Evidence for God from Science

Hey there, I usually don't admit to being an atheist (just an agnostic), but I briefly read most of this forum (Questioning Non-belief), and I've seen a lot of Atheism bashing and challenging. I'd be more than happy to have a discussion with (any) of you regarding atheism. I think it best we try to cover a few points at a time (or at least start with a few), unlike the other posts.

Cheers!

Okay, so in reading this forum, one of the main complaints seem to be that atheists are "boring", "give no thought to physical laws", and have been challenged to "throw something on the table".

Now, as this is a forum about god, or at least the so called evidence for god, we all know that those who believe in god have the burden of proof, and atheists have no requirement to bring anything to the table.

However, as it happens, when one does not believe in god(s), they tend to see things much differently than those who do. For the sake of discussion, let me throw something on the table; not as an atheist, but as a person opposed to religion.

My argument is that any religion which holds a dualistic (you could say monotheistic) view (belief in god X, or not), is guilty of the fallacy of ignorance. That is, they assert that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false. I presume I will be discussing with mostly christians, so allow me to point out the fallacy in Revelations Chapter 3, verse 16.

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

KJV

Clearly, this does not allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).

So, there you go, I am "breaking the rules", and starting this discussion off heavily in the favour of my opponents. Let's hear what you have to say!

Hi Lunalle,

First of all, welcome to the forum.

That is, they assert that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.

Well, maybe B.W. could tell you about the miracle he saw.

I personally think that mere debating is not what brings people to Christianity and are becoming Christians. Debate may be a good start, but our faith is based on more deep things. On experience, personal experience. I can imagine atheists do not like to hear this and even may wonder whether we are sane. Well we are. I was atheist all my life (now am Christian for around 2 years), I was indeed lacking faith. (But not only I was lacking faith, I also presumed Christians are wrong and not wise. I presumed this and also was guilty of not exploring Christianity more and give it the same chance as I gave to unbelieving scientists.) But when God comes and shows himself to you, one cannot really commit a crime of ignoring him.

1over137 wrote:Hi Lunalle,

First of all, welcome to the forum.

That is, they assert that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.

Well, maybe B.W. could tell you about the miracle he saw.

I personally think that mere debating is not what brings people to Christianity and are becoming Christians. Debate may be a good start, but our faith is based on more deep things. On experience, personal experience. I can imagine atheists do not like to hear this and even may wonder whether we are sane. Well we are. I was atheist all my life (now am Christian for around 2 years), I was indeed lacking faith. (But not only I was lacking faith, I also presumed Christians are wrong and not wise. I presumed this and also was guilty of not exploring Christianity more and give it the same chance as I gave to unbelieving scientists.) But when God comes and shows himself to you, one cannot really commit a crime of ignoring him.

very well said hana.

Hey there! Yes, I am in IT. I used to be a programmer, but now I am a Storage Administrator. It is nice to know there are some other IT people around here. Thanks for the welcome! I hope to have some thought provoking discussions here, although I realize I'm one of the "bad guys!"

I'm sure B.W. could tell me about the miracle he saw! I could tell you about some miracles I saw too! To be perfectly honest, I am attempting to find the truth, wherever it may be, even though it is probably an attempt at the impossible (reference the glass fishbowl problem). If I am persuaded that the truth is in Christianity, great, if in some other religion, or science, that is great too.

I think debating is a very important part of trying to convince someone of your point of view, as it allows the presentation of hypotheses, and arguments against them, in a structured way. I am the opposite of you. I was born in to a christian family (my father is a minister), and I was thoroughly convinced that christianity was the truth... until I was a teenager. Then I "lost the faith".

But when God comes and shows himself to you, one cannot really commit a crime of ignoring him.

What about people like me who used to be believers, then decided otherwise? I don't doubt for a minute that your faith is based, to some degree, on your personal experience. I think that makes it dangerous, because I believe truth, real truth, must be based on the support of evidence, and basing it on our own experience, is simply a matter of brainwashing ourselves. A lot of things can make a person insane, but I don't think that's one of them... maybe just delusional, at the worst!

Cheers!

Lunalle wrote:Hey there! Yes, I am in IT. I used to be a programmer, but now I am a Storage Administrator. It is nice to know there are some other IT people around here.

Hello there and welcome to the forums, Lunalle! Indeed, it seems this place is riddled with IT people. I am still a university student though. LOL.

Lunalle wrote:Thanks for the welcome! I hope to have some thought provoking discussions here, although I realize I'm one of the "bad guys!"

You're not one of the "bad guys"; you're an atheist. I believe there should be no in-group bias.

Lunalle wrote:I'm sure B.W. could tell me about the miracle he saw! I could tell you about some miracles I saw too! To be perfectly honest, I am attempting to find the truth, wherever it may be, even though it is probably an attempt at the impossible (reference the glass fishbowl problem). If I am persuaded that the truth is in Christianity, great, if in some other religion, or science, that is great too.

Cool.

Lunalle wrote:I think debating is a very important part of trying to convince someone of your point of view, as it allows the presentation of hypotheses, and arguments against them, in a structured way. I am the opposite of you. I was born in to a christian family (my father is a minister), and I was thoroughly convinced that christianity was the truth... until I was a teenager. Then I "lost the faith".

I shall take note.

Lunalle wrote:What about people like me who used to be believers, then decided otherwise? I don't doubt for a minute that your faith is based, to some degree, on your personal experience. I think that makes it dangerous, because I believe truth, real truth, must be based on the support of evidence, and basing it on our own experience, is simply a matter of brainwashing ourselves. A lot of things can make a person insane, but I don't think that's one of them... maybe just delusional, at the worst!

Cheers!

Ah, I see. In any case, how much evidence would you need to get you convinced of the truth? Does truth to you even exist? What are your axioms in deciding that you should look for the truth? Or is it a case of subjectivity?
I am curious to how you answer these.
Cheers to you as well!

~Grey

Lunalle wrote: What about people like me who used to be believers, then decided otherwise? I don't doubt for a minute that your faith is based, to some degree, on your personal experience. I think that makes it dangerous, because I believe truth, real truth, must be based on the support of evidence, and basing it on our own experience, is simply a matter of brainwashing ourselves. A lot of things can make a person insane, but I don't think that's one of them... maybe just delusional, at the worst!

Well, I do not know your story and your reasons to leave Christianity, so I cannot truly say "what about people like you".
Yes indeed, personal experience is not the whole story. I know it can make dangerous, that is why I observe, think, etc.
You got a question from other poster what kind of evidence would you like to see. That is a very good question I think.
You mentioned you saw some miracles, but what kind of them? There are many believers who think something was a miracle even if it wasn't probably. It is dangerous and makes no good name to Chritianity when people take for granted when, let us say, some priest says that somewhere this and that happened. Then really others may think that we just swallow everything just because some believer told it. I personally do not like this.

Well, you are curious about what evidence we can offer or what reasons we have. It seems to me I could write whole book on it (I plan this one day) because I see in advance what other's questions and reproaches would be. But this is not to say I will offer you nothing now. If I may I would like to ask you some few questions:

1. As I was trained as a theoretical physicist and saw fundamental equations one wonders about their simplicity and beauty. Well, you may wonder what that means, it's like some great Mathematican/Physicist is behind all this.
2. I can now compare my inner being before I was an atheist and after I became Christian. Before, I didn't have such peace as I have now, before I did not have such strength. I was selfish. I was desperate. Another interesting thing is that as I became Christian I started to write poems and was amazed by what is coming from my pen. I never wrote poems before. I know all this could be "explained" but this is not to take it as single thing. Look at it as another drop. Oh, and I am more humble now. Good start is to look at the stars, wonders of the universe, if nothing else it makes one really humble. And also now I am much more joyous. (Well, yes, Marx said it is useful narcotics, but to take it this way, well, it seems to me as being simply dismissing the things)
3. I observe people and "their fruits". It seems to me that real Christians are more forgiving, more truly interested in others, they are not cynics but lovers. Watch atheists being together and watch real Christians being together. Christians seem to be warmer, having deeper friendships, more honest with people and even with themselves. What are your experiences, observations?
4. Do you trust historical sources on Jesus' resurrection? How do you view them?
5. When you read gospels and think on Jesus what he said and what he taught and take into account how world looked like 2000 years ago, so he either was really the Son if God or really wise man.

I will stop here as it may be sufficent for a start.

Is the debate over?

Hopefully the debate is not over. I haven't responded in a while, because I think that before it is possible to have a relevant discussion, those involved must share the same (or at least, very similar) methods for determining fact. I don't believe we all do, so I was hoping to clear that up in another thread first, but its okay.

So, you two ask a fair number of questions, which I'll do my best to answer. Feel free to ask for expansion or clarification of my answers.

How much evidence would you need to get you convinced of the truth?

1 piece of evidence. I expect the problem lies in what is determined as evidence.

Does truth to you even exist?

I think it nonsensical to say "There could be an existence in which, that which is not, is." Theoretically, it may be possible, but even if such existence actually exists, I think it applicably irrelevant to us. I also think it nonsensical to say that a hypothesis can be simultaneously true and untrue. So truth, to me, must exist.

What are your axioms in deciding that you should look for the truth? Or is it a case of subjectivity?

I'd say my decision to find truth is subjective. Interesting question; I don't like the terms you've used though. Self evidence is absurdity. I wish that looking for the truth was regarded as accepted (furthermore, a universal moral), but it is not.

As I was trained as a theoretical physicist and saw fundamental equations one wonders about their simplicity and beauty. Well, you may wonder what that means, it's like some great Mathematican/Physicist is behind all this.

I don't doubt that for a second. It looks a lot like some creator is behind all this, and maybe there is. As a theoretical physicist, I expect you know that the argument "seems like" isn't considered as sufficient evidence for proving a hypothesis.

I can now compare my inner being before I was an atheist and after I became Christian. Before, I didn't have such peace as I have now, before I did not have such strength. I was selfish. I was desperate. Another interesting thing is that as I became Christian I started to write poems and was amazed by what is coming from my pen. I never wrote poems before. I know all this could be "explained" but this is not to take it as single thing. Look at it as another drop. Oh, and I am more humble now. Good start is to look at the stars, wonders of the universe, if nothing else it makes one really humble. And also now I am much more joyous. (Well, yes, Marx said it is useful narcotics, but to take it this way, well, it seems to me as being simply dismissing the things)

I am very glad that your emotional state, actions, and habits have improved. That is awesome! Yes, I agree that changing these things is a process. Marx made a stronger claim than "narcotics", but close enough. I agree that this is an offensive statement. I agree that atheists should be more sensitive to other people's emotions. (One of) the point(s) he was making though, is that feelings are not evidence of truth. They are evidence of some specific claims, but not a valid framework for finding truth. I'll flip it around for example. Science makes some claims that upset me (Such as the claim that we are doomed to extinction.), that is to say that I have a negative emotional response (and bias) towards the claim. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it is not true, and I don't throw out science, because sometimes it makes me feel bad. You could argue we should, but if we're to do that, let's start another thread on it.

I observe people and "their fruits". It seems to me that real Christians are more forgiving, more truly interested in others, they are not cynics but lovers. Watch atheists being together and watch real Christians being together. Christians seem to be warmer, having deeper friendships, more honest with people and even with themselves. What are your experiences, observations?

Okay, I see what you are saying here. I don't know what you think a "real Christian" is, but I expect you could argue that a "real antitheist" and a "real Christian", would have similar "fruit". I think they're people who care very much for others. I'd say there are humanists both inside, and outside of Christianity. I think what you are arguing here, is from the stance of societal health. The Christian doctrines do not support a healthy society, and throughout history, there are numerous examples of them supporting an unhealthy society. I'd need you to explain what a "real Christian" is before I can say anymore, so I can see which Christian doctrines you agree with, and which you do not. In my experiences and observation a "real Christian" (a literalist - literally believes everything in the Bible is true, as written), is not a very nice, or good, or honest person. I used to be one of those people. I have grown and improved myself as I moved away from those beliefs.

Do you trust historical sources on Jesus' resurrection? How do you view them?

First of all, I've never seen a historical source outside of the Bible about Jesus' resurrection. I would very much like to, but no one has ever presented any to me. I view them as personally interesting, and an important topic, because it is an extraordinary claim that many people believe and act upon. However, I personally don't believe them (no matter how many there are), because 2000+ years ago, medical science was not very well developed. I don't think they had the knowledge, or the tools, to determine the validity of the claim. I'm not even sure we have the knowledge or tools to determine the validity of such a claim, if it were made today. I have no problem believing Jesus was thought to be dead, sealed in a tomb for a few days, then he managed to get out. I don't think it is possible to prove that he actually was dead. Fast forward from Jesus time, and people were attaching bells to their coffins, because they were worried about being buried alive. There are numerous situations in which it can look like one is dead, but not actually be dead.

When you read gospels and think on Jesus what he said and what he taught and take into account how world looked like 2000 years ago, so he either was really the Son if God or really wise man.

Oh absolutely, yes. Jesus was a very wise man for his time. He taught some very good things, and he made claims that didn't agree with the "norm", because he believed them to be true. Even taking the Biblical account about Jesus as true, we see he was at least delusional, and probably psychotic. Also, there are a lot of really wise men, and no one believes they're the son of God, and they don't claim to be. I don't think anyone really believes that a wise man, is a God, or "the Son of God", by definition, do they?

I will stop here as it may be sufficent for a start.

Go ahead and present more arguments if you'd like. I'm happy to address them as best I can. I would strongly encourage you not to write a book about why people should believe in God (because there are lots of those books already, and they're ignorant), but to write a book about how to live a better life.

Cheers!

1over137 wrote:
5. When you read gospels and think on Jesus what he said and what he taught and take into account how world looked like 2000 years ago, so he either was really the Son if God or really wise man.

Hana, from reading the accounts of Jesus in the bible, including who He claimed to be, He could not have simply been a wise man. He is either the Son of God as He claims, or He was the biggest raving lunatic who ever walked the face of the earth.

RickD wrote:Hana, from reading the accounts of Jesus in the bible, including who He claimed to be, He could not have simply been a wise man. He is either the Son of God as He claims, or He was the biggest raving lunatic who ever walked the face of the earth.

Rick, he was simply a wise man, who suffered from at least one delusion. Wise people can suffer from delusions. After all, most scientists are theists.

A bit of introductory reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

Just a short note now: Yeah, I have a feeling that active Christians will be got rid of by sending them to psychiatrists, stuffing them with drugs and problem solved. In the past they were killed. Now in our advanced age, they will be sentenced to having psychiatric illness. How easy.

Well, I wouldn't say easy, but if the problem were solved, it would be a tremendous relief.

Let's take for example the story of Jesus and the marketplace in the temple. In a twisted way, I respect the disciples for writing this story. At least they believed enough, that they weren't 100% biased in their writings.

On what basis do you disagree that this story shows us Jesus was just a man? According to the story, he was so angry, he trashed the marketplace. This is a clear warning of psychiatric illness. If you were to go trash a store in a church today, you would be arrested and tried (at least in this country). There's a good reason for this too! It helps protect society. The only legal defense you could use to justify this behaviour, is the defense of temporary insanity.

Doesn't the fact (and I use that term very loosely) that a self proclaimed God (or Son of God) went temporarily insane, make him not a God? Even if you don't agree with that, do you condone this behaviour? Is this what we should be doing? Are you out to destroy society? I know you're trying to change society, which I have a serious problem with, but so am I.

Lunalle wrote:Well, I wouldn't say easy, but if the problem were solved, it would be a tremendous relief.

Let's take for example the story of Jesus and the marketplace in the temple. In a twisted way, I respect the disciples for writing this story. At least they believed enough, that they weren't 100% biased in their writings.

On what basis do you disagree that this story shows us Jesus was just a man? According to the story, he was so angry, he trashed the marketplace. This is a clear warning of psychiatric illness. If you were to go trash a store in a church today, you would be arrested and tried (at least in this country). There's a good reason for this too! It helps protect society. The only legal defense you could use to justify this behaviour, is the defense of temporary insanity.

Doesn't the fact (and I use that term very loosely) that a self proclaimed God (or Son of God) went temporarily insane, make him not a God? Even if you don't agree with that, do you condone this behaviour? Is this what we should be doing? Are you out to destroy society? I know you're trying to change society, which I have a serious problem with, but so am I.

Its a poor analysis of the story Lunelle. If you found someone using your house as a den of criminal activity, you'd probably clear the place too. So would I. Christ cleared the house of God...if your charge is correct he should have been like this more, you know trashing places around, he wasn't.

To think that all people of faith are simply delusional, is a grand delusion in itself, nothing more than a self-congratulatory notion. This speaks more about you than it does about people you are insulting, Lunelle.