We don't need definitive proof of God

[STT]

What is the point of your questions? What does it have to do with the need for God’s existence? The basic question is: “what is God?” If we meet someone on the street, and they assert that they are “God”, how can you find out if that “someone”, or “something” is really God, of just an impostor?

If the answer to those questions are yes then my statement is correct given the definition of mind. For the rest you need to read my discussion with IWandGod.

 

[Economist]

If the answer to those questions are yes then my statement is correct given the definition of mind.

A playful answer:

My question: What is the point of your questions?
And: What does it have to do with the need for God’s existence?
And: The basic question is: “what is God?”
And: If we meet someone on the street, and they assert that they are “God”, how can you find out if that “someone”, or “something” is really God, of just an impostor?

Now add “Yes” as the answer to these questions, and see what comes of this attempt.

My question: What is the point of your questions? Answer: "YES"
And: What does it have to do with the need for God’s existence? Answer: "YES"
And: The basic question is: “what is God?” Answer: "YES"
And: If we meet someone on the street, and they assert that they are “God”, how can you find out if that “someone”, or “something” is really God, of just an impostor? Answer: "YES"

Not particularly helpful… are they?

 

[whatistrue]

Not particularly helpful… are they?

Might have been different if you had done that with the questions @STT asked, which was the context of the statement you appeared to have misunderstood. To recap, he asked questions about insects and you asked what was the point of those (his) questions, which he answered with the “if the answers are Yes” bit.

 

[Economist]

Might have been different if you had done that with the questions @STT asked, which was the context of the statement you appeared to have misunderstood. To recap, he asked questions about insects and you asked what was the point of those (his) questions, which he answered with the “if the answers are Yes” bit.

Since the topic of the thread is about the “need” for definitive evidence (not proof) for God, I suggest we try to stay on the topic.

 

[whatistrue]

Wow. Really? What a blatant dodge.

ETA: As far as staying on topic, see Post # 8 in this thread. Your second one and rather off topic IMHO.

 

[CelticWarlord]

But that means to discard the “biblical God”,

I have to say strictly from my own point of view, which will of course differ from probably most of my fellow Christians, the biblical God, especially in the Old Testament, is strictly a tribal deity. Ancient peoples knew of the forces of nature, the tides, the storms, the seasons. You touched on this already. They attached a “greater than themselves” personality, or personalities, to these phenomenon but had little idea of what they were actually dealing with. What we call “God” today is simply a word, not a Proper Name. A theologian whose name I have forgotten once said it would be nice if we could do away with the word god for a few generations. It carries too many presuppositions and prejudices. Too much baggage.

Let me revisit my previous post and reverse the way in which I approached this. Put more simply, I said that I felt that God is the energy of the universe. More accurately, the energy of the universe could be said to be what we call God. He (and I use the masculine strictly for convenience) is not a single personality, not a supreme being among inferior beings, but simply conscious, active energy; energy which fills and permeates all known matter. That’s what best makes sense to me, though I have been chastised for this in the past.

For the believers this is insufficient. They prefer a different view.

Very true, and I must say I am not among them. In my profile you will notice I call myself an “outside the box heretic” or words to that effect. What I think of when I imagine God, and what my fundamentalist friends think of, are widely divergent. They want the Santa Claus figure, eager to track our sins, ready with punishment and reward. I don’t believe this is an image that either Jesus or Paul would have been at all intimate with in their theology, but I am no theologian myself, nor am I looking for a following of adherents.

Some unknown and unknowable “being” using “unimaginable means”

Here again, you and I very much agree. I will again dispense with the notion of God as “a being”, as do Bishop Robert Borden and Dr. David Anders. But when I envision this god-idea, or Source, All-That-Is, or any of a number of names, it embraces only the fact that energy is what we are and what we live within. In one sense we don’t really exist at all, as all matter is only vibrating energy giving the illusion of solids, liquids, or gasses. The tiniest particles are nothing but empty space between what appears to be moving bits and pieces which, themselves, are nothing but empty space.

I have to stop here. Lunch time doncha know. But I’m loving this converstion and hope to carry on. Your serve.

 

[Economist]

Are you suggesting we cannot define what torture is ? Based on what ?

How do you know that pushing a needle into someone is torture or not?

If you have felt regret, there is no lack of knowledge, you are fully aware of your actions.

Regret has nothing to do with anything. One may have a misunderstanding.

I have to say strictly from my own point of view, which will of course differ from probably most of my fellow Christians, the biblical God, especially in the Old Testament, is strictly a tribal deity.

No argument from me.

Let me revisit my previous post and reverse the way in which I approached this. Put more simply, I said that I felt that God is the energy of the universe. More accurately, the energy of the universe could be said to be what we call God. He (and I use the masculine strictly for convenience) is not a single personality, not a supreme being among inferior beings, but simply conscious, active energy; energy which fills and permeates all known matter. That’s what best makes sense to me, though I have been chastised for this in the past.

The problem is that our current understanding of “energy” is quite different from what you propose… so I don’t understand your proposition. And moreover, I cannot fathom, how this “energy” interacts with our reality (STEM)?

 

[CelticWarlord]

I cannot fathom, how this “energy” interacts with our reality

The best I can do is, again, strictly within my own understanding, which will only take me as far as my intellect is able. But I will put it this way; If the universe over eons of time is capable of producing a species which is conscious, thinking, aware, and active, then it is not a stretch for me to believe that the universe is, itself, conscious, aware, and thinking. That’s the best I’ve got, E, though I will undoubtedly flash with something brilliant after tonight’s fourth or fifth beer.

 

[Economist]

The best I can do is, again, strictly within my own understanding, which will only take me as far as my intellect is able. But I will put it this way; If the universe over eons of time is capable of producing a species which is conscious, thinking, aware, and active, then it is not a stretch for me to believe that the universe is, itself, conscious, aware, and thinking.

I am not going to argue against this picture. It certainly looks like the Gaia hypothesis to me. Which would be a more than welcome alternative to the current dog-eats-dog universe. Too bad that there is no evidence for it.

 

[John10]

How do you know that pushing a needle into someone is torture or not?

Because of the intention of the person doing it. A doctor applying a life saving vaccine, might seem like torture to the baby, but in reality it is not.

A Nazi, sadistic doctor, who does the same thing just to see the baby suffer because he enjoys it, is indeed torturing the baby.

Regret has nothing to do with anything. One may have a misunderstanding.

It has everything to do, because as I said before you cannot have a regret unless you fully understand and have knowledge of your actions, and even more important it’s consequences.

 

[Economist]

Because of the intention of the person doing it.

And how do you know the intentions? Mind reading is not a usual ability we have…

 

[Kullervo]

What about having faith in people? There are many people claiming to have seen the Divine. Apparitions of Jesus and Mary. I think my faith is mostly based on trust in people. I can’t be 100% sure, but I have faith. It’s an act of courage, a commitment that I will lead a good moral life and a hope of eternal life in Heaven with God.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Today everything needs “proof.” Did Trump abuse women? He has 24 accusers. Maybe they’re all in a giant conspiracy and lying. Can we PROVE he did it? Do you believe your mother is really your mother? Can you PROVE it? And if you have DNA evidence, can you PROVE it hasn’t been tampered with? Can you PROVE what day is your birthday? And so on.

It seems to me there are different levels of belief. I believe I am alive and typing this. I believe it is Friday. Those are totally different levels of belief–I certainly could be more much apt to be wrong about what day of the week it is.

So my conclusion is that you can “believe” in God in many different ways. You can say you “believe” in God with different levels of certainty. And challenging someone to “prove” it in a mathematical sense is just silly. In today’s world of “alternate facts” you can “prove” almost nothing.

 

[Neithan]

Are you basing your faith in private revelations? Those may be approved as “worthy of belief” by the church, but they are not the basis of the Apostolic faith, which is the witness of those who saw Jesus risen from the dead, and the tradition passed down from them.

 

[Neithan]

@Economist I sympathize with your skepticism, although I wonder why you don’t go all the way with it (how do we know anything at all?) and I’m genuinely curious if you will ever find your way (back) to faith. It is not the same as reasoned knowledge, and it seems that disturbs you. I don’t know if anyone here can really meet the challenges that you have in your mind or reconcile the value of the Catholic faith with the risks inherent in any act of faith per se. Have you read any Edward Feser? He’s a contemporary Catholic philosopher that I find insightful. You might find his pre-Christian apologetics interesting, or maybe even helpful.

On another note, it is a Catholic dogma that we can have natural knowledge of God’s existence with reasonable certainty, even without an act of faith. That’s necessary, because without natural knowledge, we would have no starting point for faith. Notice, however, that this is a dogma: even to assert natural knowledge, we need some metaphysical belief.

 

[Economist]

What about having faith in people? There are many people claiming to have seen the Divine. Apparitions of Jesus and Mary. I think my faith is mostly based on trust in people. I can’t be 100% sure, but I have faith. It’s an act of courage, a commitment that I will lead a good moral life and a hope of eternal life in Heaven with God.

I am not going to tell you that you are wrong. Only that my level of skepticism is different from yours.
By the way, it would be a good exercise to come to a jointly acceptable definition of “faith”.

@Economist I sympathize with your skepticism, although I wonder why you don’t go all the way with it (how do we know anything at all?) and I’m genuinely curious if you will ever find your way (back) to faith.

Knowledge comes in two forms. One is part of a deductive, axiomatic system, where a proposition is true if it is the direct derivative of the axioms. The other one is part of the open, inductive systems, where a proposition is true, if it is congruent with the observable reality. Of course, it is more complicated than a short soundbyte. There are the fully imaginary “worlds” with Jack and Jill and the iron-nosed witch, and the subjective propositions, like “steak is better than vegetables”.

As far as faith goes, I am not a prophet, so I am unable to predict my future development.
Yes, I know Feser, but I am not impressed by him. And I am aware of the dogma that God’s existence is knowable without faith, but that is just another empty proposition, without any supporting evidence.

 

[John10]

We do not need to mind read to know the intentions of people, that can be inferred by the actions and context of the things people do. Like the previously explained torture baby example.

 

[Economist]

We do not need to mind read to know the intentions of people, that can be inferred by the actions and context of the things people do.

Yes, exactly!!! That is precisely the way that we can infer if the AI has real intelligence! As the duck principle shows, if everything points to the same conclusion (looks like, tastes like, walks like, sounds like… etc. a duck) then it is rational to assume that it IS a duck… but it is NOT certain. It is just irrational to assume that it is NOT a duck.

Like the previously explained torture baby example.

Almost, but no cigar. It seems that sticking a needle into a baby is a torture, but it is not certain. It may just be an injection to heal some disease.

The example of a “torture” - sticking a needle into someone - looks like a torture, but if you dig deeper, and investigate the real reason and circumstances - then it merely looks like a torture, but in reality it is not.

The more you know about the precise circumstances of the act, the more certain you can draw a proper conclusion. This is the problem with your superficial analysis.

 

[John10]

Yes, exactly!!! That is precisely the way that we can infer if the AI has real intelligence!

Intention and intelligence are different things, I do not see how that related to knowing people’s intentions.

The more you know about the precise circumstances of the act, the more certain you can draw a proper conclusion

That is the point, the more the know about the circumstances of injecting a needle to a baby the more likely we are to draw the correct conclusion and therefore infer the correct intentions. That is precisely the point.

 

[Kullervo]

When I say people. I meant both: the witness of the 1st century and the later apparitions.

There are many thinks that are the base of my believe. Many apparitions seem to confirm the teaching of the Church so I would say they are pretty good to include in the bases of trust in the Church.