Evidence for God from Science

I am saying that that when you accept the possibility of metaphysical objects based on the reasoning that the nonexistence of any given entity can not be guaranteed, you open yourself up to the possibility of any conceivable entity. Those are 3 possible entities out of many. It is right to say that out of that set of three, only one may have the property of existence, but it is wrong to say that a possibility for the existence of God means God exists.

When this forum suggests a given entity exists (God), it does not open up to any possible conceivable entity. This forum has not provided history of a spaghetti monster or unicorns. It has provided history and evidence from the bible and that bible refers to the person Jesus Christ. With that said, it is not wrong to say with the evidence provided such an entity exists. That is what one does with logic and reasoning. We look at historical evidence everyday to piece together our past and can draw conclusions on many historical persons. There is enough evidence to logically accept the existence of Plato, Montezuma, Cleopatra, and if and when historical evidence about said spaghetti monster or said unicorn is presented, then perhaps one can use logic and reasoning to determine their existence. At this point, empirical evidence only points to one said "cookie monster"

What makes and a researcher more valid is when they simply seek out evidence to prove themselves wrong. I am not strongly opposed to the bible, however many people that follow it tend to reject the rest of the world findings. That is what I meant. I also do not believe everything I read or hear which is why I do not consider myself a theist, atheist or agnostic...no isms for me...I do not want to make up my mind and label myself because I know that the answer will never be clear to me.

Check out Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" he is one such researcher... lawyer, journalist...who set out in his to prove his Christian wife wrong as he saw her efforts as futile. As he researched, he used his skills as a lawyer to put the existence of Christ on trial. What he discovered changed him from atheist to a Christian.

sweetadeline112358 wrote:For the morality thing, I think that what I am trying to understand is how anyone could possibly say whether or not some other person was acting from a moral decision. In other words, a human being is a sort of black box, where we can observe their external behaviors, but do not have access to their internal experience.

Perhaps one day we will be able to access a person's internal experiences... however, I think you are looking at it the wrong way around.

The reality of someone else's moral decision is not dependant their behaviour or our knowing. Rather, our knowledge of a moral decision is perhaps dependant on their moral behaviour which is dependant on their moral decisions. Furthermore, just because we don't have access to their internal experiences, I do not see how this means we cannot know they are making moral decisions.

sweetadeline wrote:I am not talking about a moral dilemma where either action seems morally unappealing. I am talking about situations where a person feels equally motivated to perform one of two possible actions and utilizes a moral judgement to decide which course of action to take.

Hmm. I did just come in recently, but I'm not sure I understand the issues you are getting it.

I will add though that their motivation could also incorporate their moral virtues and values. If a person is motivated to gain money but in order to do so they must lie and backstab a fellow worker which they equally do not want to do... then 1) Which should they choose? and 2) Which ought they choose?

sweetadeline wrote:Actually, I am not trying to make a comparison between Spaghetti Monsters, Unicorns, and God. I am saying that that when you accept the possibility of metaphysical objects based on the reasoning that the nonexistence of any given entity can not be guaranteed, you open yourself up to the possibility of any conceivable entity. Those are 3 possible entities out of many.

In your own words here you draw out the kind of comparisons I presumed you to be making anyway.

Furthermore, we perform metaphysics even without knowing it every day. For example, how do you know the room you just walked out does not fade away the moment you leave it? You do presume it is still there don't you? Does a tree fall in the forest if noone is there to see or hear it? Your assumptions here are all based on your metaphysical beliefs on reality and existence.

Now I accept the possibility of God, indeed I accepts God's existence. My acceptance however is not based on reasoning that God's nonexistence can be guaranteed, but rather evidence I clearly see and perceive in the world for His existence. Belief is God's existence is quite different from a belief in an abstract concept out of the head of someone who thinks themselves clever (such as the sphaghetti monster).

sweetadeline wrote:I need to know what aspect of empiricism you are interested in looking at.

Well, I want to know how you came to know and accept that knowledge arises only through our sense perceptions? Particularly given if evolution is true, then we did not necessarily evolve to understand truth, but rather to believe that which will lead to our survival regardless of any bearing it has on truth.

robyn hill wrote:When this forum suggests a given entity exists (God), it does not open up to any possible conceivable entity. This forum has not provided history of a spaghetti monster or unicorns. It has provided history and evidence from the bible and that bible refers to the person Jesus Christ. With that said, it is not wrong to say with the evidence provided such an entity exists. That is what one does with logic and reasoning. We look at historical evidence everyday to piece together our past and can draw conclusions on many historical persons. There is enough evidence to logically accept the existence of Plato, Montezuma, Cleopatra, and if and when historical evidence about said spaghetti monster or said unicorn is presented, then perhaps one can use logic and reasoning to determine their existence. At this point, empirical evidence only points to one said "cookie monster"

You have not understood what I have said. I did not say that Christians must now believe in the existence of all entities such as unicorns, spaghetti monsters, or cookie monsters. Do you think that I am that stupid? I said that when you accept the valid assertion that the non-existence of any given entity cannot be guaranteed, you open yourself up to the possibility of the existence of all entities. It's not that everything else exists, it's that it might exist. Furthermore, it seems that you think I am attempting to make a "comparison between analogs". No, I am not making any kind of inference. At this point, the entire argument is only priori (ie, a product of reason).

It makes sense to me that you would utilize an a posteriori argument to explain why there is a good chance that Jesus existed. However, it is worth noting that when you do this, you are now making use of the same tools that Empiricism uses: inferences drawn from the observation of particulars.

With that said, it is not wrong to say with the evidence provided such an entity exists. That is what one does with logic and reasoning.

It seems like you might have the a priori confused with the a posteriori. In an informal sense, people often say things are reasonable or logical, but utilizing historical counts is drawing an inference from the observation of particulars. In other words, you don't end up with any sort of "absolute truth value", you end up with fuzzy estimates: "there is a good chance this is true".

Kurieuo wrote:In your own words here you draw out the kind of comparisons I presumed you to be making anyway.

I am not making trying to make a comparison. What is the comparison that you think I am trying to make?

Kurieuo wrote:Furthermore, we perform metaphysics even without knowing it every day. For example, how do you know the room you just walked out does not fade away the moment you leave it?"

Well, I want to know how you came to know and accept that knowledge arises only through our sense perceptions?

Why do you think that this is my position? I stated several times earlier in this long discussion that Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on metaphysical accounts of reality. I think that this Cartesian (although, it is really much more ancient than that) idea that we may not be able to trust our sense impressions is valid, and that is a possibility that I am open to. However, you lose a lot if you reject the idea that any kind of knowledge can be obtained via observation. For example: you would lose your a posteriori historical accounts of Jesus.

Belief is God's existence is quite different from a belief in an abstract concept out of the head of someone who thinks themselves clever (such as the sphaghetti monster)

I think that it is fair to say that there is more a posteriori evidence for the existence of Jesus than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But you can't rule out the possibility of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unless you think the ONLY knowledge that may be had is of that which is observable.

I will add though that their motivation could also incorporate their moral virtues and values. If a person is motivated to gain money but in order to do so they must lie and backstab a fellow worker which they equally do not want to do... then 1) Which should they choose? and 2) Which ought they choose?

My own moral values place a high value on life, but I am not "the decider" in this circumstance. Everyone has their own sense of moral values though, which is why laws have been a convenient social tool for a very long time.

You have not understood what I have said. I did not say that Christians must now believe in the existence of all entities such as unicorns, spaghetti monsters, or cookie monsters. Do you think that I am that stupid? I said that when you accept the valid assertion that the non-existence of any given entity cannot be guaranteed, you open yourself up to the possibility of the existence of all entities. It's not that everything else exists, it's that it might exist. Furthermore, it seems that you think I am attempting to make a "comparison between analogs". No, I am not making any kind of inference. At this point, the entire argument is only priori (ie, a product of reason).

It makes sense to me that you would utilize an a posteriori argument to explain why there is a good chance that Jesus existed. However, it is worth noting that when you do this, you are now making use of the same tools that Empiricism uses: inferences drawn from the observation of particulars.

I did understand what you said sweetadeline, in fact I responded to your words verbatim. Re-read my post. I understand all of your responses as I took my share of philosophy in college. Where I think we differ, is I have chosen to form a belief system based on evidence at hand enough to draw certain conclusions. I do believe we can understand truths based on both our senses and our ability to reason. I too studied Decartes, and don't agree with his philosophy. I am older and wiser than my college days and do not especially care if a tree can be heard in the woods regardless of anyone being there. I feel one can spend their whole life chasing their tale with philosophical jargon and catch phrases and at my age, find it to be futile. Again, I will assert that I don't open myself up to the existence of all entities,I think we have been around long enough to take a look at certain historical evidence and "infer" as to whether it is factual or not at least reasonably conceivable enough to be comfortable with accepting it as truth. Unfortunately, I don't have as much time on my hands as some of the earlier philosophers and quite frankly, thank God for that!

sweetadeline112358 wrote:I think that it is fair to say that there is more a posteriori evidence for the existence of Jesus than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But you can't rule out the possibility of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unless you think the ONLY knowledge that may be had is of that which is observable.

The flying spaghetti monster is an invention of atheism which is used to try to ridicule those who hold a belief in God. The very fact that you brought the flying spaghetti monster into the conversation shows me exactly where you are coming from. If you really want to be taken seriously, then why not posit something other than God which does not constitute a form of derision? Why choose this standard atheistic 'trump card,' which in reality is just a pathetic attempt at playground baiting? Your use of philosophical language to try to disguise your contempt is, for me, utterly transparant, hence I am thus far finding it impossible to take you seriously. I think you need to up your game if you want serious discussion.

I have to agree with Danny, I hear philosophical termanology, but that is all I am hearing. I would like to hear your clear cut objectives or questions, and perhaps leave the philosophy jargon out of it for a while.

sweetadeline112358 wrote:I think that it is fair to say that there is more a posteriori evidence for the existence of Jesus than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But you can't rule out the possibility of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unless you think the ONLY knowledge that may be had is of that which is observable.

I will add though that their motivation could also incorporate their moral virtues and values. If a person is motivated to gain money but in order to do so they must lie and backstab a fellow worker which they equally do not want to do... then 1) Which should they choose? and 2) Which ought they choose?

My own moral values place a high value on life, but I am not "the decider" in this circumstance. Everyone has their own sense of moral values though, which is why laws have been a convenient social tool for a very long time.

How can you place a high value on life if you are not 'the decider' in this?

What influences your decisions in having value on life?

Why cannot God have convenient laws that train us in what makes right - right and wrong - wrong?

As for the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is used as a Moral Equivalency Argument. If there are no moral absolutes, then this argument is vacuous in its case to disprove existence of God or objective morality because it needs to make an absolute objective moral judgment thus contradicting the premise of its own argument in order to be true.

People do not need God to make social laws or enforce these laws. People do need God to make sure laws we create are in line with his standards of right and wrong so that equity is the rule and not the exception. God governs the world with equity. If not, you could not disagree or have an opinion, nor could you learn what makes right — right or wrong — wrong.

You say you value life. Then do you really value your own? You face eternity, as do we all. Right now, you are cavalier about this. If you really had value for your own life, you would not be so cavalier about how you face certain eternity.
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

sweetadeline112358 wrote:I think that it is fair to say that there is more a posteriori evidence for the existence of Jesus than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But you can't rule out the possibility of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unless you think the ONLY knowledge that may be had is of that which is observable.

I will add though that their motivation could also incorporate their moral virtues and values. If a person is motivated to gain money but in order to do so they must lie and backstab a fellow worker which they equally do not want to do... then 1) Which should they choose? and 2) Which ought they choose?

My own moral values place a high value on life, but I am not "the decider" in this circumstance. Everyone has their own sense of moral values though, which is why laws have been a convenient social tool for a very long time.

How can you place a high value on life if you are not 'the decider' in this?

What influences your decisions in having value on life?

Why cannot God have convenient laws that train us in what makes right - right and wrong - wrong?

As for the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is used as a Moral Equivalency Argument. If there are no moral absolutes, then this argument is vacuous in its case to disprove existence of God or objective morality because it needs to make an absolute objective moral judgment thus contradicting the premise of its own argument in order to be true.

People do not need God to make social laws or enforce these laws. People do need God to make sure laws we create are in line with his standards of right and wrong so that equity is the rule and not the exception. God governs the world with equity. If not, you could not disagree or have an opinion, nor could you learn what makes right — right or wrong — wrong.

You say you value life. Then do you really value your own? You face eternity, as do we all. Right now, you are cavalier about this. If you really had value for your own life, you would not be so cavalier about how you face certain eternity.
-
-
-

Why do you think the Flying Spaghetti Monster is supposed to disprove
the existence of God?

It seems like you are really latching onto the Spaghetti Monster
thing. I mentioned the FSM in passing, using “Him” as one possible
entity out of an infinite number of possible entities to illustrate
the mechanics of one very specific thing, which you still don't seem
to have understood. I think it is because you are really focused on
the "whether God exists or not issue". This isn't about the Spaghetti
Monster, it's about POTENTIAL ENTITIES. You should never consider the
Flying Spaghetti Monster an argument that "disproves God". I don't. I
don't understand why you have latched onto this like it is the crux of
my argument.

Originally, my point was that Christians have to figure how they are
going to handle their ontologies. To me, most Christians seem
"cavalier" about their metaphysics. They use one a priori argument to
justify or buttress their beliefs, but they generally do not go
farther. I was also trying to indicate that metaphysics gets messy
and I consider Empiricism and a posteriori observations to be useful.
Somehow you missed that, and then demanded I justify Empiricism at the
same time as attacking me for "only relying on a priori arguments" and
describing yourself as though you are the only one out of the two of
us who would utilize observations from reality.

"You say you value life. Then do you really value your own? You face
eternity, as do we all. Right now, you are cavalier about this. If you
really had value for your own life, you would not be so cavalier about
how you face certain eternity."

Cavalier from your perspective. From my experiences (including those
experiences which relate to the exploration of ideas and concepts) I
am being intellectually conservative. You still have yet to produce
sufficient a posteriori evidence for me to accept that Jesus is God or
the Christian God exists.

Get real. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a classic example of attempting to make an analogy that the existence of God is as likely as any other imaginary entiity that someone wants to imagine. It's used routinely by atheists as an agent of mockery. When someone makes an appeal to that it it moves the tone of the discussion from a friendly discourse to one of oneupsmanship. It's one thing to make an appeal of that nature, but it's quite another to then take on faux innocense as if you or others don't know what the implications of that analogy are especially on a board with the purpose that ours has.

Please don't pee on our shoes and then attempt to convince us that we're mistaken and it's simply raining. That just compounds it. If you're wanting to move the conversation back to a respectful tone then just acknowlege what you've done, apoligize and move on. We're ready to accept that but this just begs the question as to what you think invoking that type of argument communicates.

bart

From what I know about the Christians who post here, most of you accepted Christ at a very young age, either as children or as young teens. From my point of view, you are like wide-eyed does: unsuspicious of the wolf posing as an open-minded atheist willing to learn about your faith. The fact is, the Bible tells you clearly what these people are: Psalm 14:1 and Romans 8:7 come to mind, and many other verses are there to testify to the unregenerate mind's hostility towards - and inability to - understand God and his Word.

I've been castigated (rightfully) by a moderator here for going on the offensive with atheists. I understand that a Christian shouldn't attack an unbeliever, that God will take care of them and that we should bless them. All of this is biblical but where does it say that we should take their arguments seriously? There is a world of difference between dealing with a sincere seeker and a hostile accuser.

I was an atheist for over 30 years before coming to the Lord. I understand them better than a «goody-two-shoes» Christian can. Believe me, you are wasting your time with your posts.

FL

I take people one at a time. I have no doubt that there are militant atheists such as you describe and I've met many of them in many different contexts. I've also met some who are less militant, open to reasoned discussion and with whom a civil discourse is a possibility.

That doesn't mean I or anyone else can't be blunt when it's appropriate. If you're wondering why we take the approach we do, check the board purpose and the discussion guidelines and you'll see a lot of it addressed there.

sweetadeline112358 wrote: Why do you think the Flying Spaghetti Monster is supposed to disprove the existence of God?

Because that is the premise of your argument....

sweetadeline112358 wrote: It seems like you are really latching onto the Spaghetti Monster thing. I mentioned the FSM in passing, using “Him” as one possible entity out of an infinite number of possible entities to illustrate the mechanics of one very specific thing, which you still don't seem to have understood. I think it is because you are really focused on the "whether God exists or not issue". This isn't about the Spaghetti Monster, it's about POTENTIAL ENTITIES. You should never consider the Flying Spaghetti Monster an argument that "disproves God". I don't. I don't understand why you have latched onto this like it is the crux of my argument.

POTENTIAL ENTITIES most definitely implies - potential as meaning non-existent. Don't mince words...

sweetadeline112358 wrote: Originally, my point was that Christians have to figure how they are going to handle their ontology's. To me, most Christians seem "cavalier" about their metaphysics. They use one a priori argument to justify or buttress their beliefs, but they generally do not go farther. I was also trying to indicate that metaphysics gets messy and I consider Empiricism and a posteriori observations to be useful. Somehow you missed that, and then demanded I justify Empiricism at the same time as attacking me for "only relying on a priori arguments" and describing yourself as though you are the only one out of the two of us who would utilize observations from reality.

When you close your eyes — does the world cease to exist?

B. W. wrote:"You say you value life. Then do you really value your own? You face eternity, as do we all. Right now, you are cavalier about this. If you really had value for your own life, you would not be so cavalier about how you face certain eternity."

sweetadeline112358 wrote:Cavalier from your perspective. From my experiences (including those experiences which relate to the exploration of ideas and concepts) I am being intellectually conservative. You still have yet to produce sufficient a posteriori evidence for me to accept that Jesus is God or the Christian God exists.

So your perspective trumps all???

How can you possibly claim that you are intellectually conservative when that in and of itself is based on being a priori — which you accuse as being wrong?

You say you want to experience Jesus? Then…

Get on your knees — empirically… Admit that you are a sinner and rebel — empirically…

Ask for forgiveness and ask to be filled with the Holy Spirit — empirically...

Ask to know him — empirically…ask why he died on a cross for you and rose from the dead for you… empirically

Give your life to Christ... empirically

Go to a bible based church - empirically

Or simply stop your blabbering about being so righteous in seeking only experience and being so intellectually conservative if you are not willing to do the empirical…

And actually discover the empirical reality of Christ…

Get up off your own blind a priori couch…and walk

If you are not willing to do this then please admit this and leave this forum as you are not willing to perform the actual empirical necessary thing needed to meet the living God and are acting like a mere hypocrite spouting intellectual jargon just to justify yourself for not taking the real plunge you claim to be seeking after. Are you here to learn about Christ? Then ask us why he died and rose again? Why humanity has need of a savior... If you really want proof He exist - become Born Again and find out for your self - emperically...

Claim Empiricism and a posteriori is superior? Then do it - become Born Again and find out a posteriori

You want to meet Christ — then do it - empirically

Coming here claiming to be seeking emperical evidence and not willing to do the emperical to find what you ae seeking well - speaks for itself...
-
-

Canuckster1127 wrote:Get real. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a classic example of attempting to make an analogy that the existence of God is as likely as any other imaginary entiity that someone wants to imagine. It's used routinely by atheists as an agent of mockery. When someone makes an appeal to that it it moves the tone of the discussion from a friendly discourse to one of oneupsmanship. It's one thing to make an appeal of that nature, but it's quite another to then take on faux innocense as if you or others don't know what the implications of that analogy are especially on a board with the purpose that ours has.

Please don't pee on our shoes and then attempt to convince us that we're mistaken and it's simply raining. That just compounds it. If you're wanting to move the conversation back to a respectful tone then just acknowlege what you've done, apoligize and move on. We're ready to accept that but this just begs the question as to what you think invoking that type of argument communicates.

bart

Well, let's have your a posteriori proof that Jesus is God! You still have no presented it to me!

You have to make up your mind whether we are talking about the existence of Jesus (a man), or the existence of Jesus (a god-entity). Therein lies part of the confusion. Are we debating about a god, or a man? For you it's both, so there is ambiguity where you believe that if you justify the existence of a man, that automatically justifies the existence of a deity-like entity.

The FSM is specifically about the Intelligent Design movement, where many ID advocates make use of arguments involving an ambiguous "Intelligent Designer". At some point after the 70s, some parts of the biblical Creationist movement shifted to this "Intelligent Design" concept, which strangely distances itself from God despite the fact that it is likely that the majority of them are Christians anyway.

sweetadeline112358 wrote:
Well, let's have your a posteriori proof that Jesus is God! You still have no presented it to me!

You have to make up your mind whether we are talking about the existence of Jesus (a man), or the existence of Jesus (a god-entity). Therein lies part of the confusion. Are we debating about a god, or a man? For you it's both, so there is ambiguity where you believe that if you justify the existence of a man, that automatically justifies the existence of a deity-like entity.

The FSM is specifically about the Intelligent Design movement, where many ID advocates make use of arguments involving an ambiguous "Intelligent Designer". At some point after the 70s, some parts of the biblical Creationist movement shifted to this "Intelligent Design" concept, which strangely distances itself from God despite the fact that it is likely that the majority of them are Christians anyway.

Is this all you've got? Please tell me you have more in your locker; and let it be a large locker! Have you recently learned the term "posteriori proof"? You seem to be like a child in a sweet shop when using "posteriori"... you just cannot get enough of it, can you? Can you prove gravity? Can you prove your mind functions "correctly"?

Go back in to history and study the evidence for Jesus; actually, go and look at "Gman's" thread for the historical evidence for Jesus. Then look at the non-biblical, non-Christian evidence for Jesus. THEN ask yourself whether or not you think that anti-Christian sources would willingly describe Jesus as God... THEN ask yourself how open to evidence you really are. THEN ask yourself if you're really a truth-seeker or actually just an egotistical plebeian?

Have you read the whole bible? Have you read all the extra-biblical sources? Have you read all the non-Christian sources? Please, give me a resounding Yes to all of these ...