What proof would convince you God doesn't exist?

[Storm]

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but seeing as I have a similar perspective...

Is the development of intelligent life essential for your god to exist?

It's an inevitable expression of God's own sapience. (Note: in the context of my theology, "life" is not limited to biological forms, such as humans.)

If so, could I refine your statement to say:"If intelligent life didn't exist, god would also not exist?"

It would exist. Could it think? I don't know. Probably. I don't underestimate God's capacity for adaptation.

I'm unsure how you (or anyone else) would prove or disprove the entire cosmos is a living entity. What kind of evidence do you have for this?

I don't pretend to have anything objective. It's the God-concept that best fits my theophany.

What kind of measurable properties does this "living entity" have which would differentiate it from a "non-living universe which was just following natural processes."

Life force and consciousness. They're not measurable (yet), but the lack of them would make for a dead cosmos.

During this thread I have noticed an interesting pattern in the responses of theists and deists who have responded.

I haven't noticed any deists responding. This isn't the first time you've lumped them in with theists, either, and I'm curious why you do that. Also, I'm picking nits, but not all believers are theistic. Sorry to be overly technical, but I never know whether to respond or not.

I notice most of the responses put the burden of proof on dis-proving god,

But... isn't that what you asked us to discuss?

I've also found it interesting it seems many of the religious replies infer it is "impossible" to disprove their beliefs.

I think people are having trouble with the "magic wand clause." I am.

I would ask the theists and deists to step back from your own perspective for a moment and realize how many of you have conflicting beliefs about god. This indicates one very important thing - If ANY of you is right - this would mean at lease SOME of the others here are WRONG to some degree. Think about that for a second. Now ask yourself why YOU are not the one who is wrong. "My position cannot be disproved!" you might say. This is what EVERY person who has a religious position says, yet if you have opposite ideas ONE of you HAS TO BE WRONG (if one of you is right). The only other explanation for two opposing views is BOTH of them are WRONG.

Oh we're ALL wrong. Anyone who is intellectually honest, and believes that God is ultimately ineffable (which is every religion I know of) must eventually admit that their understanding must be flawed. This doesn't trouble me. Indeed, I find it oddly thrilling.

(I apologize for the use of caps - I don't know how to use italics in the forum) :angel2:

No worries, sweetie. I do it just because I'm lazy, and no one's ever complained.

 

[Spiritone]

I think that most people who believe in one God or were taught that and later became atheists are kind of sidetracked by taking the Bible way too literally. God is so changeable that God could be seen as two opposites and still both would be right. All is one says that all creation is part of the one God and everything keeps "evolving" physically, spiritually and mentally. What was understood thousands of years ago to be truth is not the same today. For instance, Jesus' role was to advance the people to a different level. Did he? Maybe some.
What I'm saying is the God of some kinds of beliefs does not exist and the unknowable God does. I can see how people would be atheists and also how people because a deep need for God have faith. And lots like me are searchers for God that may exist by belief in God and not for those who don't believe. imo.

 

[S-word]

Can you point out one thing which your point depends on? Is the development of intelligent life essential for your god to exist? If so, could I refine your statement to say:"If intelligent life didn't exist, god would also not exist?" This is more the kind of answer I'm looking for (to narrow down the discussion). This would mean there is something we have actual evidence for (intelligent life) which you base your belief in god in.

I'm unsure how you (or anyone else) would prove or disprove the entire cosmos is a living entity. What kind of evidence do you have for this? What kind of measurable properties does this "living entity" have which would differentiate it from a "non-living universe which was just following natural processes." I'm sure you could point to many things which are life-LIKE (such as fire - It needs oxygen, it consumes fuel, etc).

During this thread I have noticed an interesting pattern in the responses of theists and deists who have responded. I notice most of the responses put the burden of proof on dis-proving god, while I would put most atheists in the opposite camp (myself included) as asking for evidence BEFORE belief. I've also found it interesting it seems many of the religious replies infer it is "impossible" to disprove their beliefs.

I would ask the theists and deists to step back from your own perspective for a moment and realize how many of you have conflicting beliefs about god. This indicates one very important thing - If ANY of you is right - this would mean at lease SOME of the others here are WRONG to some degree. Think about that for a second. Now ask yourself why YOU are not the one who is wrong. "My position cannot be disproved!" you might say. This is what EVERY person who has a religious position says, yet if you have opposite ideas ONE of you HAS TO BE WRONG (if one of you is right). The only other explanation for two opposing views is BOTH of them are WRONG.

Theists and deists may think atheists requirement of proof or evidence before BELIEVING is too high. I would propose many theists and deists requirement of proof or evidence before you admit your position is WRONG is unreasonably high.

(I apologize for the use of caps - I don't know how to use italics in the forum) :angel2:

I have Just posted this in another thread, but I Suppose that it is appropriate to this thread also.


My definition of God is that he is omnific, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. He is all creative, pervading all within the creation, having all authority over the creation which he pervades, and knowing all things, as he is the receiver of all the information that is gathered by the interaction of all things within the creation. My God is visible in the creation itself, much the same as you are visible as the body in which your invisble mind has developed.

All that can be known about God is plain to us, for He is revealed in the visible universal body in which His heir, the supreme personality that sits in the throne of Godhead, has developed. My God presides in the heavenly council of the godheads of every living species that have developed in the living universal body, which body, is in reality, a boundless and eternal cloud of invisible wave particles of swirling and ever changing patterns within that cloud, which is the eternal evolving mind that is God, who, through the created senses of our created bodies, we perceive as the eternal and boundless Cosmos.

My God is the Logos, who is the divine animating principle within the infinitely dense and hot Infinitesimally small primordial atom, from which each universal body that occupies its own individual position in time and space originated, and to which they must return. The primordial Atom from which all things came into existence, by which all things came into existence, and for whom all things exist, in which there developed life. And the life or supreme personality that has developed within the Logos, Is the Light of Man: the knowledge, wisdom and insight, that has been gained from the pain and suffering endured by the body of mankind, which pain and sufferings were caused by the sins and mistakes that we have made in our life.

The light of man who is the supreme personality of Godhead, is the spirit that has developed within the body of mankind who is the Most High of all the known species to have developed, He is the Lord of creatures in the visible world and the prototype of the Lord of all the spiritual godheads in the invisible world, which co-exists within this one, (The Kingdom of God which is within you.

Mankind is the first born of the creation, the first born Son of God, see Luke 3: 38. Mankind is the first born within the creation with the capability to comprehend the invisible mind that is the “I AM,” which has developed within the mother body of mankind; Psalms 51: 5. “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” If and when, you are able to comprehend my God, I will then explain to you why it was necessary for the 'Son of Man' to give his immortal life (It is impossible for him to die) in order that the body in which He developed did not have to pay the Death penalty demanded by the council of gods for the mistakes that the body of man had made in its life on earth. The judgment that had to be given by he who presides in the heavenly council and gives his righteous decisions, See Psalms 82: 1.

 

[TerranIV]

Uh... How about because you were 19 years old and afraid to tell your parents you not only didn't believe the Church to be true, but were convinced there was no God. Come on, you know a lot of 19-year-old kids go on missions for their parents.

Perhaps, but I was not one of those kids.

 

[TerranIV]

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Storm!

I haven't noticed any deists responding. This isn't the first time you've lumped them in with theists, either, and I'm curious why you do that. Also, I'm picking nits, but not all believers are theistic. Sorry to be overly technical, but I never know whether to respond or not.

Good point. I was attempting to include all believers in god but perhaps I am excluding pantheists and others who don't identify with theists or deists. I should probably just say "believers".

But... isn't [proving god doesn't exist] what you asked us to discuss? [/quote]

I did! Unfortunately many believers refuse to give any proof. They answer saying there is no way anyone could disprove god - even in their imagination(!).

I hope it's not because they think I (or other atheists) would use that reason "against" them to try to prove god isn't real. (I already have plenty of other reasons to be pretty comfortable with my position on god.) I am really only seeking a common (and logical) point of reference to start a conversation.

I think people are having trouble with the "magic wand clause." I am.

I put that clause in because I wanted people to use their imaginations! I didn't want them to be like, "Well how can I say god doesn't exist when he does?" I was looking for creative responses on how DIFFICULT it would be to prove god doesn't exist - even to them. It seems like people are having a hard time even contemplating the POSSIBILITY there could ever be a way their idea of god could be wrong.

And it's a little bit frustrating.

Oh we're ALL wrong. Anyone who is intellectually honest, and believes that God is ultimately ineffable (which is every religion I know of) must eventually admit that their understanding must be flawed. This doesn't trouble me. Indeed, I find it oddly thrilling.

This is where "faith" can smooth over the holes in people's ideas of the universe. Everyone has faith, even atheists. I have faith humanity will move closer and closer to understanding the universe.

It's good to hear you acknowledge what (I get the sense of at least) a lot of believers are having a hard time admitting. Too much conflict in this world is over who is right and who is wrong when dealing with religion. People need to either be OK with other people being "wrong" or come to peace with the knowledge we are all at least a little bit "wrong".

 

[TerranIV]

I think that most people who believe in one God or were taught that and later became atheists are kind of sidetracked by taking the Bible way too literally. God is so changeable that God could be seen as two opposites and still both would be right. All is one says that all creation is part of the one God and everything keeps "evolving" physically, spiritually and mentally. What was understood thousands of years ago to be truth is not the same today. For instance, Jesus' role was to advance the people to a different level. Did he? Maybe some.
What I'm saying is the God of some kinds of beliefs does not exist and the unknowable God does. I can see how people would be atheists and also how people because a deep need for God have faith. And lots like me are searchers for God that may exist by belief in God and not for those who don't believe. imo.

I think atheists talk about the bible a lot because it is one of the few references with exist in the real world. It's very convenient to say "god is always changing and can be two thing (or three things) at once and opposite things at times". I don't think believers understand when they say things like that it comes off as complete nonsense!

I realize god supposedly doesn't have to conform to any of the "rules of reality" he has supposedly set up, but don't think some silly argument that god exists in many forms and can change whenever there seems to be some contradiction in how he acts would call his divinity into question is going to convince anyone you are speaking about a god anyone should have faith in.

Why would ANYONE worship a god who could change at any moment? Why would anyone put faith in a being like that? He could tell you to, I don't know, NOT EAT AN APPLE, and then turn around and tell you that was the plan all along! Sure, sure, the apple was a metaphor for something else and god wasn't really trying to trick anyone into doing the only thing which could bring about the human race (this is getting into some LDS specific doctrine so I'm not sure how various christian and other judao-christian-muslim sects deal with it other than catholics think babies are sinners and are going to hell unless they can get some holy water splashed on their head).

I don't know how other churches explain god, but I was raised to understand god as eternal and unchanging. This is the only way to explain why anyone would listen to anything written thousands of years ago in the deserts of the middle east. Otherwise you completly throw away the only leg religion has to stand on!

If you think the bible isn't true, that's great. I think we can both agree on that point. I also think a lot of mainstream religion is based on the bible so when I make a point (especially when responding to a christian member) I reference the bible a lot because this is some common ground which many religions can relate to.

There are three basic ways to think of the Bible -
1. You believe it's complete nonsense
2. You believe is is completely accurate
3. You believe it must be taken figurativly or with a grain of salt

If you take the third viewpoint (or any viewpoint containing a mixuture of either of the first two with the third) you raise the question how to discover the meaning. Of course this is a great opportunity to say "the spirit of course!" but really it just comes down to a matter of opinion. I mean, if god wanted you to read a book of code and the just tell you what it was how is that different than him just telling you what it was. Why do you need the indecipherable jibberish in front of your face for the spirit to tell you what to do?

I'm assuming you partially agree with me or else you wouldn't object to me using the bible to prove my point. I'm assuming "the spirit" or a preacher or some other mystical mechanism is telling you the truth which I seem to be missing. The problem is this "mystical mechanism" by which you are getting the answers is not something you can show me. Pehaps because I don't have faith or perhaps because I'm not worthy to see it. The point is it's something you have which you can't show me - and so it serves us both nothing in our conversation.

If we were playing cards and you said you had a winning hand it wouldn't mean anything until you showed me you had the winning cards. (I could go through the deck and look at all the cards remaining and then figure it out, but only if you agree with my logic and only if some mystical card player wasn't feeding you extra cards.) I hope you can see how it is frustrating for atheists to be in these kind of conversations.

I was hoping through asking for believers to tell me what they thought it would take to prove themselves wrong, I would get a bit of incite into the god they believed in. I was right, but it was not what I was expecting. If I only got everything I was expecting life would be pretty boring!

 

[Karl R]

What proof would convince you God doesn't exist?

My knee-jerk reaction was, "Short of divine intervention?" Of course,divine intervention (by definition) proves the existence of god.

After wrestling with the idea for a while, I did arrive at one possibility that didn't require the existence of god to accomplish:
If I become omniscient, I would be able to know whether or not god exists.

pretend for a moment it was possible God doesn't exist

I already believe it's possible. I just don't believe it's true. I'm also certain that my beliefs about god are incomplete and somewhat inaccurate. I don't think humans are capable of fully understanding god, so the incompleteness and inaccuracy are unavoidable.

How about if Zeus ....

Several of these examples would prove to me that god does exist. They would also prove that my understanding of god was in serious need of revision.

And it doesn't take a whole lot for me to revise my religious beliefs. I do that fairly regularly as I'm exposed to new ideas.

Things which can't be proven or disproved have very little power behind them.

You're looking at this purely from a scientific standpoint.

In my opinion, the purpose of religion is to answer the questions that fundamentally cannot be answered by science. (i.e. "What is the purpose of life?" or "How should I treat other people?") Science can't answer these questions. Religion can.

The problem with these interactions are they are NEVER REPRODUCABLE and so they cannot be examined.

If they were reproduceable, they wouldn't be miracles. They would be science (pretty much by definition).

I would contend that something which cannot POSSIBLY be disproved is a false concept.

So how would you go about disproving the existence of love?

It's just another concept, and it's a bit more accessible than god.

Ethics and philosphy exist because we have people who have writtin about them. They could be easily disproved by none of the books or writing existing. If I asked you, "Show me a book about philosphy or ethics" or "Tell me what ethics or philosophy is." and you were unable to do so or have someone else do so, then that would disprove the reality of ethics or philosophy.

But that only proves that the concept exists. It doesn't begin to address whether the ethical or philosophical system is valid.

Isn't that what we're really discussing here? We already agree that the concept of god exists. It's the validity of the concept that we don't quite agree upon.

I wonder (and perhaps this is worthy of it's own thread), what would happen should science prove, undeniably, that there was no God. If science replaced religion as the go-to answer to all the mysteries of the universe, would there still be theists? Or is theism dependent upon the existence of the unexplained?

At that point I would be hard-pressed to remain a theist instead of becoming a deist. Theism is a bit dependent upon god being active within the universe.

in order to interact with anything IN this universe god would need to (at least temporarily) assume some physical (or energetic) presence to affect objects in this world.

Are you sure?

Example #1: God creates an idea inside someone's head. (A reasonable suggestion, since all religious ideas allegedly were thoughts inspired by god.) Did it require a physical or energetic presence to create the idea?

Example #2: On a quantum level, physical laws are just random probabilities. If god can affect the probabilities, almost any effect could be accomplished.

Example #3: God created the laws that govern the universe. God can (at will) change those rules. In effect, god's not touching the construct; god's manipulating the blueprint.

I'm not sure that any of these would require god to physically or energetically interact with the universe. Of course, all of them fall outside of the provable. (Or at least the easily provable.)

Can we agree god has some physical form?

The only way I'd be inclined to agree with that is in pantheistic sense where god is the universe.

The bible says we are made in his image (so he must resemble us and be albe to be seen).

Unless the bible is speaking metaphorically. I've most often heard that verse explained that god gave us free will, and that is a unique attribute we share with god.

The hindu worldview would explain another way that could be true (metaphorically).

I've also found it interesting it seems many of the religious replies infer it is "impossible" to disprove their beliefs.

If it's any consolation, I also think that it's impossible to disprove your beliefs. I realize that you listed several possible ways, but based on Ockham's razor, I could come up with more rational explanations for any of them.

I would ask the theists and deists to step back from your own perspective for a moment and realize how many of you have conflicting beliefs about god.

I have conflicting beliefs about myself too. (Not to mention conflicting beliefs about ethics, politics, girlfriends, exercise....)

I don't know anyone who is smart enough to avoid having conflicting beliefs. I know a lot of people who are too dumb to realize they have them.

And that's just referring to internally conflicting beliefs. I'm not even going to begin to address externally conflicting beliefs.

It's very convenient to say "god is always changing and can be two thing (or three things) at once and opposite things at times". I don't think believers understand when they say things like that it comes off as complete nonsense!

I'm always changing.
I can be two or three things at once. (I'm a son, I'm a coworker, I'm a good dancer)
I can be opposite things at times. (I can be compassionate, and I can be an insensitive jerk)

If I can do these things, why is it nonsense that god can outdo me?

3. You believe it must be taken figurativly or with a grain of salt
If you take the third viewpoint you raise the question how to discover the meaning.

Epiphanies, reason, experience, teachings of people I respect, sciptures (of assorted religions) and religious traditions ... roughly in that order.

 

[Spiritone]

Terran1V, It seemed that in your last post you were referring to others as well as me. Anyway, my beliefs are changing and searching but not discounting anything and not believing it either. So I end up with believing in some things from the Bible and not others. I know what people say about that but it would take too long to explain. For instance there was a person named Jesus at the time mentioned who gave very advanced advice that later was misconstrued, changed etc. But for me to answer your question--no matter how I look at it I just know that there is more than just out physical existence. Can I prove it? I would not try to. Each one searches it their own way.
What I meant about God being two opposite things did not mean that God changes but can be seen by a million people in a million ways and they would all be right. It makes sense when you really think about it.

The Bible, I think, was intended as guidelines for people to grow and live together in peace but it is also a lot of things. For instance, one part that always caught my attention that no one seems to mention or understand is in the OT where Ezekiel was confronted by a "space craft" as I understood the description. There were figures like humans but certainly different with wings etc. He thought it was the Lord as you would expect at that time in the desert. just my current opinion.

 

[3.14]

all god need to do to prove he exists is explain why he did it in person
to disprove his existence all he would have to do get other people to explain it for him

 

[TerranIV]

I have Just posted this in another thread, but I Suppose that it is appropriate to this thread also.


My definition of God is that he is omnific, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. He is all creative, pervading all within the creation, having all authority over the creation which he pervades, and knowing all things, as he is the receiver of all the information that is gathered by the interaction of all things within the creation. My God is visible in the creation itself, much the same as you are visible as the body in which your invisble mind has developed.

All that can be known about God is plain to us, for He is revealed in the visible universal body in which His heir, the supreme personality that sits in the throne of Godhead, has developed. My God presides in the heavenly council of the godheads of every living species that have developed in the living universal body, which body, is in reality, a boundless and eternal cloud of invisible wave particles of swirling and ever changing patterns within that cloud, which is the eternal evolving mind that is God, who, through the created senses of our created bodies, we perceive as the eternal and boundless Cosmos.

My God is the Logos, who is the divine animating principle within the infinitely dense and hot Infinitesimally small primordial atom, from which each universal body that occupies its own individual position in time and space originated, and to which they must return. The primordial Atom from which all things came into existence, by which all things came into existence, and for whom all things exist, in which there developed life. And the life or supreme personality that has developed within the Logos, Is the Light of Man: the knowledge, wisdom and insight, that has been gained from the pain and suffering endured by the body of mankind, which pain and sufferings were caused by the sins and mistakes that we have made in our life.

The light of man who is the supreme personality of Godhead, is the spirit that has developed within the body of mankind who is the Most High of all the known species to have developed, He is the Lord of creatures in the visible world and the prototype of the Lord of all the spiritual godheads in the invisible world, which co-exists within this one, (The Kingdom of God which is within you.

Mankind is the first born of the creation, the first born Son of God, see Luke 3: 38. Mankind is the first born within the creation with the capability to comprehend the invisible mind that is the “I AM,” which has developed within the mother body of mankind; Psalms 51: 5. “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” If and when, you are able to comprehend my God, I will then explain to you why it was necessary for the 'Son of Man' to give his immortal life (It is impossible for him to die) in order that the body in which He developed did not have to pay the Death penalty demanded by the council of gods for the mistakes that the body of man had made in its life on earth. The judgment that had to be given by he who presides in the heavenly council and gives his righteous decisions, See Psalms 82: 1.

I appreciate your profession of your faith, Spiritone. Is there anything about your god which you could describe in terms of physical adjectives? I mean, what is there about your god which makes the statement "Spiritone is the divine animating principle" false and "God is the divine animating principle" true? Is there anything which would distinguish anything or everything in the universe from God? If not, I would argue you are just substituting cosmos or universe for the word god. This seems less precise and almost useless in it's non-desription. The only use in labeling something "god" would be it would have seperate qualites from the rest of the universe. Otherwise you are just stating in general terms what science has defined in great detail over the last few hundred years.

 

[TerranIV]

Thank you for your very detailed and thoughtful response, Karl. You have raised some very interesting points.

Originally Posted by TerranIV
What proof would convince you God doesn't exist?

My knee-jerk reaction was, "Short of divine intervention?" Of course,divine intervention (by definition) proves the existence of god.

After wrestling with the idea for a while, I did arrive at one possibility that didn't require the existence of god to accomplish:
If I become omniscient, I would be able to know whether or not god exists.

I appreciate you taking the time to think this over instead of just going with your first reaction. I guess I still feel this is only a partial answer as you didn't really find a way to disprove god.

I take from your answer (and from a lot of the other answers from believers) you are saying you don't know enough about god to prove or disprove him/her/it. It seems to me if you know ONE FACT about god, you could disprove god by changing that to the opposite.

e.g. - If you knew god had blue hair. If you knew for certain god had blue hair and no other hair color you could say with certainty that if you saw someone with red hair that person was not god. So you could use your knowledge of god to disprove the false red-haired person as NOT god because you know a FACT about god.

I'm guessing you (and other believers) might argue god could CHANGE facts about himself/herself/itself so it is IMPOSSIBLE to find out a fact about god. (e.g. - God can change his hair color all the time so the red-head person could just as easily be god as the blue-haired person.) Taking this view you almost prove atheists correct by saying "God could be anything." which is basically saying "God is nothing."

Originally Posted by TerranIV
Things which can't be proven or disproved have very little power behind them.


You're looking at this purely from a scientific standpoint.

In my opinion, the purpose of religion is to answer the questions that fundamentally cannot be answered by science. (i.e. "What is the purpose of life?" or "How should I treat other people?") Science can't answer these questions. Religion can.

Actually this is what science IS answering. Science, and acadamia, build upon the answrs religion found long ago. Unfortunately religion has STOPPED looking for new answers long ago. Science serves to test the answers we have been given by religion and philosophy. Science lets us know which "answers" religion has come up with to improve our lives and our world ACTUALLY WORK. In the course of this examination, science can discover new ways to look at the world which lead us to substantial evidence for our beliefs or new ideas about how the world might work which are then tested again. It is a continual cycle which serves to generate new insights and supporting evidence to help us understand how our perception of the world measures up with how the universe ACTUALLY WORKS.

Religion, on the other hand, merely posits new IDEAS about how the world works. IN THE PAST religion also compiled data about how things worked out in everyday society and attempted to give us a good way to think about the universe which made sense to our minds and give us ways of acting which would benefit ourselves and our societies. Unfortunately this went away (in the West at least) in the middle ages. When the bible was no longer able to be refined, all the knowledge the monks and priests had found about the world was relegated to books kept in back rooms and only read by a few. It wasn't until the invention of the printing press that all this new knowledge was re-discovered and disseminated to the masses. Unfortunately instead of incorporating all this knowledge gained in the hundreds of years since the bible was created, the Church decided to fight against it and created a boundary between knowledge and religion which hadn't existed when the bible was written. This schism has continued to exist in the western world and while religion still preaches the knowledge which was around thousands of years ago, only science will accept the knowledge from the past as well as the knowledge gained in the last thousand years.

Of course there are progressive churches which have been forced to acept new ideas in order to survive. Even the older churches have been forced to make small concessions and present their ancient ideas in ways which make sense to those of us who know FACTS about our modern world (i.e. - that the earth revolves around the sun) presented by SCIENCE which religion NEVER WOULD HAVE REVEALED to people if it hadn't been for science. I assume you acept the earth revolves around the sun as a "scientific" idea. Just becuase it was discovered by scientists who were in opposition to the religion at the time doesn't make it any less of a fact. Perhaps you accept the idea of "love your neighbor" as a religious idea because you were first presented it in a religious setting. Just because it was first presented to you in a religious setting doesn't mean it is not still with us today because it was panned out by experience (history - also not religion) and research (science).

I could name countless other racist, sexist, and other hateful ideas which are presented in the bible. I assume you don't take these as example of "religious" ideas because they have been forced out religion by humanitaian ideas and higher ethical ideas than were had in religions of the past but which (just like science and atheism) have also accepted new ways of treating each other with respect. Many ideas other than "the earth is the center of the universe" have been rejected by religions BECAUSE of science and humanitarian ideas from OUTSIDE of religion have proven those ideas false. When has religion ever proved a scientific idea false?

So maybe religion does have some good ideas it had first before science, but this doesn't mean science doesn't embrace those good ideas too! It doesn't make the ideas enherantly "religious". Maybe you think the good ideas about religion were revealed to man in some different way that scientific ideas are thought up, but use non-believers don't. We value all the great ideas labeled as "religious" as just as good as the great ideas of any other school of thought. Just like, I assume, you accept many of the "good ideas" of science as fact.

The problem religion and science has is where some of the scientific evidence points to a viewpoint different from religion. Unfortunately for religion there has never been a point of contention where religion has come out on top. Religion has lost its ability to teach us anything new about the world. Science still has that ability. Until science is superceded by the next paradime I'm going to have to stick with science and acedemia instead of religion and superstition to tell me how to treat others.

Originally Posted by TerranIV
The problem with these interactions are they are NEVER REPRODUCABLE and so they cannot be examined.

If they were reproduceable, they wouldn't be miracles. They would be science (pretty much by definition).

Are you saying anything which exists in the real world is not a part of religion? Are you saying miracles prove god? Do you think if god was able to perform miracles in front of people and give prophesies about the future this would disprove god? This is exactly what science does and which religion was supposedly able to do back in biblical times. What happened to religion? Why does it have to hid behind unproveable nonsence these days? What ever happened to the days where people would prove there god was right by perfomring miracles in front of masses of people and/or heads of state?

Religion has denegrated to such a state where it is only good to describe the superstitious and mythical elements of what used to be considered religion. Religion has allowed science and other acedemic areas take over what religion used to be a part of. (Not to mention goverment and health pratices as well.)

If you mean to say religion has lost its ablitlity to say anything meaningful about the real world in which we live in and science has pleanty to say, then I would have to agree with you.

 

[TerranIV]

Thank you for your very detailed and thoughtful response, Karl. You have raised some very interesting points.

Originally Posted by TerranIV
What proof would convince you God doesn't exist?

My knee-jerk reaction was, "Short of divine intervention?" Of course,divine intervention (by definition) proves the existence of god.

After wrestling with the idea for a while, I did arrive at one possibility that didn't require the existence of god to accomplish:
If I become omniscient, I would be able to know whether or not god exists.

I appreciate you taking the time to think this over instead of just going with your first reaction. I guess I still feel this is only a partial answer as you didn't really find a way to disprove god.

I take from your answer (and from a lot of the other answers from believers) you are saying you don't know enough about god to prove or disprove him/her/it. It seems to me if you know ONE FACT about god, you could disprove god by changing that to the opposite.

e.g. - If you knew god had blue hair. If you knew for certain god had blue hair and no other hair color you could say with certainty that if you saw someone with red hair that person was not god. So you could use your knowledge of god to disprove the false red-haired person as NOT god because you know a FACT about god.

I'm guessing you (and other believers) might argue god could CHANGE facts about himself/herself/itself so it is IMPOSSIBLE to find out a fact about god. (e.g. - God can change his hair color all the time so the red-head person could just as easily be god as the blue-haired person.) Taking this view you almost prove atheists correct by saying "God could be anything." which is basically saying "God is nothing."

Originally Posted by TerranIV
Things which can't be proven or disproved have very little power behind them.


You're looking at this purely from a scientific standpoint.

In my opinion, the purpose of religion is to answer the questions that fundamentally cannot be answered by science. (i.e. "What is the purpose of life?" or "How should I treat other people?") Science can't answer these questions. Religion can.

Actually this is what science IS answering. Science, and academia, build upon the answers religion found long ago. Unfortunately religion has STOPPED looking for new answers long ago. Science serves to test the answers we have been given by religion and philosophy. Science lets us know which "answers" religion has come up with to improve our lives and our world ACTUALLY WORK. In the course of this examination, science can discover new ways to look at the world which lead us to substantial evidence for our beliefs or new ideas about how the world might work which are then tested again. It is a continual cycle which serves to generate new insights and supporting evidence to help us understand how our perception of the world measures up with how the universe ACTUALLY WORKS.

Religion, on the other hand, merely posits new IDEAS about how the world works. IN THE PAST religion also compiled data about how things worked out in everyday society and attempted to give us a good way to think about the universe which made sense to our minds and give us ways of acting which would benefit ourselves and our societies. Unfortunately this went away (in the West at least) in the middle ages. When the bible was no longer able to be refined, all the knowledge the monks and priests had found about the world was relegated to books kept in back rooms and only read by a few. It wasn't until the invention of the printing press that all this new knowledge was re-discovered and disseminated to the masses. Unfortunately instead of incorporating all this knowledge gained in the hundreds of years since the bible was created, the Church decided to fight against it and created a boundary between knowledge and religion which hadn't existed when the bible was written. This schism has continued to exist in the western world and while religion still preaches the knowledge which was around thousands of years ago, only science will accept the knowledge from the past as well as the knowledge gained in the last thousand years.

Of course there are progressive churches which have been forced to acept new ideas in order to survive. Even the older churches have been forced to make small concessions and present their ancient ideas in ways which make sense to those of us who know FACTS about our modern world (i.e. - that the earth revolves around the sun) presented by SCIENCE which religion NEVER WOULD HAVE REVEALED to people if it hadn't been for science. I assume you accept the earth revolves around the sun as a "scientific" idea. Just because it was discovered by scientists who were in opposition to the religion at the time doesn't make it any less of a fact. Perhaps you accept the idea of "love your neighbor" as a religious idea because you were first presented it in a religious setting. Just because it was first presented to you in a religious setting doesn't mean it is not still with us today because it was panned out by experience (history - also not religion) and research (science).

I could name countless other racist, sexist, and other hateful ideas which are presented in the bible. I assume you don't take these as example of "religious" ideas because they have been forced out religion by humanitarian ideas and higher ethical ideas than were had in religions of the past but which (just like science and atheism) have also accepted new ways of treating each other with respect. Many ideas other than "the earth is the center of the universe" have been rejected by religions BECAUSE of science and humanitarian ideas from OUTSIDE of religion have proven those ideas false. When has religion ever proved a scientific idea false?

So maybe religion does have some good ideas it had first before science, but this doesn't mean science doesn't embrace those good ideas too! It doesn't make the ideas inherently "religious". Maybe you think the good ideas about religion were revealed to man in some different way that scientific ideas are thought up, but use non-believers don't. We value all the great ideas labeled as "religious" as just as good as the great ideas of any other school of thought. Just like, I assume, you accept many of the "good ideas" of science as fact.

The problem religion and science has is where some of the scientific evidence points to a viewpoint different from religion. Unfortunately for religion there has never been a point of contention where religion has come out on top. Religion has lost its ability to teach us anything new about the world. Science still has that ability. Until science is superseded by the next paradigm I'm going to have to stick with science and academia instead of religion and superstition to tell me how to treat others.

Originally Posted by TerranIV
The problem with these interactions are they are NEVER REPRODUCABLE and so they cannot be examined.

If they were reproducible, they wouldn't be miracles. They would be science (pretty much by definition).

Are you saying anything which exists in the real world is not a part of religion? Are you saying miracles prove god? Do you think if god was able to perform miracles in front of people and give prophesies about the future this would disprove god? This is exactly what science does and which religion was supposedly able to do back in biblical times. What happened to religion? Why does it have to hid behind unprovable nonsense these days? What ever happened to the days where people would prove there god was right by performing miracles in front of masses of people and/or heads of state?

Religion has denigrated to such a state where it is only good to describe the superstitious and mythical elements of what used to be considered religion. Religion has allowed science and other academia areas take over what religion used to be a part of. (Not to mention government and health practices as well.)

If you mean to say religion has lost its ability to say anything meaningful about the real world in which we live in and science has plenty to say, then I would have to agree with you.

 

[TerranIV]

Originally Posted by TerranIV
I would contend that something which cannot POSSIBLY be disproved is a false concept.


So how would you go about disproving the existence of love?

It's just another concept, and it's a bit more accessible than god.

Too bad for god he/she/it isn't a bit more accessible, huh?

How to disprove love... Why would love be difficult to disprove? Because it (like god) is difficult to DEFINE. Love means many things to many people. Love could be romantic, it could be familial, it can be platonic, and it can be used to say you feel "passionately" about something. "I LOVE Super Mario Bros.!" doesn't mean I want to kiss Mario and Luigi or that I want to hang out with them - it means I enjoy playing the game.

How could I "prove" I love Super Mario Bros? Well I play the game a lot. I have bought all the sequels. I have clothing and posters with Mario on it. I have toys and stuffed animals (Yoshi) relating to Super Mario Bros. I could show you all this. I could take pictures of it and put them on the internet to show you.

You may say, "Hey! That is EVIDENCE, not PROOF." True. Well, let me pick up my magic wand for a moment. If I had a helmet which measured brain waves and could identify a place in the brain where neurons fired off when thinking about something you loved and someone was to flash some pictures of other videos games like Sonic or Metal Gear or Halo and then flashed a picture of Mario you might see the "love" portion of my brain light up. If you flashed pictures of random women and then flashed a picture of my girlfriend you would see with "love" portion of my brain light up. This would be PROOF I felt (what someone defined) as love towards my girlfriend.

Maybe that wouldn't be enough for you to accept as proof of love, but it is certainly more "proof" than religion has ever given.

Originally Posted by TerranIV
Ethics and philosophy exist because we have people who have writtin about them. They could be easily disproved by none of the books or writing existing. If I asked you, "Show me a book about philosophy or ethics" or "Tell me what ethics or philosophy is." and you were unable to do so or have someone else do so, then that would disprove the reality of ethics or philosophy.


But that only proves that the concept exists. It doesn't begin to address whether the ethical or philosophical system is valid.

Isn't that what we're really discussing here? We already agree that the concept of god exists. It's the validity of the concept that we don't quite agree upon.

The questions I am ASKING is what proof would you want to show you god doesn't exist.

The question I was RESPONDING to was how do you prove "philosophy" exists. The writing and books prove philosophy because they ARE philosophy (or you could consider them philosophy of people like Plato because his writing is all we have from him).

The CONCEPT of GOD is ideas ABOUT somebody or something. I definitely agree with you there exists concepts of God. If you would concede the concepts of god are what make god you could answer MY question with something as simple as "If the bible didn't exist, I would have to concede God didn't exist." I'm sure you don't equate the concepts ABOUT god as the same thing as GOD - yet the concepts ARE what philosophy IS about.

Originally Posted by StudentOfGod
I wonder (and perhaps this is worthy of it's own thread), what would happen should science prove, undeniably, that there was no God. If science replaced religion as the go-to answer to all the mysteries of the universe, would there still be theists? Or is theism dependent upon the existence of the unexplained?
At that point I would be hard-pressed to remain a theist instead of becoming a deist. Theism is a bit dependent upon god being active within the universe.

Are you saying if your point of view was "proven" wrong, you would jump to another unprovable position until that point of view became "proven" wrong? Why do you feel compeled to take a position which can't be proven or disproven? Why would you take "no evidence against this other god" as apposed to "evidence against my god"?

Do you believe in all the gods there have ever been and then tick them off as you find evidence AGAINST them? Is Santa still on that list?

Originally Posted by TerranIV
in order to interact with anything IN this universe god would need to (at least temporarily) assume some physical (or energetic) presence to affect objects in this world.

Are you sure?

Example #1: God creates an idea inside someone's head. (A reasonable suggestion, since all religious ideas allegedly were thoughts inspired by god.) Did it require a physical or energetic presence to create the idea?

Answer #1: IF God did put the idea into someones head it would either 1) Require a physical or energetic presence or 2) Require god "fess up" to it. If God DOESN'T leave create a physical or energetic presence then the only way to KNOW it was god was for god to tell you. (HINT: Make sure you have god tell you BEFORE you tell him what it was you were thinking.)

Example #2: On a quantum level, physical laws are just random probabilities. If god can affect the probabilities, almost any effect could be accomplished.

Answer #2: If you admit "physical laws are just random probabilities" then you say god is not in control of the universe. (Which I would have to agree with you on!) If "random" stuff is affecting people then you are very correct in stating "almost any effect could be accomplished." Unfortunately you just spelled out the atheists' case for people mistaking random things for an imaginary god.

Example #3: God created the laws that govern the universe. God can (at will) change those rules. In effect, god's not touching the construct; god's manipulating the blueprint.

Answer #3: I will ignore the fact a blueprint is something made BEFORE something is constructed and if it is changed this has no effect whatsoever on the building which has finished construction. Perhaps you mean god doesn't change what was said in the past but he might change his mind about what he will do in the future? Still not sure how this is different from lying . . .

I'm not sure that any of these would require god to physically or energetically interact with the universe. Of course, all of them fall outside of the provable. (Or at least the easily provable.)

Let me sum up my answers: If god is not required to be present physically (or energetically) he/she/it is NOT REQUIRED AT ALL for the universe to be how it is.

 

[TerranIV]

Originally Posted by TerranIV
Can we agree god has some physical form?
The only way I'd be inclined to agree with that is in pantheistic sense where god is the universe.

Again this statement is meaningless because where there is no distinction between god and the universe there is no need for the term "god" to describe something which is better defined using other terms.

A rose called "god" is still just a rose!

Originally Posted by TerranIV
The bible says we are made in his image (so he must resemble us and be able to be seen).
Unless the bible is speaking metaphorically. I've most often heard that verse explained that god gave us free will, and that is a unique attribute we share with god.

The hindu worldview would explain another way that could be true (metaphorically).

Another way to describe speaking "metaphorically" (without the preface "Here is a metaphor..." or "Let me tell you a story of fiction to illustrate a point.") is called "deception."

There is no preface to the bible letting us know the authors are just trying to illustrate a point instead of telling us what they really think. The idea that the writer(s) of Genisis were speaking metaphorically only comes up if you disagree with what they say (and yet don't want to call them liars). When the bible DOES speak in metaphors it is pretty plain i.e. the Psalms of Solomon, or the parables of Jesus. Should we take the exodus of the Jews as a metaphor? Are all the wars and death and destruction a metaphor?

If the whole thing IS a metaphor how would you know that? Again, there is no preface stating this. What does the metaphor mean? Without the original author to tell us, anything anyone thinks is mere conjecture. If you are going to inject your own personal meaning into it, then why not just say what you think? Hum...Perhaps to give credence to your own agenda? (Not YOUR agenda but whomever wants to make their ideas seem important and have relevance.)

If god doesn't look like a human, the bible was wrong. Plain and simple. If god looks like something else, then where did you get this information from? Why is the bible wrong when it says god looks human but you are correct in saying he/she/it "looks like the cosmos?"

Originally Posted by TerranIV
I've also found it interesting it seems many of the religious replies infer it is "impossible" to disprove their beliefs.

If it's any consolation, I also think that it's impossible to disprove your beliefs. I realize that you listed several possible ways, but based on Ockham's razor, I could come up with more rational explanations for any of them.

I would welcome any disproving of my ideas. I'm sure you are if you apply Ockham's razor to any of the religious ideas put forth by you or any believer in this forum they would fall to shreds. Ockham's razor is a powerfully atheistic idea which basically invalidates every religion out there. If you are going to use such an idea to prove me wrong you must first agree to the VALIDITY of it, which I would doubt you would do universally.

In any case, I would welcome any ideas you would have which don't agree with mine based on Ockham's razor. I think you will find most of them actually are USING Ockham's razor to deconstruct some of the irrational religious ideas out there. I'm not above reproach and correction. I feel much of religion doesn't take the same stance. People take great offense at being even challenged (much less proven wrong) in their religious beliefs. Religion has countered by retreating into illogical ideas and unprovable positions.

So yeah... Bring it!

I have conflicting beliefs about myself too. (Not to mention conflicting beliefs about ethics, politics, girlfriends, exercise....)

I don't know anyone who is smart enough to avoid having conflicting beliefs. I know a lot of people who are too dumb to realize they have them.

And that's just referring to internally conflicting beliefs. I'm not even going to begin to address externally conflicting beliefs.

I'm sure you have conflicting beliefs about your life and who you are as a person. But I bet you have pretty unique DNA. I'm sure there are not may people who share your fingerprints. If I was to make a list of your physical traits and read them to a skilled artist I bet he/she could make a pretty accurate portrait of you. If I was to list many of your "conflicting" attributes to your family and friends they could probably recognize I was speaking of you. If I asked them about you they could probably provide stories and PHYSICAL evidence (such as photos of you, letters from you, clothing you've left behind, hair brushes with your DNA on them) of you.

Also you have...YOU. You can submit yourself to all kinds of objective scrutiny and testing. You can get your height, weight, blood type, x-rays, etc taken. Even if it doesn't describe you TOMORROW it did describe you WHEN IT WAS TAKEN. We would at least have a sense of what you were made up of at one point. I thought god's finger wrote the ten commandments in stone, but some say it was just a metaphor so we don't even know if god had a finger at any time in the past!

So I'm not saying god can't decide to put on a different shirt today. I'm not saying he can't get a tattoo. What I am saying, is there needs to be SOME traits (or group of traits) which will describe him/her/it before you can really say god exists. Before you can prove or disprove him/her/it. I'm not saying you can't "wish" there was a god or afterlife. I'm no saying you can't "think it's a good idea" to be able to live on as a spirit after you die.

My problem with religion is people are making decisions in their lives based on the idea there REALLY is a god and REALLY is a heaven. I would suggest that if this life is a "test" we would do better to assume there is no god and find motivations for your decisions in your life which aren't based on threat of eternal damnation or promise of eternal salvation but based on what you care about in this life, who you love, and how you will be remembered.

I'm always changing.
I can be two or three things at once. (I'm a son, I'm a coworker, I'm a good dancer)
I can be opposite things at times. (I can be compassionate, and I can be an insensitive jerk)

If I can do these things, why is it nonsense that god can outdo me?

Is god sometimes not god? If so, what does he do when he's not?

A son is measured by "you being a male and having a parent". I could disprove this if you were a girl. A coworker is "someone with a job who works somewhere with other people with a job." This could be disproven by you not having a job. A dancer is "someone who is dancing or who dances a lot". This could be disproven by you being born a quadraphonic. (Of course religion would try to change the meaning of the word by saying "Well dancing (or being male or working) is in the mind!")

My question follows the same pattern: God is "______." This can be disproven by _______.

Originally Posted by TerranIV
3. You believe it must be taken figuratively or with a grain of salt
If you take the third viewpoint you raise the question how to discover the meaning.
Epiphanies, reason, experience, teachings of people I respect, scriptures (of assorted religions) and religious traditions ... roughly in that order.

If you believe what is in the human mind is all that exists in the universe, and that all which exists in the human mind must be true I can see how you might feel this way. Our hopes and fears are mapped out in great detail in our minds, but the secrets of the cosmos are not. Perhaps the schism between science and religion in our minds and in society is a good thing. It has allowed us to entertain our hopes and fears in one area and then concentrate on rational thought and evidence in another.

I think you must admit we are living in an amazing time - most of which is made possible through science. We may still have problems, but they are less of what people used to deal with. Science has helped us live longer and healthier. Science has helped us learn and communicate like never before in history. Science has taught us more about the universe than we have been able to figure out on our own for thousands of years. I just don't understand why people continue to give devotion to a god who gives nothing in return but empty promises.

I assumed believers would have a better idea of who god was. Perhaps this is from being raised in an LDS household where god was very well defined. Say what you will about the LDS church, but at least they have the balls to define god to the point they know the name of the star in the planetary system where god lives! Also LDS people put many of their young men (me included) in a kind of "divinity school" before and during their missions. I think if I hadn't taken two years to study religion (and Christianity in particular) I wouldn't have understood WHY it's not true. I'm sure most LDS missionaries didn't spend most of their teenage years reading astro-physics books either.

 

[TerranIV]

Terran1V, It seemed that in your last post you were referring to others as well as me. Anyway, my beliefs are changing and searching but not discounting anything and not believing it either. So I end up with believing in some things from the Bible and not others. I know what people say about that but it would take too long to explain. For instance there was a person named Jesus at the time mentioned who gave very advanced advice that later was misconstrued, changed etc. But for me to answer your question--no matter how I look at it I just know that there is more than just out physical existence. Can I prove it? I would not try to. Each one searches it their own way.
What I meant about God being two opposite things did not mean that God changes but can be seen by a million people in a million ways and they would all be right. It makes sense when you really think about it.

The problem with god appearing differently for different people means more that the TERM "god" means something different than there is one "god" which just looks different on his side than when looking straight at him. This really only makes sense if you consider that maybe each person is making something up in their heads which doesn't exist (but maybe based on past experiences and their personalities).

The Bible, I think, was intended as guidelines for people to grow and live together in peace but it is also a lot of things. For instance, one part that always caught my attention that no one seems to mention or understand is in the OT where Ezekiel was confronted by a "space craft" as I understood the description. There were figures like humans but certainly different with wings etc. He thought it was the Lord as you would expect at that time in the desert. just my current opinion.

Interesting idea about the spacecraft and I wouldn't critize Ezekiel in the slightest for thinking the spaceship was god or angels. This kind of proves my view point though - I think all the believers are mistaking a spaceship (something which can be explained though is highly unlikely) with god or something else supernatural.

Perhaps we all had a good laugh when the teacher in history or science class said people used to think the world was flat, but there is really no shame in making a mistake like that. It is one of perception. The only way you could prove to those imaginary people the world is round is to show them a map. They would still have to believe you were right. Of course now we have pleanty of photographs of the earth from space and it is pretty hard to find anyone who thinks differently (or if they do, is unconficed by proof to the contrary).

I don't think believers are fools. I think there are many reasons for thinking the supernatural viewpoint on the universe is correct. Unfortunately it doesn't hold up under scrutany. Many people don't WANT to scrutinze it, and that's fine. It's not like there is a picture of god lying dead in the street I can show someone to let them know the time for believing in god is past. I'm sure the people who believed the earth was round because of complex calculations had a hard time illustrating to people hundreds of years ago that the earth was in fact round. They also probably never dreamed there would be things like photography and rockets which would allow us to take a picture of our planet from so far away as to illustrate the point perfectly.

Perhaps there will be something in the future to show believers they had the wrong idea. Perhaps there will be something to show the non-believers we have been wrong. Just like the idea the earth is round was based on believe in the correctness of the math and science behind the idea, so is the believe there is not god based on the correctness (or incorrectness) of Ockham's razor, the scientific method, and other tools of science. If you could prove them correct somehow this will hopefully lead all learned people to believe in the falseness of superstitions, gods, and fairies.

 

[Spiritone]

My belief about Ezekiel and the space ship he saw is that it was really from an other dimension--people today would say an ET ship or visitors from another planet. If you don't believe that "flying saucers" etc. actually come to earth you would think this crazy. I believe that they do come from another dimension and have powers far beyond ours at this time. I have tied in science, religion and UFOs and believe there is a Creator.
About how people see God--God has no physical image unless possibly taking a form of some sort but that isn't going to happen. The images that people conjure up in their minds come form the Biblical images that even atheists imagine when denying the Creator's existence.
All the people around the world had some kind of belief in a "higher power" and searched to communicate in one way or another, all forming their own images. If there is one God/Creator it would not matter how they imagined God to be. We can not see a God that is in everything including us--all of us. And eventually we will have powers beyond anything we could hope for. imo

 

[TerranIV]

My belief about Ezekiel and the space ship he saw is that it was really from an other dimension--people today would say an ET ship or visitors from another planet. If you don't believe that "flying saucers" etc. actually come to earth you would think this crazy. I believe that they do come from another dimension and have powers far beyond ours at this time. I have tied in science, religion and UFOs and believe there is a Creator.
About how people see God--God has no physical image unless possibly taking a form of some sort but that isn't going to happen. The images that people conjure up in their minds come form the Biblical images that even atheists imagine when denying the Creator's existence.
All the people around the world had some kind of belief in a "higher power" and searched to communicate in one way or another, all forming their own images. If there is one God/Creator it would not matter how they imagined God to be. We can not see a God that is in everything including us--all of us. And eventually we will have powers beyond anything we could hope for. imo

How is believing they came from another planet (plausible) more ridiculous than them coming from "another dimension" (an unproven theory with no supporting evidence). I put another dimension in quotes because you probably mean "another universe" or an "alternate reality".

The problem with denying god has a physical form is you reduce god to something other than what the word means. When English was developed "God" referred to the being in the old testament whom many modern believers consider to be nonsense. If you don't believe in the god of the bible, or if you think god was incorrectly defined in the bible, then you are essentially saying you don't believe in that god. Which is what atheists are saying.

If you have ANOTHER god you believe in, that is fine, but please don't use the bible to back up your ideas about god if you think the bible is flawed. Either it is not flawed and you accept it all - or some of it is flawed and someone is going to have to figure out what is flawed and what is not. I have never heard of anyone proposing some way to discern what parts of the bible can be considered "true" and what ones are "metaphor" or just flat out wrong. Other than personal opinion there is not much you can defend if you don't actually believe the whole thing. Of course there is no real logical way to believe the whole thing because it is so inconsistent throughout. If you can systematically throw out whole books from the bible and just keep certain books you might be on better ground, but again, how do you decide without a time machine?

If you think the "common belief" of god is "proof" of gods existence I will have to strongly disagree with you as well. How many things which were considered "impossible" have been proven possible by science? The fact the earth rotates around the sun? The ability to build ships in the water, air, and space weighing many tons? Traveling faster than sound? All of these were considered to be impossible at one time and were widely accepted as such. Just because a lot of people (of the same species with the same senses and brain structure) all make the same error in perception over and over again is not surprising in the least bit. If many different species across multiple planets and galaxies also share our same inclination to believe in god - that would be surprising.

 

[Spiritone]

How is believing they came from another planet (plausible) more ridiculous than them coming from "another dimension" (an unproven theory with no supporting evidence). I put another dimension in quotes because you probably mean "another universe" or an "alternate reality".

You seem to misconstrue some of my statements for some reason. I didn't say the above. And I did mean an other dimension which could be referred to as alternative reality or whatever.

The problem with denying god has a physical form is you reduce god to something other than what the word means. When English was developed "God" referred to the being in the old testament whom many modern believers consider to be nonsense. If you don't believe in the god of the bible, or if you think god was incorrectly defined in the bible, then you are essentially saying you don't believe in that god. Which is what atheists are saying.

It does not compute with me that God would have a physical form--where would that form reside? The word God can not be narrowed down to any one religions belief. I always thought that atheists believed that there is no God, period. As I said before, one God for all no matter how they conceive God to be.

If you have ANOTHER god you believe in, that is fine, but please don't use the bible to back up your ideas about god if you think the bible is flawed. Either it is not flawed and you accept it all - or some of it is flawed and someone is going to have to figure out what is flawed and what is not. I have never heard of anyone proposing some way to discern what parts of the bible can be considered "true" and what ones are "metaphor" or just flat out wrong. Other than personal opinion there is not much you can defend if you don't actually believe the whole thing. Of course there is no real logical way to believe the whole thing because it is so inconsistent throughout. If you can systematically throw out whole books from the bible and just keep certain books you might be on better ground, but again, how do you decide without a time machine?

The OT is as it was written and it is known that the NT was altered. What I believe is that the man Jesus lived and had advanced teachings and that's good enough for me, along with what I have found/learned.

If you think the "common belief" of god is "proof" of gods existence I will have to strongly disagree with you as well.

Terran, I did not say that either

How many things which were considered "impossible" have been proven possible by science? The fact the earth rotates around the sun? The ability to build ships in the water, air, and space weighing many tons? Traveling faster than sound? All of these were considered to be impossible at one time and were widely accepted as such. Just because a lot of people (of the same species with the same senses and brain structure) all make the same error in perception over and over again is not surprising in the least bit.

I agree.

 

[Karl R]

I take from your answer (and from a lot of the other answers from believers) you are saying you don't know enough about god to prove or disprove him/her/it. It seems to me if you know ONE FACT about god, you could disprove god by changing that to the opposite.

TerranIV,

I get the strong impression that you and I use the words "prove" and "disprove" in very different ways. Because of that, we have fundamentally different views of the universe (including the tangible part).

I will try to explain my point of view. I don't expect you to agree with me, but I hope you can understand why I feel a debate on the "provability" of god is pointless.

A couple decades ago I considered becoming a mathematician. My professor pointed out that one of the fundamental assumptions in mathematics is "there exists a number one".

The number one isn't proven. It isn't provable. It's a label of convenience that is the foundation of an entire paradigm.

I assume, you accept many of the "good ideas" of science as fact.

I accept them on faith. Unless I have actually gone through and mathematically proved or experimentally tested a scientific fact, then I'm accepting it purely on faith. (And given my limited skills in the science lab, I've accepted some scientific facts on faith ... despite my personal experiments which produced conflicting results.)

Are you saying if your point of view was "proven" wrong, you would jump to another unprovable position until that point of view became "proven" wrong? Why do you feel compeled to take a position which can't be proven or disproven? Why would you take "no evidence against this other god" as apposed to "evidence against my god"?

The theory of gravity hasn't been proven (though it is supported by a preponderance of evidence). If it was disproved tomorrow, would we suddenly start flying away from the earth as inertia takes over? Of course not.

More to the point, do you think the theory that would replace the theory of gravity would be completely different from the previous theory, or do you think it would be similar, just slightly modified to accommodate the new data?

If evidence disproves a scientific theory, the only part of scientific knowledge that you change is the part actually disproven by the evidence. There is no suggestion that the rest of the scientific knowledge is inaccurate.

Why would you expect me to treat my religious beliefs so dramatically differently than my scientific beliefs? (I realize that you treated yours differently, but do you have any other reason to expect me do that?)

Perhaps you accept the idea of "love your neighbor" as a religious idea because you were first presented it in a religious setting. Just because it was first presented to you in a religious setting doesn't mean it is not still with us today because it was panned out by experience (history - also not religion) and research (science).

I believe the statement in blue is a religious idea. I realize the part in red isn't provable, but could you provide some supporting evidence for your belief?

I would say that history is full of examples that this religious idea is rarely put into practice. The closest thing to scientific research (that I'm aware of) would involve some game theory models, and those would tend to support other forms of behavior as being superior.

Are you saying miracles prove god? ... What ever happened to the days where people would prove there god was right by perfomring miracles in front of masses of people and/or heads of state?

Miracles don't prove the existence of god ... but they do supply supporting evidence.

You act like miracles were commonplace in old and new testament times. Count the number of recorded miracles in the bible. Count the number of years covered by the bible. Figure out the average number of years between miracles. And with the exception of the Exodus, consider that there weren't that many witnesses for most miracles.

But even if you saw a miracle occur right in front of you, how could you be certain that it wasn't stage magic (think about what David Copperfield does). And in front of TV cameras? Think about the special effects in a typical action or scifi movie.

Miracles prove nothing. Let's say I pray to god for a miracle and it occurs. Does prove there is a god? No. It's possible that one time in a billion I can cause a supernatural event to occur merely by willing it. It's possible that a powerful alien entity decided to fulfill my wish on a whim. And even if god was the sole cause behind the miracle, it doesn't imply that my knowledge about god is any less flawed than the next person's knowledge.

Another way to describe speaking "metaphorically" (without the preface "Here is a metaphor..." or "Let me tell you a story of fiction to illustrate a point.") is called "deception."

You're entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is wrong. You might want to read the definition of "metaphor" before making these kinds of statements.

Here is one of my favorite metaphors:
"My girlfriend could be in heaven, and I could be in hell, and it would be the same place ... a bingo game."
- my Uncle

Do you believe my uncle was lying when he said that? He clearly was not talking about the literal afterlife. Even though he is speaking a literal faleshood, his meaning is clear. The meaning is also figuratively true.

This is my favorite metaphor because it uncovers a larger, universal truth. The reality of a situation is not separate from our own perspective.

You read the story about Jonah and the big fish. To you, it's probably just a whopper of a fish story. To me, it's a myth with a couple important lessons (or more).

I assumed believers would have a better idea of who god was. Perhaps this is from being raised in an LDS household where god was very well defined. Say what you will about the LDS church, but at least they have the balls to define god to the point they know the name of the star in the planetary system where god lives!

We were raised differently. My father is a chemist and has a scientist's skepticism toward everything ... science as well as religion. In my opinion, it takes more courage to say that you don't know the answer.

One of the greatest fears that people have is fear of the unknown. People don't like being afraid, so they pretend they know what the universe is like. (Whether it's god creating the universe in six days, or saying there is no god.)

I can't prove whether there is a god. Based on my own personal experiences, the evidence indicates that there's a theistic god. (But I fully respect that any other individual has different personal experiences, so they would have evidence that could lead them to other conclusions.) I'm a practicing christian. I don't believe that christianity is necessarily any closer to the truth than any other religion, but I'm able to follow the practices a bit better. (I may be a mediocre christian, but I really suck at buddhism.) Since I believe in the validity of other religions as well, I've spent a few years studying them in order to incorporate their teachings into what I have already learned.

It sounds to me that you would like a universe where you can know what is right and wrong, what is true and false, what is good and evil. I've come to the conclusion that the universe (and god) isn't nearly that accommodating. I've become accustomed to not knowing the answers.

You have some valid complaints about how religions tend to conduct themselves. Unfortunately, I think the radical difference in our perspectives would interefere with us having that discussion.

 

[ukMethodist]

Well, I'm not a theist, properly speaking. Am I welcome to participate?

I love your signature picture