What counts as evidence for God?

[Sehnsucht]

I find this to be an interesting topic. As is ever the case for things that draw my interest, I’ve ended up writing a long and rambling meditation on the subject.

I think the central issue concerning evidence for the actual existence of god-concepts [1] is the plurality of ontic [2] substances, and how they are supposed to interact.

First, an elaboration on the premise. Then, an examination of the consequences of different scenarios. And finally, addressing the thread topic proper—if there is such a thing as a God, how would evidence of Its existence manifest, and what such evidence would I, personally, deem compelling, persuasive, or convincing?

I should also preface all of this by stating that I'm not a philosopher; my understanding of these topics is the result of a few years of exposing myself to this stuff at the layman's level. As such, I suspect there will not be a single original thought in the sections below.

Also note that the symbols [X] are referrals to the Footnote section at the bottom of the post, which offer supplemental notes on the tagged concepts or passages.

In any case, let's begin with an overview of the problem:

[collapse=On the Plurality of Substances and their Interaction]
Most theistic models of reality [3] hold at minimum to Substance Dualism; there is the material (or "natural") and the spiritual (or "supernatural"). The body and the spirit. You could also have a model of triune substances (body, mind, spirit), in what would be substance pluralism.

Point being that these "substances" are each fundamental and distinct from one another, but interact and intersect with one another. All things are either of one substance or another. This is in contrast to Substance Monism, in which there is only one fundamental substance, and all things are expressions, or are derivative, of that substance [4].

The question, then, is how these substances interact. What is the mechanism that allows the material to interact with the spiritual (and vice-versa)? That allows the body to interact with the spirit or soul (and vice-versa)?

If the flesh is the puppet and the spirit the puppeteer, of what consist the strings? The substance of the strings can’t be purely material, nor purely spiritual; the strings must be of a different substance. But not of the same class; this substance must transcend all others, forming a medium that allows these ordinary ontic substances to interact. This medium would be like water, the solvent which allows these substances to react like chemical agents.

The next line of inquiry concerns the relationship between the given god-concept (which we’ll call God for simplicity), and this mechanism of interaction.
[/collapse]

[collapse=On God and the Mechanism]
For God to interact with the material substance, It would need a medium by which to do so. Let us call this the ontic medium.

If there is no ontic medium, then how does God—which we can broadly define as an entity consisting wholly of spiritual substance—interact with material substance?

Does God simply “will” things to be? If so, then how does this will propagate, or manifest "outside" of God? The exact methodology isn't the question. Whether God snaps Its fingers or collapses some quantum waveform, there must be a medium that bridges God Itself with whatever God is acting upon.

In a scenario of creatio ex nihilo (i.e. the act of creation with no prior material whatsoever), the only thing to exist by definition would be God, who then "poofs" all other things into being. So there would not be anything for God to act upon save Itself. Would this make God Itself the ontic medium that bridges substances? How can that be, if God is strictly of spiritual substance?

Or is what we call "spiritual" substance in fact synonymous with the ontic medium, meaning that "spirit" is the solvent in which material agents react with one another? The proverbial molecules of spirit that bond with matter, creating the human being (so as God is the great water, we are each a droplet).

Seems a coherent enough notion, on its own. But it raises another troublesome implication. How can a thing of one ontic substance create another kind of substance from whole cloth (as would be required in an ex nihilo model)? How does God, who is of the spirit, create the material, which is wholly not of the spirit by definition?

Is it God's omnipotence that allows such a feat? Omnipotence, as is usually defined, is the capacity of an agent to enact all things which are logically possible. Is it logically possible, then, for a thing of one ontic form to create wholesale an entirely different—and perhaps even diametrically inverse—category of ontic "stuff"? Is it logically possible for such an agent to perpetuate their will without a medium through which that will might perpetuate?

Are we to say that God created the medium as well? But how does the creation of that medium occur without a medium for the power of that creation to be perpetuated? Do we have a chain of infinite regression on our hands?

And if this ontic medium does exist, and does necessarily transcend any one substance, then would it not also transcend God, who is of the spiritual substance? If your definition of God holds that It is the ontological bedrock of All That Is, then we have a contradiction (and therefore, a problem).

And if God is the ontic medium itself, then It cannot be of the spirit also. To be both would be incoherent, as you have an entity that was at once the medium and one substance, but not all substances (like a being made out of space and electromagnetism, with gravity and nuclear forces as separate ontic substances).
It seems the preliminary case that there must necessarily be an ontic medium that transcends all substances, or they could otherwise never interact, nor one substance have influence over another. What this means for the nature and properties of God isn't wholly relevant to the inquiry at hand. Let us therefore grant the existence of this medium, and examine the further implications its existence would entail.

The very nature of interaction as a coherent concept demands a medium. For chemicals, the medium is a solvent or a volume (e.g. water); for the forces of nature (and human interaction), the medium is space-time [5]. For distinct ontic substances, the medium is… something even more fundamental.

Regardless of God’s properties and Its relation to our space and time (i.e. material reality), God would need an ontic medium to interact with the material. This would include performing miracles, which can be defined as all material occurrences whose causes are expressly supernatural.

However, I’d venture that God wouldn’t need an ontic medium to interact with one’s soul or spirit, since God and the soul would be of the same substance (i.e. the spiritual). God could “reach out” to a given soul, and thus be capable of delivering messages/visions/revelations/etc. without the need for an ontic medium.

With these factors in play, we can begin examining how evidence of God might manifest.
[/collapse]

[collapse=On Manifestations of Evidence]
We can define evidence as any data that can be measured or observed, and which serves as a sign that a given thing exists. Evidence that Bob exists would consist of measuring/observing Bob and his properties, and his interactions with the world (which would all lead to signal that Bob exists).

There are thus two avenues by which one might seek out, or obtain, evidence of God—the material and spiritual routes.

[collapse=THE MATERIAL SEARCH FOR GOD]
The immediate issue that surfaces in this scenario is that of an ontic "divide". So far as we know, you can’t build a machine out of matter to detect spirit-stuff. You could perhaps in theory create a device that could tap into the ontic medium itself, but even that seems a tenuous concept. So this doesn't seem a viable approach.

If we cannot detect God Itself directly using material means (which seems to be in concordance with the dualist framework of most theologies), then that leaves us with an indirect search, trying to infer God's existence by measuring Its interaction as Its spiritual self interfaces with the material.

Dark Matter, for instance, doesn't interact with electromagnetism, nor the nuclear forces; its existence is made known only through its interaction with gravitation. But unlike Dark Matter, God doesn't interact with the "material forces" as an innate property of Itself, which would make detecting instances of "divine interaction" difficult indeed.

So what's left? To wait until something "happens" that could be divinely caused? How might one distinguish something divinely caused, and something that was simply highly improbable (whose 0.01% chance of happening, happens to have manifested)?

Suppose we notice that the Andromeda Galaxy has shifted to the other side of the heavens overnight. Was this an Act of God? That would be one hypothesis, but other hypotheses would exist (e.g. advanced alien civilizations moving the galaxy; some singularly, complex material entity moving the galaxy; the galaxy moving due to highly improbable physical conditions; the galaxy moving due to common physical conditions we don't yet know about; etc.).

For such broad, general instances, it would be difficult to accept God as the most plausible hypothesis among all others. And suppose the act was of divine origin? As noted earlier, it would be beyond our capacity to detect this divine origin using the purely material means at our inquisitive disposal.

This means that, to infer God, divine acts must be so specific that they could not be attributed to any other cause. Thankfully, most theologies have very specific descriptions of god-concepts, their properties, and how they can (and do) interface with the material realm (and our own selves). So, for instance, if the Apocalypse of John as described in the New Testament happened word for word, beat for beat, in our own reality just as it reads on the page, then that might constitute sufficient evidence for the Abrahamic conception of God that is described in the Judeo-Christian Bible.

Nothing divinely caused on so conclusive or on so large a scale has so far been determined to have factually happened (to my knowledge). But if we grant that divinely caused instances do occur, then it may nonetheless be difficult to ascertain that divine proof (unless, again, the evidence is monumental).

If a man went about, proclaiming himself to be Kalki, the final avatar of Vishnu, here to herald the end of the epoch of Kali Yuga, how might one verify the truth of his identity? If he rode a white horse and wielded a sword of flame, would that be enough? If he were to perform public displays to showcase his power, would that be enough? How might one ascertain that these powers were of divine origin, and that this man isn't just a naturalist X-Man, or an alien with advanced technology (or a human or a time-traveller with advanced technology), masquerading as Kalki?

It thus seems that, to infer any manner of God, the interactions It has with the material must be so precise, so specific, that the only plausible explanation must reside in something of the spiritual substance having interfaced with matter. But that seems an extremely tall order for we humans to determine, so it doesn't appear that simple, mundane miracles or similar things would be enough; only an all-out eschatological shift in our experience of reality would be sufficient (and that won't happen until it does, so we can't currently use that as a measure to infer the existence of God).
[/collapse]

[collapse=THE SPIRITUAL SEARCH FOR GOD]
As the previous subsection assessed, finding God through material means seems either impossible, or way beyond our present capacity.

But God is of the spiritual substance, and in most theologies, we too, as humans, possess spiritual substance (the soul), which is conjoined to the body via the ontic medium. The material can interact with the material just fine, as is evident in our experience, so it is reasonable that the spiritual could interact with the spiritual just fine.

It must then be possible for God to interact directly with the soul of a given human—especially since God is defined as a conscious agent, and would thus be able to actively reach out to one's soul.

So if there is an ontic "channel" that links us to God, can we use that channel to verify the existence of God? Could we meditate, commune, pray, or project ourselves via this channel to perhaps glimpse at God, thereby gaining first-hand confirmation of Its existence? I suppose that would depend on the properties of the channel, the difficulty threshold of exploiting the channel, and whether God can be reached (or wants to be reached) via that channel. So it may be a viable method for inferring (or confirming) the existence of God, though only by first establishing the variables at play in such a system.

This seems to beg the question, however, as you'd have to affirm the existence of God as the foregone conclusion before you begin to search for It. We're supposed to start with nothing, and work our way up from scratch; that's the essence of investigation, the empirical way [6]. If you assume the conclusion of God before you begin the search, you will bias and compromise your methodology and the results thereby gained (which is also an issue that applies in the previous section about using "material" means to try and find God).

But let's suppose that this quibble of jumping the gun doesn't matter. God is a hypothesis, and we're just trying to examine its legitimacy.

So, if the channel is two-way, it would be possible for God to reach out to our soul, and communicate with us directly (assuming the "soul" is synonymous with—or at least linked to—our consciousness/mind). Through the common denominator of the spiritual substance, God could impart upon one soul (or many) visions, impressions, sensations, thoughts, speech, and/or whatever else.

The obstacle in this case is authentication. How can one determine that it is God that is communicating, and that it isn't one's own self or some other entity? We know from psychology and neurology that the mind can be unreliable as a tool for assessing the veracity of experience, what with such things as cognitive biases and falling prey to fallacious reasoning.

So, if some manner of entity communes with me, Sehnsucht, out of the blue, how might I determine the origin? How might I determine this origin to be divine, or of God? Obviously, if the entity just says that It's God, and I'm supposed to just take Its word for it, then there isn't much for me to go on.

Evidently, the most optimal approach would be to demonstrate how the interlocutor could be none other than God, by imparting spontaneous knowledge in our mind about God, revealing truths about oneself, and so on. But even so, it could be difficult to accept the authentication. What if I'm getting transmissions from an alien organism, filling me with notions of God and ontology and truths about existence, yet which are all fabrications the alien has devised?

I could believe the interlocutor to be God. But we aren't interested in belief. The topic at hand concerns evidence, and thereby, knowledge.

If we want assurances that the messenger is God and not some other entity (regardless of their ontic makeup), then the solution is simple—the more information God gives to authenticate Itself, the less doubt there can be that it's God, and so the probability that God is the speaker rises accordingly. The only way to be 100% certain that we're dealing with God, then, is if God reveals Itself 100%, in full, revealing all knowledge It possesses to dispel any possible doubts of Its identity.

With an omniscient entity, that might be problematic. Though there might be a solution, if we suppose that there is a threshold of sufficient information for the human brain that is required to be freed of all doubts as to the interlocutor being God (i.e. at one point, you exclaim "Alright, I get it! You're God!").

In examining this two-way ontic channel of spirit-stuff, it's looking pretty uncertain. We can't say any more about reaching out to God without knowing more about the properties of the channel itself and how it can be used by the human soul; and we can't truly be certain that God is reaching out to us unless God authenticates Itself with enough information to dispel all other candidates or causes for the sending of these messages (/revelations/imparted knowledge/etc.).
[/collapse]

There is also a third avenue worth touching, rooted not in empiricism, but in rationalism. Which is to say, inferring God not through experimentation and the accumulation of data, but through rational examination and reflection. Things such as logical or mathematical proofs of God, syllogisms and arguments that demonstrate that God—which is at minimum a consciousness of spiritual substance and the cause of material reality—must logically and/or necessarily exist, in order for our own material domain to exist, or have come to be.

But can such things count as evidence? If these logical or mathematical displays aren't corroborated by empirical fact, then how would they be more useful, or indicative of anything, than mere armchair speculation? Admittedly, I'm not confident in my understanding or knowledge of how such arguments are intended to be compelling, but it remains that, so far as the question of this thesis is concerned, we're trying to find evidence that God exists—so naturally, tangible and observable evidence of God is preferable to abstractions and derivations of purely logical constructs (which, I should note, can certainly be compelling, though less so than empirical confirmation).

In any case, this should cover all the ways in which evidence for God might conceivably manifest. We can now move on to what I would consider to be compelling evidence for the existence of God.
[/collapse]

[collapse=On Sufficient Proofs for the Existence of God]
Now, we turn to what it would take for me, Sehnsucht, to acknowledge the existence of God. But first, we must establish my own current stances, as well as reiterate the definitions established throughout this post.

[collapse=Sehnsucht and God]
Concerning labels, I'd be classified as an agnostic apatheist [7]. I'm agnostic because I presently lack knowledge of actually extant god-concepts, and I'm apatheist because not only to I lack belief in the existence of god-concepts, but I find that things that cannot impact, affect, or influence my experience to not be worth taking into account in my quotidian decision-making.

In other words, it isn't practical to seriously think about, or consider the existence of god-concepts if I can't or don't perceive their influence on my experience. God-concepts, then, become as relevant to my life as the Bleeps of planet Blorp. Why ponder the implication the Bleeps have on my life if their influence (let alone their existence) cannot be ascertained, or quantified?

Thus far, I've had no firsthand experiences (no visions or epiphanies or so forth), or direct observation of god-concepts and related phenomena. And secondhand sources—exposure to information—has yet to offer compelling reasons to shift my view of things; thus far, I find non-theistic frameworks to be more compelling, more aligned with my perceived experience, and more fascinating (a less relevant point, admittedly) than theistic models.

But I do strive to be reasonable and open-minded [8], so if new information comes to light, I'd do as any rational person would—assimilate the information and alter your understanding accordingly. Which leads us to the questions to be discussed shortly.
[/collapse]

And now, definitions (gotta love 'em):

[collapse=Sehnsucht's Definitions]
-God
--A self-aware consciousness consisting of spiritual substance, and who caused our present space-time.

-Belief
--The state of accepting a proposition as being true or probably true.

-Knowledge
--Awareness of a discrete quantity of information.

-Material Substance
--The ontic substance manifest in our space-time (the stuff of matter, energy, forces, fields, etc.).

-Spiritual Substance
--The ontic substance of "spirit-stuff" (whatever that may be).

-Ontic Medium
--The conceptual mechanism that would allow different ontic substances to interact with one another.

-Evidence
--Observable and/or measurable data signifying the existence of a thing.
[/collapse]

The OP inquires about sufficient evidence for any given god-concept, and for the Abrahamic God of Judeo-Christian theology in particular, so we'll address both questions.

In order for me to acknowledge the factual existence of any god-concept, there are two conditions:

-Direct authentication via the ontic medium, where the more information is imparted, the greater the apparent validity of the authentication;
-Determining that an occurrence in the material domain was divinely caused, either with absolute confirmation, or it being the most, if not the only, plausible explanation for the occurrence.

For the Abrahamic God in particular, sufficient evidence would include modified versions of the above two conditions, alongside a third:

-Direct authentification via the ontic medium, where the more information is imparted, the greater the apparent validity of the interlocutor being God;
-A divinely caused occurrence whose manifestation, and explanation, is accounted for in the Judeo-Christian Bible, and where such an explanation is the most, if not the only, plausible explanation for the occurrence;
-The advent of an eschatological scenario (End Times) whose manifestation and unfolding are accounted for in the Judeo-Christian Bible (e.g. Rapture, Tribulation, Antichrist, etc.).

If one or more of these conditions were to be satisfied, then I, Sehnsucht, would acknowledge the factual existence of God. Anything else would fall short of sufficient justification for acceptance of their objective existence (though there is the possibility that I could be persuaded to believe that God exists, without having sufficient evidence—which is the nature of belief, but I digress).

In a scenario where these conditions are met, I would both believe that God exists (accepting the truth in the proposition "God exists)" and know that God exists (being aware of the information pertaining to God's factual existence). There would be no faith in God, however, as faith, while conceptually tied to belief, has connotations of trust and hope despite the lack of sufficient assurances (e.g. I have faith that you'll succeed, even though I can't be sure you will).

There is one last line of questioning that emerges before we can conclude.

If I now know that God exists, what then?

Being aware of God's existence has no implications; it is information that exists in a vacuum. A tree's leaves are green, but what does that have to do with anything? It is simply a property of existence of which I am aware.

Simply knowing that God exists doesn't tell me what I should do with that information. Should I try to commune with God? Worship It? Ignore It? Oppose It?

These are questions to be tackled in the potential scenario in which God's existence comes to light. And that's after discussions concerning whether these conditions can or will ever be met.

But these are also questions that are best kept for another day.
[/collapse]

Thus ends my lengthy dissertation on evidence and God, as examined through the lens of ontic substances.

Having reached the end, the conclusion is that there are conditions through which evidence for God could manifest, thereby leading me to acknowledge and accept the existence of God; however, this acknowledgement, if it ever does manifest, tells me nothing as to how I might apply that information—how I might change my decision-making process, or the way that I live my life, in an existence where God is a factor/variable/etc.

If you made it this far, thanks for reading. If there are questions, counterpoints, comments, or the pointing out of fallacies in my reasoning (or errors in my references to philosophical or scientific concepts), by all means share them. 8D

Lastly, here are the footnotes referenced throughout the text:

[collapse=Footnotes]
[1] I use the term “god-concept” as shorthand for “conceptions of supernatural entities”. Whether or not actual supernatural entities exist, conceptions of them do exist. So it’s more useful, practically speaking, to term such things as god-concepts, since the existence of such conceptions can presently be verified.

[2] Ontology is the metaphysical inquiry into the nature of being. Ontic is the adjective denoting objective properties proper to an entity, removed from perceived experience. So when I say ontic substance, for instance, I'm referring to the substance that comprises the fundamental nature of the given entity.

[3] A pantheist model, in which God and reality are synonymous, would fall under Substance Monism, since it’s all made of the same “stuff” (whether that stuff be material, cognitive, spiritual, or what have you). Panentheism would be dualist, since God would be more than material reality (meaning material substance is only one aspect of God).

[4] In Substance Monism, you have three possibilities for the nature of the one substance. There is Physicalism, in which the stuff of matter and energy and so forth is the fundamental substance, and all things (including mental phenomena) are derivative of it; there is Idealism, in which the stuff of thought, consciousness, and ideas is the fundamental substance, and all things (including physical phenomena) are derivative of it; and there is Neutral Monism, which holds that what we call the “physical” and what we call the “mental” are derivative of a shared underlying substance.

[5] In physics, a field is a quantity that has a value for every point in the system. Different values in the points of a gravitational field, for instance, determine the strength or weakness of gravitational effects. Each physical force manifests as a field that permeates space-time (which thus serves as the medium in which they exist and interact).

[6] Empiricism is an approach to inquiry, a methodology. Science as a practice is empirical. It isn't the only path to knowledge, but it's a very solid and thorough one (if done correctly). And for matters such as evidence and God, it's the most appropriate methodology to apply.

[7] Apatheism is basically a utilitarian flavour of atheism (apathy+atheism). Why live my life assuming god-concepts if I can't tell if they do or don't exist, nor know to what extent they influence my life?

[8] There is a definition that holds that open-mindedness is the capacity to entertain a thought without accepting it (which, incidentally, is the approach I've taken throughout this discourse, as you'll no doubt have noticed).
[/collapse]

 

[Sucumbio]

Interesting! If we assume we're speaking of the j/c-god, God, and furthermore the Catholic version... according to this particular religion, God exists in 3 forms-as-one. Father (creator) Son (material) Holy Spirit (ethereal). The Father only ever truly interacts with mankind either individually or group-at-a-time through the means of a messenger. Angels (physical beings with no soul, call them flesh robots, really), normally, though technically also the Son - his "avatar," born of true flesh and bone, dead as such, risen as such (miracle), and ascended as such back to "heaven."

...

SO a lot of what your thoughts have lead you toward does actually correlate to Catholic dogma. As does your issues...

The difficulty in this topic is the question itself. We have to remember that humans were created with the express intent of being different from God's first creation, angels. Angels were made solely to worship God and to do his bidding. They were his slaves. No bones about it. Thus why Lucifer rebeled. Humans were created with the capacity to choose to either believe in God (without any evidence) or not believe in God (without any evidence). That choice is the fundamental difference between humans and angels. So as such, asking for evidence is like asking for a cheat sheet to the one question you're supposed to answer from the heart. I know, I know, it's dumb, but it's what gets a lot of people through the night, it's what MOVES people to do great and terrible things. It's comforting, to some, and horrifying to some. But it's definitely one of the things, if you have to ask, you've missed the point and the point is what matters.

But all that pontification aside, evidence for God is, about 2000 years too late, I'm afraid. Oh sure, there's been Saints who witnessed, there's people today who "Witness" (feel the touch of God, hear the voice of God, etc.) but it's all very personal, very un-provable. This is (supposedly) why the Church refrains from allowing the media to make claims on miracles. It flies in the face of everything the Church holds dear. Because honestly, if we were as sure that God exists as we are as sure the Sun is hot, what point would there be to our lives? Or if not that, we surely would HAVE to worship (I mean, would YOU be the one ***hole who says, nah F you I don't worship you!!!!) really... ha. yeah, so it behooves the Church to ensure that people are not worshiping because they HAVE to, but instead because they want to, out of love and admiration for Christ and his gigantic sacrifice.

Interestingly enough, this is exactly why the Jews and Christians differ fundamentally in terms of their faith. To them, Jesus was NOT God... just a plain old dude who was rightfully executed for stirring up trouble. They're actually still waiting for him to show up. This is why the Bible, the ... Almanac of God, had to be divided into two parts, the "old" part and "new" part. Everything prior to the new part is fairy tales intermixed with historical events and peoples. Think, The Aeneid. It categorically describes the tribes and their descendents, the coming and going of real people and their exploits, but it of course throws in tons of flowery embellishment and mysticism. The New part is no different. But this time it's about Jesus. All Jesus (and his chosen). So much so, that it actually replaces the Old book in terms of rules and regulations for conduct, for instance (this is where half the paradoxes/contradictions come from).

The Bible itself is not evidence for God. It's more a diary, a compilation of man and their observations, interactions and experiences. It is a book of insight.

Anyway, I thought your presentation was excellent. I do feel as if you've hedged your bet a bit, mainly because your line of reasoning is, well, a line. But we all have to start somewhere, and you've at least acknowledge and identified the issue in a well thought out manner which is refreshing.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Hey, Sucumbio. Thanks for your response.

While I have not (yet) read the Bible proper, I am vaguely aware of what consists the Catholic brand of Judeo-Christian theology (through immersion in Apologetics). So I'm roughly familiar with much of this, though I'll nonetheless address points of interest.

The difficulty in this topic is the question itself. We have to remember that humans were created with the express intent of being different from God's first creation, angels. Angels were made solely to worship God and to do his bidding. They were his slaves. No bones about it. Thus why Lucifer rebeled.

I've always wondered about that. If Angels are slaves, vessels by which God perpetuates Its will, then do they possess "free will"? If not, then how could Lucifer have ever rebelled in the first place?

I'm aware that in Islamic theology, Lucifer (Iblis) was not an angel, but a Jinn. Islamic Angels have zero free will, acting purely as instruments of Allah. Had Iblis been an Angel, he never could have rebelled (so thankfully and conveniently, he was a Jinn).

Of course, if Judeo-Christian Angels do have free will (the capacity for agency), then I suppose there is less of a problem here.

Humans were created with the capacity to choose to either believe in God (without any evidence) or not believe in God (without any evidence). That choice is the fundamental difference between humans and angels. So as such, asking for evidence is like asking for a cheat sheet to the one question you're supposed to answer from the heart. I know, I know, it's dumb, but it's what gets a lot of people through the night, it's what MOVES people to do great and terrible things. It's comforting, to some, and horrifying to some. But it's definitely one of the things, if you have to ask, you've missed the point and the point is what matters.

I'm aware that for faith to work, you can't have evidence -- because then it's less about belief, and more about knowledge.

Which I continue to find curious indeed. Why does God want you to "choose" to assume It exists or not "of your own free will"? What's God's game? Why the requirement of faith (trust and hope despite doubt)?

I have an analogy based on frequencies and wavelengths that I had once whipped up to try and reconcile these notions; it's not strictly relevant to the thread topic, but it is compatible with my previous talks of substance dualism and ontic media, so I'll collapse it below:

[collapse=On the Frequency of God]
Let us posit that God has a "frequency" -- the frequency of the spirit. The more out of tune you are relative to this wavelength, the further from God you are. To be in Heaven is to be in the presence of God, due to being on the same wavelength; to be in Hell is to be removed from the presence of God, since your frequency is out of tune.

God wishes for all things to be in tune with It. This includes your "spirit-self". When you die, if your frequency is in tune enough, God can pull you into Heaven; if not, then you can't enter Heaven, and so must reside in Hell. If you posit Purgatory, then Purgatory is a state in which you're just outside of reach of the Wavelength of God, but can attune yourself to slip on through (via atonement and repentance and so forth).

Because these frequencies are spiritual in nature, one's spirit-frequency is all about the immaterial. Original Sin permanently place one's spirit-frequency out of tune with God. Prayer, communion, rituals (the Eucharist, Baptism, etc.), faith in Christ, and so on are things that can help bring your wavelength closer to God's. Selfless and charitable acts, witnessing to others, and righteous living also help to restore wavelength compatibility. And if you "sin" (i.e. do acts that cause you to go further out of tune), you can ask for forgiveness, reaching your spirit-self out to God so that It can reach out to you and help focus the spirit-frequency via the two-way spirit-channel.

Though God wants us to freely choose to align ourselves (or not) with God, because reasons. God lends a hand to those who try to reach to It through the spirit-channel, but won't do anything for those that don't "tune in on the broadcast".

And at one point, God sent Itself (or a spokesperson) to advertise Its spirit-station.
[/collapse]

Might not quite be coherent with actual Catholic (or generally Christian) theology, but it seems a consistent analogy, and accounts for why faith and belief (conscious acts of tuning) are so vital in the theistic (or at least, Catholic) model of reality.

But all that pontification aside, evidence for God is, about 2000 years too late, I'm afraid. Oh sure, there's been Saints who witnessed, there's people today who "Witness" (feel the touch of God, hear the voice of God, etc.) but it's all very personal, very un-provable. This is (supposedly) why the Church refrains from allowing the media to make claims on miracles. It flies in the face of everything the Church holds dear. Because honestly, if we were as sure that God exists as we are as sure the Sun is hot, what point would there be to our lives? Or if not that, we surely would HAVE to worship (I mean, would YOU be the one ***hole who says, nah F you I don't worship you!!!!) really... ha. yeah, so it behooves the Church to ensure that people are not worshiping because they HAVE to, but instead because they want to, out of love and admiration for Christ and his gigantic sacrifice.

In my examination of dualism, I ended up with the conclusion that even if I were to know that God exists, as surely as I know that I exist (even though I might not, but that's another topic), this information tells me nothing about how I should act, or proceed.

If God requires worship, and it is in my best interest to engage in such worship, why should I worship God regardless? To get into Heaven? Why would I want to get into Heaven? Because it will complete me? Why would or should I desire that?

There would still be many questions to be considered in a scenario where the Abrahamic God comes forward as an actual fixture in our lives. Perhaps there might be philosophical implications to this newfound system that might warrant protest, or resistance, or civil disobedience on philosophical grounds regarding the dichotomy of salvation and damnation. Then again, if everything does turn out to be reasonable, then it would be rational to opt in.

So even if you were supposed to engage in worship, that alone isn't compelling enough a reason (even if it's in your best interest to do so, and has immense repercussions for your karmic fate).

Interestingly enough, this is exactly why the Jews and Christians differ fundamentally in terms of their faith. To them, Jesus was NOT God... just a plain old dude who was rightfully executed for stirring up trouble. They're actually still waiting for him to show up. This is why the Bible, the ... Almanac of God, had to be divided into two parts, the "old" part and "new" part. Everything prior to the new part is fairy tales intermixed with historical events and peoples. Think, The Aeneid. It categorically describes the tribes and their descendents, the coming and going of real people and their exploits, but it of course throws in tons of flowery embellishment and mysticism. The New part is no different. But this time it's about Jesus. All Jesus (and his chosen). So much so, that it actually replaces the Old book in terms of rules and regulations for conduct, for instance (this is where half the paradoxes/contradictions come from).

Interesting. I like the Almanac analogue.

Again, I have yet to read the Bible, but I intend to. One of the pet projects I tell myself that I will eventually get to is to partake of the scriptures and texts of the major world religions. I'm interested to see what it is they actually purport, straight from the holy horse's mouth.

The Bible itself is not evidence for God. It's more a diary, a compilation of man and their observations, interactions and experiences. It is a book of insight.

Well, those insights may not be evidence of God Itself, but they could serve as correlating or corroborating information. So if God were to be made known, and Its properties happen to align with those as described in the Bible, then we could say that the Bible is a source that does corroborate God.

I agree that on its own, the Bible doesn't really serve as evidence. If the Bible were a guy named Bob, Bob would just be standing there talking, which doesn't help (or hurt) the "case of God" in any meaningful way (except to say that Bob certainly espouses the truth in his assertions).

Anyway, I thought your presentation was excellent. I do feel as if you've hedged your bet a bit, mainly because your line of reasoning is, well, a line. But we all have to start somewhere, and you've at least acknowledge and identified the issue in a well thought out manner which is refreshing.

Thanks. I put much effort in organization and structure, so I'm glad it paid off.

My inquiry had a narrow focus (i.e. the ontology of substances), and I started from scratch, following the implications to their logical conclusions. So I realize that I may have denied possibilities outside of that paradigm.

For instance, I think I could have tried to cover how evidence for God might manifest in a monist model (e.g. Pantheism, Panentheism, Idealism, etc.). And also examine other possible natures of God (e.g. what if God was a material entity? What if God was simply an extremely complex and/or advanced life form? etc.).

Though because God (especially the Abrahamic one invoked in the OP) is usually defined as being "of the spirit", I latched on to deliberations on dualism. I could have covered more, but my post was already getting long as it was, so I didn't want to tarry any more than I already had. The singular deconstruction of dualism took a few thousand words, and by the time I got there, it was time to wrap things up.

Thanks again for your input. Interesting stuff to be had here. 8D

 

[Reginleif]

Beyonce

 

[Sehnsucht]

Beyonce

Ergo, Beyonce is God.

 

[Oracle_Summon]

The only evidences that work in favor of claiming God exists are:

• Finding a skeleton or human remains that scientifically shows they had no belly button.
• Remains of Noah's Ark that fits the ruler estimations.
• The temple that Moses and his brother built to help further communications and understanding God. If I am not mistaken it was called the Tabernacle.

These are the only ones that sound secure off the top of my head.

 

[Sucumbio]

@ Sehnsucht : I will address this in detail but I gotta go to work >< But just to clarify, to say that the angels do not have free will is misleading and that's my fault for not being clearer. What I mean by "free will" is a very specific truth - the existence of God. Being that the angels KNOW that God exists, they have no choice but to know this, you see? Humans do not exist in Heaven, so we don't get that luxury, but that's cause God wanted it that way. Angels have a will of their own, hence why Lucifer could actually rebel, and several other angels followed him. They can decide when to tie their shoes, etc. They cannot decide whether or not God exists, and this was the thing that made God decide he wanted humans, and he made this decision-making-creation more complex by involving the Soul, which angels do not posses. Sorry for the brevity gotta run, I'll edit this later!

Edit: God, I hate overnight shifts. ><

Okay! So...

I've always wondered about that. If Angels are slaves, vessels by which God perpetuates Its will, then do they possess "free will"? If not, then how could Lucifer have ever rebelled in the first place?

Pretty much what I said above. Angels have the capacity to make their own decisions, just that the question of whether or not to worship God is already answered for them, because that's what they were created for. This actually ties into your point about, "what do I do if God is proven? why worship?" It's difficult to assimilate because we're not angels, this is where I draw the robot analogy. The purpose of a computer is to compute. The purpose of an angel is to worship God. Computers are our slaves in this sense as Angels are God's ... but just imagine if one day a computer "rebelled" and decided to choose its own path. Many stories have come from this notion, I'm particularly fond of Harlan Ellison's I Have No Mouth, And I Must Scream.

Which I continue to find curious indeed. Why does God want you to "choose" to assume It exists or not "of your own free will"? What's God's game? Why the requirement of faith (trust and hope despite doubt)?

One way to look at this particular question is to think of it like "happy birthday." Now it's true not everyone cares if they get wished a happy birthday (and furthermore Facebook has almost nullified this scenario with its tawdry reminders) but in essence, which would normally "mean more" to a person? Someone remembering your birthday and wishing you well, or that person having to remind someone "hey it's my birthday, today" ... "oh, uh, happy birthday!" :< It may be a weak example but it's more meant to invoke the idea that some things are "worth" more if they come from the heart rather than the head.... If you are God and you are lonely, so you create machines that sing your praise day in and day out, you then realize, ya know, I want to create something that will sing my praise because it wants to, not because it has to. Ego? Yeah, God is not shy of Ego, for sure. That's not to say he's sinful (prideful) just that he's kinda obvious in some senses (many, really).

I have an analogy based on frequencies and wavelengths that I had once whipped up to try and reconcile these notions; it's not strictly relevant to the thread topic, but it is compatible with my previous talks of substance dualism and ontic media, so I'll collapse it below:

Might not quite be coherent with actual Catholic (or generally Christian) theology, but it seems a consistent analogy, and accounts for why faith and belief (conscious acts of tuning) are so vital in the theistic (or at least, Catholic) model of reality.

This is a fantastic analogy. If we were to go one step further and ascribe natural magnetism (Earth's iron core) one could even begin to explore the scientific reasons why God may exist - on this level - indeed one may even begin to surmise that such properties in nature align themselves within specific people, thus giving them stronger "insight" or to some insane degree, powers, as in like Christ. To a bunch of illiterate fisherman it stands to reason that Christ may have seemed the son of God (though he protested being called as such on several occasions) but just imagine if God really is just the nature of Earth and "holy" people and goings-on are really just manifestations of natural phenomenon we still just don't understand fully. God may actually be inert! No will, just energy and it's effect on people result in mysticism due to a lack of true understanding. hm...

In my examination of dualism, I ended up with the conclusion that even if I were to know that God exists, as surely as I know that I exist (even though I might not, but that's another topic), this information tells me nothing about how I should act, or proceed.

If God requires worship, and it is in my best interest to engage in such worship, why should I worship God regardless? To get into Heaven? Why would I want to get into Heaven? Because it will complete me? Why would or should I desire that?

There would still be many questions to be considered in a scenario where the Abrahamic God comes forward as an actual fixture in our lives. Perhaps there might be philosophical implications to this newfound system that might warrant protest, or resistance, or civil disobedience on philosophical grounds regarding the dichotomy of salvation and damnation. Then again, if everything does turn out to be reasonable, then it would be rational to opt in.

So even if you were supposed to engage in worship, that alone isn't compelling enough a reason (even if it's in your best interest to do so, and has immense repercussions for your karmic fate).

Okay: let's assume God is real for a second. This is a difficult and personal question. There are many answers. Fear, being the most normal response is also the oldest response. But given our advancements in science, Fear is almost always preceded by "irrational" so for all intents and purposes I doubt that Fear would be the best motivator. In fact I'd suspect if God demanded worship and threatened people with harm or loud thunderclaps and lightning bolts or fiery storms or what have you, people would NOT worship, they'd try to nuke his ***.

Love, that's a typical reason to worship. Love for the life that we've been given, the beauty of our world, the creation that we all share in, but even to some that'd be ... insufficient.

The unknown, that's a motivator. God can promise you eternal happiness (or eternal suffering) based on how you live, and technically, part of how you live includes how you worship. According to dogma, anyway. So choosing not to worship, and still living a "good" life will most definitely land you in purgatory where you'd have to stew for a bit before ascending to heaven. Meh, I find this to be a bit on the unwieldy side... but this would be another reason why God is not obvious about his presence. He wants you to live a good life and worship him, for sure, but if he was right in your face the whole time, you'd pretty much be saying "I choose the opposite of what you're offering." Even if he didn't strike you down (remember that God almighty is loving and fair and also terrible and cruel depending on the bible story) he'd definitely be expecting you to hit the road, Jack cause you just aren't ready to sit and chill w/him upstairs. I'm getting silly.

 

[LarsINTJ]

The main problem I have with philosophers who try to explain the notion of God is that they inevitably descend into vague spirituality and thus become more akin to mystics. It's important to remain empirical in the search for truth.

 

[Desu_Maiden]

People use intelligent design as evidence for God. But I think nature can create highly complex beings through evolution.

 

[alexkenny]

The only scientific way we could prove if a "God", (the idea of a godlike structure), existed is to have the ability to move out of and understand the function of our known universe. Then, at that point, would we have more feasible evidence of whether our universe was created by an individual or by natural processes.

 

[Claire Diviner]

The only scientific way we could prove if a "God", (the idea of a godlike structure), existed is to have the ability to move out of and understand the function of our known universe. Then, at that point, would we have more feasible evidence of whether our universe was created by an individual or by natural processes.

If I'm correct (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), wouldn't it be impossible to travel to the edge of our known universe because of how rapidly it's expanding? I imagine it'd expand much faster than we can catch up to it unless there was some extreme method to curve space time to travel ludicrous distances in a matter of an instant. I imagine we'd be long dead, or have evolved into something completely alien to what we currently are now by the time we manage technology that would allow such a thing.

 

[Sehnsucht]

If I'm correct (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), wouldn't it be impossible to travel to the edge of our known universe because of how rapidly it's expanding? I imagine it'd expand much faster than we can catch up to it unless there was some extreme method to curve space time to travel ludicrous distances in a matter of an instant. I imagine we'd be long dead, or have evolved into something completely alien to what we currently are now by the time we manage technology that would allow such a thing.

From my layman's understanding of astrophysics, there is no definitive "edge" to the universe, in the conventional sense of the term. A boundary, perhaps, but no "edge". If you keep going in a straight line out into the cosmos, you won't eventually reach a literal barrier or wall, through which you could punch a hole to break out from the confines of the universe -- in the same way that the Earth isn't a flat disc, so you won't fall over the edge of the world if you were to sail into the ocean without interruption. The Earth has a boundary (it's surface), but no "edge.

To go "outside" our universe (assuming that's at all possible), you'd have to travel beyond its boundary. If you want to leave Earth for outer space, you don't walk in a straight line; you travel perpendicular to the planet's surface. Similarly, you'd escape the universe by orienting yourself at right angles to our space-time. I'd imagine that you could achieve this from any point in space-time (even your own bedroom), in the same way that you could depart Earth from any point on the planet. Though of course, the actual shape of the universe, and the nature of what lies "beyond" it (if anything) would determine the required methods to break out.

Not to mention that even if one did break out, it wouldn't necessarily tell us anything of how the universe was first caused, nor how we might set about to investigate this question from such an extra-universal vantage point.

 

[Claire Diviner]

From my layman's understanding of astrophysics, there is no definitive "edge" to the universe, in the conventional sense of the term. A boundary, perhaps, but no "edge". If you keep going in a straight line out into the cosmos, you won't eventually reach a literal barrier or wall, through which you could punch a hole to break out from the confines of the universe -- in the same way that the Earth isn't a flat disc, so you won't fall over the edge of the world if you were to sail into the ocean without interruption. The Earth has a boundary (it's surface), but no "edge.

To go "outside" our universe (assuming that's at all possible), you'd have to travel beyond its boundary. If you want to leave Earth for outer space, you don't walk in a straight line; you travel perpendicular to the planet's surface. Similarly, you'd escape the universe by orienting yourself at right angles to our space-time. I'd imagine that you could achieve this from any point in space-time (even your own bedroom), in the same way that you could depart Earth from any point on the planet. Though of course, the actual shape of the universe, and the nature of what lies "beyond" it (if anything) would determine the required methods to break out.

Not to mention that even if one did break out, it wouldn't necessarily tell us anything of how the universe was first caused, nor how we might set about to investigate this question from such an extra-universal vantage point.

Yeah, by "edge", I meant a "boundary" of sorts where the farthest most galaxy(s) reside. I probably should have explained my description better.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Yeah, by "edge", I meant a "boundary" of sorts where the farthest most galaxy(s) reside. I probably should have explained my description better.

I'm not sure there could be any "objectively furthermost" galaxies. Again, I have at most a Discovery Channel-level grasp on these notions, but from what I've gleaned, the universe isn't a sort of round container in which all galaxies reside (meaning that there are some galaxies that are "closer" to the inner wall of the container than others). In other words, the universe isn't a snowglobe with our galaxy right in the middle.

A common analogy used to describe metric spatial expansion and the relativistic effects it produces is that of a sphere. Every galaxy is on the surface of that sphere. As the sphere expands, every galaxy is getting further distant from every other galaxy in equal measure (as per the expansion rate). Though from our frame of reference, we're not moving, and it's everything else that's moving away from us. No matter where you stand on the surface of a sphere, you're standing at the center of the surface area.

Incidentally, if space-time is a sphere as in the above analogy, and we're stuck on the surface, then the universe would be unbounded (i.e. if you trace a straight line on a sphere's surface, you end up where you first started). In such a case, the solution to depart the universe would again be to move perpendicular to the surface of the sphere.

I'm not aware what the consensus is on the probable shape of space-time is, however, so don't take my word for it. Last I checked, space-time seems to be "flat" at the local level, but it remains to be seen what shape it holds at the global level.

In any case, we're straying from the topic. My stance on these matters remains that A) your idea of how the universe is shaped doesn't seem concordant with the modern astrophysical consensus, and B) going "outside" the universe to see how it was caused won't necessarily show whether God did or did not do it (or whether God does or does not exist).

 

[Claire Diviner]

My stance on these matters remains that A) your idea of how the universe is shaped doesn't seem concordant with the modern astrophysical consensus, and B) going "outside" the universe to see how it was caused won't necessarily show whether God did or did not do it (or whether God does or does not exist).

No, I suppose not. The only other possible method is to look at a point in time before the Big Bang and see exactly what happened that triggered it, whether is was through some phenomenal explosion caused by a massively condensed amount of energy, or some being saying "let there be universe". Another interesting thing I'd like to add is if there is indeed a god, why us? Why Earth in the Milky Way specifically? Does it have influence over only us, or are there other life on far off unknown planets that also worship if not the same god, then certainly a deity with more or less the same basic concepts of what a divine creator is? Maybe we don't see the "miracles" as written in the many bibles and scriptures of other religions today because it could be argued this deity is busy working miracles on other planets scattered across the universe. Perhaps its omnipresence has a limit (but then it wouldn't be true omnipresence, now would it?). Perhaps "god" is a consciousness that transcends the physical body and is able to warp its sentience via all of the energies and subatomic particles that makes up our universe?

If not any of those, then perhaps our existence is either arbitrary, or we're but programs created in a massive simulation created by some fat guy behind a computer of some kind, observing our every day-to-day lives not much different from what gamers do in "The Sims" or "Spore". Who can say?

 

[Deleted member]

I'd say the best evidence for the validly of a religion short of death would be discovering a similar religion among extra-terrestrials

 

[Smash G]

I'm bored so I'll throw in my two cents.

There's not enough evidence either way. Though it's not really the a reasonable expectation to expect proof a god-being doesn't exist. Burden of proof is on the other side.

That said, it's kind of a useless discussion. We don't know. We won't have any way of proving it either way for a long time if ever. The best experiment (mattering on what belief system) is probably dying and maybe the question is answered then . Or maybe not.

I always hear about Occam's Razor but really, it means nothing here. I think saying stuff like "matter and energy has simply always been" is as much of an assumption as believing in a God. We do not have enough information to go beyond beliefs here either way. Nobody can say for a fact that God does or doesn't exist. The debate will last until we've likely figured out everything or almost everything about the universe which might not even ever happen. If there's a God it's most certainly the "End Game" of knowledge (I'm making another assumption here lol).


No matter how much logic or evidence you have you cannot say for sure either way. There is no real evidence a God exists. If you think that's enough for you then choose not to believe in a God (or Gods). If it isn't enough for you then believe if you want. I really don't care myself.


All the debate here will be nothing but philosophy, thought experiments and thoerycraft. There are simply no answers. But there's nothing wrong with philosophy (I love it) as long as you're not rudely combative. In the end it's a gamble. Say yes, say no. Someone is right. Who? God knows (or doesn't if a God doesn't exist)!



(when I say God I don't mean there's has to be one. I just don't have the vocabulary at the moment to address this idea from a more wide perspective on the diversity of religions.)

 

[Claire Diviner]

(when I say God I don't mean there's has to be one. I just don't have the vocabulary at the moment to address this idea from a more wide perspective on the diversity of religions.)

"Higher being" or "deity" could probably suffice when speaking in general terms for those religions that do not use the word "god(s)"/"God(s)" as an object(s) of worship.

 

[LarsINTJ]

All the debate here will be nothing but philosophy, thought experiments and thoerycraft. There are simply no answers. But there's nothing wrong with philosophy (I love it) as long as you're not rudely combative. In the end it's a gamble. Say yes, say no. Someone is right. Who? God knows (or doesn't if a God doesn't exist)!

Enough of this relativistic nonsense, of course we know God doesn't exist, the concept is self-contradictory. Whether or not something like a deity is plausible in some other parallel universe is completely irrelevant as far as epistemology is concerned.

People can believe in God if they want, but they should understand that it's fundamentally insane. It is a rejection of reality to disregard logic and empiricism in favor of the meaningless 'faith' virus. That said, I will never tolerate Religion being imposed upon the young, such is to perpetuate a terrible cycle of mental abuse, to poison a person's capacity for critical thought thus turning them into malleable guilt-ridden puppets forever exploited by undeserving authority figures (whether secular, familial or religious).

Ultimately, 'God' is a psychological reflection of unmet childhood needs projected upon the universe as a whole and the religious almost always mistake the internal guidance of their subconscious mind (~7000+ times more powerful than our conscious mind) for some influential external force. In other words, God is the immature personification of an individual's subconscious experience.

 

[Sehnsucht]

I'd say the best evidence for the validly of a religion short of death would be discovering a similar religion among extra-terrestrials

This is an question that has rather intrigued me. What place do other alien species have in the theologies of Man?

If we take Christianity, for instance, then Jesus didn't die on the cross for non-human sapients. So is Mankind the only species in the universe who succumbed to Original Sin (thus requiring redemption through the person of the Son)? If not, then did these other species require an Alien Messiah to save them? Or did they require some other divine solution? Did God create all beings in His image? And so on and so forth.

If Dharmic systems apply, then do aliens reincarnate? Could one of my lives have been, or will be, as a Bleep from planet Bloop? Can a Bleep of Bloop reincarnate as a human of Earth?

What if Mankind has a place in the theology of alien beings? That is, that the god of the Bleeps is the One True God?

And this would probably greatly affect the idea of morality. Other species on different worlds would have arisen through different environmental pressures. So their brains and sensory apparatuses would presumably be vastly different from our own (meaning their visceral experience of reality is similarly distinct). What is the morality of Bleeps? Are Bleeps and Humans subject to different objective moral standards (of divine origin), or are they held to different divine moral standards?

This seems underline a flaw in the foundation of religion -- it is utterly anthropocentric. God or gods may be transcendent minds, but descriptions of their personhood tend to lean toward human qualities (e.g. Justice, Love, Mercy, etc.). What if Bleeps have no use or understanding of these concepts?

Though of course, one could say that a given god-concept would know how to communicate with any being. But such a god-concept would be alien indeed (since we would only ever know the "human" face of God). And conceptions of God are already pretty sci-fi to begin with -- the premise of a transcendent mind who can reach out to you and knows you utterly sounds like an episode ripped right out of the Twilight Zone.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Here's another problem - omniscience can only be verified by omniscience.

The sheer lack of humility in religious affirmation is astounding, yet it typically proclaims humility as a virtue.

 

[Smash G]

Enough of this relativistic nonsense, of course we know God doesn't exist, the concept is self-contradictory. Whether or not something like a deity is plausible in some other parallel universe is completely irrelevant as far as epistemology is concerned.

People can believe in God if they want, but they should understand that it's fundamentally insane. It is a rejection of reality to disregard logic and empiricism in favor of the meaningless 'faith' virus. That said, I will never tolerate Religion being imposed upon the young, such is to perpetuate a terrible cycle of mental abuse, to poison a person's capacity for critical thought thus turning them into malleable guilt-ridden puppets forever exploited by undeserving authority figures (whether secular, familial or religious).

Ultimately, 'God' is a psychological reflection of unmet childhood needs projected upon the universe as a whole and the religious almost always mistake the internal guidance of their subconscious mind (~7000+ times more powerful than our conscious mind) for some influential external force. In other words, God is the immature personification of an individual's subconscious experience.

You're just wrong on every level. We do not have enough information to say anything for sure. It's fundamentally insane to suggest otherwise. We simply do not have enough information on any level to even propose anything really. Suggesting we have enough information to definitively say one doesn't or does exist is absolutely ridiculous since we know so little about the universe.

Also saying religion being imposed upon the young... your view is incredibly limited. You probably read about people with horrible parents and think it's that way for everyone. My parents are religious. Most of my family is. I was brought to church every week. I experienced the religious life. Eventually I decided it wasn't for me. I do not feel abused and my childhood was freakin' great. Grew up with a great family that wasn't part of the "bad religion" people that you see on the news who spread hate. Guess what, they're not all like that and there's some great people who are really religious too. Ones that don't attack others based on their beliefs. It's insulting and small minded to say that teaching your children religion is mental abuse.

I didn't end up with that life. I probably won't teach my children it. But saying what you're saying just shows how little you know and how small your perspective is. Please see beyond the stuff you view on the news or perhaps the stuff you experienced yourself. There's a bigger world out there. Not everyone had a horrible experience with religion growing up (I'd say despite choosing not to continue it mine was almost nothing but positive) and not all religious people are what you see on Fox News and stuff.

 

[LarsINTJ]

You're just wrong on every level. We do not have enough information to say anything for sure. It's fundamentally insane to suggest otherwise. We simply do not have enough information on any level to even propose anything really. Suggesting we have enough information to definitively say one doesn't or does exist is absolutely ridiculous since we know so little about the universe.

Also saying religion being imposed upon the young... your view is incredibly limited. You probably read about people with horrible parents and think it's that way for everyone. My parents are religious. Most of my family is. I was brought to church every week. I experienced the religious life. Eventually I decided it wasn't for me. I do not feel abused and my childhood was freakin' great. Grew up with a great family that wasn't part of the "bad religion" people that you see on the news who spread hate. Guess what, they're not all like that and there's some great people who are really religious too. Ones that don't attack others based on their beliefs. It's insulting and small minded to say that teaching your children religion is mental abuse.

I didn't end up with that life. I probably won't teach my children it. But saying what you're saying just shows how little you know and how small your perspective is. Please see beyond the stuff you view on the news or perhaps the stuff you experienced yourself. There's a bigger world out there. Not everyone had a horrible experience with religion growing up (I'd say despite choosing not to continue it mine was almost nothing but positive) and not all religious people are what you see on Fox News and stuff.

Clearly you're irrational enough to take personal offense when somebody points out the invalidity of religiosity. Read my earlier posts for clarification, I was not going to repeat myself.

There is more than enough reason to dismiss the idea of god. We cannot uphold 'anything is possible' as a principle, that essentially breaks down to 'there is no such thing as truth', a self-detonating statement. It's insane to maintain self-contradictory beliefs due to vague uncertainty. If I handed you an empty box insisting that there's a new tablet inside which you cannot see, touch, hear, smell or taste, would you still believe me if I say it exists within an alternate dimension? Of course not. That's what's so hilarious about agnosticism, the snooty self-righteous uncertainty is only applied to God.

Did I ever say religion is bad? No. Religion is incorrect, thus inevitably leads to bad decisions. Reason = Virtue = Happiness, religion skips the first step. Whether it's religion or statism, I consider most people in our society to be morally insane, reprehensible conformists with no rational standards for their behavior, they merely act in a way which is socially acceptable (which means they would have no problem with things like slavery if they were born in an earlier time, a bunch of mindless nodding sheep). Religiosity has been the dominant mindset for most of human history, I'd say that speaks for itself in addressing any question of its failed efficacy.

If you have actual counter-arguments, then please provide them, don't delude yourself into thinking you've proven something by insinuating that I'm an idiotic closed-minded simpleton because you're gosh-darn happy with a religious upbringing which was totally not child abuse, to suggest so would be an insult one's well-meaning parents *gasp*.

Would you call it surgery if I shove a scalpel into someone's body without any training/knowledge of the human anatomy? No. Can I be called a surgeon if I've received surgery before? No. Yet it's somehow magically different when it comes to parenting. I couldn't care less about someone's good intentions if they're arrogant enough to think they know what's best for their children without ever paying attention to what experts in child psychology have to say.

Don't just assume that I haven't had any real experience with what goes on in a church, the majority of my family is overtly catholic, luckily my own parents are extremely moderate by comparison, they never directly imposed Catholicism or used vile threats of hell as a means of control.

 

[Smash G]

I didn't take it personally but was just using it to emphasis how wrong you are about your thoughts of abuse. You must have a really low threshold for abuse if you couldn't take a Sunday in church once in a while. Is it abuse to try to help someone with math and accidentally supply the wrong answer?

It's absurd. Probably should have used that word earlier. Suggesting that if someone doesn't follow your personal beliefs they're insane is absurd, close minded and dangerously lacking of information. Then all of your examples just do not compare. Shoving a scalpel into someone's body without any training is comparable to a parent teaching of their personal culture and beliefs to their children? Wat? That's absolutely absurd. All you have are analogies which aren't evidence of anything and are completely ridiculous.

And I didn't assume anything about your experience and even suggested that's a possibility that you had experience. I just suggested there are experiences beyond your own which you are completely and utterly discounting. Things happen beyond your limited scope and you have to consider that.

 

[LarsINTJ]

I didn't take it personally but was just using it to emphasis how wrong you are about your thoughts of abuse. You must have a really low threshold for abuse if you couldn't take a Sunday in church once in a while. Is it abuse to try to help someone with math and accidentally supply the wrong answer?

It's absurd. Probably should have used that word earlier. Suggesting that if someone doesn't follow your personal beliefs they're insane is absurd, close minded and dangerously lacking of information. Then all of your examples just do not compare. Shoving a scalpel into someone's body without any training is comparable to a parent teaching of their personal culture and beliefs to their children? Wat? That's absolutely absurd. All you have are analogies which aren't evidence of anything and are completely ridiculous.

And I didn't assume anything about your experience and even suggested that's a possibility that you had experience. I just suggested there are experiences beyond your own which you are completely and utterly discounting. Things happen beyond your limited scope and you have to consider that.

This isn't even about our experiences or opinions, that's to miss the point entirely. Again, provide counter-arguments if you have a problem with the basis of what I'm saying, if not, then I'll be blunt - shut up. Whether you think something is absurd or closed-minded makes no difference, truth and subjectivity are not related.

What is truth?
Truth: when reason (logic) is found to be consistent with observation (empiricism).

How is the idea of God anything other than pure falsehood? This is not a question of uncertainty, we do not need to expand our knowledge of the universe to conclude that square circles are impossible.

Also, do not underestimate the difficulty/importance of scientifically informed peaceful parenting and the long-term psychological damage ignorant parenting often causes.

 

[Smash G]

I presented a counter argument. You didn't just like it.

An that's not truth. You're even getting that wrong. Truth is "the quality or state of being true" or "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality". Truth is not always when reason is found to be consistent with observation because we have historically in the past had observed reason being consistent with observed reality and it turned out to be wrong due to new discoveries later. Truth is factual and until we have the ability to observe everything on this subject we cannot say anything for sure. You can make an educated guess. That's as far as it goes.

Then you're also making a baseless assumption that religious families don't like science. It's a common belief largely because of misinformation and the media. Religion and science aren't mutually exclusive. Not everyone is a 5000 year nut who thinks the dinosaurs roamed around with Jesus.
You're basically basing all of your opinions on a stereotype. You're assuming the parents aren't scientifically minded. You're assuming some form of abuse is present. You're assuming a LOT. You've got your limited view on things and apply it to everything, even things you cannot see. This is where you fail.

 

[LarsINTJ]

I presented a counter argument. You didn't just like it.

An that's not truth. You're even getting that wrong. Truth is "the quality or state of being true" or "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality". Truth is not always when reason is found to be consistent with observation because we have historically in the past had observed reason being consistent with observed reality and it turned out to be wrong due to new discoveries later. Truth is factual and until we have the ability to observe everything on this subject we cannot say anything for sure. You can make an educated guess. That's as far as it goes.

Then you're also making a baseless assumption that religious families don't like science. It's a common belief largely because of misinformation and the media. Religion and science aren't mutually exclusive. Not everyone is a 5000 year nut who thinks the dinosaurs roamed around with Jesus.
You're basically basing all of your opinions on a stereotype. You're assuming the parents aren't scientifically minded. You're assuming some form of abuse is present. You're assuming a LOT. You've got your limited view on things and apply it to everything, even things you cannot see. This is where you fail.

You presented an argument, eh? What are you referring to? The constant projection of closed-mindedness? Vaguely proclaiming that I'm wrong? Tossing around 'absurd' as if you have a point?

A Google result is not philosophy. Both of those definitions mean the same thing - 'Truth is something that is true', it's circular, redundant, begging the question. We must be more specific.

Science is not a flimsy set of contestable theories, it is a method which hones accumulated knowledge into something more precise through experimentation. The various limitations of our current understanding will never allow for the possibility of self-contradictory entities.

Religion is an explicit rejection of reality through faith (pretending to know what you do not know, the degree of pretense does not matter). A religious person believes that they can ascertain truth on a whim, whereas a scientist's conclusions are contingent upon reason and evidence. Science and religion are mutually exclusive paradigms whether you accept it or not.

Funny that you would accuse me of making "baseless assumptions" when that is the very essence of religion. Why don't you directly quote my so-called lot of "baseless assumptions"?

 

[Smash G]

Science and religion are mutually exclusive paradigms whether you accept it or not.

This just makes everything you say completely invalid. There is no point you talk anymore. This is a false belief held by a lot of people that is based off nothing. You can be religious and accept science and reasoning completely. What, do you think there aren't religious scientists? What kind of little pretend world do you live in? How can you not see the absurdity of your statements? It's literally right in front of your eyes. There is nothing that makes science and religion mutually exclusive and it's because of small and ignorant people that this lie keeps spreading.

One can both adhere to science and have religion (or agnosticism). Just look at history.

 

[LarsINTJ]

This just makes everything you say completely invalid. There is no point you talk anymore. This is a false belief held by a lot of people that is based off nothing. You can be religious and accept science and reasoning completely. What, do you think there aren't religious scientists? What kind of little pretend world do you live in? How can you not see the absurdity of your statements?

Why is it invalid? ...because it offends you? You say it's "based off nothing" despite the basis being provided immediately prior. Of course somebody can accept scientific conclusions and still be religious, that doesn't mean they accept the scientific method, they would not be religious otherwise.

Ah yes, the sane do not mix well with an insane world. It's a shame that you don't understand what valid argumentation entails, but that's not to say you aren't capable of learning it.

 

[Smash G]

I'm not offended. I'm dumbfounded on how someone could have such ridiculous thoughts and consider themselves a rational and logical person.

Tons of religious people accept the scientific method. Where the heck are you getting your information? Out of 7 billion people you're saying it's impossible for someone to accept and understand the scientific method if they are religious? I'm not religious and even I recognize what a ridiculous statement that is.

Again, look at history with all the religious scientists. Look at modern times with all the religious scientists. I'd introduce you to people I know myself who are religious scientists if this wasn't the internet. To you apparently they're unicorns and leprechauns.


This isn't even an opinion I'm stating. It's fact. Believe it or not there are religious scientists out there lol...

But clearly you're a brick wall. Unbending and immobile in your ignorance. I was hoping for a real debate but someone who thinks religious scientists are unicorns cannot have a serious debate. You aren't worth debating. I'm out.

 

[LarsINTJ]

I'm not offended. I'm dumbfounded on how someone could have such ridiculous thoughts and consider themselves a rational and logical person.

Tons of religious people accept the scientific method. Where the heck are you getting your information? Out of 7 billion people you're saying it's impossible for someone to accept and understand the scientific method if they are religious? I'm not religious and even I recognize what a ridiculous statement that is.

Again, look at history with all the religious scientists. Look at modern times with all the religious scientists. I'd introduce you to people I know myself who are religious scientists if this wasn't the internet. To you apparently they're unicorns and leprechauns.

As I've already explained, 'religious scientist' is an oxymoron. Is there such thing? Sure there is, those people are called relativists or agnostics, a.k.a 'I reject any sort of standard for truth' or 'I'm a shameless conformist'. They are not to be taken seriously. I'll heed my own advice now.

I know what's going on here, you're only against the proclaimed certainty of the arguments, you couldn't care less about the content (which is why you have failed to address it). In other words, you would be agreeing with me if I presented myself as unsure. Certainty makes you feel uncomfortable because an acceptance of the arguments I put forward would inevitably lead to confrontation among the colorful diversity of individuals you probably choose to associate with.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Considering how a lot of religions work, proving god himself is mostly around Faith so there may be a way to measure that but it's nigh unlikely.

Science and Religion can co-exist, it's silly to think you can't believe in a religious faith yet still teach and learn how the world works.

 

[_Keno_]

I think the argument for religion and science not co-existing is that "science requires you to look at all the facts and take them as you see them" while religion requires that "you ignore any information contradicting God." It's much like the difference between a discussion and an argument. You can go in with a point of view and try to convince others of that point (AKA try to win), or you can go in and try to reach a truthful conclusion by discussion.

Tbh, I just think religious people can be sciencey™ but not actually co-exist with real science because they reject half of it for personal reasons (depending on religions, I suppose).

In regards to evidence for god, I think a lot of people interpret personal events to have happened with god (when in reality, strong emotions + "i've been waiting my whole life for a sign from God" = "personal proof") which is why I will never accept someone's personal testimony.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I think the argument for religion and science not co-existing is that "science requires you to look at all the facts and take them as you see them" while religion requires that "you ignore any information contradicting God." It's much like the difference between a discussion and an argument. You can go in with a point of view and try to convince others of that point (AKA try to win), or you can go in and try to reach a truthful conclusion by discussion.

Tbh, I just think religious people can be sciencey™ but not actually co-exist with real science because they reject half of it for personal reasons (depending on religions, I suppose).

In regards to evidence for god, I think a lot of people interpret personal events to have happened with god (when in reality, strong emotions + "i've been waiting my whole life for a sign from God" = "personal proof") which is why I will never accept someone's personal testimony.

Yeah bit I really don't think it is impossible for a scientist that is religious to just look for the facts. I do think there are scientists that try to use science to prove God exists, I think this is faulty in itself since if god does exist I would think he would set ground rules down for a universe to operate under. Same with trying to say science disproves he exists by use science or nit pick at a book that is in reality 56 different books put together.

I kind of get what he is saying, but saying that Science can't work with someone that is religious is pretty foolhardy.

Heck even people that think they can prove a "soul" or consciousness exists via quantum physics can still not put it directly into a catholic mindset. Just that it is possible our consciousness doesn't die when our bodies die.

Religion should be separate in terms of trying to understand how something works, but being religious and trying to work with science is till possible.

I do it myself, though I am more of a believer in that there is something more out there just don't have an answer of what it is. But I refuse to throw away science or how something works as a result of my personal beliefs. That is how I look at it myself.

 

[Sucumbio]

Once again the lack of research is astounding. It's as if people just slept through that part of class (or maybe the whole thing? I wonder...)

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein

Here's a list of 13 world famous scientists who embraced religion on some level, if not entirely (and mostly Christian to boot).

Forget that, here's 25.

So much for "science and religion are mutually exclusive."

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Insofar as someone is religious they are not being scientific. A scientist can have cognitive dissonance just as much as anyone else, of course. They can even set the "divine" as a goal post towards which scientific research can be conducted, i.e. searching for god(s) in the universe, its origin, its laws, etc. but until those beliefs are reconciled by scientific inquiry, they are still yet mutually exclusive. Such is the nature of proof. Naturally religious scientists can attribute evolution, physics, and everything else we've come to understand so far to a being or beings of some sort, but inasmuch that explanation and any philosophical baggage the theistic brand of such views always carry with that conclusion, they are applying an exception and/or disregarding the scientific method.

 

[LarsINTJ]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein

Einstein was not a philosopher, a brilliant physicist, but philosophically inept like most scientists. The proof is in the quote itself, he's simply making an assertion which can only be left up to our interpretation, it's meaningless, akin to traditional Eastern thought.

 

[Sucumbio]

... not the point, though. 25 world famous religious scientists including the great Einstein himself clearly shows that the oxymoron you suggest is untrue.

 

[_Keno_]

As a point, almost everyone that lived before 1900 was religious to some extent. I'd say near 100% of scientists/philosophers born that long ago were. What percent would you say are now? I really don't see what that has anything to do with anything either way.

 

[LarsINTJ]

As @ Holder of the Heel pointed out, cognitive dissonance is a thing. "Religious scientist" is not an oxymoron because it's impossible for one to hold such conflicting beliefs, the beliefs themselves fundamentally conflict with each other.

Science leaves a page blank if it cannot discern the answer, whereas religion automatically slaps the idea of God over every temporary gap in human knowledge while actively discouraging further inquiry (i.e. "God did it, don't ask questions"). It is the difference between humility and arrogance. Strict empiricism vs. subjective whim.

Nevertheless, religion will insist that their God is responsible for everything regardless of existing scientific explanations. The final all-encompassing gap is that we're unable to explain the origin of the universe and religion milks this ignorance for all it's worth with the most nonsensical contradictory lies as if what they say has any relation to truth whatsoever.