Do you read the Daily Mail?-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-06-03 @ 12:47:33
Sorry, first line should've read CAN'T speak for every religion, sorry.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
and then again, it was Darwin's watching of nature that led him to claim that no benign entity, like the parasitic wasp, which stored caterpillars to be eaten alive by its grubs could have designed our nature.
http://thequestionofreality.blog.co.uk/2008/03/16/title-3890039
-
-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-05-29 @ 15:58:40
The point is, BELIEF is not a science. Asking for proof of the existence of God is meaningless seeing as it is not a science (where evidence is required) but a belief. It'd be like saying 'what is the method behind art' or 'how do i know I love someone' - they are questions that cannot be answered simply because they're not really meant to be asked - if you do ask them you're missing the point.
Also, the crux of religion is not belief in a supreme deity, it is a way of life, a way of dealing with life and a method of dealing with yourself and others. It is not the apex of human achievement to acknowledge the existence of God but to act in a way that aknowledges things greater than yourself. There is no religion that merely asks you to believe in God, but the main focus is on the implications of that belief.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-29 @ 16:55:37
I expect you are probably familiar with Pastafarianism, the belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Like other religions, it's not a science but a belief, and the accompanying way of life is the important factor. It's growing in popularity all the time too.
Pastafarianism shows very neatly the problem of belief. If you need no evidence, you can believe in anything you like, and all possible unjustifiable beliefs necessarily have equal weight. That's why I asked for evidence, and you'll note that I didn't ask for proof, merely evidence.
There is a very important point here: you don't need belief to be a good person, a moral person, an upstanding person. Those all come from within, not without. They come from having a personal moral code.
Thanks for your answer.
Cheers, Tom.-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-05-29 @ 17:12:43
Ha ha.
Have you ever heard of Nihilism? It is a belief that nothing and nobody but yourself exists and that you are the centre of the universe.
I am not suggesting that you are a Nihilist, but I hope you get my point. A belief in something is not irrational, just as belief in things simply because of proof is not irrational.
You seem to believe that science holds the answer to the physical world - it explains everything right? But is it not irrational to believe that there is any connection between a so called cause and its effect? Science tells you that when you throw a ball in the air, it will come down, but that is no guarantee that it will. Your proof that a ball will come down will only happen AFTER the event, but if you predict it will come down with any certainty you are projecting what you have seen in the past onto as yet something that has not happened. That is the basis of science - empirical knowledge and it is just right for the physical world. It is not adequate to explain the thoughts, motivations and BELIEFS of humankind, so as such, asking for evidence for a belief is moot.
You BELIEVE the ball will fall back to Earth. Why? Because a similar thing has happened in the past that I was a witness to. BELIEF is still required to fill the gap to make you say with any certainty that the ball will fall back to Earth.
Of course you can get out of this and say that you do not believe in any connection between cause and effect. If that is so, please don't think me insane for believing in a Pastafarian as this is quite conservative compared to that.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-29 @ 17:39:12
You are mixed up: the definition you gave for nihilism is actually the definition of solipsism. They are quite different.
You are mixed up about science too. The law of gravity says that if you throw a ball up it will come down again, unless another force acts on the ball which overcomes the gravity. You can't prove categorically that the ball will come down because you can't predict what future forces will act on the ball: an eagle might swoop down and grab it before it falls, for example.
I do not "BELIEVE" the ball will come down, I think it is the most likely outcome based on experience. It's not certain.
Cheers, Tom. -
-
-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-05-29 @ 17:15:48
Also I am not arguing the case for religions or their doctrines, only that belief is not something that is irrational or stupid. Belief (faith, whatever) is required for even the smallest of actions or thoughts.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-29 @ 17:41:26
Belief is not required for "the smallest of actions or thoughts". I don't have to believe that spilling the mug of tea next to me onto leg will burn me, I know it will.
Tom.-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-05-29 @ 18:19:24
But that does require belief. You don't KNOW anything, all you you have are memories of past experiences. You believe the tea will burn because it is hot and your skin is sensitive.
The ball example was to illustrate a point, of course there are other forces acting upon it.
The philosopher David Hume admitted that there was no connection between what we have seen and what we expect. The fact that you say that you "know" the tea would burn you shows a belief. If you claim to "know" anything, belief is implied. I KNOW that there is an afterlife for example. You base your belief on what has happened in the past, I base mine on a 'feeling' or other things i choose to take as evidence.
You might say that love is not logical. Maybe not, but that's not the point. Belief is not 'scientific' so to ask for scientific evidence is meaningless.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-29 @ 18:33:13
Hot tea burning me isn't belief, it's scientifically measurable. Hot tea scalds flesh and in the absence of other forces it will act that way again, just like with the ball example. No belief, simple science.
You do not "know" there is an afterlife, you hope and believe that there is.
Cheers, Tom. -
-
-
-
-
-
so do you claim that Christianity can exist even in the absence of God?
-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-06-03 @ 17:23:14
Yes. I never said Christianity had any truth. Doesn't make me hate it.
-
-
-
-
CassandraofTroy
- 2008-06-01 @ 19:50:53
But religion is not essential to learning how to deal with yourself and others in a tolerant and compassionate way. A recognition of shared potential for feeling, empathy if you like, is enough for that.
A moral code which is only enforced because of what might happen in another life if you don't observe it seems to me to be entirely missing the point of what morality is truly about. -
-
-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-05-29 @ 16:04:32
And anyway, proof is not a precondition of existence, it puts way to much emphasis on our own experiences which could be completely wrong.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-29 @ 17:14:39
I asked for "evidence", not proof. But I'll address your statement anyway:
"proof is not a precondition of existence, it puts way to much emphasis on our own experiences which could be completely wrong"
If I told you that a troll lives under my bed and eats my socks, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you didn't believe me. That sock troll is neither more nor less believable than any of the gods that people believe in.
That is why experience is so important. In this case, your experience tells you that there are no such things as sock trolls so it's very unlikely that there isn't one under my bed, even though lots of my socks go missing!!! Perhaps my experience is different to yours and tells me they are real. How would you know?
If you or I wish to, we can choose to ride roughshod over experience with unjustified and evidence-less belief. But Occam's Razor tells me that the lack of evidence for the sock troll means that it's most likely that s/he doesn't exist. I see god the same way: neither provable nor unprovable, but probably non-existent.
Cheers, Tom.-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-05-29 @ 18:27:03
"I see god the same way: neither provable nor unprovable, but probably non-existent."
That's fine, but that is where belief steps in. By your logic if there was plenty of evidence, enough to PROOVE his existence then belief would be unnessecary, you would simply KNOW - so again, the question, IS there any evidence for the existence of God is unanswerable. You only need belief when there is no evidence.
You also only speak of scientific evidence - there are plenty of things that others will tell you that is evidence enough for THEM to believe in god, the beauty of the universe, miracles etc etc or whatever.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-29 @ 18:37:02
And we go full circle back to the Flying Spaghetti Monster again: one unjustified belief is no more valuable than any other.
Cheers, Tom.-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-05-29 @ 18:52:38
You do not know the tea will scald you, you only believe it will, or at best presume or hope, based on previous events. You say that the tea scalding you is measurable, but that is after the event, anyone can look at what has happened and attempt to explain it after the event, but you cannot say with any certainty it will happen again. This is where belief steps in to fill the gap. If you do not believe there is that connection then there is no reason at all to think your computer wont turn into some spagetti monster.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-29 @ 18:59:00
No, you're wrong. Without another force being present to conduct away the heat, 95C tea will scald my flesh.
Cheers, Tom. -
-
-
CassandraofTroy
- 2008-06-01 @ 14:10:31
There is indeed a philosophical argument that cause and effect are not necessarily linked, despite all empirical evidence to the contrary. However, we live surrounded by technologies developed from the application of a scientific method based on the assumption that those laws work enough of the time for us to rely on that belief. Those technologies are not 100% reliable or 100% beneficial, but that is another argument. If you feel there is no evidence to support this belief, then perhaps you are just fortunate to live in a world where enough generations of people have disagreed and have worked to extend human knowledge on this basis, rather than just assuming that God (or the spaghetti monster) would provide. However, given that you KNOW that there’s an after life, maybe it doesn’t matter too much to you what happens in this one anyway.
-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-06-01 @ 19:49:04
Let me just say again, I am not a nutcase who has taken too much acid and now doesn't believe in ANYTHING. I am saying that if there is no certainty in cause and effect, then to believe in a connection between the two is no worse than believing in God. Seaside man already said that it is not certain what will happen following an event, which is true. So is a belief in a God really that bad?
I believe in both a connection between cause and effect - so if I wish to believe in a God too, there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't require evidence just as science does not provide evidence of what WILL happen, only what HAS.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-01 @ 20:05:28
"Seaside man already said that it is not certain what will happen following an event, which is true. So is a belief in a God really that bad?"
Justifying a belief in god with the unpredictability of the future is a rather curious strategy, don't you think?
Cheers, Tom. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
joebangles
- 2008-05-29 @ 16:34:05
A first class debate going here, question and comments.
I am not a believer, I have no proof of a God, but, having experience of some that are, or were, believers, I have to admit a little jealousy, I saw them deal with problems that I find, or would find, very hard to deal with.
I have looked for something but come up against "walls" that I am unable to get over, that is probably the point that requires "faith".
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-29 @ 17:31:10
When Marx said that "religion is the opiate of the masses" he wasn't making a new point, but he was expressing it rather succinctly and memorably. If you want people to put up with almost endless amounts of hard work and suffering on earth, what better way of achieving this than telling them that they will get a reward when they die?
For some people, I am sure that is a comforting thought and for many it is no doubt the purpose of their belief: to make pain bearable and give them something to look forward to other than this vale of tears. But sometimes, pain must just be endured in order to achieve and move forwards. That was the crux of Marx's point as far as I'm concerned: religion prevents progress. That's my view anyway.
Cheers, Tom.-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-05-29 @ 18:30:04
"religion prevents progress. That's my view anyway."
your more than entitled to your opinion, but there is absolutly no evidence for this in the history of mankind. Religion and the beleif in the supernatural has been around since human beings, aint we aint living in caves no more.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-29 @ 18:39:59
"absolutly no evidence for this in the history of mankind"
Galileo. There, that's you proved wrong with just one word.
You're making this too easy for me!
Cheers, Tom.-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-05-29 @ 19:47:02
really? I thought i was in front. i thought i had licked you on the belief thing so i went ahead and said something brazen like what i said above.
Religion as a force does not prevent progress. You are talking about a man who was repressed by one religion at one point in time, who eventually had his ideas realized. That does not mean religion prevents progress, it means the Catholic church oppressed his ideas of Earth's place in the universe.
Whites used to use Africans as slaves; this does not mean that white people are racists. IF you said to me "White people are racist" I could still have replied "there is no evidence for that in history" because there is no evidence that white people are racist, there are only racist people.
You said "religion prevents progress" I say that's not true, without even mentioning all the positive and progressive things the religions of the world have achieved, there have only been oppressive moments at certain times with certain religions.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-29 @ 20:10:39
Backtracking like a good'un! Well done.
But this is a sidetrack to the important part of the discussion, which is that you are unable to provide any evidence for the existence of god.
What you do have is your unjustified belief that there is an afterlife (which you unjustifiably claim as knowledge).
What you don't have is any way of demonstrating that the existence of god is any more likely than the existence of either the Sock Troll under my bed or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In fact, some might claim that the sock troll is more likely, and cite the disappearance of my socks as evidence!
Cheers, Tom.-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-05-30 @ 08:58:38
I didn't back track! I've been pretty consistent so far I thought! Oh well.
Science serves one purpose - to attempt to explain the things that have happened in order to predict what will happen in the future, or explain other phenomenon that has happened. It is based on the epistomological gain of knowledge - knowledge through experience. In that context it serves it's purpose very well, but it does not proove that there is any connection between a cause and its effect, it only assumes one based on patterns that have previously been observed. I say that there is no reason for you to expect your computer NOT to turn into a spagetti monster, simply on the premise that it has not happened previously. In order to stop us going insane etc, we must believe that what happens in the past will happen again, that there is a repetition of pattern because there is no guarantee that there is a connection between a cause and its effect. Belief therefore is integral to science and everyday life. It does not require evidence - we may get evidence for it later, but so far it has been based entirely on belief. To attempt to explain or understand non-physical/spiritual perceptions in our nature, some people believe in a God. This does not require evidence for it to happen, just as evidence is not required to make us believe something that happened once will happen again. Hard evidence therefore of God's existence is existent only in our minds, just as the laws of physics are not guarantees of the future, merely a way of organising the past.
The Defense Rests Your Honour.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-30 @ 09:28:42
So to sum up, you have no evidence, and you are happy with this situation. Furthermore, you are also happy to believe in god rather than the SockTroll under by bed even though both are equally unlikely and neither have any evidence. That's inconsistent, but I support your right to be inconsistent and believe whatever you choose to believe without any evidence.
Thanks, Tom.-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-05-30 @ 10:14:19
And I support your decision to base everything you have seen as proof that the same will happen again in the future, despite there being no reason to do so.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-30 @ 10:23:04
Ah, but I don't do that. If you'd been paying attention to my responses to you (the ones you ignored higher up the thread), you'd see that unforeseen circumstances are a factor in life. Specifically, I used the example of a force conducting heat away from the tea, and an eagle swooping down to take the thrown ball. But I suppose that didn't fit with your mis-characterization of me which is why you chose to ignore those points.
If you are going to argue here, you really should try and avoid disingenuousness.
Cheers, Tom.-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-05-30 @ 11:09:08
Never mind, I thought it was a fairly well established philosophical idea that we cannot be certain of anything. If that is the truth then a belief in a god is no more meaningless than a belief in science, that's all. I'm not being disingenuous, and I didn't ignore your comments, I'm obviously not making muyself clear enough.
We're both repeating ourselves here, so I'll just drop it. -
-
-
-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-05-30 @ 10:17:43
Also, I did not say I believe in God (suggesting only as illustrative points), I am merely defending the concept of belief without evidence, as evidence and what we percieve is not the be all and end all, it is just, well, our own puny experiences.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-30 @ 10:27:46
You have to remain honest, or this is pointless. You said "I KNOW there is an afterlife". Please don't lie to me any more or I'll just stop talking to you.
Tom. -
-
- 2008-06-02 @ 18:14:46
DG. I like your rational and thought you argued well. Good stuff.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
and it was the death of the religious control that allowed progress: http://thequestionofreality.blog.co.uk/2008/03/02/the-death-of-the-church-s-view-of-the-wo-3805326
-
-
-
- 2008-06-04 @ 12:30:58
Hi jb.
Linked in to this post via your post the other day and had hoped to get back to it sooner, quite a debate as you say.
I think you’re right about faith getting you over the walls, but I've found faith has come from experience and reasoning, not blind acceptance.
I’d like to comment however, if I may, on my own experience of God, by whatever name. I follow no religion, but experience God as a reality which gives answers to wonderings, and rational to existence, along with sensations such as grace, love, joy, beauty, compassion etc. Since ‘finding God’ I’ve had a totally different, and much more beneficial, for myself and others, way of being and perceiving than I had before, but the fact of that would not be hard enough evidence for SeasideMan, ground we’ve covered recently via his comments on my recent post http://chassy.blog.co.uk/2008/05/17/a-musing-4186786#comments which threw up some interesting considerations, possibly of interest to you in your own considerations? (don't know if it's linking, but it's my last but one post 'A Musing' if you're interested)
Cheers now jb
Ellie.X.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-04 @ 12:41:21
Hello again, Ellie! I'm interested in your thoughts:
"I follow no religion, but experience God as a reality which gives answers to wonderings, and rational to existence, along with sensations such as grace, love, joy, beauty, compassion etc."
How exactly do you receive these "answers", i.e. what is the mechanism or conduit through which god communicates to you?
The reason I ask is because I'm interested to know if you are following the same process as a person who meditates. If you are, do you think it's possible that the answers you are receiving are not in fact from "god", but from your own mind?
Cheers, Tom.-
- 2008-06-04 @ 15:21:23
Hello again Tom!
The answers are perceived whilst wondering, sometimes synchronicity might play out too, but the mechanism as far as I can see is wondering, and actually wanting to know because I care, so one could say mind and intent, but reception is the problem, if say, the mind is closed as a conduit through which God may communicate a particular answer.
Received from the mind – where does the mind end? I ponder, eyes open, gazing at nothing, wondering, and an answer happens, or some other response, could be ‘out there’, it doesn’t feel as if it’s inside my head particularly, no more than the air feels like it’s in my lungs, but why would I need to wonder if it was already in my mind, and what’s to say the mind isn’t part of God?
Cheers, Ellie.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-04 @ 15:34:49
Thanks, that sounds very similar to meditation to me. The mind is a very complex thing with a huge mesh of connections. Meditation seems to be a way for people it suits to follow the right connections and come up with an answer to what is troubling them.
If you choose to interpret that answer as being from "god", that's up to you. Leo Tosltoy thought “The Kingdom of God is Within You”. That's a thought that seems to fit with your thinking rather well.
Cheers, Tom.-
- 2008-06-04 @ 18:03:27
I don't do meditation but I believe it can be a path to clear thought, devoid of the usual emotionally-driven natterings that go on. Doesn't mean the answer isn't from God though.
Perception comes from within, but that doesn’t make non-existent that which is not perceived, who’s to say everything isn't the kingdom of God?
Cheers, Ellie.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-04 @ 18:31:15
Thanks for taking the trouble to explain, but that's beyond the scope of this thread really.
I still seek evidence.
Thanks, Tom.-
- 2008-06-04 @ 18:54:53
You've stated 'A complete absence of evidence doesn't disprove…' yet the complete absence of evidence, according to your judgement, appears to be enough to justify the belief that God doesn't exist. How do you justify that?
Cheers, Ellie.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-04 @ 19:27:49
"the complete absence of evidence, according to your judgement, appears to be enough to justify the belief that God doesn't exist. How do you justify that?"
You are asking me to justify something I have neither said nor think, so of course I'm not going to even try and do it. What words of mine make you think that I believe god doesn't exist?
Tom.-
- 2008-06-05 @ 16:08:45
Hee hee, you're joking right?
'My personal view is that no-one is able to provide any evidence for the existence of god because s/he doesn't exist.'
Just in case you weren't
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-05 @ 16:20:28
Let's compare those statements:
"the complete absence of evidence, according to your judgement, appears to be enough to justify the belief that God doesn't exist. How do you justify that?"
"'My personal view is that no-one is able to provide any evidence for the existence of god because s/he doesn't exist"
The first one, which you made up and falsely apply to me, references a BELIEF in the non-existence of god. The second one gives my opinion of the most likely explanation for there being no evidence for his/her existence.
So when I asked:
"What words of mine make you think that I believe god doesn't exist?"
You really should have tried to find me saying I believe that. And of course you wouldn't be able to do that because I don't believe that and I haven't said it.
Tom. -
-
- 2008-06-05 @ 18:01:20
Why do you say ‘falsely apply to you’?
‘because’ – for the reason that; since
hence "'My personal view is that no-one is able to provide any evidence for the existence of god [for the reason that; since] s/he doesn't exist"
It is your opinion the most likely explanation for there being no evidence for his/her existence is s/he doesn’t exist.
‘believe’ – feel sure of the truth of > accept the statement as true
‘You really should have tried to find me saying I believe that. And of course you wouldn't be able to do that because I don't believe that and I haven't said it.’
You do not believe your personal view or opinion?
Besides Tom, you’re taking my question out of context. I was merely pointing out a contradiction.
Ellie.X.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-05 @ 18:30:18
There was no contradiction.
Tom.-
- 2008-06-05 @ 18:38:04
See your comments on my post 'A Musing'
Ellie.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-05 @ 18:49:23
I couldn't see anything there that's relevant to this discussion.
Tom. -
-
-
-
-
-
- 2008-06-06 @ 09:20:15
In response to a comment from you on my post A Musing, I wrote - ‘Do you not think it possible that there are other beings in this Universe, besides humans and other animals, who could have similar concepts?'
You replied - ‘It’s perfectly possible that there are other beings elsewhere in the universe as smart as humans, but there is currently no evidence for their existence at all.’
I responded with - ‘Many things once denied of existence or not known to exist, are found to exist once perceived.’
You replied with - ‘A complete absence of evidence doesn't disprove life elsewhere, in fact it is virtually certain statistically that there is life elsewhere. Our chance of meting it though, is very close to zero.’
And I responded with ‘… yet the complete absence of evidence appears to be enough to disprove God, when in fact those who’ve experienced it see evidence everywhere, and may well believe the chance of meeting God is 100%.’
Ellie. (and good morning Tom! )
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-06 @ 09:33:44
Why do you think an absence of evidence disproves god?
Tom.-
- 2008-06-06 @ 10:28:44
What, beside lack of evidence, forms your personal view and opinion that God doesn’t exist?
Ellie.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-06 @ 10:36:17
I wouldn't say that god doesn't exist, because I'm an agnostic atheist.
Tom. -
-
- 2008-06-06 @ 17:40:05
You believe nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God and hold a theory or belief God does not exist. Others’ experiences are presumably unacceptable to you as evidence therefore, because you believe nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God, although the fact you are asking for evidence suggests you don’t totally believe that, and you have a theory or belief that God does not exist, but you’re not quite sure else you’d be able to say God doesn’t exist with as much surety as I can say God does exist. Anyway, thanks. The conversation we had on 'A Musing' led me to reconsider and redefine a previous concept I held of what God was, and now I find you have helped me once again, this time in defining myself! I now believe I can be tagged a Gnostic! That’s nice isn’t it!
Assuming you've nothing more to add, I'll say cheers, it's been fun, perhaps we'll bump into each other again some time!
Cheers for now Tom,
Ellie.XX.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-06 @ 17:42:31
Glad I've helped
:-)
Tom.-
- 2008-06-06 @ 18:36:52
X.
-
-
-
-
-
I'm not sure about actual hard, physical evidence that you can take to a person to prove that God exists. But at the risk of getting into a long old debate here, I can only talk from my experience. I know that God exists purely because to me, it is all about having a personal, living relationship with God. The same as you may have an intimate relationship with a person that you can physically see and hear etc, it is possible to have that same relationship with God. He hears me when I talk to Him, He speaks to me through His Word the Bible etc and I can feel His presence with me each day. That to me is sufficient evidence, personal evidence. I am aware that you will say that is faith - but unless you have that faith you will not experience the evidence that God exists. It is personal but it is also fantastic!
Thanks, Tracy-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-29 @ 23:41:48
Thanks for answering, Tracy. I accept fully that you see the situation how you describe it and that you believe he hears you and responds to you. But my skepticism is enormous in this area and and it's probably best if I say no more than that.
Cheers, Tom. -
-
This I must respect.
-
-
-
Tentativeplotfinder
- 2008-05-29 @ 23:49:19
Have you any evidence God doesn't exist?
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-30 @ 00:05:30
Have you any evidence The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist?
Have you any evidence The SockTroll Under My Bed doesn't exist?
Have you...
You get the picture.
Cheers, Tom.-
-
Tentativeplotfinder
- 2008-05-30 @ 08:20:31
I do indeed get the picture.
I'm always very interested by those who are so determined to proved God doesn't exist, because why should you want to waste so much time and energy on trying to prove something you don't believe in.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-30 @ 09:21:20
Then there is no reason for you to have interest in me here.
This thread is a mere quest for evidence.
Cheers, Tom.-
-
Tentativeplotfinder
- 2008-05-30 @ 09:38:25
Am I not allowed to be interested in your quest for evidence?
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-30 @ 09:48:30
That was a response about your "determined to prove god doesn't exist" comment. I'm sure everyone here knows that the non-existence of god is impossible to prove since it's impossible to prove that sort of negative. It's evidence for his/her existence that I have been seeking here.
Cheers, Tom. -
-
-
-
you hardly ever need to prove that something doesn't exist. Do you go through every book in your library and say, lets prove it is not true? This makes no sense. I will put God in the same category
-
-
Tentativeplotfinder
- 2008-06-01 @ 09:23:07
Why does it make no sense?
-
If we had to try and prove the inexistence of everything that human imagination has created (and will create), our society would still be sitting in two big trees: the first of those who make up stories, and the second of those who disprove them.
Not too bad prospect for the human race, until the food on the trees run out.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
prydwen
- 2008-05-30 @ 12:42:35
"God is died, Jean Paul Sartre"
"Jean Paul Sartre is dead, God"-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-30 @ 12:51:39
It was Friedrich Nietzsche, not Sartre.
Cheers, Tom. -
-
-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-05-30 @ 14:32:41
Sorry to be a bore, but something just occured to me.
You said you want evidence for the existence of God, not proof. In that case the whole Universe is evidence of his existence. Proof is of course another matter. In the same way a murder weapon at the scene of a crime is evidence, but is not proof of who did it etc etc.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-30 @ 16:40:13
That's a circular argument: you assume that god created the universe and then use it's existence as evidence to back it up.
Nice try!
Tom.-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-05-30 @ 16:57:27
"This blood is evidence of foul play"
"How do you know there was foul play?"
"There's blood here."
It is circular, but that is the nature of evidence.
this does not mean that it PROOVES foul play happened. You are asking for evidence of god. The evidence is everyhting around us.
Fossils are evidence of the existence of dinosaurs.
"Fossils are evidence of dinosaurs."
"How do you know dinosaurs exist?"
"there's fossils."
Fossils do not PROOVE dinosaurs, they are evidence of an idea we have of something in the past.
I will happily admit that in my experience there is no PROOF of god's existence, but that does not make my belief in God irrational.
In the same way, the world around us is evidence of the existence of the laws of science, but those laws are human constructs (like God is) and therefore do not proove anything, only shows patterns in what we perceive.
However, I think I have said as much as I can on the subject, and I am sure you are getting bored of repeating yourself to me too. Still, it has been very enjoyable. And don't worry, I'm not trying to get the last word, ha ha, but I think we've reached the end of the road with this one (not because I think God exists and you don't, but because we have both stated our position, which we are both convinced of). Last thoughts?-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-30 @ 17:26:49
Evidence doesn't have to result in a circular argument. Blood could be evidence for accident or illness as well as foul-play, but a blood-stained knife and bloody footprints leaving the scene make foul-play the more likely explanation.
A single fossils by itself doesn't prove anything, but a sequence of thousands of them from different time periods shows a trend and as above, greater likeliness. This makes dinosaurs far more likely than god because there is a great deal of such evidence whereas there is none at all for god.
Scientific laws are NOT "human constructs": the laws of gravity were NOT constructed by humans, they were observed and noted. This is a crucial point as it rips your argument to pieces.
The example of the ball earlier (where you ignored my reply) is a fine one: unless another force acts, that ball certainly will come down, headed straight for the mass centre of the earth.
Cheers, Tom.-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-05-30 @ 18:12:10
if scientific laws are not human, where do they come from?
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-30 @ 18:28:59
They are natural laws.
-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-05-30 @ 18:39:56
It sounds to me like your saying that science has proven the existence of its own laws. Or, science is evidence for natural laws. Or is it natural laws are evidence that science is correct? I dunno.
To me is sounds analytical: Science is correct because it has prooves that science is correct. Or something. I'm not sure now, but it sounds circular to me. Science proves science. You call them Natural Laws, but is that not just another name for the same thing? Science discovered these laws, that doesn't mean they exist, it just means science works for itself, 2+2=4 is true enough, but it doesn't tell us anything new.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-30 @ 19:39:52
No, certainly not. The laws that control the attraction of matter exist, it was just up to us to find what they were. Whether those laws are entirely natural or due to god is, of course, disputed, but the actual law itself isn't. Unless you are going to dispute the law of gravitation...are you going to do that?
2 + 2 = 4 isn't necessarily true, because it depends how you define "+" and "=".
Tom.-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-06-01 @ 19:16:16
I am NOT denying that the laws of nature exist, I am just saying that it is no more sensible to belive in them than it is to believe in a God.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-01 @ 19:55:33
You don't "believe" in gravity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
and will you use the earthquake in China as an evidence that, this God isn't a loving one?
-
-
- 2008-05-31 @ 00:15:06
What a lovely lot of comments SM ; I'd only say that if someones going to believe they'll believe with or without any apparent proof , and if someones not going to believe then they'll not believe with or without any apparent proof .
Ask that question of FrKenny , who's on my friends list , when he's back from his holiday in a weeks time !-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-05-31 @ 11:53:33
I've never come across FrKenny.
This has been a fun discussion and it certainly got some interesting responses.
Tom.-
It's not that people believe without any proof. But they will keep their believe in a loving God despite all proof to the contrary (Burma floods, China earthquake, Somalia massacre, inquisition )
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-01 @ 10:06:59
Very good point. But the believers always have the "behaving in mysterious ways" argument to fall back on. I don't find that to be a very convincing argument, I must say.
Tom.-
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities- Voltaire
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-01 @ 10:36:04
I'd not heard that quote of Voltaire's before, but it's quite right. Thanks for it.
Tom. -
-
-
-
-
-
.. back to the endless debate of evolution or the big bang!
In my opinion, the universe proves there was a Creator, God if you wish to call it.
Same argument of course will arise from Darwinists to say it is a big explosion that causes the universe.
Same question I pose then, who caused the explosion?
Just to make it clear, although I am Catholic, I believe there is someone here or there that created all these, not necessarily
as Vatican say so.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-01 @ 00:31:07
It's virtually certain that the universe started with the Big Bang and that evolution has continued since then.
Whether that Big Bang was started by "god" or some other means, no-one can yet say. Perhaps we'll find out for sure some time but until we do I'm happy not knowing for sure either way. I have no beliefs: I would call myself an "agnostic soft atheist".
If pushed, I would say that the matter in the universe has probably always existed. This is the least problematic explanation and is the one that is most in accordance with Occam's Razor.
Cheers, Tom.-
I could believe in the Big Bang rather than the garden of Eden but the mere fact that it may have been started by "some other means" still goes back to somebody or something caused it to happen.
Is it gas, molecules, nuclear? Who, what created such "things"?
My opinion is that the "it", the "something" or "somebody" is
a superior being or it or something which I believe is God or whatever name others will call it.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-01 @ 01:06:55
Not knowing leaves the field completely open.
The oscillating universe theory is gaining credulity now. This says that there has been a cycle of Big Bangs forever. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
But the basic point remains: this universe almost certainly started with a Big Bang, but we know nothing of what happened before that,
I dislike the concept of belief. I don't see how belief is any different to wishful thinking. At the moment, the most we can be reasonably sure of is that there was a Big Bang but we don't know how it started. If you choose to "believe" that is god, that's your wishful thinking right there.
Tom.-
..believe may not be the proper word, now we're probably playing with semantics, which does not differ much from you"accepting", "believing", "concluding", "whatever" that you do not know how it started at the same time stating there has been a cycle of big bang forever is a contradiction by itself. Changing your claim as reason and twisting mine to wishful thinking does not prove anything.
I can easily say your reasoning without proof is likewise wishful thinking.
An object will not move without a force to cause it.
An explosion cannot happen from nothing.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-01 @ 10:21:14
Why do you see a cycle of big bangs as being a contradiction"? What exactly is being contradicted?
I haven't changed a "claim", I've just given you some of the modern scientific thought on the subject. Nor have I "twisted" anything you have said, I have merely proffered an opinion.
Tom.-
..they say in the end, everybody has a minute before he closes his eyes forever and in that longest 60 seconds of his life, he will utter the word God.
This is not a scientific statement just a personal thing and I prefer it that way, and for me it seems more gratifying than the thought that I am simply an offshoot of an explosive mutation. I 'believe' that man is a superior being of limitless capability to think both scientifically and abstraction created by that Unknown called God.
I'm happier this way!
Good discussion my friend, Cheers!-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-01 @ 17:10:09
It's likely that human life happened by chance through evolution and that death is nothing but chemical decomposition and then nothingness. It's also likely that there is no supernatural being watching over us (certainly not one who "loves" us anyway).
I prefer it this way.
This has indeed been a good discussion, and thanks for your part in it.
Cheers, Tom. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
pre-big bang God is a possibility, but he has lost its role after the big-bang
-
-
-
glancerim
- 2008-06-01 @ 06:33:57
Let me sight you an explanation on why God Exists? This is form my blog re-post last July 2007 on Why we have sufferings? ; Believers or non believers have peace.
A man went to a barbershop to have his haircut and his beard trimmed.
As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation.
They talked about so many things and various subjects.
When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said: "I don't believe that God exists."
"Why do you say that?" asked the customer. "Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't exist. Tell me, if God exists, Would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children?
If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can't Imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things."
The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't want to start an argument.
The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop.
Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and unkempt.
The customer turned back and entered the barbershop again and he said to the barber: "You know what? Barbers do not exist."
"How can you say that?" asked the surprised barber.
"I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!"
"No!" the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside."
"Ah, but barbers DO exist! That's what happens when people do not come to me."
"Exactly!" affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God, too, DOES exist!
That's what happens when people do not go to Him and don't look to Him for help. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."
Source: (my friend email)
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-01 @ 10:17:00
If that story is evidence for you that god exists, then we have very, very different standards of evidence. For me, the analogy fails horrifically because barbers can be heard, seen and touched. God, if s/he exists, is invisible, intangible and inaudible.
Tom.-
-
glancerim
- 2008-06-02 @ 05:28:15
Well from that story, i am not talking the resemblance of a physical attributes there, i am saying the relationship with Him (God) if you usually don't have it, you will not believe on His existence. I know God exist invisibly, without flesh and blood, He's like the wind, though you cannot see, you can feel His presence. God usually uses regular people. He uses our parents for procreation. He uses and inspired people and make them an instrument in His existence by being the writers of the Holy Scriptures (Bible).I hope and pray that someday you will be enlightened and the divine retribution will answers all you doubts on Him. That someday He will use someone near you to light your path.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-02 @ 08:37:12
But this thread was about evidence. Parables about Barbers may seem like a useful mental exercise to some, but they aren't evidence and that was what I was a Seeker for here. Thanks for the time you have taken.
Tom. -
-
-
-
-
And all the disasters not caused by man? Like earthquakes, floods? Is it within his control? Does it happen outside his control. If we all went to him, will that stop?
-
-
some1else
- 2008-06-01 @ 12:18:27
I hope you'll accept me coming from a Christian point of view, and sort of ignoring all the rest, because it's what I know (well, more so anyway). Also, please know that I don't intend any insults, criticisms, or conversions with what I say. Thanks.
You ask is there any evidence for the existence of god. I would suggest the words of the Bible. Now, I'm relying a little on you having said in some of your above comments that you didn't ask for proof, in order to sort of overlook the lack of incontrovertible proof for the absolute truth of said words, but as far as evidence goes, the Bible contains a number of eye witness accounts of God.
Hmmm, I was going to leave it there, but I've come across this essay which might be interesting reading for you, if you're prepared to put in a bit of time - it's quite long. I haven't read it, nor do I expect it to be flawless (if such a thing existed I think all intelligent people who read it would believe in God, and everyone else would probably follow ), but see what you think. Thanks.-
-
some1else
- 2008-06-01 @ 12:19:35
Oh, sorry, forgot to put in the link - duh
:
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/truthfulness.htm
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-01 @ 13:01:38
Thanks for the link. I've skimmed through it rather than gone through it in depth and I see nothing there to challenge the view that what is written in the bible is a compendium of folklore and superstition. The problems I mentioned in my other post to you remain.
Cheers, Tom. -
-
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-01 @ 12:55:27
Thanks for your reply. Eye-witness accounts certainly constitute evidence. But what we have in the bible is events being described not 1st-hand, nor even 2nd and 3rd, and in some cases, decades after the events being described. It's easy to see how the Chinese Whispers effect casts huge question-marks on the reliability of such tales.
Also, there is little corroboration of these stories within the bible itself and only a couple of fragments in other historical records.
Plus, how can we be sure these were reliable witnesses? They could have been lying, or the stories could just be that: stories. Since we only have them 100th hand, I think I am right to be skeptical.
And what of other religions. For example, what would it mean for you if The Hindus had it right?
Do you have anything more recent than almost 2000 years ago?
Thanks, Tom.-
-
some1else
- 2008-06-01 @ 14:12:13
More recent that 2000 years ago, I have my own experiences of miracles and such like, but I have my doubts you'll accept those as evidence for you.
However, I would repeat (putting aside your other arguements, at least for now) that there are eyewitness accounts in the Bible. Galatians 1 (NIV) begins:
"Paul, an apostle--sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead--and all the brothers with me, To the churches in Galatia:"
And picks up in verse 11:
"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie."
And although it - especially that last sentence (v.20) - could be argued to be an outright lie, I would suggest again that it is at least a first-hand account. Thanks.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-01 @ 14:52:32
I would be very interested to hear your first-hand account of these "miracles" you have experienced. Will you please tell us?
---
Interesting though Paul's account is, there are great problems with it. As far as I know, we don't have Paul's documents, just copies that appeared no less than 100 years later, and possibly more than that. Authorship is heavily disputed and the bulk of the documents are thought by experts to be psuedoepigraphs.
We are many iterations away from this being a first-hand account, even on the assumption that Paul actually was the author.
But thankfully, you are here to give us a first-hand account of your miraculous experiences.
Cheers, Tom.-
-
some1else
- 2008-06-01 @ 15:41:54
Your definition of evidence does seem to be getting a little harder to satisify - even though you have provided reasons why it may not be trustworthy, I feel this is at the very least more evidence to suggest God exists, than, for example, your elusive sock monster
.
However, let us continue:
1. A man in the church I used to go to some years ago was hit by a car going 40mph; he was thrown over twenty meters, shattered every bone in his body - with the exception of one of his leg bones which was splinted by his truncheon (policeman) - and his skull was cleaved. He was in a coma and his family was told he would never wake, and even if he did he would be a vegetable (not a pleasant word to use, but it was his word not mine, and it's his story so I prefer not to change it). He then described a visitation from Jesus - although he had never been religious before this - and next he knew he was awake, healed and pretty much fine. The only thing remaining from the accident was a limp on the leg that had not been broken. He is now an active christian.
2. A family friend suffers from osteoporosis and was confined to a wheelchair before the church prayed for her. She is now not miraculously running marathons or anything, but she is out of the wheelchair. (Praise God)
3. A young girl going in for Chemotherapy had (what people considered) a beautiful head of hair, and we were asked to pray simply that she would not suffer from the usual hairloss side effect. This might seem like a silly thing to pray for, but she had the treatment, and didn't lose her hair.
Okay, enough of that. Fortunately, I myself have not had the need for miraculous healing, and the miracles I would claim have actually happened /to me/, would no doubt be seen as coincidence in your eyes. For example, I would say that the very fact that I'm in South Korea is a miracle, but you'd have the know the real me to understand why. Other things (though not really personal stuff, which I'd rather not share publicly) like when I spent a month in Uganda (another small miracle in itself) I was told that everybody, without exception, gets ill when they travel - traveller's diorrhea if nothing else. I'm not sure about this because I don't, but then I claim this too, as a miracle because I'm told left, right and centre that I should be ill at least a little bit - change of water and air and all that.
Anyway, it's late over here, and I've got work tomorrow, so I hope that you can appreciate more why I believe, even if you don't accept this as evidence for yourself. If you don't mind, I'll pray for you to see/understand why it's so easy for some people to believe. Cheers, and have a good day/night.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-01 @ 16:31:01
Please, don't pray for me.
Thanks for the examples and the time it took you to write them. I'll just say that my skepticism remains high.
Cheers, Tom. -
-
-
Shipscook
- 2008-06-03 @ 12:12:09
All these cases show is that Doctors can be wrong, there is not a schred of evidence to suggest divine intervention is at work. My Uncle underwent chemotherapy in his 70s and kept his hair
-
-
some1else
- 2008-06-03 @ 14:53:46
Perhaps we need a clearer-cut definition of what constitutes evidence. Besides, who's to say your uncle didn't experience divine intervention as well, whether knowingly or not?
-
-
Shipscook
- 2008-06-03 @ 16:05:37
When you pray for something to happen and it happens that is not evidence that the result is due to the intervention of whatever being you prayed to. It may be that or nothing more than a coincidence.
-
-
some1else
- 2008-06-04 @ 01:12:03
When you pray for something to happen and it happens that is not evidence that the result is due to coincidence. It may be that or nothing more than the intervention of whatever being you prayed to.
I think we simply have two different starting points, and I feel you're asking for proof rather than evidence (or what I think of proof and what I think of as evidence), which I can't give.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-04 @ 09:07:19
The point is that you can't know for sure that it was the praying that had the effect. Thus, that is not evidence, it is merely one possible explanation.
Tom.-
-
some1else
- 2008-06-04 @ 13:45:33
Indeed, but it is one of the possibilities, and when one sees it happening again and again and again, suspicions do arise. Not evidence? Fair enough. I think maybe I just don't have the debting skills to argue evidence into something proof enough for you. (Apologies for my failure
)-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-04 @ 14:08:38
That the praying could be having an effect is certainly possible. What is difficult is to determine whether it actually did have an effect.
I did read some years ago of a scientific test to determine the efficacy of prayer on illness and it was demonstrated that it could have an effect on people, but only if they knew they were being prayed for. It gave them a positive feeling to think that others were thinking about them and wishing them positive thoughts and some people actually did show slighly speedier recuperation from minor ailments.
The mind is a very powerful tool, I hope we can agree on that, at least!
Tom.-
-
some1else
- 2008-06-04 @ 14:59:24
Definitely. And sorry if my posts are all out of order, because I had the other open so long that I posted it after realising you'd replied to this one. (I went looking for that video you mentioned over on youtube, and got sidetracked
).-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-04 @ 15:08:13
I get sidetracked onto youtube for hours at a time sometimes
:-)
Tom. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Shipscook
- 2008-06-04 @ 09:25:25
If you refer to the OED evidence is roughly defined as facts that support a proposition or in a legal sense statements or proofs admissable as testimony.
If you recall I stated that your argument for divine intervention in the cases mentioned could be evidennce for the existence of God or merely a coincidence based upon the fact that doctors are not always right in their prognosis.
I would also advance that many people of all faiths ask God for things when they prey and never get them. Again this does not mean that God does or does not exist.
Therefore I would argue that your evidence is as they say in the crime dramas circunstantial as it has no supporting proof and therefore inadmissable in this argument.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-04 @ 09:44:47
Have you seen George Carlin's fairly well known comic routine on religion? He says that he started praying to the actor Joe Pesci and, not surprisingly, 50% of his prayers were still answered. But he makes it funny.
Some of the people here are using proposition bias. This is a term used in science when there is a particular proposition that is to be validated or discredited. If the scientist is biased, then some evidence that counters their hoped-for expectation is simply ignored, resulting in a more favourable outcome. Almost everyone does it to some extent, but it does seem to be more than usually strong in those who seek validation for their religious beliefs.
Tom.-
-
some1else
- 2008-06-04 @ 14:56:30
(This is the reply to Tom's post - I'm not sure what sort of order they're going to appear in.)
Proposition bias - ignoring evidence that counters the hoped-for expectation. I honestly don't feel like I'm ignoring evidence. If there is no god, then I'm reading more into situations than I should, but there would be no point in ignoring evidence since anything can be explained away by simply saying God is all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. (a point of view more convenient than actually usable in an argument, but I'm being vague and extreme on purpose).-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-04 @ 15:07:01
I wasn't thinking specifically of you.
In the case of this particular proposition it seems there is no evidence on either side. This means that the only truly reasonable position is Agnosticism.
Tom.-
-
some1else
- 2008-06-04 @ 15:28:38
Oh sorry, maybe a tad over-defensive
. And you're so right, but despite doing it all the time, I don't really enjoy sitting on the fence. Right, I really am going to bed this time... -
-
-
-
-
-
some1else
- 2008-06-04 @ 14:03:33
Okay, but unfortunately - and correct me, please, if I've misinterpreted, because such a thing is far from unknown
- this seems to be defining evidence as supporting *facts* or *proofs*, and one thing people often agree on is that there is no proof either way in this debate. So, are all arguements doomed to failure before they even start? Which, quite frankly, is more than understandable, seeing as that's probably how I would be if you tried to argue evidence against the existence of God.-
-
Shipscook
- 2008-06-04 @ 14:19:51
Precisely, I am not argueing the existence of God or not (whatever my own personal beliefs my be) I am argueing that the evidence you positioned earlier in this arguement does not support the existence of god on the basis that it could equally be coincidence and therefore cannot prove God's existence.
I have at no point positioned an arguement against the existence of God.
-
-
some1else
- 2008-06-04 @ 15:03:06
No, don't worry, I realise that. However, we now somehow seem to be in agreement
. God's existence cannot be 'proven', but it has been good to talk to you guys about it all, it's helped me put some of my thoughts onto paper (as it were) which I've found difficult before now. Thanks, and have a good one. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
jenray
Pro - http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
- 2008-06-01 @ 16:04:33
Have read through all these comments and it's been a really interesting and, at times, somewhat heated debate, but I think the question veered off the point several times...the question was 'is there any hard evidence for the existence of God?, and the answer has to be no, there isn't...those trying to prove that a deity did exist moved onto belief in God as if that proved a deity existed, but it doesn't...it merely proves that some human beings, maybe even the majority, move into the realm of wishful thinking where a deity is concerned. Most cultures developed a system of belief in a deity throughout history and many are still surviving today because a belief system is passed on to each successive generation and, through this, is perpetuated, but just because generations hold onto a belief system in no way does this prove that their beliefs have any real validity...it provides rules for living with their fellow human beings, comfort in times of trial, reassurance that life doesn't end in death, and a sense of community amongst fellow believers, and a belief that some being greater than they exists who has their well being in mind...all of this must fall into the category of wishful thinking and is not concrete evidence of the existence of any of the deities believed in by millions of individuals...an atheist chooses to reject wishful thinking, but still can stand in awe at the wonders of creation, can still value human life as the most precious of all things in existence, and can will good for all life on earth without the need to resort to a deity as the source of all that they see around them.
An atheist might turn to science as a guide for how things came into being, but most atheists know that, apart from a few proven Laws, scientific knowledge is always in a state of flux with new knowledge coming in to replace previously held concepts or theories, but science doesn't disprove the existence of a deity as such, it merely reinforces the atheists claim that the existence of a deity isn't necessary for all that exists to have come into being.
Believers in a deity often seem to neglect scientific knowledge, in some cases because it clashes with their own beliefs, while in other cases, because their religion removes the need to search for answers to the wonders of the Universe.
As a believer in a god once, and now an atheist, I still love the Universe passionately and all that exists within it, and stand in utter awe of it, but, when it came to the crunch, I realised that belief in a deity was wishful thinking on my part and I abandoned it...I have never regretted for one moment that decision and no longer have to search for evidence that any deity exists...there is great freedom in that and a sense that I have attained adulthood at long last...and I can't add anymore to this comment now...-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-01 @ 16:37:16
Absolutely marvelous post, Jen. Simply superb in every respect. I agree with everything you said. It seems we have almost identical views on this matter.
Thankyou for taking the time to write that out so clearly and unequivocally.
Tom.-
-
jenray
Pro
- http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
- 2008-06-01 @ 16:44:22
Thanks, Tom...went away and had a think about it before answering it...not sure whether believers in a deity will feel the same about it...LOL...
-
-
-
-
joebangles
- 2008-06-01 @ 21:03:52
As usual, a cracking good post Jen.
-
-
-
-
CassandraofTroy
- 2008-06-01 @ 19:55:11
BTW, Tom, here's my answer to your original question:
none that I'm aware of.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-01 @ 20:12:42
Thankyou, Cassandra.
A lovely, straightforward, non-evasive and non-diversional answer :-)
Tom.
-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-06-02 @ 08:45:04
I am sorry that I have been unable to provide you with one too, though I am sure you wanted a debate rather than just admitting the obvious.
-
-
-
-
- 2008-06-01 @ 23:26:48
Well, having read all the posts and me being a non believer in any God, I would say that the general consensus of opinion is that if you agree there is no God, then you've made a jolly good contribution to the discussion, however if you have any kind of religious inclinations then you've written absolute tosh, and have insulted a good many people ,mmmmmmm, it was just a discussion - was there really any need to get quite so heated?
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-01 @ 23:37:16
That seems like a fair summary...
Tom.-
- 2008-06-02 @ 00:39:56
Mmmmm.
-
-
-
HektorRevisited
- http://thewindhover.blog.co.uk
- 2008-06-02 @ 16:56:19
You are, I am, we all are.
Do you really think we are the result of a large cosmic accident?
Dominus vobiscum.
Hektor-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-02 @ 17:32:09
The existence of life is most certainly not evidence for the existence of god! What are your reasons for thinking that it is?
We don't currently know what started this Big Bang, but perhaps we will one day.
Tom-
-
HektorRevisited
- http://thewindhover.blog.co.uk
- 2008-06-02 @ 18:19:04
Of course it is. The fact that there are other ways of looking at things (your point of view for example) is further proof. Who else could have created such immaculately contradictory creatures?
Someone, much better than I, articulated things perfectly:
Pied Beauty, by Gerald Manley Hopkins.
GLORY be to God for dappled things—
For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;
For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;
Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches’ wings;
Landscape plotted and pieced—fold, fallow, and plough;
And áll trádes, their gear and tackle and trim.
All things counter, original, spare, strange;
Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)
With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;
He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:
Praise him.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-02 @ 18:40:32
I asked you your reasons for thinking that the existence of life is evidence for the existence of god and your response is
"of course it is"
That isn't a reason. Do you have any reasons, or just reiterations?
Tom.
-
-
HektorRevisited
- http://thewindhover.blog.co.uk
- 2008-06-03 @ 14:51:48
Tom,
I detected some aggression or irritation in your response, I hope that I am wrong.
I responded to your first point:
"The existence of life is most certainly not evidence for the existence of god!" (sic)
Admitedly, I overlooked point two. Not intentionally, it was simply an oversight on my part.
Turning to your question - what are my reasons for thinking that the existence of life is evidence points to the existence of God?
Well, I find it inconceivable that life simply exists. By which I mean life (human, animal and vegetable) has appeared out of nothing, merely created a result of some gigantic explosion - I contend that explosion was caused by God and that the evolution of all species of life is the work of God.
May the Lord be with you.
Hektor-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-03 @ 16:40:17
There was neither aggression nor irritation in my response and frankly, I'm amazed that you might suspect that there was since I was so brief and to the point.
"I find it inconceivable that life simply exists"
I see, so because you can't think of another possibility, then it must be god. That's a common view but not a very logical because it means that the limits of potentiality are your imagination.
Tom.
P.S. Was your "sic" because I didn't capitalize "god"?-
-
HektorRevisited
- http://thewindhover.blog.co.uk
- 2008-06-03 @ 17:28:42
Perhaps I should rephrase (for I don't want you to think I am not imaginative (please have a look at my blog)) "I choose to find it inconceivable that life simply exists."
All the best.
Hektor
p.s. Yes, that's why the "sic" was there.
p.p.s. Capitalise!-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-03 @ 17:45:35
Fair enough, if you think the existence of life without god is "not capable of being conceived, unimaginable, unthinkable, unbelievable, incredible". It's perfectly conceivable, imaginable, thinkable, etc. for me.
I'll stick with lower-case, thanks.
Tom.
-
-
HektorRevisited
- http://thewindhover.blog.co.uk
- 2008-06-03 @ 17:49:21
I was referring your unforgivable use of the letter "z" in the word "capitalise".
You're entitled to you're point of view.
Hektor.-
-
HektorRevisited
- http://thewindhover.blog.co.uk
- 2008-06-03 @ 17:49:58
How generous of me, eh?
Toodle pip. -
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-03 @ 18:10:34
Z is more correct on the linguistic basis that the suffix derives from the Greek "-izo". The OED prefers Z and so do I.
Tom.
-
-
HektorRevisited
- http://thewindhover.blog.co.uk
- 2008-06-03 @ 18:20:27
You and the OED are entitled to your view.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-03 @ 18:28:57
You said it was unforgivable before and now you say I'm entitled to my view. Do you often cntradict yourself in such a small space of time?
Regardless of your opinion, Z is the linguistically best spelling and has been used interchangably with S in British English for several centuries.
Tom.-
-
HektorRevisited
- http://thewindhover.blog.co.uk
- 2008-06-04 @ 09:15:26
Tom,
Are you naturally argumentative or is it something you have been working on for many years? My use of the word "unforgivable" was a joke, perhaps you might thing about relaxing a little and spending less time blogging.
Anyway, have a lovely day. I won't be bothering to visit here again.
Hektor
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-04 @ 09:23:30
Text is sometimes a difficult medium since it lacks accompanying body language. I have online friends who really would say that such differences were unforgivable and really mean it. Since I don't know you from Adam, how could I possibly know you were joking and not serious?
Perhaps you could consider choosing your words more carefully in future?
Tom. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
loiswakeman
- http://lois.co.uk
- 2008-06-02 @ 18:10:45
None I accept as valid.
In most disciplines, the rule is that, in the absence of evidence, you go for the simplest explanation. We turn that on its head for religion.
E.g. Thousands die in natural disasters and famines: that's because God allows us free will although he is very good and all powerful. A parent allowing his child to deliberately suffer if he had the power to stop it would be considered bad, feckless or evil.
But as the need to believe in something bigger and better than us (God, Allah, angels, crystal healing, wood spirits, Thor, Ganesh, whatever) is often understood to be a necessary side-effect of the human brain structure, then it's hardly surprising that many are driven by this basic wiring in our hardware!
It might be a bug (look at all the tribalism and fundamentalism whipped up), or it might be a feature to stop us all going bonkers at the thought that we have to make the best of it right now, as there isn't going to be another chance and we're all alone in a big cold universe.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-02 @ 18:37:19
Thanks for your reply Lois. Very interesting and relevant, as always. I have heard before that the human brain structure lis a contributor belief and that's something I'd like to read more about at some point. Certain types of neurological conditions are known to produce religion-like revelations and that is possibly part of the same phenomenon.
Thanks, Tom. -
-
-
-
safriz
- http://www.conspiror.blog.co.uk
- 2008-06-03 @ 12:55:14
Ok i am late in this never ending debate.I am a Muslim and strongly believe in the divine being,but the book we read "Quran" starts with some strange lines.(and i believe them too
)
It says "This book is guidance for those who believe",and honestly if one is a non believer,there can't be any evidence of the existence of God,and no point in practicing any religion.
The root of our religion are two sentences "There is no God except Allah,Muhammad is Allah's prophet"
Again no proofs given,just plain beliefs.So to be very honest,proofs don't work as far as religion and beliefs are concerned.There no rock hard proof in support of or against the existence of God (in my case Allah)
I agree with jenray's comment.You can't prove God to someone who doesn't want to believe.
I have talked to many atheists and most of the time they argue with believers to undermine their beliefs and look down at them,and to prove how stupid we are.
But it works for me and i am ok with it,and i don't need any prof of God's existence.I just believe.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-03 @ 13:07:21
Hi there, thanks for stopping by. It's nice to get a view from someone who is neither Christian nor atheist, so your Muslim perspective is most welcome.
I didn't know those words were at the start of The Quran and it's very smart for them to be there.
I have no problem with genuine believers such as yourself and RacyTracy (a Christian), who also appears on this discussion. It's the ones who look down on non-believers such as myself and who try and impose their views on others who I have less respect for.
Tom. -
-
-
- 2008-06-03 @ 15:14:15
I have read this large discussion with interest and have a number of points
1) Somebody made the comment that Religion had caused the deaths of millions.
Here is a list of all the world worst perpetrators of crimes against humanity. I won't tell you their religions as you should all know.
Mao
Hitler
Stalin
Atilla the Hun
2) For faith to exist, the world must to exist as if God didn't - are you asking for proof of God, or an understanding of what Faith is?.. Of course there is no evidence. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of christianity. As Jesus says 'Happy are those who do not see, and yet believe' I think your real question is what is the point of faith? Why should God, if he does exist, not show himself freely? Is this your real question?
3) Burma, China,Tsunami etc etc etc. All awful, all unjustifiable actions of an 'unloving God', Yes, I agree, but this leads me on to two further points
a) Is it 'wrong' that God allows these things to happen? - Where does your concept of what is right and wrong come from?, Is it innate? If God does not exist, there is no such thing as right or wrong, in which case, why is what happened so terrible? Why do even 'bad' people (by which I mean the criminals the rapists etc) have a belief in right or wrong - even if warped ('they deserved it' etc) If we accept that God does not exist, we must also accept there is no such thing as right or wrong. Therefore, Burma, China etc are irrelevant - if that is your view.
b) Would it help to say that you evidence of God IS the science that you quote?.. That Science is a way of explaining, not God's work, but God himself? God IS the universe, god IS evolution, God IS....
God did not create the world, God did not start the Big Bang, God IS the Big Bang.
Or to quote a well known book. 'In the beginning was the word, and the word was GOD'
F
PS Darwin was, and remained, a Christian.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-03 @ 16:28:10
This discussion asked for evidence for god's existence, and you say:
"Of course there is no evidence"
Thanks, that's a clean sweep of no evidence so far.
You also said this:
"If God does not exist, there is no such thing as right or wrong"
This statement is absolutely 100% untrue. Of course right and wrong exist in the absence of god or gods.
Like Darwin, Hitler was also a Christian: a Catholic specifically.
Thanks for your answer.
Tom.-
- 2008-06-05 @ 10:08:56
No, Hitler was an Atheist and a Vegetarian. The fact that he was born a catholic doesn't mean he stayed a catholic, Mao was born a buddhist, his actions were not that of a buddhist.
Right and Wrong exists as a concept in our minds. There is no proof in the existence of right or wrong. Is it right that thousands die in a hurricane that hits a first world country? yes that is wrong...but why? so what that it was preventable?, it is only the knowledge that a large part of the destruction could have been prevented that tells us what happened was wrong, but otherwise it was just a natural event. Is it wrong that Harold Shipman killed hundreds of elderly men and women?, the majority of us believed he was wrong, he believed he was right. But why should right or wrong come into it?.. These are instincts of human behaviour. But where does this instinct come from?.. Human survival? It is certainly not biological. Some of us believe that the 'instinct' is the essence of God - Christians call it God's spirit, Buddhists; Karma. All religions, separately from one another by time or space have come up with concepts of right and wrong, most of these agree with one another on the basics of how one should behave. All civilizations ancient or modern agreed that the unjustified killing of another is wrong - why? biology?
If you accept the existence of an essence (right and wrong) as an actual entity, then you have to also accept the possibility of the existence of another essence - God.
I also note that you haven't answered my question, so I'll ask it in another way - what is your point? Everyone knows there is no physical evidence of God, yet you seem to think you are making a new point. You have asked a philosophical question, but will not accept, or even acknowledge philosophical answers. (But you seem happy to accept rumours or Web-based 'facts' that support your argument throughout your debate) Is it that you have not understood thousands of years of debate of the nature of God, because you don't seem to be asking anything new.
I suggest you accept that you are an atheist, and that the reformation/revolution(s) have already happened, and that you missed them. You now have the choice in our times to state without prejudice that you are an atheist, and we all know what you mean... You do not believe in the existence of God. To continue to ask the question, makes one suspect that really, you DO believe in God, but that you have not yet come to terms with your own faith. I wish you luck in your quest, wherever it may take you.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-05 @ 10:36:23
There is a lengthy discussion on Hitler's religious views here, irrelevant though it is to this discussion (and he wasn't an atheist):
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
Right and wrong don't apply to people dying in freak weather. Right and wrong apply to human thoughts and decisions. God isn't required for right and wrong, but opinions on morality are. Philosophers through the ages have thought about morality, independently from religion.
And all civilizations haven't agreed that killing was wrong. Two fairly recent examples: Jews in Nazi Germany and Native Americans in the USA.
The question at the start of this thread was very simple and unequivocal and it's quite fascinating how some people have twisted and turned to try and avoid giving a straight answer to it, and others have just answered.
And I don't "believe" anything.
Tom. -
-
-
- 2008-06-04 @ 17:30:44
The parallel you draw between Hitler is irrelevant; that one of history's villains was religious cannot be employed as an argument against faith in God. This surely is to generalise in the broadest (and perhaps simplest) of terms... Frannybasher's reference to Darwin serves in the discussion to remind us that science and spiritual belief need not contradict each other, indeed, a higher intellectual understanding can be borne out of a regard for the latter.
It is partly through grace that man reaches philosophy, in accepting that the individual's mind can never be absolute in it's theoretic authority. Faith needs no evidence, as any intelligent being may grasp, for it is to establish a path to the divine through spirituality. We have no evidence of the spiritual in any sense, but a great, great many believe in some kind of continuation of souls after death, (religious or otherwise) or place faith in an other-worldly connection to loved ones during both physical life and post mortal death.
Religion should not seek to dictate or indoctrinate, but teach, and consequently discover and nurture the individual's spiritual course. Faith is an incredibly personal thing; that it is expressed among and between many, is measure of its worth.
Tom, you say you have no problem with ‘genuine believers’ but it appears these are exactly your target audience. You started this debate with no personal allowance for genuine debate, for you are fiercely resolute in your opinions. This in itself is understandable (if slightly arrogant) but the vehement voice of your atheism is repeatedly antagonistic, and has sought to clumsily squash and patronise those who graciously enter the floor daring to disagree with you. No one defending belief in a God has attempted to convert you, but several have intelligently articulated that to seek evidence in His existence is to spectacularly miss the point. Your favourite line of fire in response to such entries is to reiterate that still, no one can present you with physical evidence, thus attempting to highlight the genius of your own question. Instead, you succeed only in emphasising your own limitations. Too often have I seen you try to back others, (with all the literary grace of a hedonistic hippo), into corners of apology through your feeble and phony declarations of being in some way personally affronted. You are Sir, a pain in the debater’s back-side.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-04 @ 17:48:53
Perhaps you missed that it wasn't me who first mentioned Hitler, I merely responded to the other poster's mention of him. They implied that Hitler was an atheist and that somehow this was relevant: he wasn't, and it isn't.
Godwin's Law is still alive and well, it seems.
It is equally irrelevant to this discussion what Darwin believed.
-----
It amuses me that you chose the tactic of insulting my intelligence, literary skills, debating prowess and honesty in order to avoid answering the really very simple question that I posed at the top of this thread. A simple "No" would have been sufficient.
Your attempt at telepathically divining the contents of my head is equally amusing and remarkably inaccurate.
Tom.-
- 2008-06-05 @ 11:41:38
Hello, bit late in on this I can see. Oh dear. Tom - I don't think anyone has avoided the question. All the 'believers' here have answered the question: "No" is the correct answer, but were they wrong in thinking that you wanted a bit more of a debate? As you say, it is impossible to proove or disproove God, so what was the point in the question? What followed was a discussion on belief, so harking back to the original question is pointless.
Yes, the fact that Hitler was religious is irrelevant and frankly de-bases the argument - the point there was to show that religion is not the cause of all the evils in the world, if it can be shown that non-religious types have caused massive conflict the same as religions than they cancel each other out and the comparison is moot.
What you need to do here Tom (it's not my thread after all) is address the points that have been fired at you from the believers. We can all accept that there is no evidence for God, just as there is no evidence for Kenya (I've never been there). How exactly do yuo explain the the fact that you "know" the tea will scald you (DominicGee discussion) and the laws of science are 'natural' laws, yet you say to someone else you do not 'beleive' anything. I think some definitions of certain words you use are called for.
Bill.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-05 @ 12:35:43
I think there's been a bit of avoidance in some quarters, but there has also been some excellent insight and some interesting thoughts. One of the reasons I posed the question as I did was to see how it would be avoided.
I think I have addressed the points from the believers as far as they are relevant. And there is evidence for Kenya, quite a lot of it in fact.
As regards the tea question, that's very basic stuff: close to 100C liquid put onto cellular matter causes disruption to the cells because of the expansion in the liquid they contain. If no other forces act, the result is scalding, because the laws of physics apply the same everywhere. I prefer the apple example. If I throw it into the air, gravity ensures that it will come down on a line between the centre of it's gravity and the centr of the earth's gravity, unless any other forces act. If the wind blows, the path will be curved, and if an eagle carries it off, it won't come down at all. These latter two are examples of other forces. We cannot predict the future, but we can predict how basic forces of nature operate on matter.
These are not beliefs, they are how matter and natural forces work and they are not susceptible to belief or disbelief, they simply exist.
Tom.-
- 2008-06-05 @ 12:58:53
Sure, but that is just explaining what you THINK you know. How can you call them 'natural' forces? Because they originated inside our head? Space and Time are human constructs aren't they? Just as good and evil are. Or are they not?
If some ivy attaches itself and climbs up a tree and eventually chokes it and kills it - is the Ivy bad/evil?
If a lion hunts and kills a lone antelope, the last of a family, separated from the herd and limping - is the lion bad/evil?
If a human enters a man's home, steals his food and kills him while he sleeps - is the human bad/evil?
What's the difference (and I don't mean the practicalities)? Where has this idea of good and evil come from?
This discussion has gone on quite a long time and I feel that these issues weren't addressed. We obviously know how science works - you can be a believer and still believe in science. As an agnostic these are important issues. Agnosticism, although logical is not permanent - it is a state of transition, of uncertainty that keeps you until you make a decision.
Bill-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-05 @ 13:11:10
The operation of gravity is not a product of the human mind, but morality is. It's not known if animals have these concepts, but I wouldn't choose to ascribe those human morals to animals.
Agnosticism is the only really justifiable position for anyone with a scientific bent since it seems there is no evidence either way.
Tom.-
- 2008-06-05 @ 14:15:44
So Gravity isn't the product of the human mind. It is merely the binding principle (that and electromagnetic phenomena) that has caused and causes all natural events, processes and all that exists, including life, light, the galaxies, thoughts, dreams and imagination. That's fine. God can exist also as a similar being, that does all these things too. Evidence of it is the whole universe. The Universe doesn't proove gravity's existence and the Universe does not proove God's existence. But it is evidence of it.
If morality exists (and you said it does somewhere else on the thread) then this is something that is not explained by science. Morality and altruism - are they just evolutionary constructs? In which case there IS no right and wrong, merely reactions like a lion killing an antelope, human actions cannot be seen as right or wrong but just products of a situation. So your anger at the death and destruction that religion has caused - is that anger justified? Nobody has done anything wrong, we are all just reacting to stimuli. It would certainly explain the differing views that cultures have over certain things (capital punishment, incest, sodomy, drugs, ownership). But would it also mean that all the 'morals' that humans do share are just coincidences, or an evolutionary by-product (murder, theft, paedophilia).-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-05 @ 14:49:24
I refer you back to the question at the top of this discussion. You can think that "God can exist also as a similar being, that does all these things too" as much as you like, but there is no evidence that anyone has yet presented to verify that position. I can verify gravity with a stone. Do you see the rather important difference here? And as I have mentioned on this discussion a few times already, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is equally as likely to exist as god.
Why do you think that morality can't have developed naturally in humans? And perhaps more importantly, why do you think there is "no right and wrong" if it has come about via evolution? There are no absolute rights and wrongs, if that's what you mean. Such things must always be relative.
Tom.-
- 2008-06-05 @ 15:35:06
Of course you can verify gravity. When an apple drops from a tree, you say that is gravity. Gravity caused it to happen, but we can't see gravity, we can't touch it, hear it, smell it or taste it. We can only see it's effects. Why can't it be God? I can't see God, hear, smell, touch or taste God, but I can see 'his' effects. The Universe is evidence of his existence just as the apple falling is evidence of gravity's existence.
What is the answer to the following question "Why is that water boiling?"
1. Because the heating element in the kettle is transferring energy through the water, exciting the molecules to the point that they break their bonds with each other and become a gas.
2. Because I want a cup of tea.
It's a joke really, but a quite funny analogy of the argument between science and theology.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-05 @ 15:45:47
"I can't see God, hear, smell, touch or taste God, but I can see 'his' effects"
Confirmation bias of the highest order! You assume god then see the effect that confirms your assumption.
"The Universe is evidence of his existence just as the apple falling is evidence of gravity's existence"
The apple is evidence of gravity alright because we can measure the force actiong upon it. But god is merely one of many possible explanations for the existence of matter and there is no way of measuring him/her/it.
I'm afraid you still have no evidence.
Tom.-
- 2008-06-05 @ 16:27:17
Yes it is confirmation bias, but so is yours. We don't know what gravity is (we can neither see, hear etc) but we can see it's effects. What we call gravity is merely one of many possible explainations for what happens throughout the universe. We can measure its effect with numerology, but that doesn't bring it any closer to the truth.
It's the same with what is called at the moment 'dark matter' which you are probably aware of. We don't know what it is, or anything about it, but we've given it a name and said 'it is THAT that explains how light travels through space/holds the universe together etc etc' or in the case of black holes - their existence is very uncertain, all we see are their effects.
Why do things get pulled towards the centre? Answer: Gravity. And what is gravity? Answer: The force that pulls all things towards the centre.
We can say at what rate it pulls things depending on its mass, but that's just measuring it. Gravity could be two different things working in tandem or it could be a by product of another natural phenomenon. Gravity only exists where there is matter is that right? What if it isn't gravity that is the root cause but matter? There is no evidence for gravity, only something(s) that give effects, collectivly known to us as gravity.
I think you put far to much emphasis on being able to measure something. Can you measure human emotion? Does that mean it doesn't exist?-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-05 @ 16:40:37
No, I don't accept that at all.
We do know what gravity is, and we can both measure it and predict it. It has physical properties.
We don't know what "god" is, we can't measure it, we can't predict it and it has no physical properties that I'm aware of.
You still have no physical evidence for god: there is lots for gravity.
Tom.-
- 2008-06-05 @ 16:59:36
We don't know what gravity is, we just know what it does and it terms of quantum physics, at a sub-atomic level, gravity displays very different qualities, if any.
You seem very unwilling to get away from the original question, even though I have said on several occasions that the answer to the question is No. It seems like a very pointless debate to have if all you want is confirmation of a well known fact. There must be other arguments for being an aethiest, or stronger ones against the idea of God than simply repeating that there is no physical evidence. Thanks for the exchange, but I'll take my curiosity elsewhere.
Goodbye.
Bill.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-05 @ 17:17:53
No, we do know about gravity, we know very much about it. There is a huge difference between god and gravity that you seem unwilling to accept, and that difference is knowledge and physical evidence. That's why your attempt to equate the two was doomed to failure.
You are also mistaken on this discussion being justification for atheism and it's a mystery where you got that from. Ditto opposition to the god idea. All I did was ask a simple quesiton...
Tom. -
-
-
-
- 2008-06-05 @ 15:44:44
And morality can occur naturally, I didn't say it couldn't. It just seemed to be something that does not come from evolution. If it is, there is no right and wrong, not even relatively. Relative to what? It is only fear of reprisal and social outcasting (and therefore less liklihood of procreation) that prevents us from doing whatever we like, be that murder, rape, theft etc etc.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-06-05 @ 16:09:35
"And morality can occur naturally, I didn't say it couldn't. It just seemed to be something that does not come from evolution"
Why does it seem like that to you?
"If it is, there is no right and wrong, not even relatively"
Why not? Why is morality any less applicable if it was invented by god or if it was invented by Plato?
And which of the thousands of possible gods shall we believe anyway?
Tom. -
-
-
-
-
im not sure that there is actual physical evidence that god exsists, you just have a feeling he is real. as my friend says if God is not real christians have lost nothing but became better people. however if they are right non-religious people have lost eternity