Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What is wrong with this?

Options
  • 18-03-2008 6:30pm
    #1
    Son Goku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭


    Hello all. I've been posting a bit sparsely as of late and I'm probably not going to be posting at all after this thread (hold your tears my manly friends), since I'll be even more busy in the real world.

    I've been having the idea of this thread for quite a while and I would appreciate mainly the response of the Christian posters. Basically what I'm asking is what do you think is inconsistent/wrong with my reasons for not believing in God?

    First I'd like to make explicit my attitude to God if he existed. Basically I think that God, if he existed would be great, to put it simply. Unlike other posters here, if God existed I would worship and be thankful to him for all he has done. How could I not be thankful for the gift of being made aware and given choice? I'd also think that given that he exists, most of the confusing stuff in Christian theology would make sense in light of God.

    Secondly, I'd like to lay out my opinions of the New Testament as a historic document. Simply put I would rate it as "very good" as far as documents from this period go. In fact it is very detailed and there are several external sources that back up the general setting.

    Finally, with regards to there being no logical reason for God, a la Dawkins, I don't agree. We could conclude that logically he does not exist and that wouldn't make a lick of difference to his existence.

    The reasons I don't believe in God however are three fold, with a little minor point at the end:
    1. I have never had a personal experience of him. My mind is open to the possibility, but honestly I never have. With no direct personal contact from him I would need to go to other "sources" to get some reason to believe in him. The thing is though, am I justified in ignoring the personal experiences of others? Several other people claim to have had experiences of God, does this not lend weight to God's existence.
    The reason I think I'm justified in ignoring these experiences is because several people have vastly different experiences ranging from the Hindu gods to the Christian God. I'm not making a trite point here. I honestly do not see I way to place a higher reliability of one experience over another. I would ask posters to stay away from the issue of people having experiences being "deluded", rather I would prefer reasons for why somebody who has had no personal experiences should see a certain class as more reliable.

    2. I see no design in the world. As a theoretical physicist I am aware that I have an unfair advantage in talking about the workings of the world, so this is the point I would probably want the least discussion on. My quick argument is that we've known since the 70s that no matter what the fundamental physics of the world, at human scales the physics will be the physics we observe. Hence there is no fine-tuning to explain. Also all the "specialness" of the world (and have no doubt, our universe is very special) is found in objects that have no relevance to our existence.

    3. Historically, I can't think of a reason for preferring the claims of Jesus of Nazareth over those of Mohammed of Medina, Guru Nanak Dev or Siddhartha Gautama, based on the historicity of their individual books. I can see historical reasons for preferring all of these over the pre-Xia Yellow emperor of China or the Hindu cosmology. However there really isn't anything I can find that makes them win over the others.

    4. Finally and this is a minor point. Even if God exists I don't see how I can be sure that any Christian theology accurately reflects him. Certainly there are some that are wrong and some that are less biblical than others, but often (and I genuinely do not mean this offensively) a lot of theological ideas about God seem like a pile of talk, even assuming he exists.

    So there you go.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    People may have to think about this...


  • Options
    #3
    Sapien
    Closed Accounts Posts: 997 ✭✭✭Sapien


    As a non-Christian, I have some small problems with your reasons for not not believing in god.
    Son Goku wrote: »
    How could I not be thankful for the gift of being made aware and given choice?
    Even if the choices you were faced with were between varying degrees of humiliation and suffering?
    Son Goku wrote: »
    Secondly, I'd like to lay out my opinions of the New Testament as a historic document. Simply put I would rate it as "very good" as far as documents from this period go. In fact it is very detailed and there are several external sources that back up the general setting.
    Are there really!?
    Son Goku wrote: »
    Finally, with regards to there being no logical reason for God, a la Dawkins, I don't agree. We could conclude that logically he does not exist and that wouldn't make a lick of difference to his existence.
    That's not very logical.


  • Options
    #4
    Son Goku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Son Goku


    Sapien wrote: »
    Even if the choices you were faced with were between varying degrees of humiliation and suffering?
    There is a spectrum of interpretations of the Christian God, my response attempts to cater to most of them, hence it will be out of step with any given interpretation. You are responding as if God must be the ultra-angry dude that is often presented here. The God I'm disbelieving in should also take into account the views of those who are not evangelicals or professional theologians.
    Sapien wrote: »
    Are there really!?
    Yes, remember that I said the "general setting". That is basic political and social structure of the Levant in the New Testament matches the basic political and social structure of the Levant historically.
    Sapien wrote: »
    That's not very logical.
    Logic used in contexts outside formal logic is quite simply nothing but talk and I would require very good reasons to be convinced other wise. There may be rational reasons for not believing in God, but not logical ones. Without a well-specified axiomatic system, which English does not supply, logical deductions are worthless. That is why I rely on rational reasons.

    However none of these were my reasons for not believing in God.


  • Options
    #5
    Sapien
    Closed Accounts Posts: 997 ✭✭✭Sapien


    Son Goku wrote: »
    There is a spectrum of interpretations of the Christian God, my response attempts to cater to most of them, hence it will be out of step with any given interpretation. You are responding as if God must be the ultra-angry dude that is often presented here. The God I'm disbelieving in should also take into account the views of those who are not evangelicals or professional theologians.
    No. My point is that you would not be so inclined to worship the omnipotent god that created you if you experienced much of the deep sorrow and pain that courses through this world. Theodicy - it's what the professionals tend to bring up when they wish to challenge belief in god. It's also the one challenge that has precipitated more nonsensical theological responses than any other.
    Son Goku wrote: »
    Yes, remember that I said the "general setting". That is basic political and social structure of the Levant in the New Testament matches the basic political and social structure of the Levant historically.
    So any narrative set in a historical period that does not contradict what we know about that period is a "very good" historical document? By that criterion the Dante Club, which is outright fiction, is a very good historical document.
    Son Goku wrote: »
    Logic used in contexts outside formal logic is quite simply nothing but talk and I would require very good reasons to be convinced other wise. There may be rational reasons for not believing in God, but not logical ones. Without a well-specified axiomatic system, which English does not supply, logical deductions are worthless. That is why I rely on rational reasons.
    You're using the word "logic" in an unecessarily limited way. Outside of mathematics and philosophy, logic is synonymous with reason. There are rational reasons for not believing in god, there are no rational reasons for believing in god, etc. For instance, the ability to recognise logical fallacies, so called, is of inestimable use in considering the existence of god.

    So what logical as opposed to rational reasons does Dawkins have for not believing in god?
    Son Goku wrote: »
    However none of these were my reasons for not believing in God.
    I have understood that. These are reasons why you might be less inimicable than most atheists to believe in god. I just think these reasons are weak. Your points as to why you don't, ultimately, believe in god, however, are all perfectly strong. Naturally ;)


  • Options
    #6
    Son Goku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Son Goku


    Sapien wrote: »
    No. My point is that you would not be so inclined to worship the omnipotent god that created you if you experienced much of the deep sorrow and pain that courses through this world. Theodicy - it's what the professionals tend to bring up when they wish to challenge belief in god. It's also the one challenge that has precipitated more nonsensical theological responses than any other.
    All I can say is that is how I would feel. There seems to be different camps of athiests, those who just don't think God exists and those who find the idea of him repugnant, but reason that he probably doesn't exist anyway. I am not going to try conclude which one is "better" here, because such a thread would never end.
    Sapien wrote: »
    So any narrative set in a historical period that does not contradict what we know about that period is a "very good" historical document? By that criterion the Dante Club, which is outright fiction, is a very good historical document.
    Let me put it this way, historians consider it a very good document, hence I consider it a very good document. Not an excellent document, but not an ignorably poor one either.
    You're using the word "logic" in an unecessarily limited way. Outside of mathematics and philosophy, logic is synonymous with reason. There are rational reasons for not believing in god, there are no rational reasons for believing in god, etc. For instance, the ability to recognise logical fallacies, so called, is of inestimable use in considering the existence of god.

    So what logical as opposed to rational reasons does Dawkins have for not believing in god?
    Dawkins considers a refutation of God based on termination of infinite causal regress. Later he comes to the conclusion tht God would be even more complex, e.t.c. This is what I would call a logical argument. It takes certain supposed qualities of God and the definition of causality and complexity and attempts to derive a contradiction. In my post I am calling such arguments logical ones, to seperate them from rational ones. I should have been more explicit. So I will say now, by a logical argument against God I mean one which works from definitions and supposed properties and attempts to find a contradiction. These are the arguments I don't trust.

    Here a few reasons:
    Causality and complexity aren't even near well defined enough in english to allow something like this. A better reason for why I do not trust this is because I've seen several cases were a perfectly logical argument has been flawed because of ambiguities in the english language, with no fault of the chain of reasoning. For example logical arguments relating to the structure of time.
    Also having studied formal logic, I don't consider logical fallicies all that strong an argument against something. They usually show that your assumptions and definitions should be tighter not that the basic concept itself does not exist. For example, Russell's paradox* does not show that Sets are inherently nonsensical and can not exist.
    *Which is a language based, not mathematical.
    These are reasons why you might be less inimicable than most atheists to believe in god. I just think these reasons are weak.
    Surely you mean reasons why I'd be more inclined to worship if he did exist rather than more inclined to believe he exists. Only the first of the points you disagree with relates to how amenable I'd be to God. Of the other two, one is the statement that I don't find certain kinds of arguments against God trustworthy. I can find a certain kind of argument untrustworthy without it really making me more amenable to God.

    Also this is a strange argument in general. We both agree and are arguing over what is the appropriate level of dislike for the truth of the other opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Sapien
    Closed Accounts Posts: 997 ✭✭✭Sapien


    Son Goku wrote: »
    All I can say is that is how I would feel. There seems to be different camps of athiests, those who just don't think God exists and those who find the idea of him repugnant, but reason that he probably doesn't exist anyway.
    In other words: there are atheists who don't think god exists, and there are atheists who don't think god exists and are glad about it. Not a hugely meaningful distinction, and it certainly has no bearing on atheism itself.
    Son Goku wrote: »
    Let me put it this way, historians consider it a very good document, hence I consider it a very good document. Not an excellent document, but not an ignorably poor one either.
    Of course historians don't think its a good document. If they did, historians would go around saying that its contents are likely true. Historians may be tempted to say that its general setting, as you say, is not massively inaccurate, and, supernatural phenomena aside, there is no technical reason for discounting its historicity - but that means nothing. There is no historical corroboration of it claims, and its provenance and authorship is dubious. It is not a good historical document.
    Son Goku wrote: »
    Dawkins considers a refutation of God based on termination of infinite causal regress. Later he comes to the conclusion tht God would be even more complex, e.t.c. This is what I would call a logical argument. It takes certain supposed qualities of God and the definition of causality and complexity and attempts to derive a contradiction. In my post I am calling such arguments logical ones, to seperate them from rational ones. I should have been more explicit. So I will say now, by a logical argument against God I mean one which works from definitions and supposed properties and attempts to find a contradiction. These are the arguments I don't trust.
    These could just as well be called rational. I understand that, as a physicist, you may be uncomfortable with semantics, but there can be no meaningful discussion of these topics without it. These arguments of Dawkins can be no less valid than any of the reasons you set out here for your own disbelief. Yours are based on judgements of probability, his are based on deduction. As we all know, every formal system is incomplete, be it mathematics or language. Language obviously more so, but it's only a matter of degrees.
    Son Goku wrote: »
    A better reason for why I do not trust this is because I've seen several cases were a perfectly logical argument has been flawed because of ambiguities in the english language, with no fault of the chain of reasoning.
    This would be an insuperable problem if every argument could only be made once, and succinctly. In reality, one's thesis can be propagated over a life-spanning series of publications and correspondences. If such ambiguities can be identified, they can be clarified. The great thing about language is that it can always be expanded to close-in on meaning.
    Son Goku wrote: »
    Also having studied formal logic, I don't consider logical fallicies all that strong an argument against something. They usually show that your assumptions and definitions should be tighter not that the basic concept itself does not exist. For example, Russell's paradox* does not show that Sets are inherently nonsensical and can not exist.
    *Which is a language based, not mathematical.
    Okay. But then there are logical fallacies of the simpler, everyday variety, that are clearly wrong, like non causa pro causa and false syllogisms - that turn up all the time in religious debate. Much of an atheists work is to undermine reasons for belief, and these tools are indispensable in that.
    Son Goku wrote: »
    Surely you mean reasons why I'd be more inclined to worship if he did exist rather than more inclined to believe he exists. Only the first of the points you disagree with relates to how amenable I'd be to God. Of the other two, one is the statement that I don't find certain kinds of arguments against God trustworthy. I can find a certain kind of argument untrustworthy without it really making me more amenable to God.
    If you say so. I would have thought that if you reject one reason for disbelieving something, you come a little closer to believing in it. The fact is that there is a hundred million reasons why belief in god makes no sense, and each is as good as the next. We don't have to identify one big reason, and there's no disadvantage in arguing each reason for all its worth. You dislike some of the more potent weapons in the modern atheist's arsenal - I would just like to make sure that it's a matter of taste rather than a substantial rejection on your behalf.
    Son Goku wrote: »
    Also this is a strange argument in general. We both agree and are arguing over what is the appropriate level of dislike for the truth of the other opinion.
    Refreshing, no?


  • Options
    #8
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    It really is refreshing to see somebody approach this forum seeking answers out of genuine interest. I applaud you for the diplomatic manner in which you have approached your post.

    However, as I am not well informed in this area of debate, I am quite reluctant to be the first Christian respondent. I was really hoping that others better versed in apologetics and debate would attempt to provide you with the answers you seek. I’m more of a ‘ride on the coat tails of someone else’s superior knowledge’ kind of guy, which makes it all the more pity that I’m writing this.

    You may want to consider purchasing a book that I've recommended to people before. It's called Letters From a Sceptic – which is a light introduction to some of the more pertinent questions asked in relation to Christianity. These questions, for example, cover aspects of the nature of God, addressing some of His more confounding actions in the Bible, existence of evil, and the historicity of Jesus to mention a few. Indeed, I think that it would be relevant to some aspects raised in your post, albeit in an easily approachable manner. Now I wouldn’t agree with everything written in the book, but they aren’t central to belief in Jesus.

    In a nut-shell the book is the collection of correspondences between a father and son over a 2-3 year period. It begins with the son, a Prof of theology, inviting his father (the sceptic), a 'strong willed' agnostic, to enter into a written debate with him regarding Christianity and continues from there. You can get copies for as little as £3.50 (+1.80 P&P) from the 'new and used' section on Amazon. Even in today’s teetering economy that’s pocket change.


    Anyway, on to your questions.


    1) What do you think is entailed in a ‘personal experience of God’? If this is the knee wobbling and hysterical babbling experience then I would think that most people haven’t had that. I would imagine that those having experiences of God (and not all do) will find them to be much more subtle yet powerful nevertheless. I consider myself blessed to have felt God’s closeness before - a watchful presence, instantly reassuring and comforting. These experiences by themselves aren’t enough, however. You still need to seek God. Now I realise that the cynics out there will reduce these experience to misfiring neurones in the temporal lobe or some sort of primeval coping mechanism kick-starting, and in their defence I do accept that the ‘God on the brain’ can be awoken under certain controlled conditions. But then again I expect God’s interaction with us would produce a quantifiable physiological response – we’re flesh and blood (and soul) after all.

    I don’t wish to be presumptuous as to what you have or haven’t done in regards to seeking God, but you hopefully agree that it would be hard to have a personal experience of anything unless you first try. God can only be reasoned up to an extent, there comes a time when you have to go beyond that or go no further. (I hear the scoffs at such a suggestion). Admittedly it is a deeply, deeply flawed analogy, but you can read every book written on ‘how to teach yourself karate’ - you can even practice by yourself in your back garden, splitting the air with your mighty karate chops etc. – but in the end you will know very little about what is really involved in such a thing. It’s the same with the experience that you say you are open to. Maybe I’m completely wrong and you are just now speaking in tongs, but from personal experience, I know how faith dwindles without commitment, so I can only imagine it unlikely that you will experience God without doing something about it - opening your heart. As an aside I also know that you can’t teach yourself karate form a book or by watching The Karate Kid 1-3 repeatedly.

    2) It is probably best that we don’t get too deep into the realm of physics – you would drown me in a sea of equations and laws no doubt. Interestingly, scientists like Francis Collins (Dir. of the Genome Project) would be of the opinion that the universe is finely tuned. From my limited understanding I would tend to agree with him. Though in fairness, this is not his field of expertise and certainly not mine. Whatever the truth about physical constants fitting in with the anthropic principle etc., I really don’t think it is of any great importance to the existence of God.

    3/ 4) I won’t say much about Jesus’ claim to being God incarnate and the claims of other religions, nor will I speak of the theological slant between denominations. Those topics are best left to people with a good knowledge of Christianity and comparative religions. As unsatisfying a suggestion as it may be, I think that this is the step after you have begun to open you heart to the possibility that Jesus was who he claimed to be. Before this stage it is just a book with some pretty crazy claims. If, however, the man in this book begins to change your life (and I’m still trying to get there) then it isn’t just a book any more, and he isn’t just a man.

    Bear in mind that I am not a theologian, I have no special knowledge of Christianity, nor am I gifted in art of apologetics. I'm just a guy with opinions (make of them what you will), not a voice for Christianity.


  • Options
    #9
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I don’t wish to be presumptuous as to what you have or haven’t done in regards to seeking God, but you hopefully agree that it would be hard to have a personal experience of anything unless you first try.

    This is constantly mentioned by believers in response to skeptics, and I genuinely aren't following what is meant.

    How does try and have a personal experience of God? What do you actually do?


  • Options
    #10
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Son Goku wrote: »
    First I'd like to make explicit my attitude to God if he existed. Basically I think that God, if he existed would be great, to put it simply. Unlike other posters here, if God existed I would worship and be thankful to him for all he has done. How could I not be thankful for the gift of being made aware and given choice? I'd also think that given that he exists, most of the confusing stuff in Christian theology would make sense in light of God.
    Good attitude for an atheist! :)
    Son Goku wrote: »
    1. I have never had a personal experience of him. My mind is open to the possibility, but honestly I never have. With no direct personal contact from him I would need to go to other "sources" to get some reason to believe in him. The thing is though, am I justified in ignoring the personal experiences of others? Several other people claim to have had experiences of God, does this not lend weight to God's existence.
    Like you I've never had a direct personal experience of God in the sense that He spoke or appeared to me. However I have had many experiences that reaffirmed my belief in God such as prayers answered/mini miracles. Have you read any (auto)biographies of the mystic Catholic saints? To me these are very convincing accounts of very real and profound experiences of God. I'd recommend the Diary of St. Faustina for starters.
    Son Goku wrote: »
    The reason I think I'm justified in ignoring these experiences is because several people have vastly different experiences ranging from the Hindu gods to the Christian God. I'm not making a trite point here. I honestly do not see I way to place a higher reliability of one experience over another. I would ask posters to stay away from the issue of people having experiences being "deluded", rather I would prefer reasons for why somebody who has had no personal experiences should see a certain class as more reliable.
    It's hard to respond to this without referring to delusion. As a Christian I believe false experiences of God occur frequently and result from demonic activity. Within Catholicism for instance there are false Marian apparitions which always involve mostly truth but with some seed of error intended to draw people away from the Church. I do believe though that there are true Marian apparitions e.g. Lourdes and Fatima. Another example would be false healings which only appear to be real because the illness was cause by demonic activity in the first place and the apparent cure results when this activity stops, again another deception.
    Son Goku wrote: »
    3. Historically, I can't think of a reason for preferring the claims of Jesus of Nazareth over those of Mohammed of Medina, Guru Nanak Dev or Siddhartha Gautama, based on the historicity of their individual books. I can see historical reasons for preferring all of these over the pre-Xia Yellow emperor of China or the Hindu cosmology. However there really isn't anything I can find that makes them win over the others.
    I see lots to recommend Christ over other religious figures. He preached compassion, love and mercy like no other. He made big claims about himself such as oneness with God the Father and the ability to forgive sins. He performed many miracles such as healing congenital disease and raising people from the dead and controling the elements. Most of all nobody else offered himself up as a sacrifice for our sins, with such humility and submission, as Jesus did. He also showed great authority in His teachings and cleverness in responding to His critics.


  • Options
    #11
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Wicknight wrote: »
    This is constantly mentioned by believers in response to skeptics, and I genuinely aren't following what is meant.

    How does [one] try and have a personal experience of God? What do you actually do?
    You start with a bit of humility and admit that you might just be wrong about your belief that God doesn't exist.

    I'm not sure about the best place to start but I don't think you'll go too far wrong if you read the New Testament and ask God to reveal Himself to you in your heart through Holy Scripture. Without the aid of the Holy Spirit, the bible will never come fully alive for the reader. It will make sense to us on an intellectual level but it will never have deeply personal meaning without divine inspiration. Have you heard of Lectio Divina? Basically it involves reading scripture meditatively having prayed to the Holy Spirit for understanding. We then ask how the message applies to our lives and what God is trying to say to us. We are then supposed to take concrete action to amend our lives according to the inspiration and promptings of the Holy Spirit.

    Of course this isn't going to happen if one takes the view that there's no evidence for God's existence and refuses to take another step. God holds haughtiness in disdain and will only drive Him away.

    Finding God requires a leap of faith. If you genuinely seek God, He will reveal Himself to you as He wishes. For most this comes as a gradual understanding of God's ways and nature and leads to a love of Him. For others it can come as a profound sense of peace and love.

    You could also start with a very simple prayer such as "Jesus, if you're there, please come into my life and lead me to the truth about God".

    But at least ask yourself the possible consequences of your belief that God doesn't exist. If there is no God, you die and your life in over there and then. If God does exist, you will appear before His judgment seat and will have nothing to show for yourself except all the sins you commited throughout life.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Wicknight wrote: »
    How does try and have a personal experience of God? What do you actually do?

    You are correct to question this.

    That the believer (or curious onlooker) can decide how she will experience God would mean she can dictate to God the boundaries of His interaction with us. In other words, this would limit Him. In my experience it remains a gradual process by both sides. That is why I think C.S. Lewis' phrase "a good infection" resonates with me.

    So to answer your question: 'What do you actually do?'. Well, the only answer I can provide is an honest one: I don't know. It is different for everybody after all. Generally speaking, though, to me (and I'm at pains to point out that I do not present my opinions as authoritative) it seems that a curious person should investigate God and the claims of Jesus with an openness to the possibility that it might all be true. Question God through prayer and study of His Word and seek fellowship with others in Church or maybe through something like an Alpha Course.

    To use another flawed analogy - Expecting a certain experience from God is like going out on a blind date and expecting to be passionately in love with the girl after the first date. This despite the fact that you have never met her and all you know about her comes from other people. Taking a stance of Emotional absolutism (I will love her/ I will hate her) before meeting the girl would be a silly position to take. It would be much wiser to meet her with a heart open to to possibilities (whatever they may be).


  • Options
    #13
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Son Goku said:
    Hello all. I've been posting a bit sparsely as of late and I'm probably not going to be posting at all after this thread (hold your tears my manly friends), since I'll be even more busy in the real world.
    Always glad to hear from you, when you get a chance.
    I've been having the idea of this thread for quite a while and I would appreciate mainly the response of the Christian posters. Basically what I'm asking is what do you think is inconsistent/wrong with my reasons for not believing in God?

    First I'd like to make explicit my attitude to God if he existed. Basically I think that God, if he existed would be great, to put it simply. Unlike other posters here, if God existed I would worship and be thankful to him for all he has done. How could I not be thankful for the gift of being made aware and given choice? I'd also think that given that he exists, most of the confusing stuff in Christian theology would make sense in light of God.
    That's sensible, as far as it goes. But the problem of Theodicy needs to be addressed, as Sapien points out. You must take the whole package or not at all. The Bible gives a coherent account that deals with the evil in life as well as the good. Many don't like what it says, of course, and try to spin the story to give a God of their own creation.
    Secondly, I'd like to lay out my opinions of the New Testament as a historic document. Simply put I would rate it as "very good" as far as documents from this period go. In fact it is very detailed and there are several external sources that back up the general setting.
    Glad you see it honestly. There's a lot of anti-Christian bias about. Graduates of the Dan Brown School of Theology.:D
    Finally, with regards to there being no logical reason for God, a la Dawkins, I don't agree. We could conclude that logically he does not exist and that wouldn't make a lick of difference to his existence.
    SSH! If it gets out that you have common sense, your career will be damaged.
    The reasons I don't believe in God however are three fold, with a little minor point at the end:
    1. I have never had a personal experience of him. My mind is open to the possibility, but honestly I never have. With no direct personal contact from him I would need to go to other "sources" to get some reason to believe in him. The thing is though, am I justified in ignoring the personal experiences of others? Several other people claim to have had experiences of God, does this not lend weight to God's existence.
    The reason I think I'm justified in ignoring these experiences is because several people have vastly different experiences ranging from the Hindu gods to the Christian God. I'm not making a trite point here. I honestly do not see I way to place a higher reliability of one experience over another. I would ask posters to stay away from the issue of people having experiences being "deluded", rather I would prefer reasons for why somebody who has had no personal experiences should see a certain class as more reliable.
    First, I would say go first to God (without having to concede He is there) in prayer - ask Him to reveal Himself if He really exists. Ask Him to open your eyes to see spiritual truth. He is open to such honest approaches:
    Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’

    Second, check out the spiritual claims of any you know who have been radically changed for the better by their religion. Generally speaking, there is a noted difference between a man before he comes to Christ and that man afterwards. He should in fact be observed to grow in grace the longer he is a true Christian. Note however that he will not be sinless, for he has to struggle daily with his old nature as it wars against his new one. He is now not longer a slave to sin, to do the will of his old nature. He is now a slave of righteousness, his new nature is in control - but the old ambushes him with temptation when it can.
    2. I see no design in the world. As a theoretical physicist I am aware that I have an unfair advantage in talking about the workings of the world, so this is the point I would probably want the least discussion on. My quick argument is that we've known since the 70s that no matter what the fundamental physics of the world, at human scales the physics will be the physics we observe. Hence there is no fine-tuning to explain. Also all the "specialness" of the world (and have no doubt, our universe is very special) is found in objects that have no relevance to our existence.
    I think you will agree that tiny variances from our present laws, etc. would make an entirely different universe? So what we see is either 'fine tuning' of design, or just 'apparent' design (we see it so because if it were not so then we would not be here to see it). I see no reason to prefer the latter to the former.
    3. Historically, I can't think of a reason for preferring the claims of Jesus of Nazareth over those of Mohammed of Medina, Guru Nanak Dev or Siddhartha Gautama, based on the historicity of their individual books. I can see historical reasons for preferring all of these over the pre-Xia Yellow emperor of China or the Hindu cosmology. However there really isn't anything I can find that makes them win over the others.
    Hmm. Prophecies would be a good test. Specifically, God's word regarding the spread of the gospel, and concerning the Jews.
    4. Finally and this is a minor point. Even if God exists I don't see how I can be sure that any Christian theology accurately reflects him. Certainly there are some that are wrong and some that are less biblical than others, but often (and I genuinely do not mean this offensively) a lot of theological ideas about God seem like a pile of talk, even assuming he exists.
    You are right about the piles of talk! But the Gospel of Christ is not to be checked in what men say about it - go to the source, the Bible. Check it for yourself, prayerfully. Good men are a help in understanding if further - but you must be willing to Test all things; hold fast what is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

    Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.


  • Options
    #14
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    This is constantly mentioned by believers in response to skeptics, and I genuinely aren't following what is meant.

    How does try and have a personal experience of God? What do you actually do?

    One way would be to pray to Him in the following manner,
    "God, I don't really know whether you exist or not, or whether I'm just talking to a figment of people's imaginations. But if you really do exist, I'd like to think that I'm open minded enough to consider any evidence that would help me change my mind. So, if you're really there, will you please show me something that will be genuine and unique enough to overcome all the doubts and unbelief I have. There's a lot of stuff I don't understand, and a lot of things that actually have turned me away from believing in you, so it's probably going to take something pretty special to make me believe. I'm not making any promises about becoming a Christian, or any other kind of believer. All I can promise you is, if you do speak to me in some way, that I will not just reject it out of hand but will genuinely give it my serious consideration. I'd really appreciate it if you would do this for me. Amen"

    Another way would be to spend some time with some Christians. Don't just pick the most hateful mob you can find because you know they'll confirm all your prejudices. Try some people who appear to be making a genuine effort to be better people and to follow the teachings of Jesus. You might want to choose a group who have struggled against the odds to practice their faith - maybe an immigrant group who have had to overcome persecution etc. Listen to what they have to say. Find out their stories. Ask them why Jesus is so important to them. You don't have to kiss your brains goodbye and accept everything they say as Gospel - but don't go into the encounter with a determination to prove them wrong no matter what. Try to really understand what makes them tick. You may well still disagree and decide it's not for you - but at least it would give you the opportunity to respond to genuine Christianity instead of simply rejecting a straw man of the most horrid manifestation of religion that you can find.


  • Options
    #15
    Son Goku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Son Goku


    Thanks to all who pitched in. Fanny especially, your answer was exactly what I was looking for.

    Sapien, since you might be interested in such stuff I thought I'd clear up something and a little post on Gödel's theorem is a nice way to end my time on boards.ie
    As we all know, every formal system is incomplete, be it mathematics or language. Language obviously more so, but it's only a matter of degrees.
    You might be interested to know that:
    (a) Under the definition of complete, any language, in so far as they fill that definition is actually more complete than mathematics.
    (b) There are several formal systems which are complete. An example of a complete formal system is the pure theory of the real numbers.

    Gödel's theorem only applies to systems that can replicate basic arithmetic, which the pure theory of real numbers can not. Complete usually refers to the ability to prove or disprove any statement you can make in the system, using only the methods available to you within the system. Gödel's theorem basically says that if a system can simulate arithmetic and it's complete then it is inconsistent. The only way out of inconsistency is to give up completeness or the ability to simulate arithmetic.

    Since logic comes up so often on these forums, I just thought I'd clear that up. Anyway see yas.

    *Vanishes in a poof of logic*


  • Options
    #16
    neuro-praxis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,184 ✭✭✭neuro-praxis


    Son Goku, as a Christian I rarely post in this forum because it is terribly frustrating and I am too busy to get into long-winded arguments with Wicknight, Sapien and robindch. :) I am studying right now but when I have time I am going to try to answer your excellent questions.

    The manner in which you have started the thread is quite simply so kind and respectful that you deserve a lot of thought in the responses. Thanks.


  • Options
    #17
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    kelly1 wrote: »
    You start with a bit of humility and admit that you might just be wrong about your belief that God doesn't exist.

    I admit I might be wrong about most things, including the existence of God. How does this get me a person experience of God? What am I doing wrong?
    kelly1 wrote: »
    I'm not sure about the best place to start but I don't think you'll go too far wrong if you read the New Testament and ask God to reveal Himself to you in your heart through Holy Scripture.
    Did that. About 15 years ago.

    Nothing happened.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    If you genuinely seek God, He will reveal Himself to you as He wishes.
    Well I did and he didn't. What does that mean?
    kelly1 wrote: »
    But at least ask yourself the possible consequences of your belief that God doesn't exist. If there is no God, you die and your life in over there and then. If God does exist, you will appear before His judgment seat and will have nothing to show for yourself except all the sins you commited throughout life.

    Surely I will have the same to show as anyone, all the good things I've done.


  • Options
    #18
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    "God, I don't really know whether you exist or not, or whether I'm just talking to a figment of people's imaginations. But if you really do exist, I'd like to think that I'm open minded enough to consider any evidence that would help me change my mind. So, if you're really there, will you please show me something that will be genuine and unique enough to overcome all the doubts and unbelief I have. There's a lot of stuff I don't understand, and a lot of things that actually have turned me away from believing in you, so it's probably going to take something pretty special to make me believe. I'm not making any promises about becoming a Christian, or any other kind of believer. All I can promise you is, if you do speak to me in some way, that I will not just reject it out of hand but will genuinely give it my serious consideration. I'd really appreciate it if you would do this for me. Amen"

    I have done that (well something similar) many times.

    Nothing happened. What does that mean?
    PDN wrote: »
    Try to really understand what makes them tick. You may well still disagree and decide it's not for you - but at least it would give you the opportunity to respond to genuine Christianity instead of simply rejecting a straw man of the most horrid manifestation of religion that you can find.
    I'm surround by Christians the vast majority of the time, most of them very nice people. I'm not following what exactly this is supposed to do?


  • Options
    #19
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Son Goku wrote: »
    2. I see no design in the world. As a theoretical physicist I am aware that I have an unfair advantage in talking about the workings of the world, so this is the point I would probably want the least discussion on. My quick argument is that we've known since the 70s that no matter what the fundamental physics of the world, at human scales the physics will be the physics we observe. Hence there is no fine-tuning to explain. Also all the "specialness" of the world (and have no doubt, our universe is very special) is found in objects that have no relevance to our existence.
    I've been looking into other science related indications for the presence of God and some that I've read about are:

    - The Big Bang. Time began at a finite time in the past and the universe came out of nothing. The laws of physics break down if you go back to a time very shortly after the big bang. To me this has all the hallmarks of creation and a Creator. Why is there more matter than anti-matter?

    - Anthropic principle. There is a high degree of fine tuning needed for the universe to sustain life.

    - Where did DNA come from? Still a mystery.


  • Options
    #20
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I admit I might be wrong about most things, including the existence of God. How does this get me a person experience of God? What am I doing wrong?
    There is absolutely no guarantee that anyone will have a personal experience of God. From what I've read there seems to be mostly two main categories of person who have personal experience of Jesus/God. The first is hardened sinners who hit rock bottom and turn to God in humility upon realizing that they can't fix their situation without God's help. It seems that God often touches their lives in profound ways often via an experience of God ineffable love for them. The second categories are mystic saints who give up their lives and their will up totally in the service of God. Of course not all saints have profound experiences of God.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Did that. About 15 years ago. Nothing happened.
    But how did you approach the bible? Did you look at it's historical accuracy or its scientific accuracy or were you looking for spiritual truths? Did you approach it intellectually or meditatively with the intention of getting to know Jesus/God?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well I did and he didn't. What does that mean?
    As I said already, very few have direct experience of God but faith is very common and is a gift from God. Have you ever prayed for faith? Did you ever deliberately turn your back on God.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Surely I will have the same to show as anyone, all the good things I've done.
    All the good works in the world will never save you. What saves you from damnation is grace and grace is obtained by faith in Christ and Christ won this grace for us by the shedding of His blood as a means of our justification.


  • Options
    #21
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    kelly1 wrote: »
    - Anthropic principle. There is a high degree of fine tuning needed for the universe to sustain life.

    Actually there isn't (and that isn't what the anthropic princple means)

    There are 4 fundamental forces that form all other properties in the universe. You can remove one altogether than things like pretty much the same. That doesn't suggest fine tuning.

    Also there are approx 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe. It is 96 billion light years wide. All to place life on one small little planet? That doesn't exactly seem like fine tuning. It would be like building the Pentagon in Washington to house a single atom.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    kelly1 wrote: »
    But how did you approach the bible? Did you look at it's historical accuracy or its scientific accuracy or were you looking for spiritual truths?
    Neither. Surely looking for "spiritual truths" would bias a person to seeing what they want to be there.

    I was introduced to the Bible through my father, a normal Catholic, who taught it to me as history.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Did you approach it intellectually or meditatively with the intention of getting to know Jesus/God?
    I'm not sure how one goes about doing that? How does one approach something non-intellectually?
    kelly1 wrote: »
    All the good works in the world will never save you. What saves you from damnation is grace and grace is obtained by faith in Christ and Christ won this grace for us by the shedding of His blood as a means of our justification.

    Ok, so what am I supposed to be showing God when I get to meet him? What are you going to show him that I will have nothing of?


  • Options
    #23
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Actually there isn't (and that isn't what the anthropic princple means)

    There are 4 fundamental forces that form all other properties in the universe. You can remove one altogether than things like pretty much the same. That doesn't suggest fine tuning.
    Are you sure about that? Could you have a quick look at this Wiki article please?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Also there are approx 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe. It is 96 billion light years wide. All to place life on one small little planet? That doesn't exactly seem like fine tuning. It would be like building the Pentagon in Washington to house a single atom.
    But how many of these would have conditions suitable to support life?

    See this from cosmicfingerprints.com:
    Two American astrophysicists concluded about a year ago that rare indeed is the galaxy that has the right number of this special kind white dwarf binary pair in the right location, occurring at the right time, so that life can exist today. The universe contains a trillion galaxies. But ours may be the only one that has the necessary conditions for life to exist.

    The right star is needed. We can't have a star any bigger than our Sun. The bigger the star, the more rapidly and erratically it burns its fuel. Our Sun is just small enough to keep a stable enough flame for a sufficient period of time to make life possible. If it were any bigger, we couldn't have life on planet Earth. If it were any smaller, we'd be in trouble, too.

    Smaller stars are even more stable than our star, the Sun, but they don't burn as hot. In order to keep our planet at the right temperature necessary to sustain life, we'd have to bring the planet closer to the star.

    Tidal Forces

    The physicists in the audience realize that when you bring a planet closer to its star, the tidal interaction between the star and the planet goes up to the inverse fourth power to the distance separating them. For those of you who are not physicists, that means that all you have to do is bring that planet ever so much closer to the star, and the tidal forces could be strong enough to break the rotational period.

    That's what happened to Mercury and Venus. Those planets are too close to the Sun; so close that their rotational periods have been broken, from several hours to several months.

    Earth is just barely far enough away to avoid that breaking. We have a rotation period of once every 24 hours. If we wait much longer, it will be every 26 or 28 hours, because the Earth's rotation rate is slowing down.

    Going back in history, we can measure the time when the Earth was rotating every 20 hours. When the Earth was rotating once every 20 hours, human life was not possible. If it rotates once every 28 hours, human life will not be possible. It can only happen at 24 hours.

    Speed of Earth's Rotation

    If the planet rotates too quickly, you get too many tornadoes and hurricanes. If it rotates too slowly, it gets too cold at night and too hot during the day. We don't want it to be 170 degrees during the day, nor do we want it to be below –100 at night, because that's not ideal for life.

    We don't want lots of hurricanes and tornadoes, either. What we currently have is an ideal situation, and God plays this. He created us here at the ideal time.

    We need the right Earth. If the Earth is too massive, it retains a bunch of gases such as Ammonia, Methane, Hydrogen and Helium in its atmosphere. These gases are not acceptable for life, at least, not for advanced life. But if it's not massive enough, it won't retain water. For life to exist on planet Earth, we need a huge amount of water, but we don't need a lot of ammonia and methane.

    Remember high school chemistry? Methane's molecular weight 16, ammonia's molecular weight 17, water's molecular weight is 18. God so designed planet Earth that we keep lots of the 18, but we don't keep any of the 16 or the 17. The incredible fine-tuning of the physical characteristics of Earth is necessary for that.

    Jupiter Necessary, too

    We even have to have the right Jupiter. We wrote about this in our Facts and Faith newsletter a few issues back, but it was also discovered by American astrophysicists just this past year. Unless you have a very massive planet like Jupiter, five times more distant from the star than the planet that has life, life will not exist on that planet.

    It takes a super massive planet like Jupiter, located where it is, to act as a shield, guarding the Earth from comic collisions. We don't want a comet colliding with Earth every week. Thanks to Jupiter, that doesn't happen.

    What these astrophysicists discovered in their models of planetary formation was that it's a very rare star system indeed that produces a planet as massive as Jupiter, in the right location, to act as such a shield.

    We Even Need the Right Moon

    The Earth's moon system is that of a small planet being orbited by a huge, single moon. That huge, single moon has the effect of stabilizing the rotation axis of planet Earth to 23½ degrees. That's the ideal tilt for life on planet Earth.

    The axis on planet Mars moves through a tilt from zero to 60 degrees and flips back and forth. If that were to happen on Earth, life would be impossible. Thanks to the Moon, it's held stable at 23 ½ degrees.

    Just as with the universe, in the case of the solar system, we can attach numbers to these. In this case, I've chosen to be extremely conservative in my estimates. I would feel justified in sticking a few zeros between the decimal point and the one. I would feel justified in making this 20 percent, 10 percent, for example, and on down the line.


  • Options
    #24
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    kelly1 wrote: »
    See this from cosmicfingerprints.com:
    cosmicfingerprints wrote:
    The universe contains a trillion galaxies.
    I'm not sure that it's very wise to trust a website that gets such a basic figure wrong. The current best guess for the number of galaxies not a trillion (1,000 billion), but 125 billion instead. That's out by a factor of eight. Figures from NASA are here and others are here.

    The rest of that quote from cfp is similarly inaccurate.


  • Options
    #25
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Are you sure about that?

    Well as sure as one can be when inventing theoretical universes :)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakless_Universe
    kelly1 wrote: »
    But how many of these would have conditions suitable to support life?
    Well probably billions. I imagine life of some kind is found throughout the universe.

    It is a religious concept to state that we are alone in the universe and that the universe was created for us. If that is the case one has to ask why is it so bloody big.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    See this from cosmicfingerprints.com:

    Well considering the first three paragraphs are nonsense I'm struggling to find the motivation to read the rest .. :)


  • Options
    #26
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well as sure as one can be when inventing theoretical universes :)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakless_Universe
    Do you accept or deny that fine tuning is required in *our* universe for life to exist?

    And why postulate the multiverse theory when you could postulate God?
    Why would multiple universes all of which came out of nothing, have different laws of physics each with different physical constants? Seems a bit unlikely doesn't it?


  • Options
    #27
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Do you accept or deny that fine tuning is required in *our* universe for life to exist?

    And why postulate the multiverse theory when you could postulate God?
    Why would multiple universes all of which came out of nothing, have different laws of physics each with different physical constants? Seems a bit unlikely doesn't it?

    The postulation of God solves nothing. Where did God come from? And don't say he always existed, because I could just easily reply that a multiverse has always existed.

    From your earlier post, (how do you link to other posts?) you seem to be under the impression that a sheer large number of convenient facts would lend credit to a designer.

    Imagine if you will a situation where there exists aliens in a distant galaxy. These aliens might well ask the exact same questions as we do? Their existence would be just as unlikely as ours. They might beleive that they are the only intelligent beings in existence, because of the fact that their existence is unlikely. But here we are, in our galaxy unaware of their existence, existing just fine.

    You can repeat this process as many times as you like, populating the universe with intelligent beings that have no knowledge of each other.

    If you are still with me, my point is that it only seems convenient that we exist because we are intelligent and are able to ask this question. Any alien civilisation would ask exactly the same question. It makes no difference whether God exists or not. If the situation we are in was not convenient, we would never have existed in the first place, and we would not have asked the question!


  • Options
    #28
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Do you accept or deny that fine tuning is required in *our* universe for life to exist?

    Depends on what you mean by fine tuning.

    A common way of explaining this is with a deck of cards. If I shuffle a deck of cards the odds that the deck will be the way I shuffle it are literally trillions to one. Any one of the 52 cards could be in any one of 52 places.

    To the cards, assuming they were sentient beings, they may well look at the specific order of the cards and say "Wow, it is extremely unlikely that we would be arranged in this specific order. Could there be a purpose to how we are arranged" and they may very well supposed that something or some one placed them in that specific order.

    In reality it is ridiculously unlikely that they would be in the order they end up in, but they have to be in some kind of order.

    So yes it is ridiculously unlikely that our particular universe would be the way it is. But that is not a reason to think that therefore someone or something "fine tuned" our universe to be this way.

    To suppose that we would have to assert that the universe cannot be any other way, in the same way the cards would have to suppose that they could not have been shuffled any other way than the way they were.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    And why postulate the multiverse theory when you could postulate God?
    Well I'm not sure it is a good idea to postulate either, though the multiverse seems to at least have grounding in theoretical physics, where as God doesn't.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Why would multiple universes all of which came out of nothing, have different laws of physics each with different physical constants? Seems a bit unlikely doesn't it?

    Less likely that a super intelligent being that just exists, and for some reason decided to create a universe 93 billion light years wide so he could put us in it?

    As I said, multiverse is not a supported idea, but it can at least fit into some scientific theories. And as we look more closely at the nature of reality reality does appear to be rather weird.

    On the other hand the God theory, that a creature very little us, who acts for purposes that we understand, in a manner we understand, is rather implauible, and more easily explained as simply humans trying to fit the big questions into a framework that we can easily understand


Advertisement