OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[bassbuckeye07]

In your original post you essentially asked why do atheists deny the existence of God. I answered that it is due to a lack of evidence. Then you stated that it was futile to try and provide objective evidence for the proof of God. So why should anyone believe in something without evidence? I assume that you use reason, logic and evidence when you make decisions every day. If I were to tell you I had an elephant living in my basement I assume you wouldn't believe me on face-value, you would want some kind of evidence. But for the universe's biggest question, you (and billions of other people) require no objective evidence. For me personally, this is just baffling. I truly don't understand how people can use a certain set of standards when determining if one thing is true but not use the same standards for something else.

You also state that God is inconceivable to humans. If so, how can someone logically believe in something that is not definable? What do they have belief in? How would someone recognize God if they encountered it? Isn't that the same as saying "I know I believe in something, I'm just not sure what it is"? How can that position possibly be supported?

One I dont care about your elephant...so no evidence is needed. Are you asking me to explain that faith is logical? I dont think that it is...but I know that through fasting, prayer and contemplation I have bettered myself. I think that truth can be found in belief of God or seeking a relationship with God.


It is also not logical to jump on a grenade...which you skipped over

 

[SmoovP]

My Faith is a choice.

I choose to believe even though there is no direct physical evidence of God.

I believe that life is about much more than the physical world and my place in it.

 

[jwinslow]

I believe that life is about much more than the physical world and my place in it.

Love, hope, discovery, invention, etc. Much of life deals in what logic cannot categorize let alone justify.

Usually that same standard applies to others viewing your love, hope or vision. That doesn't make it right or wrong, it just puts it in a different category than what logic can handle.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Two things....

1 - I want regular religion thread posters to thank me for being able to read this thread and not comment. As I have done. :p

2 - Smoov -the universe is direct physical evidence of G-d. But, you're right, it's still just a choice to believe either G-d did it or some other mechanism works which has the ability to create everything that is out of simply nothing at all. I choose to call the creator G-d. Brewtus chooses a different belief as to how it all began (and not to throw you under the bus, Brew, you know you're cool with me)... but... neither "side" of that can say "Well, I've got the facts to support me"

Reality is a replication of itself. That is to say, things in this universe follow rules - which we may or may not understand. So - while it is perfectly possible the our universe was spontaneous creation of something from nothing - it would be the only time that has ever happened in the universe. Everything else in this universe behaves in a different way than that. Things do not spontaneously come into being and there is no evidence of it whatever. (Perhaps on the subatomic level there is, but I'm not getting into all that)

So... if there was not some sort of "creator" out there science/physics hasn't done much better than "G-d in the gaps" It has answered a question which doesn't make much sense considering everything else we observe. I have a jar in my basement. It's full of nothing. A complete vacuum. I've tried to make it timeless as well, but... can't... anyway... it has failed to produce anything. THAT's what nothingness leads to left to its own devices...

 

[Brewtus]

.
.
2 - Smoov -the universe is direct physical evidence of G-d. But, you're right, it's still just a choice to believe either G-d did it or some other mechanism works which has the ability to create everything that is out of simply nothing at all. I choose to call the creator G-d. Brewtus chooses a different belief as to how it all began (and not to throw you under the bus, Brew, you know you're cool with me)... but... neither "side" of that can say "Well, I've got the facts to support me"

It's the lack of evidence, not supporting facts that I use to argue my case since I can't prove a negative. Science currently doesn't have a likely explanation for the creation of the universe. However, for the last 14 billion years, from the first moment of the Big Bang until now, nothing has ever been observed that can only be explained by invoking a supernatural being. If God does exists, he/she/it has been in hiding or not making themselves known the last 14 billion years. Did a Creator cause the Big Bang? I'm open to the possibility, but consider it very unlikely. If there hasn't been a need for a supernatural explanation since the inception of the universe, why would one be needed for the cause of the Big Bang simply because science doesn't currently have a good answer? Lack of evidence explaining the origin of the universe isn't evidence of God. One needs to provide some direct evidence of God's existence.

Reality is a replication of itself. That is to say, things in this universe follow rules - which we may or may not understand. So - while it is perfectly possible the our universe was spontaneous creation of something from nothing - it would be the only time that has ever happened in the universe. Everything else in this universe behaves in a different way than that. Things do not spontaneously come into being and there is no evidence of it whatever. (Perhaps on the subatomic level there is, but I'm not getting into all that)

I agree completely (and thanks for not diving into Quantum Physics on a Monday morning :)). Everything in the universe is made from other "stuff" in the universe but the big question is where did all the stuff come from in the first place? If the explanation is God, then to be logically consistent the question of where God came from has to be answered since we've already determined that something can't come from nothing. If the answer is "God has always existed" then why can't the same answer be used for the universe? Assuming that the universe, in some manner, has always existed is a much simpler answer than invoking an even more complex, unknowable being.

 

[Gatorubet]

However, for the last 14 billion years, from the first moment of the Big Bang until now, nothing has ever been observed that can only be explained by invoking a supernatural being.

Well - how did the basic elements that came out of the Big Bang come to exist in the first place, let alone what caused the BB?

If stuff has to have a beginning, then there has to be a Creator force. If not, explain how "something" in the universe came into being out of nothing. Even if you say, "How did God become God?", at some point you have a higher power at the helm. Granted, I do not buy that He became bored at the [Mark May]ty Rev 0 he made, and so drowned the world in a great big genocide - save some animals in a Big Boat. That obviously does not explain the world's flora that somehow survived the salt water for 40 days. So do not confuse the concept of a Creator with the particular flavor religion a person chooses to explain or express it. Whether Flying Spaghetti Monster or Zeus, something had to be the source of the creation of the elemental building blocks of all matter.

If that - a universe springing to life somehow in such complexity - is not worthy of a Creator belief, I do not know what would be.

 

[Brewtus]

Well - how did the basic elements that came out of the Big Bang come to exist in the first place, let alone what caused the BB?

If stuff has to have a beginning, then there has to be a Creator force. If not, explain how "something" in the universe came into being out of nothing. Even if you say, "How did God become God?", at some point you have a higher power at the helm. Granted, I do not buy that He became bored at the [Mark May]ty Rev 0 he made, and so drowned the world in a great big genocide - save some animals in a Big Boat. That obviously does not explain the world's flora that somehow survived the salt water for 40 days. So do not confuse the concept of a Creator with the particular flavor religion a person chooses to explain or express it. Whether Flying Spaghetti Monster or Zeus, something had to be the source of the creation of the elemental building blocks of all matter.

If that - a universe springing to life somehow in such complexity - is not worthy of a Creator belief, I do not know what would be.

My argument is that why must one assume that the stuff of the universe hasn't always been in existence? Nothing we've observed over the last 14 billion years has indicated that something comes from nothing (at least on the large scale) so why would we assume that everything that came from the Big Bang didn't already exist?

And if your argument is "If stuff has to have a beginning, then there has to be a Creator force" then you are logically inconsistent if you can't explain the Creator of that Creator force. You can't have it both ways - if something can't come from nothing, then the Creator of that something can't come from nothing either.

 

[SmoovP]

2 - Smoov -the universe is direct physical evidence of G-d.

In an effort to be fair to the debate, I concede the point that our non-believing friends make about 'physical evidence'. And it is a valid point in a strict and narrow scientific sense.

But I pretty much agree with you, I think the 'evidence' of God is all around us and all within us.

When I observe the world around me, I 'see' that evidence in everything. The ability to 'see' that evidence is the result of the Leap Of Faith I have made in choosing to believe in a Higher Power. My choice to believe is guided by a lot of reading, contemplation and a dedicated exploration on the topic of God and Faith.

I realize that explanation is a bit of a self-sucking lollipop, but artists, philisophers, theologians and spiritual thinkers from every corner of the earth have all come to believe that there is a Supreme Being/Universal Energy/Guiding Force in the Universe that we can tap into with a little persistent effort.

It does not mean that I set aside my intellect to have Faith or that I am a complete dumbass for believing in something I can't see or touch (even though I am open to the possibility that I am a dumbass), but it means that the evidence I see that points to God is just as valid as any Scientific Method that hasn't disproved Him yet.

I think Monty Python might have put it best in The Meaning Of Life:

Exec #1: Item six on the agenda: "The Meaning of Life" Now uh, Harry, you've had some thoughts on this.

Exec #2: Yeah, I've had a team working on this over the past few weeks, and what we've come up with can be reduced to two fundamental concepts.

One: People aren't wearing enough hats.

Two: Matter is energy. In the universe there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person's soul. However, this "soul" does not exist ab initio as orthodox Christianity teaches; it has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved owing to man's unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia.

Exec #3: What was that about hats again?

Exec #2: Oh, Uh... people aren't wearing enough.

Exec #1: Is this true?

Exec #4: Certainly. Hat sales have increased but not pari passu, as our research...

Exec #3: [Interrupting] "Not wearing enough"? enough for what purpose?

Exec #5: Can I just ask, with reference to your second point, when you say souls don't develop because people become distracted...
[looking out window]
Has anyone noticed that building there before?

 

[Gatorubet]

My argument is that why must one assume that the stuff of the universe hasn't always been in existence? Nothing we've observed over the last 14 billion years has indicated that something comes from nothing (at least on the large scale) so why would we assume that everything that came from the Big Bang didn't already exist?

And if your argument is "If stuff has to have a beginning, then there has to be a Creator force" then you are logically inconsistent if you can't explain the Creator of that Creator force. You can't have it both ways - if something can't come from nothing, then the Creator of that something can't come from nothing either.

Yes. That is true. But that is why the concept of a supernatural occurrence gains validity, as your version has all things being present from eternity without a creator. Therefore, the construct that all matter has always existed is, at least, as illogical and as non-supportive by any scientific explanation as is your discounting the possibility a Creator.

The fact that your choice of an explanation for that is simply that - a choice - and not a sign or superior logic or possession of empirical fact contradicting my choice.

The 6,000 year old earth issue, well, that is a different matter, and one to which we both agree.

 

[Brewtus]

It does not mean that I set aside my intellect to have Faith or that I am a complete dumbass for believing in something I can't see or touch (even though I am open to the possibility that I am a dumbass), but it means that the evidence I see that points to God is just as valid as any Scientific Method that hasn't disproved Him yet.

Just to clarify, the Scientific Method deals with the natural universe and thereby doesn't have the ability to make claims about the supernatural. And the responsibility for providing evidence of a claim (the existence of God) lies with the one making the assertion (the theist). Science isn't interested in providing evidence that God doesn't exist.

Yes. That is true. But that is why the concept of a supernatural occurrence gains validity, as your version has all things being present from eternity without a creator. Therefore, the construct that all matter has always existed is, at least, as illogical and as non-supportive by any scientific explanation as is your discounting the possibility a Creator.

The fact that your choice of an explanation for that is simply that - a choice - and not a sign or superior logic or possession of empirical fact contradicting my choice.

The 6,000 year old earth issue, well, that is a different matter, and one to which we both agree.

While I can't provide any evidence that the universe has always existed in one manner or another, I do think that my position is at least logically the simpler (and therefore more likely) answer. The need to use a Creator to explain the universe is a vastly more complicated answer than claiming the universe has always existed. First you need to define the Creator, what are its characteristics, how does a supernatural being interact with the natural world, etc? By believing in a general Creator without defined characteristics is really no different that being agnostic on the matter.

 

[jwinslow]

While I can't provide any evidence that the universe has always existed in one manner or another, I do think that my position is at least logically the simpler (and therefore more likely) answer.

Saying "I don't know, but I guess this" in a simpler manner isn't really any better than a complicated guess. They're both guesses based on faith with no tangible proof of that origin theory.

The supernatural also helps in dealing with things that are confusing or beyond our knowledge and observations as humans. It adds an element beyond ourselves, which is why it has been a very popular theory over the years. I don't think it is as complex as you make it out to be.

Your world view is based tightly around what can be proven & studied, yet the foundation of the theory requires the complete opposite philosophy.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

It's the lack of evidence, not supporting facts that I use to argue my case since I can't prove a negative. Science currently doesn't have a likely explanation for the creation of the universe. However, for the last 14 billion years, from the first moment of the Big Bang until now, nothing has ever been observed that can only be explained by invoking a supernatural being. If God does exists, he/she/it has been in hiding or not making themselves known the last 14 billion years. Did a Creator cause the Big Bang? I'm open to the possibility, but consider it very unlikely. If there hasn't been a need for a supernatural explanation since the inception of the universe, why would one be needed for the cause of the Big Bang simply because science doesn't currently have a good answer? Lack of evidence explaining the origin of the universe isn't evidence of God. One needs to provide some direct evidence of God's existence.

1 - your position that if G-d does exist it has been hiding is not necessarily true. What I mean to say is - if I am right - everything that exists establishes that it is impossible for G-d to "hide" from us. But, that isn't a statement of fact or based on evidence. I admit that. Our positions, then, are based entirely on perspectives (or, if you prefer, our hypothesis)
2 - Science not knowing an answer does not demonstrate G-d exists or that he created the universe. That's a false dilemma and thus erroneous. But, that said - if you consider it an hypothesis, then the question becomes not "can I prove G-d" but rather, does this evidence mean my hypothesis must be in error? Thus far, I have found nothing that disproves G-d.

Now - that's really just an extension of Pascal's wager as far as hypotheses go. But... it's a sound enough way to approach the "problem" I think, no?

I agree completely (and thanks for not diving into Quantum Physics on a Monday morning :)). Everything in the universe is made from other "stuff" in the universe but the big question is where did all the stuff come from in the first place? If the explanation is God, then to be logically consistent the question of where God came from has to be answered since we've already determined that something can't come from nothing. If the answer is "God has always existed" then why can't the same answer be used for the universe? Assuming that the universe, in some manner, has always existed is a much simpler answer than invoking an even more complex, unknowable being.

I've come to conclude (though can be shown otherwise) that no matter what the truth of the matter is - G-d or no G-d - the very fact that the universe is here demonstrates that there is at least one thing that doesn't fit.

To elaborate - in either circumstance, G-d or no G-d - something (the universe) became for no reason. (I realize you can retort that our failure to understand the reason does not mean there is none, and that's fair) In any case - I think of it like a Mandelbrot set. The set itself replicates itself in varying degrees of scale. But, the set as a whole "picture" is ... independent ... of it's results. That probably doesn't really make a lot of sense. It's just the way I think of things (graphical representations are helpful for me to understand is all). I guess what I'm trying to say is - the universe (M-set) IS and those things which are IN it subjected to whatever it is, despite the fact that whatever it is is sustained by other "forces" (that may be no better a description... but I"m trying, lol - again, it's a metaphor, as the M-Set actually IS a specifically defined thing).

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Well - how did the basic elements that came out of the Big Bang come to exist in the first place, let alone what caused the BB?

If stuff has to have a beginning, then there has to be a Creator force. If not, explain how "something" in the universe came into being out of nothing. Even if you say, "How did God become God?", at some point you have a higher power at the helm. Granted, I do not buy that He became bored at the [Mark May]ty Rev 0 he made, and so drowned the world in a great big genocide - save some animals in a Big Boat. That obviously does not explain the world's flora that somehow survived the salt water for 40 days. So do not confuse the concept of a Creator with the particular flavor religion a person chooses to explain or express it. Whether Flying Spaghetti Monster or Zeus, something had to be the source of the creation of the elemental building blocks of all matter.

If that - a universe springing to life somehow in such complexity - is not worthy of a Creator belief, I do not know what would be.

That's in line with what I am trying to say in my prior post. We know the Universe is here.. even if no G-d ... it's the same question

 

[SmoovP]

Just to clarify, the Scientific Method deals with the natural universe and thereby doesn't have the ability to make claims about the supernatural. And the responsibility for providing evidence of a claim (the existence of God) lies with the one making the assertion (the theist). Science isn't interested in providing evidence that God doesn't exist.

If God exists, He is certainly part of the natural universe. And there are plenty of legitimate scientists who are, in part, motivated by The God Question.

 

[Brewtus]

Saying "I don't know, but I guess this" in a simpler manner isn't really any better than a complicated guess. They're both guesses based on faith with no tangible proof of that origin theory.

Yes, they both may be "guesses" but they don't carry the same plausibility. My hypothesis that the universe has always existed is consistent with what we've observed over the last 14 billion years - that something can't come from nothing so the universe didn't appear from nowhere but has always existed. But to claim that some unknown/undefined Creator created the universe from nothing is significantly more complex an answer than mine and is not consistent with anything we've observed before. It's an explanation that isn't really explaining anything at all because it opens even more things that now need to be explained.

The supernatural also helps in dealing with things that are confusing or beyond our knowledge and observations as humans. It adds an element beyond ourselves, which is why it has been a very popular theory over the years. I don't think it is as complex as you make it out to be.

Your world view is based tightly around what can be proven & studied, yet the foundation of the theory requires the complete opposite philosophy.

Truth isn't determined by what is popular or helps comfort people. And yes, my world view is based on reason, facts and evidence. Otherwise how would I know what is true and what isn't?

1 - your position that if G-d does exist it has been hiding is not necessarily true. What I mean to say is - if I am right - everything that exists establishes that it is impossible for G-d to "hide" from us. But, that isn't a statement of fact or based on evidence. I admit that. Our positions, then, are based entirely on perspectives (or, if you prefer, our hypothesis)

If your position isn't based on facts or evidence, then how do you accept the validity of it? If I were an unbiased observer and both a Christian and Muslim presented their beliefs to me, many of which are mutually exclusive, how would I objectively determine which is true (or if both are false)?

2 - Science not knowing an answer does not demonstrate G-d exists or that he created the universe. That's a false dilemma and thus erroneous. But, that said - if you consider it an hypothesis, then the question becomes not "can I prove G-d" but rather, does this evidence mean my hypothesis must be in error? Thus far, I have found nothing that disproves G-d. ).

It's not disproof of God I'm looking for, it's evidence supporting God's existence. And before one can look for evidence of God, one must define what God is so then we know what evidence to look for. But God by its very nature is unknowable and cannot be defined by human terms. Then essentially the theist's argument boils down to "I believe in something but I'm just not sure exactly what", which is really no difference than being agnostic.