Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[idkkdi]

Well as far as I know from the religions that I have studied, God is considered a being(or spirit). There are many different interpretations of these and all of which are different.

Really the idea of there being a 'God' by the definition of a being(or spirit) is not at all proven due to what it takes to prove something in the world of Science. It is nothing but a theory and one can not say that theory is certainly right(or wrong) but it cannot just be accepted and said right when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest so. The bible is not evidence because it is a man made creation.

You guys are overcomplicating this topic. If god exists, so what? If god doesn't exist, so what? Who gives a sht?

 

[Drdusk]

You guys are overcomplicating this topic. If god exists, so what? If god doesn't exist, so what? Who gives a sht?

If God exists in the form of a being(or spirit) it will completely destroy everything as we know it. Our perceptions of Physics and of the Universe will completely change. Yeah it doesn't really matter but I have yet to meet anyone who convinces me that a God in the form I have described exists.

 

[Pedro123]

I love BOS for this reason - you got threads deeply discussing the fundamental question of earth by a man whose icon is batman in a flat cap and threads that have randoms like me so damn happy they proved their English teacher was an idiot. Never change. I also am an avid believer in Pascals Wager - that you lose very little if God is not real and you don't believe in him (Wasted time?) but you stand to lose literally anything if he is real and you don't believe in him.
EDIT: I apologise for the comment made about Batman in a flat cap. It is actually BLYATMAN smoking in his natural environment, a very well-know, avid and trustworthy member of this community.

 

[Pedro123]

My deepest apologies - I will update my post accordingly

 

[Drdusk]

The large majority of people aren't really aware of the historical signifiance of the bible - they think it's just a book that could've been manipulated through time, and have no understanding of how the bible actually came about to be. The bible is a set of manuscripts, no different than historical texts that we use to teach history at school - e.g. there are many historical events that correspond to events in the bible. There is a significant amount of evidence outside of the bible that Jesus existed as a man, and was crucified (historians generally agree that Jesus existed and was crucified, as he is referenced in a significant amount of both Jewish and Roman literature from the time period when he was alive). The question is not whether he existed and died, but whether Jesus was who he claimed he was, i.e. whether he rose from the dead. While the Bible is not definitive proof, it should be scrutinised under the same lense as any other historical text.

In regards to whether there is an all-powerful God, it is impossible to prove/disprove this. However, there is a lot of evidence of creation, such as fine tuning, the probability of life, etc, which are generally acknowledge by most scientists. There are counterarguments to these, such as a multiverse theory which attempts to explain away fine tuning and whatnot. In the end, you cannot prove/disprove it, much like you can't directly 100% prove that someone is guilty/innocent, as shown by the number of innocent people who get convicted. In the end, the evidence is there, and everyone needs to make their decision based on how convinced they are by the evidence. There are a lot of recognised scientists who believe in the existence of a God, which dispels the common misconception that science and religion are at odds.

I think it's ignorant when people based on nothing but blind faith. At the same time, I think it's ignorant when people don't believe without proper research and considering all the evidence first from an objective point of view. Philosophical arguments aren't really proof/disproof, and seem to just avoid the question altogether. E.g. questions like "why would God allow cancer" and the like are meaningless and sound entitled, since it arrogantly assumess that your morals are absolute, with the belief that God's morals should align with your limited understanding and perception of the world.

I think it's also inconsistent for those to only believe if they had 100% certainty. E.g. if you saw someone win the lottery 10x in a row, you would confidently say that they're cheating. You can't prove this, and there's always the miniscule chance that they're not, but if you had to make a decision, you would say that they were most definitely cheating and you'd probably be more than willing to put money on it. In the same way, people need to consider the evidence and make a choice based on that evidence alone, as they won't ever get 100% certainty. For example, the fine-tuning argument states that the probability of life occurring naturally is miniscule, like less-than-the-probability-of-winning-the-lottery-100x-consecutively miniscule (I'd encourage to reader to look at the arguments for and against this). The problem is that most people don't really look up the objective evidence and historical concensus, and rather fully rely on meaningless philsophical meandering to make their case. E.g. I'm sure most people aren't even aware that Jesus existence is accepted by historians. Contrary to popular belief, there is an abundance of evidence out there to analyze and critique, but in reality I think many people have already made up their minds based upon their own experiences and preconceptions about the world, and no amount of evidence short of the appearance of God incarnate can change that.

Yep very true.

Someone rising from dead is an extraordinary matter and cannot be taken literally unless it is proven and there is no way to do so.

Just as you said, you can never prove if God actually exists or not so we can't take it that it does. It's wrong until proven right, not right until proven wrong, just like in court it's innocent until proven guilty not the other way around, am I right

Also I'm really genuinely amazed how a lot of people have 100% faith in their religion since they're parents taught them about it. Not being rude here but just genuinely curious, like don't people question how or why? I grew up in a somewhat religious house hold and throughout all my childhood I would question anything and everything and no answer could ease my curiosity because it proved nothing for me personally, don't a lot of people feel this when questioning these sort of things?

Because of this I turned my head around to Science which I found a lot more satisfying in the sense that it admits what it does not know. I saw the power in a solid proof Mathematical or Physical and that was what I wanted with religion/god but never got.

 

[dan964]

1. Where did God come from if he created everything?
2. Why do diseases etc. still exist given an all-loving god?
3. Are you talking about a God which is not a "human god"?
4. Given that God doesn't concern himself with human matters, what would allow for us to say he exists?
5. Where would God have gotten his powers from? Did another God give him those powers? Paradox?
6. Does it really matter for us to concern ourselves with something that we can't know when there's actually important stuff at hand?

1 - this is actually an unsound & slightly illogical question/deduction. It presumes that God's existence/essence operates the same as the universe/ours (that he has a cause). (If X created God, then X is actually God, and then you can keep asking the same question)
From a purely philosophical rational standpoint, we can only determine that a creator must be powerful and must be eternal (meta-physical/outside of the scope of the universe) but also able to connect with this universe (to be able to create).

But to answer your question, where did God come from - from eternity.

2 - I cannot speak for other religions (I am a Christian). The underlying assumption is an all-loving God is obliged to get rid of suffering.
It is tied up with the problem of evil (or what is called sin) and the problem called death. That we are given over to death, because we rejceted the author of life. By extension this includes diseases.

Why do disease exist? Judgement for sin, as the world is under death.
Does God eventually deal with diseases? Yes, when Jesus returns, there is the problem of no more mourning or sickness (V day)
How? Because Jesus defeats death for those who trust Him, and so promises them a new body and a new (disease free) place when he returns.What is the guaranteed this will happen? The death & resurrection of Jesus (D day).

We saw a foretaste of this when Jesus healed diseases.


3 - There are only a couple of things we can determine about God purely from rationalism/philosophical means. The rest requires 'revelation' from this God himself.
1. The universe is big -> therefore the God that made the universe must be powerful and 'big' enough to create and conceptualise it (powerful)
2. The universe is not eternal -> Therefore the God must 'be' not in the bounds of time/space (transcedent).
3. The universe exists -> God connects with creation because otherwise creation of universe is not possible (immanent)

We cannot actually determine much other than the power or the essence (the eternal transcedence of God), without actually seeking the means by which said God has chosen to make himself known. Sure you can known some basic facts about him (see above), but

5 - see answer to question 1 & 3. In short, no, it is an irrational deduction about the essence of God.

4 & 6 - you are touching on the heart of the matter.

Your assumptions are:
- God doesn't concern himself with human matters.
- God is unknowable.

The early Christians (and Jews before then) claimed to have heard revelation from God and his voice, recorded as the words of God in the Bible.
(In the case of the early Christians, these were the words of Christ himself)

Now, regardless of how familar you are with it, this is probably one of the places to start, to go beyond the 3 conclusions from before. If you want to know God, you have to assess what those who fear him, claim is his book.

And one of the key things that is established, is the way by which God primarily interacts with his creation is by 'speaking'. And at this point, you leave the limits of rationalism, and philosophy, and you start delving into theology - the study of God and his attributes, as revealed in the Bible.

 

[ultra908]

Philosophical arguments aren't really proof/disproof, and seem to just avoid the question altogether. E.g. questions like "why would God allow cancer" and the like are meaningless and sound entitled, since it arrogantly assumess that your morals are absolute, with the belief that God's morals should align with your limited understanding and perception of the world.

I found this part rlly interesting- though I do think these arguments have alot of value. Regardless of god's existence, religions bring with them some form of philosophical position or moral standpoint. Surely if a religion is inconsistent or contradictory, this is of some concern. The nature of god thus is very important. Even if god existed, does that justify following such a god or their commandments?

 

[dan964]

Yep very true.

Someone rising from dead is an extraordinary matter and cannot be taken literally unless it is proven and there is no way to do so.


Just as you said, you can never prove if God actually exists or not so we can't take it that it does. It's wrong until proven right, not right until proven wrong, just like in court it's innocent until proven guilty not the other way around, am I right

No, false equivocation. Several reasons why this fails:
- First issue: you assume the default position is unbelief/atheism (the belief/premise that God doesn't exist). We haven't even be able to determine this so far. Also to be consistent with your law court analogy (for that is what it is). Innocence = right = righteous. So in the law court, it is actually in the right until proven wrong.

- Second issue: even if there was a proof for God's existence, you would not accept it. This is the real issue with atheism, IMHO. The issue is not the lack of evidence but an unwillingness to attribute the origins of the existence of the universe to a God.

- Third issue: the reason why no-one can prove (or for that matter disprove) the 'existence' of Godis because you are asking for scientific or rational proof. You cannot prove that someone knows the president of the US on a personal level, via science or mathematics. You can only determine raw data like his eye colour, height things like that. Knowing here is kind of more like knowing a person, rather than knowing about an iceberg or how to win a chess game.

- Fourth issue, God is not some plug for a lack of scientific understanding. It is not the case (as it may have been with the Greeks), that we cannot understand or explain how this happen, therefore this must be God.

- Fifth issue, not every thing has to be scientifically proven for it to exist/be true. A lot of things in personal relationships or moral concepts/judgements cannot be proven scientifically (empirically) nor logically (via math/logic construct). (Although they can be consistent with a person's character). There seems to be an obsession with everything being 100% proven, most things are not 'absolutely' proven (outside of maths/logic and even then), even to use your court example, it is evidence to convict the criminal beyond a reasonable doubt.

- Sixth issue, it is not up to us to 'prove' God's existence. It is our job to assess what what is attributed to Him as His words; or in the case of Christianity, what or more stricly who is attributed as the 'exact representation of his being' or the 'image of the invisible God' - namely Jesus Christ.
Now you are dealing with something (other than creation) as a major contact point (or at least acclaimed to be such) between God and humanity. That may be an easier place to start than philosophical arguments

Blaytman has outline in his reply above, a sketch of some of these evidences that corroborate.

Also I'm really genuinely amazed how a lot of people have 100% faith in their religion since they're parents taught them about it. Not being rude here but just genuinely curious, like don't people question how or why? I grew up in a somewhat religious house hold and throughout all my childhood I would question anything and everything and no answer could ease my curiosity because it proved nothing for me personally, don't a lot of people feel this when questioning these sort of things?

In my opinion, some do hold to their faith blindly, but I think you will find that many people (in their teens and young adults) wrestle with doubt. The thing they come back to is how trustworthy is the thing you are standing on or how changing is it?

There is nothing wrong with asking questions, and sometimes parents can be a bit over-protective. But I think the question comes, often involves a judgement made about the real intent behind the questions. (It can also depend on the religion, tbh, some religions, it is seen as wrong to ask questions)

Because of this I turned my head around to Science which I found a lot more satisfying in the sense that it admits what it does not know. I saw the power in a solid proof Mathematical or Physical and that was what I wanted with religion/god but never got.

I think you will find that there is a lot we don't know, and you'll find there are some questions that I honestly don't know the answer to. And that is ok. I am a maths graduate, so i perfectly understand the appeal of proofs. The study of this world is fascinating and intriguing (logically, the study of a God who conceptualised it all, wouldn't that be more intriguing - rhetorical).

Aside: Although, technically you cannot prove anything in science. (And apparently you cannot even in mathematics to a point - Godels incompleteness stuff).

If God exists in the form of a being(or spirit) it will completely destroy everything as we know it. Our perceptions of Physics and of the Universe will completely change. Yeah it doesn't really matter but I have yet to meet anyone who convinces me that a God in the form I have described exists.

Yes, your perception of the universe will change but no it won't completely destroy everything as we know it. Unless you have just conceded that a lot of science is done on the assumption of atheism. But many scientists were and are Christians (and some were and are Muslims etc)

 

[ultra908]

1 - this is actually an unsound & slightly illogical question/deduction. It presumes that God's existence/essence operates the same as the universe/ours (that he has a cause). (If X created God, then X is actually God, and then you can keep asking the same question)
From a purely philosophical rational standpoint, we can only determine that a creator must be powerful and must be eternal (meta-physical/outside of the scope of the universe) but also able to connect with this universe (to be able to create).

But to answer your question, where did God come from - from eternity.

this is a very convenient response- it is utterly unfalsifiable.

2 - I cannot speak for other religions (I am a Christian). The underlying assumption is an all-loving God is obliged to get rid of suffering.
It is tied up with the problem of evil (or what is called sin) and the problem called death. That we are given over to death, because we rejceted the author of life. By extension this includes diseases.

Why do disease exist? Judgement for sin, as the world is under death.
Does God eventually deal with diseases? Yes, when Jesus returns, there is the problem of no more mourning or sickness (V day)
How? Because Jesus defeats death for those who trust Him, and so promises them a new body and a new (disease free) place when he returns.What is the guaranteed this will happen? The death & resurrection of Jesus (D day).

We saw a foretaste of this when Jesus healed diseases.

This has told me nothing about why God would allow suffering to occur- he intends to get rid of it later?

3 - There are only a couple of things we can determine about God purely from rationalism/philosophical means. The rest requires 'revelation' from this God himself.
1. The universe is big -> therefore the God that made the universe must be powerful and 'big' enough to create and conceptualise it (powerful)
2. The universe is not eternal -> Therefore the God must 'be' not in the bounds of time/space (transcedent).
3. The universe exists -> God connects with creation because otherwise creation of universe is not possible (immanent)

We cannot actually determine much other than the power or the essence (the eternal transcedence of God), without actually seeking the means by which said God has chosen to make himself known. Sure you can known some basic facts about him (see above), but

Under the assumption that god exists and is outside of space time, it is impossible to discern anything about god- especially not 1. How can you conceptualise 'beyond spacetime' to conclude God is powerful or 'big', whatever those terms mean?

 

[ultra908]

No, false equivocation. Several reasons why this fails:
- First issue: you assume the default position is unbelief/atheism (the belief/premise that God doesn't exist). We haven't even be able to determine this so far. Also to be consistent with your law court analogy (for that is what it is). Innocence = right = righteous. So in the law court, it is actually in the right until proven wrong.

- Second issue: even if there was a proof for God's existence, you would not accept it. This is the real issue with atheism, IMHO. The issue is not the lack of evidence but an unwillingness to attribute the origins of the existence of the universe to a God.

- Third issue: the reason why no-one can prove (or for that matter disprove) the 'existence' of Godis because you are asking for scientific or rational proof. You cannot prove that someone knows the president of the US on a personal level, via science or mathematics. You can only determine raw data like his eye colour, height things like that. Knowing here is kind of more like knowing a person, rather than knowing about an iceberg or how to win a chess game.

- Fourth issue, God is not some plug for a lack of scientific understanding. It is not the case (as it may have been with the Greeks), that we cannot understand or explain how this happen, therefore this must be God.

- Fifth issue, not every thing has to be scientifically proven for it to exist/be true. A lot of things in personal relationships or moral concepts/judgements cannot be proven scientifically (empirically) nor logically (via math/logic construct). (Although they can be consistent with a person's character). There seems to be an obsession with everything being 100% proven, most things are not 'absolutely' proven (outside of maths/logic and even then), even to use your court example, it is evidence to convict the criminal beyond a reasonable doubt.

- Sixth issue, it is not up to us to 'prove' God's existence. It is our job to assess what what is attributed to Him as His words; or in the case of Christianity, what or more stricly who is attributed as the 'exact representation of his being' or the 'image of the invisible God' - namely Jesus Christ.
Now you are dealing with something (other than creation) as a major contact point (or at least acclaimed to be such) between God and humanity. That may be an easier place to start than philosophical arguments

1. The default position is agnosticism i suppose.
2. Attributing the existence of the universe to some form of 'first mover' is one position. Extending this to some sentient deity, or a religious belief, is another one entirely. I think I would be willing to accept
3. Your own personal relationship with god is like knowing a person yes, but knowing gods existence is not really- no more than knowing your friend is like knowing the great barrier reef exists.
4. Very true
5. This is because those terms not scientifically defined or labelled, and often have alot of leeway or ambiguity. The existence of a biblical god is not such a thing. The biblical god doesn't need to be 100% proven- but currently there's quite a bit of faith involved.
6. The bible gives us alot of great philosophical and moral teachings and is an important work- this is true. But accepting the word of Christ and the Gospel is probably a more difficult place to start- after all, it rests on assumptions about God.

 

[idkkdi]

If God exists in the form of a being(or spirit) it will completely destroy everything as we know it. Our perceptions of Physics and of the Universe will completely change. Yeah it doesn't really matter but I have yet to meet anyone who convinces me that a God in the form I have described exists.

Nah, not really. Through experiments, we have determined then roughly proven approximate parameters within which the world operate. If things act as such, they do. If God exists, he will always have existed, and since such parameters for basic physics have held true before, they will still hold true. All that changes is that such rules have now been created by God.

I still see no meaning in proving whether God exists or not.

 

[dan964]

1. The default position is agnosticism i suppose.
2. Attributing the existence of the universe to some form of 'first mover' is one position. Extending this to some sentient deity, or a religious belief, is another one entirely. I think I would be willing to accept
3. Your own personal relationship with god is like knowing a person yes, but knowing gods existence is not really- no more than knowing your friend is like knowing the great barrier reef exists.
4. Very true
5. This is because those terms not scientifically defined or labelled, and often have alot of leeway or ambiguity. The existence of a biblical god is not such a thing. The biblical god doesn't need to be 100% proven- but currently there's quite a bit of faith involved.
6. The bible gives us alot of great philosophical and moral teachings and is an important work- this is true. But accepting the word of Christ and the Gospel is probably a more difficult place to start- after all, it rests on assumptions about God.

Still no-one has defined what people mean by existence. If you define say existence as being and becoming, then by that definition, God cannot exist (because God is not 'becoming').

1. Even agnosticism is not neutral though, people who are agnostic still drift towards either position. Agnosticism says you cannot know, and so why bother? Most atheists end up being agnostics.

2 & 3. Ah no, there are 3 types of knowing:
- Knowing by rationalism (think like knowing the moves of a chess) e.g. maths & logic
- Knowing by empiricalism e.g. studying the features of an iceberg.
- Knowing by relationship (e.g. knowing a person)

Firstly, we need to acknowledge the limits of scientific enquiry (empiricism), it is not certainly the best means to study a personal being. Sure we can determine basic facts about them, but the issue is the very notion of 'existence'.

Axioms (not going to prove these):
- The universe exists (it has an essence and a 'becoming' to it)
- The universe is not eternal
- The universe is big/massive/lots of stuff (aka sufficiently complex)

These are the basic things we can determine about this 'being':
- He has to be powerful to be able to create all that exists
- He has to be eternal (which is often what people mean by divine) - the fancy term is transcedence
- He has to be able to connect with the physical world (otherwise the world could not exist)
We cannot deduce more than that by logical construct. Can we deduce whether he exists? (This depends on whether you accept arguments such as the first cause argument, which clearly your question earlier shows you don't, or the ontological argument).

Logically you can show (e.g. using an ontological argument), that God is not simply the universe, because the universe is not eternal, rejecting
pantheism. Scientific enquiry can deduce there isn't some ether (or 'God force') (aka panentheism), although you could argue that the physical laws play the same role (although emerging science debates whether these laws are consistent which I find intriguing but way over my head tbh)

5. With the exception of maths/logic perhaps (but even then the existence of unproved problems shows limit to human knowledge), there is always going to be ambiguity and need for confidence in the data or the methodology or the instrument or the senses.

This is because those terms not scientifically defined or labelled, and often have alot of leeway or ambiguity.

Isn't quite clear what this comment is reference to. But nevertheless even scientifically defined or labelled things have ambiguity and leeway (thats why there is always discussion about reliability, accuracy and validity of experiments), thats why we have terms like confidence and consensus. But no, the reason is because there are more ways to know things then just via science and logic (these same principles apply in a different way of course to theology - the study of God).

But the study of the meta-physical, easily go beyonds empirical studies (which is why panentheism is false in my view), because there are vast unknownness to what could lie beyond if such a God is.

The existence of a biblical god is not such a thing. The biblical god doesn't need to be 100% proven- but currently there's quite a bit of faith involved.

Of course there is going to be some faith involved. But faith is not some irrational decision, it is a trust based on the reliability, accuracy and validity of something. It is not hard to accept the idea of a 'first mover', a very primitive idea of God. No of course not, but often the word 'proof' is tied up with scientific enquiry or logic (often to the exclusion of literature studies and historical studies)

Firstly we need to broaden science to include historical studies, for this angle, we can study the historical data. If the text is 'the Word of God' then we have a contact point for studying (even if just theoretically) what kind of God there is. Often the reason why people don't study it, is because they feel like they need to have the 'God exists' premises, downpacked but it may be more useful, just to look at what is presented and go from there.

And finally...
6. Well, you are dealing with people who claimed to encounter God, so yes if you have difficult accepting the idea of God's existence, then you are going to have a difficult time accepting those who claimed to have seen or heard God. Such is the nature of skepticism.

 

[idkkdi]

Yes, correct, there is no way to directly prove that Jesus rose again from the dead, just as there is no way to directly prove that Aristotle was a scientist, yet we still believe that. All we have are historical documents as sources. The bible should be treated and scrutinized as source of historical manuscripts, much like any other historical document, and the problem is that it's not and it's usually just disregarded. There's a bit of inconsistency there when it comes to what we accept as true from history and what we can accept as true from religious texts simply based on whether the text was included in a religious book.

Yes, you cannot prove that God does/doesn't exist, as it is outside the realms of science. Yes, people are innocent until proven guilty, and likewise here, it is wrong until proven right. My point above was that even in courts, there is never 100% certainty due to wrongful convictions: all we have is evidence, and we use the evidence to make the best choice. The exact same applies to religion. There is evidence out there, and people need to make their decision based on that evidence. There is never 100% proof, much like in a courtroom. The best you can get is a very convincing evidence, and the jury/person will make their decision based upon how convincing they believe that evidence is. There was a famous atheist (can't remember who said this as I read it a long time ago) who once said (paraphrasing) "If God exists, it would have profound consequences on our life". If God does exist, then it would shape so many aspects of how we view life and existence, so much so that it merits a careful consideration of whether or not God does exists based upon the evidence. Again, you'll never get 100% proof: all we have is evidence, and it's all each person has to go by to make their own decision. To only choose to make that decision when confronted with 100% absolute certainty looks like an attempt to distract oneself from properly considering the issue. It's like being put in a room where you have to make a decision between 2 doors based on some provided evidence, where each door leads to profound life-changing consequences. In the end, each person must pick a door when their time runs out. Asking for 100% proof is like ignoring the chance to scrutinize the available evidence and picking the door based upon our gut feeling or misguided preconceptions. We'll never be given 100% proof, and each person must make do with what's provided and make their choice.

My family isn't religious, so I didn't grow up in a religious household. I believe in the existence of God based upon the evidence that is available. Having such a belief is not illogical or contradictory to science (as I said, there are many reknown scientists who hold the same view). Science and religion are not incompatible, so one cannot be treated as an alternative to the other (it's also naive to think that science can explain every aspect of existence). I have my beliefs because I have looked at the evidence and precisely because I questioned how and why. There are many answers which nobody on this planet will ever know, but each person needs to make a choice based upon the evidence, since that's all we have. As @dan964 said above, many people wrestle with doubts, and that is normal and healthy, as blindly following something can be dangerous and ignorant.

I mean, 10 billion+ other people have not risen from the dead. That's a pretty good proof for the unlikeliness of Jesus coming back from the dead. Surely another person would have been worthy of/done that if he had? As far as I'm concerned, you guys are building upon foundational layers of a concept to suit it to your perspective. Man, this is like English where you try to analyse every little piece of information for an extra interpretation, and no one can say that the author didn't intend as such because chances are he never wrote about why he did that.

The more interesting question is if we can argue the topic of God, how easy is it for cults to actually start? What about pigs flying? Damn, what if Peppa Pig is an omniscient being that appeared in some guys dream and told him to make it into a cartoon?

 

[idkkdi]

Still no-one has defined what people mean by existence. If you define say existence as being and becoming, then by that definition, God cannot exist (because God is not 'becoming').

1. Even agnosticism is not neutral though, people who are agnostic still drift towards either position. Agnosticism says you cannot know, and so why bother? Most atheists end up being agnostics.

2 & 3. Ah no, there are 3 types of knowing:
- Knowing by rationalism (think like knowing the moves of a chess) e.g. maths & logic
- Knowing by empiricalism e.g. studying the features of an iceberg.
- Knowing by relationship (e.g. knowing a person)

Firstly, we need to acknowledge the limits of scientific enquiry (empiricism), it is not certainly the best means to study a personal being. Sure we can determine basic facts about them, but the issue is the very notion of 'existence'.

Axioms (not going to prove these):
- The universe exists (it has an essence and a 'becoming' to it)
- The universe is not eternal
- The universe is big/massive/lots of stuff (aka sufficiently complex)

These are the basic things we can determine about this 'being':
- He has to be powerful to be able to create all that exists
- He has to be eternal (which is often what people mean by divine) - the fancy term is transcedence
- He has to be able to connect with the physical world (otherwise the world could not exist)
We cannot deduce more than that by logical construct. Can we deduce whether he exists? (This depends on whether you accept arguments such as the first cause argument, which clearly your question earlier shows you don't, or the ontological argument).

Logically you can show (e.g. using an ontological argument), that God is not simply the universe, because the universe is not eternal, rejecting
pantheism. Scientific enquiry can deduce there isn't some ether (or 'God force') (aka panentheism), although you could argue that the physical laws play the same role (although emerging science debates whether these laws are consistent which I find intriguing but way over my head tbh)

5. With the exception of maths/logic perhaps (but even then the existence of unproved problems shows limit to human knowledge), there is always going to be ambiguity and need for confidence in the data or the methodology or the instrument or the senses.


Isn't quite clear what this comment is reference to. But nevertheless even scientifically defined or labelled things have ambiguity and leeway (thats why there is always discussion about reliability, accuracy and validity of experiments), thats why we have terms like confidence and consensus. But no, the reason is because there are more ways to know things then just via science and logic (these same principles apply in a different way of course to theology - the study of God).

But the study of the meta-physical, easily go beyonds empirical studies (which is why panentheism is false in my view), because there are vast unknownness to what could lie beyond if such a God is.


Of course there is going to be some faith involved. But faith is not some irrational decision, it is a trust based on the reliability, accuracy and validity of something. It is not hard to accept the idea of a 'first mover', a very primitive idea of God. No of course not, but often the word 'proof' is tied up with scientific enquiry or logic (often to the exclusion of literature studies and historical studies)

Firstly we need to broaden science to include historical studies, for this angle, we can study the historical data. If the text is 'the Word of God' then we have a contact point for studying (even if just theoretically) what kind of God there is. Often the reason why people don't study it, is because they feel like they need to have the 'God exists' premises, downpacked but it may be more useful, just to look at what is presented and go from there.

And finally...
6. Well, you are dealing with people who claimed to encounter God, so yes if you have difficult accepting the idea of God's existence, then you are going to have a difficult time accepting those who claimed to have seen or heard God. Such is the nature of skepticism.

Bruh, did you get a degree in Theology? You seem to have done way too much research into this?

 

[dan964]

this is a very convenient response- it is utterly unfalsifiable.

Yes only because the concept of origins is not well defined outside of the physical scope of the universe.

Mathematically::
Lets denote >> (as from OR source): e.g. A >> B as A produces or A is the source of B
>> is well defined with U, where U:= universe, the set of all things that have causes.

(*) Axiom: Deduce there must exist some M such that M >> U.
Is M a subset of U? (i.e. does M have a source)? <-- this is your question fundamentally.
If yes, union M with U, rename that set U*, and proceed back from (*)
If no, then stop with your M as the first starting point (as >> does not hold outside of U).

One of two possibilities, either you have an individual starting point (a singularity existing outside of U, the set of all things with causes).
or an infinite series of 'covers'.

Applying this to the physical situation: empirical evidence determines that all things in the universe have some source/cause.
It is logically sensible to deduce the axiom that there must exist a cause for the universe (God, the singularity, the multiverse etc.)
Although the last of the three is more like the inifinite series of 'covers'.

This has told me nothing about why God would allow suffering to occur- he intends to get rid of it later?

Sorry my answer was very brief. It is a big topic, and requires openness to actually study a religious text (since empirically there is no way to determine an answer to the question).

The Christian does not claim to have a complete answer to this question, especially for the case of individual suffering. But here is basic logic flow:

1. God created the world but humanity rejected God.

2. God's response is to give people what they want - they want to live apart from God, which is under death.
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned "
Romans 5:12

Some other key points:
- Jesus makes it clear that an individual suffering does not correlate to one's own sin.
- Jesus (being God himself) went through suffering and affliction even death.
- Christians are to expect suffering because of opposition.
- And we see in Jesus' healing that God intends to end suffering one day, but this will come when the final judgement day comes.
- The reason he doesn't do sooner, is so that people turn to him.

That is a sketch of a reply to a massive topic.

Under the assumption that god exists and is outside of space time, it is impossible to discern anything about god- especially not 1. How can you conceptualise 'beyond spacetime' to conclude God is powerful or 'big', whatever those terms mean?

Certainly not empirically.
In terms of a rational argument, we must deduce that the God must be ABLE to create the universe of this magnitude and detail, this is what we mean by powerful and big. (Big was not a comment on size persay). So powerful here is akin to ability to create and maintain.

 

[dan964]

What can be rationally deduce about God:
- His power (aka ability to create a universe of this scale)
- His divine nature (aka the fact that he is not of this universe but can create universe, i.e. transcedence and immanence)
(basically what the average person calls 'a higher power')

Thats it. What can be empirically deduce about God. Pretty much those two.

To know God well, you have to look at his contact points with us - namely Jesus and the resurrection, because these things can be scrutinised and tested a lot more readily and without

Because you are dealing with a personal being, that personal higher power that has decided not to reveal himself via human wisdom/reasoning.

 

[idkkdi]

It seems that you're simply dismissing the possibility of ressurection because nobody else has done the supernatural, so therefore, it cannot possibly happen. In other words, you're automatically assuming that the supernatural is impossible as an argument to prove that the supernatural is impossible. If Jesus was indeed God, then the supernatural would be possible. If that were the case, then it stands to reason the reason why we're not seeing mass ressurections is because they are not God.

Based on your argument, you are not treating the bible as set of historical documents, but rather treating it as a story tale written by some guy in his cave, who then spread it out amongst a bunch of people. Maybe look into the historicity and authenticity of religious texts before formulating an argument.

In regards to cults, maybe look into the statistical likelihood of actual cults propagating worldwide, and see how successful they are. You'll find that all of them die out pretty quick. A big reason why Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the 3 worlds biggest religions and have lasted this long is because of the amount of historical texts. Those 3 form the Abrahamic religons, which have a somewhat common base of belief, which then branch out further down the timeline. You'll find that it's very difficult to convince people to join a cult that believes that Peppa Pig is an omniscient being without any evidence to back it up.

If you compare aspects of the Bible and a story tale, they do indeed seem very similar in many aspects. The same applies to the other main religions. Only difference is that while the Bible is believed, fairy tales are thrust aside.

As such, is it proper not to classify the Bible as part of the conventionally regarded story tales? Similar to how I could interpret Santa Claus metaphorically as a spirit of happiness, many metaphorically interpret the Bible. If you put aside aspects of the Bible, while extending on and referring to your own ideas, is that really the religion anymore? If you say that you are delving into the spirit/meaning of the text, is it not similar to overanalysing an English piece that was written for fun?

For what reason should you not also prove that story tales are true if you were to try proving the Bible is true? Dragons have been talked about from ages ago? What makes us classify the knight saving the queen from the dragon as a fictional story, if the story has been repeated for such a long time?

Is the probability of the Bible being a conspiracy theory created about a possible higher existence not higher than it being an actually proper historical account? Do people not have altered perspectives depending on what they want to believe?

If there was a God, I would not classify it - because I simply don't have the intellect nor the worth to classify it. Rather, the writers of the Bible and other texts show pomposity in trying to understand something that can not be understood, and similarly those who try to figure it out, show such pomposity as well.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone can believe in anything and anyone can argue anything. What about that conjecture where it states we are in a simulation? Possible. Arguable. Yes.

Can God exist? Yes.
Are all religions somewhat like a cult? Yes.
Is this question of God's existence pointless? Yes, because it cannot come to a conclusion as long as God does not reveal itself as a human.
Will I continue to write in this thread? Hopefully not.

 

[dan964]

If you compare aspects of the Bible and a story tale, they do indeed seem very similar in many aspects. The same applies to the other main religions. Only difference is that while the Bible is believed, fairy tales are thrust aside. As such, is it proper not to classify the Bible as part of the conventionally regarded story tales?

I presume you are referring to the elements of the narrative that seem "magical", or the "miraculous" events.

Some of the issues with the comparison, there are more significance differences:
- No one ever claims that fairy tales are true, they have 100% clarity that the events they contain DID NOT occur.
- Fairy tales generally change over retellings.

As the BIble is not a single text with a single author, it is a collection of 66 texts, and the New Testament is the most well-preserved text in antiquity, both in terms of closeness to the events that its writers claim to document, and also in sheer number of manuscripts, both in the
original language and in translations made within a short span of time after the original documents were written.

Therefore we have 100% clarity therefore with the New Testament about what is being reported and that we are dealing with someone reporting an event (whether it is true reporting that is left to the reader to decide ultimately imho).

In fact the letter of 2 Peter reports this:
"For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of
his majesty."

Similar to how I could interpret Santa Claus metaphorically as a spirit of happiness, many metaphorically interpret the Bible.

Interesting Santa Claus is based on real historical events, but the story has been changed over the times (Dr Karl Kruszelnicki writes an interesting segment in one of his books touching on this and also deals with the science too).

While it is true that many metaphorically interpret the Bible, we have to ask if ones interpretation is consistent with the meaning as the original authors intended.

If you put aside aspects of the Bible, while extending on and referring to your own ideas, is that really the religion anymore?

The key principle in interpretation is context, and because each indiviudal text, while individual having its own context, is also set in the wider context that is created by the compilation. Therefore key interpretative principles are as follows:

> Scripture interprets Scripture. Typically one text usually affords or provides the ground work for another. This is especially the case, as later texts develop on the themes, ideas raised in earlier texts.

If you say that you are delving into the spirit/meaning of the text, is it not similar to overanalysing an English piece that was written for fun?

Not quite, one is most certainly a piece of fiction, and the other is a text that is historical grounded and is more like studying an autobiography than a piece written for fun.

For what reason should you not also prove that story tales are true if you were to try proving the Bible is true? Dragons have been talked about from ages ago? What makes us classify the knight saving the queen from the dragon as a fictional story, if the story has been repeated for such a long time?

The notion of proof is a difficult and quite frankly convoluted. I think if a story tale claims to be a historical account of an event that actually happened (however remarkable), then maybe it should go under the same scrutiny as the Bible. And yet most fairy tales would not stand the same scrutiny that has be faced.

Is the probability of the Bible being a conspiracy theory created about a possible higher existence not higher than it being an actually proper historical account?

No. It does not fit the character of the text. (I can expand on what I mean if you'd like)
It is worth noting the change in perspectives that are documented in the text - the text does not gloss over the unglamorous aspects of for instance the disciples lives.

Do people not have altered perspectives depending on what they want to believe?

This is a misnomer of a question, and is kind of a leading question. Is not a belief and a perspective similar? So the question is kind of a moot question.

Does one beliefs affect how you see or interpret events in real life? Sure, but to what extent is the real question? It is evident in this very conversation, in some of the things you have said, each ones presuppositions about life and therefore interpreting accounts of the miraculous.

If there was a God, I would not classify it - because I simply don't have the intellect nor the worth to classify it.

correction: If there 'is' a God.

Thats a good observation, it is not really for us to define God but rather to let God define himself.

Rather, the writers of the Bible and other texts show pomposity in trying to understand something that can not be understood,

I cannot speak for other religious texts since I'm not overly familiar. This delves into the topic of inspiration (which does differ from religion to religion).

Again this is what Peter explains about the testimonies of himself and the other disciples (and this can be applied more generally if understood correctly): "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

These are men who claim to have an encounter with God, whether through the Lord Jesus, or some other, and they similar bear witness to what they saw; or in other cases, God speaks with them a message, his words, for them to proclaim and speak to others; which are then written down into letters and other texts. Some of these men were fisherman, regular people, certainly in many cases, not the intellectual/academia of the day (some were and their testimonies are consistent).

I quote Paul on this:
"And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power. "

The point is for Paul, he did not come to convince people of the truth by eloquence or the clever philosohpical argument but he simply proclaimed that Christ was crucified (which is a historically verifiable fact), and that by God's power he was raised. This is the crux (no pun intended) for their testimony - they key that unlocks understanding.

Paul continues:
"We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written: “What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived” - the things God has prepared for those who love him - these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."

Again Paul is consistent with Peter, it is not some extrapolation up to God, in terms of trying to 'figure it out' but rather it is an understanding (even a belief) and insight into who God is personally that is revealed and granted to them by God himself (through the Spirit).

Contrast that with the rulers (referring to the Jewish religious leaders and Roman leaders), they saw the same events but they did not understand the spirit/meaning behind them; because God did not reveal himself to them.

and similarly those who try to figure it out, show such pomposity as well.

Sometimes, when approaching God as you have acknowledged earlier, it requires a lot of humility and awareness that we are mortal/human etc.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone can believe in anything and anyone can argue anything.

Yes but not everything is beliveable. A belief is only as good as what it is in. and it depends what we mean by belief.
When a Christian talks about their belief (and may be the case for other religions), they are not simply referring to an assent to some list of ideas but it is more a trust in a person, namely Jesus Christ or God; and their character and their promises to act in the future.

This is because knowing God is more similar to knowing a person, than say knowing the rules of chess or studying/knowing an iceberg.

 

[dan964]

What about that conjecture where it states we are in a simulation? Possible. Arguable. Yes.

Although believable.

Can God exist? Yes.

If God can exist, he does. (aside reference to Anselm's ontological argument btw)

Are all religions somewhat like a cult? Yes.

Define a 'cult' - that term can mean different things, and is often loaded with certain connotations (typically negative).

Is this question of God's existence pointless? Yes, because it cannot come to a conclusion as long as God does not reveal itself as a human.

Well there is Jesus. That is why for Christians it HAS come to a conclusion and it isn't pointless.
And even if God revealed himself as a human, not everyone would accept it. Take how people responded to Jesus in the gospels, people will still refuse to accept it. As one such biblical author puts it:
"but in these last days he (God) has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. "

or in the words of Jesus himself:
"Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?"

Will I continue to write in this thread? Hopefully not.

I've been in this forum for about 6 years, I don't think we'll come to some conclusion that everyone will agree on haha. such is the nature of these things.

 

[dan964]

And for those who were wondering,

Bruh, did you get a degree in Theology? You seem to have done way too much research into this?

No degree in theology. I have done about 8 subjects and therefore completed a Diploma of Christian Studies, back in 2015 (last subject done in 2017).
(3 of the subjects are to do with mission/practical stuff, one subject in NT overview, one subject in the book of Revelation, one subject on ethics and one on apologetics).

But a lot of this comes from some of the Christian meetings and groups I've been involved with over the years, particular through the uni Christian group at my uni (UOW).

Mind can be a bit of a sponge. Lots of thinking about my faith over the years too. Taken some time to obviously put it into practice some of things that I've learnt, and still learning and being challenged intellectually which is nice.

I've looked into Islam a bit (was prompted by some discussions I had on this forum 5 years ago), as well as Mormonism (not as much).