The demand for evidence for the existence of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter LongJohnSilver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LongJohnSilver

Guest
When debating the existence of God, the non-believer often demands evidence. He usually means by that proof delivered by science, which, in his view, is the most solid (and sometimes the only) reliable source of knowledge.

In my view, he is like the boy in the school yard who sees other kids run off and asks them where they’re going, and when the kids tell the boy that the icecream van is around the corner and want him to come along, stubbornly shakes his head and says: No, I haven’t heard the bell ring yet.

Does the boy really need to hear the bell ring before he can trust the existence of the icecream van? There seems to be no irrefutable scientific proof for the existence of God. But, is that really needed, considering that the majority of humans believe in His existence nonetheless? Doesn’t the non-believer want his life and actions to have meaning? Doesn’t he want eternal life, eternal happiness, fulfillment of all desire?

Non-believers, don’t wait for the bell to ring, please come, and have icecream with us!
 
Just tell the non-believer to be patient. In the long run, they will have all the proof they need. And an eternity to ponder it.
 
LongJohnSilver said:
When debating the existence of God, the non-believer often demands evidence. He usually means by that proof delivered by science, which, in his view, is the most solid (and sometimes the only) reliable source of knowledge.
Click to expand...
Yes. By comparison, theology has a hard time demonstrating anything at all, to even get out of the starting gate. Think of the best example of “theological knowledge” that is both substantial (makes some claim about the world) and demonstrable. What would that be?
In my view, he is like the boy in the school yard who sees other kids run off and asks them where they’re going, and when the kids tell the boy that the icecream van is around the corner and want him to come along, stubbornly shakes his head and says: No, I haven’t heard the bell ring yet.
Click to expand...
Could be. But for a boy who’s been duped too many times to count before, the bell represents something more trustworthy than his mischievous peers on the playground. When he waits for the bell, he’s got solid evidence that he’s not getting yanked around yuks by the other kids in yard who find sport, or some other satisfaction in pulling his leg.
Does the boy really need to hear the bell ring before he can trust the existence of the icecream van?
Click to expand...
Dunno. How reliable are the kids? Have they predictably produced ice cream vans coming around the corner in the past? Mapping back over to religion, I think this analogy snaps back on the apologist badly. You can’t produce any minivans. There are no bells. There is no ice cream. There’s just the belief that if you expect cosmic ice cream, it’s real, and it tastes sweet, never mind the man behind that curtain.

If the kid had NEVER seen a single ice cream truck emerge from the reports from the kid, if they could not produce ANYTHING by their claims, objectively, he’d be a fool on an epistemic basis to go along. Humans have strong “herd instinct” as the social species we are and there are strong sanctions put in place for dissidents who don’t play along with the group pretending. So perhaps the kid (and other kids in the crowd heralding this “ice cream truck”!) just goes along to get along.

Pointing out that the Emperor Has No Clothes can come at a heavy social cost. It may be foolish to believe there really is an ice cream truck when the crowd announces one, but none appear, time after time. But may be “socially logical” to just capitulate to the group think of the playground gang.
There seems to be no irrefutable scientific proof for the existence of God.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But that’s not saying much. There’s not even meager, or ANY evidence for the existence of God, scientifically. Not ONE model used in science incorporates the concept of God, or relies on God or supernatural entities/powers for its models. Religion scores a perfect ZERO on this score. So saying “there’s not irrefutable evidence” doesn’t state the problem for religion nearly strong enough. Religion is nowhere on this measure, not just “short of irrefutable”.

Note that this doesn’t mean one must accept the validity of science as your measure on such questions, but to the extent one does, it’s a religion fail.
But, is that really needed, considering that the majority of humans believe in His existence nonetheless?
Click to expand...
Something seems to be needed, because “a majority of humans believe” establishes nothing. It’s good grounds for raising the issue for consideration, but it’s not probitive on the actual question.
Doesn’t the non-believer want his life and actions to have meaning? Doesn’t he want eternal life, eternal happiness, fulfillment of all desire?
Click to expand...
Yes, all of these desires are pervasive and motivating. And therein is the problem, and a solid reason you should doubt your own beliefs, because you clearly have a strong risk of being compromised by the conflicted interests you have on this matter (and I have the same basic desires). The reason everyone (broadly speaking) believes in God and eternal life is because it’s gratifying and anodyne for them to do so. It’s a demand, based on our grasp of our own mortality and limitations. and wherever there is a demand, ingenious marketers will find a way to supply hungry customers.

Where there is a deep hunger for ice cream, promoting the ever-coming-but-never-arriving ice cream truck is great business.
Non-believers, don’t wait for the bell to ring, please come, and have icecream with us!
Click to expand...
Can you show me some, first? I’d be a chump to just fall for appeals to my emotions at the expense of my brain.

-TS
 
Thinkclearly said:
This is good question, why hasn’t anyone awnsered it yet?
Click to expand...
I will try:

-Reason. The existence of God can be known through the light of human reason. The logical proofs from classical philosophy, properly expounded, prove His existence.

-Atheism can be shown to be absurd (i.e., can be refuted by reductio ad absurdum many times over).

-History. Step into any Catholic church, and you will have stepped into a historical continuity that began with the Son of God.

-Miracles. The Church demonstrates its legitimate authority through her many miracles - just take a look at any one of the Eucharistic miracles throughout Church history. They still occur in the present day, and many of them have been investigated.

-The witness of the saints and their many miracles.

-Faith. It is a supernatural knowing gifted to the Christian.

-Personal experience. Prayers answered, miracles witnessed, lives changed, etc.

And probably many more.
 
The fact that the majority of human beings believe in God does not in any way make God’s existence any more likely. In my opinion it is one of the weakest and easily defeated arguments you could make. Let’s say that I’m standing in the middle of a 20,000 seat arena and I have a coin hidden in either my left or right pocket. I ask the audience to raise their hand if they think the coin is in my right pocket and only a couple of people do. Then I ask them to raise their hand if they think the coin is in my left pocket and every hand goes up except for those two who thought it was in the right pocket. Just because the vast majority of people in the audience believed the coin was in my left pocket does not in any way make it more likely that the coin is actually in there. For me the majority of people on earth have believed in God is one of the weakest arguments for His existence and will be pathetically ineffective on an atheist. I find the arguments from efficient causality, time and contingency, design, and conscience to be much more effective. (Kreeft &Tacelli, 1994)

Reference:

Kreeft, P., & Tacelli, R.K. (1994). Handbook of christian apologetics. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
 
LongJohnSilver said:
When debating the existence of God, the non-believer often demands evidence. He usually means by that proof delivered by science, which, in his view, is the most solid (and sometimes the only) reliable source of knowledge.

In my view, he is like the boy in the school yard who sees other kids run off and asks them where they’re going, and when the kids tell the boy that the icecream van is around the corner and want him to come along, stubbornly shakes his head and says: No, I haven’t heard the bell ring yet.

Does the boy really need to hear the bell ring before he can trust the existence of the icecream van? There seems to be no irrefutable scientific proof for the existence of God. But, is that really needed, considering that the majority of humans believe in His existence nonetheless? Doesn’t the non-believer want his life and actions to have meaning? Doesn’t he want eternal life, eternal happiness, fulfillment of all desire?

Non-believers, don’t wait for the bell to ring, please come, and have icecream with us!
Click to expand...
LJS:

Remind him/her that most scientific knowledge is not from measurements. Most is from reasoned dialectics and the stated inductions that follow properly from those dialectics. In fact, measurements are almost always performed subsequent to and add additional weight to the stated induction. But, often, actual measurements cannot be performed. Isaac Newton could not perform any measurements to prove his first axiom concerning motion. Yet his axiom of uniform motion still stands. That’s all St. Thomas did: provide proper dialectics that then provided proper inductive arguments. Also, despite the oft quoted naked assertion that Aquinas’ proofs have all been refuted - none of them have.

God bless,
jd
 
I think it’s possible that the ringing the other kids heard was all in their heads.

Or, to be more comparable to Christian mythology: the ringing of the ice cream truck was originally in one kid’s head, and he convinced other kids that they heard it too. They, in turn, wrote notes to other kids about the ringing of the ice cream truck. The kids who read the notes, decided to believe the ringing was real, even though they didn’t even know the original kid, or even the kids who wrote the notes. Later kids also believed based on what those other kids said, and convinced themselves the ringing was real. Eventually, it simply became the accepted playground convention to believe you heard the ice cream truck; even if it seemed a little strange at first, you had to believe it in order to play with the others.

Every so often a kid would sneak out of the fenced area to venture around the corner, but they never came back to tell whether the truck was really there. This strange fact didn’t seem to bother those who believed in the ice cream truck - they just assumed those who went around the corner were enjoying their ice cream too much to come back (an explanation that made a lot of sense to the other ice cream believers).

Of course, there were doubters of the ice cream truck. But they were a minority and were seldom taken seriously - under the Ice Cream Truck belief structure, seriously considering the doubters position was frowned upon. Evidence, or the desire for evidence was considered bad form because it meant you were a spoiled sport and didn’t really believe in the Ice Cream Truck. Such doubters were banished to the far end of the playground where the grass was dead and the weeds grew. On the other hand, Faith in the Ice Cream Truck was accounted a great virtue and rewarded with extra cookies at lunchtime, and an extra turn at hopscotch.

For that reason, most of the kids felt it was obviously better to believe in the Ice Cream Truck than to not believe. So when asked how they knew the Ice Cream Truck was around the corner, they, of course answered that it was “obvious” to them, forgetting the fact that they had been convinced by others that they could hear the ringing, who in turn had also been convinced by others, who had in turn… etc.

But eventually, each kid made their own trip around the corner in search of the Ice Cream Truck. Imagine their surprise when they found… nothing.

The end.

I believe the religious response to demands for evidence is really an assertion of the primacy of hope over reason.
 
Touchstone said:
There’s not even meager, or ANY evidence for the existence of God, scientifically. Not ONE model used in science incorporates the concept of God, or relies on God or supernatural entities/powers for its models. Religion scores a perfect ZERO on this score. So saying “there’s not irrefutable evidence” doesn’t state the problem for religion nearly strong enough. Religion is nowhere on this measure, not just “short of irrefutable”.
Click to expand...
Some facts that I would like to share with you:
  1. “Some astronomers, who are religious, argue that the big bang theory confirms the existence of God and the basic elements of the creation story as told in the Bible. First came light, then the heavens, then the Earth … However, many other scientists do not. Scientists, like people in most any profession, have a vast diversity of religious beliefs. Some of us attend houses of worship, others do not. Some of us consider ourselves very religious, others consider ourselves staunch atheists. Just because we study astronomy does not mean we have any more agreement as to the ``why’’ questions than anyone else.” (Jonathan Keohane, Astrophysicist)
    imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971108a.html
From NASA:
  1. I am religious and I also find science very exciting. Is there a conflict between science and religion?
    According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS):
    “Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. . .”
The National Academy of Sciences also says:
“Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science’s realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.”

“Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each.”

“Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed ‘theistic evolution,’ is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines.”
map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

I suspect I could put this from NASA over on the last topic I was on. I’ll be honest with you, knocking down scientists is a mighty big NO NO in my book whether they are religious or NOT. 🙂
 
LogisticsBranch said:
Some facts that I would like to share with you:
  1. “Some astronomers, who are religious, argue that the big bang theory confirms the existence of God and the basic elements of the creation story as told in the Bible. First came light, then the heavens, then the Earth … However, many other scientists do not. Scientists, like people in most any profession, have a vast diversity of religious beliefs. Some of us attend houses of worship, others do not. Some of us consider ourselves very religious, others consider ourselves staunch atheists. Just because we study astronomy does not mean we have any more agreement as to the ``why’’ questions than anyone else.” (Jonathan Keohane, Astrophysicist)
    imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971108a.html
From NASA:
  1. I am religious and I also find science very exciting. Is there a conflict between science and religion?
    According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS):
    “Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. . .”
The National Academy of Sciences also says:
“Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science’s realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.”

“Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each.”

“Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed ‘theistic evolution,’ is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines.”
map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html
Click to expand...
Thanks LogisticsBranch, I do understand that position. I was a science buff and a devout Christian for a long time, and so was not only aware of other science-aware Christians (and top scientists who were Christians) who saw God as a coherent overlay or “metanarrative” on the models science produces, I was such a science-aware Christian.

So I do not reject that as a very common circumstance. And as a theistic evolutionist, I understood my faith and theology laid beyond the realm of scietific verification, which was a problem in terms of falsification, but nevertheless was unfalsifiable, and thus “compatible” with the science I understood. God, for instance, I suspected controlled and providentially guided individual quantum events, events science would see as perfectly random to effect mutations and other developments that steered the development of man into the desired design God had for man, ready for soul endowment and the *imago dei *when the time was right.

There’s no in, even in principle to discredit that idea. It’s impervious to discrediting, but at the same time, it’s superfluous.It’s not needed for the model itself.

And that is the salient point here. Sure many Christians “see design” on top of and thorugh all of science, but this is extraneous to science itself, which is easily verified by simply checking the models. No God or gods implicated anywhere, anyhow, at all. If Zeus was a real god and came to visit us regularly and reshaped the continents to his pleasure as we captured it all from news helicopters and military equipment, that WOULD should up in our models. Zeus would be the cause agent for terraforming, and an explanatory resource we invoked in explaining and modeling the tectonic structure of the planet.

So I hear ya, but I don’t think it speaks to my point. We can overlay all sorts of notions on top of science, sure. But what is asked to perform, and held accountable is NOT that. That stuff just gets a pass, gets excused from the rigorous analysis. Science doesn’t. It has to perform to be valued.

-TS
 
JDaniel said:
LJS:

Remind him/her that most scientific knowledge is not from measurements. Most is from reasoned dialectics and the stated inductions that follow properly from those dialectics. In fact, measurements are almost always performed subsequent to and add additional weight to the stated induction. But, often, actual measurements cannot be performed. Isaac Newton could not perform any measurements to prove his first axiom concerning motion. Yet his axiom of uniform motion still stands. That’s all St. Thomas did: provide proper dialectics that then provided proper inductive arguments. Also, despite the oft quoted naked assertion that Aquinas’ proofs have all been refuted - none of them have.

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
jd,

I don’t think the thoughtful rejection of Aquinas relies on refutation of his arguments. To say they are refutable – something that bears that kind of scrutiny – is to miss the most powerful criticism of Aquinas. Aquinas certainly had crude and now laughably primitive examples and analogies (he was in this respect more backward than Aristotle nearly 2,000 years before him, I think), but those are expositive and pedagogical flaws, not flaws with his arguments, per se.

The most potent criticism of Aquinas Quinqae viae is that they cannot be refuted, even in principle. They are not liable to being true or false, but are instead notional, intuition, gossamer. Further, I don’t think that’s controversial, if one just looks at each and asks how we would either validate or falsify any of the premises and predicates he relies on.

Not looking to bend the thread toward Aquinas, but the retort that Aquinas has not been refuted in his arguments strikes me as “true in a misleading way”. They haven’t shown themselves to even rise to the level of true or false as we understand them in the context of “refute”.

Aquinas is not wrong, but “not EVEN wrong”. He hasn’t left us in his arguments anything liable to refutation, so he truly can never, ever, possibly be refuted. He’s totally safe, but in a way that disgraces him and diminishes his contribution to the quest for human knowledge.

I’d be happy with “Aquinas has never been refuted, never will be because his arguments aren’t the time that are compatible with the concept of refutation”.

Would that work? 🙂

-TS
 
Touchstone said:
So I hear ya, but I don’t think it speaks to my point. We can overlay all sorts of notions on top of science, sure. But what is asked to perform, and held accountable is NOT that. That stuff just gets a pass, gets excused from the rigorous analysis. Science doesn’t. It has to perform to be valued.

-TS
Click to expand...
Now I admit I may be reading you wrong TS, but I feel I should comment. It seems you are confusing Science’s (healthy, I might add) methodological naturalism with it, or at least it’s observations, being incompatible with or not having some philosophical implication to a god (be it Zeus, YHWH, or that god in that book). Now, the former is true - all the sciences do take on at least some form of methodolgical naturalism or atheism. But it has not been proven true (nor, much as I hate to admit it, false) that this excludes any philosophical implications breaking these methods.

I do find evidence for a god in science, but it’s circumstantial. I don’t say, unless I’m intentionally oversimplifying, “the big bang proves the universe needs a cause, so God HAS TO exist!” I do, however, ask “Hmm… what does the big bang imply about the start of time? What does the big bang imply to ontology? What does the big bang imply to trancendence?” That, I think, is where we find the evidence for God.
 
LongJohnSilver said:
Thanks.

It was obvious to them.
Click to expand...
Ouch. Well, I can’t think of anything more discrediting to your OP than what you’ve said right here. This atheist bows to defeating your OP better than he could.

-TS

PS. Also a bow to hecd2; that was le mot juste as a retort, fer sher.
 
Touchstone said:
LogisticsBranch;7540182:
Touchstone;7540044:
There’s not even meager, or ANY evidence for the existence of God, scientifically. Not ONE model used in science incorporates the concept of God, or relies on God or supernatural entities/powers for its models. Religion scores a perfect ZERO on this score. So saying “there’s not irrefutable evidence” doesn’t state the problem for religion nearly strong enough. Religion is nowhere on this measure, not just “short of irrefutable”.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Some facts that I would like to share with you:
  1. “Some astronomers, who are religious, argue that the big bang theory confirms the existence of God and the basic elements of the creation story as told in the Bible. First came light, then the heavens, then the Earth … However, many other scientists do not. Scientists, like people in most any profession, have a vast diversity of religious beliefs. Some of us attend houses of worship, others do not. Some of us consider ourselves very religious, others consider ourselves staunch atheists. Just because we study astronomy does not mean we have any more agreement as to the ``why’’ questions than anyone else.” (Jonathan Keohane, Astrophysicist)
    imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971108a.html
From NASA:
  1. I am religious and I also find science very exciting. Is there a conflict between science and religion?
    According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS):
    “Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. . .”
The National Academy of Sciences also says:
“Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science’s realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.”

“Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each.”

“Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed ‘theistic evolution,’ is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines.”
map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

I suspect I could put this from NASA over on the last topic I was on. I’ll be honest with you, knocking down scientists is a mighty big NO NO in my book whether they are religious or NOT. 🙂

Thanks LogisticsBranch, I do understand that position. I was a science buff and a devout Christian for a long time, and so was not only aware of other science-aware Christians (and top scientists who were Christians) who saw God as a coherent overlay or “metanarrative” on the models science produces, I was such a science-aware Christian.

So I do not reject that as a very common circumstance. And as a theistic evolutionist, I understood my faith and theology laid beyond the realm of scietific verification, which was a problem in terms of falsification, but nevertheless was unfalsifiable, and thus “compatible” with the science I understood. God, for instance, I suspected controlled and providentially guided individual quantum events, events science would see as perfectly random to effect mutations and other developments that steered the development of man into the desired design God had for man, ready for soul endowment and the *imago dei *when the time was right.

There’s no in, even in principle to discredit that idea. It’s impervious to discrediting, but at the same time, it’s superfluous.It’s not needed for the model itself.

And that is the salient point here. Sure many Christians “see design” on top of and thorugh all of science, but this is extraneous to science itself, which is easily verified by simply checking the models. No God or gods implicated anywhere, anyhow, at all. If Zeus was a real god and came to visit us regularly and reshaped the continents to his pleasure as we captured it all from news helicopters and military equipment, that WOULD should up in our models. Zeus would be the cause agent for terraforming, and an explanatory resource we invoked in explaining and modeling the tectonic structure of the planet.

So I hear ya, but I don’t think it speaks to my point. We can overlay all sorts of notions on top of science, sure. But what is asked to perform, and held accountable is NOT that. That stuff just gets a pass, gets excused from the rigorous analysis. Science doesn’t. It has to perform to be valued.

-TS
Click to expand...
You may like to review what I wrote about on this link from CAF that supports the fact that God exits: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=486011 God isn’t a myth. Also, I personally don’t “see design” as a Christian. As far as SCIENCE goes, it’s one of my darling little babies. Just love it! I wish I could say that about my 2 month old puppy Grace. She took a poop and pee on my bedroom carpet! LOL! It’s been fun chatting with you. 😃
 
Pieman333272 said:
Now I admit I may be reading you wrong TS, but I feel I should comment. It seems you are confusing Science’s (healthy, I might add) methodological naturalism with it, or at least it’s observations, being incompatible with or not having some philosophical implication to a god (be it Zeus, YHWH, or that god in that book). Now, the former is true - all the sciences do take on at least some form of methodolgical naturalism or atheism. But it has not been proven true (nor, much as I hate to admit it, false) that this excludes any philosophical implications breaking these methods.
Click to expand...
No, you’re quite right about that, and I’ve gotten you thinking I’ve said or though otherwise, my mistake, and inarticulate language. It has not been proven true that no God exists, and I don’t think it can be, even in principle. That means that the “theistic overlay” is NOT discredited by science in any direct sense, and can’t be.

The point I was trying to make is that where science leaves off and “theistic overlays” begin is EXACTLY the point where performance, demonstration, support, prediction, liability to falsification, verification and all the other points of accountability and epistemic confidence-building. If you are looking to test the claims and ideas, and put them understress to see how they perform, science will take you some distance, and theology, or any other metaphysical overlays won’t take you anywhere at all.

That doesn’t disprove God, and can’t. It just means that where science ends and theology begins is where you lose your epistemic bookkeeping and “anything goes”, and one’s intutions and desires take over, and rule, unchecked, unaccountable.
I do find evidence for a god in science, but it’s circumstantial. I don’t say, unless I’m intentionally oversimplifying, “the big bang proves the universe needs a cause, so God HAS TO exist!” I do, however, ask “Hmm… what does the big bang imply about the start of time? What does the big bang imply to ontology? What does the big bang imply to trancendence?” That, I think, is where we find the evidence for God.
Click to expand...
I’m OK with that. I thought the same thing as a Christian, and as an atheist, it’s not that much different. The immediacy of the Big Bang suggests to me some kind of telic possibility, sure.

I invoked the “used in models” to make this distinction. That is the “bright line” where you go from scientific implication and grounding to… suggestion. If you can incorporate in your model, you’re gold scientificallly (assuming it performs!).

So I don’t reject what you say as “circumstantial”, the same occurs to me. On close consideration, I find it both superfluous and problematic because it is impervious to any kind of dispositive inquiry. Zeus is at least potentially verifiable/falsifiable scientifically, per the historical accounts of the guy. Yahweh is a cypher by comparison, so hidden and “non-existent” in his existence, even on Christian accounts, that there’s nothing to check or test.

But that doesn’t mean the “circumstantial notion” is lost on me. Other atheists I talk to share it, too, and not in a substantially different way than when we were Christians (and an ex-muslim I recall talking about this with).

-TS
 
LogisticsBranch said:
You may like to review what I wrote about on this link from CAF that supports the fact that God exits: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=486011 God isn’t a myth. Also, I personally don’t “see design” as a Christian. As far as SCIENCE goes, it’s one of my darling little babies. Just love it! I wish I go say that about my 2 month old puppy Grace. She took a poop and pee on my bedroom carpet! LOL! It’s been fun chatting with you. 😃
Click to expand...
LOL. That’s too funny, good luck with that. I haven’t read it yet, so perhaps this is premature, but I predict your carpet has more “solid evidence” for your puppy than our world shall ever have for this “non-mythic” God…

-TS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top