If evidence for god is in abundance, why is faith necessary?

[QuestioningMind]

Excellent, and we theists say, The Creator was responsible for bringing that Singularity into being. Science has no firm answer on the issue.

The chances of ONE Universe coming into being are astronomical, the chances of the same Universe not collapsing on itself are again, astronomical, the chances of the amount of energy being just right for the universe to come into being are astronomical, etc etc. You've agreed this is the only Universe we know about, so it becomes mathematically impossible for it to be random chance.

The Planet is some 4 Billion years old, and again mathematically impossible for all life to have evolved to it's current form in that time period. It's isn't simply a case of conditions being just right for water to fill a hole, chemicals, amino acids, proteins and other elements had to all come together in a manner pointing clearly to a Designer being responsible.

That's what

"Excellent, and we theists say, The Creator was responsible for bringing that Singularity into being. Science has no firm answer on the issue." Yes, I know that's what theist say. But there is exactly as much evidence that a creator God started the universe as there is that an invisible squirrel sneezed the universe into existence. FAR better to acknowledge that at this point in time we don't have enough information to determine what caused the singularity to expand than to just make something up because it makes you feel better to pretend like you have an answer.

"You've agreed this is the only Universe we know about, so it becomes mathematically impossible for it to be random chance." Just because this is the only universe we KNOW about does not mean that it's the only universe that IS. It's POSSIBLE that there are an infinite number on universes, in which case the universe we know about would be inevitable.

And there's actually reason to believe that there might actually be innumerable other universes out there. After all, at one time we thought the Earth was the ONLY planet, until we realized that the 'wandering stars' were actually other planets in our solar system. We then thought that surely this is the ONLY solar system... but of course we discovered that it's just one on BILLIONS of solar systems within our galaxy. THEN we thought that surely this is the ONLY galaxy... but whoops, turns out this is just one of BILLIONS of galaxies within the universe. Currently there's only one universe we're aware of, but considering our track record it would probably be foolish to conclude that this is the ONLY universe that there is.

"The Planet is some 4 Billion years old, and again mathematically impossible for all life to have evolved to it's current form in that time period" I'd love to see the calculations you did to determine that 4 billion years isn't sufficient for life to have evolved on this planet. Since there are so many unknown factors concerning the process of evolution, I contend that making any such calculation would be impossible.

And while we're on the subject of calculating probabilities... what calculations have you done to determine the probability that an all-powerful creator being outside of time and space exists that created the universe?

As for the complexity of DNA... I certainly wouldn't expect something so complex to develop over night. However, something becoming highly complex over the course of 4 BILLION years doesn't sound terribly unreasonable.

 

[Profound Realization]

Logic, reason and mathematics are universal. Their conclusions are universal. Different religions or faith communities can't make up their own facts or evidence.

Evidence is not "within." If it's not reproducible, testable and falsifiable, it's not valid.
They must be observable, testable, reproducible, predictive and falsifiable. The "inner eye of awareness" has never proved reliable. Witness the plethora of competing claims for truth.
Maybe Tinkerbell is dead because the children lost their belief in fairies...
So here I think you've put your finger on the problem. You're painting God and religion as a personal, internalized fantasy; real and "valid" only in your own head.

You are correct. For a belief to be truly real and valid, we believe it must be "external and in the universe;" observable and testable. People do not have their own logic and reasoning. These are mathematical constructs; external and universal. Nor do people have their own facts.

If you want to have your own, personal beliefs or world-view, that's fine -- but don't try to represent them as logical, reasonable or obvious unless you can cite empirical supporting evidence.

Not nearly how you describe.

The "idea," (which is within) of universal reason, mathematics, and logic(which are also within) implies an underpinning system of perception and conception(which are also within) of all forms of complexity.

Faith and beliefs are also universal in all humans, yet are various and differ.

So while they are universal within all humans, there is plenty of variety and plenty of paths someone takes to make sense of reality. Don't forget the other half. People have their own logic and reasoning, and freedom of mind.

Wrong, awareness is integral of validating anything. How does anyone come to know or learn anything without becoming aware of such to begin with?

You say evidence is not within but then all you do it talk about things that are only within. And you speak of things being external and testable but speak of things that are also only within.

All you've done is establish a closed system that all truth and facts "must" be observable and repeatedly tested, that the scientific method is only way to ascertain truth. Which is a lie. You act as if this is the only way, and wish to enslave everyone else in this only way of limitations. Not everyone thinks as you. Not everyone is "needy" and demands others "must" do this and that and "can't" do this or that. Even in your own limited and closed system with strict rules for ascertaining truth, people make up their own facts and evidence and are part of the faith community.

What is empirical? Discovery through sensory (which is also within.) Not everyone makes sense out of things the same way that you may make sense of things.

There is intuitive reason, knowing, knowledge, logic.... do you understand what that is?

Perhaps you may be into becoming aware of your external world, you forget about becoming aware of your own internal world. (or maybe not, since awareness is not reliable to you.)

 

[Twilight Hue]

It is interesting, if you apply "laws of probability" to the study of the universe, you'll find it is impossible to explain its existence with scientific explanations. What are the laws of probability for "physical laws" evolving from the Big Bang. And then there are all those species on earth with functioning organs, etc. Was that an accident of nature? You can go on and on with examples of how impossible it would be for "accidental occurrences." Laws of probability will get you every time.

There is only one explanation for the universe. God did it!

You would need a foundation upon which the basis for the laws of probability are built.

You would need to see multiple rolls of the " dice" if you're going to predict through laws of probability, the second or third towards Infinity rolls.

We do know the laws of probability will give us "one in x". What's established compared that with an unknown which makes probability as a pertains to the universe improbable and useless.

Probability in order for it to be accurate only deals with known values if predictions are to be effective.

If I throw a bunch of rice into a pan and try to use probability for a second identical handfull thrown into another pan. You cannot calculate probability of throws of the rice until duplicate results occur.

Since we've never seen the roll of the universe aside from what we see now as being "1", calculating probability will be useless unless we've seen the additional universes.

It's why probability arguments used by theists are so ineffective.

 

[Valjean]

It is interesting, if you apply "laws of probability" to the study of the universe, you'll find it is impossible to explain its existence with scientific explanations. What are the laws of probability for "physical laws" evolving from the Big Bang. And then there are all those species on earth with functioning organs, etc. Was that an accident of nature? You can go on and on with examples of how impossible it would be for "accidental occurrences." Laws of probability will get you every time.

Why is it impossible to explain its existence? I think you're arguing from incredulity.

Probability: Any configuration is improbable. The chance of any particular stone lying in a particular position in my driveway is infinitesimally minute, yet there it is. The chance of a particular configuration of three or four stones -- nearly impossible. Yet the possibility of any configuration of the stones is equally improbable.
Diversity/complexity of species: Apparently you've never studied biology. These are readily explainable.

There is only one explanation for the universe. God did it!

That's not an explanation, it's an attribution.

Is a slowly changing fallacy less true than a rapidly changing fallacy?

Why do you consider it a fallacy at all? There is observable, testable evidence.

A Vestigial Mote said:
Is it not true that our DNA is more complex than that of a single-celled organism? On up the chain of complexity of life we see an increase (on average) in complexity of the DNA that encodes each higher-order life-form. We even see traits leftover from a transition of this encoding - like vestigial whale hip-bones, humans' vestigial tail bones, etc. Is it not fairly obvious that DNA's complexity arose by accretion of adapted changes/traits via evolution? Again, you don't have to accept it - but it is an alternative description that doesn't need your explanation whatsoever.

While we usually see eye to eye, I think your point here is weak. DNA is DNA. It's equally 'complex' in all organisms. Some just have longer strings of it than others.
Nor does the length of the strand equate with the complexity of the organism. Polychaos dubium, a single celled ameboid, has a genome 200 times longer than a human's.

Abstract thought explains morals. We humans were specialized in the intelligence department where we found our niche for survival, and eventually we were intelligent enough to wonder about our own condition. We were the first that "made it" to this level of mental processing capability. That's all.

I think you've overcomplicated it. Morals are a set of behaviors facilitating social co-operation. Morality is selective. Natural selection explains it.
Nor does co-operation or altruism require much intellect. Witness a beehive or termite nest: perfect co-operation plus selfless sacrifice when threatened.

I believe consciousness arose out of the need for "something" to take the helm of the community of living cells that made up a multi-cellular body. As the body evolved and changed and adapted, so too did the form and function of the "consciousness." Ultimately, I believe that the consciousness is a property of the body that evolved to serve as "Captain" of the vessel (the body) - "hired" to do the job of keeping the majority of that communal colony of individual living cells out of harm's way.

But consciousness doesn't control anything except gross motor function. Everything else is automatic. We're not even conscious of it.

 

[Valjean]

Excellent, and we theists say, The Creator was responsible for bringing that Singularity into being. Science has no firm answer on the issue.

And who/what's responsible for bringing that Creator into existence?

The chances of ONE Universe coming into being are astronomical, the chances of the same Universe not collapsing on itself are again, astronomical, the chances of the amount of energy being just right for the universe to come into being are astronomical, etc etc. You've agreed this is the only Universe we know about, so it becomes mathematically impossible for it to be random chance.

No, it becomes a 100% certainty.
In truth, I don't think we understand the process well enough yet to compute a probability.

The Planet is some 4 Billion years old, and again mathematically impossible for all life to have evolved to it's current form in that time period. It's isn't simply a case of conditions being just right for water to fill a hole, chemicals, amino acids, proteins and other elements had to all come together in a manner pointing clearly to a Designer being responsible.

Now here you're just wrong. Life did evolve into complex forms during that time period -- more than once.
There is simply no need to posit a magical, intentional "creator" when we have a pretty good understanding of the natural processes involved.
In my mind, magic poofing is considerably more dubious than the natural processes i see around me every day.

Gathering evidence for God is not the same as gathering evidence for a murder. God is Spirit, so the evidence for God will not be detected with the senses that can only detect material evidence.

OK... So what is the proper research modality?

What predictions did Bob make? What information did he give you that no other person on the Planet knew at the time? Has Bob given you any power to help spread his message throughout the World? My GOD has done all of this as signs for people who think.

What predictions did Allah make?
It's remarkable how, with 20-20 hindsight, so many different traditions find so many prophetic justifications for their particular God or scripture.

 

[Valjean]

G-d is everywhere. There is no time and no place that G-d is absent. You can't detect the presence of something without being able to detect its absence. To be able to find something, you have to start with where it isn't.

very clever sophistry.

It's not. The concept of "faith" has devolved over time to become something to the effect of "believing in something with no evidence". That's not what it initially meant, considering that as defined it's basically just nonsense. The etymology of the word essentially just originally means "trust".

But this is the sense in which current religious apologists are using the term.

It's sad that even many religious people now idealize the idea that faith should mean blind belief.

Yes.

 

[David T]

Why do you consider it a fallacy at all? There is observable, testable evidence."


Spliting experience from narrative is difficult and I dont think most can. We aren't communicating because of that. It's like carrying on a CLconversation where one is in the conversation the other is looking at the processes of what is making up the conversation itself. So we are on two channels in a sense.

 

[Valjean]

Not nearly how you describe.

The "idea," (which is within) of universal reason, mathematics, and logic(which are also within) implies an underpinning system of perception and conception(which are also within) of all forms of complexity.

Faith and beliefs are also universal in all humans, yet are various and differ.

So while they are universal within all humans, there is plenty of variety and plenty of paths someone takes to make sense of reality. Don't forget the other half. People have their own logic and reasoning, and freedom of mind.

Wrong, awareness is integral of validating anything. How does anyone come to know or learn anything without becoming aware of such to begin with?

You say evidence is not within but then all you do it talk about things that are only within. And you speak of things being external and testable but speak of things that are also only within.

All you've done is establish a closed system that all truth and facts "must" be observable and repeatedly tested, that the scientific method is only way to ascertain truth. Which is a lie. You act as if this is the only way, and wish to enslave everyone else in this only way of limitations. Not everyone thinks as you. Not everyone is "needy" and demands others "must" do this and that and "can't" do this or that. Even in your own limited and closed system with strict rules for ascertaining truth, people make up their own facts and evidence and are part of the faith community.

What is empirical? Discovery through sensory (which is also within.) Not everyone makes sense out of things the same way that you may make sense of things.

There is intuitive reason, knowing, knowledge, logic.... do you understand what that is?

Perhaps you may be into becoming aware of your external world, you forget about becoming aware of your own internal world. (or maybe not, since awareness is not reliable to you.)

Not nearly how you describe.

The "idea," (which is within) of universal reason, mathematics, and logic(which are also within) implies an underpinning system of perception and conception(which are also within) of all forms of complexity.

Faith and beliefs are also universal in all humans, yet are various and differ.

So while they are universal within all humans, there is plenty of variety and plenty of paths someone takes to make sense of reality. Don't forget the other half. People have their own logic and reasoning, and freedom of mind.

Wrong, awareness is integral of validating anything. How does anyone come to know or learn anything without becoming aware of such to begin with?

You say evidence is not within but then all you do it talk about things that are only within. And you speak of things being external and testable but speak of things that are also only within.

All you've done is establish a closed system that all truth and facts "must" be observable and repeatedly tested, that the scientific method is only way to ascertain truth. Which is a lie. You act as if this is the only way, and wish to enslave everyone else in this only way of limitations. Not everyone thinks as you. Not everyone is "needy" and demands others "must" do this and that and "can't" do this or that. Even in your own limited and closed system with strict rules for ascertaining truth, people make up their own facts and evidence and are part of the faith community.

What is empirical? Discovery through sensory (which is also within.) Not everyone makes sense out of things the same way that you may make sense of things.

There is intuitive reason, knowing, knowledge, logic.... do you understand what that is?

Perhaps you may be into becoming aware of your external world, you forget about becoming aware of your own internal world. (or maybe not, since awareness is not reliable to you.)

I think we need to be careful of reducing this into a narrow, Cartesian sophistry. For practical purposes, the scientific method has served us well. We've been spiritually sophisticated for thousands of years, but our intellectual understanding of the world only took off recently, with the advent of scientific analysis.

I can appreciate the spiritual value of personal revelation, but researching it or translating it to practical applications is problematic, as is communicating it to other people.
People have been trying foist their insights, or other's insights, on others for millennia, without any advance of general knowledge. Indeed, it often contributed to war, strife and suffering.

 

[Mister Silver]

First, what criteria are you looking for and two, how do you define god that you know of personally?

The kind of evidence that can be empirically backed. And when I refer to god, I first and foremost mean the Judeo-Christian god; though it can be any god in which any person believes.

 

[Mister Silver]

His signs are everywhere as touched upon in my first post. Genuine people who accept He must exist are given signs to remove ANY doubt.

From what I have experienced in relation to people who feel they must believe have removed rationality from their thought processes.

What sort of evidence do you personally require?

Something empirically valid.

 

[Mister Silver]

Not any, but your own current logical standard. When you create "standards," speak for your own self. Would it be logical if you claimed to know or speak for all other human beings?

You are not another and have never entered within another to know or not know whether there is evidence/validity within them. Or do you have faith that since it's not potentially in others because it's not evident or validated in you?

Are your standards for evidence that they must be physically seen with the eye rather than the inner eye of awareness?

I have some experience with psychology, though by no means am I certified. I do understand enough about psychology, however, to know that people who personally experience that which has no evidence to support its existence are thought to be delusional; I personally find religious belief, faith, to be no different.

 

[Profound Realization]

I think we need to be careful of reducing this into a narrow, Cartesian sophistry. For practical purposes, the scientific method has served us well. We've been spiritually sophisticated for thousands of years, but our intellectual understanding of the world only took off recently, with the advent of scientific analysis.

I can appreciate the spiritual value of personal revelation, but researching it or translating it to practical applications is problematic, as is communicating it to other people.
People have been trying foist their insights, or other's insights, on others for millennia, without any advance of general knowledge. Indeed, it often contributed to war, strife and suffering.

I understand this, indeed. We also can be careful if we choose to point out only the positives in one and the negatives in the other rather than vice-versa.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The kind of evidence that can be empirically backed. And when I refer to god, I first and foremost mean the Judeo-Christian god; though it can be any god in which any person believes.

Many Jews, Muslims, and Christians see the creator in different ways or at least in the last two describe him differently. The only way I know for people who ask the question like yours to be satisfied is find out what type of god they personally know. The criteria for, say, christian claims as proof is the bible and Church. If you don't want to use their criteria, either maybe you have another god you know of or haven't yet accepted religious claims are different than scientific claims?

 

[Mister Silver]

Many Jews, Muslims, and Christians see the creator in different ways or at least in the last two describe him differently. The only way I know for people who ask the question like yours to be satisfied is find out what type of god they personally know. The criteria for, say, christian claims as proof is the bible and Church. If you don't want to use their criteria, either maybe you have another god you know of or haven't yet accepted religious claims are different than scientific claims?

For me it doesn't matter which god it is; from my perspective, they're all imaginatively created and only exist dependently on personal faith rather than in reality. When I mention "god", any person responding to me should respond in reference to the god in which s/he personally believes.

 

[robocop (actually)]

A scientologist cared enough about the Book of Mormon to talk to me one time about this (I believe in Mormonism and other religions but I'm not a member of the Mormon church). I figure this should be of interest to people of different faiths. Anyway it gives a reason for having faith - these gifts are for faith:

Moroni 10:7-16

"7 And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.

8 And again, I exhort you, my brethren, that ye deny not the gifts of God, for they are many; and they come from the same God. And there are different ways that these gifts are administered; but it is the same God who worketh all in all; and they are given by the manifestations of the Spirit of God unto men, to profit them.

9 For behold, to one is given by the Spirit of God, that he may teach the word of wisdom;

10 And to another, that he may teach the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

11 And to another, exceedingly great faith; and to another, the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

12 And again, to another, that he may work mighty miracles;

13 And again, to another, that he may prophesy concerning all things;

14 And again, to another, the beholding of angels and ministering spirits;

15 And again, to another, all kinds of tongues;

16 And again, to another, the interpretation of languages and of divers kinds of tongues.

17 And all these gifts come by the Spirit of Christ; and they come unto every man severally, according as he will.

18 And I would exhort you, my beloved brethren, that ye remember that every good gift cometh of Christ."

 

[Unveiled Artist]

For me it doesn't matter which god it is; from my perspective, they're all imaginatively created and only exist dependently on personal faith rather than in reality. When I mention "god", any person responding to me should respond in reference to the god in which s/he personally believes.

If you had an imaginary friend as a child and you told me this as an adult, what proof would you give me so that I know this friend existed regardless if it's imaginary or not? (Pretending that there was no outside party influencing your childhood belief)

That and regardless of how you define your imaginary friend, as a child it was still real to you. The experience was real regardless the facts. They were facts for you and that's all that mattered. If I said I don't care about the proof you give me (the drawings etc) but prove the friend to me by scientific evidence, do you see how saying that belittles your experiences regardless if it is true or not?

 

[Mister Silver]

A scientologist cared enough about the Book of Mormon to talk to me one time about this (I believe in Mormonism and other religions but I'm not a member of the Mormon church). I figure this should be of interest to people of different faiths. Anyway it gives a reason for having faith - these gifts are for faith:

Moroni 10:7-16

"7 And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.

8 And again, I exhort you, my brethren, that ye deny not the gifts of God, for they are many; and they come from the same God. And there are different ways that these gifts are administered; but it is the same God who worketh all in all; and they are given by the manifestations of the Spirit of God unto men, to profit them.

9 For behold, to one is given by the Spirit of God, that he may teach the word of wisdom;

10 And to another, that he may teach the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

11 And to another, exceedingly great faith; and to another, the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

12 And again, to another, that he may work mighty miracles;

13 And again, to another, that he may prophesy concerning all things;

14 And again, to another, the beholding of angels and ministering spirits;

15 And again, to another, all kinds of tongues;

16 And again, to another, the interpretation of languages and of divers kinds of tongues.

17 And all these gifts come by the Spirit of Christ; and they come unto every man severally, according as he will.

18 And I would exhort you, my beloved brethren, that ye remember that every good gift cometh of Christ."

Scientology and Mormonism, two religions clearly created by men. One in the early 1800s by a con man and the other recently by a science "fiction" writer.

 

[Mister Silver]

If you had an imaginary friend as a child and you told me this as an adult, what proof would you give me so that I know this friend existed regardless if it's imaginary or not? (Pretending that there was no outside party influencing your childhood belief)

It's called an "imaginary" friend for a reason. God is realistically no different.

That and regardless of how you define your imaginary friend, as a child it was still real to you. The experience was real regardless the facts. They were facts for you and that's all that mattered. If I said I don't care about the proof you give me (the drawings etc) but prove the friend to me by scientific evidence, do you see how saying that belittles your experiences regardless if it is true or not?

From childhood to adulthood, one eventually outgrows such childish notions of things which do not exist; the monster under the bed, Santa Claus, etc. God realistically should be no different.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's called an "imaginary" friend for a reason. God is realistically no different.



From childhood to adulthood, one eventually outgrows such childish notions of things which do not exist; the monster under the bed, Santa Claus, etc. God realistically should be no different.

This didn't answer my questions.

If you told me as an adult you had an imaginary friend, and I asked you to prove to me you had this friend; prove the validity of your statement, how would you prove it?

Also, the experiences you had with your friend as a child are real. They were facts for you and that's all that mattered.

If I said I don't care about the proof you give me (the drawings etc) but prove the friend to me by scientific evidence,

1. Does that make sense to ask you that question?
2. Would it belittle your real experiences as a child regardless of how you think of it as an adult?

 

[Mister Silver]

This didn't answer my questions.

I apologize, I shall try again.

If you told me as an adult you had an imaginary friend, and I asked you to prove to me you had this friend; prove the validity of your statement, how would you prove it?

There would be no reason for me to prove the validity of the statement, for we all should understand what an "imaginary" friend is.

Also, the experiences you had with your friend as a child are real. They were facts for you and that's all that mattered.

They may have been facts during a time of undeveloped critical thinking, but into adulthood it would be understood that those childhood notions were not facts at all.

If I said I don't care about the proof you give me (the drawings etc) but prove the friend to me by scientific evidence,

1. Does that make sense to ask you that question?
2. Would it belittle your real experiences as a child regardless of how you think of it as an adult?

1. Yes.
2. No, because as an adult I would understand that those were mere childish notions born of imagination and improper critical thinking development.