Evidence for God from Science

Proinsias wrote:I think it is rather hard to distinguish myself, and from what little anthropology I've done at university and some casual reading it seems to me that the scholarly consensus is similar to my own thoughts on the matter but of course we are all entitled to our own opinions and there is a great deal I still need to learn about early Christianity. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that Jesus was the first to step amongst prostitutes, destitutes, the poor and the downtrodden - that seems like quite a claim. I read Job last week for the first time and he claimed to step amongst similar sorts and help them where he could, I believe the Buddha also stepped amongst them. Are you suggesting no one ever crossed class boundaries until Jesus turned up?.

The Buddha and Buddhism is all about self-absorption and self-sufficiency; it is about achieving nondualistic and nonconceptual "nirvana". I myself cannot imagine anything nondual and nonconceptual being anything but oblivion, nothingness. Buddhism is about being free from dependency on others; it's all about oneself, or One's self! Jesus was definitely unique. Confucious preached a form of Love thy neighbour, so did others, but this is a far cry from the boundaries Jesus crossed and joined.

Proinsias wrote:There is plenty of middle ground and blurry ground. As I have said previously one can be an agnostic theist, there is secular pantheism, spiritual pantheism, soft atheism, hard atheism, humanism and probably many others I have no knowledge of. It may seem absurd to you to think of an agnostic atheist but there are many out there. To all intents and purposes they are atheist but as they cannot see into the future they leave a small window of possibility open much as they would for the flying spaghetti monster, Russell's teapot or the previously mentioned leprechauns. There are also doctrines which hold that one is/can become God which are generally rather difficult to pigeon hole.I'm not saying that your definitions don't make perfect logical sense in and of themselves it's just that they become a little more vague and meaningless when you try to apply them to the vast range of believe systems out there.

Please explain to me how I can at once believe in God and at the same time suspend my judgement on whether there is a God? Also please explain how an atheist can at once believe there is not a God and at the same time suspend his judgement on whether or not there is a God? "Hard atheism" "soft atheism" "hard theism" "theism" "agnostic atheism" "agnostic theism" ... listen, Proinsias, I do not want to come across as trying to destroy whatever you believe; I am not. But, for me, this is plain nonsense; it is logically bogus. However, I do not wish you to take this as aggressive; I am just giving you my honest opinion.

God bless ... Dan

Thanks for expanding on that Dan, between yourself and Gabrielman I have a much better idea of where you are coming from in regards to Jesus being revolutionary.

As for Buddhism & the Buddha whilst I may not entirely agree with your assessment I'd rather not get into it as I don't really have the knowledge or inclination to put forward a decent case, and I don't think this is place for it.

Atheism, theism and agnostic:

Please explain to me how I can at once believe in God and at the same time suspend my judgement on whether there is a God?

I don't think I said that. I tried to explain that agnostic can mean 'without knowledge' which is different to 'without belief'. Whilst I have no direct knowledge of Australia I believe it exists and would one day love to acquire direct knowledge of Australia, in a similar sort of way, although I realise the analogy is a little shaky, one can believe that God exists but not have had any experience of God and be seeking it - does that make any sense? belief without gnosis.

As for the agnostic atheist thing I've found there tends to be different types of atheists. Some have a conviction that God does not exist, which is what I imagine you are referring to in your definition. Others call themselves atheists as it suits them for day to day purposes but would concede to being slightly agnostic when you really get down to it as they admit one cannot prove a negative. They may think that the existence of God is such an infinitely small probability that it makes sense to go with atheist, maybe holding it alongside the theory that the earth is flat or somesuch.

The distinction is really based in the difference between knowledge and believe, to my knowledge.

Maybe Wikipedia will be clearer than me: Agnostic atheist and Agnostic theism, they are fairly brief entries.

I don't see your posting as aggressive at all.

EVERYBODY is an atheist of sorts (do YOU believe in Zeus?)

If Zeus suddenly revealed himself (or conclusive, compelling evidence of his existence and divinity were discovered), I imagine most Zeus-atheists would become believers in Zeus. If the evidence was somewhat less than conclusive, some Zeus-atheists would become believers, while the more skeptical would not.

How likely do YOU think that YOU would be presented with evidence that would cause YOU to become a Zeus-believer?

waynepii wrote:EVERYBODY is an atheist of sorts (do YOU believe in Zeus?)

If Zeus suddenly revealed himself (or conclusive, compelling evidence of his existence and divinity were discovered), I imagine most Zeus-atheists would become believers in Zeus. If the evidence was somewhat less than conclusive, some Zeus-atheists would become believers, while the more skeptical would not.

How likely do YOU think that YOU would be presented with evidence that would cause YOU to become a Zeus-believer?

Sorry Wayne but this is a poor argument and frankly very old-hat. I believe in God. The Muslim believes in God. We both believe in God. We have both chosen different paths to God and differ on who God is. I believe my God is the one and only God. Does this make the Muslim an atheist because he doesn't believe in *my* God? No of course it doesn't; he believes in God. Because I don't believe in Zeus this *does not* make me an atheist; your "logic" here is baffling. Zeus is a mythical god; I don't believe in this mythical god; this does not make me an atheist. I already believe in a god - so how on earth can I be an atheist? With all due respect, you need a better argument.

Dan

Proinsias wrote:I don't think I said that. I tried to explain that agnostic can mean 'without knowledge' which is different to 'without belief'. Whilst I have no direct knowledge of Australia I believe it exists and would one day love to acquire direct knowledge of Australia, in a similar sort of way, although I realise the analogy is a little shaky, one can believe that God exists but not have had any experience of God and be seeking it - does that make any sense? belief without gnosis.As for the agnostic atheist thing I've found there tends to be different types of atheists. Some have a conviction that God does not exist, which is what I imagine you are referring to in your definition. Others call themselves atheists as it suits them for day to day purposes but would concede to being slightly agnostic when you really get down to it as they admit one cannot prove a negative. They may think that the existence of God is such an infinitely small probability that it makes sense to go with atheist, maybe holding it alongside the theory that the earth is flat or somesuch.

Thanks for the links, Proinsias. I make it a rule to stay away from wikipedia, and now I remember why! What drivel that was! It cites lack of definitive knowledge as a legitimate reason for joining atheism and theism with agnosticism; this is completely bogus, as definitive knowledge either way is impossible. I know that God exists, but that's in my heart and in my mind, joining faith with logic and reason. But I can't sit here and tell the atheist that I know that God exists; it wouldn't wash. No-one has absolute knowledge and proof when pushed.

By definition, an atheist would say that based on evidence (or lack thereof) they believe that there is no god. "Believe" can mean to have faith, to accept as true, to have a conviction, or to hold an opinion.

The agnostic states that whether or not a god exists is unknowable and therefore he/she does not believe one way or the other. The agnostic cannot apply any definition of the word "believe" to the existence of a god nor to the nonexistence of a god. The only thing in the matter of "god" that an agnostic believes is that his existence/nonexistence is unknowable.

What the agnostic is saying is *I do* believe that the existence or nonexistence of a god is unknowable therefore I *do not* believe in the existence of a god nor do I believe that there is no god.

This is why the definition of an agnostic is pretty much meaningless, since it states remains totally passive and "out of the game" so to speak. I hope I am not becoming too repetitious, but I'm trying to show that there can logically be *no* connection between atheism and agnosticism, nor theism and agnosticism. Okay I am being repetitious

God bless

DannyM wrote:

waynepii wrote:EVERYBODY is an atheist of sorts (do YOU believe in Zeus?)

If Zeus suddenly revealed himself (or conclusive, compelling evidence of his existence and divinity were discovered), I imagine most Zeus-atheists would become believers in Zeus. If the evidence was somewhat less than conclusive, some Zeus-atheists would become believers, while the more skeptical would not.

How likely do YOU think that YOU would be presented with evidence that would cause YOU to become a Zeus-believer?

Sorry Wayne but this is a poor argument and frankly very old-hat. I believe in God. The Muslim believes in God. We both believe in God. We have both chosen different paths to God and differ on who God is. I believe my God is the one and only God. Does this make the Muslim an atheist because he doesn't believe in *my* God? No of course it doesn't; he believes in God. Because I don't believe in Zeus this *does not* make me an atheist; your "logic" here is baffling. Zeus is a mythical god; I don't believe in this mythical god; this does not make me an atheist. I already believe in a god - so how on earth can I be an atheist? With all due respect, you need a better argument.

Dan

You missed my point. I wasn't trying to convince anyone to become an atheist, I was trying to clarify some of the apparent confusion about atheists earlier in the thread.

He didn't miss your point. You missed his. I know that modern atheists try to define atheism as a lack of belief in a particular god. You do this to avoid making the assertion "God does not exist," because then you would be forced to defend that assertion. What Dan is correctly pointing out is that you are flat wrong here. He is NOT an atheist with regard to Zeus. You are playing semantics and nothing more.

The words atheism, theism, pantheism, and polytheism all come from the same source: Greek. Theos is the word for 'God'. So a theist is one who believes God exists. A monotheist (mono = one) means the belief that ONE god exists. A polytheist (poly = many) means that many gods exist. A pantheist (pan = all) believes that all is God and God is all. An atheist (a = none) believes that no god exists.

Your definition is an agnostic, which comes from the word gnosis which means knowledge. An agnostic has no knowledge (they lack belief) if God's existence.

Do you realize that when you say that Dan, or Christian for that matter, is an atheist, you are effectively saying that a theist is also an atheist? Do you realize how self-contradictory that is? And this is modern atheism . . . theists are atheists. Nice. And you people think that we are the ones who can't think straight.

edit: fine, actually, by that logic, then you are a theist. Since a 'god' is just a supreme being, you must believe that god exists, since humans are supreme. Or perhaps humans are equal with all animals, even worms, and thus all animals are supreme. Welcome to the camp, Wayne! You can tell people that you are a theist now (with your disclaimer 'of sorts')!

DannyM wrote:Zeus is a mythical god; I don't believe in this mythical god; this does not make me an atheist. I already believe in a god

To an atheist, all gods are mythical.

Dan's view of Zeus pretty much sums up an atheist's view wrt all gods.

I think you are missing the point, if you believe in any god you are a theist (polytheist for many gods). If you don't you are an atheist. It's just that simple, a theist believes there is a God, an atheist believes no God exists.
God bless!

Let's just forget it!

waynepii wrote:

DannyM wrote:Zeus is a mythical god; I don't believe in this mythical god; this does not make me an atheist. I already believe in a god

To an atheist, all gods are mythical.

Dan's view of Zeus pretty much sums up an atheist's view wrt all gods.

Well now that's a different matter. But by "mythical" I don't necessarily mean "false". Zeus was immortalised in Homer's epic, Ilad (or Odyssey, but one of these two) and became like an urban myth, rather than a complete falsity. Zeus became legend.

1.Atheism - a belief in no god or gods.
2.John bloggs believes in God (Or "a god").
3.John bloggs cannot in any way shape or form be an atheist.

I know that the atheist ranks are shrinking fast, Wayne, but this isn't going to bolster the ranks

Dan

Jac3510 wrote:He didn't miss your point. You missed his. I know that modern atheists try to define atheism as a lack of belief in a particular god. You do this to avoid making the assertion "God does not exist," because then you would be forced to defend that assertion. What Dan is correctly pointing out is that you are flat wrong here. He is NOT an atheist with regard to Zeus. You are playing semantics and nothing more.

The words atheism, theism, pantheism, and polytheism all come from the same source: Greek. Theos is the word for 'God'. So a theist is one who believes God exists. A monotheist (mono = one) means the belief that ONE god exists. A polytheist (poly = many) means that many gods exist. A pantheist (pan = all) believes that all is God and God is all. An atheist (a = none) believes that no god exists.

What Jac said! Thanks Jac - so much better articulated than my explanation.

God bless

Danny cheers for the reply, I suspect we may have to agree to disagree though.

For me knowing and believing are different, although they do cover a lot of similar ground. You know that God exists and you believe that God exists. Believing in something is different, to me, from knowing something. This is where the overlapping definitions come in and why I do not see them as a logic problem. Problems conveying that knowledge to another or proving it to them is a different kettle of fish altogether.

I'm talking here about theistic agnosticism and atheistic agnosticism, not atheistic theism or vice versa.

waynepii wrote:Let's just forget it!

I looked into those links, and the one on Agnostic Theism, especially, had me laughing and being frustrated at the same time. Lol. Talk about noncommittal; they can't even make up their minds as to whether or not the terms agnostic or atheist will do . . . It makes me think of someone sitting there, waiting for their breakfast oatmeal to cool enough to eat, thinking, "Is it warm now? Or should I say tepid? Hmmm, maybe it's mildly hot, or . . . " And they go on and on, trying to put a term on something outside of themselves, and by the time they get done deciding on a word, the oatmeal is cold. Who knows what they do then, but I suspect they then say "Oh, it's cold! Or maybe I should say it's congealing due to lack of heat. Or, it simply lacks warmth . . . " And then they finally decide it's unappetizing and it's time to leave for work anyway, so . . .

I don't know.

cslewislover wrote:

I looked into those links, and the one on Agnostic Theism, especially, had me laughing and being frustrated at the same time. Lol. Talk about noncommittal; they can't even make up their minds as to whether or not the terms agnostic or atheist will do . . . It makes me think of someone sitting there, waiting for their breakfast oatmeal to cool enough to eat, thinking, "Is it warm now? Or should I say tepid? Hmmm, maybe it's mildly hot, or . . . " And they go on and on, trying to put a term on something outside of themselves, and by the time they get done deciding on a word, the oatmeal is cold. Who knows what they do then, but I suspect they then say "Oh, it's cold! Or maybe I should say it's congealing due to lack of heat. Or, it simply lacks warmth . . . " And then they finally decide it's unappetizing and it's time to leave for work anyway, so . . .

I don't know.

I'm even worse, I've spent at least the past 10 years trying to figure out what I mean when I say the word 'god'. The theist/agnostic/atheist thing isn't even on the horizon yet