If Intelligent design is right, then what?

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by James R
Yes, it is, but in fact, by far the majority of public supporters of ID are deeply religious. Most will not accept, for example, that intelligent design of human beings could be due to extraterrestrial intelligence rather than to a God.

If extraterrestrial intelligence is capable of mastering [or directing] the quantum world, and created our whole universe, you may as well call them God.

Yes, science is a social enterprise. That is unavoidable, since scientists are also human beings. But that is not <b>all</b> it is.

I can hardly see it as much more, except a search for truth; same as religion. After all, we all wield these tools - we are all human beings.

I invite you to try jumping off a building. If you believe hard enough, I guess gravity won't pull you down.

Good point, so it is done and settled, something probably equivalent to our notion of gravity is present. I invite you to observe the sun and the stars for 48 hours - I'm sure you'll see them travel around the earth. There are some things everyone will experience and know to be true to their understanding. However, we are, still, all individuals, have you ever tried describing a star or car or anything optical to a blind person? Try telling them about something called light.

Do you see how silly this kind of argument is?

It may sound silly to you, but it is not necessarily so - not to me.

There are many things on which every sane person agrees. Can't you think of any? I invite you again to consider my suggested experiment with gravity.

Not all are versed in scientific concepts, however, every person as far as I know have experienced the effects of what we call gravity. You may agree on some aspects of gravity, but not all.

Science is testable. Anybody can measure the speed of light, and they will find the same value. Anybody can drop objects from buildings and they will always fall down. There is no faith involved - just an observed regularity to the universe.

Sure, similarly everyone saw lightening and thought it was God speaking to them, anothr regularity, maybe it is still God speaking in His own way.

Yes, Galileo believed in God. But God appears nowhere in his justifications for his scientific theories. That was my point.

True. His quote seemed to attribute the whole process his theories arose to a God given intellect.

In other words, to see ID you first have to believe in it. It is a circular concept. Compare gravity again.

Well yes. All concepts are reduced to a circular notion upon dissection - even existence within itself. That's why I propose everyone relies on some degree of faith to accept anything.

Soryy, think the focus is going.

 

[Cris]

MarcAC,

Just a couple of comments.

If extraterrestrial intelligence is capable of mastering [or directing] the quantum world, and created our whole universe, you may as well call them God.

But the term God implies a wide variety of other properties, e.g. obedience, heaven, hell, supernatural, worship, religious doctrine, souls, spirits, etc. These things are likely irrelevant to aliens.

I can hardly see it as much more, except a search for truth; same as religion.

But religions are not in search of truth, they claim they have already found it and it is called God, at least for the theistic religions.

That's why I propose everyone relies on some degree of faith to accept anything.

No I would strongly disagree. Religious faith is a belief without evidence or proof. I suggest that there are no situations in life where such an approach is ever required, to do so is irrational, and that can always be avoided. What you have most likely observed is the process of inductive reasoning, which most people practice automatically without consciously knowing.

For example one might say you have faith in your doctor, if you did you would be very foolish since he might be a fraud. What you really mean is that based on respected recommendations, proof of qualifications, and/or past good results you have confidence that your doctor is worthy. I.e. you would have some form of evidence of his worth. The foolish and irrational person would perform no checks.

The word faith has multiple meanings and they are often used erroneously interchangeably as you are doing.

 

[Jenyar]

posted by Cris
Religious faith is a belief without evidence or proof. I suggest that there are no situations in life where such an approach is ever required

Wrong. Religious faith is a belief based on evidence that you reject - there's a difference. As to whether it is ever required: consider my music analogy. Give me an example of a song you like intensely, and then provide me with proof that you really like it... Remember, we're talking about evidence necessary for belief/faith, not evidence for God - that's something else. You might provide me with your music appreciation certificates, but even if I don't question their validity, I still have no reason to believe that you really that particular song.

To use your doctor analogy -

What you really mean is that based on respected recommendations, proof of qualifications, and/or past good results you have confidence that your doctor is worthy. I.e. you would have some form of evidence of his worth.

The proof of qualifications are recorded in the Bible (a tertiary source), but we believe in the reliability of the witnesses (a secondary source) who recorded the life of Christ (the primary source) to the best of their abilities.

From my observations of many genuine Christians - people who live according to the qualities and virtues taught in the Bible - I have come to respect humility, truthfulness, honesty and sincerity, and it is evident to me that the different authors of the Bible valued the same qualities. From the witness of people who are deadly serious about the Bible, the credibility of the authors they live by are confirmed, and in turn their reports gain credibility. Even their lack of faith, often pointed out by Jesus, shows that Jesus himself was the source of their faith. To go one step further, Jesus himself denied he was the primary source, and credited his ministry to God (the true Primary source, and the one I believe in).

The amazing thing is: once I had put my faith in Christ, the secondary and tertiary witnesses almost became irrelevant. The faith I have in God has become the same faith Jesus had in God, and my own life has become a witness to that relationship. I am still the same person, with the same weaknesses and prone to mistakes, but now I can doubt and question without losing faith. Christ himself has become my reliable source.

So the difference, dear Cris, is not "belief without evidence or proof" but "belief of the incredible from the credible". You'll see something similar in courts of law, when a reliable witness is more condemning than a bloodied knife. A reliable witness to an extraordinary crime does not need to provide extraordinary evidence, only believable evidence.

 

[Balerion]

GREAT discussion, fellas. On all sides. Everyone so far has eloquently presented their stories, and it makes me so friggin happy to be alive in this time when the tools for such debates are readily available for us all to use. This, my friends, is awesome.

Now, enough of the sappy stuff, let's get to knocking each other around!

Wrong. Religious faith is a belief based on evidence that you reject - there's a difference.

Ok, before I go any further, I need to know what evidence you have. Last I heard, there has never been any scientific evidence for the existance of a god, let alone enough to warrant a belief in one. If you have it, I'd like to see it.

... Remember, we're talking about evidence necessary for belief/faith, not evidence for God - that's something else.

How is it something else? Any belief or faith would require (Or SHOULD require, I should say) evidence in this god. You cannot seperate the evidence for faith from the evidence for God, becuase your faith is IN God. The evidence for your faith would be the evidence for your god.

You might provide me with your music appreciation certificates, but even if I don't question their validity, I still have no reason to believe that you really that particular song.

True, but this isn't the point we're discussing. You said that there is evidence for your god, but it is evidence that we reject, right? Here, you're likening it to someone showing you music appreciation certificates, and you not believing that someone actually likes the particular song he claims to.

Your fallacy is here: You are saying that people question the fact that you have faith, not the reasons why. No one on this board will question that you believe in your god; you've made that clear. What we question is why you do believe. Your analogy would have been better like this:

You love this one particular song. You might provide me with your music appreciation certificates, but I still don't have to believe that this one particular song you love exists.

And where THAT analogy fails is in the fact that I can go to my car, get the CD out of my case, put it in the stereo, and play said song for you. Thus, proving the existance of the song I love. You cannot do that with your god.

So the difference, dear Cris, is not "belief without evidence or proof" but "belief of the incredible from the credible". You'll see something similar in courts of law, when a reliable witness is more condemning than a bloodied knife. A reliable witness to an extraordinary crime does not need to provide extraordinary evidence, only believable evidence.

Ok, but where is your credible witness? Who, on this board, has seen God? Who was around during the times God and Jesus were purported to walk the Earth? Nobody. Even the authors of the Bible were not eyewitnesses of these events. You dont' have one single witness, let alone a credible one.

JD

 

[Jenyar]

Ok, but where is your credible witness? Who, on this board, has seen God? Who was around during the times God and Jesus were purported to walk the Earth? Nobody. Even the authors of the Bible were not eyewitnesses of these events. You dont' have one single witness, let alone a credible one.

My point with the rather awkward music analogy was that different things require different kinds of proof. You neatly sidestepped my question, so I pose it again: How do you prove to me that you like that, or any song?

For the sake of argument lets assume I do not doubt the song exists, or that I'm hearing exactly what you're hearing, or that you are a qualified music appreciator (whatever that means). What I am interested in, is how you prove something that is completely true, whether it is subjective or not. You say you are interested in why I believe - well, after you've proven to me (scientifically, if you want) that you love that song, you can answer this one next: "why" do you like it?

In the meanwhile I want to say: you demand natural proof of the supernatural. It is stubborn to demand something that can't be given, and then deny the validity a claim by its inability to conform to your limits. God does not and will never conform to you. He has done that once and for all, through Jesus, and that is the truth I am witnessing.

The people described in the Bible were eyewitnesses. Another point contested, I know. Whether the texts were written down by scribes after Jesus' death is not an issue, since they contain words of the apostles themselves. What is clear is that these people lived and died believing what they did, and went to great lengths to tell people what they witnessed. To me it is believable evidence, to you it isn't, because you question the integrity of those people and I don't.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Cris
But the term God implies a wide variety of other properties, e.g. obedience, heaven, hell, supernatural, worship, religious doctrine, souls, spirits, etc. These things are likely irrelevant to aliens.

Though I doubt I will see a reply to this question, what makes you say that? I'd say it's better to take an agnostic stance there.

But religions are not in search of truth, they claim they have already found it and it is called God, at least for the theistic religions.

God is the source of truth in the Christian religion. There are truths about God's nature, and about how He works. Relgions try to find out about his nature [why He does this], science tries to discover how He works [how He does it].

No I would strongly disagree. Religious faith is a belief without evidence or proof.

All faith is a belief - the only way you don't have faith is if you don't believe anything [you don't exist] - with faith one will discover evidence, providing his faith is in anything of substance - that's how I see it.

I suggest that there are no situations in life where such an approach is ever required, to do so is irrational, and that can always be avoided.

I think it can be avoided through basic denial. Existence itself stems on that irrational approach - you have to just accept it as it is.

What you have most likely observed is the process of inductive reasoning, which most people practice automatically without consciously knowing.

I do admit that we all utilize inductive reasoning to our own ends. But that's just it - to our own ends - what makes you think your inductive reasoning is correct as opposed to mine?

For example one might say you have faith in your doctor, if you did you would be very foolish since he might be a fraud. What you really mean is that based on respected recommendations, proof of qualifications, and/or past good results you have confidence that your doctor is worthy. I.e. you would have some form of evidence of his worth. The foolish and irrational person would perform no checks.

Frankly, your inductive reasoning and mine can, possibly, be completely different pertaining to what is evidence of 'qualification' and 'past good results'. You might have confidence in you mode of reasoning but why?

The word faith has multiple meanings and they are often used erroneously interchangeably as you are doing.

I doubt it. It reduces to a belief. Can you cite a few of those meaning? I am yet to find any that don't reduce to belief.

 

[MarcAC]

Wrong. Religious faith is a belief based on evidence that you reject - there's a difference.

I think this was worth a second posting.

 

[(Q)]

The people described in the Bible were eyewitnesses. Another point contested, I know. Whether the texts were written down by scribes after Jesus' death is not an issue, since they contain words of the apostles themselves. What is clear is that these people lived and died believing what they did, and went to great lengths to tell people what they witnessed. To me it is believable evidence, to you it isn't, because you question the integrity of those people and I don't.

It appears you’ll believe almost anything regardless of whether or not it is credible. Merely because people died believing in something doesn’t make it true because they went to great lengths to tell people. That’s pure gullibility.

Tom van Flandern goes to great lengths to tell people that Cydonia on Mars is a face created by aliens – he will most likely die believing this nonsense. Lee Smith will go to his grave believing the Earth is flat and has five sides and that all places named Springfield are linked to a higher dimensional space. Jan Lamprecht will be buried (maybe) in the Earth all the time believing it is hollow. Her followers will most likely kill Nancy Lieder when they realize Niburu will never come – but she will continue to believe it nonetheless.

Do you also believe in these things? By your logic, you should.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jenyar
My point with the rather awkward music analogy was that different things require different kinds of proof.
…
What I am interested in, is how you prove something that is completely true, whether it is subjective or not. You say you are interested in why I believe - well, after you've proven to me (scientifically, if you want) that you love that song, you can answer this one next: "why" do you like it?

The difference here is that theists tend to assert that God is an objective reality. No rational person does this regarding whether they like a song or not; that you love a song does not invalidate the fact that I hate the same song. Or perhaps I love a painting that you dislike. The two subjective states can exist simultaneously because they are subjective. This is not the assertion that the Abrahamic religions make. They make the assertion that God is an objective reality, true for all, and refute the atheists’ disbelief. Typically, the atheist response to this refutation is to ask for proof. Typically, the theists reply is to have ‘faith’. Which is a rather circular argument as the theist is essentially saying that one must believe to believe.

In the meanwhile I want to say: you demand natural proof of the supernatural. It is stubborn to demand something that can't be given, and then deny the validity a claim by its inability to conform to your limits.

Then why do theists bother trying to get anyone to believe in God? Do you attempt to get people to like the same music as you? Do you protest in the street against critics who say that the music you like isn’t any good or makes fun of it? Why not?

~Raithere

 

[Cris]

MarcAC,

Though I doubt I will see a reply to this question, what makes you say that? I'd say it's better to take an agnostic stance there.

The concepts of heaven and hell rely on afterlife concepts, e.g. a supernatural realm. I cannot see that aliens would be involved in this but heck who knows, this is all way out there.

God is the source of truth in the Christian religion. There are truths about God's nature, and about how He works. Relgions try to find out about his nature [why He does this],

Well, claimed truths to be more accurate. But the essential difference is that Christians believe that their deity has all the truth and that it will be revealed to them according to their nature and time. Whereas non-religionists must seek truth from other sources with no guarantee that they will find it.

science tries to discover how He works [how He does it].

LOL. Science has no interest in God.

All faith is a belief - the only way you don't have faith is if you don't believe anything

That doesn’t really make sense. Belief can be based on reason or not. One is rational and one is not. Basing a belief on proofs has proven benefits, basing a belief on ideas only that have not been proved is a high risk and dubious strategy.

with faith one will discover evidence, providing his faith is in anything of substance - that's how I see it.

Yes I understand. This is the rationalization to convince believers that their irrational belief will be rewarded.

I do admit that we all utilize inductive reasoning to our own ends. But that's just it - to our own ends - what makes you think your inductive reasoning is correct as opposed to mine?

The trouble with inductive reasoning is that the conclusions vary in strength. But my point is that virtually no one makes a choice or decision without some form of evidence, even if it is weak. The issue with a faith based religion is that it is an exception to that rule and requires the followers to believe in something with zero evidence and not just weak evidence.

The word faith has multiple meanings and they are often used erroneously interchangeably as you are doing.

I doubt it. It reduces to a belief. Can you cite a few of those meaning? I am yet to find any that don't reduce to belief.

Belief is what we are discussing. But belief can be based on faith or reason. My point is that most uses of the word faith assume some degree of reason as the basis for the belief. Religious faith is the exception and expects a belief without reason.

 

[Jenyar]

posted b y (Q)
It appears you’ll believe almost anything regardless of whether or not it is credible. Merely because people died believing in something doesn’t make it true because they went to great lengths to tell people. That’s pure gullibility.

It depends on who died, doesn't it. Was the person mentally, psychologically, and morally trustworthy? I believe the apostles were, because the people I know who take values they proposed seriously are trustworthy - at least to report what Jesus said and follow what he taught faithfully.

I am convinced of the credibility of Jesus. He believed in God, and so do I.

I am not convinced of the moral, ethical, religious or reasonable authority of David Koresh, Nancy Lieder, William Branham or or any other religious fanatic with claims that parasitize on Christ, or who claims to know what God wants and tries to convince me of it. What I do respect is a credible life and credible witnessing.

Tom van Flandern, Lee Smith, Jan Lamprecht and others like them base their beliefs on scienctific evidence. I think it is the responsibility of their peers and the scientific community to expose them.

Belief or faith makes nobody credible. Their lives and deeds make them credible. Remember the old faith vs. works argument? File it under there.

 

[Balerion]

My point with the rather awkward music analogy was that different things require different kinds of proof. You neatly sidestepped my question, so I pose it again: How do you prove to me that you like that, or any song?

Ok, I don't feel like you're taking this trip with me, so I'll say it again: This is not the argument. You dont' have to prove to me that you love your god. I need no proof, but if I did, all I'd have to do is hang out with you for a week, and I'd know weather or not you loved him. I'd see you pray, go to church, give to charity, say "May God be with you" and the sort, yadda yadda yadda.

But again, that is not the argument. The argument is not "Prove to me you love god," you can save that for a theist's thread. What we are asking is "Prove to me the thing you love exists."

In the meanwhile I want to say: you demand natural proof of the supernatural. It is stubborn to demand something that can't be given, and then deny the validity a claim by its inability to conform to your limits. God does not and will never conform to you. He has done that once and for all, through Jesus, and that is the truth I am witnessing.

Well, to be honest, he did so many things in the Bible's stories to prove himself to Man, why can't he do them now? Why doesn't he come to me and say "Damnit, Joe, don't be fooled by the rocks that I got; I'm still God, I'm still God from the block!" One of the Biblical themes is that God proves just how damn powerful he is, over and over (Sending angels, impregnating those unable to bear children, giving bountiful soil to those living on barren land, and taking away all those things as well) Where, then, are these miracles now? They don't happen. God, in the Bible, walked before a man. (I think it was Moses, but I'm not sure now) He was wearing clothes, and looked like human, just for the record.

And you say that the supernatural cannot be proven, but what is god doing in the Bible? He proving himself, over and over and over. (According to the story, mind you)

The people described in the Bible were eyewitnesses. Another point contested, I know. Whether the texts were written down by scribes after Jesus' death is not an issue, since they contain words of the apostles themselves.

Says who? Oh, right, the Bible. Well, this book I'm reading says that Ford Prefect is here on Earth to write a story on it for the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. And it's been printed, reprinted, edited, edited again, rereleased as one big book, released by a bunch of different agencies, just like the Bible, so it must be true, right? Well? Answer me this: Using your logic, how isn't the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy an historic account of an Alien life on Earth?

And just to point something out, the people described in the Bible were SAID to be eyewitnesses by the authors, which is WHY IT IS CONTESTED. Here's one for you: I wrote Genesis. I was standing next to God when he created Earth. He's let me live this long to test your faith. Am I lying, and how do you know?

What is clear is that these people lived and died believing what they did, and went to great lengths to tell people what they witnessed. To me it is believable evidence, to you it isn't, because you question the integrity of those people and I don't.

What people lived and died believing what they did? The Bible characters? No, it isn't clear, becuase there is no proof of their existance. The authors of the Bible? No, it isn't clear, because they could have been writing fiction.

Who went to great lengths? The only reason that Christianity survived the Roman Empire is because one emperor saw the political advantages of letting the people freely practice religion, and sponsor it as a state. If not for him, then we wouldn't even be talking about this.

And why would you NOT question their integrity? Again, I tell you, not only did I witness the Creation, but I am God. I, in the form of the Holy Spirit, witnessed the creation, and in the form of the Father, I now test your strength as Christians, as I argue against my own existance. As an omnipotant, supernatural being, I can do whatever I wish. I wish to test you in the place where you argue me the most: The internet.

Tell me how you know that I am NOT God.

And bring your towel, Frood.

God

 

[Jenyar]

posted by Raithere
The difference here is that theists tend to assert that God is an objective reality. No rational person does this regarding whether they like a song or not; that you love a song does not invalidate the fact that I hate the same song. Or perhaps I love a painting that you dislike. The two subjective states can exist simultaneously because they are subjective. This is not the assertion that the Abrahamic religions make. They make the assertion that God is an objective reality, true for all, and refute the atheists’ disbelief.

I think the confusion comes from the definition each group understands under "natural" or "objective reality" as you call it. God is supernatural, but has a nature. Atheist would include God in his created nature, the Abrahamic religions understand Him as being above and outside creation, but taking part in it through the faith of those who believe in Him. Jesus was the manifestation of this faith - and consequently the only "natural evidence" humans will ever have. He is the only "common ground" believers and unbelievers will ever be able to share.

Good illustrations of the two nature-paradigms are miracles and answered prayers. When a Christian prays and the prayer is answered - critics typically dismiss it using their framework of natural events and scientific principles. While the theists realizes that whatever happened falls within this framework, he does not dismiss the supernatural element in favour of it.

The reality might be true for all, but the "evidence" exposing that reality might not be, because the rules governing that evidence might fall outside the realm of natural science. Just as philosophy, love, music appreciation, and very often reason itself, does.

 

[okinrus]

Well, to be honest, he did so many things in the Bible's stories to prove himself to Man, why can't he do them now? Why doesn't he come to me and say "Damnit, Joe, don't be fooled by the rocks that I got; I'm still God, I'm still God from the block!" One of the Biblical themes is that God proves just how damn powerful he is, over and over (Sending angels, impregnating those unable to bear children, giving bountiful soil to those living on barren land, and taking away all those things as well) Where, then, are these miracles now? They don't happen. God, in the Bible, walked before a man. (I think it was Moses, but I'm not sure now) He was wearing clothes, and looked like human, just for the record.

Supposively, Mary will produce an everlasting sign to prove that medjugorje is genuine. Well at least keep your eyes open. Probably something to do with rocks turning into gold

There will a permanent, indestructable, supernatural sign left at the place of Our Lady's first apparition in Medjugorje on the hill Podbrdo at the conclusion of the apparitions
http://www.medjugorje.org/faq.htm#no4

 

[Jenyar]

why can't he do them now?

Jesus came once. Even with all the miracles he did and things that happened, there were still people who didn't believe. If you can't believe, you won't. The problem is that we can't trust our eyes. We have to trust God. That is the nature of faith.

If you don't believe in God, or His recorded history, or the prophecies he gave us, or the people he sent, why would believe anything else? You don't believe people who have witnessed miracles, because you won't ackowledge them. In the Bible, even the miracles Jesus did were questioned - even to the point of questioning that they came from God. At which point Jesus spoke about the "unforgivable sin": seeing exactly what you need to believe, and still persisting in unbelief. Denying God in the face of all evidence.

Be glad you are being prevented from committing that sin (for the moment) and that it is as simple as believing that Jesus was who he said he was.

We won't get any more signs, other than the sign of Jesus' death and resurrection (the sign of Jonah). Live with it.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Cris
I cannot see that aliens would be involved in this but heck who knows, this is all way out there.

Not that I'm advocating alien creation here but, not because you cannot understand it doesn't always mean it's crap as you so well know, but sometimes seem to forget. I call it faith in your reason.

Well, claimed truths to be more accurate.

Good point.

But the essential difference is that Christians believe that their deity has all the truth and that it will be revealed to them according to their nature and time. Whereas non-religionists must seek truth from other sources with no guarantee that they will find it.

Some advocates of science do actually believe they will find truth eventually, through their faith, some even seem to think they've found it already[?]. Quite contrary to the uncertainty principle as revealed by Heisenberg - or however you spell it.

LOL. Science has no interest in God.

From an atheist's point of view of course. It has an interest in his works, which correspond to an interest in Him.

That doesn’t really make sense. [... to you.] Belief can be based on reason or not. One is rational and one is not.

The point is your reason is based on simple faith that your logic makes sense. Evidence is only seen as evidence through reasoning. Right?

The trouble with inductive reasoning is that the conclusions vary in strength. But my point is that virtually no one makes a choice or decision without some form of evidence,

But why do you see evidence as evidence? Isn't it through your reasoning? It's a circular matter, which stems on pure simple faith.

The issue with a faith based religion is that it is an exception to that rule and requires the followers to believe in something with zero evidence and not just weak evidence. [... in your opinion.]

However, consider Jenyar's post which I felt compelled to repeat. And you know, the interesting thing about many observations in science is that the only time you see something there is when you see the capacity for it - example - Dark matter - neutrino. Something is missing - so - it must be there but we just can't see it - we have to look in a 'different light' so to speak... see where I'm headed?

Belief is what we are discussing. But belief can be based on faith or reason. My point is that most uses of the word faith assume some degree of reason as the basis for the belief. Religious faith is the exception and expects a belief without reason.

But reason is based on reason, right Cris?

 

[(Q)]

Jenyar

It depends on who died, doesn't it. Was the person mentally, psychologically, and morally trustworthy?

Why should that matter? They believe, they have faith, that’s all that should matter.

I believe the apostles were, because the people I know who take values they proposed seriously are trustworthy - at least to report what Jesus said and follow what he taught faithfully

Nonsense, this is pure guesswork. You have no idea if Jesus and his followers were mentally, psychologically and morally trustworthy. If they showed up today making the same claims, you’d have them committed to an asylum.

I am convinced of the credibility of Jesus. He believed in God, and so do I.

Is that all it takes for you to consider someone credible – their claim to believe in God?

I am not convinced of the moral, ethical, religious or reasonable authority of David Koresh, Nancy Lieder, William Branham or or any other religious fanatic with claims that parasitize on Christ, or who claims to know what God wants and tries to convince me of it.

But you said it yourself, you consider anyone credible if they believe in God – how can you tell the difference?

What I do respect is a credible life and credible witnessing.

What is ‘credible life and credible witnessing’ and how do you discern it from the non-credible?

Belief or faith makes nobody credible. Their lives and deeds make them credible.

You’re contradicting yourself. If someone proclaiming to be Jesus walked the Earth today doing good deeds, would you believe him to be the son of God or would you have him put away as a nutter?

 

[Raithere]

The nature of God

Originally posted by Jenyar
I think the confusion comes from the definition each group understands under "natural" or "objective reality" as you call it. God is supernatural, but has a nature. Atheist would include God in his created nature, the Abrahamic religions understand Him as being above and outside creation, but taking part in it through the faith of those who believe in Him.

The point that I was trying to get across is that your analogy does not fit the theistic assertion. The appreciation of a song is a purely subjective experience; to assert that it exists independently of the mind experiencing it is fallacious. But for God you are indeed claiming independent existence, in which case you need to provide evidence that is not entirely subjective.

Indeed this is what atheists assert; that God is a subjective experience of theists with no independent validity. Some atheists would go further to claim that this subjective experience is delusional or due to fallacious reasoning but personally I don’t go that far. I believe that the experience often defined as God is indeed a real subjective experience but that it most often becomes wrapped up in a body of assumptions and unwarranted attributes

Good illustrations of the two nature-paradigms are miracles and answered prayers. When a Christian prays and the prayer is answered - critics typically dismiss it using their framework of natural events and scientific principles. While the theists realizes that whatever happened falls within this framework, he does not dismiss the supernatural element in favour of it.

The problem here is that there is no statistical evidence for it. If there is a God who has an effect on nature that effect is completely random. The more likely conclusion is that God has no effect upon nature or is non-existent and that theists are assigning correlation where there is only coincidence.

The reality might be true for all, but the "evidence" exposing that reality might not be, because the rules governing that evidence might fall outside the realm of natural science. Just as philosophy, love, music appreciation, and very often reason itself, does.

That does not stand to reason. If God had a real effect upon nature it would be measurable. For instance, if prayer had some effect upon healing we could measure that effect statistically (people who pray would be more likely to heal than those who don’t), there is no such correlation evident.

~Raithere

 

[Balerion]

You ALL sidestepped my question! I ask again, how do you know that I am not God? I said I am here merely to test your faith, and being supernatural and omnipotant, I chose to do it here, on the internet, where I can do it effectively. How do you all know I am not God?

If you don't believe in God, or His recorded history, or the prophecies he gave us, or the people he sent, why would believe anything else? You don't believe people who have witnessed miracles, because you won't ackowledge them. In the Bible, even the miracles Jesus did were questioned - even to the point of questioning that they came from God. At which point Jesus spoke about the "unforgivable sin": seeing exactly what you need to believe, and still persisting in unbelief. Denying God in the face of all evidence.

Again, what evidence is there? The Bible is not evidence. The miracles you speak of, I've never seen them. Show me videotaped evidence, show me the miracle itself. Show me a person who WASN'T religious before they claimed to see this miracle (Thought that doesn't neccisarily mean anything either). Show me the evidence that you speak of. That is ALL I ask. You do that, and I'll be right next to you in the pew Sunday morning.

God

 

[Jenyar]

JDawg, Raithere

I am trying to discuss the nature of 'proof', not of God. In relation to 'reason', yes, my analogy is based on subjective evidence - but consider that God, while not neccesarily "subjective" might be more accurately discussed using a subjective analogy rather than an objective one. I appreciate that this is problematic for you, since your whole rejection of religion is based on objective reasoning. What I am proposing falls outside this, but I'm trying to show you that as 'evidence', subjective assertions are equally valid to objective ones.

For all that is real and true: if you cannot prove to me that your personal (albeit subjective) experience correlates with something that is objectively and undeniably, but invisibly true - such as music appreciation - then a rationally credible truth is not always of a visible, measureable or scientific nature.

JDawg: you are not God because you are human just like me, and I am not God. Therefore you are not God, and neither is Medine*Woman, Raithere, (Q) or Cris.