The God or Not God Discussion

[Weezy1973]

The Greek word for faith is pistis, which means "firm persuasion; to come to trust". Faith is based on evidence. The sources of evidence may not always be the repeatable, empirical evidence you desire, but that does not mean by default it is not built on evidence.

 

Perhaps, we're defining evidence differently then. However if God actually exists, shouldn't there be repeatable empirical evidence? I'm not talking about experiments done in labs, but just facts and observations?

 

 

The bible can be evaluated for its reliability as a historical document. It is not a circular argument to use a historical document as a source of historical evidence. The fallacy here is you are asserting the bible has no historical value and therefore can not be used a source of historical evidence. Please recall, there are indeed several facts from the New Testament that both secular and Christian historians confirm are factual. That cannot just be dismissed as a circular argument.

 

The agreed upon facts do not include that God exists. Therefore you can't use the bible to try to prove the god that's described in the bible actually exists. That is definitely circular.

 

You are simply asserting that is what people are doing. Instead of evaluating a claim on its own merit, you impute a genetic fallacy and advance that as a refutation. In other words, if I give you evidence for the Christian faith, you dismiss it, not because of the evidence, but because I was born in America?

 

It's just a fact about religious beliefs. The vast majority of people are the same religion as their parents. If you want evidence, just look at the distribution of religions globally. It falls into the exact pattern you would expect if these beliefs were predominantly based tradition and culture. Now compare that to science, and you'll see that scientific theories with substantial evidence to back them up are accepted by scientists in that field globally (i.e. there are no divisions based on country). As one would expect for evidence based beliefs.

 

Confirmation bias is also a fact about people. If you have a deeply held belief, like a religious belief for example, you are more likely to dismiss counter evidence, and accept flimsy evidence that supports your belief. Again, these are just facts.

 

The fact I was born in America has nothing to do with whether Christianity is true of false. Killing the messenger does not invalidate a claim.

 

I didn't mean to make it seem like I was saying that. If someone is born in America, they are more likely to be a Christian than anything else. If someone is born in India they are more likely to be a Hindu than anything else. If someone if born in Afghanistan they are more likely to be a Muslim than anything else. I doesn't mean any of those religions are more true or more false, but it certainly does mean that most people's religious beliefs have nothing to do with the truth.

 

What about our signatures? Have a good Fourth Weezy (apologies if you don't live in USA).

 

...purposefully ignoring the facts about our signatures...

 

 

And thanks and happy Fourth to you! I'm Canadian, but I love our friends to the South!

[Weezy1973]

Faith and trust seem to be almost synonymous.

 

Yup - I think the semantics of my semantics got all mixed up...

 

I suggest reading up on the validity or accuracy of historical knowledge and evidence. I imagine that there are many things that you willingly believe that have been verified with archeology etc. But when it comes to religion, you probably have an extra-stringent barometer for what can be accepted as evidence. Doesn't seem to create an even playing field.

 

Not at all. As I've said before, I'm equally skeptical of all supernatural claims. And I think we should be! I wonder why you're not? Is it just your religion you're not skeptical of, or is it all religions? Do you think Mormonism is probably true? Scientology?

 

So, if Plato wrote an auto-biographical work, and many of the events he wrote about were confirmed through many other avenues (alternate writings, archeological finds, sociological studies, etc), would you discount it?

 

If there were supernatural claims, I would need a lot of evidence - way more so than just if it were naturally occurring events. As we all should.

 

 

Science will never answer the "why" about this life. God does.

 

Again, you're assuming the god you already believe in exists. Maybe there isn't a why. Why do you assume there is?

 

Are you saying that it would be better if scientists could just program our minds to believe "truth" and just the "truth"? Then we wouldn't have any of these messy disagreements!

 

Yikes! No! I don't want anybody programming our minds! And messy disagreements are kind of fun...

 

 

But what about free will? If you're free to think how you want, why does it bother you if a Christian does?

 

It really doesn't bother me what other people believe. Whether they be Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or agnostic or atheist...people can believe whatever they want.

 

If you don't mind me asking, how did you come to know Christ in the beginning? Did you grow up in the church?

 

Nope - secular upbringing. A lot of my extended family are Christian though, and I have Christian friends and have been in relationships with some Christian women throughout the years.

 

I agree that the night sky "declares God's glory" (Psalm 19:1) , but was there anything else? I only ask, because the life of following Christ isn't easy. I find I need a lot more that the sky to help me try to stay on the "narrow path".

 

I think the message that Jesus taught (mostly comes down to love) is wonderful. I don't believe any of the supernatural stuff though. Even if god doesn't exist, that doesn't diminish the power of that message.

[cerridwen]

 

Anyway, I'd like your thoughts/discussions on the matter of God (or not God) and how that working for you... (this question doesn't limit the thread direction though)

 

God.

 

 

For the last 15 or so minutes I've been standing here looking out my front window.

You know how sometimes you just arent in the mood to talk to people?

Well, my neighbor is outside watering and I'm waiting for her to leave so I can run out and jump in my car.

I can wait all day if necessary, my purse slung over my arm, peeking through the blinds, waiting.

 

Now tell me I don't need Jesus.

Edited July 5, 2015 by cerridwen

[autumnnight]

Yup - I think the semantics of my semantics got all mixed up...

 

 

 

Not at all. As I've said before, I'm equally skeptical of all supernatural claims. And I think we should be! I wonder why you're not? Is it just your religion you're not skeptical of, or is it all religions? Do you think Mormonism is probably true? Scientology?

 

 

 

If there were supernatural claims, I would need a lot of evidence - way more so than just if it were naturally occurring events. As we all should.

 

 

 

 

Again, you're assuming the god you already believe in exists. Maybe there isn't a why. Why do you assume there is?

 

 

 

Yikes! No! I don't want anybody programming our minds! And messy disagreements are kind of fun...

 

 

 

 

It really doesn't bother me what other people believe. Whether they be Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or agnostic or atheist...people can believe whatever they want.

 

 

 

Nope - secular upbringing. A lot of my extended family are Christian though, and I have Christian friends and have been in relationships with some Christian women throughout the years.

 

 

 

I think the message that Jesus taught (mostly comes down to love) is wonderful. I don't believe any of the supernatural stuff though. Even if god doesn't exist, that doesn't diminish the power of that message.

 

Weezy, I really appreciate that you have the intelligence, empathy, and emotional intelligence to respect people even if you do not agree with them. That speaks very well of you

[pie2]

Not at all. As I've said before, I'm equally skeptical of all supernatural claims. And I think we should be! I wonder why you're not? Is it just your religion you're not skeptical of, or is it all religions? Do you think Mormonism is probably true? Scientology?

 

No. I don't think Mormonism or Scientology are true. For many reasons.

 

But, just from a circumstantial POV, which would you rather believe:

 

• A religion based on events testified by countless people, and based on a man who was surrounded by 12 disciples who also testified to what they saw/experienced, and by declaring their faith in Jesus were met with estrangement, torture and/or death?
  

OR

 

 

 

• A religion based on the "revealed truth" provided to one man, with no witnesses to verify anything, and to whom that one "enlightened prophet" stood to benefit in many ways (financially, socially, etc) based on what God revealed?
  

 

 

Just on the ability to verify claims, would you prefer one over the other?

 

 

There are countless other reasons I don't believe in Mormonism or Scientology, but this is just one basic difference when considering historical evidence: the claims should be verified by more than one source (imo).

 

Yikes! No! I don't want anybody programming our minds! And messy disagreements are kind of fun...

 

lol, yeah, you're right!

 

Nope - secular upbringing. A lot of my extended family are Christian though, and I have Christian friends and have been in relationships with some Christian women throughout the years.

 

Oh, sorry Weezy! This question was for OpenBook .

 

I think the message that Jesus taught (mostly comes down to love) is wonderful. I don't believe any of the supernatural stuff though. Even if god doesn't exist, that doesn't diminish the power of that message.

 

I agree...it is a wonderful message .

 

Have you heard of the "Lewis Trilemma" (basically, Jesus was either Lord, a Liar or a Lunatic)? If you're interested in expanding, what are your thoughts about that?

[Rejected Rosebud]

We don't need or want evidence of God, we can believe in science and God all at the same time, even Evolution and dinosaurs, because it's about FAITH not empirical evidence.

[Haydn]

God.

 

 

For the last 15 or so minutes I've been standing here looking out my front window.

You know how sometimes you just arent in the mood to talk to people?

Well, my neighbor is outside watering and I'm waiting for her to leave so I can run out and jump in my car.

I can wait all day if necessary, my purse slung over my arm, peeking through the blinds, waiting.

 

Now tell me I don't need Jesus.

 

Maybe, but throw a `cake` into the mix..........

[Weezy1973]

No. I don't think Mormonism or Scientology are true. For many reasons.

 

But, just from a circumstantial POV, which would you rather believe:

 

• A religion based on events testified by countless people, and based on a man who was surrounded by 12 disciples who also testified to what they saw/experienced, and by declaring their faith in Jesus were met with estrangement, torture and/or death?
  

OR

 

 

 

• A religion based on the "revealed truth" provided to one man, with no witnesses to verify anything, and to whom that one "enlightened prophet" stood to benefit in many ways (financially, socially, etc) based on what God revealed?
  

 

 

Just on the ability to verify claims, would you prefer one over the other?

 

 

There are countless other reasons I don't believe in Mormonism or Scientology, but this is just one basic difference when considering historical evidence: the claims should be verified by more than one source (imo).

 

So when it comes to whether or not any gods exist, none of the above would be sufficient evidence. And to be clear, you're misrepresenting how valid a historical document the bible really is. It is, above all, a religious document, and should be viewed as such first and foremost. In reality, all we know about Jesus is what the authors of the books in the bible decided to tell us. So we need to take it with a grain of salt.

 

But most importantly, if Yahweh actually exists today, there should be evidence of that today. If there is 100% certainty that Yahweh exists, the evidence should be just as compelling as every other fact with an equal degree of certainty. Relying on a religious document written 2000 years + ago should not be nearly enough evidence for anybody!

 

And to be clear, the question of whether or not God exists is a really important question. If God really doesn't exist, I'd guess that it would drastically change the lives of many of the believers if they found that out. And same with the opposite. I know as a non-believer, my life would change drastically if I found out that God actually exists. And that doesn't even get to the possibility that a god might exist, but it might not be the Christian god. That again would (and should!) change our lives drastically.

 

There absolutely should be rigorous attempts to discover evidence of the existence of God. And I don't mean of the historical nature. I mean current evidence. For example if prayer actually works better than say the placebo effect, this can and should be tested with the same rigor that we test for new drugs. If it is found that prayer works given strict experimental design, we would have to conclude that it is very likely that god exists (depending on what god was prayed to of course). But if there is no measurable effect, we would have to conclude that it's more likely than not that that particular god doesn't exist.

 

Have you heard of the "Lewis Trilemma" (basically, Jesus was either Lord, a Liar or a Lunatic)? If you're interested in expanding, what are your thoughts about that?

 

Just read about it through your link. I think it's likely a false "trichotomy". There are other, very reasonable options.

[pie2]

So when it comes to whether or not any gods exist, none of the above would be sufficient evidence.

 

That wasn't the question.

 

And to be clear, you're misrepresenting how valid a historical document the bible really is. It is, above all, a religious document, and should be viewed as such first and foremost. In reality, all we know about Jesus is what the authors of the books in the bible decided to tell us. So we need to take it with a grain of salt.

 

I guess we disagree about that.

 

But most importantly, if Yahweh actually exists today, there should be evidence of that today. If there is 100% certainty that Yahweh exists, the evidence should be just as compelling as every other fact with an equal degree of certainty. Relying on a religious document written 2000 years + ago should not be nearly enough evidence for anybody!

 

Doesn't work that way right now. One day you will have 100% certainty...I just hope it's not too late.

 

And to be clear, the question of whether or not God exists is a really important question. If God really doesn't exist, I'd guess that it would drastically change the lives of many of the believers if they found that out. And same with the opposite. I know as a non-believer, my life would change drastically if I found out that God actually exists. And that doesn't even get to the possibility that a god might exist, but it might not be the Christian god. That again would (and should!) change our lives drastically.

 

Obviously! But I really think I'll have lost nothing if I'm wrong. In fact, even if it were proven that there were no God, I still feel grateful for who I am today, having known God. On the other hand, if a non-believer is wrong there could be drastic consequences. Just sayin!

 

There absolutely should be rigorous attempts to discover evidence of the existence of God. And I don't mean of the historical nature. I mean current evidence. For example if prayer actually works better than say the placebo effect, this can and should be tested with the same rigor that we test for new drugs. If it is found that prayer works given strict experimental design, we would have to conclude that it is very likely that god exists (depending on what god was prayed to of course). But if there is no measurable effect, we would have to conclude that it's more likely than not that that particular god doesn't exist.

 

Sorry Weezy. I am not convinced that you use these ultra-stringent requirements to make your opinions about most everything else in your daily life. Obviously, God's existence (or not) should be held to a high standard. But your standard of evidence doesn't match up with how you view anything else.

 

God's existence is of utmost importance to many. And it seems to be somewhat important to you too. But, alas, you don't believe. So what do you believe in, and what is important to you? Friends, family? Happiness? Yourself?

 

Let's say friends and family are important to you. Ok. So, what do you know about your family? Have you heard stories about past relatives? How did you hear those stories? Do you believe they're true? What do you believe about past stories about your friend's families? What about the history of your community? Your country? The world? How do you KNOW any of it is true?

 

Well, you certainly haven't personally verified every document, every record, every statement you've heard about your family, friends, community or nation, and yet you believe in their histories. You've gathered evidence in other ways. You've listened to trusted confidants. You've read historical accounts. You've trusted experts to do the verifying.

 

So, you've accepted a reality about the MOST important thing in your life (hypothetically, of course...you can change this example to whatever is most important to you). But you haven't possibly been able to gather reproducible, clinically-based, methodological, scientific evidence on even your dearest beliefs!

 

Again, I think there is an unrealistic and unfair (unfair because you don't demand it for any other area of belief) bias against what you demand to know about God and Jesus. That's just my opinion! But, it seems like you are very determined to maintain this line of thinking right now. So, I wish you all the best in your journey towards continued spiritual enlightenment (or not! ).

 

Just read about it through your link. I think it's likely a false "trichotomy". There are other, very reasonable options.

 

Such as? Why is it important to think that he was just a "good person", rather than one of the options presented by Lewis?

[TheFinalWord]

if God actually exists, shouldn't there be repeatable empirical evidence? I'm not talking about experiments done in labs, but just facts and observations?

 

Can you give some examples?

 

The agreed upon facts do not include that God exists. Therefore you can't use the bible to try to prove the god that's described in the bible actually exists. That is definitely circular.

 

Please note, I have never claimed anything about proof. However, I do think the bible is a historical document. I do not agree that someone can simply discount a historical document without good reason (confirmation bias?). There is a consensus of historical facts about Jesus that I have conveyed. Where are they derived? There are external sources, but the main sources are the gospels, which are viewed as historical documents. It is very much permitted for me to put forward historical facts about Jesus (not proof!). I do not recall saying that proves anything. To me, it does offer evidence about Jesus. Without these sources, I would not know anything at all about Christ, except for what society teaches. As you pointed out, society can be corrupted. However, as I have the actual gospels for myself, I can read and study them independently and make my own decision. It was not always like that. William Tyndale was the first to draw on the Hebrew and Greek text and was eventually executed for it.

 

It's just a fact about religious beliefs. The vast majority of people are the same religion as their parents. If you want evidence, just look at the distribution of religions globally. It falls into the exact pattern you would expect if these beliefs were predominantly based tradition and culture. Now compare that to science, and you'll see that scientific theories with substantial evidence to back them up are accepted by scientists in that field globally (i.e. there are no divisions based on country). As one would expect for evidence based beliefs.

 

It's really a moot point though. It does not do anything to substantiate a claim, or dismantle it. At one point, there were no Christians outside of the small areas the apostles preached, now it is global. Christianity spread outside of only the middle eastern world to completely foreign cultures. Even to cultures that were initially hostile to it (the apostles were executed for their beliefs). Why? That is complex question, but the fact that it did spread shows that simplifying Christianity to "people believe b/c their parents" is greatly oversimplifying things.

 

But if this going to be used as some sort of argument against Christianity, I can just as easily and fallaciously appeal to majority opinion and state that since so many people believe in Christianity, that counts as evidence. I would never do that, but that is the same line of logic being used when a genetic fallacy is advanced as some sort of counter evidence.

 

Confirmation bias is also a fact about people. If you have a deeply held belief, like a religious belief for example, you are more likely to dismiss counter evidence, and accept flimsy evidence that supports your belief. Again, these are just facts.

 

There are a number of cognitive biases that exist. I have not received any counter evidence that God does not exist, so I am not dismissing anything that I am aware of?

[Weezy1973]

That wasn't the question.

 

That's because you misrepresented the facts. What's written in the bible can't be taken as circumstantial evidence because we don't know if it's a factual account of what really happened. For example, most Christians take Genesis as an allegory. Some Christians, mostly in the US, think Genesis is a literal historical account of the creation of the universe, earth, animals and humans. Both groups believe their interpretation completely. Which one is true?

 

 

I guess we disagree about that.

 

Which is fine, but to be clear, that doesn't make it a 50/50 proposition. Like in my example above, there are a significant amount of Christians that believe that Genesis is an historical account of the creation of our universe. There is an overwhelming amount of compelling evidence to suggest those beliefs are wrong. Just because we agree to disagree doesn't mean it's just as likely that Creationism is true as not true. The evidence shows pretty clearly that Creationism is not true. Yet people still believe it very strongly. And the ones I've spoken to are clearly very intelligent and their belief is quite well thought out. But they're still very likely wrong. Confirmation bias at it's strongest...

 

 

Doesn't work that way right now. One day you will have 100% certainty...I just hope it's not too late.

 

I was wondering if we would see Pascal's Wager...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

 

 

Obviously! But I really think I'll have lost nothing if I'm wrong. In fact, even if it were proven that there were no God, I still feel grateful for who I am today, having known God. On the other hand, if a non-believer is wrong there could be drastic consequences. Just sayin!

 

Well, if Islam is true, we're both spending an eternity in damnation. So if you're wrong in that regard, you certainly would pay a stiff consequence...

 

Sorry Weezy. I am not convinced that you use these ultra-stringent requirements to make your opinions about most everything else in your daily life. Obviously, God's existence (or not) should be held to a high standard. But your standard of evidence doesn't match up with how you view anything else.

 

You are right. But extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence - and they should. Day to day natural events don't require nearly the same standard of evidence. If somebody came to you and said they were dead and then came back to life a few days later would you believe them?

 

 

God's existence is of utmost importance to many. And it seems to be somewhat important to you too. But, alas, you don't believe. So what do you believe in, and what is important to you? Friends, family? Happiness? Yourself?

 

What's important to me is what is actually true. What I believe is far less important, as I know I'm human and fallible and limited and my beliefs could very likely be wrong. A quest for truth is far more interesting.

 

Let's say friends and family are important to you. Ok. So, what do you know about your family? Have you heard stories about past relatives? How did you hear those stories? Do you believe they're true? What do you believe about past stories about your friend's families? What about the history of your community? Your country? The world? How do you KNOW any of it is true?

 

I don't know any of it is true, but the events that I believe to be likely true are events that can be explained by the natural laws of our universe. Unlike things like turning water into wine, walking on water, faith healing, or coming back from death. Not to mention talking snakes. Or an omniscient, omnipotent, personal God that listens to an answers prayers.

 

Well, you certainly haven't personally verified every document, every record, every statement you've heard about your family, friends, community or nation, and yet you believe in their histories. You've gathered evidence in other ways. You've listened to trusted confidants. You've read historical accounts. You've trusted experts to do the verifying.

 

But none of the claims are extraordinary, therefore the standard of evidence is lower.

 

So, you've accepted a reality about the MOST important thing in your life (hypothetically, of course...you can change this example to whatever is most important to you). But you haven't possibly been able to gather reproducible, clinically-based, methodological, scientific evidence on even your dearest beliefs!

 

Again, I think there is an unrealistic and unfair (unfair because you don't demand it for any other area of belief) bias against what you demand to know about God and Jesus. That's just my opinion! But, it seems like you are very determined to maintain this line of thinking right now. So, I wish you all the best in your journey towards continued spiritual enlightenment (or not! ).

 

 

Again, I'll ask you to be a bit introspective to try to determine your natural reaction if someone you knew said that they died, were dead for a few days, and then came back to life. Would you require more evidence than just them saying it or would you believe them? It's quite the extraordinary claim and counters everything we actually have learned about biology. For me, I know I'd want medical records, witnesses, preferably some sort of video of the death, any kind of life support monitors etc. Even if there were a bunch of other people that said, yeah he totally died and now he's alive again, I would still be pretty skeptical. It would be like someone that claimed to have traveled faster than the speed of light.

 

 

 

 

Such as? Why is it important to think that he was just a "good person", rather than one of the options presented by Lewis?

[Weezy1973]

Double posted....boooo

Edited July 12, 2015 by Weezy1973
Double post....

[Weezy1973]

Can you give some examples?

 

Well, I've given an example of something that is extremely likely to be true (a tiger). There is so much compelling evidence that tigers exist that it is just considered a fact about the universe we live in. So that could be considered the "gold standard". For all intents and purposes, we can just say that our certainty is 100% that tigers exist.

 

At a slightly lower degree of certainty would be things like, the earth being round, revolving around the sun, spinning on it's axis, Jupiter having more than 60 moons etc. But still, I'd assume that if I questioned any of these claims, experts in the field could hypothetically show me compelling evidence to convince me they are true, even though I don't have direct access to that information.

 

At a lower degree still, would be the claim that there is life elsewhere in the universe. For this we literally have no direct evidence at all. In fact, at the moment the only thing we have to go on is probability. Given the amount of galaxies and planets in the universe it is more likely than not that life exists on other planets.

 

At the bottom end of the spectrum would be something like the tooth fairy. It is very unlikely that the tooth fairy exists - keeping in mind we can never prove a negative.

 

 

So with this "Weezy Scale of Certainty" where does the evidence for the existence of Yahweh fall? Again, I'll reiterate that nobody has yet in this thread provided any evidence that any gods exist. So from what I can see, one must (given there has been no evidence provided) conclude it's closer to the tooth fairy end than it is to the tiger.

 

Please note, I have never claimed anything about proof. However, I do think the bible is a historical document. I do not agree that someone can simply discount a historical document without good reason (confirmation bias?).

 

Historical documents are subject to interpretation. In fact all historical accounts are just interpretations of history. The bible is primarily a religious document. It is a collection of books selected by the leaders of a religious movement to promote the belief in that religion. There are historical aspects of it, to be certain, but first an foremost it is a religious document. Most Christians agree with me as they consider the bible to be scripture. If you're saying that the bible should be viewed firstly as an accurate representation of history, most historians will vehemently disagree with you. Most theologians would too. And of course you'd need sufficient evidence outside of the bible to support your claims...

 

There is a consensus of historical facts about Jesus that I have conveyed.

 

Which, as I've noted multiple times, are that Jesus lived, was baptized, taught, and was crucified. You've tried to expand what the consensus is to include other things, like the empty tomb, but there is hardly consensus on that. Just bear in mind that there are a number of historians that don't think Jesus ever lived and it is all just a mythology. I'm not saying that is a popular position, or one that I hold, but it is a position. Just like the empty tomb being a fact is a position.

 

Where are they derived? There are external sources, but the main sources are the gospels, which are viewed as historical documents. It is very much permitted for me to put forward historical facts about Jesus (not proof!).

 

Again, I think our definition of "fact" is different. The gospels were books that were written to promote Christianity - they weren't written for the purpose of preserving history.

 

I do not recall saying that proves anything. To me, it does offer evidence about Jesus. Without these sources, I would not know anything at all about Christ, except for what society teaches. As you pointed out, society can be corrupted. However, as I have the actual gospels for myself, I can read and study them independently and make my own decision.

 

Which lends itself to a good question. As the thread title is God or Not God, if you didn't have access to any religious texts (such as the bible), and weren't taught to believe any religion, would your observations of the world lend you to believe that any gods exist?

 

It's really a moot point though. It does not do anything to substantiate a claim, or dismantle it. At one point, there were no Christians outside of the small areas the apostles preached, now it is global. Christianity spread outside of only the middle eastern world to completely foreign cultures. Even to cultures that were initially hostile to it (the apostles were executed for their beliefs). Why? That is complex question, but the fact that it did spread shows that simplifying Christianity to "people believe b/c their parents" is greatly oversimplifying things.

 

It spread due to politics. The Roman Empire made Christianity the state religion, and countries that were part of the Roman Empire became predominantly Christian. It wasn't until a few hundred years ago that the separation of church and state became an important principle in politics and as such we are still experiencing the effects of a state religion. That being said, most people are the same religion as their parents. Again this is just a fact, simple or not.

 

But if this going to be used as some sort of argument against Christianity, I can just as easily and fallaciously appeal to majority opinion and state that since so many people believe in Christianity, that counts as evidence. I would never do that, but that is the same line of logic being used when a genetic fallacy is advanced as some sort of counter evidence.

 

How do you explain the religious beliefs of those that are different from our own? About 1.5 billion people are Muslims - and you clearly think they're all wrong. Are they deluded? Victims of culture and family and confirmation bias?

 

 

There are a number of cognitive biases that exist. I have not received any counter evidence that God does not exist, so I am not dismissing anything that I am aware of?

 

I'm kind of surprised about this comment. You can't prove a negative (i.e. you can't find evidence that something doesn't exist). It's up to those claiming that something does exist to provide the evidence. And that's what I'm doing here. If you're claiming that Yahweh exists, show me the evidence. Is it as compelling as the evidence that tigers exist is? Do you you have the same certainty that Yahweh exists that you do that tigers exist?

Edited July 12, 2015 by Weezy1973

[BC1980]

There absolutely should be rigorous attempts to discover evidence of the existence of God. And I don't mean of the historical nature. I mean current evidence. For example if prayer actually works better than say the placebo effect, this can and should be tested with the same rigor that we test for new drugs. If it is found that prayer works given strict experimental design, we would have to conclude that it is very likely that god exists (depending on what god was prayed to of course). But if there is no measurable effect, we would have to conclude that it's more likely than not that that particular god doesn't exist.

 

This experiment could never be carried out, which I'm sure you know and was your point. I am a Christian, but I will be the first to say that there is no empirical evidence of God. There is absolutely no logic to prove that Jesus did what he said he did. Likely, I'm a Christian because my parents are Christians, and I really like the idea of Christianity being true. It gives me comfort. Half of the time I think that religion is just one big coping mechanism that we have developed.

 

I'd really love it if Christianity were true, but I've never read anything that has proven that to me. I've read a good deal of biblical scholarship over the years, and the closest anyone can come is the idea that the writers of the Bible all believed what they were writing. And that is from Conservative scholars. The consensus of Conservative scholars is that the New Testament survived in a nearly pure form considering its age, and the writers definitely believed what they wrote. That's as close as we can get.

[BC1980]

However, I do see religion as a futile attempt to quantify and qualify that which is beyond us... not to say that it will always be beyond us to understand.

 

This is basically it. Take mental illness for example. In the grand scheme of things, we have only recently begun to treat mental illness as a medical illness. For many thousands of years, most people thought that someone with a mental illness was possessed by demons or being punished by God. Humanity simply used religion to define something they didn't understand.

[TheFinalWord]

If you're saying that the bible should be viewed firstly as an accurate representation of history, most historians will vehemently disagree with you. Most theologians would too. And of course you'd need sufficient evidence outside of the bible to support your claims...

 

What I am saying in this specific case is the gospels can be used as evidence. I think we are just straining at details here friend

 

I provided you with a list of historical facts, derived from the gospels, that even secular historians agree with (that they too take from the gospels). You also seem to agree that Jesus existed? Why? Were are you getting your facts from? My guess is the gospels. Which is all I am stating. The historical facts about Jesus are derived from the gospels. Agree or disagree?

 

Again, I think our definition of "fact" is different. The gospels were books that were written to promote Christianity - they weren't written for the purpose of preserving history.

 

I have provided a list of historical facts about the life and death of Jesus. You seem to agree with those. I don't think we disagree about the facts.

 

So with this "Weezy Scale of Certainty" where does the evidence for the existence of Yahweh fall? Again, I'll reiterate that nobody has yet in this thread provided any evidence that any gods exist. So from what I can see, one must (given there has been no evidence provided) conclude it's closer to the tooth fairy end than it is to the tiger.

 

Please not with the tooth fairy again. lol Am I making any headway? lol

 

According to Christianity, Jesus is God. So, again, a false analogy of comparing the tooth fairy to the Christian God is incorrect.

 

Just bear in mind that there are a number of historians that don't think Jesus ever lived and it is all just a mythology. I'm not saying that is a popular position, or one that I hold, but it is a position. Just like the empty tomb being a fact is a position.

 

Some historians think that, but they are a minority.

 

It spread due to politics. The Roman Empire made Christianity the state religion, and countries that were part of the Roman Empire became predominantly Christian. It wasn't until a few hundred years ago that the separation of church and state became an important principle in politics and as such we are still experiencing the effects of a state religion. That being said, most people are the same religion as their parents. Again this is just a fact, simple or not.

 

Well I am confident I know your opinion of this. I still say it is a moot point; invoking a genetic fallacy does not do anything to test the truth of Christianity.

 

How do you explain the religious beliefs of those that are different from our own? About 1.5 billion people are Muslims - and you clearly think they're all wrong. Are they deluded? Victims of culture and family and confirmation bias?

 

I believe I answered this before.

 

Which lends itself to a good question. As the thread title is God or Not God, if you didn't have access to any religious texts (such as the bible), and weren't taught to believe any religion, would your observations of the world lend you to believe that any gods exist?

 

I think so. The idea of general revelation of God's existence probably explains why so many cultures, separated by time and distance, invoke the divine. However, it's a hypothetical situation so who knows. I also think I have answered this before.

 

I'm kind of surprised about this comment. You can't prove a negative (i.e. you can't find evidence that something doesn't exist). It's up to those claiming that something does exist to provide the evidence. And that's what I'm doing here. If you're claiming that Yahweh exists, show me the evidence. Is it as compelling as the evidence that tigers exist is? Do you you have the same certainty that Yahweh exists that you do that tigers exist?

 

Yes, you can provide evidence that things do not exist. There are no married bachelors. It's a logical contradiction, very easy to prove none exist.

 

I bring this up because you mention confirmation bias in every reply, which is leading me to think you are accusing me of this? If you are, please show me where I am committing confirmation bias. Are you are stating that I am ignoring evidence? What specific evidence am I ignoring?

 

Jesus is Yahweh, according to Christianity. You're not the first to request this. Jesus already answered:

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip?

 

I think you agree Jesus existed. If you want me to demonstrate that Jesus is Yahweh, to me that would be more of a theological debate.

Edited July 12, 2015 by TheFinalWord
deleted a portion as it seemed to be redundant

[pureinheart]

This is basically it. Take mental illness for example. In the grand scheme of things, we have only recently begun to treat mental illness as a medical illness. For many thousands of years, most people thought that someone with a mental illness was possessed by demons or being punished by God. Humanity simply used religion to define something they didn't understand.

 

Would you agree that some mental illness is demonic? Or a result of sin? This is why I believe some if not most mental illness is demonic or had demonic origins...

 

Just want to add that dabbling in or with the occult opens doors to the demonic realm.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIQYfL2JVDk

 

She works with brain trauma patients, but this can be used to change your mind no matter what the illness.

[autumnnight]

Would you agree that some mental illness is demonic? Or a result of sin? This is why I believe some if not most mental illness is demonic or had demonic origins...

 

Just want to add that dabbling in or with the occult opens doors to the demonic realm.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIQYfL2JVDk

 

She works with brain trauma patients, but this can be used to change your mind no matter what the illness.

 

No. If you look at brain and pet scans of people with certain mental illnesses, you can see the difference. And body chemistry is medical, not spiritual.

 

This whole "you're not ill, you're demon-possessed" idea is what makes people too ashamed to get help.

 

You can't "pray and exorcise" away a physical illness within the brain.

[BC1980]

Would you agree that some mental illness is demonic? Or a result of sin? This is why I believe some if not most mental illness is demonic or had demonic origins...

 

Just want to add that dabbling in or with the occult opens doors to the demonic realm.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIQYfL2JVDk

 

She works with brain trauma patients, but this can be used to change your mind no matter what the illness.

 

I clicked on the link, but I don't have the time to watch it right now. I would say that based on the facts we have, I don't feel that mental illness is of demonic origin/the result of sin. Of course, the problem is that we can't prove it's not either. So we have to go on the facts that we do have, which would lead us to the conclusion that mental illness is, for all intents and purposes, a medical illness.

 

I think we'd also have to ask if any type of illness is borne of sin/demons. Of course, there is no way to do a study on this or prove it with facts. I think the idea that mental illness or any type of illness is a punishment from God is the result of humankind trying to control the uncontrollable. If we think there is a cause and effect in seemingly random illnesses, we can attempt to tame it. We hate to admit that it's usually the luck of the draw when it comes to many illnesses. We hate that we can't control certain aspects of our lives. I hate that too, but it's just the reality.

[BC1980]

No. If you look at brain and pet scans of people with certain mental illnesses, you can see the difference. And body chemistry is medical, not spiritual.

 

This whole "you're not ill, you're demon-possessed" idea is what makes people too ashamed to get help.

 

You can't "pray and exorcise" away a physical illness within the brain.

 

I meant to mention this too. We also know that people with mental illness (and addiction, which is considered mental illness by some) have different levels of dopamine and serotonin in their brains. We also know that certain environmental factors (abuse, rape) can contribute to certain mental illnesses or possibly heighten it in someone already prone to such. We also know it runs in families, so there could be a genetic link.

[BC1980]

What I am saying in this specific case is the gospels can be used as evidence. I think we are just straining at details here friend

 

I provided you with a list of historical facts, derived from the gospels, that even secular historians agree with (that they too take from the gospels). You also seem to agree that Jesus existed? Why? Were are you getting your facts from? My guess is the gospels. Which is all I am stating. The historical facts about Jesus are derived from the gospels. Agree or disagree?

 

Most scholars agree that Jesus probably existed. You could also prove that his followers believed what they wrote in the gospels. His followers believed he was God and rose from the dead, among other supernatural events. But you can't prove that what Jesus claimed is fact. You simply can't do it. Just like you can't prove God exists using logic.

 

Trying to use logic to prove that Christianity is true is not a battle you will ever win. You are much better off approaching it from a different angle, such as talking about how the message of Jesus differs from other religions.

[pureinheart]

I clicked on the link, but I don't have the time to watch it right now. I would say that based on the facts we have, I don't feel that mental illness is of demonic origin/the result of sin. Of course, the problem is that we can't prove it's not either. So we have to go on the facts that we do have, which would lead us to the conclusion that mental illness is, for all intents and purposes, a medical illness.

 

I think we'd also have to ask if any type of illness is borne of sin/demons. Of course, there is no way to do a study on this or prove it with facts. I think the idea that mental illness or any type of illness is a punishment from God is the result of humankind trying to control the uncontrollable. If we think there is a cause and effect in seemingly random illnesses, we can attempt to tame it. We hate to admit that it's usually the luck of the draw when it comes to many illnesses. We hate that we can't control certain aspects of our lives. I hate that too, but it's just the reality.

 

Give it a try BC, with you being in the medical field you'll find it fascinating. This link doesn't go into the medical as much, but her other links go in depth with neuroplasticity. It changed my life and literally saved my life.

[pureinheart]

No. If you look at brain and pet scans of people with certain mental illnesses, you can see the difference. And body chemistry is medical, not spiritual.

 

This whole "you're not ill, you're demon-possessed" idea is what makes people too ashamed to get help.

 

You can't "pray and exorcise" away a physical illness within the brain.

 

I can tell you have no idea what neuroplasticity even is... if you want to go in depth with a new understanding, listen to this lady.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM_28xKB4aw

[johan]

I believe there is no God. I believe the afterlife is the exact same feeling as the time before you were born.

 

Do you remember what it was like before you were born? Exactly.

 

But as long as no one tells me that I MUST believe differently, I can respect whatever another person believes.

 

It's when they demand I think / behave / live like they do that I get offended.

 

Memory does not define existence. If you don't remember existing does that mean you didn't exist? Do you stop existing when you go to sleep? All the things that have happened to you in your life that you just don't remember: were you not existing for them to happen to you? A person who has extreme dementia and remembers nothing, does that mean they never existed? Did you only exist starting at the moment that you formed the earliest memory you have today? You probably struggle to remember anything before you were in kindergarten. So how do you know what did or did not happen to you before you were born?

 

What you believe to be true and what really is the truth are often two different things, I'm sure you know. Unless you're completely simple-minded, the conclusion you can draw from that is that you really don't know. If you're honest, not knowing anything for sure means you really should be open minded to many things. That cuts both ways, of course, because an enormous number of people in the world believe there is a God. Whatever their truth is can be questioned, too.

 

When it comes to God, the unknowable either way, all anyone really has is faith. Even if they claim what they have is knowledge, it isn't. And I think it's true that everyone has faith, maybe on average even the same amount of faith, but obviously in different things. In case you don't look to religion and a god of some sort, then you must be really be relying on yourself. Even in case you encounter philosophies along the way, or seek them out, as far as you're concerned the decision is yours. You are your own authority. You are your own god, providing your own moral guidance and ultimate judgment. Your faith is in yourself, in the little spark buried somewhere in your heart or soul that decides right from wrong.

 

But most people don't really claim to be gods. You wouldn't seriously expect, thanks to your perfect knowledge of good and evil that people should do everything you say. But you would want them to share your basic belief in good and evil. You would even claim that they probably have knowledge of good and evil just like you do, whether they are religious or not. Some shared rule set that we all rely on to know right from wrong.

 

C.S. Lewis wrote about the fact that people who claim not to believe there is a God, will say on the other hand that they certainly believe in Natural Law. Natural law is the basic rules people rely on simply to treat each other fairly and to get along. You could say, "I don't need a God, because I know right from wrong. I was born knowing right from wrong. I do what I know is right, often better than actual Christians, and I know I am a good person who does not deserve harsh judgment or condemnation."

 

But you could ask yourself, as your own god, knowing as well as anyone else, what is the source of Natural Law? Where did that come from? Why is it that a Natural Law even exists. How did it come into being before anyone even conceived of a God? Even animals know it.

 

You might think you've answered the question if you point to evolution. Species that don't know Natural Law couldn't have survived. Survival of the fittest must include survival of the just and fair. But you can go another level and consider: in order for it to be right for all species, to be common to all of them and independent of all of them, for it to occur in evolution, didn't it really have to exist before any of them? Is it not a universal? And isn't it true that it's applicable only to conscious, living things? Not rocks. Not weeds. Not trees. Not planets or stars.

 

Where do you think Natural Law came from? The big bang? Was there some event between the big bang and the first living thing that needed it at which time it was "invented"?

 

Maybe Natural Law sort of blossomed from the interaction of the very first two amoeba that encountered each other and survived. They shook hands and didn't eat each other. It was their brilliance that created everything that you know about right and wrong.

 

From that perspective, every human on Earth should celebrate those two amoeba. Even better would be to worship whatever it was that inspired them, because you know they didn't really make it up.

Edited July 13, 2015 by johan

[TheFinalWord]

Most scholars agree that Jesus probably existed. You could also prove that his followers believed what they wrote in the gospels. His followers believed he was God and rose from the dead, among other supernatural events. But you can't prove that what Jesus claimed is fact. You simply can't do it. Just like you can't prove God exists using logic.

 

Trying to use logic to prove that Christianity is true is not a battle you will ever win. You are much better off approaching it from a different angle, such as talking about how the message of Jesus differs from other religions.

 

I never said anything about proof? I said, evidence. If I have ever said I am proving anything than I misstated (probably typing too fast). I am saying the gospels do count as evidence. I don't think anyone is even disagreeing with me? We all agree, Jesus existed. Where do these scholars get their evidence that Jesus existed? The gospels. I wonder if I am boring anyone at this point? lol

 

However, please, by all means, instead of telling me I'm wrong, instead, make your case. I am honestly interested in this "much better" way to expound Christ. I am particularly interested in how you are going to conduct this experiment in comparative religion without invoking logic.

Edited July 13, 2015 by TheFinalWord