Evidence for God from Science

Can you say more about this? Specifically, can you define "god" for us? What are you saying it is at least possible to exist, even if you doubt is actually there? And second, when you say you highly doubt the Christian God exists, do you mean that as you wrote it or are you really saying that it is impossible for the Christian God to exist? If you mean it as you wrote it, are you saying that you admit the possibility, however remote, of His existence? Perhaps you just see it as so remote that we might as well regard it as not being the case?

Gee, I didn't think what I wrote was so complicated. But ok...let's see, I'm saying I think it is possible for god to exist. I doubt it, yes, but I still think it's perfectly possible.
I didn't mean it is impossible for the Christian God to exist (if I thought it was, I wouldn't be in this forum to begin with!), I'm just saying I doubt it. I do admit the possibility of His existence. I think of that as a remote possibility, though.

Was I clear this time? I hope so...

Clearer. I was hoping for a definition of "god." Some people mean a superpowerful and supersmart old man with long white hair that watches everything we do from "up there" somewhere . . . ya know, an Odin type figure. Is that what you have in mind, or do you admit the remote possibility of the existence of God as the Church has traditionally defined Him: as ipsum esse subsistens, as "the greatest conceivable being," in modern modern speak as "the maximally excellent being," or in just good old fashioned biblical speak, "I AM"?

MBPrata wrote:

Can you say more about this? Specifically, can you define "god" for us? What are you saying it is at least possible to exist, even if you doubt is actually there? And second, when you say you highly doubt the Christian God exists, do you mean that as you wrote it or are you really saying that it is impossible for the Christian God to exist? If you mean it as you wrote it, are you saying that you admit the possibility, however remote, of His existence? Perhaps you just see it as so remote that we might as well regard it as not being the case?

Gee, I didn't think what I wrote was so complicated. But ok...let's see, I'm saying I think it is possible for god to exist. I doubt it, yes, but I still think it's perfectly possible.
I didn't mean it is impossible for the Christian God to exist (if I thought it was, I wouldn't be in this forum to begin with!), I'm just saying I doubt it. I do admit the possibility of His existence. I think of that as a remote possibility, though.

Was I clear this time? I hope so...

I see you're still using imagination but if you can't answer this,then you should stop using imagination and get back to logic,reason and reality. This is a fact,ALL things have a cause and ALL things that are caused are caused by something else and ALL things are willed into existence,look all around you and there is nothing you can name in our world that does not apply to these facts.But you are choosing to live in LA LA land in order to deny an all powerful,eternal God that can create universes easy and intervene into our world anytime he chooses to and did because even our faith in God applies to these facts you deny in order to deny God.Don't take it personal because all people who deny God live by their imagination.

Clearer. I was hoping for a definition of "god."

Oh, please, don't do that to me. You sound like my father, rejecting God because it's an "abstract" concept. I get tired describing God for my father, I tell even it can't be abstract because His concept it is actually written in a book and he keeps saying it's abstract (he's an atheist, by the way). I meant "god" in the most traditional way, so to speak. You know, that traditional, somehow rustic, way. As in: the beginning of all things, created by noone or nothing, conscious eternal being that can save us if he/she/??? wants.

But you are choosing to live in LA LA land in order to deny an all powerful,eternal God that can create universes easy and intervene into our world anytime he chooses to

Abelcainsbrother, we've been there already. But as you must have learnt from this very topic, atheists think christians are choosing to live in LA LA land in order to deny an unconcious, eternal rule that can create universes easy and intervene into our world anytime it happens to. How does that feel? And guess what: they think that with probably the exact same conviction you have on your idea. It is as true for them as your idea is true for you.
In short, atheists think you are as delusional as you think they are.

Oh, is life complicated...

MBPrata wrote:

Clearer. I was hoping for a definition of "god."

Oh, please, don't do that to me. You sound like my father, rejecting God because it's an "abstract" concept. I get tired describing God for my father, I tell even it can't be abstract because His concept it is actually written in a book and he keeps saying it's abstract (he's an atheist, by the way). I meant "god" in the most traditional way, so to speak. You know, that traditional, somehow rustic, way. As in: the beginning of all things, created by noone or nothing, conscious eternal being that can save us if he/she/??? wants.

But you are choosing to live in LA LA land in order to deny an all powerful,eternal God that can create universes easy and intervene into our world anytime he chooses to

Abelcainsbrother, we've been there already. But as you must have learnt from this very topic, atheists think christians are choosing to live in LA LA land in order to deny an unconcious, eternal rule that can create universes easy and intervene into our world anytime it happens to. How does that feel? And guess what: they think that with probably the exact same conviction you have on your idea. It is as true for them as your idea is true for you.
In short, atheists think you are as delusional as you think they are.

Oh, is life complicated...

I know atheists think we are in LA LA land if we believe in God but the difference is they are all going by their imagination,imagining by blind faith to believe not all things have a cause and things that are caused are not caused by something else and not all things are willed into existence and they believe this that defies logic,treason and reality and this is Before we even get into evidence,they must first get back in reality or it is pointless.

It is a lot like a person who is self destructive and so because they don't mind hurting their self they don't mind hurting others.It is self defeating rebellion to the facts,infinite regression cannot be broken,yet in atheist LA LA land it can.

MBPrata wrote:

Clearer. I was hoping for a definition of "god."

Oh, please, don't do that to me. You sound like my father, rejecting God because it's an "abstract" concept. I get tired describing God for my father, I tell even it can't be abstract because His concept it is actually written in a book and he keeps saying it's abstract (he's an atheist, by the way). I meant "god" in the most traditional way, so to speak. You know, that traditional, somehow rustic, way. As in: the beginning of all things, created by noone or nothing, conscious eternal being that can save us if he/she/??? wants.

I'm asking out of genuine curiosity, not trying to do anything to you. I'm sure you are aware that there different conceptions of God, and some people reject some, accept others, and lump them all under the same category. I also don't happen to think of God (in the sense of ipsum esse subsistens or the maximally excellent being) as particularly abstract, either. That always struck me as something of a cop out. I'm glad we seem to be on the same page there.

Anyway, so I asked because I had an argument in the back of my mind. I'm not going to try to play games with you. It's not an argument I'm particularly fond of, and when I teach the subject I steer my students away from it. But all the same, you've raised the possibility of God's existence (in the classical sense), so I'm curious what you make of it. When you say that it is at least possible, if very unlikely, that God exists, in the language of analytical philosophy, we would state that as, "There is a possible world in which God exists." That's not to say that this possible world really does exist. It's just the way philosophers talk about possibility and probability. I won't bore you with the details; besides, you might be familiar with them anyway.

Regardless, we would say so far, "It is possible that God exists; therefore, there is a possible world (or a possible state of affairs, if you prefer) in which it is true to say that God exists." If that's not controversial, then all that is really left is what seems like a very unfair move but one that I think is logically necessary. It goes like this:

"If there is a possible world in which God exists, then God exists in all possible worlds."

But, of course, if God exists in all possible worlds, then He exists in this one, too. Therefore, God exists.

I'm tempted to launch into an explanation of the premise I characterized as seemingly unfair but logically necessary, but I want to hold off on that. I'm curious as to your thoughts on what I've suggested so far. I don't expect you to agree with the conclusion. I do wonder, though, about your thoughts regarding the formal validity of this approach to the question and if you'd be open to and interested in exploring it further. As a final thought, that's why I was asking about the definition of god. The argument I just outlined, if it has any hope of succeeding, has to deal only with the classical concept of God. The Odin-like god . . . the superman who exists in the genus of person and thus the genus of being and differs from us only by degree . . . that god can't be shown to exist from any of this. But the story is different with the God of the Bible. I hope you can appreciate why I asked for the clarifications, then.

I'm asking out of genuine curiosity, not trying to do anything to you. I'm sure you are aware that there different conceptions of God, and some people reject some, accept others, and lump them all under the same category.

Ok, I'm sorry, then. I guess I'm a little "traumatized" by my father's discussions (we've don't have a good relationship, anyway).

"If there is a possible world in which God exists, then God exists in all possible worlds."

Nice line of thought. It makes pretty much sense, yes. But...I don't know, it feels like, at the end of the day, it's just a game with semantic and philosophy. I know, your comment is logical...but I suppose I never trusted philosophy to give me an answer to anything, just to speculate on how things COULD be. Also, there are philosophical reasonings that "prove" the non-existence of God. And each one of them has their logic, as weel as logical reasonings for the existence of God.

This is one of the reasons I'm still puzzled that God wants us to believe in such a specific religion and thinks we have "no excuse" to not believe in God (as I think mr. Deem said once or twice). Jeez, I can hardly believe the universe is real sometimes...

they are all going by their imagination,imagining by blind faith to believe not all things have a cause and things that are caused are not caused by something else and not all things are willed into existence

Well, abelcainsbrother, you said so yourself: infinite regression cannot be broken. In so being, atheists also think christians are are all going by their imagination, imagining by blind faith to believe all things have a cause and all things are willed into existence.I think this whole "christians are this kind of people, atheists are that kind of people" thing creates - there you go! - an infinite regression that leads to nowhere. That's why, on my debates, I try the harder I can to not fall into the "trap" of thinking my "foe" is in any way less intelligent and/or more in denial than I am...
I try, of course. I'm not perfect; I fail sometimes.

Jac3510 wrote:

MBPrata wrote: I'm tempted to launch into an explanation of the premise I characterized as seemingly unfair but logically necessary, but I want to hold off on that.

<br>
Jac, I'm curious to hear your explanation of this premise. The argument seems familiar...maybe something that was discussed in one of my philosophy classes (way back when) or maybe I've just seen it in one of your previous posts? I understand how this logic follows if it is simply describing the existence of an idea, but I doubt that this was your intent. Please enlighten me!

Jac3510 wrote: I'm tempted to launch into an explanation of the premise I characterized as seemingly unfair but logically necessary, but I want to hold off on that.

I would also like to hear this explanation, or if you have one, a rationale for why you don't like using this argument for your students.

Nessa wrote:
"“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Looks like Dawkins has been studying his dictionary.

I believe the reason is that by definition, a maximally great being must exist in all possible worlds if he exists in any possible world. If one agrees that the Christian God could possibly exist in a possible world, then that maximally great being would also exist here because he's maximally great. Slam dunk IMO.

What I don't understand is why shy away from this argument. I would like to know more about that.

To MBprata, why would you shy away from philosophy? I'd like to hear some of the philosophical arguments that prove God isn't real, provided they're sound and tight.

MBPrata wrote:

So you do believe there is a God?

Me? No, not really. I consider it is possible for a god to exist, but I doubt it/he/she exists. And also because I highly doubt the god of the Bible exists, I wrote what I wrote. I feel really unconfortable when considering a supreme being expects us to believe anything at all, let alone such a specific religion like christianity.

Why do you feel uncomfortable?

I'm not sure God expects us to believe, I think He hopes we will. It has to be our choice, He will never force us to.

MBPrata wrote:

Clearer. I was hoping for a definition of "god."

Oh, please, don't do that to me. You sound like my father, rejecting God because it's an "abstract" concept. I get tired describing God for my father, I tell even it can't be abstract because His concept it is actually written in a book and he keeps saying it's abstract (he's an atheist, by the way). I meant "god" in the most traditional way, so to speak. You know, that traditional, somehow rustic, way. As in: the beginning of all things, created by noone or nothing, conscious eternal being that can save us if he/she/??? wants.

But you are choosing to live in LA LA land in order to deny an all powerful,eternal God that can create universes easy and intervene into our world anytime he chooses to

Abelcainsbrother, we've been there already. But as you must have learnt from this very topic, atheists think christians are choosing to live in LA LA land in order to deny an unconcious, eternal rule that can create universes easy and intervene into our world anytime it happens to. How does that feel? And guess what: they think that with probably the exact same conviction you have on your idea. It is as true for them as your idea is true for you.
In short, atheists think you are as delusional as you think they are.

Oh, is life complicated...

Personally I think each and every one of us has a unique relationship with God. How can we, as mere mortals, really explain who God is. I am confident in my belief, I am coming to really know God but I still struggle to describe Him.

Atheists are as convinced they are right as we are. Who am I to tell them that they are wrong? I am more than willing to accept that, in fact, I could be wrong, maybe God doesn't exist. Personally, I know He does, at least for me. I know I'm not wrong but then atheists think that too.

MPB? Do you want God to be real?

Nessa wrote:Interestingly, Dawkins brings up the same argument that Harris did.

Harris puts forth in another talk that you get born into religion and if you don't happen to be born into Christianity, you'll get to burn in hell.

These conclusions seem kind of silly. God is the same everywhere no matter how people choose to define God. Being born into Christianity is not a "free ticket" that guarantees you're 'saved'. It is your actions that determine that, regardless if you were born into a Christian family or not.

If you are blessed to be born in a good Christian family, where you can receive good life advice, then you probably have a much better chance at living the life God wants for you.

But, in my opinion, you don't have to identify as a 'Christian' to live the life that God wants you to live. Being a Christian simply means that you live by the example of Jesus Christ.

If you're not born into Christianity, but you still live your life by the principals taught by Jesus, then I think you're good.

evobulgarevo wrote:

Nessa wrote:Interestingly, Dawkins brings up the same argument that Harris did.

Harris puts forth in another talk that you get born into religion and if you don't happen to be born into Christianity, you'll get to burn in hell.

These conclusions seem kind of silly. God is the same everywhere no matter how people choose to define God. Being born into Christianity is not a "free ticket" that guarantees you're 'saved'. It is your actions that determine that, regardless if you were born into a Christian family or not.

If you are blessed to be born in a good Christian family, where you can receive good life advice, then you probably have a much better chance at living the life God wants for you.

But, in my opinion, you don't have to identify as a 'Christian' to live the life that God wants you to live. Being a Christian simply means that you live by the example of Jesus Christ.

If you're not born into Christianity, but you still live your life by the principals taught by Jesus, then I think you're good.

Hi Welcome to the forum

Just a couple of things (as I understand it, so I could be wrong)

You say it is our actions that determine whether we are saved. I disagree, it`s not our actions, it`s our faith in Christ.
Being Christian, to me, means that I believe in Christ. Christ is the way, the truth. The way to the Father is through Christ. No one gets to see the Father except through Him.

Other religions, other faiths, can be good, they can have principles that complement Christianity but personally I believe that it is the only way to God, through Christ.