Does God exist?

[Shredderbeam]

And apparently you DON’T, at present, see any evidence of His existence?

How can you not see it? It’s all around you!

Well, there’s our difference, then, isn’t it?

There are indeed none so blind as those who WILL TO not see, and those with “no time” to work at seeing that which they don’t know is most worthy of seeing.

The “satisfied” are handicapped. The “hungry” are blessed.

:shamrock2:

You say it’s all around me - specifically, do you have any examples? Can you point to particulars and show how they directly point to the existence of a deity?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

You say it’s all around me - specifically, do you have any examples? Can you point to particulars and show how they directly point to the existence of a deity?

Sure.

Look up. See that?

Look down. See that?

I won’t make you look side to side, as that’s just more of the same, really.

Are you seeing God yet, or are you just seeing “normalcy”?

What is “normal” to some is “miraculous” to others. To me it’s all miraculous.

We can each choose to see either the “normal” or the “miraculous”. I choose to see the miraculous.

That you don’t is fine. Just don’t try to convince me that I’m not seeing the miraculous, which can only come from God.

Why are you here if you have no interest in the miraculous? Perhaps you’d like to see the miraculous, and for some reason can’t, and because you can’t you wish no one to see the miraculous, even if they actually do, so that you don’t feel so “bad” in not having the joy of seeing the miraculous?

Why would an “empiricist” be here (in these fori)?

Are you actually an “empiricist”, or a dedicated anti-God promoter? If you actually ARE an empiricist, then you’d be obliged (for your own intellectual honesty’s sake) to do what is necessary to have the “empirical experience” of God.

Are you willing to do what is necessary?

:shamrock2:

 

[Shredderbeam]

Sure.

Look up. See that?

Look down. See that?

I won’t make you look side to side, as that’s just more of the same, really.

Are you seeing God yet, or are you just seeing “normalcy”?

What is “normal” to some is “miraculous” to others. To me it’s all miraculous.

We can each choose to see either the “normal” or the “miraculous”. I choose to see the miraculous.

That you don’t is fine. Just don’t try to convince me that I’m not seeing the miraculous, which can only come from God.

Why are you here if you have no interest in the miraculous? Perhaps you’d like to see the miraculous, and for some reason can’t, and because you can’t you wish no one to see the miraculous, even if they actually do, so that you don’t feel so “bad” in not having the joy of seeing the miraculous?

Why would an “empiricist” be here (in these fori)?

Are you actually an “empiricist”, or a dedicated anti-God promoter? If you actually ARE an empiricist, then you’d be obliged (for your own intellectual honesty’s sake) to do what is necessary to have the “empirical experience” of God.

Are you willing to do what is necessary?

:shamrock2:

When I say that I am an empiricist, I mean that I accept hard empirical data when deciding what is rational to believe. When I want to determine whether a certain anti-cancer drug is effective, I read the double-blind studies, make sure they had a placebo-using control group, that the groups were large enough to eliminate significant chance variation, that the funding of the study didn’t come from a biased source, and so on.

With regard to God, I would like hard data of God himself, or things that could not have happened without a God in order to believe. The data should be clear and unambiguous, and not open to interpretation.

If you have such data, I’d be glad to consider it, as I am an honest empiricist, and not a dogmatic atheist.

 

[wildleafblower]

As an empiricist, I am not likely to believe in God until I see some evidence of his existence.

God created my spiritual and immortal soul. There’s no way you can disprove it.

 

[Shredderbeam]

God created my spiritual and immortal soul. There’s no way you can disprove it.

Russell’s Teapot.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

When I say that I am an empiricist, I mean that I accept hard empirical data when deciding what is rational to believe. When I want to determine whether a certain anti-cancer drug is effective, I read the double-blind studies, make sure they had a placebo-using control group, that the groups were large enough to eliminate significant chance variation, that the funding of the study didn’t come from a biased source, and so on.

That’s just good sense. It’s certainly not a unique “habit” of so-called “empiricists”.

There is no “war” between religion and science, except in the mind of “atheo-empiricists” (and other atheo-whatnot’s).

With regard to God, I would like hard data of God himself, or things that could not have happened without a God in order to believe. The data should be clear and unambiguous, and not open to interpretation.

But there is no explanation for what you see when you look up, and look down, other than God.

That’s perfectly clear and perfectly unambiguous. That you see that as “murky”, ambiguous, and open to interpretation merely says that you are a relativists who doesn’t accept God given revelation of truth as truth.

If you really ARE interested in seeing God, or at least His “miraculous evidence”, then you must stop (at least for a time) being a relativist anti-revelationist!

Are you willing to do that and prove you’re really an empiricist, or are you going to confirm, right here and right now, that you are in fact a dedicated anti-God atheist?

If you have such data, I’d be glad to consider it, as I am an honest empiricist, and not a dogmatic atheist.

I’ve given you all the “data” that I’m capable of giving you. The data that you NEED, though, must come from your own “work”, which would require YOU to change.

Are you willing to do that to satisfy your stated “empiricistic prime directive” of experiencing all that there is to experience, or not?

:shamrock2:

 

[Shredderbeam]

That’s just good sense. It’s certainly not a unique “habit” of so-called “empiricists”.

There is no “war” between religion and science, except in the mind of “atheo-empiricists” (and other atheo-whatnot’s).

That would be the scientific method at work.

I do not claim there to be a war.

CatsAndDogs:

But there is no explanation for what you see when you look up, and look down, other than God.

That’s perfectly clear and perfectly unambiguous. That you see that as “murky”, ambiguous, and open to interpretation merely says that you are a relativists who doesn’t accept God given revelation of truth as truth.

I disagree. I feel that an impersonal naturalistic cause is also capable of explaining the existence of matter.

Some might claim to have received revelations - that’s all well and good, but I cannot take their word for it, for the lunatic asylum proves that all sorts of people claim revelations.

CatsAndDogs:

If you really ARE interested in seeing God, or at least His “miraculous evidence”, then you must stop (at least for a time) being a relativist anti-revelationist!

Are you willing to do that and prove you’re really an empiricist, or are you going to confirm, right here and right now, that you are in fact a dedicated anti-God atheist?

I’m not a relativist at all, nor a dedicated anti-anything.

CatsAndDogs:

I’ve given you all the “data” that I’m capable of giving you. The data that you NEED, though, must come from your own “work”, which would require YOU to change.

You didn’t really give me any data.

What work do you refer to?

 

[Philthy]

Shredderbeam:

When I say that I am an empiricist, I mean that I accept hard empirical data when deciding what is rational to believe.

How did you empirically determine all rational thought to be subject to empirical data??? Was it through an empirical process or is it simply a belief?

With regard to God, I would like hard data of God himself, or things that could not have happened without a God in order to believe. The data should be clear and unambiguous, and not open to interpretation. If you have such data, I’d be glad to consider it, as I am an honest empiricist, and not a dogmatic atheist.

Empirically speaking, what specific evidence would be required? By what means have you established the requirement of “hard data” as proof for the existence of a being greater than creation?
It seems to me that you have taken a system which is meant to provide information on observable reality and mistakenly assumed that it can be applied to all reality. Or, perhaps, you have as a prima facia belief that all reality physical and accessible by empirical techniques. That only begs the question of how you would empirically disprove the existence of non-material reality.

 

[Shredderbeam]

How did you empirically determine all rational thought to be subject to empirical data??? Was it through an empirical process or is it simply a belief?

Personal experience tells me that reality overrules the mind. A man may think he can fly, but upon jumping off a skyscraper, he will die.

Philthy:

Empirically speaking, what specific evidence would be required?

Evidence of a miracle would work nicely.

Philthy:

By what means have you established the requirement of “hard data” as proof for the existence of a being greater than creation?

Hard data is required to prove the existence of anything that exists external to the individual.

Philthy:

It seems to me that you have taken a system which is meant to provide information on observable reality and mistakenly assumed that it can be applied to all reality. Or, perhaps, you have as a prima facia belief that all reality physical and accessible by empirical techniques.

No, I recognize that even if a God is undetectable, the effects of his interfering with reality can be measured objectively.

Philthy:

That only begs the question of how you would empirically disprove the existence of non-material reality.

Burden of proof.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
That’s just good sense. It’s certainly not a unique “habit” of so-called “empiricists”.

There is no “war” between religion and science, except in the mind of “atheo-empiricists” (and other atheo-whatnot’s).

That would be the scientific method at work.

Invented and most extensively used by Catholics, and their direct predecessors, we’ll have you know!

And, I agree with you entirely. Good sense is good sense.

I do not claim there to be a war.

Oh please! <chortle, chortle, chortle, chortle!>

You seriously don’t think that the Church (Catholic) is a “suppressor of science” and “anti-‘scientific research’”?

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
But there is no explanation for what you see when you look up, and look down, other than God.

That’s perfectly clear and perfectly unambiguous. That you see that as “murky”, ambiguous, and open to interpretation merely says that you are a relativists who doesn’t accept God given revelation of truth as truth.

I disagree. I feel that an impersonal naturalistic cause is also capable of explaining the existence of matter.

You may “feel” what you like, of course, but it is only on FAITH and by supposition that there even EXISTS a so-called “naturalistic” cause for reality being what it is.

God, on the other hand, is de facto and by definition, precisely describably capable of creating reality ex nihilo.

Show us, specifically, empirically, with “hard evidence”, which you seem so fond of, what it is that you DO BELIEVE is this “naturalistic cause” which created reality?

Some might claim to have received revelations - that’s all well and good, but I cannot take their word for it, for the lunatic asylum proves that all sorts of people claim revelations.

That is absolutely true!

That’s why only the authorized source of divine revelation is to be trusted. That being the Magisterium of the Church (Catholic).

What YOU need to experience is personal revelation, after doing the work that you have to to receive it, and then check that private personal revelation against the public revelation of the Church (administered by the Magisterium).

But, my guess is that you’re not REALLY interested in being a true empiricist, but only in being anti-God.

I’d LOVE to be proved wrong!

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
I’ve given you all the “data” that I’m capable of giving you. The data that you NEED, though, must come from your own “work”, which would require YOU to change.

You didn’t really give me any data.

Sure I did. I told you to look up, and look down. That’s all the data you need.

What work do you refer to?

Prayer!

Correctly DONE prayer, of course, but the work necessary is called “prayer”.

:shamrock2:

 

[crowonsnow]

As I pointed out, there are two choices: intelligent, or unintelligent. Neither can be proven, and each has its problems when people attempt to do so.

Are you arguing that intelligence is not natural, that it’s supernatural? Or maybe you are arguing that intelligence is proof of a supernatural. Which is it? How exactly would this supernatural intelligence differ from natural intelligence? Or are you asserting that there is no such thing as natural intelligence? Could you please explain yourself here?

This is pretty simple, and I see no reason not to include more than one outside universe as a probability. In fact, I brought this up as a possiblity (multiverses), which you seem to be conveniently ignoraning in your strawman attacks. The fact that you don’t understand that other universes would likely have different laws than our own suggests to me that you don’t know much about the subject.

Okay, so you are arguing that there are supernatural laws. That means you are arguing that the behavior of this supernature is observable and therefore predictable. If that’s the case, what’s so super about it? It would seem to be just another natural universe with different laws.

And as you said, there can certainly be other universes, but your argument seems to be that they are by necessity supernatural just because they are different. Is that your definition of supernatural, that it’s just different, maybe where effect precedes cause? And I don’t understand why you stridently oppose the existence of lots of these supernatural universes, again, if by supernatural you merely mean different. Why just one?

There is no reason to believe that two membranes collided in fifth dimension and caused the Big Bang either, but some scientists certainly see this as a possibility.

As I stated, the universe has some cause. It is either intelligent (god/gods/spirits, etc.) or not (“natural” processes). The problem becomes, any processes outside our universe could not really be considered “natural” by any stretch, and any effort to “prove” either way is totally useless, because we would be incapable of accurately describing or testing such a theory, especially if it occurred in some extra dimension that we can’t detect or experience.

My point is that, given what we know, and what we don’t know, it is just as reasonable when discussing the origin of the universe to assign an intelligent cause as it is to assign a natural one. It’s all about faith, and not everyone has it.

Again, your definition of natural seems quite limited. You are asserting that intelligence is not natural. Correct?

Also, there could be countless universes other than our own, but by your argument ours is the only “natural’ one? That’s rather quaint, don’t you think? Or what would you call these other possible universes? Seminatural? Subnatural? Supersuprnatural? If they’re not natural and only one is supernatural, you’ve got to call them something. What are they?

Your position is also interesting because you observe the universe and conclude that everything in it needs a cause. Then you invent another universe where nothing needs a cause. That is neither logical nor consistent.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Oh please! <chortle, chortle, chortle, chortle!>

You seriously don’t think that the Church (Catholic) is a “suppressor of science” and “anti-‘scientific research’”?

:shamrock2:

Er, no, I don’t. Regardless of what the Church might have done in years past, it is not today actively suppressing science (to my knowledge).

You may “feel” what you like, of course, but it is only on FAITH and by supposition that there even EXISTS a so-called “naturalistic” cause for reality being what it is.

God, on the other hand, is de facto and by definition, precisely describably capable of creating reality ex nihilo.

If God exists, then he could create reality out of nothing, but first it must be established that he does.
"CatsAndDogs:

Show us, specifically, empirically, with “hard evidence”, which you seem so fond of, what it is that you DO BELIEVE is this “naturalistic cause” which created reality?

I have no evidence. I’m just speculating, and trying not to postulate an overly-complex beginning to the universe.

That is absolutely true!

CatsAndDogs:

That’s why only the authorized source of divine revelation is to be trusted. That being the Magisterium of the Church (Catholic).

Why is the Catholic Church a trustworthy source? How do I know that they are correct when they claim revelation?

CatsAndDogs:

What YOU need to experience is personal revelation, after doing the work that you have to to receive it, and then check that private personal revelation against the public revelation of the Church (administered by the Magisterium).

I have never had a personal revelation, though I have tried to seek one.

Sure I did. I told you to look up, and look down. That’s all the data you need.

God could have created what I see around me, or an impersonal natural force. Or maybe it was something else entirely. The evidence isn’t very revealing.

CatsAndDogs:

Prayer!

Correctly DONE prayer, of course, but the work necessary is called “prayer”.

:shamrock2:

I have prayed before, and it never really accomplished anything.

 

[Grateful4mercy]

When I say that I am an empiricist, I mean that I accept hard empirical data when deciding what is rational to believe. When I want to determine whether a certain anti-cancer drug is effective, I read the double-blind studies, make sure they had a placebo-using control group, that the groups were large enough to eliminate significant chance variation, that the funding of the study didn’t come from a biased source, and so on.

I hate to jump into a thread this late in the game, but I sort of got a chuckle from this comment on “hard empirical data” from a double-blind study. It seems that every single double-blind study in the history of modern medicine shows a measurable affect from the PLACEBO, but I haven’t been able to get a doctor to write me a prescription for it yet!

By what means did the placebo group show measurable improvements? Possibly the power of suggestion? If I can reduce the symptoms of a chronic disease by simply believing that I am being cured, would that be enough evidence for the possibility of the miraculous?

Thanks for letting me interrupt…as you were. npatrol:

 

[Shredderbeam]

I hate to jump into a thread this late in the game, but I sort of got a chuckle from this comment on “hard empirical data” from a double-blind study. It seems that every single double-blind study in the history of modern medicine shows a measurable affect from the PLACEBO, but I haven’t been able to get a doctor to write me a prescription for it yet!

By what means did the placebo group show measurable improvements? Possibly the power of suggestion? If I can reduce the symptoms of a chronic disease by simply believing that I am being cured, would that be enough evidence for the possibility of the miraculous?

Thanks for letting me interrupt…as you were. npatrol:

The placebo effect seems to be related to the mind-body effect. I do not know why the mind affects the body so strongly.

The correct reaction to the “mind-body effect is miraculous” hypothesis is to test it. Testing might reveal some sort of “feel-good” chemical that is released when the patient believes he or she is cured - a chemical that coincidentally has healing properties. Or perhaps some sort of psychic link might be established between the mind and the body. Or perhaps God might be caught in the act, healing people who believe themselves to be cured. It’s an interesting question, but until I see some data on the matter, my position is agnostic.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Oh please! <chortle, chortle, chortle, chortle!>

You seriously don’t think that the Church (Catholic) is a “suppressor of science” and “anti-‘scientific research’”?

Er, no, I don’t. Regardless of what the Church might have done in years past, it is not today actively suppressing science (to my knowledge).

Well, I shall believe you until you prove that your anti-faith/science-war stance is bogus.

If you are being honest, I applaud you in your unusual-ness for one who is not a God-believer. :clapping:

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
You may “feel” what you like, of course, but it is only on FAITH and by supposition that there even EXISTS a so-called “naturalistic” cause for reality being what it is.

God, on the other hand, is de facto and by definition, precisely describably capable of creating reality ex nihilo.

If God exists, then he could create reality out of nothing, but first it must be established that he does.

A proof of God’s existence is not required for God, should He exist (which He does), to create reality ex nihilo.

A proof of God’s existence is only YOUR requirement for YOU to believe in Him.

I have my proof that He exists. That you don’t is your problem! The fact is that we each must do our own work to get this proof.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Show us, specifically, empirically, with “hard evidence”, which you seem so fond of, what it is that you DO BELIEVE is this “naturalistic cause” which created reality?

I have no evidence. I’m just speculating, and trying not to postulate an overly-complex beginning to the universe.

So, then, you don’t believe that ANYTHING created reality, or don’t believe that it’s creation was unnecessary because it “always existed”?

How DO you think that reality came to be as it is?

If you have no “hard evidence”, and since you only believe that which is supported by “hard evidence”, you can’t (logically) believe that there exists a “cause” for reality.

Are you actively (or even passively) looking for this “hard evidence”? Why? What “prompts” you to want to know?

Why do you care?

:shamrock2:

 

[Grateful4mercy]

The placebo effect seems to be related to the mind-body effect. I do not know why the mind affects the body so strongly.

The correct reaction to the “mind-body effect is miraculous” hypothesis is to test it. Testing might reveal some sort of “feel-good” chemical that is released when the patient believes he or she is cured - a chemical that coincidentally has healing properties. Or perhaps some sort of psychic link might be established between the mind and the body. Or perhaps God might be caught in the act, healing people who believe themselves to be cured. It’s an interesting question, but until I see some data on the matter, my position is agnostic.

Ahh, but miracles by definition are not repeatable. If they could be replicated they would just become a normal part of our understanding of the natural world.

Let’s take a different discovery and ponder its meaning. Dark energy. It was BELIEVED that there must be something missing from the mass of the universe, but until recently there was zero evidence. I’m not even sure I 100% subscribe to the “we can’t see it, or measure it, but we know it’s out there” explanation. But look at what an amazing discovery this is, and look at how it will change our view of the universe in the coming years. To say that there is no possible way to measure the existence of God is jumping the gun a little. Maybe we just haven’t figured out how to look for it yet.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
That is absolutely true!

That’s why only the authorized source of divine revelation is to be trusted. That being the Magisterium of the Church (Catholic).

Why is the Catholic Church a trustworthy source? How do I know that they are correct when they claim revelation?

The reason that the Church (Catholic) is the single trustworthy source is because it is the one source authorized by God to give us the truth in the realm of that which it is authorized to give us.

One knows that the Church is correct in this claim (of truthtelling) by being so informed by God, personally, in such a way that that information is confirmable by reference to the Magisterium of the Church.

That this is not an “acceptable” method of information and confirmation is of no import to the truth of the matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
What YOU need to experience is personal revelation, after doing the work that you have to to receive it, and then check that private personal revelation against the public revelation of the Church (administered by the Magisterium).

I have never had a personal revelation, though I have tried to seek one.

But you have had personal revelation. In fact, nearly constantly are you, and I, and everyone else, having personal revelation. But to recognize it AS such requires a “tuning”, and education, in how to do so.

That education, even if given by others in childhood, requires a WANTING on the part of the “student” to truly do what is necessary.

That wanting is often lacking, because of the frustrations introduced by having had a very poor “primary” education in such matters.

:shamrock2: