Evidence for God

[nns1400]

Dang. I was expecting nns1400 to convert me with undeniable proof of god's existence.

Well, nns1400 has been busy running the universe. I don't have time to correct everyone's beliefs at the moment. There are so many topics to cover at this forum...if I get caught on the computer right now, I'm going to get grounded (by my kids).

Off to the races, but rest assured, "I'll be back."

 

[bkaapcke]

The problem with circumstantial evidence is that if there is any other reasonable explanation, the other explanation must be accepted. Standard jury instructions. In the God/No God debate, the other explanation would be seen as being 'more likely'. bk

 

[thoughtforfood]

WOW, what a light, fun topic!

I thought about just bypassing this thread, but my inner-adolescent just would not allow that.

Some Questions: How is it that everything in the universe originated out of something except for the universe?

Is it not strange to believe that the universe originated out of nothing, means nothing, and procedes nowhere?

Comments and questions: Within the realm of biology, how is it that something with mass is made of something without mass? To explain, it appears from an examination of molecular biology, that the most basic building block of any object has mass, and is therefore divisible. Yet that brings us to the conclusion that the infinite nature of an object is as large as the universe itself. Take a second and swallow that one. That being the case, then quantification is based upon faith, because you can discuss real numbers, but cannot prove them because of the nature of the infinite. Then isn't science based upon faith that real numbers exist?

In conclusion: I would love it if you believed in God. If you do not, I understand your reasoning. I respect the thought process that brings people to that conclusion. Having been an atheist, or more correctly an agnostic, I had to overcome all of the questions presented. I overcame them by accepting that they could not be answered, and then examining my experience as I began and continued to believe. I understand the inability or the lack of desire of some to even attempt that feat. I know God exists, you either know he doesn't, or believe that he doesn't. We are probably not going to bridge the divide from either side because we base our lives on completely different foundations. That doesn't mean that our outward manifestations of that base will not appear similar in many instances. I believe that anyone can act morally or immorally, and that there can be a heavy concentration to one side or the other regardless of who you are or what you believe.

God will knock on your door from time to time. To paraphrase Edward Abbey, keep a loaded gun close when you are alone, because you never know when God will show up. It is your choice to believe or not. That is to me the surest sign that God loves us. He gave us the right to deny his existence, and will not force us to choose in any way other than what we choose. Free will is an amazing gift, and were it not for that, we would all be mindless worshiping clones, only doing what it is ordained that we do.

My faith is always tested, and I will never stop asking questions. I am very grateful to have that gift, and not have it affect my relationship with God.

People have marginal power to affect a change in belief of another, but one thing is certain. The question of whether God exists or not will cross your mind again. It will also cross mine.

 

[Crankyfeet]

Hey TFF, good to see your posts again. Always enjoy them as you seem like someone who's at least honest with himself and enjoys a debate without taking things personally, except of course, when other posters get personal with you.

I too realize that probably no one is going to be converted on this thread. I certainly am not hoping to convert anyone. However I've spent a lot of time pondering spiritual questions and am quite open to the fact that I don't yet have the ultimate answers. So my motivation for debate is more selfish in a sense. I just like getting other intelligent views that make me think about things I haven't considered.

On the infinite divisibilty issue. I think I get your point. Like take the number 100. You can keep dividing by two an infinite number of times. Therefore you reason that if 100 has an infinite number of divisible fractions, it is therefore infinite. I'm not sure the math and logic on that one stands up. I would conjecture that the sum of the parts equals 100 and that is a finite given. But hey, I'll leave that to a pure mathematician or logician. And who's to say that the building blocks of life are infinitely divisible. Why can't there be a minimum unit of mass?

Some Questions: How is it that everything in the universe originated out of something except for the universe?

This is similar to the question:

How come God created everything in the universe except himself? Who/what created God?

Having been an atheist, or more correctly an agnostic

Though its quibbling over definitions, agnostiicism stems from the false definition of atheism. Rather than atheists being people who believe there is no god, they are actually people who don't believe in the god stories/myths that are currently believed in around the world. So if there are 1000 world religions (hypothetically), you are an atheist in 999 of them. For me its 1000.

I had to overcome all of the questions presented. I overcame them by accepting that they could not be answered

I'm with you on that situation.

and then examining my experience as I began and continued to believe.

That's where we diverge. And it may be the burnt bridge that makes it difficult to go back.

I think that once you make the leap of faith, the benefits of the religious/theistic/Christian life fabric/structure mostly make you happier. But you have to believe. For some that's easier than others. For me, there is enough BS in any of the world religions, and conflicting paradoxes, that I can't suspend disbelief, just so I might feel more happy, content and secure, not that that is a given in any case.

For instance, It would make me happy to believe that my geriatric childhood dog was sent to a happy farm for all dogs where he currently resides happily. But now, with knowledge and 1000 or so pieces of evidence conflicting with this story, I can't hang on to it, even though it would be nice to. Truth (or trying to approach it) for me trumps "What feels good".

The obstacles I need to overcome are these paradoxes, to name a few:

Why are 99% of religious people born in Saudi Arabia Islamic, and a great majority of religious people born in North Carolina Christian? Maybe social environment trumps independent free will?

If Jesus is the only path to heaven, how come 800 million Chinese people have never even heard of him. What happens to them when they die?

How do you integrate what we know about science and earth's history into the biblical record? It would be a massive improbability that fossils found in one strata are aged, by carbon dating, to the exact same age as another fossil found miles away on the same geological strata level. This is found to be the case over and over.

How do you explain why the four gospels and other new testament books of the Bible give at least five different factual accounts of the easter resurrection of Jesus. Jesus' life and death is the cornerstone of Christian belief. Why does god's so-called word give varying accounts of what happened?

I imagine that there are a lot of people who believe in some sort of indefinable god-force, but don't believe in any of the versions currently spouted as group religious belief.

For me the quest to answer life's big questions, and also the wonderment at nature's beauty - that instead of just being admiration for nature, proceeds to admiration for God - is an evolved instinct.

IMO, historically, tribal nay-sayers like myself and those that questioned tribal authority on myth details, were at best prevented from breeding and at worst burned at the stake. Furthermore tribes who believed in a greater power were possibly more passionate in battle. The US forces know this phenomena well.

Whilst we can have a frank discussion on this, there are few examples in human history where open discussion on alternative religious beliefs (or non-belief) were possible.

To me, when I die, I turn to dust. My fear of death has been lessened by my experience of general anaesthetic. It was like the two and a half hours of time I was unconscious didn't exist. I went to sleep and seemingly straight away woke up. In death, I just wouldn't wake up.

There is no external scorecard on my goodness, its just my decision. That my life has no purpose other than my own motivation to be happy and do what's right. These I admit are frightening thoughts (including originally for me - I once was a believer/agnostic in your sense of the word) and probably to those indoctrinated with religious dogma. To me, that makes them more likely to be true. Because there is no other motivation to accept them other than it being the most reasonable explanation. But I would love a big purple blob to come down and make himself known to me as god. Somehow I find that unlikely.

 

[thoughtforfood]

First, I really enjoy reading your posts also. You are thoughtful and intelligent and stay away from getting personal. It is a great flaw of mine that I do not overlook people who choose that path. Then again, I try really hard not to be perfect.

To answer the origin question, I believe in the infinite and therefore have no problem believing that the origin of all things physical is infinite. I might also add that things like infinity, perfection, morality, etc are concepts beyone the comprehension of a mortal being.

The obstacles I need to overcome are these paradoxes, to name a few:

Why are 99% of religious people born in Saudi Arabia Islamic, and a great majority of religious people born in North Carolina Christian? Maybe social environment trumps independent free will?

My only answer is that in my pursuit of God (which began at the age of 5, ended in my teens, and resumed in my early 20's), the core belief of Christianity, that Christ died so that we could become one with God, has been the outcome of my search thus far. I do not know what the relationship someone from China, or someone who is Hindu has with the infinite. That is between them and God, and has nothing to do with me. I believe that Christianity is wonderful for someone who is lost and willing to seek a relationship with God. If you have no need because of disbelief or belief in another religion, who am I to tell you that you are wrong?

If Jesus is the only path to heaven, how come 800 million Chinese people have never even heard of him. What happens to them when they die?

I have no idea. I know that when Jesus said "none come to the Father but through me," it rings true in my heart. I am also not a judge as to how infinite Christ might have meant that statement. Biblically, I am clearly told that God will harvest where he chooses, and it is not moral to for me to cast damnation upon anyone. If God is infinite and I believe He is, this statement and many others may be quite a bit more inclusive than I will ever know. I do not condemn anyone to hell, that is not my right.

How do you integrate what we know about science and earth's history into the biblical record? It would be a massive improbability that fossils found in one strata are aged, by carbon dating, to the exact same age as another fossil found miles away on the same geological strata level. This is found to be the case over and over.

I grew up with a mother who taught Biology and was also a Christian. I have never had a problem understanding that the world evolved over a much longer period than Biblical literalists (usually literalist only on topics of their choosing, but that is another discussion) believe. I have never seen science and the infinite as being mutually exclusive.

How do you explain why the four gospels and other new testament books of the Bible give at least five different factual accounts of the easter resurrection of Jesus. Jesus' life and death is the cornerstone of Christian belief. Why does god's so-called word give varying accounts of what happened?

They were written by men, who have shown themselves to be wholy unreliable in providing consistent anything. It is a forest/trees thing with me.

I imagine that there are a lot of people who believe in some sort of indefinable god-force, but don't believe in any of the versions currently spouted as group religious belief.

I have no beef with those people unless they choose to question my sanity/intelligence because I choose to believe differently.

For me the quest to answer life's big questions, and also the wonderment at nature's beauty - that instead of just being admiration for nature, proceeds to admiration for God - is an evolved instinct.

I believe the nature of God is inherent in everyone. I believe that while I am merely a container for chemical reactions, that there is something more to me. I believe that I have a piece of the infinite called a "soul" that makes me more than that.

IMO, historically, tribal nay-sayers like myself and those that questioned tribal authority on myth details, were at best prevented from breeding and at worst burned at the stake. Furthermore tribes who believed in a greater power were possibly more passionate in battle. The US forces know this phenomena well.

I believe that man, be he Christian, atheist, Muslum, etc is endowed with a soul, and that "evil is just as much a part of the divine as good is."(cannot remember who wrote that) We would fight, murder, rape, steal, and commit all acts of hatred regardless of who we are or what we believe. That is what we do as humans, not religious people. Stalin didn't believe in God.

Whilst we can have a frank discussion on this, there are few examples in human history where open discussion on alternative religious beliefs (or non-belief) were possible.

To me, when I die, I turn to dust. My fear of death has been lessened by my experience of general anaesthetic. It was like the two and a half hours of time I was unconscious didn't exist. I went to sleep and seemingly straight away woke up. In death, I just wouldn't wake up.

And if you are right, I will never know. That is the beauty of it from my perspective.

There is no external scorecard on my goodness, its just my decision. That my life has no purpose other than my own motivation to be happy and do what's right. These I admit are frightening thoughts (including originally for me - I once was a believer/agnostic in your sense of the word) and probably to those indoctrinated with religious dogma. To me, that makes them more likely to be true. Because there is no other motivation to accept them other than it being the most reasonable explanation. But I would love a big purple blob to come down and make himself known to me as god. Somehow I find that unlikely.

The scorecard idea is un-Godly IMO. If there is a scorecard, we are all screwed, I don't care who you are. I would also suggest that you don't abjectly rule out purple blobs, because who knows? There are stranger stories in all faiths.

Let me also say that I do believe that Christ brought the most complete sense of God to earth. The idea that you can act good enough to recieve or deserve God's love was shattered, and from my personal walk, that is a great thing. I do not however know if anyone else will or will not go to hell. That is just something that is not worth pursuing. I have enough on my hands dealing with my walk with Christ. My opinion of whether you should, shouldn't, will, wont, can, can't exist in a relationship with God is irrelevant. Should you ever ask for any of that from me, I will tell you what I know, which is imperfect. Christ does expect that from me, and I will gladly give what another gave to me, but only if someone wants it. Trying it give it to someone who does not want it is pointless.

I will also ask this, remain open to the possibility that God does exist. However, you may be a more content, well adjusted person than I, and have no need to remain open to that. I am quite certain that there are atheists who are, and while I do not wish to learn to live that way, I respect that your answer is yours, and I have no right judge the steps you have taken in life.

 

[nns1400]

Thanks Bro Deal. Now it makes sense. I just feel sorry for all of mankind who died and went to hell in that flood. They didn't even get to read the Noah story first - to learn what happens to naughty people. Or was that in the days when God talked directly to us like he did to Noah. If god talked to me I would have listened. That would have cured my atheism disease instantly. Why doesn't he do that now? Did we **** him off that much then by giving him the middle finger? Now we're all descended from Noah (it's a wonder we all look as good as we do and have even numbers of limbs in the right place!), and we're still pissin' him off. He must have designed us wrong or something.

Naughty people? You mean, like telling fibs and stuff? Or using the "S" word: you know, "stupid"? Ok, I teach pre-K kids. Those are naughty people. I would not be so quick to sneer about the idea of God being disturbed by people abandoned to viciousness. Geez, you guys complain a lot about the evil in the world, yet you believe in a worldview that allows for no true justice. (I find it hard to believe in the concept of justice anyway if we are purposeless beings living a meaningless existence that ends in a pile of dust. )

I have to agree with TFF in that there is more to us than biological machinery. I believe we all have a soul. Maybe you wouldn't call it that, but how do you qualify or quantify what you would call your mind, your thoughts? What is an idea, really?

Have you ever sat at someone's death bed? When you watch someone die, I am telling you, it does not cut it to say, well, their heart stopped beating and now they just aren't going to wake up. The person is just...gone. The biological machinery, the vessel if you will, remains. The person's remains.

As for us pissin' off God, I wonder why he extends so much grace to let us continue on this planet at all. If I were God, and received the treatment He does, and watched what we do to each other, I would have struck everyone down with a bolt of lightning a long time ago. The mystery is why he continues to let us exist and continues eternally to try to have a relationship with us instead of being done with the whole thing. It is the unfathomable grace of God that causes the Christian to love Him.

As for choosing Christianity because it "makes you feel good," you couldn't be further from the truth. It's hard to be a Christian. It's hard to turn away from your own selfish impulses. It is not a path I could follow if I didn't absolutely believe it to be true, and even more, without the actual, real help of the actual real Jesus. And I still lose the battle sometimes (with my self).

On the other hand, I could not have dealt with some of the blows life has had to offer without my faith. You can call that sentimental or weak, but the Lord has definitely had the opportunity to beat the pride out of me and bring me to a humbler state. I could not have faced the pain caused by Hurricane Katrina without my belief and without the very real presence of God in a dark place. Most atheists I know like to think they are above all that; that they are stronger or intellectually superior to people who need a crutch. I will freely admit that Jesus Christ is my crutch. Which isn't even close to accurate. A crutch is too pathetic of a metaphor (analogy, whatever). He is everything.

(Sorry this is so long. I don't get by the computer much these days.)

 

[Crankyfeet]

Sorry its taken awhile. I am having troubles with my computer on long posts. It keeps randomly executing "back" commands and when I go forward I've lost my post. I know, use WORD. But that's too long-winded as well. I was using the copy/paste feature as I went, but I've found its easier to just preview, and then edit.

Anyway, as to be expected, there seems as much chance of you questioning Jesus' existence and your love for him as there is questioning your own kids' existence and your love for them (assuming you have kids).

If your attitude is that it is all about love and less selfishness (which I think is the real benefit experienced by those who find "Jesus" though I am only speculating), then I can understand why you (or any other Christian) have no need to question it. Its positive and real and you will let God worry about paradoxical questions and the 800 million or so Chinese not aware of Jesus' existence.

Personally, I am a big proponent of spirituality and self discovery. But each to his own revelations on that front. I just am concerned at organized religion, and beliefs dictated by a church hierarchy. That is the powderkeg and the vulnerability (to conflict)that lies under the blanket of civilization IMO. I am also concerned by discrimination that comes from being outside the mainstream. In contrast to NNS saying that atheism is trendy and cool, I can say that is definitely not the case in America. You invite ten people over for dinner and let it out that you're an atheist, and I guarantee you will have less people accepting your invitation next time.

Atheists may appear in this thread to be arrogant elitists, but that is not a fair stereotype. I feel there is a lot of frustration that atheists experience that is allowed to be vented in an anonymous forum like this. I've even read my own posts and felt embarassed by the tone of them. Maybe that's the internal turmoil coming out that non-religious people feel as they look into the abyss and see nothing but existence.

OK getting too heavy now. Thanks for respecting my post questions with a well presented and thought(forfood)ful reply.

First, I really enjoy reading your posts also. You are thoughtful and intelligent and stay away from getting personal. It is a great flaw of mine that I do not overlook people who choose that path. Then again, I try really hard not to be perfect.

To answer the origin question, I believe in the infinite and therefore have no problem believing that the origin of all things physical is infinite. I might also add that things like infinity, perfection, morality, etc are concepts beyone the comprehension of a mortal being.


My only answer is that in my pursuit of God (which began at the age of 5, ended in my teens, and resumed in my early 20's), the core belief of Christianity, that Christ died so that we could become one with God, has been the outcome of my search thus far. I do not know what the relationship someone from China, or someone who is Hindu has with the infinite. That is between them and God, and has nothing to do with me. I believe that Christianity is wonderful for someone who is lost and willing to seek a relationship with God. If you have no need because of disbelief or belief in another religion, who am I to tell you that you are wrong?


I have no idea. I know that when Jesus said "none come to the Father but through me," it rings true in my heart. I am also not a judge as to how infinite Christ might have meant that statement. Biblically, I am clearly told that God will harvest where he chooses, and it is not moral to for me to cast damnation upon anyone. If God is infinite and I believe He is, this statement and many others may be quite a bit more inclusive than I will ever know. I do not condemn anyone to hell, that is not my right.


I grew up with a mother who taught Biology and was also a Christian. I have never had a problem understanding that the world evolved over a much longer period than Biblical literalists (usually literalist only on topics of their choosing, but that is another discussion) believe. I have never seen science and the infinite as being mutually exclusive.


They were written by men, who have shown themselves to be wholy unreliable in providing consistent anything. It is a forest/trees thing with me.


I have no beef with those people unless they choose to question my sanity/intelligence because I choose to believe differently.


I believe the nature of God is inherent in everyone. I believe that while I am merely a container for chemical reactions, that there is something more to me. I believe that I have a piece of the infinite called a "soul" that makes me more than that.


I believe that man, be he Christian, atheist, Muslum, etc is endowed with a soul, and that "evil is just as much a part of the divine as good is."(cannot remember who wrote that) We would fight, murder, rape, steal, and commit all acts of hatred regardless of who we are or what we believe. That is what we do as humans, not religious people. Stalin didn't believe in God.


And if you are right, I will never know. That is the beauty of it from my perspective.


The scorecard idea is un-Godly IMO. If there is a scorecard, we are all screwed, I don't care who you are. I would also suggest that you don't abjectly rule out purple blobs, because who knows? There are stranger stories in all faiths.

Let me also say that I do believe that Christ brought the most complete sense of God to earth. The idea that you can act good enough to recieve or deserve God's love was shattered, and from my personal walk, that is a great thing. I do not however know if anyone else will or will not go to hell. That is just something that is not worth pursuing. I have enough on my hands dealing with my walk with Christ. My opinion of whether you should, shouldn't, will, wont, can, can't exist in a relationship with God is irrelevant. Should you ever ask for any of that from me, I will tell you what I know, which is imperfect. Christ does expect that from me, and I will gladly give what another gave to me, but only if someone wants it. Trying it give it to someone who does not want it is pointless.

I will also ask this, remain open to the possibility that God does exist. However, you may be a more content, well adjusted person than I, and have no need to remain open to that. I am quite certain that there are atheists who are, and while I do not wish to learn to live that way, I respect that your answer is yours, and I have no right judge the steps you have taken in life.

 

[Crankyfeet]

As for you, I want to reply, but I can't while you look like Johnny Depp. Where's my cute peach girl?

Naughty people? You mean, like telling fibs and stuff? Or using the "S" word: you know, "stupid"? Ok, I teach pre-K kids. Those are naughty people. I would not be so quick to sneer about the idea of God being disturbed by people abandoned to viciousness. Geez, you guys complain a lot about the evil in the world, yet you believe in a worldview that allows for no true justice. (I find it hard to believe in the concept of justice anyway if we are purposeless beings living a meaningless existence that ends in a pile of dust. )

I have to agree with TFF in that there is more to us than biological machinery. I believe we all have a soul. Maybe you wouldn't call it that, but how do you qualify or quantify what you would call your mind, your thoughts? What is an idea, really?

Have you ever sat at someone's death bed? When you watch someone die, I am telling you, it does not cut it to say, well, their heart stopped beating and now they just aren't going to wake up. The person is just...gone. The biological machinery, the vessel if you will, remains. The person's remains.

As for us pissin' off God, I wonder why he extends so much grace to let us continue on this planet at all. If I were God, and received the treatment He does, and watched what we do to each other, I would have struck everyone down with a bolt of lightning a long time ago. The mystery is why he continues to let us exist and continues eternally to try to have a relationship with us instead of being done with the whole thing. It is the unfathomable grace of God that causes the Christian to love Him.

As for choosing Christianity because it "makes you feel good," you couldn't be further from the truth. It's hard to be a Christian. It's hard to turn away from your own selfish impulses. It is not a path I could follow if I didn't absolutely believe it to be true, and even more, without the actual, real help of the actual real Jesus. And I still lose the battle sometimes (with my self).

On the other hand, I could not have dealt with some of the blows life has had to offer without my faith. You can call that sentimental or weak, but the Lord has definitely had the opportunity to beat the pride out of me and bring me to a humbler state. I could not have faced the pain caused by Hurricane Katrina without my belief and without the very real presence of God in a dark place. Most atheists I know like to think they are above all that; that they are stronger or intellectually superior to people who need a crutch. I will freely admit that Jesus Christ is my crutch. Which isn't even close to accurate. A crutch is too pathetic of a metaphor (analogy, whatever). He is everything.

(Sorry this is so long. I don't get by the computer much these days.)

 

[Hypnospin]

i would like to think not, just the rigid definitions based on interpretation of chapter and verse contained in the manmade written works of poetic storybooks are held by some to be the unquestionable one and only true belief sytem.
this of course results in and attitude of self righteousness and intolerance.
questioning of ones' faith and connection to the concept of god is natural if not healthy.
http://religion.beloblog.com/archives/2007/09/got_a_question_about_mother_te.html
my take is to keep ones' beliefs and pratices as one wishes and do good work but leave the narrow-minded hypocrisy of defining what is true and best for all as unquestionable for oneself and all others to the side.

after all, not doing so is a practice of arrogance and not goodwill.

keep us from not being able to see the cogs for the chain, or something like that...

The divide in this discussion is irreconcilable, methinks.

 

[CDAKIAHONDA]

The subject of god's existence always denegrates to the intrmediate symbolism of worldly dogma. If god, small "g," of force, of initial moment exists then movement itself is evidence. A watch needs winding. Singularity to universal inflation requires an initial force from a state of "nothing at rest" to "everything in motion."

Individually, If the human mind is simply an accident of chemical primordial soup that happened to collide into as complex a creation as can be evidenced, just look at a representation of a DNA strand, then one might hypothisize that input and output from such a biologic accident would be overwhelmingly dependant upon ONLY those inputs of the sensual. That is, from where does the conceptual arise? We'll leave Plato out of it, since as noted, it is an unanswerable question.

Answers to unanswerable questions ARE faith.

"god," small "g" is force, stong...weak...nucleic...or gravitational...or whatever new mystery arises. Plenty of evidence for that.

Religion is "hypothesis," dogma is "rationalization." Take the big "G" of hypothetical rationalization, for intermediate symbols of one religion's superiority over others, then the conclusions are murkier, yet more evident.

"g"od isn't in the details, but in the "everything."

Analogy: Race isn't important if we embrace the concept of "one people, one planet." Get rid of dogmatic beliefs of nationality, color, religion, sex, sexual preference, whatever...remove the intermediate symbols of "human-ness" and concentrate simply on "human."

In the same way, if we de-anthropomorphize, de-sectarianize, and de-limit "G"od's definition (Big "G") the concept reveals itself. "g"od IS the creator, "g"od IS the Universe, the force of creation.

It need not be sentient in our sense of the word, need it?

Now we'll rationalize again, won't we, and in the very first "c"hristian story of man's creation, the author understood the "tragic flaw" of man's ability to rationalize. Well, Woman's ability to rationalize anyway!

 

[thoughtforfood]

The subject of god's existence always denegrates to the intrmediate symbolism of worldly dogma. If god, small "g," of force, of initial moment exists then movement itself is evidence. A watch needs winding. Singularity to universal inflation requires an initial force from a state of "nothing at rest" to "everything in motion."

Individually, If the human mind is simply an accident of chemical primordial soup that happened to collide into as complex a creation as can be evidenced, just look at a representation of a DNA strand, then one might hypothisize that input and output from such a biologic accident would be overwhelmingly dependant upon ONLY those inputs of the sensual. That is, from where does the conceptual arise? We'll leave Plato out of it, since as noted, it is an unanswerable question.

Answers to unanswerable questions ARE faith.

"god," small "g" is force, stong...weak...nucleic...or gravitational...or whatever new mystery arises. Plenty of evidence for that.

Religion is "hypothesis," dogma is "rationalization." Take the big "G" of hypothetical rationalization, for intermediate symbols of one religion's superiority over others, then the conclusions are murkier, yet more evident.

"g"od isn't in the details, but in the "everything."

Analogy: Race isn't important if we embrace the concept of "one people, one planet." Get rid of dogmatic beliefs of nationality, color, religion, sex, sexual preference, whatever...remove the intermediate symbols of "human-ness" and concentrate simply on "human."

In the same way, if we de-anthropomorphize, de-sectarianize, and de-limit "G"od's definition (Big "G") the concept reveals itself. "g"od IS the creator, "g"od IS the Universe, the force of creation.

It need not be sentient in our sense of the word, need it?

Now we'll rationalize again, won't we, and in the very first "c"hristian story of man's creation, the author understood the "tragic flaw" of man's ability to rationalize. Well, Woman's ability to rationalize anyway!

Bravo!

 

[Carrera]

It doesn't make logical sense. We're told God created a garden of paradise and a man called Adam out of the earth. Adam and Eve were supposed to have had no knowledge of good and evil, ethics or morality. The tree of fruit of knowledge was planted in the garden and, naturally, God would have known Adam and eve would take the fruit at some point and commit an act of disobedience (called the fall).
Hence the whole argument for human beings to need a saviour, hundreds of years later on.
So, God created human beings knowing they would fall away and knowing he'd have to send a saviour.
But if the original goal was to create a species of innocents who had no real understanding of ethics or morality, what was the big issue of the tree of knowledge anyway? Besides, God could have simply destroyed Adam and Eve and started again in the blink of an eye. And again after that, as was necessary.

 

[thoughtforfood]

It doesn't make logical sense. We're told God created a garden of paradise and a man called Adam out of the earth. Adam and Eve were supposed to have had no knowledge of good and evil, ethics or morality. The tree of fruit of knowledge was planted in the garden and, naturally, God would have known Adam and eve would take the fruit at some point and commit an act of disobedience (called the fall).
Hence the whole argument for human beings to need a saviour, hundreds of years later on.
So, God created human beings knowing they would fall away and knowing he'd have to send a saviour.
But if the original goal was to create a species of innocents who had no real understanding of ethics or morality, what was the big issue of the tree of knowledge anyway? Besides, God could have simply destroyed Adam and Eve and started again in the blink of an eye. And again after that, as was necessary.

No, I agree completely, and I believe that the story illustrates something other than an actual event. To explain that would take a bit of work, and would obviously necessitate your belief in something it is obvious you do not. This is where the problem arises in that, unless you are at a point where you truly want to understand, it is pointless of me to try to explain. Unfortunately, many Christians continue on trying to explain something from a base of belief that is not shared by the person to whom they speak. That person has no desire to understand because of the base of their belief/or lack thereof.

At the same time, it is pointless for the person who does not believe to submit their reasons that the Christian's belief is nonsensical. I have not desire to enter into a discussion of why my beliefs are illogical, not because I am scared of the debate, but because I know that you will present nothing that will deviate me from my faith. My walk with God was not and is not based on the ideas of another, but upon my personal experience the same as you. It is almost as if we speak two completely different languages, their isn't an interpreter present, and neither one of us wants an interpreter anyway.

That is why I say that it is important for me to be willing to share my faith with someone who has a desire to hear it. To those who do not, it is really a pointless effort, and I would suggest counter productive. I am sure many have been further driven away from belief because someone tried to shove it down their throat. In fact, that was the case with me for a time.

I will always point out the fact that all of science can be brought into doubt because of some basic ideas that have yet to be explained. When one basis their rejection of faith on the inability to prove something, I like to show that because of mass and infinity, their belief in science breaks down also. I have no trouble with evolution, gravity, etc because I choose to believe above doubts that are raised. It is the same with my faith. They are not incompatible as many would suggest. I also like to point out to those who shout about wars over religion that two of the biggest slaughters in the 20th century occurred under two atheist rulers, Mao and Stalin. People kill people irrespective of their individual beliefs.

Finally, if you are happy, and have no need for the pursuit of God, I am truly glad you have found that place.

 

[Felt_Rider]

At the same time, it is pointless for the person who does not believe to submit their reasons that the Christian's belief is nonsensical. I have not desire to enter into a discussion of why my beliefs are illogical, not because I am scared of the debate, but because I know that you will present nothing that will deviate me from my faith. My walk with God was not and is not based on the ideas of another, but upon my personal experience the same as you. It is almost as if we speak two completely different languages, their isn't an interpreter present, and neither one of us wants an interpreter anyway.

That is why I say that it is important for me to be willing to share my faith with someone who has a desire to hear it. To those who do not, it is really a pointless effort, and I would suggest counter productive. I am sure many have been further driven away from belief because someone tried to shove it down their throat. In fact, that was the case with me for a time.

Very well put - IMO
Ditto for me

 

[CDAKIAHONDA]

Unfortunately, many Christians continue on trying to explain something from a base of belief that is not shared by the person to whom they speak. That person has no desire to understand because of the base of their belief/or lack thereof.

At the same time, it is pointless for the person who does not believe to submit their reasons that the Christian's belief is nonsensical.

Therein lies your respective dilemas. You both wish to explain Universal creations AROUND a set of pre-disposed ideas.

The truly innovative ideas come from looking at the process from outside the accepted, and by observing the actual phenomena.

The problems with the discussions from either a Christian, or and athiests perspective, or Islamic, Hindu etc...is that since all the pieces of the puzzle are not in place, the picture can't be seen.

Neither of your "ARGUMENTS*" addresses the actual issue of "god," but rather addresses your individual conceptions of the human explanations. ( *your beliefs are not at issue)

I ask the Christian: "If you could travel back in time, and you saw that Jesus was only the son of man, his ideas of brotherhood and peace were only later co-opted for the purposes of others, would your faith in "god" be shattered?"

And if your answer is "no," then I ask the athiest: "now where do you go with your argument?"

Does the existence of "god" depend upon the stories of humanity? Does the allegorical musings of "the saints" provide the only evidence? Is Adam and Eve really relevant beyond the conceptual? Need they be historical too?

Almost every culture on the planet has looked for god, most have never read the single book that keeps becoming the center of your argument. Is this thread about "the existence of god," or about the literal interpretation of the bible? "It aint the same thing fellas." One of those is a sure-fire loser, the other the "mystery of the Ages."

Does "god" depend upon man for proof of his being? Are the symbols more important than the idea?

 

[thoughtforfood]

Therein lies your respective dilemas. You both wish to explain Universal creations AROUND a set of pre-disposed ideas.

The truly innovative ideas come from looking at the process from outside the accepted, and by observing the actual phenomena.

The problems with the discussions from either a Christian, or and athiests perspective, or Islamic, Hindu etc...is that since all the pieces of the puzzle are not in place, the picture can't be seen.

Neither of your "ARGUMENTS*" addresses the actual issue of "god," but rather addresses your individual conceptions of the human explanations. ( *your beliefs are not at issue)

I ask the Christian: "If you could travel back in time, and you saw that Jesus was only the son of man, his ideas of brotherhood and peace were only later co-opted for the purposes of others, would your faith in "god" be shattered?"

And if your answer is "no," then I ask the athiest: "now where do you go with your argument?"

Does the existence of "god" depend upon the stories of humanity? Does the allegorical musings of "the saints" provide the only evidence? Is Adam and Eve really relevant beyond the conceptual? Need they be historical too?

Almost every culture on the planet has looked for god, most have never read the single book that keeps becoming the center of your argument. Is this thread about "the existence of god," or about the literal interpretation of the bible? "It aint the same thing fellas." One of those is a sure-fire loser, the other the "mystery of the Ages."

Does "god" depend upon man for proof of his being? Are the symbols more important than the idea?

What you miss is that I have no dilema. The basis of my faith is centered not on any given writing, but upon personal experience. The Bible is not the center of my argument. I believe that any faith based solely outside of the realm of personal qualification for proof is flimsy. We each have a criteria on which we base our decision for or against faith. The symbols are merely confirmation of our indivudual decision. The Bible can be used to both "prove" or "disprove" if that is what you choose to use if for. I do not, nor have I tried to.

The existence of God is simple, he either is, or he isn't. The proof you need to determine that is yours. You may share similar ideas with others, but ultimately that will only augment fulfillment of your individual criteria for your present belief.

In fact, the central question is not whether God exists, but whether or not you have faith. God will never be proven or dispriven except in the individual. If you believe otherwise, you are in for a long frustrating observation. Faith always has and will be a necessary component for those who choose to believe in any god.

 

[thoughtforfood]

The truly innovative ideas come from looking at the process from outside the accepted, and by observing the actual phenomena.

You have chosen to quantify this as a "phenomena" and I do not because my faith is centered in something that has satisfied my criteria for faith. You can examine it psychologically, sociologically, scientifically, or in any way you choose and you will not find an answer as to whether or not to have faith unless that is your given criteria for that decision, and that faith would be very easily swayed. It is not mine, and you are therefore promoting an idea that is unimportant to my personal choice. I need no further proof of anything, nor a further examination. I did that already.

 

[jhuskey]

What you miss is that I have no dilema. The basis of my faith is centered not on any given writing, but upon personal experience. The Bible is not the center of my argument. I believe that any faith based solely outside of the realm of personal qualification for proof is flimsy. We each have a criteria on which we base our decision for or against faith. The symbols are merely confirmation of our indivudual decision. The Bible can be used to both "prove" or "disprove" if that is what you choose to use if for. I do not, nor have I tried to.

The existence of God is simple, he either is, or he isn't. The proof you need to determine that is yours. You may share similar ideas with others, but ultimately that will only augment fulfillment of your individual criteria for your present belief.

In fact, the central question is not whether God exists, but whether or not you have faith. God will never be proven or dispriven except in the individual. If you believe otherwise, you are in for a long frustrating observation. Faith always has and will be a necessary component for those who choose to believe in any god.

Good post!

 

[bkaapcke]

Religion packages up the fundamntal lie that everyone wants to hear. That there is something 'after death'. That's why most, if not all, religions have some sort of afterlife. You couldn't 'sell' religion without one. Beyond that, it provided structure to life and a set of rules to live by. This was fairly effective in the days before laws were subject to the consent of the governed. Oh! It also provides an explanation to calm the kids when grandma dies.

The simple fact is, if there weren't a god and an afterlife, we would have to invent them. They're too useful in day to day life. bk

 

[CDAKIAHONDA]

You have chosen to quantify this as a "phenomena" and I do not because my faith is centered in something that has satisfied my criteria for faith. You can examine it psychologically, sociologically, scientifically, or in any way you choose and you will not find an answer as to whether or not to have faith unless that is your given criteria for that decision, and that faith would be very easily swayed. It is not mine, and you are therefore promoting an idea that is unimportant to my personal choice. I need no further proof of anything, nor a further examination. I did that already.

TFF,

Yes, you're correct, and I knew right after I posted that YOUR point was in-fact, not an "argument." I apologize for trying to make a point at your expense. I was simply trying to draw the distinction between the respective belief in "god" and the reliance on "dogma." I am also trying to lay an answer at the foot of the original question, and that was: "Is there evidence for God?"

Need you believe in the bible to believe in god? Are those of a differing sect, yet within the framework of a belief in a higher power, relegated to a position of damnation? Does God transcend religion, or is he constrained by it?

Within our own hearts beats faith, and while I, with whole-heart, agree with you that it is, at present, a question only answerable therein, someday that may change. If the capacity for realizing the divine was originally instilled within us all, and from that revelation ignited the spark of man's higher aspirations and beliefs, then who is to say that further revelation is not possibly forthcoming. It would be a basic tennent of the Christian faith, would it not?

Not being able to prove god now, does not preclude that ability in the future. It is, and should be, enough to simply believe, but as Anselm, 11th Century Bishop of Canterbury said:

"It would be negligent upon becoming firm in our beliefs, that we fail to try and understand WHY we believe WHAT we believe."

God does not depend upon our understanding, but our understanding may most certainly depend upon God.

Peace.