Evidence for God

nns1400 said:

Another thread evolved into some posts about whether or not there is any evidence for the existence of God. As usual, panic and gnashing of teeth ensued.

I said I would start a thread here if anyone cared to read it or post about it. This is intended to be a casual discussion and not a flamethrowing contest, if that is in ANY way possible.

If no one cares, that is fine too. This will get quickly bumped down the list by polls about beer and women. :p

The last post I made asked Bro Deal if, for the sake of argument, there were evidence that pointed to the existence of God, would he care? Is there any evidence that would matter? Because earlier I had posited that many people (not all) who insist that there is zero, zilch, etc etc etc evidence for a God still would not care IF any sort of evidence were presented.

We haven't even gotten to any evidence yet. Just talking philosophy.

If this offends you, move on to another topic.

So you're saying that God doesn't exist?

There has to be evidence for God for humanity to continue on. Without God , morals and morality do not exsist. And if we do not believe in morality, watch out ..........
More on this later ........ I'm going on a holiday for a few days.......

limerickman said:

So you're saying that God doesn't exist?

No, I believe God exists. In a previous discussion in the Bike Cafe, about lying, it turned into a discussion of such.

Posters saying there is NO evidence for a God. Before I offered any, I suggested that maybe evidence isn't really the issue, and asked if they would even consider any evidence offered, would it matter anyway, and so on. Why waste a lot of time offering evidence or discussing what it means, or doesn't mean, if someone has a totally closed mind about it.

Their response is : there is no evidence for God. As in "case closed." I said I would start a thread over here if anyone wanted to actually discuss it, so I did.

I'm sure you are quite familiar with the practice of posters on any given topic to repeat their tag line and not analyze it. 😉

nns1400 said:

Posters saying there is NO evidence for a God. Before I offered any, I suggested that maybe evidence isn't really the issue, and asked if they would even consider any evidence offered, would it matter anyway, and so on. Why waste a lot of time offering evidence or discussing what it means, or doesn't mean, if someone has a totally closed mind about it.

Their response is : there is no evidence for God. As in "case closed." I said I would start a thread over here if anyone wanted to actually discuss it, so I did.

You hit on a good point : evidence isn't the issue.
Belief in God is a faith based concept.

nns1400 said:

I'm sure you are quite familiar with the practice of posters on any given topic to repeat their tag line and not analyze it. 😉

Yep - there are plenty of them here :

[quote="limerickman"]You hit on a good point : evidence isn't the issue.
Belief in God is a faith based concept.
[QUOTE]

But that doesn't mean evidence is not considered. There is a difference between blind faith and reasonable faith.

There are many people who were convinced that God did not exist, and yet, after considering evidence or logical arguments, changed their mind based on such. Their faith is based on reasonable evidence. And believing that God exists certainly doesn't lead necessarily to following that God or pursuing any religion.

Can it be proven? No. Nor can it be disproven. Faith must come into play. Faith in God, or faith that it cannot be true.

One thing is true. Either God exists or God doesn't exist. One's faith for or against doesn't change whichever one is true.

Now I'm off for some fun in the sun......

I do not believe that nature and humanity and life as we know it to be, is merely a random fortunate occurence.

There is a God.

Obviously there is an element of faith in my conclusion.

But faith does not arise out of nothing.

willocrew said:

But faith does not arise out of nothing.

It's just based on nothing. 😄 If it were based on something then it wouldn't be faith.

The thing I note is that non-believers,I use that as a broad term,seem to be much more irritated with believers that the reverse.

I suppose I do believe in God (or even gods) but will have to stress all global religion over the last 4000 years is based on texts and documents written by men, Moses, Muhammad, Krishna, St Paul e.t.c. My belief is you cannot take these writings literally as they tend to contradict one another. For example, Moses was supposed to have told the children of Israel to utterly destroy the Canaanites so they don't fall into paganistic practices. Yet, the book of Jonah (also the O.T.) teaches compassion towards other peoples and that God (or Yahweh) values all peoples.
What should really be noted was even Jesus wasn't a fundamentalist. When Jesus was caught breaking the Sabbath, he actually taught his students it's totally wrong to quote rules and regulations above the interests of human life. He was saying you should heal and help the sick even on the Sabbath. So Jesus interpreted the Hebrew scripts using his common sense.
I have no axe to grind over a belief in God but it's a shame people have ceased to interpret these writings and compare what's been said, text against text.
Probably God exists but maybe not in any likeness of men. There may be scores of diffeerent life forms in the universe that don't depend on oxygen.

Carrera said:

Probably God exists but maybe not in any likeness of men.

What do you base that on?

wolfix said:

There has to be evidence for God for humanity to continue on. Without God , morals and morality do not exsist. And if we do not believe in morality, watch out ..........
More on this later ........ I'm going on a holiday for a few days.......

Funny. I'm a moral athiest, or I sure as heck like to feel that I am. (For what it's worth, I adjust my rates on fixin' PCs for those who can't afford it, believe in helping those who are unable to support themselves, etc. etc. etc.)

Coincidentally, I have met a lot of highly religious individuals that, for all their fervor and willingness to trash a gay Seargeant's funeral, are much less interested in someone simply starving to death.

My theory on this is that humans are a lot like monkeys. Along with the opposable thumbs, we got their pack-forming tendencies: By working to benefit the pack over the individual, we can better provide for our spiecies.

limerickman said:

You hit on a good point : evidence isn't the issue.
Belief in God is a faith based concept.

Correct!

You are win.

Bro Deal said:

What do you base that on?

Dunno. If Man were truly made in the image of God, demographics dictate that God would get drunk a lot and accidentally destroy things.

Yes, I do believe there is evidence for God. Regardless of one's sect, the history of humankind has always been intrically tied to religion. The fact that wars have been waged, millions have died, borders redrawn all indicate that irrespective of one's esoteric definition of "evidence", in reality, the idea of God alone is enough to influence and guide human behavior.

Aside from a very small percentage of scholars and monks throughout time, the fact that we, (citizens of the general population), are even discussing this topic is a relatively new phenomenon. In today's post-modernist, revisionist, secular age we are defined by our experience. Because of the scientific revolution, our western society demands sufficient "proof" of God's existence. Yet, in the past, climate change, eclipses, astronomy, change in political power, shifts in economy were very much understood from the window of religious experience and understanding. These were interpreted as "signs from God". Written texts and oral traditions served only to reemphasize the existence of God and served as a records of evidence. To brush this all aside now simply because one feels more "enlightened" is mere hubris, in my opinion. Religion will always be at the forefront of man's existence. God will always shape the world. Look at history; learn from history; there you will find your "evidence".

Bro Deal said:

What do you base that on?

I think Carrera has based his view on the strong fundamentals of faith. 😄

Consider we're a dominant species at a given period of time in a tiny corner of the cosmos. The fact we're a dominant species at this specific moment would seem to be down to evolution but who's to say this will always be the case?
The Greeks used to reason that if dolphins had become the dominant species, they would automatically suppose God had to appear as a dolphin. Nevertheless, seeing as humans happen to be the only species with advanced language communication and culture, we all suppose God is in the image of a man, thinks like a man and acts like a man.
Of course, the probability of life on other planets is highly likely. There will be other forms of life somewhere out there and other civilizations will have religions that reason God looks like they do.

Bro Deal said:

What do you base that on?

Bro Deal said:

It's just based on nothing. 😄 If it were based on something then it wouldn't be faith.

No. If it's based on nothing, it's called your imagination. 😄 (As in, deranged American Idol hopefuls who have faith that they can sing and will be a star one day....)

Even Scientologists base their faith on something, as they trust the words and works of L. Ron Hubbard and the information carefully and systematically fed to them via well-documented brain-washing techniques. Outside of the cult system, the rest of us are free to look at and consider the claims of Scientology and decide if it is a reasonable faith.

Centuries of theological and philosophical debate from the Hebrews to the Greeks to the Confucionists (sp?) to Augustine to Secular Humanists to C.S. Lewis are available for thinking people to discuss and ponder and decide for themselves what they will have faith in concerning the nature of reality.

A person who is an atheist has faith that there is no God. Because they can't prove that there is not a God. But I'm sure if asked, they would give you reasons that they believe that. They base that opinion on something.

And you, Bro, have uncharacteristically evaded the question twice. Would you care if there were any evidence for a God (that hypothetically you would accept)?

So without a direct answer I will have to decide, without incontravertible proof of course, but based on your not answering, that I will believe you wouldn't care. You would reject God under any circumstances. But that's just a leap of faith based on what I can determine with my limited amount of info.

WC Fields in theory an athiest was witnessed on his death bed reading the bible,when questioned if he was getting the faith he remarked "just looking for a loophole".

spasticteapot said:

Funny. I'm a moral athiest, or I sure as heck like to feel that I am. (For what it's worth, I adjust my rates on fixin' PCs for those who can't afford it, believe in helping those who are unable to support themselves, etc. etc. etc.)

Coincidentally, I have met a lot of highly religious individuals that, for all their fervor and willingness to trash a gay Seargeant's funeral, are much less interested in someone simply starving to death.

My theory on this is that humans are a lot like monkeys. Along with the opposable thumbs, we got their pack-forming tendencies: By working to benefit the pack over the individual, we can better provide for our spiecies.

Correct!

You are win.

Dunno. If Man were truly made in the image of God, demographics dictate that God would get drunk a lot and accidentally destroy things.

I don't doubt that you are moral. Being an atheist doesn't mean one is immoral, or as you justly pointed out, that making claims to religion makes one moral either. Jesus had plenty to say about that. His harshest comments were for religious hypocrites.

But, for what it's worth, if atheism is indeed true, why be moral? How do you even decide what is moral; why do you "believe in" helping those unable to support themselves? Pack animals do NOT live by that idea, nor do they have "ideas" as such. Just opposable thumbs!

We are the only species to consider anything beyond natural selection. If animals ruled the world, people unable to support themselves by definition would be, let's say, "not selected." The benefit of the pack over the individual would dictate getting rid of those that drain the resources of the pack. Or letting wolves do it or whatever. And our society, in our so-called "enlightened" age, moves ever closer to that sort of a reality for the human pack.

Comments?

Klodifan said:

Yes, I do believe there is evidence for God. Regardless of one's sect, the history of humankind has always been intrically tied to religion. The fact that wars have been waged, millions have died, borders redrawn all indicate that irrespective of one's esoteric definition of "evidence", in reality, the idea of God alone is enough to influence and guide human behavior.

Last I checked, most people believe that most cyclists are gay, if only due to the package-enhancing spandex that most dedicated cyclists wear.

Does that make it true?

nns1400 said:

I don't doubt that you are moral. Being an atheist doesn't mean one is immoral, or as you justly pointed out, that making claims to religion makes one moral either. Jesus had plenty to say about that. His harshest comments were for religious hypocrites.

Okay, great. Too bad you sort of say the exact oppposite in your next paragraph....

nns1400 said:

But, for what it's worth, if atheism is indeed true, why be moral? How do you even decide what is moral; why do you "believe in" helping those unable to support themselves? Pack animals do NOT live by that idea, nor do they have "ideas" as such. Just opposable thumbs!

Just because I'm an Athiest does not mean I'm devoid of imagination. I can imagine, for example, that I'm starving to death, and how extremly unplesant that would be. I, as a result, want to prevent others from having to suffer in that manner, much as I would appreciate the same from them were our situations reversed.

Also, pack animals DO live by the ideal of "supporting those unable to support themselves." Dolphins will help carry wounded dolphins to the surface to breathe, for example, and monkeys will work together to protect the young of their pack, even if the baby monkeys threatened are not their own offspring.

(This one is a result of good, old-fashioned natural selection. We're just another spiecies of monkey, and the apple does not fall far from the tree. And, unlike our appendix, this throwback to our bark-eating days is pretty useful in keeping us from all murdering each other.)

nns1400 said:

We are the only species to consider anything beyond natural selection. If animals ruled the world, people unable to support themselves by definition would be, let's say, "not selected." The benefit of the pack over the individual would dictate getting rid of those that drain the resources of the pack. Or letting wolves do it or whatever. And our society, in our so-called "enlightened" age, moves ever closer to that sort of a reality for the human pack.

Comments?

Er, no.

What you've done here is created something of a logical loop: You say that we're different from animals, as a result of Divine intervention, and moving away from the Divine is moving towards a more base state.

Except we're not that different - ask Jane Goodall. We're really pretty similar. People will try to help other people, God or no - it's simply a fact of the universe that we're just unusually intelligent hairless apes, and still have a lot of hard-coded bits of personality along with our uselss bark-digestion hardware.

An example of this would be found in our reaction to babies. While we would perhaps ordinarily simply see them as bizzare, misshapen little lumps, those people who found babies incredibly cute generally had a lot more kids, and it's become hard-wired into our brains.

Embrace your inner ape!

nns1400 said:

I don't doubt that you are moral. Being an atheist doesn't mean one is immoral, or as you justly pointed out, that making claims to religion makes one moral either. Jesus had plenty to say about that. His harshest comments were for religious hypocrites.

But, for what it's worth, if atheism is indeed true, why be moral? How do you even decide what is moral; why do you "believe in" helping those unable to support themselves? Pack animals do NOT live by that idea, nor do they have "ideas" as such. Just opposable thumbs!

We are the only species to consider anything beyond natural selection. If animals ruled the world, people unable to support themselves by definition would be, let's say, "not selected." The benefit of the pack over the individual would dictate getting rid of those that drain the resources of the pack. Or letting wolves do it or whatever. And our society, in our so-called "enlightened" age, moves ever closer to that sort of a reality for the human pack.

Comments?

You pose a very valid question to the athiest. Why be moral? for one's morals are neccesarily tied to a belief system. I tend to view those that say they don't believe in God actually replace it with the ego and regard it as its supreme being.

I want to touch upon something else you mentioned. If we look at the animal kingdom, we can see highly developed culture and psychosis. I am referring specifically to the chimpanzee. researchers have observed jealousy, remorse, murder, banishment, forgiveness, love and on and on. these emotions have typically been seen by many as distinctly human. Others will debate that notion. Yet, these observations imply a social order with acceptable and unacceptable norms and mores. The juvenial chimp will be detered from hurting its younger sibling b/c it fears abandonment from the rest of the group, for example. Conflicts will arise and forgiveness mostly always follows, usually expressed through grooming. Is that an indication of morals, (right and wrong behavior), or instinctive patterns of behavior and the need to be part of a society neccesary for survival? It is a thought provoking question. I answer we are different from other animals b/c we are not controlled by this constant awareness for survival.

I will say, and this is addressing some of what teapot is talking about, and oh by the way, we arent just another species of monkey. We are part of the great Ape family, and monkeys dont belong 😉

But anyways, in a lot of ways, we are similar to other species of great apes, as we have learned from Goodall and others, as you mentioned. There is no doubt we share a lot with them. Yet we are decidedly different in that in every culture throughout the history of humankind we have developed the notion of a supreme being, a god, or a plethora of gods overlooking the human race. this is undeniable. this is what separates us from any other living creature.

You compare dolphins and orphan chimps to similar behavior in humans asserting that people will just want to help people regardless of God. But why do those dolphins and chimps behave in the way they do? as I mentioned earlier, I believe it is tied to survival. that element is not the same in humans. in fact, more often then not, people tend NOT to help other people. indeed, we are a very violent species. what causes us to curb our inherent violence therefore supporting our need for survival? Religion. Our concept of god, a tenet of beliefs to help guide people and prevent people from doing what comes naturally... and that is not helping others but killing others. Yes, religion is what makes us different from animals and morals that stem from religion spur our species on. It is what we utilize to ensure our survival.