Evidence for God
- Thread starter nns1400
- Start date
Before the degeneration into name calling that assails this, and most, thread(s), someone asked about "the definition of evidence."thoughtforfood said:
If I come accross some tracks in the snow I can surmise that someone, or something has recently passed by. I can determine, if I know the weather "when" the event happened within a window of time, and I might, upon further inspection, be able to also tell you "what" made the tracks. I could upon further inspection before the evidence breaks down try and narrrow down the details of the trespass even further. But I cannot, without direct observation "prove" very much beyond a "general hypothesis" of the event. Some of what I will "believe" about the event will be based on my own personal bias and imagination.
The evidence for god, in my opinion, is like the tracks in the snow.
Well, thoughtforfood, God, The Failed Hypothesis turned out to be a ho-hummer. Stegner made some good arguments, but no blockbusters. Overall, the logic was about as strained as that of Christians trying to prove there is a god.
Not much help. This leaves me with the only uncontrived evidence out there. The behavior of the believers, which makes a fair case against the existance of the christian god. bk
Not much help. This leaves me with the only uncontrived evidence out there. The behavior of the believers, which makes a fair case against the existance of the christian god. bk
Is god dependant upon "religion" or is religion dependant upon "God?" Is the fact of belief, whether right or wrong in application, actually pretty firm evidence? The concept of "a" god, not "the" god is pretty universal (earthly anyway).bkaapcke said:
Is the singing, chanting, praying, killing and general destructive behavior of the "my God is better than your God debate" the actual evidence? Or is it a "by-product" of the evidentiary belief itself? If the behavior is good does it make the concept of god more viable?
I would submit that the "behavior" of "believers," whether good or bad is not the evidence. The belief itself is the evidence, hardly proof, but evidence none-the-less. The application notwithstanding.
I will submit again that in my opinion: "god is not in the "details," god is in the "everything." The details just muddy the water.
So this 'belief' leads the adherents to far worse than average behavior. And we are supposed to infer the existance of a benevolent god from it? Wouldn't we would be better off with the behavior of nonbelievers?
It is interesting how christians walk away from the behavior of their bretheren, whether far in the past, recent past or going on right now. The murder, mayhem, torture or genocidal deceit are apparently "of no consequence". It is only the belief that counts. How convenient.
It is what is wrong with christilans. They are intentionally blind to the real world consequences of their actions. Instead, their focus is on the fantasy of paradise. Actions taken with that belief in mind are somehow automatically OK This is why the rest of us need to be wary of their efforts to gain political power. George Bush is the proof of that. bk
It is interesting how christians walk away from the behavior of their bretheren, whether far in the past, recent past or going on right now. The murder, mayhem, torture or genocidal deceit are apparently "of no consequence". It is only the belief that counts. How convenient.
It is what is wrong with christilans. They are intentionally blind to the real world consequences of their actions. Instead, their focus is on the fantasy of paradise. Actions taken with that belief in mind are somehow automatically OK This is why the rest of us need to be wary of their efforts to gain political power. George Bush is the proof of that. bk
Damn it........ I hate being dyslexic. It just occurred to me after reading this thread for days on end that you guys have been discussing GOD, not "dog" ! I was wondering why anyone would ever discount that dogs existed. It just didn't seem that it was that important ......
Where you were......... i'm going back to my Corona and lime. [size=-1][/size]
Where you were......... i'm going back to my Corona and lime. [size=-1][/size]
The more I think about this "it's the belief" cop out, the more I am amazed at the magnitude of the disconnect. ****** believed in national socialism, does he get a free pass? Nobody would buy that. Why would any of the catholic priesthood even think paradise is in their cards, given that churches history.
The ongoing Genocide Poject in Africa will definitely bar many catholic and evangelical missionaries from any hope of heaven. All it takes is the willingness to make a few simple value judgements, and it becomes clear that many christians are deluding themselves about heaven. Not so much because there is no heaven, but because their behavior, made without regard to the real world consequences, will seal their fate for an eternity to be spent elewhere. And they have such a difficult time when others pass moral judgement on their actions.
Now matter how you look at it, christian behavior doesn't square with their professed beliefs. Whaddya know, it sounds like the standard brand of human hypocrisy, coupled with a callous disregard for the welfare of others, to me. Just like it has always been with them. bk
The ongoing Genocide Poject in Africa will definitely bar many catholic and evangelical missionaries from any hope of heaven. All it takes is the willingness to make a few simple value judgements, and it becomes clear that many christians are deluding themselves about heaven. Not so much because there is no heaven, but because their behavior, made without regard to the real world consequences, will seal their fate for an eternity to be spent elewhere. And they have such a difficult time when others pass moral judgement on their actions.
Now matter how you look at it, christian behavior doesn't square with their professed beliefs. Whaddya know, it sounds like the standard brand of human hypocrisy, coupled with a callous disregard for the welfare of others, to me. Just like it has always been with them. bk
You have "an axe to grind." Perhaps rightly so? My presented idea has nothing to do with "Christianity." I'll type that again...."nothing to do with Chritianity."bkaapcke said:
Religions are interpretive "vehicles" for the "ideas" of god. Religions, like all "social" groups seek to "commonize" those ideas into a set of "beliefs" that both include like minded thinkers and exclude those with a differing perspective. That's human nature and we do it over our family units, peer groups, college alumni, we have clubs and civic organizations within our professional fields, we wave our flags and we have forums for "cyclists." Get it? Not all cyclists believe what you believe about "anything" inclucing "cycling." Cycling exists nonetheless in spite of this fact. (don't pound this point, I know the simplicity of the metaphor and that IS my point.)
Good for you, continue to grind away at the injustice you see, whether perpetrated by "christians" OR "cyclists." Also celebrate and encourage the good from either as well, but see if you can wrap your mind around the possibility that the concept is not dependant on the "translation" of the belief.
It would seem to me that you give "The Christians" too much credit for god. God, if he exists, was around a lot longer than they.
I do not however share your view on Christianity as a WHOLE and I do not indict the entire collection of those who adhere to its principals. I do agree that religion is a collection of ideas that when used to "exclude" often manifests itself in acts of barbarism and hate, some Chistians included. Yet again, some cyclists run red lights, take up the entire lane, ride in cotton, wear black socks, leave gaps, meander from their line too frequently and turn the elastic cuffs of their bibs inside out.
I did not bother to read prior posts because the arguments are always the same. This debate will never end. What I will say, however, is that the onus is on the believers to prove that there is a God. It is highly unlikely. We are merely animals. Nothing more. To believe that there is a God is to live under that grandest and most unforgiving illusion.
I recently read a scholarly article that tested the IQs of believers and non-believers. Non believers scored significantly higher.
I recently read a scholarly article that tested the IQs of believers and non-believers. Non believers scored significantly higher.
Having ran a pub where university professors hung out I could say that my average customer was one of the significantly higher ID'ed individuals you mention.......Strumpetto said:
A personal perception of mine from those days .........
When the IQ goes up, the level of happiness goes down. [Now this is based on professors of course and not a full sample of intelligent people]
And yet when I am around those "rah rah rah God " people, the happiness quota is very high.
And a another observation of mine........ All most all individuals that proclaim themselves to be atheists, seem to be either angry individuals or frustrated.
Just a observation, nothing more........
Personally, I do not have a clue if there is a God.......
Please supply the reference for the above. I doubt your study actually exists beyond the realm of urban legend. Historically, now or into the future. The very concept of god takes conceptual thought processe far above the capabilites of other "animals."Strumpetto said:
In his book "A Brief History of Time" Stephen Hawking addresses the issue of god...
"However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God. (p.193)"
The supposition of "God" IS NOT limited to idiots:
Hawking claimed that when physicists find the theory he and his colleagues are looking for - a so-called "theory of everything" - then they will have seen into "the mind of God". Hawking is by no means the only scientist who has associated God with the laws of physics. Nobel laureate Leon Lederman, for example, has made a link between God and a subatomic particle known as the Higgs boson. Lederman has suggested that when physicists find this particle in their accelerators it will be like looking into the face of God. But what kind of God are these physicists talking about?
That's the REAL question, for you and the rest of us.
Theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg suggests that in fact this is not much of a God at all. Weinberg notes that traditionally the word "God" has meant "an interested personality". But that is not what Hawking and Lederman mean. Their "god", he says, is really just "an abstract principle of order and harmony", a set of mathematical equations. Weinberg questions then why they use the word "god" at all. He makes the rather profound point that "if language is to be of any use to us, then we ought to try and preserve the meaning of words, and 'god' historically has not meant the laws of nature." The question of just what is "God" has taxed theologians for thousands of years; what Weinberg reminds us is to be wary of glib definitions.
I would suggest, again, that the god should not be limited by narrow definitions. God is the creationary force of the Universe. Exclusionary doctrine is the problem, not the answer.
wolfix said:
You've made a bit of an assumption. My University lectureres were very well qualified, but often idiots. One of them even (amusingly) stuck with his case for efficient markets, when the stock markets were plummeting over some earth shattering, irrelevant nonsense that mattered nothing to anyone.
Now, where ever he is today, what ever his view is of God, I couldn't care less if I tried. He's probably up there with the dyslexics trying to figure out if God is an alsation, or a setter, but being entirely convinced that all present known and published information had been discounted into the rate that was paid for said woofer.
Yes I did..... Sometimes we confuse high IQ with actual intelligence used in society. . During my years at the pub I did come across a few highly intelligent individuals that carried themselves well. But I did make an observation that can be applied to a few of them. I saw frustration within them because no one was listening to what they had to say. It is true that they have a captive and basically naive audience in the classroom, but outside the classrooom their opinions carried little weight in the community.KellyT said:
"going along to get along?" Actual intelligence is the "capacity" for reason, not necessarily the application of that reason. Unfortunately, application can be limited by the "filters" of everday human experience that constrict the capacity.wolfix said:
Word games?
When "we stand upon the shoulders of giants" we build by "thinking outside...(I can't actually finish that second axiom, overused as both are
) but the idea is a good one. The filtering process then should be used to "evaluate" the merits of new ideas for both quantitative and qualitative value...truth... application...whatever.Proposing new ideas of scientific, or for that matter, philisophical truth is a function of intelligence. The application at the most minimal acceptable level is a question of "street smarts."
Plato, Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon etc... were all outside the "Box" (****, I succumbed!) and paid for it in one way or another.
To dismiss the concept of god, then, in the absence of imperical "god exclusionary" proof is to then sucumb to the filters created by limited current knowledge.
In other words:
"We live on a flat planet at the center of the universe."
"And yet when I am around those "rah rah rah God " people, the happiness quota is very high."
Intellect and the ability to reason and think is, I guess, an attribute that evolved into humans as a species. Free thinking analysis and an open mind is the fundamental root advancement so, for example, I cannot rule out atheism or religion for certain. Logic, however, would suggest life arose out of some kind of intelligence but the way man-made religion seems to portray this intelligence as related specifically to human beings seems odd to me. That is the idea of an old man sitting on a cloud with a white beard!
When I discuiss the high probability of life on other planets and the sheer number of star systems and galaxies, often those folks who object do so because they prefer to place human beings at the centre of the entire universe. Whatever else may be out there somehow exists as decoration. Yep, God made man in his own image as the centre of everything.
I guess you could say I believe in evolution and natural selection but I believe there is intelligence behind it all, even if not as a specific God. Clearly Darwin was right about a lot of things although I don't buy we evolved from swinging apes to **** sapiens as this hasn't specifically been proven.
Intellect and the ability to reason and think is, I guess, an attribute that evolved into humans as a species. Free thinking analysis and an open mind is the fundamental root advancement so, for example, I cannot rule out atheism or religion for certain. Logic, however, would suggest life arose out of some kind of intelligence but the way man-made religion seems to portray this intelligence as related specifically to human beings seems odd to me. That is the idea of an old man sitting on a cloud with a white beard!
When I discuiss the high probability of life on other planets and the sheer number of star systems and galaxies, often those folks who object do so because they prefer to place human beings at the centre of the entire universe. Whatever else may be out there somehow exists as decoration. Yep, God made man in his own image as the centre of everything.
I guess you could say I believe in evolution and natural selection but I believe there is intelligence behind it all, even if not as a specific God. Clearly Darwin was right about a lot of things although I don't buy we evolved from swinging apes to **** sapiens as this hasn't specifically been proven.
wolfix said:
