For Those Who Are Skeptical About God's Existence

[Bob4BVM]

AntiTheist–
Have you any reply to this ?
Are we communicating ?

Quiet.
Dead Quiet.

There IS alot more to this mystery we call life, my friend, than we ever be able to understand or rationalize here.
But when it is over, we each know not when, it will either be glorious, or quiet,
Dead Quiet.

Your call…

Think about it. None of has forever to make that call.

 

[AlbertBall]

The best evidence of all is the type of personal experience which you seem to assume does not exist.

Try spending some time with people who seem to have a ‘unreasonably firm’ trust in God.
Some of them will have experiences you will not be able to explain away

Personal testimonies are absolutely meaningless. They are no more proof of your god than they are proof of UFO’s, or ZEUS etc. I guess you must believe everything that people claim?

It might be the “best” evidence for your god, however personal testimonies are in fact THE WORST evidence available to us.

Take a murder case. The accused is in court. The following evidence is presented. The accused DNA is at the scene, the accused is seen on camera very close to the scene very near to the time of the murder, the accused made a phone call on his mobile phone at the time of the murder which was traced to the scene. The murder weapon was found in the accused house, with the accused finger prints on it.

The accused counters with a personal testimony claiming he was not at the scene, but was in fact out of town. Now tell me, what is the “best” evidence?

Actually i agree with you, the best evidence for you god is personal testimonies, that is why i don’t accept the claim it exists.

 

[itinerant1]

Personal testimonies are absolutely meaningless. They are no more proof of your god than they are proof of UFO’s, or ZEUS etc. I guess you must believe everything that people claim?

It might be the “best” evidence for your god, however personal testimonies are in fact THE WORST evidence available to us.

Take a murder case. The accused is in court. The following evidence is presented. The accused DNA is at the scene, the accused is seen on camera very close to the scene very near to the time of the murder, the accused made a phone call on his mobile phone at the time of the murder which was traced to the scene. The murder weapon was found in the accused house, with the accused finger prints on it.

The accused counters with a personal testimony claiming he was not at the scene, but was in fact out of town. Now tell me, what is the “best” evidence?

Actually i agree with you, the best evidence for you god is personal testimonies, that is why i don’t accept the claim it exists.

Personal testimonies are not meaningless, rather they represent personal experience, and when genuine, constitute subjective evidence for God’s existence. You cannot disprove the validity of this subjective experience.

You are looking for objective evidence, tangible evidence that can be scientifically confirmed by others. Well, the existence of God can neither be confirmed nor denied by science. Hence, your disbelief in the existence of God is not based on scientific evidence, so it must be an act of faith on your part, perhaps an act of faith in the becoming of the almighty cosmos or some such thing. Modern atheism is a faith based religion of sorts, but one lacking any subjective evidence such as the believer possesses.

What say you about philosophical proofs for the existence of God?

Also, is it true that an atheist must have a rather clear idea of the kind of God that he believes does not exist?

 

[AlbertBall]

Personal testimonies are not meaningless, rather they represent personal experience, and when genuine, constitute subjective evidence for God’s existence. You cannot disprove the validity of this subjective experience.

You are looking for objective evidence, tangible evidence that can be scientifically confirmed by others. Well, the existence of God can neither be confirmed nor denied by science. Hence, your disbelief in the existence of God is not based on scientific evidence, so it must be an act of faith on your part, perhaps an act of faith in the becoming of the almighty cosmos or some such thing. Modern atheism is a faith based religion of sorts, but one lacking any subjective evidence such as the believer possesses.

What say you about philosophical proofs for the existence of God?

Also, is it true that an atheist must have a rather clear idea of the kind of God that he believes does not exist?

I do not agree that science cannot test for certain gods. For example there are claims made about the christian god that science can most defiantly test. Christians claim that god interferes through prayer. Various studies have examined this claim, and every one of them has provided evidence that contradicts the claim.

The problem is even if the testimonies are genuine (as in something happened, they are not just made up), because we have no way to re-examine them we have no way to examine the source of the claim. This makes them meaningless. To add to this, what we do know for a fact is…

Some people lie
Some people are delusional
The brain is easily fooled
People often see what they want to see

 

[itinerant1]

I do not agree that science cannot test for certain gods. For example there are claims made about the christian god that science can most defiantly test. Christians claim that god interferes through prayer. Various studies have examined this claim, and every one of them has provided evidence that contradicts the claim.

Well, we do know there is no truth to your statement. Medical experts and scientists have frequently acknowleded that certain physical healings cannot be explained by science, medical or otherwise. Fatima has produced about 80 thoroughly studied cases that fall into this category.

The list of these kinds of things studied by third party scientists not affiliated with the Church is a rather revealing list.

What about those Incorruptibles, for which science has no explanation? And what about the image on the tilma in Guadalupe that scientists in every generation conclude that it is not humanly created?

Science has always provided good backup confirmation for the miraculous.

The problem is even if the testimonies are genuine (as in something happened, they are not just made up), because we have no way to re-examine them we have no way to examine the source of the claim. This makes them meaningless.

One problem with your positivistic approach to what is meaningful, is that the criteria cannnot be verified or justified under its own terms.

To add to this, what we do know for a fact is…

Some people lie
Some people are delusional
The brain is easily fooled
People often see what they want to see

You left out one item: Many of us know that people have genuine experiences that remain beyond the scope and competence of science to judge. In fact, they are more real than what is purely physical in nature.

 

[AlbertBall]

Well, we do know there is no truth to your statement. Medical experts and scientists have frequently acknowleded that certain physical healings cannot be explained by science, medical or otherwise. Fatima has produced about 80 thoroughly studied cases that fall into this category.

The list of these kinds of things studied by third party scientists not affiliated with the Church is a rather revealing list.

What about those Incorruptibles, for which science has no explanation? And what about the image on the tilma in Guadalupe that scientists in every generation conclude that it is not humanly created?

Science has always provided good backup confirmation for the miraculous.

You didnt even read what i posted did you? When controlled studied have been carried out everyone one of them have shown pray to be meaningless. The 80 at fatima over the years is no better then one would expect anywhere. Sometimes people get better, that has nothing to do with controlled studies.

There are No Theists in Hospital Waiting Rooms youtube.com/watch?v=FsMfn88ZA8k

One problem with your positivistic approach to what is meaningful, is that the criteria cannnot be verified or justified under its own terms.

You left out one item: Many of us know that people have genuine experiences that remain beyond the scope and competence of science to judge. In fact, they are more real than what is purely physical in nature.

Like i said…

Some people lie
Some people are delusional
The brain is easily fooled
People often see what they want to see

 

[itinerant1]

You didnt even read what i posted did you? When controlled studied have been carried out everyone one of them have shown pray to be meaningless. The 80 at fatima over the years is no better then one would expect anywhere. Sometimes people get better, that has nothing to do with controlled studies.

Your reply is non-informative. First you are trying to discount something which you have not studied. That is not a very open-minded, objective and scientific attitude. Second, I was referring to instantaneous healings, which are otherwise unknown in the medical field, and for which there is no known natural or scientific explanation. In sum, your reply was completely irrelevant to the issue.

Furthermore, you conveniently failed to address the Incorruptibles and the tilma image.

Like i said…

Some people lie
Some people are delusional
The brain is easily fooled
People often see what they want to see

I will take that as a personal insult.

 

[itinerant1]

I cannot respond to your “controlled study” reference because I have not seen the studies. Also, I know personally of situations that are counter-examples to your claim. They invovle controlled situations, with medical staff involved, and physical evidence such as X-rays and other lab results.

 

[AlbertBall]

I cannot respond to your “controlled study” reference because I have not seen the studies. Also, I know personally of situations that are counter-examples to your claim. They invovle controlled situations, with medical staff involved, and physical evidence such as X-rays and other lab results.

If you want to site cases of unexplained healing as proof of good, what do you call it when the same happens to an atheist, or when a perfectly health person drops dead?

 

[itinerant1]

If you want to site cases of unexplained healing as proof of good, what do you call it when the same happens to an atheist, or when a perfectly health person drops dead?

Provide some credible references about your atheists so we a common source of information from which to consider and discuss.

And what’s with the "perfectly healthy person drops dead scenario? As far as we know there must be some natural cause for death. I don’t see how this could be a situation that is relevant to the discussion.

 

[AlbertBall]

Provide some credible references about your atheists so we a common source of information from which to consider and discuss.

And what’s with the "perfectly healthy person drops dead scenario? As far as we know there must be some natural cause for death. I don’t see how this could be a situation that is relevant to the discussion.

Well if you want to claim a sick person getting better is proof of god, then i want to know what a healthy person dropping dead it proof of. You are quite right “as far as we know there must be some natural cause for death”. Just like as far As far as we know there must be some natural cause for getting better.

What about Lance Armstrong (atheist) when the doctors removed his brain tumors they could not understand why they were in fact, for want of a better word, “dead”. Not understanding why something happens does NOT mean god did, you are in effect presenting a medical god of the gaps argument, though i notice you are fine “with a natural cause for death” when its not a “nice” gap.

 

[itinerant1]

Well if you want to claim a sick person getting better is proof of god, then i want to know what a healthy person dropping dead it proof of. You are quite right “as far as we know there must be some natural cause for death”. Just like as far As far as we know there must be some natural cause for getting better.

What about Lance Armstrong (atheist) when the doctors removed his brain tumors they could not understand why they were in fact, for want of a better word, “dead”. Not understanding why something happens does NOT mean god did, you are in effect presenting a medical god of the gaps argument, though i notice you are fine “with a natural cause for death” when its not a “nice” gap.

You are attempting to compare apples and oranges and say they are the same.

The extra-ordinary instantaneous healings of serious diseases, severe deformities, and so on, defy natural explanation. The everyday occurences of death do not defy natural explanations.

 

[AlbertBall]

You are attempting to compare apples and oranges and say they are the same.

The extra-ordinary instantaneous healings of serious diseases, severe deformities, and so on, defy natural explanation. The everyday occurences of death do not defy natural explanations.

So what happened to Lance? No i did not say everyday death, i said perfectly health people that for no explainable reason drop dead. Like you said all you are presenting is a god of the gaps. We do not understand X therefore god must have don’t it.

 

[itinerant1]

So what happened to Lance? No i did not say everyday death, i said perfectly health people that for no explainable reason drop dead. Like you said all you are presenting is a god of the gaps. We do not understand X therefore god must have don’t it.

The “god of the gaps” accusation is a very weak, and irrelevant response. There may be gaps in your understanding, but sometimes “God” is the only explanation, especially when scientists continually rule out natural explanations.

The above situation differs from those types where scientists believe there is a natural explanation but that they just haven’t discovered it yet. To posit Divine intervention in such cases as an explanation would be a true “god of the gaps” argument.

Hence, you have illigetimately applied a “god of the gaps” characterization, and failed to distinguish the real difference between apples and oranges.

BTW, Lance Armstrong mentions nothing extraordinary about his chest and brain tumors. tcrc.acor.org/lance.html

 

[Fran65]

Albert,

The ‘perfectly healthy’ people who drop dead are not in fact ‘perfectly healthy’. According to clinicans they all have a type of condition known as ‘Sudden Cardiac Death’. I have this condition myself. Briefly, particular experiences such as playing sport, being startled, getting upset, exerting oneself more than normal can cause the cardiac muscle to develop ventricular tachycardia which then rapidly becomes ventricular fibrillation. This is what is known as cardiac arrest and is irreversible without CPR and ideally, defibrillation. I have had a defibrillator implanted (an ICD), take medication and follow my cardiologist’s instructions regarding my lifestyle and activity. Its stressful and frightening, but at least I will survive or prevent a cardiac arrest.

The difficulty is that this type of cardiac arrythmia leaves no post mortem markers. The muscle malfunctions, the heart stops, the person dies and then everything is found to be normal. SCD is an exclusion diagnosis post mortem - if it wasn’t anything else then it was SCD and first degree members need to be investigated asap.

It can be inherited - as mine is (CPVT), it can occur as a result of gene mutation either pre or post fertilisation. It can occur without any identified gene involvement at all. The genes affect the way that ion channels in the cardiac muscle work. My CPVT has recently been shown to involve a ‘leaky’ calcium ion gate.

Many people have no warning - the lucky few - like me - develop fainting and a weird heart rhythm on exertion or during stress; are picked up during a routine ECG; or are investigated following a sudden death in a young family member.

Anyway, the world of SDS is a fascinating, if scary one and more people need to know about it. It can be managed if diagnosed. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to do some awareness raising about this issue.

 

[AlbertBall]

The “god of the gaps” accusation is a very weak, and irrelevant response. There may be gaps in your understanding, but sometimes “God” is the only explanation, especially when scientists continually rule out natural explanations.

The above situation differs from those types where scientists believe there is a natural explanation but that they just haven’t discovered it yet. To posit Divine intervention in such cases as an explanation would be a true “god of the gaps” argument.

Hence, you have illigetimately applied a “god of the gaps” characterization, and failed to distinguish the real difference between apples and oranges.

BTW, Lance Armstrong mentions nothing extraordinary about his chest and brain tumors. tcrc.acor.org/lance.html

By the way i have read both his books, and yes he does.

When doctors say something is unexplained that is exactly what it is, unexplained. Please tell me how you get from “we are not sure why you got better to”… god did it!!!

Oh and ruling out A natural explanation does not mean you are ruling out ALL natural explanation.

Ok enough of the unfounded assertions, please point me to the cases where scientists have ruled out any possible natural explanation for someone recovering from an illness.

Oh and what you are providing IS god of the gaps, your whole argument boils down to the doctors do know why something happen, so god must have done it. THAT IS god of the gaps. Like i said i would like to see specific cases now please.

 

[itinerant1]

I’m taking leave of this thread, until I hear otherwise, as it seems to come under the temporary ban on discussing atheism.

 

[AlbertBall]

Albert,

The ‘perfectly healthy’ people who drop dead are not in fact ‘perfectly healthy’. According to clinicans they all have a type of condition known as ‘Sudden Cardiac Death’. I have this condition myself. Briefly, particular experiences such as playing sport, being startled, getting upset, exerting oneself more than normal can cause the cardiac muscle to develop ventricular tachycardia which then rapidly becomes ventricular fibrillation. This is what is known as cardiac arrest and is irreversible without CPR and ideally, defibrillation. I have had a defibrillator implanted (an ICD), take medication and follow my cardiologist’s instructions regarding my lifestyle and activity. Its stressful and frightening, but at least I will survive or prevent a cardiac arrest.

The difficulty is that this type of cardiac arrythmia leaves no post mortem markers. the muscle malfunctions, the heart stops, the person dies and then everything is found to be normal. SCD is an exclusion diagnosis post mortem - if it wasn’t anything else then it was SCD and first degree members need to be investigated asap.

It can be inherited - as mine is (CPVT), it can occur as a result of gene mutation either pre or post fertilisation. It can occur without any identified gene involvement at all.

Many people have no warning - the lucky few - like me - develop fainting and a weird heart rhythm on exertion or during stress; are picked up during a routine ECG; or are investigated following a sudden death in a young family member.

Anyway, the world of SDS is a fascinating, if scary one and more be people need to know about it. It can be managed if diagnosed. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to do some awareness raising about this issue.

Fair enough, however that still does not change the fact that not knowing why someone gets better does not mean that god did it.

 

[Latoque]

I’m taking leave of this thread, until I hear otherwise, as it seems to come under the temporary ban on discussing atheism.

Just curious-----what ban on discussing atheism?

 

[itinerant1]

Just curious-----what ban on discussing atheism?

Read the Sticky on this page: forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=118