Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?

[Peter_Plato]

Its written all over their website. For example they advocate for a literal interpretation of the flood thusly:
biblearchaeology.org/post/2013/01/23/Insights-from-the-Animal-Kingdom-on-the-Scope-of-Noahe28099s-Flood.aspx

That is not intellectually honest. If the organization cared at all about scientific credibility, they would nowhere defend the concept of a global flood based on “the bible says so” as evidence.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

The misunderstanding, I think, is yours.

The article is a “theological” one arguing that the Genesis account is inconsistent with a local flood. It was written by a Mdiv student who never claimed to be making an argument “from science” but rather that - assuming inerrancy of Scripture - a global flood was implied from the Genesis narrative…

That point does have archeological implications in the sense that such a conclusion from Scripture would need to be reconciled with the scientific evidence - which, I suspect, is the reason the article was included in the body of work of an archeological web site. However, it could be, likewise, argued that a global flood is NOT implied by Scripture and, therefore, scientific evidence need not support a global flood scenario in order for Scripture to find archeological corroboration.

I suspect that he was attempting to make a case that science needs to show evidence for a global flood in order to corroborate Scripture.

His conclusion:

In conclusion, it is a** theological impossibility** for the Flood to have been local. Only a truly universal Flood allows us to make sense of the fact that God extended the promises of the Rainbow Covenent not just to mankind, but to all air-breathing animal life as well.

Notice, he does NOT claim “based on science,” but “based on Scripture,” it is a “theological impossibility” that the flood was local. That does have repercussions for science, but he certainly isn’t - at least in the article - making a case FROM science, or even claiming to.

Such a position does “lay it on the line” because definitive proof that a global flood did not or could not occur jeopardizes his entire perspective - that is where science enters. It could just as easily be claimed that Scripture does not entail a global flood scenario and, therefore, the scientific evidence need not prove a global flood to be reconciled with Scripture.

I am suggesting that the intent of his article was to “get at” what is required of science for it to - in this case - be “on the side” of Scripture. He may be wrong about that, but he not wrong “scientifically speaking,” he would be wrong “theologically."

 

[Aloysium]

What are the realities of science?
It is an operating manual for the manipulation of matter. That is all it is.
It does not tell you anything about purpose, or meaning, nothing about how it is to be used or how it can be misused; it tells you nothing in fact, about the essential reality of what is matter - simply how it behaves and interacts.

What do scientists do?
Those male scientists who want to be happy, live to make their wives happy.
This means:

• providing security for the family: a house, money for such things as food, recreation, the kids’ education.
• Status is important if only to get last minute reservations at popular restaurants.
• It is important for your wife not to know about your girl friend, or at least not rub her nose in it.
  What real life boils down to are issues involving love, commitment, truth and morality; and attached to this, the ever-present reality of suffering.
  Whatever theoretical or applied discoveries are made, they rest on persons living in the real world of social, political, economic and spiritual reality.

What scripture does is speak to these realities, from the perspective of ultimate Truth.
The Truth ultimately lies in the relationship that exists within the Trinity.
The Word in loving obedience to the Father, brought creation into existence.
He has enabled a dialogue to proceed between man and our Creator.
This dialogue is historical and revealed in scripture.
In Jesus, at the Centre of time, the Word enters into creation as man and God, to save and redeem all mankind - to bring us to God.

Scripture reveals the reality of man’s relationship to God and to one another.
An operating manual that helps us manipulate matter is as useless as it is meaningless in describing what has true value in life.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As I said, you can evangelize science to people, you can’t go out and “make some science” for the express purpose of using in your evangelism.

Oh, I don’t know. Darwinian evolution, historically, appears to have been just that - conjuring up a certain “denomination” of science: atheistic materialism. “Random mutation” is one interesting “myth,” a placeholder for "science of the gaps,” a facade behind which lurks a horde of evangelical atheists.

Otherwise, there wouldn’t be such glee when anti-Biblical “discoveries" are made. Nor, I might add, when theists appear to come up short proving some point or other.

 

[Aloysium]

Sure, they may try to dress it up for other audiences. Unfortunately, the only reason someone would propose a recent global flood is biblical say-so. There is no way:

1. the relevant beliefs were arrived at prior to evaluation.
2. the writer wasn’t angling for a conclusion and instead following the evidence as it became apparent.
3. the author was not knowingly ignoring, distorting, or outright lying about facts.

:twocents:

This is all beside the point unless one is trying to discredit scripture, whose essential meaning transcends the events described;
events that took place regardless of how they may be misunderstood by those who are looking for what is on the surface - mere fantasies ultimately, rather than the Truth revealing Himself to us.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sure, they may try to dress it up for other audiences. Unfortunately, the only reason someone would propose a recent global flood is biblical say-so.

This begs the question of why records of a global flood are persistent in many ancient cultures. No one is “proposing” a recent global flood, but rather trying to ascertain why records of it do exist.

Ancient people, supposedly, wouldn’t just concoct such a notion thinking ahead to what a knee-slapping good prank they would be playing on the gullible intellectual dweebs that would come across the accounts 3-4000 years hence.

 

[Tomdstone]

This begs the question of why records of a global flood are persistent in many ancient cultures. No one is “proposing” a recent global flood, but rather trying to ascertain why records of it do exist.

Ancient people, supposedly, wouldn’t just concoct such a notion thinking ahead to what a knee-slapping good prank they would be playing on the gullible intellectual dweebs that would come across the accounts 3-4000 years hence.

You have been using the word global. Are you sure that the reported flood was in fact global and covered the whole earth, and not a local issue.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The article is a “theological” one arguing that the Genesis account is inconsistent with a local flood. It was written by a Mdiv student who never claimed to be making an argument “from science” but rather that - assuming inerrancy of Scripture - a global flood was implied from the Genesis narrative.
I am suggesting that the intent of his article was to “get at” what is required of science for it to - in this case - be “on the side” of Scripture. He may be wrong about that, but he not wrong “scientifically speaking,” he would be wrong “theologically."

He was pooh-poohing people for “placing Science over Scripture.” As I said, the problems are written all over the website. Here is another example:
biblearchaeology.org/post/2005/12/11/A-Universal-Flood-3000-BC.aspx

Two problems about which there are great differences are: the date of the Flood, and whether it was local or universal. Critics of the flood narrative consider it either a myth, or a local flood story. There are apparent conflicts between the Bible and some areas of science relative to the date of the Great Flood. Both biblical and extrabiblical literature, being eyewitness accounts, should control the dating, with secondary importance given to scientific opinions, and sophisticated radiometric dating techniques.

Basically, science says it didn’t happen, but that doesn’t matter, lets keep focusing on when it happened

Here is another:
biblearchaeology.org/post/2005/12/04/There-Be-Giants-in-the-Earth.aspx

it is obvious that the Israelites were dealing with giants. If our understanding is correct that a cubit was approximately 18 inches, then Goliath, at “six cubits and a span,” was somewhat over 9 feet tall. Og, the King of Bashan whose bed is described in Deut. 3:11 as being about 14 feet long by 6 feet wide, was thought to be 10 to 12 feet tall.

The evidence for these giants include some bigfoot-quality findings (from North America) and

…a copy of an e-mail about a living missionary who, prior to becoming a Christian, was an anthropologist. It includes the following fascinating information, which I have not yet been able to verify firsthand, but has the ring of truth about it.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

:twocents:

This is all beside the point unless one is trying to discredit scripture, whose essential meaning transcends the events described;
events that took place regardless of how they may be misunderstood by those who are looking for what is on the surface - mere fantasies ultimately, rather than the Truth revealing Himself to us.

You’re quite right that Catholics are not required to believe in the historicity of the Old Testament. I’m not trying to discredit scripture-as-a-holy-book, I’m showing that scripture (at least the old testament) is not a history book.

My original point, before we got sidetracked, was that the Old Testament events do not constitute evidence for God’s existence because they didn’t actually happen. To soften this somewhat and perhaps avoid the long boring debate with people who simply deny the evidence, I will just say that there is no compelling evidence that the Old Testament events are accurate, and that lack of evidence for accuracy means there is a consequent lack of evidence for God as far as the Old Testament is concerned.

 

[Jerbear]

Yet there is no proof whatever that God does not exist, while there are some indications that the universe was designed and created in time.

Seems like a random comment back to my post but okay. I don’t understand how you could possibly have proof that something doesn’t exist, can you please possibly provide an example of something that could be taken as proof that something didn’t exist? I also stated that I understand why people believe in God, just that I didn’t personally.

 

[Peter_Plato]

He was pooh-poohing people for "placing Science over Scripture.”

“Pooh-poohing” is such a strong word

As I said, the problems are written all over the website. Here is another example:

Two problems about which there are great differences are: the date of the Flood, and whether it was local or universal. Critics of the flood narrative consider it either a myth, or a local flood story. There are apparent conflicts between the Bible and some areas of science relative to the date of the Great Flood. Both biblical and extrabiblical literature, being eyewitness accounts, should control the dating, with secondary importance given to scientific opinions,

“Scientific opinions” should have secondary importance, although provable facts are another story.

Science doesn’t say “it didn’t happen.” There are lots of issues, admittedly, but there are also many aspects to the scenario that remain unexplored.

reasons.org/articles/lost-civilization-beneath-the-persian-gulf-confirms-genesis-history-of-humanity

Obviously, Jeffrey Rose is not much of a scientist.
birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2012/05/16-May-Jeffrey-Rose-News-Release.aspx

Neither, I suppose is Hugh Ross.

Here is another:

it is obvious that the Israelites were dealing with giants. If our understanding is correct that a cubit was approximately 18 inches, then Goliath, at “six cubits and a span,” was somewhat over 9 feet tall.

And Wikipedia, which offers "irrefutable evidence” …

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wadlow

Only inches smaller than Goliath, apparently. Not possible?

 

[Peter_Plato]

You’re quite right that Catholics are not required to believe in the historicity of the Old Testament. I’m not trying to discredit scripture-as-a-holy-book, I’m showing that scripture (at least the old testament) is not a history book.

Here, precisely, is the problem. Scripture is not “a book,” it is a collection of books in a variety of different genres. More like a small library, than a book. The questions, then, are manifold: Which are intended to be narratives? Which are allegories? Which are poetic? etc. etc.

Even “books” in the collection which are ostensibly meant to be historical narratives may not have been intended to be PRIMARILY historical narratives. It is in grappling with the intention of the authors and the raison d’être for each book that we come to understand its importance in salvation history.

My original point, before we got sidetracked, was that the Old Testament events do not constitute evidence for God’s existence because they didn’t actually happen.

A strong claim - one that is hardly undisputed. Do you mean “all the events” (David ruling Israel, Solomon building the Temple, the prophets forming prophetic words, etc.) or merely the ones that couldn’t possibly have been accomplished even if God were omnipotent? So an omnipotent God can’t exist BECAUSE an omnipotent God couldn’t possibly work a few unexpected events in the natural world? No presumption, there

Which came first, the disbelief in God or lack of belief in what God is capable of?

To soften this somewhat and perhaps avoid the long boring debate with people who simply deny the evidence, I will just say that there is **no compelling evidence **that the Old Testament events are accurate, and that lack of evidence for accuracy means there is a consequent lack of evidence for God as far as the Old Testament is concerned.

And you have offered “no compelling evidence” that you have the expertise to make such a claim nor have you provided the necessary logical case to warrant agreement with your conclusion.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t understand how you could possibly have proof that something doesn’t exist, can you please possibly provide an example of something that could be taken as proof that something didn’t exist?

Exactly. You can’t have proof that something did not exist. That is what makes atheism so empty of logic.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You have been using the word global. Are you sure that the reported flood was in fact global and covered the whole earth, and not a local issue.

You are correct. The word “global” should have been placed in scare quotes meaning accounts of a wide spread, though possibly not global, flood.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Here, precisely, is the problem. Scripture is not “a book,” it is a collection of books in a variety of different genres. More like a small library, than a book. The questions, then, are manifold: Which are intended to be narratives? Which are allegories? Which are poetic? etc. etc.

Even “books” in the collection which are ostensibly meant to be historical narratives may not have been intended to be PRIMARILY historical narratives. It is in grappling with the intention of the authors and the raison d’être for each book that we come to understand its importance in salvation history.

I guess you’re free to split hairs, but you’re mostly just wasting time here. It’s not wrong to refer to a compilation of written works as a book.

A strong claim - one that is hardly undisputed. Do you mean “all the events” (David ruling Israel, Solomon building the Temple, the prophets forming prophetic words, etc.) or merely the ones that couldn’t possibly have been accomplished even if God were omnipotent? So an omnipotent God can’t exist BECAUSE an omnipotent God couldn’t possibly work a few unexpected events in the natural world? No presumption, there

Which came first, the disbelief in God or lack of belief in what God is capable of?

This feels like you’re grasping at straws. Even if the scholarly consensus was that the biblical account was accurate with regards to the big picture, that would constitute only the flimsiest of evidence for the alleged miracles.

And you have offered “no compelling evidence” that you have the expertise to make such a claim nor have you provided the necessary logical case to warrant agreement with your conclusion.

I don’t need to, the scholarly consensus is that the story isn’t accurate. You are, of course, free to deny this fact just like creationists are free to deny the evidence for evolution and young earthers are free to deny the evidence against a global flood.

“The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible,” and “a century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness.”

 

[ccmnxc]

I guess you’re free to split hairs, but you’re mostly just wasting time here. It’s not wrong to refer to a compilation of written works as a book.

Unless there is a subtle equivocation going on.

This feels like you’re grasping at straws. Even if the scholarly consensus was that the biblical account was accurate with regards to the big picture, that would constitute only the flimsiest of evidence for the alleged miracles.

Where was Peter Plato saying that a consensus = miracle confirmation? It seems he’s more been trying to communicate that your denial isn’t all that well grounded (one can be agnostic about the miracles, after all).

I don’t need to, the scholarly consensus is that the story isn’t accurate. You are, of course, free to deny this fact just like creationists are free to deny the evidence for evolution and young earthers are free to deny the evidence against a global flood.

“The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible,” and “a century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness.”

You are using an argument from authority, which is fine when everything is equal, but it hardly qualifies as a stand-alone argument. Peter Plato presented you with counters, and you hand-waved them away as dishonest without interacting with their points. There is no denial that there is not a strong presence of Biblical scholars saying that there was a Biblical-style exodus. What we are saying is that your consensus doesn’t amount to a whole lot since that is what you are depending one, and you are refusing to interact with claims that oppose the consensus.

And I still don’t think you answered my earlier question about whether or not you think there is fair representation. If there is, then I’d like to see what you have, since I’m not seeing much. If there isn’t, then how much does a consensus really mean?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I don’t need to, the scholarly consensus is that the story isn’t accurate. You are, of course, free to deny this fact just like creationists are free to deny the evidence for evolution and young earthers are free to deny the evidence against a global flood.

“The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible,” and “a century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness.”

I would suggest that the story is entirely accurate in what it is conveying. It is unfortunate, but I cannot say I am surprised that people cannot hear the truth.

What is that Truth, as I understand it and in terms that perhaps you might also:

Exodus is one revelation of God’s presence as the Word within history. Something happened, the truth of which your “scholars”, who see only appearance, are incapable of discerning. Searching the surface of the ocean, what is within the depths lies unseen. The story begins suggesting the future coming of the Lord, with the death of innocents by evil forces hoping to thwart the will of God. This attempt actually makes possible the unfolding of the story - a Jewish infant is put into the very position that will allow for the liberation of God’s people from their subjugation by evil. The power of God is demonstrated as no mere illusion or trickery. The message is clear that every knee will bend either in obedience to His will (which is directed to love and freedom from sin) or through His justice. In the very real release of His people from slavery, however this was manifested in the individual life of each person involved, and through the revelation of God’s commandments to Moses, mankind was freed from the bondage to sin. It ends after the washing away of sin in the Red Sea, with a purging process through the desert to finally arrive in the promised land, in harmony with God and His will. This is no mere myth expressing an ontological truth. It was a transformational event that took place in time.

As to the flood, (I would put it at one million years ago, but that is a guess and it only makes my cosmology internally consistant): at that time, sin had almost completely overtaken mankind. In eternity, God determined that we would be saved. A “reboot” to a higher order was needed for man to approach God. What was good in man was flesh and blood, in the family of Noah. Together, they comprised God’s church as He calls out to us, preparing the way for the eventual revelation of the incarnation of the Word in time. The flood is a real-life baptism, as would occur later in Exodus, cleansing us of sin. The flood was a “global” event in the broadest sense of the word - affecting all mankind and our relationship with the entirety of creation and God Himself. In the story of Noah, it is revealed how God embraces man-in-the-world, creating a new Eden, within the ark - a new relationship between man and God is forged. Together in righteousness we go forward doing His will, which is to be later set in stone.

These were very real events that physically took place as did Christ’s death and resurrection and as Jesus is present in the eucharist today. These are no myths, but transcendent realities in which we see the Word emerging into time to create a dialogue with us and to bring us to God, as is the Son. The voice of God is loud and clear and I am left to wonder how people can lose themselves in minutiae.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

“The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible,” and “a century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness.”

I’d strongly urge you to consider whether this consensus is among Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish scholars. I doubt that very much. If it is the consensus among non-religious scholars, I wonder why they would be called in as reliable witnesses for the prosecution.

It may well be that the consensus of certain archeologists and Egyptologists might go in that direction. The question to ask is whether Egyptology and archeology are the only and final
standard to judge historical events. Are we to assume from the paucity of archeological evidence of the kind you require that the entire history of the Jews as recorded in the Bible is pure and unadulterated fiction?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I guess you’re free to split hairs, but you’re mostly just wasting time here. It’s not wrong to refer to a compilation of written works as a book.

Well, I would suggest it is wrong when you want to insist that the entire “book” purports to be an historical narrative and on that basis dismiss it as inaccurate or inherently flawed as an historical narrative.

It is an important and, ultimately, fair minded principle to ask which books in the Old Testament were intended to be something like modern historical books and which were not. It is not clear that Genesis was intended to be understood in that way at all. On the other hand, it is not clear that it was meant to be pure myth. There is a whole lot of ground in between those two extremes that opens the question to debate.

Archeology can help us understand, for example, which aspects of Exodus were historical. To get there requires an entirely different mindset from one ready to dismiss the issue merely because the evidence doesn’t meet the “undeniably true” standard set by atheistic materialism. Clearly, if you are committed to atheistic materialism, then you have no sympathy for a website that consciously attempts to reconcile aspects of the Old Testament with archeological evidence to better understand Scripture.

I would suggest that the intent of people like those you have taken to task is to use careful scientific analysis not to prove what they believe to be true but simply to better understand what it is that they do believe. It is quite a different starting point than yours, unfortunately. You insist on beginning at ground zero, they prefer to start with a set of “givens” and move from there.

Personally, I think both ways have merit provided each maintains certain standards for what “reasonable” means and then learn from each other. Ultimately, your dismissive approach may be your shortcoming because you are too ready to cast off a perspective and way of going about business that may provide important clues to the whole story. Clues you have no tendency to follow merely because of your own prejudices about “religion” and “religious beliefs.”

 

[JapaneseKappa]

It may well be that the consensus of certain archeologists and Egyptologists might go in that direction. The question to ask is whether Egyptology and archeology are the only and final
standard to judge historical events. Are we to assume from the paucity of archeological evidence of the kind you require that the entire history of the Jews as recorded in the Bible is pure and unadulterated fiction?

usccb.org/bible/understanding-the-bible/index.cfm

Know what the Bible is – and what it isn’t. The Bible is the story of God’s relationship with the people he has called to himself. It is not intended to be read as history text, a science book, or a political manifesto. In the Bible, God teaches us the truths that we need for the sake of our salvation.

My original point was simply that we can’t use the alleged events in the Exodus as evidence for God because there is evidence they didn’t actually happen.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

usccb.org/bible/understanding-the-bible/index.cfm
My original point was simply that we can’t use the alleged events in the Exodus as evidence for God because there is evidence they didn’t actually happen.

There is no such evidence. And there is evidence they did happen … the Book of Exodus.

If you don’t want to believe these things happened, you can always use lack of physical evidence as proof, but this kind of proof is weak at best in the face of an ancient tradition that they did happen. It may well be that George Washington as a boy did cut down a cherry tree with a hatchet, as he is purported to have said. But you can’t use the inability to track down the tree and the hatchet as evidence that he did no such thing.