If God existed would there be proof?

[Kfox]

But to me, there is no objective truth in any strong sense. Any truth is a cognitive process that appears to work, until it for another time, space and sense doesn't work/appear to be useful.

I wouldn't say there are no objective truths; the fact that there is a tree growing in my front lawn is an objective true statement. I would however agree moral truths are not objective though.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If you think that then you don't understand the big bang theory. It doesn't even reach all the way back to the start of the expansion event. It only goes back as far as the end of the Planck Epoch.

So... now the big bang is no longer the beginning of the universe? If it's not the beginning of the expansion, where did the material to expand come from?

 

[ppp]

So... now the big bang is no longer the beginning of the universe? If it's not the beginning of the expansion, where did the material to expand come from?

It never was. You are going by a layman's understanding of the general idea of the BBT. Our model starts 10^-43 seconds after the expansion started. It is a really tiny period of time - theoretically the shortest length of time possible - but very important.

We don't know where the material came from, or if it came from anywhere. It may have always been there, or perhaps it's part of some larger process. Or something else entirely that we've never imagined. We don't know.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is a really tiny period of time - theoretically the shortest length of time possible - but very important.

We don't know where the material came from, or if it came from anywhere. It may have always been there, or perhaps it's part of some larger process. Or something else entirely that we've never imagined. We don't know.

Hooray! We can say that due to the uncertainty of what happened in the first microsecond, we can claim that the universe might not have a beginning, and so in that case "a god is not necessary"

 

[ppp]

Hooray! We can say that due to the uncertainty of what happened in the first microsecond, we can claim that the universe might not have a beginning, and so in that case "a god is not necessary"

Chronon. Not microsecond.
Whether or not the universe has a beginning is irrelevant to whether a god is necessary.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I wouldn't say there are no objective truths; the fact that there is a tree growing in my front lawn is an objective true statement. I would however agree moral truths are not objective though.

Well, as long as you understand that this assumption is not true:
"... that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers. ..."
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

 

[Kfox]

Well, as long as you understand that this assumption is not true:
"... that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers. ..."
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

Why would I assume it to not be true?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why would I assume it to not be true?

Well, you can assume it to be true, but that doesn't mean it is true.
You can assume whatever you like about something, but if it is independent of your mind/brain, it doesn't become true, just because you assume it. That is not limited to religion.
That is how you understand agnosticism. That it in effect is unknown, what objective reality is and thus you can't known if there is or isn't a creator God

 

[Brian2]

Nobody really knows what Jesus actually said because he never wrote anything down. The only thing we know about him is what other people claimed he said; which is likely far from the truth IMO.

Jesus is said to have said things.
If Jesus was said to have written things there would be the same problem, how would you know that was true?
IOWs if you don't believe what He is said to have said, you won't believe what He is said to have written.

As far as if he was described to be exactly like Yahweh? When I look at how Jesus instructed his followers to treat their enemies (Luke 6:28) vs the way Yahweh instructed his followers to treat their enemies (Numbers 31:17) they appear to be polar opposites to me.

In the OT God was establishing Israel as His earthly Kingdom with Himself as King and was commanding His people as a King does, to protect His subjects from enemies who would cause them harm.
When it came to the way Israel was to treat the stranger and alien in their country, it was always to treat them well, but the establishing of the country and getting rid of the inhabitants of the land was a different question.
When Jesus came He came to establish a Kingdom not of this world and so war and killing was not necessary,,,,,,,,,,,that came later when Christians became political and wanting to set up an earthly Kingdom.

I believe it was Mark Twain who said “men of war will worship a God of war, men of peace will worship a God of peace”

I believe men like Moses, Saul, and others in the Old Testament were men of war, so when they created a God, they created a God of war (Yahweh)
Later in the New Testament, men like Peter, Paul, and John were men of peace, so when they created a God they created a God of peace (Jesus).
But that's just the way I see it.

It was just the circumstances of the times and what God was doing. Moses actually is said to have been a very humble man (Numbers 12:3)

 

[Brian2]

Yes, I think it's a hard position for some Christians to take. It is much easier to just take the Bible as literal as possible and close one's mind to what "science" says. Since "science" can say lots of stuff.
I'm, ironically, closer to believing like some Baha'is and think the Bible stories are fictional. They, though, try to say they are "metaphorical", and I just think they were legends and myths. But, that's great and easy to do with things like the flood, the question then is... What do people do with the NT stories that have Jesus rising from the dead? The easiest thing for me is to write it off as myth. But then, since it is told in the gospels as if it really happened, and there were witnesses that saw Jesus alive after, then what? Did something as incredible as that really happen? Or was it a hoax and a lie. Or, again, like the Baha'is say... that the resurrection was a metaphor?

No matter what I try to believe, I get a brain cramp.

Yes brain cramps can come with the territory. I sometimes wish I chosen to have a simple faith, as my father suggested.
He was a Catholic and did not have to read the Bible and work out what was correct. All this no doubt is a product to the Reformation and where that led.
Many Christians, including the Catholic Church, go along with evolution and see the pre history part of the Bible in Genesis as non literal. It seems that many theologians get mind cramps when it comes to that part of the Bible and so just don't bother to see it as historical narrative.
But you seem to have a love/hate relationship with Baha'i

 

[Kfox]

Well, you can assume it to be true, but that doesn't mean it is true.

But it is true. The fact that there is a large rock on my front lawn is an empirically proven fact. If you don't believe me, you can come to my house and experience it for yourself.

 

[Kfox]

Jesus is said to have said things.
If Jesus was said to have written things there would be the same problem, how would you know that was true?
IOWs if you don't believe what He is said to have said, you won't believe what He is said to have written.

If Jesus wrote his words down, there would not be conflicting accounts of what he actually said like we have now.

In the OT God was establishing Israel as His earthly Kingdom with Himself as King and was commanding His people as a King does, to protect His subjects from enemies who would cause them harm.
When it came to the way Israel was to treat the stranger and alien in their country, it was always to treat them well, but the establishing of the country and getting rid of the inhabitants of the land was a different question.
When Jesus came He came to establish a Kingdom not of this world and so war and killing was not necessary

Is that supposed to somehow justify the atrocities committed against the Midianites and the Amelekites? No thank-you. Everything I know about about right and wrong tells me that was wrong. When I look at their actions, I believe Jesus was morally superior to the God Christians claimed was his father.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What do you mean by that?
If I was to explode a bomb in the middle of London, would I be "culpable" or would it be reasonable that we should blame G-d because He is the one who is "really" responsible?

NB lets not even talk about a hypothetical millions of years ago, as there is enough suffering in the here and now

Not either-or. You and God would both be culpable.

To switch to a real-world example: the Oklahoma City bombing used a rental truck packed with a large bomb to blow up the building.

We don't hold the truck rental company - or the staff who rented the truck to the bombers - responsible for the bombing because, even though the bombing would not have happened without their actions, they didn't know what McVeigh planned to do with the truck.

- do you think that God was any less instrumental than the rental company in allowing the bombing to happen?

- do you think God knew what McVeigh was planning?

 

[muhammad_isa]

- do you think God knew what McVeigh was planning?

Yes, of course.
Do you think that G-d should have told somebody?
Where does it end?
Should G-d interfere in all of our every day lives, and wave a wand and change it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, of course.
Do you think that G-d should have told somebody?

Let me put it this way:

The daycare in the Murragh Federal Building took the brunt of the blast. 19 kids were killed.

- if YOU knew that someone was about to set off a bomb next to a daycare centre, would YOU try to get the kids out before it happened?

- is your God more or less moral than you are?

Where does it end?
Should G-d interfere in all of our every day lives, and wave a wand and change it?

That depends: is your God perfect?

It's certainly better for God to correct his errors than not - especially when those errors cause harm to people - but any discrepancy between what wants for his creation and what actually exists would reflect negatively on his ability as a creator.

If God were a perfect creator, then there would be no flaws whatsoever in his creation in the first place.

I mean, how would you rank these clockmakers from best to worst?

1. One whose clock can't keep accurate time, so he just lets it show the wrong time.

2. One whose clock can't keep accurate time, but he's constantly manually adjusting it so it stays pretty close to the correct time.

3. One whose clock keeps accurate time forever without having to adjust it.

 

[Kfox]

Let me put it this way:

The daycare in the Murragh Federal Building took the brunt of the blast. 19 kids were killed.

- if YOU knew that someone was about to set off a bomb next to a daycare centre, would YOU try to get the kids out before it happened?

- is your God more or less moral than you are?



That depends: is your God perfect?

It's certainly better for God to correct his errors than not - especially when those errors cause harm to people - but any discrepancy between what wants for his creation and what actually exists would reflect negatively on his ability as a creator.

If God were a perfect creator, then there would be no flaws whatsoever in his creation in the first place.

I mean, how would you rank these clockmakers from best to worst?

1. One whose clock can't keep accurate time, so he just lets it show the wrong time.

2. One whose clock can't keep accurate time, but he's constantly manually adjusting it so it stays pretty close to the correct time.

3. One whose clock keeps accurate time forever without having to adjust it.

Excellent points!

 

[muhammad_isa]

If God were a perfect creator, then there would be no flaws whatsoever in his creation in the first place..

If that's what you think.
I see that this life is far from perfect.
I see that mankind is far from perfect.
I see that our lives on earth must end.

I believe in cosmic awareness and do not think it totally relies on money and the material.
I do not believe that the sanctity of life is haphazard.
eg. one man gets $1 a day, and another gets $10,000 a day and there is no cosmic consequence

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If that's what you think.
I see that this life is far from perfect.
I see that mankind is far from perfect.
I see that our lives on earth must end.

That's my point: the "creation" is imperfect, and the quality of the creation reflects on the quality of the creator.

The world around us is evidence that, if a creator were to exist, that creator would be imperfect.

If your beliefs about a creator allow for that creator to be imperfect, fine... but that isn't the case for a lot of people.

BTW: I'd still like you to answer my two questions:

- if YOU knew that someone was about to set off a bomb next to a daycare centre, would YOU try to get the kids out before it happened?

- is your God more or less moral than you are?

I believe in cosmic awareness and do not think it totally relies on money and the material.
I do not believe that the sanctity of life is haphazard.
eg. one man gets $1 a day, and another gets $10,000 a day and there is no cosmic consequence

Not sure what you're getting at here.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It never was. You are going by a layman's understanding of the general idea of the BBT. Our model starts 10^-43 seconds after the expansion started. It is a really tiny period of time - theoretically the shortest length of time possible - but very important.

We don't know where the material came from, or if it came from anywhere. It may have always been there, or perhaps it's part of some larger process. Or something else entirely that we've never imagined. We don't know.

So you have something from nothing. Or you have a creator.

 

[ppp]

So you have something from nothing. Or you have a creator.

That is not a true dichotomy. A true dichotomy would be you either have something from nothing or you don't have something from nothing.