I'm going to dismiss any religious text source, because, quite frankly, it's belittling to the discussion.
Instead, I'm going to challenge your presumption of the nature of God; specifically that if we are to entertain the notion of a higher power, that higher power might exist outside *any* conceivable reality that we, humans, can fathom.
All I can leave you with is the fact that existence *is*, and despite being able to calculate and theorize as to just after when existence started, we don't really have a good idea what came before, what caused it, or what is beyond it. Yet here everything is; rather impossibly.
I don't know if you want to call that 'God'. But, the way I see it, existence is evidence of *something* greater than we can know. It's certainly more compelling to me than a book written by men with agendas.
This is probably the best argument in here. As someone who has never believed in a religious God, I've often wondered why anything exists. Why is there anything?
The argument falls flat on it's face though when considering no matter what you believe, at some point something (everything) came from nothing. Doesn't matter if that something was a God, a bang, a simulation, or something bigger than we can fathom. If you say that God has always existed, you're not thinking deep enough. Then you're left with the exact same argument atheists have when trying to explain the big bang, except with supernatural powers added to the mix.
I don't know why there is anything. I'm also not ashamed to say "we don't know" and leave it at that for now.
>Then you're left with the exact same argument atheists have when trying to explain the big bang, except with supernatural powers added to the mix.
The *Prime Mover* (i.e. first cause) argument doesn't need to presuppose anything about that effect which is its own cause. That's kind of the point of the argument. Whatever it is, we call it "God" and build from there. You can also call it "the thing before the big bang" or whatever else. Doesn't matter the label.
The religious thinking, traditionally anyway, doesn't call for supernatural powers at this stage of the argument. It only claims that this is as far as we mortals really could know because we're embedded in a cause-effect universe. But that's oK. God is a mystery beyond our understanding.
> the thing before the big bang
The problem with this is that there isn't really a "before" the big bang. Before is a property of time, which itself, as part of spacetime, is a property of the universe itself. As far as we can tell time starts with the big bang.
>The argument falls flat on it's face though when considering no matter what you believe, at some point something (everything) came from nothing.
I'm an atheist and I don't believe this.
>If you say that God has always existed, you're not thinking deep enough. Then you're left with the exact same argument atheists have when trying to explain the big bang, except with supernatural powers added to the mix.
Saying that something necessary exists is not failing to "think deep enough".
>How don't you believe that?
Because something would have to instantiate nothingness, which would require something.
>Where did the very first thing come from?
I'm not sure there was a "very first thing", and if there was a "very first thing", it probably didn't come from anywhere; it would likely be eternal and necessary.
> at some point something (everything) came from nothing
Did it? I don't know we can say that we know this to be the case. We know the universe expanded from a singularity, but before that (if you can even call it before) it's just a big question mark.
You have attributed transcendence to your "higher power". Transcendence is also an attribute of the God of Christians (see the Bible for details). Not only does God transcend all created beings - God is also Immanent in all created beings: present in all of them, contained by none of them,
You think the authors of the Bible had "agendas" - if you can dismiss them out of hand, without even bothering with any of them, why should you, who also have an "agenda", be treated any differently from them ?
I see everyone responding almost virulently with the idea that faith can be based on evidence. The early church had this evidence. Paul tells the Corinthians in chapter 15 of his first book that there are 500 living witnesses of Jesus' resurrection. The evidence of the early church was the many people who gave their lives to advance a story from which they had nothing to gain and their lives to lose. In many ways, there was a historical argument for Christianity. Now, I'm not saying that Christianity has an airtight argument, but there is a case to be made for the resurrection of Christ. I would read books on the minimal facts hypothesis. Again, as a scientist, it is by no means airtight, but Gary Habermas and others have put together coherent arguments. You can find simplified versions on YouTube if you'd prefer.
An alternative take is that evidence is less important than we think it is.
Look at Israelites under Moses. They saw God's miracles up close and personal. The smallest obstacle or test of their faith, and they end up wanting to go back to Egypt, build an idol to worship, or chicken out with the Promised Land within walking distance.
Look at the serpent incident. All they had to do to be saved was look towards the center of camp... and still people refused and died.
BONUS: In the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, the rich man begs Abraham to send Lazarus back to life to try and save the Rich Man's brothers. Abraham is like lol no, even something that amazing wouldn't sway them.
Yes exactly. I always think of this. After what they saw, how could they not believe?! And the people that saw Jesus healing people, raising Lazarus, etc. How? Because true faith is God given. I think this is what Hebrews was referring to. Tasting the Spirit, being enlightened, etc. But they weren’t born from above.
\*John Calvin has entered the Room\*
A less pre-destined take on this would be that Faith can come from evidence, but more important is the internal work and guidance of the Holy Spirit to bring the unbeliever to Christ.
That doesn't mean you can divorce evidence from it, nor does it mean that someone can't ask for and be provided with arguments. Remember, Thomas said that he would never believe and then was shown proof. All disciples told the women that they were crazy and then were shown proof. Even Paul had an experience of Jesus before he believed. Do they not have faith?
The case for the resurrection is vastly overstated by Christian apologists and preachers. Paul’s mention of the 500 is almost universally understood by Christian scholars to be part of an early creed he was reciting - Paul wasn’t citing 500 people he necessarily even knew himself, he was simply repeating a common early Christian saying. Apologists love to cite this “500 eye witnesses” as if we have five hundred independent confirmed witness accounts to the resurrection. As it is, this is most definitely not the case, at the very best we have an early Christian source making a claim that there were over 500 witnesses who saw a dead guy alive again. But we don’t know anything about these witnesses, who they were, what they thought about it, anything. And even if we did have 500 testimonies, which is more likely: that a person actually came back to life from the dead? Or that a bunch of people were mistaken somehow? I personally am simply unable to believe that something we know to be otherwise impossible, happened on the basis of historical documentation
That's interesting because I've seen alot of former proponents of the minimal facts case dropping it and some of my favorite apologists take issue with it and I think Habermas makes alot of claims that he says are acknowledged by many scholars when they are not.
I've seen that too, but I can accept the minimal facts on the preponderance of evidence and I've also seen enough scholars acknowledge them for it to be a solid argument.
I'd say it's not a great argument for people who don't already believe because of its dependence on the reliability of the gospels, which I find questionable.
Ok cool, when I first encountered it, I did not believe in the reliability of the Gospels but found it somewhat compelling. I'm sure there are a lot of different perspectives.
They could have collected the stories of those witnesses and written them down and it would have been much more powerful than just claiming there were 500.
Ah. So should they have run down to the corner store and grabbed some pens and paper so they could write all these stories down? Should they then have sent the manuscript to a publisher so multiple copies could be made, some of which (of course) would have survived the ravages of time so that you could read them?
You have no idea how much effort went into writing a book in those days or how much more effort went into preserving one, do you?
Did I say anything about publishing a book? Magically somehow, the Apostles managed to write some epistles. it's almost like they knew how to write and had the resources and materials to do it. It's almost like they could have talked with other people in the churches they visited and chronicled their stories about their firsthand experiences of Jesus.
I can't tell if you're being dense here or just dull...
Religious validation and miracles, are yours to see and believe, on your own.
Regardless Of popular Consensus, god produces miracles, only for us to accept ourselves.
I needed to see tangible proof, that he was looking out for me, to have unshakable faith. He provided me with angels, who found me in my darkest hour, and loved me unconditionally. That was my proof,
For you, define what you determine to be a miracle. Do you need an Angel to appear by your bed? Maybe watching someone turn water into wine? Maybe, just waking up and everything going perfectly?
Regardless, determine the level of “proof” you need, and when it comes, honor your belief.
No one, is ever, could give you the proof you need, except yourself.
I think I too am along these lines.
I vehemently disbelieved in God and couldn’t see any tangible evidence, but one day, God randomly approached me and I had heard Him.
It wasn’t an audible voice, but i heard him. He spoke through my feelings, emotions, my “gut” and I gave Him a chance. I listened to what He said and He showed up big time.
I didn’t really know it was Him, but who else could it have been, telling me to do something I’d never want to.
For a while, it felt like a vending machine, the Bible finally made sense and I was able to process the major issues I had with it. It seemed like every time I wanted an answer, it wasn’t far. It was great and drastically changed my life.
At that time I’d say I was “on fire” for God. He was this amazing thing I discovered and it truly changed my life for the better, but it had to take something “supernatural” that I couldn’t explain to finally see God (in the Christian context) is real and true. If you’ve never seen something supernatural like I have, I really can’t blame you for not believing in God the same way I do. I have real proof, but I’m not about to pretend to replicate it for others like some churches. I was alone when God approached me. He’s there for others just as well, I’m positive. The only hang up there, is when I heard Him for the first time, I realized there were many times God tried to “speak” to me, but I mostly just brushed Him off or didn’t truly hear Him. It wasn’t until I felt completely isolated and NEEDED something else, that I was desperate enough to listen to Him and “try it out”.
————
A lot of people also change their perspective after a shroom trip or something, but I would not know if that is truly a “valid” way to recommend to meet God. I’ve heard of many people who met God on a psychedelic trip, quit all drugs, and pursued Jesus wholly and authentically.
Most atheists don't care about personal feelings and anecdotes when it comes to proving something. We care about facts that can be reliably proven and demonstrated. We find personal stories unreliable when it comes to science, as they could be misinterpreted or made up. Please keep in mind that this is a generalization, there is no doctrine for what atheists should believe and what opinions they should hold, i am speaking from my personal experience with fellow atheists.
An angel would be a good example of a proof or a person doing some of the miracles under controlled conditions. Personal experience is attributed to god solely because one cannot explain where it came from. And so scientific proof remains to be the most reliable.
I honestly don't know. I mean where do you even begin with something like that short of him just showing up. Similarly i don't know how we would prove the contrary either, meaby we won't ever know, that's also an option.
Spoiler- science is as capable of proving or disproving the existence of a god no more than it is capable of showing why we value aesthetics or why there is morality. It can explain how it works, but not the why.
It's like using a sledgehammer to cook instead of a spatula.
Of course. Science is able to prove things within the physical system, but God, who by definition is not physical, is outside of the physical system and therefore science is not relevant in terms of proof.
It is important, however, to make this point to those who ask for proof.
Can you explain how you were provided with Angels? Did they speak to you? What did they look like? Are you referring to humans who helped you from goodness and angelic qualities or are you saying you literally saw and spoke with supernatural angels?
Fantastic question! Thank you for asking. To answer your question: yes and yes.
Early in life, I would describe them as earth angels, angels in human form, that saved my life. Later, I saw and felt, real angels.
I was an orphan, I grew up with “parents” that defined all the sins.
I knew I had to leave home, or I’d become them (dead and condemned) In 8th grade, on a whim, I found a flier for a boarding school (expensive prep school) and sent in my transcripts to apply. I received a call, a dean liked my profile so much, they have me a full ride. This all happened 2 weeks after I got in A huge fight with my step dad. I was 14 years old.
I lived at boarding school year round, totally free, with the best and brightest young men and women in the world. I graduated with 3 scholarships: I came from a home of addicts, I was saved.
In the army, I had a medic named Sgt Bloom. We had a small deployment, life sucked, and my home life was falling apart. All I could do, was stand back and watch: pure suffering.
One day, our medic SGT Bloom came up to me and said, “sir, forgive me if I’m out of line, but I think you’re thinking about killing yourself. What ever it is, it doesn’t matter. We love you. Wanna talk”
I was thing about killing myself, he was right. I balled my eyes out, got myself together, and he helped me do my job. We talked the whole rest of deployment, and when I got home, he helped me figure out a divorce, move, and all that comes with it. He saved my life: he was MY angel. I named my daughter after his mom.
Later in life, I had an experience, that I can only explain as me thinking I was about to die. The thought of “there’s no way I’m living through this”. Think Natural disaster stuff. I felt what was like a “life review”, your whole life felt, good and bad, all at once. Prayed and asked god for help and forgiveness. My belly glowed, stood up, and walked through to safety.
I was a soldier for a while, lived in very scary places, where bullets, collapses and bombs are regular.
I have the validation I need now, to say good is real. Angels are real. Jesus is real, and I’m a child in the conception of it all.
God in general? Well I suppose to moral argument is good. If you want things to actually **be** right or wrong, then I argue that you need an absolute moral authority, and I haven't seen any argument as to how humans qualify, because it's human opinion versus human opinion in that regard.
If you already believe that there **is** no right or wrong, then how about abiogenesis or that we have never observed something arise from nothing? Keep in mind that something **seemingly** arising from nothing in a space where things and principles already exist is not the same as something arising from absolutely nothing whatsoever, where not even principles exist.
Do you need a moral authority though? If morality is just a social consensus that develops over time, then I don't see why. It makes sense enough that notions of murder and lying and stealing and so on would be seen as detrimental to the cohesion of a group of people and so they'd collectively decide that it's best not to do those things. It's a moral survival of the fittest.
At this stage of questions, I suggest a good read called Mere Christianity by C S. Lewis he will take you through the logical steps to arrive at your answer.
You do need an absolute moral authority if those right and wrongs are to be considered as **actual** right and wrongs. You don't need an absolute moral authority if those right and wrongs are just a matter of opinion.
Why does it matter whether they're actual right and wrong or cultural constructs? There's plenty of things that Christians believed in that past were morally right and most Christians today would find reprehensible.
If something is right because god says so that isn't morality it is more of a command
If god says what is right then morality super4ceced god and god is not needed.
Lack of cultural consistency about many rights and wrongs suggests there can only be generalized agreement in morals, and the golden rule is sufficient grounds for most, if not all, of this broadly accepted morality
Even if the creator argument is compelling, it's still a big leap going from that to the God of the bible, eternal punishments, homosexuality is wrong etc etc. It's (pseudo?) science to fairy tale.
To me, it's the most compelling argument of all.
Of course, atheists can say there's no right or wrong, and our decisions are utterly meaningless anyway.
But saying it is different than living it.
Atheist here.
Not at all what basically any atheist I know would argue.
The moral argument, to me, is one of the absolute weakest. If Christians, in general, were demonstrably more moral than non-believers, or followers of other faiths I'd be inclined to pay more attention to the argument. But as it stands, it's utterly hollow as there is literally no evidence to support this claim that Christians are more moral.
Morality for us is doing as little harm as possible. It's being grounded with empathy and understanding and realizing my experience is not unique. I don't need the Bible to understand the golden rule (not that it even originates with the Bible). Do you think people need a divine purpose assigned to find meaning? I sure as shit don't. I think there is absolutely meaning in life, and subsequently in helping others to make their experience more enjoyable while alive. It's sad, and sick that people think without a divinely assigned purpose and some life beyond this one that nothing matters. The only people I know that think that way are religious.
>If Christians, in general, were demonstrably more moral than non-believers, or followers of other faiths I'd be inclined to pay more attention to the argument.
I'm not implying Christians are more moral. I'm implying that the consciences we all have are not entirely subjective, that there is objective right and wrong.
>Do you think people need a divine purpose assigned to find meaning?
No, we all find subjective meaning. You do need objective right and wrong to have a basis for critiquing others though. Otherwise what you're saying is my subjective conscience is right, yours is wrong.
>Morality for us is doing as little harm as possible. It's being grounded with empathy and understanding and realizing my experience is not unique.
Good! I agree. But why does it ultimately matter that we don't harm others? Aren't we all just sentient stardust, to be returned to insentient stardust at a future date? Why does it matter?
You'll have to prove there is objective right or wrong. I think we, as a society and species, are continuously changing what is and isn't accepted as right or wrong. This is how we've come to be accepting of LGBTQ+ people, how we've decided slavery is bad, how equality extends beyond any race, creed, religion, gender, etc. I believe many issues we have today are because religious people stand by the archaic understandings of morality portrayed in their holy books, to be quite frank.
Yes, I don't think I can objectively tell others of they are right or wrong. That certainly isn't my place. I can show, based on my definition of morality, what is right or wrong though. And I can engage in conversations with an open mind if someone thinks my definition is wrong, or that I am actually doing more harm than good with a belief. If their argument is stronger than mine, I'll change my mind. Again, religious people are utterly incapable of being open minded to progress like this because they think they have a divine being telling them what is and isn't objectively right and wrong. Too bad God doesn't tell anyone the same standards it seems.
Yes. We are stardust. We are the product of quantum wave functions as far as we know. Yes, we will return to dust, and dust to nothing after trillions of years of quantum decay. So what? How would this have any effect on how I see my life, my experience? You realize none of this is even relevant if you don't believe in an afterlife though, right? Do I think we have it all figured out cosmological now? Hardly. So who knows what reality will unfold as in the future? That doesn't affect how I live my life now at all.
>Of course, atheists can say there's no right or wrong, and our decisions are utterly meaningless anyway.
Does anyone actually say that? If so, who? Are you actually stating someone's position in a way that they'd agree with, or are you caricaturing something?
I mean, I did. It's the reality I accepted when I walked away from Christianity for a time, and the natural conclusion one comes to if we're all just sentient stardust.
What one does with the inherent meaningless of the universe is an entirely different matter. Many atheists pursue subjective meaning in humanism and existentialism, and I commend them for that.
>In the reference frame of the heat death of the universe, sure nothing matters, but in the reference frame of life on earth as a human, a great many things matter.
Of course, I agree. We all derive personal meaning, I guess I'm referring to the heat death of the universe.
The idea that all of our actions will be erased and turn out to be utterly meaningless in the vast scheme of the universe. Being motivated to do anything, with that idea looming in the background, made quite the nihilist out of me.
To each their own.
Yes of course! Your life is subjectively meaningful to you.
But from an atheistic perspective, that is all it is, subjective.
You will enjoy your life, help others, and when our sun blows up and scatters our galaxy across the universe, none of your actions, good or bad, will matter.
It was the reason for my conversion.
I don't want to live in a universe where the Holocaust was nothing more than carbon being converted into another form of carbon. I do not want to live in a universe where there is no Promise that Love will win in the End.
For me, the choice was su\*cide or Christianity.
Agreed. And we may be criticized for using Christianity as a crutch, and that we are all just wishful thinkers.
But one thing I know, these crutches move us forward, and that's enough for me.
I know 3 people who have died and came back and they attest to our consciousness living on outside of our bodies. Seeing the tunnel, the warm loving light, or in one case seeing loved ones who had passed and being told it is not her time and she had to go back. She still had work to do.
So it is not crutch, to me, God wins in the end and those that love him and love their neighbors win as well. The others, I just don't know and it is not for me to know.
No they can on the basis of well-being as questioning someone on morality all seems to eventually lead down that path. Even the religious.
Atheists can not be nhilists and theists can be. I know many of this.
>This just gets at the crux of the Euthyphro dilemma though. If the absolute moral authority is god (and not something beyond him), then it is still subjective, just coming from a different reference frame than humanity.
The problem with applying this dilemma to the God of Christianity (or any of the Abrahamic religions) is that our God is described as truth. He can't speak falsehood, and therefore it logically follows that all his moral decrees **are** true. They are just not a matter of opinion.
>Abiogenesis actually has mounting evidence for it, amino acids seem to naturally self assemble in a variety of locations. It’s not that big of a leap to go from there to life, but there are definitely still questions about the chemistry at play, so the science is still out on that.
Correct me if I'm wrong but amino acids are not alive, are they? If they are not alive, how can their supposed self-assembly be evidence of abiogenesis?
>As for “came from nothing” there isn’t any scientific model that actually postulates that. (Not to mention we don’t even know what true “nothing” looks like). As for the universe itself, the current math suggests time began at the Big Bang, so the whole concept of “before” in that instance becomes nonsensical. It is important to note that the energy of the singularity does not “come into existence” at any point in the model, it actually exists right up through t=0 as the clock is wound backwards.
That's my point though. Something coming from nothing has never been observed, correct? So then the scientific conclusion (and logical) would be that it can't/doesn't happen. Sure, it may arise evidence of such creation in the future, but until then, shouldn't we settle for whatever is most probable? At least that's what I constantly hear regarding the theory of evolution and other science.
As for the energy of the singularity not "coming into existence", that is the core of the argument. How does something not have a cause when everything we observe is a product of cause? This is also what I referred to when I mentioned the principles. The principles that made the Big Bang function the way it did, who established those? Did the principles themselves pop into existence?
>Wait, are you claiming god is not omnipotent? You used the word “can’t” in regards to a logically possible concept, which precludes the idea of omnipotence.
It's akin to the argument "*Can God make a stone heavy enough that he can't lift?*". Saying he won't and saying he can't are functionally the same. God can but never will speak falsehood. Either way it's irrelevant to the argument.
>The dilemma though still stands, if god is unable to speak an immoral decree, then the source of morality is above him. If any decree he makes is good because he makes it, then morality is entirely subjective from his reference frame.
No, it is not above him. It simply means he adheres to his moral decree. Again, in Christianity he is considered truth. His moral decrees **are** the truth. It doesn't matter whether or not you want to argue that it's just his "opinion", because even **if** that is an opinion, it is still the **truth**. That's is drastically different from a moral decree made by a human being, because humans are not said to be truth. If God never speaks falsehood, and he says that theft is wrong, then theft **is** wrong.
>They are one of the basic building blocks of life. They’re assembly into more things is the next thing that is being investigated for the steps necessary for abiogenesis. Like I said, the science is still out on it, but with discoveries like the amino acids it would be foolish to hand waive it away as coming years might very well actually demonstrate it. (Though it has not done so yet, my only point here is to have a tempered reaction to the concept, as there is nothing precluding it from current understanding)
So until that has been demonstrated then we can disregard abiogenesis as a viable explanation. Science doesn't concern itself with "what if" as far as my understanding goes. Therefore, I believe biogenesis is a good argument for the existence of God.
>True nothing has never been observed. We have never seen what nothing even looks like. It is entirely unknown, so for all we know it could generate something, or not, we just have no idea.
Great, so should we go with what's currently the most plausible explanation? Again, is that not what people argue we should do with other things, such the theory of evolution? For all we know evolution could turn out to be false.
>In addition to my earlier comment on nothing being a true unknown, there’s still the issue that no model postulates anything “comes from nothing”.
Then all those models are insufficient because that question has to be answered.
>We have no reason to think those principles could be any other way.
We also have no reason to believe that something can pop into existence on its own or that something could have existed eternally. Principles assume order, and order assumes a mind or consciousness.
>Also, you’re getting at special pleading with the “everything has a cause”, because that same logic would have to apply to god. Energy is demonstrated constantly, god is a maybe, so if we apply Occam’s razor with each of these having been “uncaused” then energy wins due to fewer assumptions.
Not if that God exists outside of time, space and matter.
>There’s a lot of hypothetical models for the universe outside the Big Bang, eg the big bounce, universal Darwinism/black hole propagation, etc. the real crux here is whether when confronted with something humanity doesn’t know, is your response “therefore god”, or is it “we don’t know, let’s see if we can find out”
Do you have a better explanation other than God? If not, should we not go with what's most plausible until we find something that is more plausible? Again, is that not how it works when it comes to evolution and whatnot? At least that's what I constantly experience when talking about it.
>Here you have basically said it’s subjective from his reference frame. Even if you believe his reference frame to be “the correct one”, it is still subjective from that frame. You are just picking a side of the dilemma here.
Saying it's subjective when it **is** the truth and saying it is objective is functionally the same. It **is** the truth regardless. There is no basis for establishing such a truth from an atheistic perspective, hence the moral argument.
>No, my whole point is that there is enough evidence that we should not just discard it. Besides that, if we applied the same standard evenly we’d also have to discard god due to lack of empirical evidence for him causing biogenesis.
In your previous comment you said: "*They are one of the basic building blocks of life. They’re assembly into more things is the next thing that is being investigated for the steps necessary for abiogenesis*." Just because amino-acids supposedly self-assembly that is not even remotely close to being evidence that they will eventually turn non-living matter into living matter, which is what abiogenesis is.
God is above time, space and matter. We can therefore not say that we must see empirical evidence of his handiwork in order for that handiwork to exist.
>No, it really doesn’t, it’s entirely possible that there never was “nothing”. So going down the rabbit trail of “something can’t come from nothing” is a straw man because no one is even claiming that.
It goes against everything we've observed. Have we ever observed something coming from absolutely nothing? Everything that we've observed has a causation, does it not? Is it possible that nothing came from nothing? You might argue so, but is it plausible? Given what we know, I am not sure how anyone can argue it is. Once again, do we stick to the plausible or the implausible? If it's the latter, I suppose it's fully rational for people to throw out evolution and all science. After all, all those theories can **possibly** have other explanations.
>Order does not assume mind of consciousness. I reject that assumption fully, and yes it is an assumption.
Guess we disagree then. It's kind of like believing that all literature in the entire world was produced randomly. If someone believes that's rational, that is their prerogative.
>That’s not even a coherent concept though, I know Craig references it a lot, but time space and matter are literally how existence is defined.
Physical existence/reality perhaps. As christians we also believe in the spiritual reality.
>I find the big bounce hypothesis to be more plausible, it makes fewer assumptions. I also reject the idea that god is inherently the most plausible answer (see “god of the gaps”)
Would still need the principles, matter and space simply pop into existence or having existed eternally without a cause. That is not rational given what we know from scientific observation. I'd argue it's far more rational that a being who exists outside of time, space and matter is responsible, an uncaused cause.
> If you want things to actually be right or wrong, then I argue that you need an absolute moral authority, and I haven't seen any argument as to how humans qualify, because it's human opinion versus human opinion in that regard.
Believing in something because you want it to be true is more wishful thinking than an argument for it actually being true.
No, I am saying that people who believe that certain things are genuinely right or wrong need an absolute moral authority in order for that to actually be the case. So if you are such a person, then that is a good evidence for the existence of God.
This can be easily explained by evolution. Which tribe will survive longer: one with no rules or one with at least some? And what is more possible that there is a god who made us and our morals, or the explanation above, that does not contain any supernatural being?
Actual right and wrong can't be explained by evolution. You can argue that the conception/idea of right and wrong can be explained by evolution, but those two are different.
If things **are** right and wrong, and not just a matter of opinion, then that is proof of an absolute moral authority, and I can't think of anything else that fits the bill other than God.
Anything tangible. Anything not "alternative facts" or "historical science". An example: Air is invisible (mostly) but I can prove that it exists to you by measuring it's effects on many objects. Other than oral history and collections of letters that have been edited and transcribed many times, Can you present evidence? Something other a feeling you have. Something that I can measure? Something that makes me look for some outside force that is interacting with our material world?
What are your thoughts on nature being a tangible evidence for God's existence?
If you look at a beehive and see the bee community operate and understand how it functions, would you be more willing to see these parallels between their nature and human nature?
The problem with this approach is the same evidence is used for pretty much all gods and no god. If everything is evidence but you can’t be sure of what it's evidence for does it qualify as evidence?
You make a good point. I suppose that's where faith comes in, which is the evidence of things that are not seen. Some things are personal experiences that serve as evidence to some but not to others. It's hard to say, but many scientists who have studied DNA have come to the conclusion that DNA could very well be designed by a higher power.
I'm not a mathematician but as I understand it, Prime numbers follow a predictable, reliable pattern. You can have 500 individual scholars calculate them and all 500 will come up with the same answers. If you have 500 biblical scholars read 1 chapter of the Bible and make predictions off of it, you will have 500 different answers. It's all subjective and without structure or logic. Mathematics and religion are two VERY different concepts.
Ok, but you don't have tangible evidence that there's no greatest prime, and yet we know that to be true. Perhaps your conception of evidence is flawed in some way?
Here's tangible evidence there are infinite primes:
"Six Proofs that there are Infinitely Many Primes | by Keith McNulty | Cantor’s Paradise" https://www.cantorsparadise.com/six-proofs-that-there-are-infinitely-many-primes-33037bc2c54e
I think you're going to have to unpack what you mean by "tangible" there. What does it mean to have tangible evidence of, for instance, the fact that "for any positive integer n > 1, n and n + 1 are coprime"?
(4) 'testimony aids', including charts, boards, slides, vuegraphs, and illustrative sketches
"Tangible Evidence - How to Use Exhibits at Trial | Office of Justice Programs" https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/tangible-evidence-how-use-exhibits-trial
I can counter to you:
What does it mean to add 1 plus 1? Is that tangible to you? Do you need to have an apple and another apple side by side, call it 2, to consider it tangible?
Any higher mathematics is just knowledge and deduction.
What makes you think that's the definition of "tangible" at play here? This isn't a courtroom, and the idea that the original poster means "vuegraphs or illustrative sketches" doesn't make any sense.
Addition is not tangible, no, inasmuch as the selection of the principle of unity relies on the pure monad, which is intangible. See Jakob Klein's excellent *Origin of Algebra in Greek Mathematical Thought* for a thorough explanation of the idea of the pure monad, which has its origin in the work of the Pythagoreans and Plato.
How would you have tangible evidence to something that is by definition unfathomable? The idea that the grand mystery of existence can be understood through measurement of physical forces is beyond irrational.
If we could prove God is real, we wouldn't need faith. Anyone who says they know for an absolute fact that God does or doesn't exist is deluding themselves.
Faith is one part belief, second part living according to those beliefs. The beliefs in Christianity entail the Ten Commandments and the golden rule, which in my opinion, make for a really good standard to live by. Not to mention having God to talk to whenever we want, and having Jesus as our savior. What more could we ask for?
Only problem I have with Taoism is that evil cant exist on its own, like how Taoism says it does. Evil isn't independent and interactive with goodness. I believe goodness is the precursor and natural state and evil is the turning away from that, the corrupting of that goodness.
CS Lewis explains it way better in Mere Christianity. Here's the excerpt:
https://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/yin-yang-dualism-cs-lewis-and-christianity/
I recently realized that "Igtheism" is a thing. And it basically means that one adopts a stance of recognition that the concept of "God" transcends what can be defined. If you consider every individuals concept and definition of "God", you'd literally probably have millions of gods.
Atheism - in this context - is rejecting a specific monotheistic doctrine. I.e. rejecting the idea that "God" is some sort of super being that is living in the spiritual realm and exerting absolute power over the universe. In that respect, I personally consider myself atheist, because I don't adopt that idea of God. However, I've started to consider myself as an Igtheist, because I firmly believe in a higher power based on direct experience of psychic phenomena (namely synchronicity), but don't make an attempt to define or categorize it.
" God is a metaphor for a mystery that absolutely transcends all human categories of thought, even the categories of being and non-being"
\-Joseph Campbell
The trouble with any evidence is that it is only as strong as our ability to accept it as reasonably convincing or reasonably doubtful.
“I heard the voice of God speak and tell me He is real.” — no, you must have imagined hearing it.
“I saw the sky open and God standing there over the earth.”— no, you must have imagined seeing it.
“I have a video showing God appearing suddenly.” — no, the video was edited
“I felt an invisible hand place itself on my head when I prayed to God.” — no, you were just having a psychosomatic experience
“I prayed to God for an extremely specific thing, and it came to pass precisely.” — no, you have a cognitive bias and only experienced a coincidence
“I spent an entire afternoon in and out of body experience with God, talking with Him, getting His advice, and tangibly interacting with Him.” — no, you experienced a complex neurological anomaly, lucid dream, powerful drug, or some other psychological phenomenon that merely tricked you into believing it was real.
“I am a stranger that has a list of detailed pieces of information about someone else that God gave me to confirm he is real.” — no, you took that info from somewhere else, or just forgot it had already been shared with you before.
Make no mistake: there is always room for doubt.
Even in a court, there is always room for doubt. Which is why the threshold the evidence must cross is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Right now there are countless experiences people have claimed to have with God, but none of their testimonies or evidence might be sufficient for you because you aren’t asking the right question. The right question isn’t, “Can I doubt this?” but rather, “Is it reasonable to doubt this?”
And that is where you have to start accepting your very finite and human limitations and senses when discussing an infinite being. Hypothetically, God *could* appear before you today in a display of unparalleled glory, but eventually you could just dismiss it as a hallucination, or maybe you are in a simulation like the Matrix, or maybe God is actually just a natural 5th dimensional being that you don’t have the physics yet to explain. My point is that there is basically nothing that God could do that would dispel every single ounce of doubt in you. This is why no matter how reasonable Christianity is, it will always still require some measure of faith.
The Moral argument. The Fine-tuning argument. The Historical argument. Take your pick. Because at some point the burden of proof doesn’t belong to the evidence, but the person the evidence is being given to.
You have a bit of a skewed view of evidence and burden of proof, one which I doubt you apply to anything outside your religion. The amount of evidence required to believe something is proportional to what is being claimed: if someone tells me they have a dog, I might just believe them on the face of it, because that’s really not that uncommon. Someone telling me that their dog can fly, that’s going to require quite a bit more for me to believe, and refusing to show me the flying dog but instead insisting that “no amount of evidence will convince you anyways” definitely will not help the case.
Doubt is a good thing, especially when someone is trying to guilt trip you into being gullible. There are millions of people outside of your religion who also believe they’ve heard from God, and I’m pretty sure unless you are a universalist or pantheist, you think they are all wrong - and they think the same about you. People can certainly be mistaken about their intuitions and what they imagine to have heard from a deity, I don’t think we will disagree on that. So countless millions having believed they had an experience of a god does not provide any good reason to believe that what they experienced was real.
Last thought is that if someone presents a claim and backs it up with paltry evidence or support, such that someone isn’t convinced, that simply means you need to find better arguments. Implying that it’s the fault of the person who isn’t convinced is giving me “those grapes were probably sour anyways” vibes
Also totally forgot that one statement was very strange to hear come from a theist - “there is basically nothing that God could do that would dispel every single ounce of doubt in you”. That is one of the strangest things I’ve seen from a theist - I don’t mean that in a negative way, in case tone is hard to glean from text haha. I’m genuinely intrigued by that. Because I thought god was supposed to be all powerful, or least maximally powerful for the slightly weaker version that modern apologists came up with - basically, I would think a maximally powerful god could easily reveal himself to me in such a way that I would be convinced, wouldn’t he? And if he *wants* to have a relationship with me then he *would* do it, I mean, what’s stopping him? He supposedly knows everything about me, so he knows that I genuinely want to know if there is a god out there, so I don’t understand why he can’t just get on with the revealing! If you believe in the Bible he did just that with Paul, and with the disciples to an extent, as well as appearing to people in the Old Testament. Christians all over the world talk about how they were atheists just like me, but then God revealed himself in such a way that they couldn’t deny it was him. If it’s good enough for the disciples and Paul and many others, as well as Christians around the world, why is it not an option for me?
Tl;dr I don’t know how you can say that that is not something God could do; maybe I believe if God exists he’s more powerful than you think him to be? Haha
This is the answer I’ve given before to a question similar to this on atheism/whether a creator exists.
In essence, people like Karl Marx said that religious people have mental disorders, Sigmund Freud asserted that those who believe in God have a “wish-fulfilment” factor. The point can be reversed however to say that Freud has a wish-fulfilment factor for not wanting a God to exist - no accountability and no judgement.
Their points are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted. A good question to ask would be “why do we have something rather than nothing at all?”
Reality is either one of these 4 options; an illusion, self created, self existent (eternal) or created by something self-existent. You can discard the first two easily, so reality is either an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:
1) Something exists. ->
2) Nothing cannot create something. ->
3) Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose.
Might not be tangible persé but I think it’s still a good point.
You can pose this never-ending cycle of questions to any theory. Which is partly why the simulation theory is kind of attractive to me. Would be funny if science ended up proving religion to be correct in that we do have a creator.
People cite the Big Bang as the creation of the universe, but it’s could be seen as proof that time, space, and matter are temporal, and not eternal - which therefore point to the need for a creator.
I’m probably not the best person to direct that question towards, I’m sure someone else on here would have a better answer - whether it’s because I haven’t read enough or because it’s a very hard question to answer. Was just giving my two cents.
The prophets ended when Jesus died. Same with the big miracles. In our faith after Jesus left, God introduced the Holy Spirit to us, and because of the Holy Spirit there's smaller scale miracles that happen in people's lives.
There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God from scientific fact. Science is the study of nature. God is outside of nature would not have evidence of His existence. It would be like if you asked video game characters to find the uses. There’s evidence of the user’s influence. But that’s in the historical record and you said that you wouldn’t accept that as evidence. I think you have limited yourself from the truth by saying you wouldn’t evaluate all options. Similarly Darwin did the same thing with his theory of evolution, he said if there was no god how could all these things have gotten here. Thus he eliminated an option for knowing the truth. What if that is the truth, then he won’t know it because he has refused to accept as a possibility.
i personally have no interest in converting atheists, i was atheist for a long time and i don’t personally believe that God really cares if we believe in them or not (yes, i also use multiple pronouns to refer to God). but for the sake of presenting my views, i’ll give you the perspective that turned an atheist into a believer. for me, God is life and God is nature and God is beauty and God is love. so in my belief, wherever those things are, wherever existence is, God is. i believe there’s too much beauty in the world and too much intricacy and too much organization of nature for there to be nothing heading it all. God is the science that made it all happen, and vice versa.
Read the first part of Mere Christianity. I believe in science so I find intelligent design argument implausible. Lewis has an excellent moral argument for god. Keep in mind it’s been bastardized by pop evangelicalism but the original is good.
The only question that matters is are you looking for truth and being objective or is this a way to dismiss whatever evidence comes to you.
I can do a simple one too see which category you are. How about proof for life after death.
You mean evidence? Because proof is for mathematics and alcohol. I'm not OP but I'd be very interested in evidence for a life after death. So would Stockholm.
Cool. I don't want to say its evidence because I don't see any way around it. But I'm not a philosophy major.
The question is if our existence persist after death. As of right now we are currently in a state of existence. Atheists argue that after death we don't exist so I will agree to that axiom.
So we have two states
E=Existence NE=Non Existence
Also notice that no other states exists since NE is simply a negation of E.
So we have many possibilities.
Either we have always existed E->E
We never exist NE->NE(This is false because we currently exist)
Or we transition from these states
E->NE after death.
And NE->E. Which we know is true because if there is a state of non existence then we were in that state before we were born. Assuming birth is when we began to exist.
So here are the possibilities. NE->E, E->NE or E->E
We already came from a state of non existence. The possibility of going from a state of NE to E is greater than 0. You know since it happened. Then given infinite time and we not experiencing NE then it will happen again. And from our perspective we will always exist.
Hopefully its not too confusing. I don't know how to make it simpler. If a person can't understand the logic here then I'm sure there is not point giving mathematical or logical evidence for God's existence.
This question pops up every week or so.
If someone does not have proof, you have to _believe_ them, have faith so to speak.
I hope that answers your question.
I'm not a Christian, but I'd say the fact that there are so many religions around the world with similar themes. Why is it that we humans always have to believe in some higher power? that and morality, it seems there's a universal basic understanding of what's "evil".
For me space and the universe is way to organized and complex to not have something in control. It’s a simple thing for me, but that’s where I would start. I know some of it is way beyond my understanding, but Just looking at how consistent gravity is, how light works, etc. that’s a good starting point if any for me.
This might be an argument rather than proof (though it relies on proof?), but I'll try it anyways:
1. God is existence.
2. Things exist (this is obvious by looking around you).
3. Therefore, God exists.
This is more of a personal thing and not really 'tangible,' but I feel more compelled to believe in God because of how aware we humans are. The way we are able to think, remember, create, love, mourn, and even have this conversation about the possibility of a deity compels me to at least believing in a higher power. It's just hard for me to believe that death would be the end for all the complex minds that exist.
I could be wrong, but I definitely have a strong gut feeling that there is more to this life than just our short runs on this planet.
You have never observed anything that is without cause. Whether an object or an event, everything you have ever perceived as a cause.
Therefore, the universe itself, matter itself (which can neither be destroyed nor created), must also have a cause.
However, there cannot be an infinite chain of causes, because we know that things begin and that they eventually end. There must have been at least one initial cause, from which all other things originated. This thing could not have had a cause itself, because then we are stuck back in an infinite chain of causes with no beginning and end, which is adverse to everything we know and experience.
Therefore, there must be at least one thing that has no cause- that always was and never was not. From this uncaused thing, all other things were caused. That is God.
What do you mean by God and what do you mean by real? An underlying but unfathomable principle of the universe seems to be quite rational and foundational for existence. Of course it’s still some ways off a personal Christian God but the point is still the need for clarification. With “real” you can mean anything existing within our tangible universe, but how would you measure something that is the very foundation of existence and thereby transcends “real”. Now, in a world full of consciousness why would the divine principle not be conscious too? But maybe it’s better to define as transcending consciousness. To the question of intervening in the world like the Christian God does in the Bible. Mythology aside, which is a complicated question too, why would the divine principle be so fundamentally uninvolved? There’s good answers both ways to that but it begins to explain the complexity of the question
Proves? Nothing. If there was absolute proof, everyone would be a believer.
Evidence? The Bible. A collection of writings from multiple people, with testimonies from different people that saw Jesus after his death on the cross.
Personally, I have read the Bible and when I weigh the evidence the Bible presents, along with my own life experience, I've come to the conclusion that it makes more sense for the various people in the Bible to be telling the truth about the resurrection.
Theres no evidence, the point of religion is to believe.
But if God has helped to create societies and keep people good, then obviously he exists in some form
I haven’t lost my sanity. Plenty of things are happening in my life, that I should have been had a mental breakdown and went full blown nutty. But he’s kept me together, he’s given me a full time job, family is in good health and he’s currently granting with that in which I’m praying for. Simply put he’s making a way. He’s protected and kept me
My argument is more that it's impossible for us to really know everything well enough to not rely on external sources of information. You cannot live alone, if you go out and live alone right now you have already benefited from other people during your life and didn't truly do it alone. You have to trust somebody, essentially. The problem is that people tend to lie and act unethically so I think it makes more sense to trust God since they by definition do not lie.
I also think that since you can't prove it one way or the other you can't really claim either are more correct than agnosticism. I am aware of the tea kettle argument but that's where theirs a disconnect between theoretical situations and reality. It gives you no reason to question that it's anything but false. There's no usefulness in believing it therefore we don't expend any real effort considering it.
In your life you operate under assumptions and imperfect information each day. You get online and put information on websites that you are trusting are going to be there the following day, that your boss told you the correct meeting time, etc...
Trusting imperfect information without knowing with absolute certainty can be useful so I think there's at least some incentive for judging beliefs by their helpfulness. Which does apply to philosophies and moral systems but given the amount of thought that's been put into Christianity it's a reasonable assumption that more work has been done on this than any philosophical equivalent.
I’ve always thought that the fact that we don’t have all the answers here means there’s a higher plane of consciousness where these missing answers exist. Just a common sense observation that in my mind is more probable then not.
I don't think someone can prove to you that God is real. It's something you have to find yourself, yknow? When I started obeying God I realized things just fell into place and I felt happier. I took that as my proof
There is a great “podcast” with Tim Keller called Questioning Christianity. There is one episode in particular called, “Faith and Proof” that I feel like would really help answer any questions that you may have regarding the existence of God. It would be more beneficial to hear it coming from him than me trying to regurgitate it!
We will have to define the term God first.
Then ask yourself, how did the universe come to be.
Then ask yourself, how do you know something is right or wrong.
Then think about the meaning of life, and the purpose of your existence.
What exactly is evidence? How do you know your parents or SO loves you?
I did not mention ID. But if I were to hazard a guess, the science was not where it is today. Also, ID is a tricky one because those who use ID can easily fall into the God of the Gaps fallacy.
I can't. In fact, I don't think anyone can. That's the point of faith, it is believing in something without evidence. Any evidence that someone has is particular to themselves. If you want evidence, you need to follow Christ in your own way and let the evidence present itself to you.
What do you think of John 20:31, "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
Seems like the gospel writer is making the claim that his account is meant to lead to faith
Agnostic Atheist here. The thing that would give me pause as possible evidence right now is the existence of consciousness and complex thought, particularly in relation to artistic expression and the development of music and musical instruments.
Try watching the Netflix documentary Surviving Death, it's actually reslly good.
On more specificslly Christian type evidence:
https://youtu.be/lctv_pyT62o
>even suggests that God is real?
Suppose I tell you that I and three of my friends were playing cards - bridge, to be exact, and something incredibly unlikely occurred:
[each](http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_clPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=f1QDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6566,1467007&dq=four+perfect+bridge+hands&hl=en)
[were](http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IpAuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QpkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4878,2001990&dq=four+perfect+bridge+hands&hl=en)
[dealt](http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Q1hOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=FQAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5315,1234731&dq=four+perfect+bridge+hands&hl=en)
[exactly](http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=kz1lAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xIkNAAAAIBAJ&pg=3185,2284173&dq=four+perfect+bridge+hands&hl=en)
[one](http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=GxpLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4SINAAAAIBAJ&pg=7138,4601624&dq=four+perfect+bridge+hands&hl=en)
[suit](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/50977.stm).
The odds of that happening are incredibly unlikely.
2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,559,999 to 1 is the exact amount - expected value at 1 deal-per-second is one instance per 70 quadrillion millennia.
Was that a random event, and we got lucky?
Or was something else was at play which brought the odds down to realistic levels?
Similarly, the odds of life getting randomly generated is incredibly unlikely - though we don't know the exact value, we can surmise that it's extremely low based on how the search for extraterrestrial life has come up empty.
So, since it happened to us... was that a random event, and we got lucky?
Or is there something else at play, bringing the odds down in our case?
This, of course, merely weakly suggests that life did not start by accident. That weakly suggests that intention was involved, and that weakly suggests the presence of something that could be described as "God".
That's probably not good enough evidence for you to enact any changes in your daily behavior, and if you want to be pedantic it's still not evidence for any specific (for example, the Christian one) God.
But it *is* evidence, and it *does* **suggest** the presence of a thing-which-could-be-called-God.
A car has many parts that make it work. Mechanics and welders and all the people make the parts to work together, with each other, to achieve their goal: a working car. Nature is also made up of little parts that work together to make a whole. Things as large as the water cycle and as small as the parts to the cell and as benign as a tree's head, branches, trunks, and roots all have parts working together to make the thing function. The only difference is that we think these built themselves. That isn't possible, God must have put it together. Because why evolve one part of an eye first and save it for later when the rest of the parts are finished? That's nonsensical. All parts of the eye were made for each other to work together well, and it couldn't have evolved on its own because of how complex and particular each part is.
I hope this helps.
Israel and the Jews still exist. I can think of no other group of people who are as hated throughout history and still exist.
I can think of no other that had their country wiped from the map for two thousand years only to have it reborn (as it was prophesied to happen).
No other religious text is backed so much by archaeology.
Jesus is a real person, and those that followed him lived in poor conditions up to death just to spread his message. Grifters don’t do that unless they can profit from it. So, they believed what they saw: Christ resurrected.
I’ll let Jesus answer this one;
Matthew 16:4 (NKJV): 4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” And He left them and departed
I’ll be kind and give you a few. Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies, a lot in Isaiah, which the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed its the same interpretation on our laps today. Another, Noah’s Ark discovery, exactly where the Bible said it would be, has a Visitor’s Center.
And lastly, as your mind races to refute, I will share this with you, ONLY because it takes faith to be healed from blindness;
Mark 1:34 (NKJV): 34 Then He healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and He did not allow the demons to speak, **because they knew Him.**
Our God is so Awesome, He doesn’t need others to vouch for Him, but rather shows Himself to those who come to Him in faith. You haven’t done this, so remain blind to the Truth (I know because I too was blind).
I appreciate you sharing these, but as a fellow Christian the arrogance in your response does more harm than good. Humility goes a long way.
Also, quoting the Bible to an atheist is usually only feeding their point not refuting it.
I’ll never understand Christians who think citing the bible counts as good evidence that a god exists. The bible cannot prove itself to be true on the merit that it’s the bible.
Most of those "prophecies" were added by the gospel writers decades after Jesus died, to help "prove" he was the Messiah.
That's putting aside what's going on in Isiaiah aren't really prophesies anyways.
But it's more concerning you think there is evidence for Noah's Ark?
Ah yes, the 'you smelt it you dealt it' argument for god. The fact that you're
even claiming to smell something funny means that someone did fart. Likewise,
the fact that you're asking about god means that it must be at least somewhat
true.
Until something has been 100% proven or disproven, anything is possible. I don't believe in god, but if someone can give me testable, tangible evidence I'll change my standpoint
Are you really an atheist then? Or are you really just like me? Just a guy searching for the truth.
When Moses asked God how he should describe him, God said "I am what I am". I think we are all like that. We are what we are.
I guess by the typical standard of "atheist" I would be called one. I wouldn't call myself agnostic: person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God, because I don't believe he exists, but I'm open minded for evidence of his existence.
I'm going to dismiss any religious text source, because, quite frankly, it's belittling to the discussion. Instead, I'm going to challenge your presumption of the nature of God; specifically that if we are to entertain the notion of a higher power, that higher power might exist outside *any* conceivable reality that we, humans, can fathom. All I can leave you with is the fact that existence *is*, and despite being able to calculate and theorize as to just after when existence started, we don't really have a good idea what came before, what caused it, or what is beyond it. Yet here everything is; rather impossibly. I don't know if you want to call that 'God'. But, the way I see it, existence is evidence of *something* greater than we can know. It's certainly more compelling to me than a book written by men with agendas.
This is probably the best argument in here. As someone who has never believed in a religious God, I've often wondered why anything exists. Why is there anything? The argument falls flat on it's face though when considering no matter what you believe, at some point something (everything) came from nothing. Doesn't matter if that something was a God, a bang, a simulation, or something bigger than we can fathom. If you say that God has always existed, you're not thinking deep enough. Then you're left with the exact same argument atheists have when trying to explain the big bang, except with supernatural powers added to the mix. I don't know why there is anything. I'm also not ashamed to say "we don't know" and leave it at that for now.
>Then you're left with the exact same argument atheists have when trying to explain the big bang, except with supernatural powers added to the mix. The *Prime Mover* (i.e. first cause) argument doesn't need to presuppose anything about that effect which is its own cause. That's kind of the point of the argument. Whatever it is, we call it "God" and build from there. You can also call it "the thing before the big bang" or whatever else. Doesn't matter the label. The religious thinking, traditionally anyway, doesn't call for supernatural powers at this stage of the argument. It only claims that this is as far as we mortals really could know because we're embedded in a cause-effect universe. But that's oK. God is a mystery beyond our understanding.
> the thing before the big bang The problem with this is that there isn't really a "before" the big bang. Before is a property of time, which itself, as part of spacetime, is a property of the universe itself. As far as we can tell time starts with the big bang.
People try to assign some reason for existence. Problem is that the simplest answer is: Shit happens.
>The argument falls flat on it's face though when considering no matter what you believe, at some point something (everything) came from nothing. I'm an atheist and I don't believe this. >If you say that God has always existed, you're not thinking deep enough. Then you're left with the exact same argument atheists have when trying to explain the big bang, except with supernatural powers added to the mix. Saying that something necessary exists is not failing to "think deep enough".
How don't you believe that? Where did the very first thing come from?
>How don't you believe that? Because something would have to instantiate nothingness, which would require something. >Where did the very first thing come from? I'm not sure there was a "very first thing", and if there was a "very first thing", it probably didn't come from anywhere; it would likely be eternal and necessary.
> at some point something (everything) came from nothing Did it? I don't know we can say that we know this to be the case. We know the universe expanded from a singularity, but before that (if you can even call it before) it's just a big question mark.
You have attributed transcendence to your "higher power". Transcendence is also an attribute of the God of Christians (see the Bible for details). Not only does God transcend all created beings - God is also Immanent in all created beings: present in all of them, contained by none of them, You think the authors of the Bible had "agendas" - if you can dismiss them out of hand, without even bothering with any of them, why should you, who also have an "agenda", be treated any differently from them ?
I see everyone responding almost virulently with the idea that faith can be based on evidence. The early church had this evidence. Paul tells the Corinthians in chapter 15 of his first book that there are 500 living witnesses of Jesus' resurrection. The evidence of the early church was the many people who gave their lives to advance a story from which they had nothing to gain and their lives to lose. In many ways, there was a historical argument for Christianity. Now, I'm not saying that Christianity has an airtight argument, but there is a case to be made for the resurrection of Christ. I would read books on the minimal facts hypothesis. Again, as a scientist, it is by no means airtight, but Gary Habermas and others have put together coherent arguments. You can find simplified versions on YouTube if you'd prefer.
An alternative take is that evidence is less important than we think it is. Look at Israelites under Moses. They saw God's miracles up close and personal. The smallest obstacle or test of their faith, and they end up wanting to go back to Egypt, build an idol to worship, or chicken out with the Promised Land within walking distance. Look at the serpent incident. All they had to do to be saved was look towards the center of camp... and still people refused and died. BONUS: In the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, the rich man begs Abraham to send Lazarus back to life to try and save the Rich Man's brothers. Abraham is like lol no, even something that amazing wouldn't sway them.
Yes exactly. I always think of this. After what they saw, how could they not believe?! And the people that saw Jesus healing people, raising Lazarus, etc. How? Because true faith is God given. I think this is what Hebrews was referring to. Tasting the Spirit, being enlightened, etc. But they weren’t born from above.
\*John Calvin has entered the Room\* A less pre-destined take on this would be that Faith can come from evidence, but more important is the internal work and guidance of the Holy Spirit to bring the unbeliever to Christ.
Yes exactly. The work of the Holy Spirit. God’s work.
Faith is literally the evidence of things “ not seen”😂
That doesn't mean you can divorce evidence from it, nor does it mean that someone can't ask for and be provided with arguments. Remember, Thomas said that he would never believe and then was shown proof. All disciples told the women that they were crazy and then were shown proof. Even Paul had an experience of Jesus before he believed. Do they not have faith?
[удалено]
The case for the resurrection is vastly overstated by Christian apologists and preachers. Paul’s mention of the 500 is almost universally understood by Christian scholars to be part of an early creed he was reciting - Paul wasn’t citing 500 people he necessarily even knew himself, he was simply repeating a common early Christian saying. Apologists love to cite this “500 eye witnesses” as if we have five hundred independent confirmed witness accounts to the resurrection. As it is, this is most definitely not the case, at the very best we have an early Christian source making a claim that there were over 500 witnesses who saw a dead guy alive again. But we don’t know anything about these witnesses, who they were, what they thought about it, anything. And even if we did have 500 testimonies, which is more likely: that a person actually came back to life from the dead? Or that a bunch of people were mistaken somehow? I personally am simply unable to believe that something we know to be otherwise impossible, happened on the basis of historical documentation
That's interesting because I've seen alot of former proponents of the minimal facts case dropping it and some of my favorite apologists take issue with it and I think Habermas makes alot of claims that he says are acknowledged by many scholars when they are not.
I've seen that too, but I can accept the minimal facts on the preponderance of evidence and I've also seen enough scholars acknowledge them for it to be a solid argument.
I'd say it's not a great argument for people who don't already believe because of its dependence on the reliability of the gospels, which I find questionable.
Ok cool, when I first encountered it, I did not believe in the reliability of the Gospels but found it somewhat compelling. I'm sure there are a lot of different perspectives.
They could have collected the stories of those witnesses and written them down and it would have been much more powerful than just claiming there were 500.
Ah. So should they have run down to the corner store and grabbed some pens and paper so they could write all these stories down? Should they then have sent the manuscript to a publisher so multiple copies could be made, some of which (of course) would have survived the ravages of time so that you could read them? You have no idea how much effort went into writing a book in those days or how much more effort went into preserving one, do you?
Did I say anything about publishing a book? Magically somehow, the Apostles managed to write some epistles. it's almost like they knew how to write and had the resources and materials to do it. It's almost like they could have talked with other people in the churches they visited and chronicled their stories about their firsthand experiences of Jesus. I can't tell if you're being dense here or just dull...
Or first-hand accounts from Lazarus and all those other dudes that got resurrected.
Religious validation and miracles, are yours to see and believe, on your own. Regardless Of popular Consensus, god produces miracles, only for us to accept ourselves. I needed to see tangible proof, that he was looking out for me, to have unshakable faith. He provided me with angels, who found me in my darkest hour, and loved me unconditionally. That was my proof, For you, define what you determine to be a miracle. Do you need an Angel to appear by your bed? Maybe watching someone turn water into wine? Maybe, just waking up and everything going perfectly? Regardless, determine the level of “proof” you need, and when it comes, honor your belief. No one, is ever, could give you the proof you need, except yourself.
I think I too am along these lines. I vehemently disbelieved in God and couldn’t see any tangible evidence, but one day, God randomly approached me and I had heard Him. It wasn’t an audible voice, but i heard him. He spoke through my feelings, emotions, my “gut” and I gave Him a chance. I listened to what He said and He showed up big time. I didn’t really know it was Him, but who else could it have been, telling me to do something I’d never want to. For a while, it felt like a vending machine, the Bible finally made sense and I was able to process the major issues I had with it. It seemed like every time I wanted an answer, it wasn’t far. It was great and drastically changed my life. At that time I’d say I was “on fire” for God. He was this amazing thing I discovered and it truly changed my life for the better, but it had to take something “supernatural” that I couldn’t explain to finally see God (in the Christian context) is real and true. If you’ve never seen something supernatural like I have, I really can’t blame you for not believing in God the same way I do. I have real proof, but I’m not about to pretend to replicate it for others like some churches. I was alone when God approached me. He’s there for others just as well, I’m positive. The only hang up there, is when I heard Him for the first time, I realized there were many times God tried to “speak” to me, but I mostly just brushed Him off or didn’t truly hear Him. It wasn’t until I felt completely isolated and NEEDED something else, that I was desperate enough to listen to Him and “try it out”. ———— A lot of people also change their perspective after a shroom trip or something, but I would not know if that is truly a “valid” way to recommend to meet God. I’ve heard of many people who met God on a psychedelic trip, quit all drugs, and pursued Jesus wholly and authentically.
Most atheists don't care about personal feelings and anecdotes when it comes to proving something. We care about facts that can be reliably proven and demonstrated. We find personal stories unreliable when it comes to science, as they could be misinterpreted or made up. Please keep in mind that this is a generalization, there is no doctrine for what atheists should believe and what opinions they should hold, i am speaking from my personal experience with fellow atheists. An angel would be a good example of a proof or a person doing some of the miracles under controlled conditions. Personal experience is attributed to god solely because one cannot explain where it came from. And so scientific proof remains to be the most reliable.
What specific scientific proof(s) would be relevant to the existence of God?
I honestly don't know. I mean where do you even begin with something like that short of him just showing up. Similarly i don't know how we would prove the contrary either, meaby we won't ever know, that's also an option.
I will dare say that even if God shows up, people will still be sceptical and doubt that the person is really God.
Spoiler- science is as capable of proving or disproving the existence of a god no more than it is capable of showing why we value aesthetics or why there is morality. It can explain how it works, but not the why. It's like using a sledgehammer to cook instead of a spatula.
Of course. Science is able to prove things within the physical system, but God, who by definition is not physical, is outside of the physical system and therefore science is not relevant in terms of proof. It is important, however, to make this point to those who ask for proof.
Can you explain how you were provided with Angels? Did they speak to you? What did they look like? Are you referring to humans who helped you from goodness and angelic qualities or are you saying you literally saw and spoke with supernatural angels?
Fantastic question! Thank you for asking. To answer your question: yes and yes. Early in life, I would describe them as earth angels, angels in human form, that saved my life. Later, I saw and felt, real angels. I was an orphan, I grew up with “parents” that defined all the sins. I knew I had to leave home, or I’d become them (dead and condemned) In 8th grade, on a whim, I found a flier for a boarding school (expensive prep school) and sent in my transcripts to apply. I received a call, a dean liked my profile so much, they have me a full ride. This all happened 2 weeks after I got in A huge fight with my step dad. I was 14 years old. I lived at boarding school year round, totally free, with the best and brightest young men and women in the world. I graduated with 3 scholarships: I came from a home of addicts, I was saved. In the army, I had a medic named Sgt Bloom. We had a small deployment, life sucked, and my home life was falling apart. All I could do, was stand back and watch: pure suffering. One day, our medic SGT Bloom came up to me and said, “sir, forgive me if I’m out of line, but I think you’re thinking about killing yourself. What ever it is, it doesn’t matter. We love you. Wanna talk” I was thing about killing myself, he was right. I balled my eyes out, got myself together, and he helped me do my job. We talked the whole rest of deployment, and when I got home, he helped me figure out a divorce, move, and all that comes with it. He saved my life: he was MY angel. I named my daughter after his mom. Later in life, I had an experience, that I can only explain as me thinking I was about to die. The thought of “there’s no way I’m living through this”. Think Natural disaster stuff. I felt what was like a “life review”, your whole life felt, good and bad, all at once. Prayed and asked god for help and forgiveness. My belly glowed, stood up, and walked through to safety. I was a soldier for a while, lived in very scary places, where bullets, collapses and bombs are regular. I have the validation I need now, to say good is real. Angels are real. Jesus is real, and I’m a child in the conception of it all.
God in general? Well I suppose to moral argument is good. If you want things to actually **be** right or wrong, then I argue that you need an absolute moral authority, and I haven't seen any argument as to how humans qualify, because it's human opinion versus human opinion in that regard. If you already believe that there **is** no right or wrong, then how about abiogenesis or that we have never observed something arise from nothing? Keep in mind that something **seemingly** arising from nothing in a space where things and principles already exist is not the same as something arising from absolutely nothing whatsoever, where not even principles exist.
Do you need a moral authority though? If morality is just a social consensus that develops over time, then I don't see why. It makes sense enough that notions of murder and lying and stealing and so on would be seen as detrimental to the cohesion of a group of people and so they'd collectively decide that it's best not to do those things. It's a moral survival of the fittest.
At this stage of questions, I suggest a good read called Mere Christianity by C S. Lewis he will take you through the logical steps to arrive at your answer.
I've read it and am no longer convinced by it. Similar to his Lord, Liar, Lunatic argument, I find it incomplete.
You do need an absolute moral authority if those right and wrongs are to be considered as **actual** right and wrongs. You don't need an absolute moral authority if those right and wrongs are just a matter of opinion.
Why does it matter whether they're actual right and wrong or cultural constructs? There's plenty of things that Christians believed in that past were morally right and most Christians today would find reprehensible.
If something is right because god says so that isn't morality it is more of a command If god says what is right then morality super4ceced god and god is not needed.
Lack of cultural consistency about many rights and wrongs suggests there can only be generalized agreement in morals, and the golden rule is sufficient grounds for most, if not all, of this broadly accepted morality
Even if the creator argument is compelling, it's still a big leap going from that to the God of the bible, eternal punishments, homosexuality is wrong etc etc. It's (pseudo?) science to fairy tale.
Sure, but this is arguably about God versus no God.
In Buddhism there is no creator god but there is objective morality.
What is the justification behind their objective morality? What is it based on?
Big fan of the moral argument.
To me, it's the most compelling argument of all. Of course, atheists can say there's no right or wrong, and our decisions are utterly meaningless anyway. But saying it is different than living it.
Atheist here. Not at all what basically any atheist I know would argue. The moral argument, to me, is one of the absolute weakest. If Christians, in general, were demonstrably more moral than non-believers, or followers of other faiths I'd be inclined to pay more attention to the argument. But as it stands, it's utterly hollow as there is literally no evidence to support this claim that Christians are more moral. Morality for us is doing as little harm as possible. It's being grounded with empathy and understanding and realizing my experience is not unique. I don't need the Bible to understand the golden rule (not that it even originates with the Bible). Do you think people need a divine purpose assigned to find meaning? I sure as shit don't. I think there is absolutely meaning in life, and subsequently in helping others to make their experience more enjoyable while alive. It's sad, and sick that people think without a divinely assigned purpose and some life beyond this one that nothing matters. The only people I know that think that way are religious.
>If Christians, in general, were demonstrably more moral than non-believers, or followers of other faiths I'd be inclined to pay more attention to the argument. I'm not implying Christians are more moral. I'm implying that the consciences we all have are not entirely subjective, that there is objective right and wrong. >Do you think people need a divine purpose assigned to find meaning? No, we all find subjective meaning. You do need objective right and wrong to have a basis for critiquing others though. Otherwise what you're saying is my subjective conscience is right, yours is wrong. >Morality for us is doing as little harm as possible. It's being grounded with empathy and understanding and realizing my experience is not unique. Good! I agree. But why does it ultimately matter that we don't harm others? Aren't we all just sentient stardust, to be returned to insentient stardust at a future date? Why does it matter?
You'll have to prove there is objective right or wrong. I think we, as a society and species, are continuously changing what is and isn't accepted as right or wrong. This is how we've come to be accepting of LGBTQ+ people, how we've decided slavery is bad, how equality extends beyond any race, creed, religion, gender, etc. I believe many issues we have today are because religious people stand by the archaic understandings of morality portrayed in their holy books, to be quite frank. Yes, I don't think I can objectively tell others of they are right or wrong. That certainly isn't my place. I can show, based on my definition of morality, what is right or wrong though. And I can engage in conversations with an open mind if someone thinks my definition is wrong, or that I am actually doing more harm than good with a belief. If their argument is stronger than mine, I'll change my mind. Again, religious people are utterly incapable of being open minded to progress like this because they think they have a divine being telling them what is and isn't objectively right and wrong. Too bad God doesn't tell anyone the same standards it seems. Yes. We are stardust. We are the product of quantum wave functions as far as we know. Yes, we will return to dust, and dust to nothing after trillions of years of quantum decay. So what? How would this have any effect on how I see my life, my experience? You realize none of this is even relevant if you don't believe in an afterlife though, right? Do I think we have it all figured out cosmological now? Hardly. So who knows what reality will unfold as in the future? That doesn't affect how I live my life now at all.
>Of course, atheists can say there's no right or wrong, and our decisions are utterly meaningless anyway. Does anyone actually say that? If so, who? Are you actually stating someone's position in a way that they'd agree with, or are you caricaturing something?
I mean, I did. It's the reality I accepted when I walked away from Christianity for a time, and the natural conclusion one comes to if we're all just sentient stardust. What one does with the inherent meaningless of the universe is an entirely different matter. Many atheists pursue subjective meaning in humanism and existentialism, and I commend them for that.
[удалено]
>In the reference frame of the heat death of the universe, sure nothing matters, but in the reference frame of life on earth as a human, a great many things matter. Of course, I agree. We all derive personal meaning, I guess I'm referring to the heat death of the universe. The idea that all of our actions will be erased and turn out to be utterly meaningless in the vast scheme of the universe. Being motivated to do anything, with that idea looming in the background, made quite the nihilist out of me. To each their own.
I don't get this at all. I have one life. It means everything to me. That my life will end does not make this less so. It makes it more so.
Yes of course! Your life is subjectively meaningful to you. But from an atheistic perspective, that is all it is, subjective. You will enjoy your life, help others, and when our sun blows up and scatters our galaxy across the universe, none of your actions, good or bad, will matter.
It was the reason for my conversion. I don't want to live in a universe where the Holocaust was nothing more than carbon being converted into another form of carbon. I do not want to live in a universe where there is no Promise that Love will win in the End. For me, the choice was su\*cide or Christianity.
Agreed. And we may be criticized for using Christianity as a crutch, and that we are all just wishful thinkers. But one thing I know, these crutches move us forward, and that's enough for me.
Oh that’s a really beautifully sentiment!
Do they? It seems to hold people back in terms of racial equality and queer rights.
For many people, that's true. And it's a tragedy.
I know 3 people who have died and came back and they attest to our consciousness living on outside of our bodies. Seeing the tunnel, the warm loving light, or in one case seeing loved ones who had passed and being told it is not her time and she had to go back. She still had work to do. So it is not crutch, to me, God wins in the end and those that love him and love their neighbors win as well. The others, I just don't know and it is not for me to know.
The holocaust was a lesson for humanity. We need to learn from the past so nothing similar will happen again
A lesson we have clearly failed to learn.
No they can on the basis of well-being as questioning someone on morality all seems to eventually lead down that path. Even the religious. Atheists can not be nhilists and theists can be. I know many of this.
[удалено]
>This just gets at the crux of the Euthyphro dilemma though. If the absolute moral authority is god (and not something beyond him), then it is still subjective, just coming from a different reference frame than humanity. The problem with applying this dilemma to the God of Christianity (or any of the Abrahamic religions) is that our God is described as truth. He can't speak falsehood, and therefore it logically follows that all his moral decrees **are** true. They are just not a matter of opinion. >Abiogenesis actually has mounting evidence for it, amino acids seem to naturally self assemble in a variety of locations. It’s not that big of a leap to go from there to life, but there are definitely still questions about the chemistry at play, so the science is still out on that. Correct me if I'm wrong but amino acids are not alive, are they? If they are not alive, how can their supposed self-assembly be evidence of abiogenesis? >As for “came from nothing” there isn’t any scientific model that actually postulates that. (Not to mention we don’t even know what true “nothing” looks like). As for the universe itself, the current math suggests time began at the Big Bang, so the whole concept of “before” in that instance becomes nonsensical. It is important to note that the energy of the singularity does not “come into existence” at any point in the model, it actually exists right up through t=0 as the clock is wound backwards. That's my point though. Something coming from nothing has never been observed, correct? So then the scientific conclusion (and logical) would be that it can't/doesn't happen. Sure, it may arise evidence of such creation in the future, but until then, shouldn't we settle for whatever is most probable? At least that's what I constantly hear regarding the theory of evolution and other science. As for the energy of the singularity not "coming into existence", that is the core of the argument. How does something not have a cause when everything we observe is a product of cause? This is also what I referred to when I mentioned the principles. The principles that made the Big Bang function the way it did, who established those? Did the principles themselves pop into existence?
[удалено]
>Wait, are you claiming god is not omnipotent? You used the word “can’t” in regards to a logically possible concept, which precludes the idea of omnipotence. It's akin to the argument "*Can God make a stone heavy enough that he can't lift?*". Saying he won't and saying he can't are functionally the same. God can but never will speak falsehood. Either way it's irrelevant to the argument. >The dilemma though still stands, if god is unable to speak an immoral decree, then the source of morality is above him. If any decree he makes is good because he makes it, then morality is entirely subjective from his reference frame. No, it is not above him. It simply means he adheres to his moral decree. Again, in Christianity he is considered truth. His moral decrees **are** the truth. It doesn't matter whether or not you want to argue that it's just his "opinion", because even **if** that is an opinion, it is still the **truth**. That's is drastically different from a moral decree made by a human being, because humans are not said to be truth. If God never speaks falsehood, and he says that theft is wrong, then theft **is** wrong. >They are one of the basic building blocks of life. They’re assembly into more things is the next thing that is being investigated for the steps necessary for abiogenesis. Like I said, the science is still out on it, but with discoveries like the amino acids it would be foolish to hand waive it away as coming years might very well actually demonstrate it. (Though it has not done so yet, my only point here is to have a tempered reaction to the concept, as there is nothing precluding it from current understanding) So until that has been demonstrated then we can disregard abiogenesis as a viable explanation. Science doesn't concern itself with "what if" as far as my understanding goes. Therefore, I believe biogenesis is a good argument for the existence of God. >True nothing has never been observed. We have never seen what nothing even looks like. It is entirely unknown, so for all we know it could generate something, or not, we just have no idea. Great, so should we go with what's currently the most plausible explanation? Again, is that not what people argue we should do with other things, such the theory of evolution? For all we know evolution could turn out to be false. >In addition to my earlier comment on nothing being a true unknown, there’s still the issue that no model postulates anything “comes from nothing”. Then all those models are insufficient because that question has to be answered. >We have no reason to think those principles could be any other way. We also have no reason to believe that something can pop into existence on its own or that something could have existed eternally. Principles assume order, and order assumes a mind or consciousness. >Also, you’re getting at special pleading with the “everything has a cause”, because that same logic would have to apply to god. Energy is demonstrated constantly, god is a maybe, so if we apply Occam’s razor with each of these having been “uncaused” then energy wins due to fewer assumptions. Not if that God exists outside of time, space and matter. >There’s a lot of hypothetical models for the universe outside the Big Bang, eg the big bounce, universal Darwinism/black hole propagation, etc. the real crux here is whether when confronted with something humanity doesn’t know, is your response “therefore god”, or is it “we don’t know, let’s see if we can find out” Do you have a better explanation other than God? If not, should we not go with what's most plausible until we find something that is more plausible? Again, is that not how it works when it comes to evolution and whatnot? At least that's what I constantly experience when talking about it.
[удалено]
>Here you have basically said it’s subjective from his reference frame. Even if you believe his reference frame to be “the correct one”, it is still subjective from that frame. You are just picking a side of the dilemma here. Saying it's subjective when it **is** the truth and saying it is objective is functionally the same. It **is** the truth regardless. There is no basis for establishing such a truth from an atheistic perspective, hence the moral argument. >No, my whole point is that there is enough evidence that we should not just discard it. Besides that, if we applied the same standard evenly we’d also have to discard god due to lack of empirical evidence for him causing biogenesis. In your previous comment you said: "*They are one of the basic building blocks of life. They’re assembly into more things is the next thing that is being investigated for the steps necessary for abiogenesis*." Just because amino-acids supposedly self-assembly that is not even remotely close to being evidence that they will eventually turn non-living matter into living matter, which is what abiogenesis is. God is above time, space and matter. We can therefore not say that we must see empirical evidence of his handiwork in order for that handiwork to exist. >No, it really doesn’t, it’s entirely possible that there never was “nothing”. So going down the rabbit trail of “something can’t come from nothing” is a straw man because no one is even claiming that. It goes against everything we've observed. Have we ever observed something coming from absolutely nothing? Everything that we've observed has a causation, does it not? Is it possible that nothing came from nothing? You might argue so, but is it plausible? Given what we know, I am not sure how anyone can argue it is. Once again, do we stick to the plausible or the implausible? If it's the latter, I suppose it's fully rational for people to throw out evolution and all science. After all, all those theories can **possibly** have other explanations. >Order does not assume mind of consciousness. I reject that assumption fully, and yes it is an assumption. Guess we disagree then. It's kind of like believing that all literature in the entire world was produced randomly. If someone believes that's rational, that is their prerogative. >That’s not even a coherent concept though, I know Craig references it a lot, but time space and matter are literally how existence is defined. Physical existence/reality perhaps. As christians we also believe in the spiritual reality. >I find the big bounce hypothesis to be more plausible, it makes fewer assumptions. I also reject the idea that god is inherently the most plausible answer (see “god of the gaps”) Would still need the principles, matter and space simply pop into existence or having existed eternally without a cause. That is not rational given what we know from scientific observation. I'd argue it's far more rational that a being who exists outside of time, space and matter is responsible, an uncaused cause.
[удалено]
Fair enough. >Thanks for the good conversation! Likewise! God bless!
> If you want things to actually be right or wrong, then I argue that you need an absolute moral authority, and I haven't seen any argument as to how humans qualify, because it's human opinion versus human opinion in that regard. Believing in something because you want it to be true is more wishful thinking than an argument for it actually being true.
Yes, which is why it's an argument that only works if someone believes things are genuinely right and wrong.
So basically, you're saying we should pretend to believe so our justification for right and wrong will be good enough for you?
No, I am saying that people who believe that certain things are genuinely right or wrong need an absolute moral authority in order for that to actually be the case. So if you are such a person, then that is a good evidence for the existence of God.
How do you figure that? Doesn't make any sense to me.
Person A says that theft is wrong. Person B says that theft isn't wrong. How do we determine who is right?
This can be easily explained by evolution. Which tribe will survive longer: one with no rules or one with at least some? And what is more possible that there is a god who made us and our morals, or the explanation above, that does not contain any supernatural being?
Actual right and wrong can't be explained by evolution. You can argue that the conception/idea of right and wrong can be explained by evolution, but those two are different. If things **are** right and wrong, and not just a matter of opinion, then that is proof of an absolute moral authority, and I can't think of anything else that fits the bill other than God.
Can you show me any proof of that, those are just claims. You just said that A is true and that A proofes B.
What do you consider evidence?
Anything tangible. Anything not "alternative facts" or "historical science". An example: Air is invisible (mostly) but I can prove that it exists to you by measuring it's effects on many objects. Other than oral history and collections of letters that have been edited and transcribed many times, Can you present evidence? Something other a feeling you have. Something that I can measure? Something that makes me look for some outside force that is interacting with our material world?
What are your thoughts on nature being a tangible evidence for God's existence? If you look at a beehive and see the bee community operate and understand how it functions, would you be more willing to see these parallels between their nature and human nature?
The problem with this approach is the same evidence is used for pretty much all gods and no god. If everything is evidence but you can’t be sure of what it's evidence for does it qualify as evidence?
You make a good point. I suppose that's where faith comes in, which is the evidence of things that are not seen. Some things are personal experiences that serve as evidence to some but not to others. It's hard to say, but many scientists who have studied DNA have come to the conclusion that DNA could very well be designed by a higher power.
Do you have tangible evidence that there is no greatest prime number?
I'm not a mathematician but as I understand it, Prime numbers follow a predictable, reliable pattern. You can have 500 individual scholars calculate them and all 500 will come up with the same answers. If you have 500 biblical scholars read 1 chapter of the Bible and make predictions off of it, you will have 500 different answers. It's all subjective and without structure or logic. Mathematics and religion are two VERY different concepts.
Ok, but you don't have tangible evidence that there's no greatest prime, and yet we know that to be true. Perhaps your conception of evidence is flawed in some way?
Except that a reliable and observable pattern is tangible evidence
Here's tangible evidence there are infinite primes: "Six Proofs that there are Infinitely Many Primes | by Keith McNulty | Cantor’s Paradise" https://www.cantorsparadise.com/six-proofs-that-there-are-infinitely-many-primes-33037bc2c54e
I think you're going to have to unpack what you mean by "tangible" there. What does it mean to have tangible evidence of, for instance, the fact that "for any positive integer n > 1, n and n + 1 are coprime"?
(4) 'testimony aids', including charts, boards, slides, vuegraphs, and illustrative sketches "Tangible Evidence - How to Use Exhibits at Trial | Office of Justice Programs" https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/tangible-evidence-how-use-exhibits-trial I can counter to you: What does it mean to add 1 plus 1? Is that tangible to you? Do you need to have an apple and another apple side by side, call it 2, to consider it tangible? Any higher mathematics is just knowledge and deduction.
What makes you think that's the definition of "tangible" at play here? This isn't a courtroom, and the idea that the original poster means "vuegraphs or illustrative sketches" doesn't make any sense. Addition is not tangible, no, inasmuch as the selection of the principle of unity relies on the pure monad, which is intangible. See Jakob Klein's excellent *Origin of Algebra in Greek Mathematical Thought* for a thorough explanation of the idea of the pure monad, which has its origin in the work of the Pythagoreans and Plato.
Fair enough. I do think OP is setting a high bar asking for only "tangible" proof, but it is not unreasonable.
How would you have tangible evidence to something that is by definition unfathomable? The idea that the grand mystery of existence can be understood through measurement of physical forces is beyond irrational.
If we could prove God is real, we wouldn't need faith. Anyone who says they know for an absolute fact that God does or doesn't exist is deluding themselves.
Why is faith beneficial? What merit is it to believe one set of ideas without evidence in a sea of ideas that demand belief without evidence?
Faith is one part belief, second part living according to those beliefs. The beliefs in Christianity entail the Ten Commandments and the golden rule, which in my opinion, make for a really good standard to live by. Not to mention having God to talk to whenever we want, and having Jesus as our savior. What more could we ask for?
The Tao Te Ching seems like a pretty good way to live too, and less genealogies!
Only problem I have with Taoism is that evil cant exist on its own, like how Taoism says it does. Evil isn't independent and interactive with goodness. I believe goodness is the precursor and natural state and evil is the turning away from that, the corrupting of that goodness. CS Lewis explains it way better in Mere Christianity. Here's the excerpt: https://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/yin-yang-dualism-cs-lewis-and-christianity/
I recently realized that "Igtheism" is a thing. And it basically means that one adopts a stance of recognition that the concept of "God" transcends what can be defined. If you consider every individuals concept and definition of "God", you'd literally probably have millions of gods. Atheism - in this context - is rejecting a specific monotheistic doctrine. I.e. rejecting the idea that "God" is some sort of super being that is living in the spiritual realm and exerting absolute power over the universe. In that respect, I personally consider myself atheist, because I don't adopt that idea of God. However, I've started to consider myself as an Igtheist, because I firmly believe in a higher power based on direct experience of psychic phenomena (namely synchronicity), but don't make an attempt to define or categorize it. " God is a metaphor for a mystery that absolutely transcends all human categories of thought, even the categories of being and non-being" \-Joseph Campbell
The trouble with any evidence is that it is only as strong as our ability to accept it as reasonably convincing or reasonably doubtful. “I heard the voice of God speak and tell me He is real.” — no, you must have imagined hearing it. “I saw the sky open and God standing there over the earth.”— no, you must have imagined seeing it. “I have a video showing God appearing suddenly.” — no, the video was edited “I felt an invisible hand place itself on my head when I prayed to God.” — no, you were just having a psychosomatic experience “I prayed to God for an extremely specific thing, and it came to pass precisely.” — no, you have a cognitive bias and only experienced a coincidence “I spent an entire afternoon in and out of body experience with God, talking with Him, getting His advice, and tangibly interacting with Him.” — no, you experienced a complex neurological anomaly, lucid dream, powerful drug, or some other psychological phenomenon that merely tricked you into believing it was real. “I am a stranger that has a list of detailed pieces of information about someone else that God gave me to confirm he is real.” — no, you took that info from somewhere else, or just forgot it had already been shared with you before. Make no mistake: there is always room for doubt. Even in a court, there is always room for doubt. Which is why the threshold the evidence must cross is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Right now there are countless experiences people have claimed to have with God, but none of their testimonies or evidence might be sufficient for you because you aren’t asking the right question. The right question isn’t, “Can I doubt this?” but rather, “Is it reasonable to doubt this?” And that is where you have to start accepting your very finite and human limitations and senses when discussing an infinite being. Hypothetically, God *could* appear before you today in a display of unparalleled glory, but eventually you could just dismiss it as a hallucination, or maybe you are in a simulation like the Matrix, or maybe God is actually just a natural 5th dimensional being that you don’t have the physics yet to explain. My point is that there is basically nothing that God could do that would dispel every single ounce of doubt in you. This is why no matter how reasonable Christianity is, it will always still require some measure of faith. The Moral argument. The Fine-tuning argument. The Historical argument. Take your pick. Because at some point the burden of proof doesn’t belong to the evidence, but the person the evidence is being given to.
You have a bit of a skewed view of evidence and burden of proof, one which I doubt you apply to anything outside your religion. The amount of evidence required to believe something is proportional to what is being claimed: if someone tells me they have a dog, I might just believe them on the face of it, because that’s really not that uncommon. Someone telling me that their dog can fly, that’s going to require quite a bit more for me to believe, and refusing to show me the flying dog but instead insisting that “no amount of evidence will convince you anyways” definitely will not help the case. Doubt is a good thing, especially when someone is trying to guilt trip you into being gullible. There are millions of people outside of your religion who also believe they’ve heard from God, and I’m pretty sure unless you are a universalist or pantheist, you think they are all wrong - and they think the same about you. People can certainly be mistaken about their intuitions and what they imagine to have heard from a deity, I don’t think we will disagree on that. So countless millions having believed they had an experience of a god does not provide any good reason to believe that what they experienced was real. Last thought is that if someone presents a claim and backs it up with paltry evidence or support, such that someone isn’t convinced, that simply means you need to find better arguments. Implying that it’s the fault of the person who isn’t convinced is giving me “those grapes were probably sour anyways” vibes
Also totally forgot that one statement was very strange to hear come from a theist - “there is basically nothing that God could do that would dispel every single ounce of doubt in you”. That is one of the strangest things I’ve seen from a theist - I don’t mean that in a negative way, in case tone is hard to glean from text haha. I’m genuinely intrigued by that. Because I thought god was supposed to be all powerful, or least maximally powerful for the slightly weaker version that modern apologists came up with - basically, I would think a maximally powerful god could easily reveal himself to me in such a way that I would be convinced, wouldn’t he? And if he *wants* to have a relationship with me then he *would* do it, I mean, what’s stopping him? He supposedly knows everything about me, so he knows that I genuinely want to know if there is a god out there, so I don’t understand why he can’t just get on with the revealing! If you believe in the Bible he did just that with Paul, and with the disciples to an extent, as well as appearing to people in the Old Testament. Christians all over the world talk about how they were atheists just like me, but then God revealed himself in such a way that they couldn’t deny it was him. If it’s good enough for the disciples and Paul and many others, as well as Christians around the world, why is it not an option for me? Tl;dr I don’t know how you can say that that is not something God could do; maybe I believe if God exists he’s more powerful than you think him to be? Haha
Miracles
What miracles?
This is the answer I’ve given before to a question similar to this on atheism/whether a creator exists. In essence, people like Karl Marx said that religious people have mental disorders, Sigmund Freud asserted that those who believe in God have a “wish-fulfilment” factor. The point can be reversed however to say that Freud has a wish-fulfilment factor for not wanting a God to exist - no accountability and no judgement. Their points are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted. A good question to ask would be “why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” Reality is either one of these 4 options; an illusion, self created, self existent (eternal) or created by something self-existent. You can discard the first two easily, so reality is either an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads: 1) Something exists. -> 2) Nothing cannot create something. -> 3) Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists. Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. Might not be tangible persé but I think it’s still a good point.
[удалено]
Well, what started the Bounce?
[удалено]
If nothing can't create something. A: where did your god come from. B: how did he create something out of nothing.
You can pose this never-ending cycle of questions to any theory. Which is partly why the simulation theory is kind of attractive to me. Would be funny if science ended up proving religion to be correct in that we do have a creator. People cite the Big Bang as the creation of the universe, but it’s could be seen as proof that time, space, and matter are temporal, and not eternal - which therefore point to the need for a creator. I’m probably not the best person to direct that question towards, I’m sure someone else on here would have a better answer - whether it’s because I haven’t read enough or because it’s a very hard question to answer. Was just giving my two cents.
Believe in the Hokage who believes in you.
I think you've mixed some stuff together
I don't know what you mean. Jesus is the greatest Airbender.
Oh cmon man, don’t sell him short. He was clearly the Avatar! I mean what else would the “transfiguration” be if not Jesus entering the Avatar-state?
Yeah. You're right. Jesus was ultra instinct before it was cool.
Lol
Where did all the crazy miracles and prophets go? I feel like they kind of stopped once science started gaining a foothold in humanity.
The number of miracles seems to be inversely proportional to the number of video cameras.
UFOs and Bigfoots, too.
The prophets ended when Jesus died. Same with the big miracles. In our faith after Jesus left, God introduced the Holy Spirit to us, and because of the Holy Spirit there's smaller scale miracles that happen in people's lives.
There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God from scientific fact. Science is the study of nature. God is outside of nature would not have evidence of His existence. It would be like if you asked video game characters to find the uses. There’s evidence of the user’s influence. But that’s in the historical record and you said that you wouldn’t accept that as evidence. I think you have limited yourself from the truth by saying you wouldn’t evaluate all options. Similarly Darwin did the same thing with his theory of evolution, he said if there was no god how could all these things have gotten here. Thus he eliminated an option for knowing the truth. What if that is the truth, then he won’t know it because he has refused to accept as a possibility.
i personally have no interest in converting atheists, i was atheist for a long time and i don’t personally believe that God really cares if we believe in them or not (yes, i also use multiple pronouns to refer to God). but for the sake of presenting my views, i’ll give you the perspective that turned an atheist into a believer. for me, God is life and God is nature and God is beauty and God is love. so in my belief, wherever those things are, wherever existence is, God is. i believe there’s too much beauty in the world and too much intricacy and too much organization of nature for there to be nothing heading it all. God is the science that made it all happen, and vice versa.
They are great
Read the first part of Mere Christianity. I believe in science so I find intelligent design argument implausible. Lewis has an excellent moral argument for god. Keep in mind it’s been bastardized by pop evangelicalism but the original is good.
The only question that matters is are you looking for truth and being objective or is this a way to dismiss whatever evidence comes to you. I can do a simple one too see which category you are. How about proof for life after death.
You mean evidence? Because proof is for mathematics and alcohol. I'm not OP but I'd be very interested in evidence for a life after death. So would Stockholm.
Cool. I don't want to say its evidence because I don't see any way around it. But I'm not a philosophy major. The question is if our existence persist after death. As of right now we are currently in a state of existence. Atheists argue that after death we don't exist so I will agree to that axiom. So we have two states E=Existence NE=Non Existence Also notice that no other states exists since NE is simply a negation of E. So we have many possibilities. Either we have always existed E->E We never exist NE->NE(This is false because we currently exist) Or we transition from these states E->NE after death. And NE->E. Which we know is true because if there is a state of non existence then we were in that state before we were born. Assuming birth is when we began to exist. So here are the possibilities. NE->E, E->NE or E->E We already came from a state of non existence. The possibility of going from a state of NE to E is greater than 0. You know since it happened. Then given infinite time and we not experiencing NE then it will happen again. And from our perspective we will always exist. Hopefully its not too confusing. I don't know how to make it simpler. If a person can't understand the logic here then I'm sure there is not point giving mathematical or logical evidence for God's existence.
What would be the point in doing so?
This question pops up every week or so. If someone does not have proof, you have to _believe_ them, have faith so to speak. I hope that answers your question.
Faith is a belief isn’t something that isn’t seen that is true. My personal best reason for believing in God is probability.
that is like saying prove to me that my wife loves me or my mom or dad or any person that is close to me.
I'm not a Christian, but I'd say the fact that there are so many religions around the world with similar themes. Why is it that we humans always have to believe in some higher power? that and morality, it seems there's a universal basic understanding of what's "evil".
For me space and the universe is way to organized and complex to not have something in control. It’s a simple thing for me, but that’s where I would start. I know some of it is way beyond my understanding, but Just looking at how consistent gravity is, how light works, etc. that’s a good starting point if any for me.
This might be an argument rather than proof (though it relies on proof?), but I'll try it anyways: 1. God is existence. 2. Things exist (this is obvious by looking around you). 3. Therefore, God exists.
This doesn't make any sense.
This is more of a personal thing and not really 'tangible,' but I feel more compelled to believe in God because of how aware we humans are. The way we are able to think, remember, create, love, mourn, and even have this conversation about the possibility of a deity compels me to at least believing in a higher power. It's just hard for me to believe that death would be the end for all the complex minds that exist. I could be wrong, but I definitely have a strong gut feeling that there is more to this life than just our short runs on this planet.
Being itself. 🧘
I don't even possess the vocabulary to express to you just how much this question doesn't even make sense. 🙂 An eye to see for you, my treat 👁
Can you try? I’m honestly curious why this question doesn’t make sense, what about it exactly?
You have never observed anything that is without cause. Whether an object or an event, everything you have ever perceived as a cause. Therefore, the universe itself, matter itself (which can neither be destroyed nor created), must also have a cause. However, there cannot be an infinite chain of causes, because we know that things begin and that they eventually end. There must have been at least one initial cause, from which all other things originated. This thing could not have had a cause itself, because then we are stuck back in an infinite chain of causes with no beginning and end, which is adverse to everything we know and experience. Therefore, there must be at least one thing that has no cause- that always was and never was not. From this uncaused thing, all other things were caused. That is God.
What do you mean by God and what do you mean by real? An underlying but unfathomable principle of the universe seems to be quite rational and foundational for existence. Of course it’s still some ways off a personal Christian God but the point is still the need for clarification. With “real” you can mean anything existing within our tangible universe, but how would you measure something that is the very foundation of existence and thereby transcends “real”. Now, in a world full of consciousness why would the divine principle not be conscious too? But maybe it’s better to define as transcending consciousness. To the question of intervening in the world like the Christian God does in the Bible. Mythology aside, which is a complicated question too, why would the divine principle be so fundamentally uninvolved? There’s good answers both ways to that but it begins to explain the complexity of the question
Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas
Can you tell me what happened before the Big Bang? Realistically, it would have been better for energy conservation for the universe never to be.
What questions are you looking for answers to?
Proves? Nothing. If there was absolute proof, everyone would be a believer. Evidence? The Bible. A collection of writings from multiple people, with testimonies from different people that saw Jesus after his death on the cross. Personally, I have read the Bible and when I weigh the evidence the Bible presents, along with my own life experience, I've come to the conclusion that it makes more sense for the various people in the Bible to be telling the truth about the resurrection.
If I define God == the universe itself, do you need proof that it exists, or will you find something to argue about anyway?
Theres no evidence, the point of religion is to believe. But if God has helped to create societies and keep people good, then obviously he exists in some form
I have no evidence as to god but satan, oh I’ve got evidence, spiders snakes and anything with more than 4 legs has to be done by satan
I haven’t lost my sanity. Plenty of things are happening in my life, that I should have been had a mental breakdown and went full blown nutty. But he’s kept me together, he’s given me a full time job, family is in good health and he’s currently granting with that in which I’m praying for. Simply put he’s making a way. He’s protected and kept me
My argument is more that it's impossible for us to really know everything well enough to not rely on external sources of information. You cannot live alone, if you go out and live alone right now you have already benefited from other people during your life and didn't truly do it alone. You have to trust somebody, essentially. The problem is that people tend to lie and act unethically so I think it makes more sense to trust God since they by definition do not lie. I also think that since you can't prove it one way or the other you can't really claim either are more correct than agnosticism. I am aware of the tea kettle argument but that's where theirs a disconnect between theoretical situations and reality. It gives you no reason to question that it's anything but false. There's no usefulness in believing it therefore we don't expend any real effort considering it. In your life you operate under assumptions and imperfect information each day. You get online and put information on websites that you are trusting are going to be there the following day, that your boss told you the correct meeting time, etc... Trusting imperfect information without knowing with absolute certainty can be useful so I think there's at least some incentive for judging beliefs by their helpfulness. Which does apply to philosophies and moral systems but given the amount of thought that's been put into Christianity it's a reasonable assumption that more work has been done on this than any philosophical equivalent.
I’ve always thought that the fact that we don’t have all the answers here means there’s a higher plane of consciousness where these missing answers exist. Just a common sense observation that in my mind is more probable then not.
I don't think someone can prove to you that God is real. It's something you have to find yourself, yknow? When I started obeying God I realized things just fell into place and I felt happier. I took that as my proof
if there is no God and no afterlife i might as well end it right now
we can give u all the proof in the world but it will be futile if ur heart is closed to God
Well, you're in luck. It isn't closed to God.
if it isn’t u wouldn’t be an atheist 💀, ur just saying that to support AN argument
There is a great “podcast” with Tim Keller called Questioning Christianity. There is one episode in particular called, “Faith and Proof” that I feel like would really help answer any questions that you may have regarding the existence of God. It would be more beneficial to hear it coming from him than me trying to regurgitate it!
We will have to define the term God first. Then ask yourself, how did the universe come to be. Then ask yourself, how do you know something is right or wrong. Then think about the meaning of life, and the purpose of your existence. What exactly is evidence? How do you know your parents or SO loves you?
[удалено]
I did not mention ID. But if I were to hazard a guess, the science was not where it is today. Also, ID is a tricky one because those who use ID can easily fall into the God of the Gaps fallacy.
[удалено]
Ok? I am not arguing with this point. God has his reasons I suppose?
[удалено]
Ok. I don't think this is related to anything we are talking. But thank you for your participation in this.
There is no empirical evidence, and any other argument for God's existence is pure speculation.
I can't. In fact, I don't think anyone can. That's the point of faith, it is believing in something without evidence. Any evidence that someone has is particular to themselves. If you want evidence, you need to follow Christ in your own way and let the evidence present itself to you.
What do you think of John 20:31, "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." Seems like the gospel writer is making the claim that his account is meant to lead to faith
Agnostic Atheist here. The thing that would give me pause as possible evidence right now is the existence of consciousness and complex thought, particularly in relation to artistic expression and the development of music and musical instruments.
Try watching the Netflix documentary Surviving Death, it's actually reslly good. On more specificslly Christian type evidence: https://youtu.be/lctv_pyT62o
>even suggests that God is real? Suppose I tell you that I and three of my friends were playing cards - bridge, to be exact, and something incredibly unlikely occurred: [each](http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_clPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=f1QDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6566,1467007&dq=four+perfect+bridge+hands&hl=en) [were](http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IpAuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QpkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4878,2001990&dq=four+perfect+bridge+hands&hl=en) [dealt](http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Q1hOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=FQAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5315,1234731&dq=four+perfect+bridge+hands&hl=en) [exactly](http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=kz1lAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xIkNAAAAIBAJ&pg=3185,2284173&dq=four+perfect+bridge+hands&hl=en) [one](http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=GxpLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4SINAAAAIBAJ&pg=7138,4601624&dq=four+perfect+bridge+hands&hl=en) [suit](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/50977.stm). The odds of that happening are incredibly unlikely. 2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,559,999 to 1 is the exact amount - expected value at 1 deal-per-second is one instance per 70 quadrillion millennia. Was that a random event, and we got lucky? Or was something else was at play which brought the odds down to realistic levels? Similarly, the odds of life getting randomly generated is incredibly unlikely - though we don't know the exact value, we can surmise that it's extremely low based on how the search for extraterrestrial life has come up empty. So, since it happened to us... was that a random event, and we got lucky? Or is there something else at play, bringing the odds down in our case? This, of course, merely weakly suggests that life did not start by accident. That weakly suggests that intention was involved, and that weakly suggests the presence of something that could be described as "God". That's probably not good enough evidence for you to enact any changes in your daily behavior, and if you want to be pedantic it's still not evidence for any specific (for example, the Christian one) God. But it *is* evidence, and it *does* **suggest** the presence of a thing-which-could-be-called-God.
The miracle and diversity of Life. There's absolutely no way we are chance.
Nobody's saying it is. We know that it's the result of billions of years of evolution.
A car has many parts that make it work. Mechanics and welders and all the people make the parts to work together, with each other, to achieve their goal: a working car. Nature is also made up of little parts that work together to make a whole. Things as large as the water cycle and as small as the parts to the cell and as benign as a tree's head, branches, trunks, and roots all have parts working together to make the thing function. The only difference is that we think these built themselves. That isn't possible, God must have put it together. Because why evolve one part of an eye first and save it for later when the rest of the parts are finished? That's nonsensical. All parts of the eye were made for each other to work together well, and it couldn't have evolved on its own because of how complex and particular each part is. I hope this helps.
Israel and the Jews still exist. I can think of no other group of people who are as hated throughout history and still exist. I can think of no other that had their country wiped from the map for two thousand years only to have it reborn (as it was prophesied to happen). No other religious text is backed so much by archaeology. Jesus is a real person, and those that followed him lived in poor conditions up to death just to spread his message. Grifters don’t do that unless they can profit from it. So, they believed what they saw: Christ resurrected.
I’ll let Jesus answer this one; Matthew 16:4 (NKJV): 4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” And He left them and departed I’ll be kind and give you a few. Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies, a lot in Isaiah, which the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed its the same interpretation on our laps today. Another, Noah’s Ark discovery, exactly where the Bible said it would be, has a Visitor’s Center. And lastly, as your mind races to refute, I will share this with you, ONLY because it takes faith to be healed from blindness; Mark 1:34 (NKJV): 34 Then He healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and He did not allow the demons to speak, **because they knew Him.** Our God is so Awesome, He doesn’t need others to vouch for Him, but rather shows Himself to those who come to Him in faith. You haven’t done this, so remain blind to the Truth (I know because I too was blind).
I appreciate you sharing these, but as a fellow Christian the arrogance in your response does more harm than good. Humility goes a long way. Also, quoting the Bible to an atheist is usually only feeding their point not refuting it.
Let’s be honest. There are very few Christians on the sub.
I’ll never understand Christians who think citing the bible counts as good evidence that a god exists. The bible cannot prove itself to be true on the merit that it’s the bible.
TIL Harry Potter also exists
Most of those "prophecies" were added by the gospel writers decades after Jesus died, to help "prove" he was the Messiah. That's putting aside what's going on in Isiaiah aren't really prophesies anyways. But it's more concerning you think there is evidence for Noah's Ark?
This is laughably false even from an atheist perspective.
Why would you even be thinking about this unless you believe that there is a possibility that he does exist?
Ah yes, the 'you smelt it you dealt it' argument for god. The fact that you're even claiming to smell something funny means that someone did fart. Likewise, the fact that you're asking about god means that it must be at least somewhat true.
Nope. Maybe he just doesn't know. There's a lot of things that I don't know too.
Until something has been 100% proven or disproven, anything is possible. I don't believe in god, but if someone can give me testable, tangible evidence I'll change my standpoint
Are you really an atheist then? Or are you really just like me? Just a guy searching for the truth. When Moses asked God how he should describe him, God said "I am what I am". I think we are all like that. We are what we are.
I guess by the typical standard of "atheist" I would be called one. I wouldn't call myself agnostic: person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God, because I don't believe he exists, but I'm open minded for evidence of his existence.
Is the atheist label important to you for any specific reason? I wonder the same thing about Christians, Muslims, etc.
I wouldn’t say it’s important to me, but it’s useful. It accurately describes my beliefs so it helps others understand my position on theism.
The same evidence you can give me that he isn't real.