Scientific evidence / arguments for God

[ArtieE]

I thought I answered this. Yes IF AND ONLY IF TRUE they would. It may be a better basis for a morality that was not acceptable to me and you but true none the less. I however do not think they are right so it is a non issue. There is no argument possible to the claim that moral codes issued by the being that created us and morality are less substantial than what we invent on our own. Morality derived without God isn't moral, it is speciesm, opinion, preference, and arbitrary. It isn't good or evil, it is preferred on not preferred.

Then you are actually saying that the morality held by two thirds of the population of the world whether they believe in deities or not are "speciesm, opinion, preference, and arbitrary". So perhaps when you discuss morality in the future you might distinguish between Christians and the rest of humanity instead of just Christians and atheists?

 

[paarsurrey]

Let's just get right down to it. I am tired of being drawn between accepting facts and fighting the natural desire humanity seems to have to believe in God. I personally miss my days as a believer, and despite most believers thinking most atheists will never change their minds, I am more than happy to. In fact, I used to be a believer in spirituality and such until I was defeated past the point of no return

So, enough of the damn games. Right here, provide your evidence of God that cannot be refuted and, atheists, refute what can be refuted. Let's just end this nonsense.

Science deals with the things physical and material; the Creator God is not physical or material so any scientific evidence for the Creator God is out of question and uncalled for.

 

[godnotgod]

Science deals with the things physical and material; the Creator God is not physical or material so any scientific evidence for the Creator God is out of question and uncalled for.

Allelujah!

Oh, but you forgot to mention the gaseous vertebrate, who fulfills both requirements!

 

[paarsurrey]

Allelujah!

Oh, but you forgot to mention the gaseous vertebrate, who fulfills both requirements!

Please elaborate your view point.

 

[1robin]

The problem with your analogy is that belief in the doctor's cure can be verified via repeated administrations of the cure over time to many patients, in different places by different doctors. Once verified, belief becomes fact, but belief in the first place is based on some tangible evidence that the medicine or drug is actually effective.
Not so with belief in God or Jesus, even where there is an experience of some kind, simply because the believer may be projecting his ego onto a mentally-concocted image of what he thinks is God and/or Jesus. This kind of projection is called Idolatrous Love* (see below).
We are talking about a physically-administered, tangible cure as compared to an invisible one that requires ONLY belief.
The analogy, and erroneous logic, fails.
First of all, a Christian is generally defined as one who:
believes (for whatever reason) that an alleged personage via the name of 'Jesus Christ' who lived over 2000 years ago is strangely somehow the fleshy offspring of a creator-God that dwells in some far-off heavenly realm, and that, according to the Apostle's Creed:
>he was conceived via a spirit called the Holy Spirit, and then born of a virgin;
>he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was entombed.
>he descended into a hellish realm, and after 3 days, he was resurrected back to life on Earth and then ascended into a heavenly realm.
>he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. (we all know who is seated at his left)
>he will return to Earth as judge of both living and dead.
In addition, a Christian must accept the alleged personage known as 'Jesus Christ', even though such personage is no longer (assuming he ever was) present in the flesh, as his only Lord and Savior, with the full understanding that, if such acceptance is not forthcoming, then one is automatically relegated to eternal damnation, as stated in:
Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
and....
John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.
In other words, the so-called 'cure' is administered under duress via of threat of harm to one's body and soul in the form of everlasting torment.
This dictum applies to ALL mankind.
The difference is this:
*I. APPARENT LOVE OF OTHERS BY PROJECTION OF THE EGO

You have done a complete fly by here. However by doing so you confirmed my suspicion that at this time has never failed. When you say you used to be a Christian what do you mean? In every single case where "I used to be a Christian" is claimed I find the exact same thing to be true. You misunderstand what it is that makes someone a Christian. There is very little surprise in this, I had the exact same problems before I eventually was born again. Being born again is like being in love until it happens you can't be sure it hasn't or if it exists. However once you have been it is very easy to see that until then you weren't. You take on what being a Christian means leaves little doubt that you were never born again. That is the one absolutely necessary thing to become a Christian. That is the induction point. What you and every person I heard claim this actually had was not a relationship with Christ but an intellectual consent to Christian theology. This type of faith has shallow roots. A very clear parallel is is the pre-upper room apostles. They had seen miracles and followed Jesus and I am sure every thought they had was of belief. However they were not born again and when Jesus was arrested their intellectual faith dissolved into fear and doubt. However after they were baptized with the Holy Spirit (born again) these same timid fearful apostles became faithful even to death even after Jesus was long gone. Being born again is everything, it happens because the Holy Spirit comes to live in your heart and is the spiritual mechanism that produces the palpable and un mistakable effects of the eradication of tons of guilt fear and regret that you don’t even know existed because it build up incrementally and slowly. I had never heard the term born again when I was saved yet the only way I could describe what I felt when in a spiritual daze for three days was like a new person. Anyway until you experience it you can't imagine it and I am sure doubt it. I do not care, I know what I know. As to what you said here:

The fact you are concentrating on all these intellectual aspects and theological concepts you claim must be adopted to be a Christian suggests very strongly you only had a intellectual agreement with a religious concept. I only need to believe in a few things to become a Christian. I am a sinner, God and Christ exist, and Christ paid my debt. I have no need of Trinitarian philosophy, of substitutionary atonement theological philosophy, or of even Christ's actual hour of death or when he resurrected or in what circumstances, or any of these things:
he was conceived via a spirit called the Holy Spirit, and then born of a virgin;
>he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was entombed.
>he descended into a hellish realm, and after 3 days, he was resurrected back to life on Earth and then ascended into a heavenly realm.
>he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. (we all know who is seated at his left)

I can doubt or be unaware of any of these things and still be born again. I do believe those things but they are not the basis on which I was saved. I was saved by what I can only describe as 90% study on my own, and 10% spiritual revelation concerning three things. BTW these are the three things that almost all NT scholars on both sides agree took place at least the historical parts of them. Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins, he was innocent of any crime but was killed as he predicted for my sake, his tomb was found empty.

I am not making an intellectual adoption of a series of theological doctrines I am accepting a spiritual provision based on very simple, concise, few, and amazing historical propositions and the result is purely spiritual and unmistakable.
In summary intellectual consents to theological ideas are shallow and are destroyed easily and do not make one a Christian, they perish easily and have little sticking power. Spiritual birth is almost impervious to anything, makes one a true Christian, comes with actual power that has never failed, and is unmistakable.

You have accused me in another thread of lying one too many times and I have no desire to continue a discussion with you. I did however feel this post worth the effort but will probably not contend whatever is invented to get out of what I have said. BTW the desperation that produces the pseupsychology used to explain away billions of claims to supernatural experience that a non theist finds so inconvenient is rediculous and would emberass me if I was making them and you definition of what makes someone a Christian is not biblical and silly. See Jesus and Nicodemus.

 

[1robin]

Then you are actually saying that the morality held by two thirds of the population of the world whether they believe in deities or not are "species, opinion, preference, and arbitrary". So perhaps when you discuss morality in the future you might distinguish between Christians and the rest of humanity instead of just Christians and atheists?

I am not sure I follow this. Did you go through all this because I mistakenly called you or someone else an atheist and that is not the case. If so I would have agreed with my lack of perfection many posts back if submitted. Since I am unsure of the purpose of what you said let me simply clarify my position.

A theist (given his God exists) has a sufficient foundation for moral absolutes and perfect accountability.

1. That does not necessarily mean that that God's morality is compatible with what I think is right and I can accept or reject him even if in the end I am accountable.
2. In my case I claim the moral code God produces is benevolent and agreeable but that is almost a side issue here.

A non-theist has at least far less a foundation for morality. That is not to say he can't apprehend the same moral codes a Christian does. It just means he can't justify or found them as sufficiently as a Christian can.

1. No matter what intellectual gyrations are performed, what philosophic principle, or what evolutionary assumption is made morality on non-theism can't possibly rise above opinion.
2. As far as a moral, morality is concerned it can't be sufficiently grounded in non-theism. If you say that evolution has mandated that we all believe cooperation is conducive to survival. You have not said cooperation is actually good, morally. You have instead said it is beneficial given that you arbitrarily decided that optimal human survivability is beneficial. It isn't beneficial to other creatures that have no less worth on non-theism.
3. It becomes an arbitrary assumption that what is conducive to human flourishing is simply declared to be moral. It isn't and the definition of moral can't be changed to make an argument look better.
4. Given no God "morality" can't possibly rise above an opinion based on assumed value even if everyone agreed with it, but in reality that never happens. So who's opinion is used as the standard Stalin’s, Hitler’s, gnats, an alien planet that declares they are more valuable than us and we are now their food source.
5. You have only a few choices as to source the most powerful tribe or culture, popular opinion, or anyone you agree with. The most powerful may be the Nazis or communists, popular opinion condemned Jesus, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, and Gandhi, and who you agree with is arbitrary and not a moral decision but only a preference decision.
6. The moral chaos this will produce is easily seen in abortion. A majority of non-theists decided what is right and wrong based on what is convenient or personally beneficial. They by some strange logic assert they have a sacred right (granted by who) to kill innocent babies for their own mistakes. Anyone not directly benefited by this can easily see there is no possible way to justify this. It is like all non-theist morals derived by arbitrarily assuming what is preferred is good. If you try and get out of this by saying that less population means less competition and so more survival. Then why do we not adopt Hitler’s euthanasia of the nonproductive and just assert that American flourishing is right. Without God morality is arbitrary chaos, insufficient for the needs of society, inconsistent with the objective moral realm we all (including you) apprehend, and not moral but preference based.


Very few theological issues are as clear as morality and I find it hard to think anyone as intelligent as you does not see the clear fact of what I am saying.
Dawkins, Ruse, and countless atheists, evolutionists, and non-theists have seen the problem and in most debates the issue is conceded up front. Only rarely do you get a Harris for example that suggests actual objective values exist. However when cornered readily admits that he assumes they do and then everything follows. Most of the time the issue is not what God or no God means concerning morality it is whether a God exists or not.


I hope I have made my claim clear and we can discuss the issues instead of terms or semantical technicalities. Evolution produces survival values (including the brutal ones) not moral values.

 

[Thief]

Cause and effect.
Science has taught the notion for decades.

Consider the singularity.
Consider the difference between physical law and the Spirit.

Which came first?.....Spirit?.....or substance?

Some participantws don't get it.
The above quote IS an argument...posed as a question.

If you cannot answer the question the discussion will not proceed for you.

God is potrayed as Creator.....in the beginning.
Science takes you there in discussion of the singularity.

Which came First?

I say Spirit.
In mind and heart Someone had to be First.

I place Him before substance.....as the Cause.
The universe (the one word) is the effect.

 

[McBell]

Some participantws don't get it.
The above quote IS an argument...posed as a question.

If you cannot answer the question the discussion will not proceed for you.

God is potrayed as Creator.....in the beginning.
Science takes you there in discussion of the singularity.

Which came First?

I say Spirit.
In mind and heart Someone had to be First.

I place Him before substance.....as the Cause.
The universe (the one word) is the effect.

It isn't an argument.
It is nothing more than the first of a series of your favorite sermons.

 

[camanintx]

No it isn't. I have a hard time believing that people as intelligent as many of you are actually believe this stuff. If God exists and declares Murder an objective wrong and requires complete and perfect accountability for it when he has assigned actual objective worth for our lives there is nothing more meaningful or compelling. Your determination that murder is wrong without reference to God is first of all completely arbitrary.

Your determination that murder is wrong by reference to God is equally arbitrary since God could just as easily command otherwise, as demonstrated by 1 Samuel 15. If I argued that my belief is objective because it is based on the law and not my personal opinion, I would be equally wrong.

 

[Thief]

It isn't an argument.
It is nothing more than the first of a series of your favorite sermons.

Evading the discussion.....yes you are.

 

[McBell]

Evading the discussion.....yes you are.

You keep calling it something it is not.

It is a series of sermons.
You are not the least bit interested in discussing it or debating it or even considering alternate PoVs.
You are merely interested in preaching your dogma and then demonstrating that it is your dogma with denial.

 

[Thief]

You keep calling it something it is not.

It is a series of sermons.
You are not the least bit interested in discussing it or debating it or even considering alternate PoVs.
You are merely interested in preaching your dogma and then demonstrating that it is your dogma with denial.

I have no dogma to offer.

The question remains....Sprit first?....or substance.
It's One or the other.

 

[McBell]

I have no dogma to offer.

Thank you demonstrating my point.

The question remains....Sprit first?....or substance.
It's One or the other.

Been there, done that.

let us just cut to the end, shall we...

You: "faith does not require proof".

You win.

Fly on home and claim your victory.

 

[Thief]

Thank you demonstrating my point.


Been there, done that.

let us just cut to the end, shall we...

You: "faith does not require proof".

You win.

Fly on home and claim your victory.

Thank you!

Anyone else?

 

[ArtieE]

I am not sure I follow this. Did you go through all this because I mistakenly called you or someone else an atheist and that is not the case. If so I would have agreed with my lack of perfection many posts back if submitted. Since I am unsure of the purpose of what you said let me simply clarify my position.

A theist (given his God exists) has a sufficient foundation for moral absolutes and perfect accountability.

So whatever a theist thinks his particular god says must be moral and right because he thinks it's his god that says it?

1. That does not necessarily mean that that God's morality is compatible with what I think is right and I can accept or reject him even if in the end I am accountable.

2. In my case I claim the moral code God produces is benevolent and agreeable but that is almost a side issue here.

As opposed to the moral codes other people think their gods produce. Got it.

A non-theist has at least far less a foundation for morality.

So it doesn't matter which god one believes in, as long as one believes in some god and one thinks that that god has produced some moral code then that moral code is always better than the moral code of a non-theist?

That is not to say he can't apprehend the same moral codes a Christian does. It just means he can't justify or found them as sufficiently as a Christian can.

You mean a non-Christian can't justify or found the moral codes as sufficiently as a Christian can? A Muslim can't justify or found their moral codes in Allah and the Quran as well as a Christian can justify or found their moral codes in God and the Bible?

1. No matter what intellectual gyrations are performed, what philosophic principle, or what evolutionary assumption is made morality on non-theism can't possibly rise above opinion.

Isn't it your opinion that the moral codes of the particular god you believe in are benevolent and agreeable? Would that be your subjective opinion?

2. As far as a moral, morality is concerned it can't be sufficiently grounded in non-theism. If you say that evolution has mandated that we all believe cooperation is conducive to survival.

It's self evident of course and not a question of belief.

You have not said cooperation is actually good, morally. You have instead said it is beneficial given that you arbitrarily decided that optimal human survivability is beneficial.

You wouldn't be here if human survivability wasn't beneficial. It has benefited you because you are here.

It isn't beneficial to other creatures that have no less worth on non-theism.

You aren't saying that theists never hunt or kill animals do you?

3. It becomes an arbitrary assumption that what is conducive to human flourishing is simply declared to be moral. It isn't and the definition of moral can't be changed to make an argument look better.

What a curious stance. Drowning practically every human and animal on the planet is moral according to you because it ultimately was conducive to human flourishing. No?

4. Given no God "morality" can't possibly rise above an opinion based on assumed value even if everyone agreed with it, but in reality that never happens. So who's opinion is used as the standard Stalin’s, Hitler’s, gnats, an alien planet that declares they are more valuable than us and we are now their food source.

If they think their god has given us to them as a food source they would be morally right in eating us according to you so what are you complaining about?

5. You have only a few choices as to source the most powerful tribe or culture, popular opinion, or anyone you agree with. The most powerful may be the Nazis or communists, popular opinion condemned Jesus, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, and Gandhi, and who you agree with is arbitrary and not a moral decision but only a preference decision.

And you picking the Christian god to believe in is a preference decision.

6. The moral chaos this will produce is easily seen in abortion. A majority of non-theists decided what is right and wrong based on what is convenient or personally beneficial. They by some strange logic assert they have a sacred right (granted by who) to kill innocent babies for their own mistakes. Anyone not directly benefited by this can easily see there is no possible way to justify this. It is like all non-theist morals derived by arbitrarily assuming what is preferred is good.

"Women who obtain abortion represent every religious affiliation. 43% of women obtaining abortion identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic; and 13% of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians." Abortion Statistics, Facts About Abortion In The US Just an example of theist morals in the US.

 

[1robin]

Allelujah!

Oh, but you forgot to mention the gaseous vertebrate, who fulfills both requirements!

What is a gaseous vertibrate?

 

[ArcNinja]

Thank you!

Anyone else?

Substance.

 

[Straw Dog]

Hello straw dog. Yes I believe it is appropriate. In fact I know of scholars who only use science (no scripture) to build the case for theism and it is a very strong one. It seems God is almost a logical imperative to make many things in science (like the rational intelligibility of nature, the moral realm, and the reason why our universe is fine tuned on a razors edge etc...) coherent.

Personally, I've found most notions of god to be too ambiguous, abstract, or purposely tailored to only fit with certain religious agendas to be useful descriptions of natural phenomenon. Also, it seems like science develops its own coherence as it progresses. We're the ones that need to adapt our cultural beliefs to conform with reason and evidence, not the other way around.

That may be what it is supposed to be dealing with, however it deals with whatever it wants to. In fact things completely devoid of any evidence or even a potentiality for any are deemed to be science.

There can surely be evidence against the Biblical God, general theism maybe be harder to disprove. Currently there is nothing known that disproves either.

Yeah, that's called pseudo-science.

Anyway, can you define the "Biblical God" in such a way that we could determine what would constitute evidence for it as opposed to evidence for any other gods? If the same evidence can be explained without reference to gods at all, then why resort to using a term that doesn't belong in scientific inquiry?

My point is that you would say everything is evidence for the "Biblical God". Even if there could be contradicting evidence, you would just deny it. It's not a scientific argument and there can't be scientific evidence because you're looking for everything and nothing at the same time.

Faith like most of science and all of history is about drawing probabilities based on evidence. Given reality, Christianity has a high degree of probability but in the end it will always be less than proven. That is until that last trumpet sounds or heat death occurs.

But how can you even gauge the probability of your "Biblical God" over other gods like the "Quranic God" or the "Brahman" without a falsifiable hypothesis? I don't know, Robin. It smells like pseudo-science.

 

[1robin]

So whatever a theist thinks his particular god says must be moral and right because he thinks it's his god that says it?

This is apparently futile and pointless. I have went way out of the way to say only if the God exists and even then that can mean that their morality is true but incompatible with our moral determinations. IOW he can be "evil" to me and you but is still a more solid foundation than arbitrary opinion.

As opposed to the moral codes other people think their gods produce. Got it.

In reality I find no little evidence to consider any other God a reality and so his character is a side note.

So it doesn't matter which god one believes in, as long as one believes in some god and one thinks that that god has produced some moral code then that moral code is always better than the moral code of a non-theist?

I do not know about better. He could be from our perspective an evil God and therefore not better however we are discussing the quality of foundations for morality not it's goodness or badness. Which do you want to discuss they are two distinct issues? Also belief is irrelevant. If a theist type God exists he is a much more firm foundation for moral reality than a non-God is.

You mean a non-Christian can't justify or found the moral codes as sufficiently as a Christian can? A Muslim can't justify or found their moral codes in Allah and the Quran as well as a Christian can justify or found their moral codes in God and the Bible?

In principle yes. Given the radical difference in the evidence for God versus Allah then they are not equivalent potential sources for morality. If Allah exists making the entire world into a caliphate is an absolute moral command, but one I would refuse. On non-theism there is no absolute moral anything. This all hinges on if the God exists and can't be evaluated independently from it.

Isn't it your opinion that the moral codes of the particular god you believe in are benevolent and agreeable?

In a way maybe in another no. It is inherent in Biblical theology that the same morality as is produced by God's nature was implanted in mine. When I see his commands line up with the moral instincts of the world it is more than opinion that concludes they are true. I am not sure if this is a satisfactory reply and will think on it. This can get very complex.

Would that be your subjective opinion?

Not really but I would not say it was purely objective at this time. However you are discussing something different. You are discussing the character of a moral system not the foundation of it and that was not how this discussion started.

It's self-evident of course and not a question of belief

. To be so you have to prove that evolution is the sole force in its production and second that it did produce that exact command. However you still have only said what is not what ought to be. Science concerns what is, theology and morality concerns what ought to be. It may be that we do X because of nature but that is not to say X is actually right or good.

You wouldn't be here if human survivability wasn't beneficial. It has benefited you because you are here.

You are missing the whole point. Why is my being here actually good? It might be good to me, but that does nothing to say it is right. My being here is not good for the cows and chickens I eat. If they could cobble up arbitrary values and assign them to things it would be their survival not ours they would say is good. Without God I am not special, I have no actual worth, I have no sanctity associated with my life. Why is my living good? I will give you a hint there is no escape, and as Dr Harris found out you can only declare or assume it is good and thereby redefine morality to be whatever you declare and that is pointless and not actually moral at all.

You aren't saying that theists never hunt or kill animals do you?

No, in fact I have killed hundreds of them. I can justify that by the idea that God gave them to me to derive food, clothing, and enjoyment from. You may only do so by arbitrarily assuming we are more valuable than them. That is not moral that is specieism.

What a curious stance. Drowning practically every human and animal on the planet is moral according to you because it ultimately was conducive to human flourishing.

You are really missing the point. I made this determination on the non God system. If God exists killing everyone is actually and truly wrong for absolute and undeniable reasons. However without him you must assume this is wrong or simply declares it. You are doing what always happens, you are using an appeal to sympathy which is only true given God in a non-God scenario. Nice try, but it never works. Without a God, prove killing everyone is actually wrong and should not be done so that mice or chickens may thrive without using anything that is only true if God exists or simply assumed by you.

No? If they think their god has given us to them as a food source they would be morally right in eating us according to you so what are you complaining about?

Way to divert the question so that your inept reply is no longer necessary. Talk about chickening out. This assumed their God exists, that he is good, and he told them to do this. If all that was true then it in fact would be good as long as my God does not exist. I however would kill as many of them as I could before they ate me and expect to be judged for it. You on the other hand if you are consistent would have to acknowledge they have as much of an evolutionary reason to eat us as we do to eat Chickens and submit. Or resist inconsistent with your own claims.

And you picking the Christian god to believe in is a preference decision

. Nope I can think of a great many God concepts I prefer to mine in many ways. I spent most of my life hating God even if he existed but doubted it. It was kicking and screaming that he initially started to prove himself tome in ways I could not deny. What about hell, obedience, having to admit I am screwed up, or that my faith will get me resented and possibly killed in semi-rare circumstances these days, is a preference. God is not the path of least resistance and most convenience. Which is why millions that existed in places where faith was a target still believed.

"Women who obtain abortion represent every religious affiliation. 43% of women obtaining abortion identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic; and 13% of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians." Abortion Statistics, Facts About Abortion In The US Just an example of theist morals in the US.

This is hardly relevant in a country that is over 80% Christian. It is also pointless because many times and I am quick to admit it Christians are fallible and make horrible God awful mistakes, including killing millions of people that are born. However even all totaled few occasions of Christian stupidity even attempt to approach the 20 million the no God Stalin eliminated. The point here is not what desperate Christians do that is forbidden by the Bible, but what can be founded on Christian ideals derived from God. If 100% of all abortions ever done were Christians it would not make it consistent with Biblical morality or mean that morality is less than extremely more solid and true given God than not. Cheap trick. If in a word fight I would say well played, since in a discussion about actual morality meaningless. BTW if no God exists why would these actions by anyone be actually wrong? We are discussing the implications of a perfect God not the local habits of fallen man. However I you wish to debate abortion alone we can do so and as I recently did, so know very well that over all non-theists are far guiltier than Christians and are infinitely guiltier than God for promoting the practice. What is the ratio of theists and non-theists on fighting against abortion? Which system has sufficient reason to stop the practice and which has none? For now I am out of time. Have a good weekend.

 

[godnotgod]

Thank you!

Anyone else?

There is no one else. It's all about you. But you'll need to remove the last obstacle before you can claim final victory: God himself.:biglaugh: