Evidence for God from Science

Neha wrote:
With all due respect FL, you could be wrong. I just don't believe in God, the rest I do understand, there is no rocket science in the bible, its an easy book with a lot of interpretations, some good others not that good. I mean you understand atheism fine, by your post you seem to imply so. As a former "nominal" christian I understand christianity fine.

I think you guys are having a problem with my saying "I understand the bible". But to further the discussion why not we discuss a biblical topic, lets see how much do we really know.

I think this topic should be renamed, Getting to Know Neha. I don't envy you, what with having to keep track of everybody who wants your attention. Anyway, this is my answer to your message to me, above:

I used to be a flight instructor. You don't have to be very smart to learn flying, you just have to have a lot of disposable income. Of course, it helps to have brains but deep pockets are more important. I remember two interesting students I'd like to tell you about. One was a man who had spent a lot of time on Microsoft's Flight Simulator and had flown a variety of aircraft on his computer. Eric - his real name - said he knew how to fly and was sure he'd breeze through the training thanks to all the virtual flight hours he'd accumulated. ''OK'' I said, I'll line the airplane up on the runway for you but you'll do the actual takeoff.'' Eric applied full power and the plane accelerated. As we gained speed, he pulled back on the yoke far too early and we took off at a dangerously low speed. Had I not taken over, we would have crashed onto the runway from a fall of 20 or 30 feet up.

I flew the airplane up to a safe altitude then gave Eric the controls. I asked him to do some simple things like slowing down, speeding up, climbing and descending. Everything he did was a mess. After he put the airplane into a turn, it started descending faster and faster. The engine began sounding like those dive-bombers in WWII movies. ''We're in a spiral dive,'' I said, ''this is dangerous.'' I looked at him and he was frozen with fear.

The other student I remember is Edith. Edith wanted to learn to fly because her husband was thinking about buying an airplane. She listened to everything I told her, watched how I did everything and then went about putting it into practise. She was sometimes tense, sometimes afraid, sometimes drenched in sweat, but she was never overconfident.

Would you care to guess which of these two students went on to get their license?

Neha, reading the Bible over 20+ times will not give you any bit of understanding. You know - because you've read it - that understanding comes from the Holy Spirit. Being raised in a Christian home and going to a church is all useless in understanding the Scriptures as well. To understand the mind of God, the Holy Spirit must indwell you. He doesn't, so you are very much like my student Eric. You have puffed yourself with your knowledge but you will crash because of your attitude.

To debate the Bible with you would be to to heap more sin onto your head. I won't do it.

FL

I think this topic should be renamed, Getting to Know Neha.

FL, you guys are asking me questions, I didn't ask to be interrogated, you know. But it wouldn't exactly hurt if you knew me too.

Neha, reading the Bible over 20+ times will not give you any bit of understanding. You know - because you've read it - that understanding comes from the Holy Spirit. Being raised in a Christian home and going to a church is all useless in understanding the Scriptures as well. To understand the mind of God, the Holy Spirit must indwell you. He doesn't, so you are very much like my student Eric. You have puffed yourself with your knowledge but you will crash because of your attitude.

Perhaps FL, though this is the same thing a muslim can say to you too. You don't have the love of the prophet or the Allah in you therefore you do not understand Quran, the true revelation. The hindu can say the same. Every group I have seen tries to build this kind of immunity in it. You find the Quran wrong FL? How about you give me your view and I give you the answer "You don't understand it because you lack etc etc". Would that be fair to you? So don't give me this.

If I cannot understand the bible then who is responsible for me. Lets say I came from a muslim family or a hindu family, I don't have the holy spirit in me, I don't consider Christ God, but I do try to read the bible...by your reasoning I can never understand the gospel or come to God.

I was asked a question I gave the answer. But to answer you, the early church had no bible, and the church for a long period of time didn't have the bible, how do you think they knew God? Of course you need to understand the love of God to get to the bible, I understand that argument and its fine, I used to make it too. But you don't need the bible to know God. The jews had the Torah, the talmud, failed to see Jesus, didn't they? The church for a long time, held the bible in latin and the average commoner could never understand it or read it, yet were they not believers? Do you need the bible to be saved? No. Was the bible written by God or men? At best inspired by God, written by men. If men wrote it, they wrote it so that their readers could understand it. You need a brain to do that.

This is a strawman and low debate tactic. "You are dismissed because you can't understand it because you are atheist and possibly cannot be right, done." Let me ask you is this a debate forum or are you just going to pity me forever? Is this how you discuss things?

And if God is going to consider my reading of the bible as sin, then I really am screwed am I not? This version of God of yours goes directly against the god in the gospel you know.

Neha wrote:This is a strawman and low debate tactic. "You are dismissed because you can't understand it because you are atheist and possibly cannot be right, done." Let me ask you is this a debate forum or are you just going to pity me forever? Is this how you discuss things?

Well, actually, this discussion board wasn't intended as debate board or debate forums...

Except for perhaps the newer "Questioning Non-belief" forum where it is only fair for Atheists to be able to respond and debate.

You can read the board purpose at: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... f=1&t=2517 which you really should read if you haven't.

But, then, I'm just an old ex-moderator now cast down and stripped of all power.

Kurieuo wrote:

Neha wrote:This is a strawman and low debate tactic. "You are dismissed because you can't understand it because you are atheist and possibly cannot be right, done." Let me ask you is this a debate forum or are you just going to pity me forever? Is this how you discuss things?

Well, actually, this discussion board wasn't intended as debate board or debate forums...

Except for perhaps the newer "Questioning Non-belief" forum where it is only fair for Atheists to be able to respond and debate.

You can read the board purpose at: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... f=1&t=2517 which you really should read if you haven't.

But, then, I'm just an old ex-moderator now cast down and stripped of all power.

But then why the name "Evidence for God from science" surely you don't mean its for you?

Also I don't see any problems with what I have said so far and the board's purpose.

Neha wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Neha wrote:This is a strawman and low debate tactic. "You are dismissed because you can't understand it because you are atheist and possibly cannot be right, done." Let me ask you is this a debate forum or are you just going to pity me forever? Is this how you discuss things?

Well, actually, this discussion board wasn't intended as debate board or debate forums...

Except for perhaps the newer "Questioning Non-belief" forum where it is only fair for Atheists to be able to respond and debate.

You can read the board purpose at: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... f=1&t=2517 which you really should read if you haven't.

But, then, I'm just an old ex-moderator now cast down and stripped of all power.

But then why the name "Evidence for God from science" surely you don't mean its for you?

I'm not sure I see the correlation between what I said, and the name "Evidence for God from Science"

I mean the forum name is bound to attract non-believers. So its only natural that some people will land here with questions and hope to see some said evidence. I mentioned it because your revised board purpose, while serves your intentions of having good place for christians is not optimal since the name is kind of inviting for non-believers, you know.

Neha wrote:

B. W. wrote:Neha, Please give evidence why you responded ... to the questions below

Neha wrote:I don't think it cheapens anything.

Tell, if all is mere happenstance and human life is reduced to mere chemical reactions invigorated by environmental factors alone - would not that cheapen life?

What would that kind of philosophy seek to justify?

You gave opinions, not facts. A true person whom believes science alone believes in facts presented by evidence. What evidence do you have to support your claims so far?

because you didn't give me a fact either, just your opinion, and I gave you mine. You say it cheapens life, I say it doesn't. How can I give you evidence for this? It will be like asking you to give me evidence that jesus didn't rise from the dead. As far as you are concerned this has never happened so can you give me evidence of something that hasn't happened according to you?

I asked basic questions on your view that human life is merely chemicals reacting to environment and now you state that I did not provide evidence for what you, yourself, claim as fact: human life is merely chemicals reacting to environment. Interesting…

Both questions are direct questions. A true scientific mind and one who adheres to scientific enquiry would be able to present his/her facts, examine them, test them, and reach a conclusion, correct?

Next you try an equivalency fallacy in an attempt to divert me to the defensive – my apologies, this will not work. Rich Deem wrote a good article on the matter of the Resurrection.

Questions still stand:

Tell, if all is mere happenstance and human life is reduced to mere chemical reactions invigorated by environmental factors alone - would not that cheapen life?

What would that kind of philosophy seek to justify?

Your answer to the first was that it does not cheapen – therefore provide so data it does not.

I and several folks here on this thread can supply ample evidence that it does by, say, abortion. Winning at all cost Ends justify the means – Character assassination. Cambodian killing fields, More people murdered in Atheist countries than all any other, Assisted suicide, forced control over people’s lives, slavery, redistributional theft, never let a good crisis go to waste…dehumanizing your opponents, Cass Sunsteim who… see quote below…

n his 2003 paper, Sunstein criticized the government for protecting human life as though all lives were equal. Specifically, Sunstein said the government’s method for determining who received medical treatment should be changed; he suggested replacing the “value of a statistical life” (VSL) – which viewed all lives as equal – with the “value of a statistical life year” (VSLY).
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/cass-s ... oS0Gvo8.99

… fruits of Social Unitarianism... fruits of Marxism the list goes on and on…

When you cheapen life – well you cheapen morality and raise debasement and bring out the worst and most perverse in the human self…

The Self is not based on mere chemical reactions invigorated by environmental factors alone. When you mix chemicals – they don’t think or reason or write novels, produce movies, or tap dance...

Look at God and what this verse reveals about God mentioned in Luke 6:35 – He is kind to the ungrateful and evil folks...

He is slow to anger – he is just… far more than mere chemical reactions invigorated by environmental factors ever be.

Now look what I wrote before…in light of Luke 6:35 and your own arguments against God...

I used to ponder the existence of evil as evidence that there was no God, yet, this prejudice prevented me from realizing how God, no matter how bad the evil, overcame evil. How those battered by rape, or molestations, extreme loss, rejection, abandonment, could overcome the tragedy without hate, malice, thoughts of revenge. It never dawned on me back then how God overcomes evil and how He manifest is His glory in those, not guided by chemical reactions, can be so, forgiving. It is not about evil, it’s about overcoming evil that proves that there is a God, then when this course to perfection is complete, evil will be no more (Revelation 21:1). To refine Gold first requires the removal of dross. It takes time. We live in such times…
-
-
-

Neha wrote:I mean the forum name is bound to attract non-believers. So its only natural that some people will land here with questions and hope to see some said evidence. I mentioned it because your revised board purpose, while serves your intentions of having good place for christians is not optimal since the name is kind of inviting for non-believers, you know.

Umm... yeah but didn't I say that particular new forum area was like an exception? I'm still confused what all this has to do with the name Evidence for God from Science... or what is inconsistent there... But it's okay.

Kurieuo wrote:

Neha wrote:I mean the forum name is bound to attract non-believers. So its only natural that some people will land here with questions and hope to see some said evidence. I mentioned it because your revised board purpose, while serves your intentions of having good place for christians is not optimal since the name is kind of inviting for non-believers, you know.

Umm... yeah but didn't I say that particular new forum area was like an exception? I'm still confused what all this has to do with the name Evidence for God from Science... or what is inconsistent there... But it's okay.

No worries K, it was just a small point, I understand what you are saying.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Further, I've been around enough Christians to know that what I have phenomenally experienced of God's presence, looks to be very similar to others.

Poindexter sincerely assures you that aliens have abducted and probed him. Poindexter knows others who are also sincere and sure of their remarkably similar abductions and probes. How would you evaluate their testimony? How would Poindexter, let's say a non-religious person, evaluate your Christian testimony about God's presence?

I'm not asking who is correct. Assume I already know that Poindexter is incapable of understanding the evidence around him, and that you are correct. I'm asking how you and Poindexter might evaluate each other's extraordinary testimony.

Indeed - the point here being whether there exists a minimum standard of evidence which can reliably differentiate a particular spiritual claim from other, similar claims.

asked basic questions on your view that human life is merely chemicals reacting to environment and now you state that I did not provide evidence for what you, yourself, claim as fact: human life is merely chemicals reacting to environment. Interesting…

Both questions are direct questions. A true scientific mind and one who adheres to scientific enquiry would be able to present his/her facts, examine them, test them, and reach a conclusion, correct?

A true scientific mind would first tell you that human life is not merely chemical reacting to environment. The environment and the chemicals are all connected in a great web of life. Which is very unique. Look up, and see as far as you can see, no life around. So whether God exists or not, we are not cheap. We are very unique because we are rare, life is rare. Just because I do not believe in your God does not make my life cheap at all. That is the assertion you have introduced without proving it objectively. That was the evidence I asked of you. I do not agree with you that life is cheap, at all.

Next you try an equivalency fallacy in an attempt to divert me to the defensive – my apologies, this will not work. Rich Deem wrote a good article on the matter of the Resurrection.

Not at all, please take some time and read it again, I said:

It will be like asking you to give me evidence that jesus DIDN'T rise from the dead. As far as you are concerned this has never happened so can you give me evidence of something that hasn't happened according to you?

Do you see my point? You can't give me evidence of something that hasn't happened. And I can't give you the same too. You show me how life is cheap, I will show you how its not.

I and several folks here on this thread can supply ample evidence that it does by, say, abortion. Winning at all cost Ends justify the means – Character assassination. Cambodian killing fields, More people murdered in Atheist countries than all any other, Assisted suicide, forced control over people’s lives, slavery, redistributional theft, never let a good crisis go to waste…dehumanizing your opponents, Cass Sunsteim who… see quote below…

n his 2003 paper, Sunstein criticized the government for protecting human life as though all lives were equal. Specifically, Sunstein said the government’s method for determining who received medical treatment should be changed; he suggested replacing the “value of a statistical life” (VSL) – which viewed all lives as equal – with the “value of a statistical life year” (VSLY).
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/cass-s ... oS0Gvo8.99

… fruits of Social Unitarianism... fruits of Marxism the list goes on and on…

I suggest you take your questions to Cass then. Tell me do you defend all of christian denominations too? Would you defend Ken Ham or Christian slave traders, any fundamentalist, westbro baptist? Would you like to defend the inquisition or mormons or J.witnesses?

You answer for your view of christian faith and thats fine. I answer for what I find true not what others believe.

When you cheapen life – well you cheapen morality and raise debasement and bring out the worst and most perverse in the human self…

I don't.

The Self is not based on mere chemical reactions invigorated by environmental factors alone. When you mix chemicals – they don’t think or reason or write novels, produce movies, or tap dance...

What is it based on then?

Look at God and what this verse reveals about God mentioned in Luke 6:35 – He is kind to the ungrateful and evil folks...

He is slow to anger – he is just… far more than mere chemical reactions invigorated by environmental factors ever be.
Now look what I wrote before…in light of Luke 6:35 and your own arguments against God...

So far my arguments have more been against your projecting some dawkins like persona on me.

I used to ponder the existence of evil as evidence that there was no God, yet, this prejudice prevented me from realizing how God, no matter how bad the evil, overcame evil. How those battered by rape, or molestations, extreme loss, rejection, abandonment, could overcome the tragedy without hate, malice, thoughts of revenge. It never dawned on me back then how God overcomes evil and how He manifest is His glory in those, not guided by chemical reactions, can be so, forgiving. It is not about evil, it’s about overcoming evil that proves that there is a God, then when this course to perfection is complete, evil will be no more (Revelation 21:1). To refine Gold first requires the removal of dross. It takes time. We live in such times…

I think you have honest intentions B.W. I am sure you believe what you say. I respect that.

And unless evil is overcome by your God, how could I know if he exists or not? You may have seen him, I haven't! For the same reason you don't worship Allah or Krishna, is the same reason I don't worship God of christianity.

PerciFlage wrote:

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Further, I've been around enough Christians to know that what I have phenomenally experienced of God's presence, looks to be very similar to others.

Poindexter sincerely assures you that aliens have abducted and probed him. Poindexter knows others who are also sincere and sure of their remarkably similar abductions and probes. How would you evaluate their testimony? How would Poindexter, let's say a non-religious person, evaluate your Christian testimony about God's presence?

I'm not asking who is correct. Assume I already know that Poindexter is incapable of understanding the evidence around him, and that you are correct. I'm asking how you and Poindexter might evaluate each other's extraordinary testimony.

Indeed - the point here being whether there exists a minimum standard of evidence which can reliably differentiate a particular spiritual claim from other, similar claims.

You're agnosticism is wearing thin Perci.

Re: Morny's comments, what makes it so extraordinary? Then again, I suppose "vision" would be extraordinary to a visually blind person too. For me, I see it as no more no more extraordinary than vision.

Also, nice bite size quote of mine. Read the paragraph after. While you're add it, since you seem to know better why not place some of your own beliefs on the table to do with reality? I've got a thread just for that, and would be interested to hear your own views on many issues if you're happy to provide them.

Kurieuo's paragraph after Morny's partial quote wrote:Yet, in the same way the "visually blind man" could discard all your "evidence" because he lacks any such experience, so too can you dismiss our own experiences. And when we present arguments based on logic and reality, you too can dismiss that type of evidence by retreating into an agnostic stance. Even inconsistently retreating into a form of ontological nihilism which you happily ignore to live your life in some practical and rational manner (for example crossing the road to avoid cars), but then embrace when dealing with logical arguments that you don't like the conclusion/s of regarding reality and metaphysical matters.

Back to Perci, ultimately one might argue some funny logic like If a person sees red while another blue, then both don't see any colour. Not sure how that is a sound argument, but even if it is true that both are seeing some sort of colour, then the fact both see something still doesn't fare well for the blind person in denial.

Further, we've also covered that I only have direct access to my own experiences. You say we can't really even validate the existence of another and it is therefore fair to reject that others exist. So why should I place what someone else claims to experience as being of the same type to my own, or even above my own? There needs to be some good logical reasoning. Without any good reason to discard what I see with my eyes as true, why should I discard it because of what someone else experiences? Why should my own perceived experiences with the divine be considered different? Just because you've not had one? Well, according to your own words, I can't even verify your existence.

Finally, this is not an argument for others. I can't convince you any more of the reality of such experiences, any more than you could a blind man skeptical of vision. I'm talking to those who can relate to my own experiences -- those who have experienced something divine. There is no reason I can see, why one cannot be immediate justified to accept such a spiritual experience as real, in the same manner I do my physical experiences. If you disagree, then offer up a logical argument why I wouldn't be?

Cheers.

Kurieuo wrote:Finally, this is not an argument for others. I can't convince you any more of the reality of such experiences, any more than you could a blind man skeptical of vision. I'm talking to those who can relate to my own experiences -- those who have experienced something divine. There is no reason I can see, why one cannot be immediate justified to accept such a spiritual experience as real, in the same manner I do my physical experiences. If you disagree, then offer up a logical argument why I wouldn't be?

Cheers.

I hope you don't feel like I'm selectively quoting you here - I've quoted just this section because I feel like it's enough to allow me to address the substance of the rest of your post without unduly clogging up the rest of the thread. Let me know if you feel that I've missed out on an important point, though.

Regarding the bolded bit, my position ever since you first crafted the analogy is that I could convince a blind person of the reality of vision even if I can't allow them to know what it is like to experience vision first hand.

Regarding the italicised bit, my position has always been that there is of course a reason for those who have experienced spiritual phenomena first hand to accept them as being every bit as real as their own physical experiences.

So the subjective positions here are that a seeing man understands what it is like to see, Morny's Poindexter knows what it is like to be abducted, and you know what it is like to experience the divine.

Someone who is physically and spiritually blind and has never been abducted can of necessity never know what it is like to experience any of those phenomena first hand. We have discussed, however, that there are a number of different ways that a blind person could demonstrate experimentally that some people do indeed possess the power of vision.

My point, therefore, was given these two statements:

Kurieuo: "I have experienced the divine".

Poindexter: "I have experienced abduction".

Is there a way for an outsider who is unable to experience either of those things directly to nevertheless convince themselves that other people really have experienced something like abduction and the divine?

You mentioned earlier that the similarity of different people's experience of the divine is evidence that something spiritual is real. Does this mean that the similarities between different abduction accounts is evidence that some abductions are real too? If not, then why not? And also if not, is there some other way for an outsider to reliably disambiguate the two claims, or is agnosticism to both claims by an outsider the only tenable position pending further evidence?

I don't believe agnosticism on vision is a tenable position for a blind person to have, but I do believe it is on the two claims stated above. This isn't to say that all accounts of the divine and abductions are definitely false - I could experience either of those things directly tomorrow, but would still have to hold to the position that whilst I was convinced of the reality myself that agnosticism for an outsider was the only sensible position. Unless I had a way of convincing an outsider of the reality of my experience like I do of convincing a blind person of my vision.

Neha wrote:Ryan,
Its very simple,

<SNIP>

5. I want to be correct, I accept what makes sense and try to go with it to logical conclusions.

Neha, thanks for your answers. I won't get into your objections right now, as it's well outside the scope of this thread (even though we are already outside the OP quite a ways), but thanks for sharing, I feel I know you a little better. I think your answer to number 5 is quite important, and I may hold you to this someday

Neha wrote: If I cannot understand the bible then who is responsible for me.

I think there is some confusion. You're right, everyone can say they've got it right, but it requires a divine knowledge or something. I believe the Bible was written for all people from all times. BUT, you have to have an open heart. I think this is what's being misunderstood. We are (I am) not saying you're incapable of understanding, we are (I am) saying you are blinded because you have a hardened heart. Again, I insist you never have really believe beyond that of a child obeying their parents commands. I grew up with lots of kids like that. I don't think you've ever had a willingness and softened heart to actually let the truth in. You are not a seeker, you are here to justify to yourself there is no evidence for God so that you can live your life how you please.

Of course you'll just tell me that you have done these things. But your words tell me otherwise. I don't know you personally, but I've met an awful lot of people like this. It would be exceptionally rare in my experience if you were different. I would love for you to set aside your pride and become a seeker. Please, seek God and let us help you. You can start a new thread and ask your questions. You can PM me, or someone else you trust, if you prefer.

Warning:
[beginRant]
This is a general comment for all and not necessarily aimed at someone in particular. First, as far as personal experience, it can only serve as a barometer by which one can judge their own belief, sort of an internal measuring device. It can never be used as outward evidence so I'm not sure why this is becoming an issue. Second, all this BS (sorry) about 'I've been there so I know' or 'we know the bible more than you' and so on. Really, what is up with that. Since when is knowledge (or its lack) evidence of belief? Remember the Gnostics? They are the masters of knowledge and yet their sets of beliefs are as foreign to the bible as a Nordic in Mecca. Give me the faith of a child any day. Having said that, and while I totally agree that without God's grace it is impossible to know Him, on a purely intellectual level there are a given set of propositions either they are true or they are false. I am contending that these propositions can be positively shown as true and unless and until someone can show how they cannot be, they will then stand as true (and have, by the way, stood as true oh, starting from around 2.5 Millennia ago). Any attempt to discredit them has either proven false or proven to be a straw-man. Of course I am referring to the Aristotelian formal and final causation and, by extension, Aquinas' Five Ways. These sets of propositions conclude beyond any doubt the existence of Pure Act whose essence and existence are identical (and resolve a host of other new-age metaphysical problems from Platonism to Cartesian dualism to the utterly incomprehensible eliminative materialism). If anyone wants to show how these sets of propositions are false, please do so (in a different thread perhaps). Then we can have a meaningful discussion on the existence of God.
[/endRant]