Proving God Exists

[CatsAndDogs]

…

SuperGrover, I’d like to also commend you on a beautiful post, and ask you for a favor.

I had not read your post when I wrote mine. I had generally the same “type” of experience that you did in your deep conversion, though all the details, of course, were different.

I did, though, come from a similar “intellectual” bent, but had been raised utterly a-religious. As one who was enamored of science from a very early age, I fell in love with the scientific method as a general rule in solving all problems, both physico-material and “emotional”.

What I noticed, eventually, was that most those who professed to use the scientific method seemed to apply it one way when dealing with “material searches for the truth” and in an apparent backwards way when dealing with “emotional (as I thought of it then) searches for the truth”.

They were observably drawing conclusions before doing their experiments when it came to these “emotional” subjects.

I simply knew that that was wrong, and that the “systematic truths” built into the universe would indeed give me the right answers to my questions if I “asked” correctly, by using the “obviously divine” procedure that the universe had provided for us.

So, when the “God shaped hole” presented itself to be dealt with, as it were, in early adolescence, I naturally did my experiments with every religion available which WASN’T Judeo-Christian, as that group was OBVIOUSLY utterly “unreasonable”.

This proved to be a fortunate misconception. When all the other religions proved to be one variety or another of pointless circularity which generated more questions than answers, and never reinforced their own beliefs with any actual experiential evidence, I gave up hope of FINDING religion (as I knew there was only ONE Godly religion and one of the “human” religions would be closer to it than any other) and decided to “invent” my own, as the Judeo-Christianity group was still “silly” in my book.

But I needed something to “test” with my precious scientific method to get confirmation I was going in the right direction.

“Mere Christianity” gave me something to test. I was getting reinforcements from the hypotheses presented by the these beliefs. Then Chesterton gave me more to test.

Suddenly, I discovered I was Catholic. I didn’t CHOOSE it, I discovered I WAS it.

I always knew that science, aka knowledge, and religion, the actual religion on which the universe is “based” and “operates”, couldn’t possibly be at war with each other. But I didn’t know how that could be, before finding the proof from my faith in those beliefs which generated reasons to give me some reasoning that my hopes were correct, and that there was more to hope FOR than I could ever have “invented” from “natural law” without God’s revelation given to some of my brothers from whom I humbly chose to learn.

If I could ask you to read my first posting in this thread, and comment on it, I’d very much appreciate it.

Best to you.

 

[OTavern]

I had an experience that came out of nowhere… Gently, gradually, over the period of a couple days, what I call a “deep knowing” took hold in me. I just “knew” of the truth of Jesus and the Church. It was an actual intellectual knowing. I could read religious writings and just “know” when they were sound, and when they were not. When something seemed not right, I would look it up and, sure enough, my sense was always correct. I was also instilled with powerful virtue for a time…
I’ve since learned that this is not an uncommon experience. I recognize now that it was the Holy Spirit in me, and that I was given what is called the “gift of faith”, a gift that I did not deserve…
I went from unbeliever to a man whose faith was so strong that had an angel manifested itself in my living room, it would not have increased my faith one iota. Those “experiences” fade eventually, leaving you the hard work of trying to live a good life through prayer, without such extraordinary fortification. That’s where I am now, just working out my own salvation with fear and trembling like everybody else.

I always valued my intelligence and never wanted to be “snookered” and so my intellectual pride kept me from the Truth and built up many sophisticated, false ideas that made me feel rather clever. I regret that, but I can only look to the future.

Super Grover,

Your two posts above were very powerful expressions of an experience that I believe many people have in their lives but have a difficult time expressing it to others unless some kind of commonality can be established.

I went through a similar experience just out of high school, a kind of “awakening” to my own limitations. Seeing my thoughts and motivations in light of the “Eternal” left me in a state of “poverty” of spirit – as you say, working out my salvation in “fear and trembling.” Having the awareness of the awesome nature and power of Truth and of how shallow and cheap my own thinking was in comparison, has opened a gaping “wound” in my being, one which I hope never closes. It is a tear in the veil of darkness through which light beams into my mind and soul.

It is, I believe, the experience that C.S. Lewis calls “of the numinous,” the awareness of the presence of the Eternal. It is a powerful recognition of the depths of Reality. Intellectual pride simply withers in this experience because it is abundantly clear that this “state” could not have been contrived or manufactured in my limited little brain.

 

[Valentin]

I also was deeply impressed by Super Grover’s explanation, because I had the same experience, but my mother tongue is not English and can’t express myself in such deep words.
what was different with me - i was 29, 1989, in deep comunist society, Christianity was forbiden especially for communist members like me. no any Christian education, no human being talked to me about Jesus, no books, i’ve heard such thing like Bible exists. i liked the materialism, try to get as much as possible from the life, because the end sooner or later comes.
than the Words came to me… do not remember how that happened. it was not very sudden, but took several months.
now i am running a business, very practical and material occupation. GOD comes more and more in me. i do not believe material things and science are against the Faith ! just the opposite, the Faith and the Truth give me the reason and right way to manage and to understand and to use those !

God is my sheperd…

 

[OTavern]

You have absolutely zero evidence for God. Zero.

Let us be clear here. There is a huge difference between “evidence for” and the kind of absolute unquestionably irrefutable proof that you demand before believing in God.

I would also point out that there is a contradiction in demanding that kind of proof before belief when I would be willing to bet that you do not demand that level of proof before belief/action in any aspects of your life – most people act on less than that level of proof before functioning day to day. As a matter of fact, humans could not function if they demanded that level of proof of outcome.

Some examples:

1. Prove with unquestionable certainty that your spouse, significant other, child, parent, etc. “loves” you. If you waited for this kind of absolute proof would you ever return love? It simply does not bear that kind of burden. Imagine if your future spouse demanded that kind of evidence of your love before marriage? How would you go about establishing beyond all doubt that you in fact “love” them?
2. A farmer planting a crop. Imagine if a farmer demanded with no possibility of error that his/her land would in fact return a specific level of productivity before planting; at every turn there is risk and uncertainty - that is the nature of the endeavor. It is also the nature of life - courage, risk, growth, perseverance all have a place in human reality.
3. Every important action you undertake is initiated with some level of doubt as to outcome. You rarely, if ever, do anything with absolute certainty of outcome, and I doubt if you demand that level of certainty before acting because if you did you would live in a curled up, fetal style, state of inanimated stupor.

You don’t have the tiniest little slice of an atom of evidence.

In France, this may be called a “malentendu.” You are confusing the word “evidence” for “absolute proof.” Evidence is an indicator of the truth of some conclusion – a reason for believing something to be true. There is also a difference between having “some” evidence and having necessary and sufficient evidence to establish a conclusion.

To say there is no evidence for the existence of God is in British lingo, “poppycock.” Of course there are many reasons for belief. The extended existence of the Church on Earth, the witness of many individuals in history of the actions of God in their lives, the apparent motivations of martyrs to be willing to die for their beliefs, the ordered and seemingly designed workings of nature and the cosmos as a whole. These all lead to the possible conclusion of a “Creator” behind it all. Are these absolute proofs in the sense of necessary and sufficient to establish the existence of God? No. But the same holds true for 99% of our beliefs. We act on what is reasonable, not what is absolutely certain.

Upon serious self-reflection, you will find that your daily life attests to the fact that you do not act only on beliefs that have been established to that level of certainty.

If it was known that one god already exists, like we know one planet with life does, then it would make sense that another could also possibly exist - but of course that’s not correct either because you made your god into something beyond any shred of evidence… Before you say it, I question atheism all the time. I would love for an all loving deity to exist, but there simply isn’t any reason to believe that it does.

Now, don’t be hyper- nor hypo- critical – use the same burden of proof to show that the person nearest and dearest to your heart loves you. Before making a commitment to them, in say, marriage or a serious relationship, hold them to the same standard of proving to you that they do in fact love you beyond all shadow of doubt.

In matters of trust – if you wish to be consistent – why not make this a life principle? You should not trust others or enter into relationships with them until they have proven to you beyond all doubt that they will always and in all situations be trustworthy.

 

[OTavern]

The point that atheists, I think, fundamentally miss, is that with God we are “in relationship.” It is not like proving objective truth, it is living in a dynamic reality. It is a growth in trust and faith and is formed in trust and faith from both parties - God and man.

God is not an inactive chunk of matter that we discover and establish by experimental methodology. God is Life, the very core of our being in Reality and reveals Himself to us through relationship and trust. We cannot capture God in a bottle or test tube and analyze Him in that way. It is a much larger and more dynamic experience than sense-based data can even remotely begin to portray or encapsulate.

As Super Grover pointed out - it is a gift. It is nothing we can bring to the table, on the contrary, we must approach humbly in the knowledge of our own limitations. In fact, seeing our limitations is itself part of the gift - the door through which we must enter in order to “see beyond.”

Plato, in the allegory of the cave, spoke of it as “turning away from the shadows on the wall” towards looking at the source of the light at the opening of the cave.

The light in some ways is a kind of gestalt that can only be seen by looking beyond the particulars of sense data or the restrictions of constantly applying our own “interpretation” to what is experienced. We begin to see the Real or Truth as “it” is – or more correctly as Person – because Truth is Living Reality. We live in this Reality of Truth.

 

[joeybaggz]

Well, that’s some pretty good stuff right there. I’ll post that in the “When Christians attack” box. The hypocrisy of this is really, really great. I understand you’re the liberal church, but at what point were Catholics allowed to outright attack people like this?

Instead of completely derailing the thread with this ridiculous, insulting, weak, and utterly disgusting excuse for language, perhaps you could start sharing those arguments.

A planet harboring life exists, therefore planets harboring life can exist. That is reason to believe other planets harboring life can exist. Whether or not they do - I don’t know.

You still don’t get it do you? You last two sentences are a perfect illustration. You deny the validity of the belief of a theist because there is no provable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence of the existence of God,yet in the next breath, you claim there is reason to BELIEVE the other planets harbor life because there is one that does, therefore it is possible. Even though there is no evidence that life, beyond simple lichen or single celled organism, exists at present. It’s that word believe, that is the crux of the problem. We know that men can build statues. We have no idea where the statues on Easter Island came from. We have no proof that men built them. They may been put there by God, the flying spaghetti monster, Merlin the Magician, or they are just a bunch of coincidentally congealed bits of extra terrestrial flatulence. But we can believe that man built them, because man can biuld such things. Though we have NO evidence. they are a mystery ( a word Catholics like)

Man cannot create - make something from nothing. Man can manufacture - make something from existing elements. There is no hard evidence that God exists, there is not hard evidence that the big bang theory is true. You accept your version, I’ll accept mine

The principle of totalitarianism (and I’m trying to stay away from the Hitler reference so as not to appear to spew more “verbal diarrhea”) is that if you tell a lie over and over, people will accept it as fact. The gaps, into which we theists insert God, is filled by the atheist with theories that are accepted as fact simply because the atheists theories have been told over and over. A theory is not a fact, and the gaps in evolutionary theory are just that, gaps. It’s perfectly OK to fill a gap with a theory. It is intellectually dishonest to condemn a divergent viewpoint because that viewpoint does not accept your theory as a fact as you do. Are your theories good, probably, but they are still theories, not facts. When they are facts, I’ll be happy to accept them.

As to the rest of your post. Catholics aren’t allowed to outright attack people?? Where did you get that. Did you get surprised here?? Catholics believe in a Saviour that walked into a temple courtyard, knotted a cord, and beat up and drove out those who profaned the house of God. (you know, the one who doesn’t exist - aw shucks, I couldn’t resist that ) Anyway, Catholics have an example of righteous anger, and my problem is that not enough Catholics are willing to get angry with attacks on us and our beliefs. Then again, in all honesty, we really don’t get that “meek” thing Christ spoke of. I will attack the hypocrisy and arrogance of anyone who ridicules Catholic belief, and I may not be charitable in my effort. Sorry if that offends or surprises you. I will not, however, attack the dignity or the inherent worth of any person. It’s the hate the sin, not the sinner mentality Christians so dearly love. Everyone, you included, although I know you hate the idea, are, as the church says, a precious child of a loving God.

Oh, and did you expect to be able to come on here, talk down to everyone, and not be upbraided by one of us. I can understand your surprise though. I’ve read a lot of Christian posters here, and on other forums, and their timidity and hand wringing in the face of the hubris of atheists makes me want to puke in my soup. Sorry if you got surprised.

And, my “attack” on you was not ad hominem. My remarks were and are directed to your attitude, your condesension, and your dismissivness of theistic belief. Your are a 21 year old child who, on his first day on a Catholic forum, launches into an assault on theistic belief by running the Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, and Dawkins playbook by the numbers. Come on, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Giant teapot, etc. etc., we’ve heard all that before, here and on the Amazon threads that atheists so love to frequent. Honestly, what purpose does an atheist have for coming onto a forum such as this if not to try to convert, subvert, or just plain ridicule theistic belief? As I stated, you’re not the first and won’t be the last.

 

[joeybaggz]

Continuation of last post

That’s not to say you don’t have a place here. Your arguments are welcome and needed. All strength is built through resistance, and exposure to tenets that are in opposition to what we believe, allow us to more firmly understand where we stand. It sharpens our understanding of what we believe and what the opposition says. Your reason and your words are welcome, your arrogance and condesension is not.

As to my last sentence wishing you a long life, I do. That part of my post was meant in a charitable way. I have to feel sorry for an atheist who dies young and doesn’t get to experience enough of the magnificence of this world (I wanted to say God’s glory, but I don’t want to seem to bait you or spew anymore verbal diarrhea). I hope that you get to experience many sunrises and sunsets, cold beers on hot afternoons, ice cream sundaes, spring breezes, tropical islands, good friends, and all the rest. It’s just that I wanted to put into a more graphic form, the difference between the atheist and the theists viewpoint of what happens as the body decays and dies. And what you have to look forward to. Maybe its a picture that is somewhat bothersome ???

One of your posts to me said that you would ignore any of my further words if I was unwilling to reexamine my beliefs (or something like that). No where did you mention reexamining your own. This is a forum, not a soapbox. You might want to remember that.

 

[BlaineTog]

No, Catholicism does not have a coherent answer for the problem of evil.

It has such an answer, even if you are ignorant of it. C.S. Lewis’ book The Problem of Pain provides just such a coherent answer.

So, the explanation says that God created everything, and God is good. But God created everything including immorality. God also made the bad. That doesn’t make sense because God is an all loving deity.

False premise. Actually, several, I think. God made everything good; hence why at the end of each day of creation, God pronounced it “Good” (except for man, who was pronounced “very good”). God gave us free will, however, so that we wouldn’t be mere tape players parroting out how much we supposedly love him. However, since we have free will we are free to choose Evil, which is the absence of Good. God did not create this Evil, and he only allows it because he loves us and respects our free will and wants us to grow up (which will never happen if we aren’t allowed to try things out for ourselves).

Then, of course, there are the “physical evils” of pain and suffering, disease, natural disasters, etc. Calling these things “evil” is more a turn of phrase than anything else, since they have no moral aspect, but they exist as a reflection of the tumult that is in man’s soul now that he sins. They were caused by the Fall, because earthly reality is subject to the choices of man.

This is, however, a very brief and cursory treatment of a very complicated subject, one of the most complicated parts of Christianity. However, “complex” doesn’t mean “wrong,” just “difficult to understand,” even if people so rarely make the distinction. I suggest reading the C.S. Lewis book I mentioned above to get a better idea. It isn’t very long or very hard to read and you can probably find it at your library.

I’m very interested in hearing things that you think are good that don’t benefit your species or your genes.

Stars further than 13.8 billion years away. A planet further out than Pluto, if it exists. Aliens that haven’t visted Earth nor ever will, if they exist. Giving ones life for another (for the one giving his life, his genes are not benefiting). There are probably plenty of others, but just because something benefits you doesn’t mean it can’t be good for other reasons.

 

[OTavern]

A planet harboring life exists, therefore planets harboring life can exist. That is reason to believe other planets harboring life can exist. Whether or not they do - I don’t know.

This is a perfect example of your inconsistent application of doubt and skepticism. Try to apply the above syllogism to your denial of the existence of God.

Thus:
Ordered, purposeful, intelligently structured endeavors exist in human society and technology. These demonstrate in powerful ways the existence of human intelligence and reason. Humans act by intelligent planning. In fact, wherever there is apparent intelligent purpose and design, i.e., events ordered toward a purpose, that is a strong indicator of the existence of intelligent planning and reason.

The universe, the structure of our solar system and the existence of life on Earth demonstrate purposeful, structured order toward the formation and maintenance of life, culminating in intelligent human life. It follows, as you have done in your argument above, that this is a reason to believe there is an intelligent Creator behind the ordered functioning of the cosmos from the Big Bang to now, just as the existence of life on Earth is a reason to believe there might be life elsewhere.

Whether or not there is – just as in your example – the most you can reasonably say is: “I don’t know.” Merely because you have no proof that aliens exist cannot logically lead to denying their existence because you have a reason for belief – the existence of life on Earth means there might be life elsewhere.

Just because you have “no proof” that God does in fact exist cannot logically lead to denying His existence because you also have a reason for belief in “supernatural intelligence” – the existence of an ordered, seemingly purposeful sequence of events leading to intelligent life on Earth. An ordered sequence that could only be manipulated and directed (if it in fact is) by actions upon the subatomic foundations of matter, hence by “super” natural intelligence – in the sense of design being built into the very material essence of the universe.

Does the universe have to be so designed? No, but the most you can claim is that “you don’t know.” There might be another reason, but it could also be true that Intelligence beyond matter could be the ordering principle of the universe.

So please refrain from infringing on your own logic by claiming God categorically does not exist. You are contradicting your own logic just as you would be by jumping to the conclusion that aliens cannot or do not exist.

Have you proven in your syllogism that aliens do not exist? No! Neither have you proven that God does not exist.

Aliens may exist, God may exist. That is the most your logic will allow.

By the way, the above argument also demonstrates that belief in God is categorically different from believing in “the flying spaghetti monster, Merlin the Magician” or any other demonstrably imaginary being. This is why you were taken to task for your juvenile presentation of such a meagre point.

 

[bsdman]

SuperGrover - nice post, really. It’s amazing, too, because I could have written a near exact post. Same time line, same everything (nearly). It was the HS that we opened our eyes to, dispite our poor Catholic upbringing. In a way I feel that gives our revertion strong validation because we have come to know the HS when we were in doubt and question. Yet, we came back with open arms to the very thing we were taught to believe in the first place.

FYI - Ranier is as cordial and open atheist there is on the board that he spends time in - Atheistthinktank.com. Ehud, as we all know, is a brilliant and spirit filled former atheist who posts regularly here, and he sent an invite to the folks over there to discuss this post. Hey -the more, there merrier!!

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I don’t really agree with you here. I accept the need for faith, but I don’t think that has anything to do with science. A huge reason for adherence to the scientific method is its ability to distance beliefs from testing. That’s why double blind, repeatable experiments with control groups and objectively measurable criteria for the success or failure of a hypothesis are necessary.

What does “belief” mean to you?

A hypothesis is a BELIEF that something MIGHT be true in reality. Beliefs are not commitments to something ACTUALLY BEING true, they are only suppositions that something MAY be true.

The reason that people THINK that the scientific method precludes “belief” is because they have been brainwashed into thinking, by those following their scientistic religion, which focuses on the SCIENTIST as opposed to the SCIENCE, that hypotheses are not beliefs, because they define “belief” too narrowly.

Doing double-blind testing of religious beliefs, of religious hypotheses, is simply not possible, due to the relationship between the observer and the “data” gathered, in the usual materialistic scientistic way.

Double-blind testing is done to ensure that the BELIEF of the observer (subject or analyst) does not effect the outcome of the experiment. The POINT of these religious experiments is specifically for the BELIEF being tested to BE observed BY the observer/subject (who are the same person of necessity) by how it DOES effect the outcome of the experiment.

It is an arbitrary scientistic rule that double-blind studies MUST always be used in every area of science, whether they make sense in the those areas or not.

This is a self-fullfilling prophesy, constructed by not true scientists concerned with the science, but by the religiously scientistic, who MUST guarantee that red horses are not horses because only white horses are defined as horses.

Once you devise a hypothesis, the next step is to determine what predictions would and wouldn’t be true if your hypothesis is true, and then to construct tests that can objectively measure those predictions.

In the area of religion, this is how it works:

1. You “devise” a hypothesis, a belief, by being informed by others, or intuiting yourself, of some seemingly repeated “event” that is characterized as “religious experience”.
2. You “predict”, you faithfully (without confirmed personal evidence) believe that the same or a similar “event” will be experienced by you if you “faithfully believe” it.
3. You recieve a “result”, which fully confirms or partially confirms (or doesn’t confirm) that your belief (hypothesis) is true.
4. You then refine your experiments in accord with the previous tests, to more fully investigate the truths that were found.

That is PRECISELY what the scientific method IS with the necessary obvious alterations due to the nature of the relationship between the observer and the subject, who happen to be the same thing.

To the religiously scientistic this violates being scientific, while in reality it only violates being scientistic.

Then you do the best you can to collect data that might support and weaken the hypothesis, and start all over again with new, objectively measurable predictions. You don’t need to have faith in the hypothesis for this to work, you just need good methodology.

You need to HOLD the hypothesis AS a hypothesis for you to USE the scientific method to TEST the hypothesis!

Faith is merely HOLDING to one’s hypothesis, one’s belief, while it is still provisional (unproved) during the experiment.

Because of the self-arrogated “definitional monopoly” of the religious scientistic quasi-“scientist”, the actual scientific method is NEVER applicable to any religious experimentation in their opinion (one of their religious beliefs).

Once again, if one defines a thing as impossible is it much of a surprise that one would come to the conclusion that that thing is definitionally impossible? The problem is that definition of the thing BEING impossible is unscientifically arrived at, though perfectly scientistically justified.

So, the choice is between being scientific or scientistic! Which is the better choice is a matter of MOTIVE. Does one hold truth or ego as the reason to search for understanding/knowledge of the universe?

 

[joeybaggz]

FYI - Ranier is as cordial and open atheist there is on the board that he spends time in - Atheistthinktank.com.

Sure

Ehud, as we all know, is a brilliant and spirit filled former atheist who posts regularly here, and he sent an invite to the folks over there to discuss this post. Hey -the more, there merrier!!

Thank you, didn’t know who he was. Doesn’t change the arrogant tone of the original reference though.

 

[Anticontrame]

What does “belief” mean to you?

A hypothesis is a BELIEF that something MIGHT be true in reality. Beliefs are not commitments to something ACTUALLY BEING true, they are only suppositions that something MAY be true.

The reason that people THINK that the scientific method precludes “belief” is because they have been brainwashed into thinking, by those following their scientistic religion, which focuses on the SCIENTIST as opposed to the SCIENCE, that hypotheses are not beliefs, because they define “belief” too narrowly.

I agree with you if you’re saying that a scientist should be objective and open to the possibility that the hypothesis might be true, but even that’s not really necessary. It should work just as well for the old stick-in-the-muds that only want to protect their pet theories. Science works best when people are coming at ideas from all angles - it helps to eliminate confirmation bias.

It is an arbitrary scientistic rule that double-blind studies MUST always be used in every area of science, whether they make sense in the those areas or not.

Studies and tests don’t HAVE to be double blind, but if they aren’t you need to be even more strict on your methodology lest confirmation bias, observer bias, and the placebo effect creep in.

In the area of religion, this is how it works:

1. You “devise” a hypothesis, a belief, by being informed by others, or intuiting yourself, of some seemingly repeated “event” that is characterized as “religious experience”.
2. You “predict”, you faithfully (without confirmed personal evidence) believe that the same or a similar “event” will be experienced by you if you “faithfully believe” it.
3. You recieve a “result”, which fully confirms or partially confirms (or doesn’t confirm) that your belief (hypothesis) is true.
4. You then refine your experiments in accord with the previous tests, to more fully investigate the truths that were found.

That is PRECISELY what the scientific method IS with the necessary obvious alterations due to the nature of the relationship between the observer and the subject, who happen to be the same thing.

It’s hard to say without a specific example, but I don’t think that would be good science. It sounds like the requirements for a pass would be too subjective to eliminate the complications I mentioned above, and too subjective to objectively quantify or repeat. I’m not sure what test you could devise to disprove the hypothesis either, but again, it’s hard to say without specifics.

You need to HOLD the hypothesis AS a hypothesis for you to USE the scientific method to TEST the hypothesis!

Faith is merely HOLDING to one’s hypothesis, one’s belief, while it is still provisional (unproved) during the experiment.

This doesn’t really work other than as a loose analogy. I try to be objective. I think it’s possible that a god exists, but I don’t think anyone would call what I have faith.

Because of the self-arrogated “definitional monopoly” of the religious scientistic quasi-“scientist”, the actual scientific method is NEVER applicable to any religious experimentation in their opinion (one of their religious beliefs).

I agree with that: that the scientific method isn’t applicable to the existence of gods. Science works by measuring the measurable and describing the physical. The supernatural just isn’t something that we have the ability to test. We can use the scientific method to test claims that involve measurable effects, such as the effects of prayer on the world, but even in cases where answers elude for centuries, we can never really deduce that no natural explanation exists when there’s no list of all natural explanations.

Once again, if one defines a thing as impossible is it much of a surprise that one would come to the conclusion that that thing is definitionally impossible? The problem is that definition of the thing BEING impossible is unscientifically arrived at, though perfectly scientistically justified.

So, the choice is between being scientific or scientistic! Which is the better choice is a matter of MOTIVE. Does one hold truth or ego as the reason to search for understanding/knowledge of the universe?

I don’t think it’s impossible that any gods exist, I just think it’s improbable.

I think there’s an unspoken assumption in our discussion that I think the scientific method is the only rational way to come to “knowledge”, but that’s not my position. You can come to conclusions through formal logic or mathematics. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to form opinions based on personal experiences, so long as you recognize the increased potential for error. I do think that the scientific method trumps these other sources in cases where the claims are measurable.

 

[hawkeye]

Growing up here in Ireland I have to say I was intrested in religion from primary school as we call it, RE was one of my favourite subjects.

Hearing the Gospel stories of Jesus was my favourite, how the blind could see, the dumb speak, those possessed cleansed…

Lepers cured, the sea calmed at His command, and the dead were raised to life.
I was always saddened by the Crucifixion, it touched my heart from an early age, probably because I could identify with this man Jesus in some small way.

He was suffering and so was I and His suffering drew me closer to Him.

Later on in life there was so much trouble and pain in my life and I started to question whether God existed or not.

I went from a stage of not liking God so much (if He did exist) but I could not say that about Jesus (boy was I confused) I always liked Him.

So as time went on and I read the Bible and a lot of the lives of the Saints, and the one thing that hit me was, “hey you idiot, this Jesus said he that has seen Him has seen the Father.”

So I started to think of God as not up there in the sky with an over-grown beard zapping us with lightening bolts just for fun.

And I have to say thank God for Jesus, It must have been hard to believe before the Word became incarnate.
So what works for me is, the Holy land exists, Israel exists, Bethlehem exists, and the Sea of Galilee etc; do they not ?

So it is logical to conclude that because of the many witness of Jesus and His works, that He did exist and He did perform the works that we know about.

Like I said but for the Incarnation I would swing like a pendulum from belief to unbelief.

But even if I still had a hard time believing in God I cannot doubt that a man called Jesus walked this earth, He didn’t write books about Himself, others did.

And He was always right on the money, when He said arise and walk they did, go your servant is made well, he was, you brother shall rise from the dead, and he did.

And like I said since He said I and the Father are one that’s good enough for me, He was true to His word in His actions, so I certainly believe Him when he says " Our Father who art in Heaven."

And that’s why I could never be an atheist, because I’d have to deny Jesus Christ, that won’t happen.

 

[AquinAugustine]

Rainier, first, I do not believe it will ever be possible to prove God’s existence objectively, due to the fact that Jesus explains, in the gospels, that He spoke in parables so that those who were not genuine in their concern with the will of God would not be availed of it. Therefore, it would seem that awareness of the reality of God’s existence would, likewise require an interest therein.

Secondly, an atheistic viewpoint precludes belief in absolutes, which leads to a negation of the concept of any constancy, due to the fact that you absolutely cannot assume that everything around you will not be drastically altered from one moment to the next. The reason why you have the impression that the relative security within which you exist is a constant is that the concept is the result of Yahwist faith, which is confirmed constantly. In reality, atheists are the rightful heirs of the nihilistic hell on earth which was suffered by their forebears. In short, no one knows anything, not even whether the moment which preceded this one actually occurred at all. Divine revelation is the exclusive means by which true security can be achieved.

 

[Anticontrame]

What are the absolutes you’re referring to, that not believing in God precludes belief in them?

I’m not sure what you mean when you say that consistency can’t exist either. I expect causality to hold, as I’ve only ever observed it to hold, but you’re correct if you’re meaning is that I don’t have absolute, certain knowledge that causality always holds. If you’re meaning is that I can never know when, say, a 747 will crash into my house, you’re correct there too, but I don’t think belief in God changes that.

If divine revelation is the only way to know anything with certainty, how are you able to know what is divine revelation and what isn’t?

 

[AquinAugustine]

First off, the conclusion that anything absolutely is cannot be achieved apart from what God reveals concerning His creation, in my view. That is what I mean by atheism precluding the establishment of absolutes.

In answer to your second question, I believe that in the practical sense, things can be trusted with regard to their ability to allow one to recognize Divine Revelation, provided that one seeks it, as well as other things, but I tend not to believe that anything can be known absolutely by any but God. Also, I have the Church’s testimony as to its origin, which, in my experience, is only denied by those who seek to continue sinning unabated, and who, resultingly seek to discredit the Church, or Christianity in general, in order to create within their own minds a certain level of non acceptance of the immorality of the aforementioned sins. Also, I believe that God has the ability to gift one with faith which supercedes understanding. There is also the fact that, to my knowledge, there is no more reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe than that it was created by an Omnipotent, Omniscient Being, especially considering that the only popular alternative argues that the universe is the product of nature and time, neither of which possesses consciousness, much less intelligence, and, yet, are credited with the development of life forms and an ability within the aforementioned to develop adaptations which benefit them with regard to survival within their respective habitats, an ability which would seem to portend some kind of cognizance.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
What does “belief” mean to you?

A hypothesis is a BELIEF that something MIGHT be true in reality. Beliefs are not commitments to something ACTUALLY BEING true, they are only suppositions that something MAY be true.

The reason that people THINK that the scientific method precludes “belief” is because they have been brainwashed into thinking, by those following their scientistic religion, which focuses on the SCIENTIST as opposed to the SCIENCE, that hypotheses are not beliefs, because they define “belief” too narrowly.

I agree with you if you’re saying that a scientist should be objective and open to the possibility that the hypothesis might be true, but even that’s not really necessary. It should work just as well for the old stick-in-the-muds that only want to protect their pet theories. Science works best when people are coming at ideas from all angles - it helps to eliminate confirmation bias.

The experimenter and the subject of experimentation in a religious experiment are all the same “object”, the person who is searching for a religious experience.

“Confirmation bias”, and the placebo effect, are not relevant to the validity of the religious experiment because they are elements OF the experiment.

Religion is a subject area where materialistic scientists deem inherently out-of-bounds because of the impossibility of eliminating the placebo effect. No “proof”, which IS given by religious experimentation, is communicable AS proof as materialistic scientists define proof to another person.

You can “write up” your experiment, which is what you see in religious mystical writings, but they are seen simply as “imaginings” by those who refuse to do the experiments themselves. The “proof”, which WAS experienced by the experimenter, is no proof at all to any other person until they prove the experiment to themself by doing it.

Because the religious scientistic “(not-really-a) scientist” has prejudicially decided that all religious experiments are “self-fulfilling wish fulfillment by placebo effect” they will NEVER do that kind of experiment willingly, and therefore self-fulfill their own prophesy that religion is bogus.

Their methodology in coming to that conclusion is not scientific, but scientistic, which is bent on protecting the ego from being “demeaned” by what it sees as the threat of anti-science, but which is actually true appropriate science.

The goal of scientistic religion is to protect it’s practitioners from making decisions about personal mortality.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
In the area of religion, this is how it works:

1. You “devise” a hypothesis, a belief, by being informed by others, or intuiting yourself, of some seemingly repeated “event” that is characterized as “religious experience”.
2. You “predict”, you faithfully (without confirmed personal evidence) believe that the same or a similar “event” will be experienced by you if you “faithfully believe” it.
3. You recieve a “result”, which fully confirms or partially confirms (or doesn’t confirm) that your belief (hypothesis) is true.
4. You then refine your experiments in accord with the previous tests, to more fully investigate the truths that were found.

That is PRECISELY what the scientific method IS with the necessary obvious alterations due to the nature of the relationship between the observer and the subject, who happen to be the same thing.

It’s hard to say without a specific example, but I don’t think that would be good science. It sounds like the requirements for a pass would be too subjective to eliminate the complications I mentioned above, and too subjective to objectively quantify or repeat. I’m not sure what test you could devise to disprove the hypothesis either, but again, it’s hard to say without specifics.

The requirements for a “pass” are ANY result whatsoever. This kind of “pass” invalidates the experiment AS an experiment if the experiment is any experiment other than a religious experiment, of course.

The “prediction” is ALWAYS NOT a variant of “I expect to get **THIS **result”, but rather “I expect to get **SOME **result”.

Once again, this is where the scientistic-scientist throws up his hands, shouts “What rubbish!”, and storms away to do something “useful”.

As with all progressive (sequentially building) experimentation, you start out with general hypotheses and work “into” the inquiry to the more and more specific.

Prayer is the exemplar of this kind of experiment, of course. Actually, all religious experiment IS in fact prayer, so that statement may be a bit redundant.

The crux of the “Is it real science?” question is whether it gains the experimenter real knowledge?

The answer is that IF the experiment is actually done as described, which is impossible to do if one is a religiously scientistic person, by the way, then the experimenter will ALWAYS gain real knowledge of a fascinating and inspiring, and potentially very dangerous, realm of knowledge.

 

[AquinAugustine]

Also, I did not claim that certainty is possible.