What would it take to prove / disprove the existence of God?

[Whaleboy]

Firstly I apologise for not getting back faster. I've had a manic week but I also wanted to take a day or two to ponder the thread and answer the most pertinent points, rather than simply every point otherwise I'd be till kingdom come. I wanted to collate the points raised into something a little more continuous so I'm not just reacting to what people have said, but now isn't the time since we're still dealing with omnipotence.

Elok raises the point that Occams Razor is a form of "if its hard it must be false" if taken to an extreme. That is true, but you can only take it to an extreme if you consider that the simplest explanation is the truth. That allows for explanations that are TOO simple, which has the same problem of explanations that are too complex. Used as I am using it, it simply means that a proposition has to be backed up by sufficient conditions.

BK also raised the point that scientists cannot be the sole source of knowledge because of the falsifiable nature of empirical observations. I contend that the only kind of knowledge that one *cannot* gain from scientific method of one form or another, is rationalist knowledge; that is knowledge that is inherent to the human mind. That, therefore implies that you consider knowledge of God to be innate, subjective and internal, and not something that can be observed in the universe.

Does this mean that God is falsifiable through spiritual means? Does falsifiability work in a rationalist sense (i.e., empiricalism within rationalism)? How would faith work in that context?

It means of course that for my part, and someone else suggested this too, my proposition that "God does not exist" is not based upon faith, nor is my concurrence with scientific method based upon faith. I *DO* have faith in empiricalism, which is to say, I have to take a leap of faith from "cogito ergo sum" to "I see my keyboard on my desk, therefore my keyboard exists". That is entirely different to saying that atheism is based upon faith. If one defines atheism as being a "belief or faith in the non-existence of God", then I am not an atheist. But call me what you will, its a matter of semantics.

BK also makes this interesting statement:

If he has created everything in the world, he must also know everything about that which he has created.

Why?

It flows from a monotheist belief that God must be the creator of everything

Why does "omnipotent, eternal god" = "creator of the universe"? It rests upon the assumption that the universe has to be created, which I think is an interesting premise that requires more work from you.

Finally, as for Satan, there are a number of thoughts, but the Christian tradition is that Satan was an angel in heaven who rebelled against God and when mankind was created, sought to drive us from God. For the same reason as the second, God allows Satan to have limited control over the earth, even as he restrains him.

I will directly answer your points re. the problem of evil. Firstly, one could make the objection that if God is able to prevent evil, and not willing, then if God is ultimately responsible, then God is the enemy of mankind. The Jewish consideration is that Satan does not exist in the Christian sense, but hell is considered to be a state of being far from God. The Jewish belief holds that there is absolute love for God, and not a limited supply. If, as in the Christian sense, we are told to choose, then there is a supply and a demand of love for God, and so our love consequently has a finite value. This leads neatly back to the answer that if an omnipotent God exists, he either does not love us absolutely, or is our enemy.

If God did not love us why create us? What would an omnipotent God obtain from creating us if he did not love us?

Love, if love is not absolute but a commodity. It's defunct line of reasoning if think that the universe wasn't created but evolved, which absolves God of the responsibility.

The laws of physics have changed. Ergo, it is entirely possible for events to have occured contrary to the laws of physics as we know them to be today, even though they remain valid under some greater law which we do not fully understand.

This is a key objection. I do not consider the laws of physics to have changed once proven. In other words, Newton wasn't "wrong", his theory merely didn't include as many premises as Einsteins, who in turn didn't really account for Quantum physics. The Aristotolean model didn't properly account for the motions of the planets, but for Aristotle that wasn't really much of a consideration as it was for Copernicus. Scientific knowledge evolves, it doesn't work on revolutions which is something the Catholic church has had a problem understanding throughout history.

Okay, would you accept the possibility that there are some things science cannot know? That there are inevitable constraints placed on science by themselves through their method of obtaining knowledge?

Unless you can provide an argument with examples, I think there is nothing in the physical universe which is outside the grasp of scientific method. My exceptions are, as I have always stated, the human consciousness. It's a point of disagreement I have with my younger brother, who is currently studying Medicine+Neuroscience at Manchester University who makes a strong case that the consciousness can be scientifically understood. I do not share his position, but I am open to arguments.

I'm not even saying that. Just that the combination of many different things had to come together in order to make the earth the way that it is today. We have only begun to scrape the surface.

I guess this represents a shift in my own thoughts, before I used to think that there would be thousands upon thousands of planets with other forms of life upon them. Now I wouldn't be surprised if we were alone.

I share your thought processes, based upon a simple provisor... does "life" require a very specific set of circumstances to get started? If no, then the Drake equation can exist in a simple form. If not, then we may well be alone. However, this doesn't mean that life is somehow designed or the product of some sacred intent or accident. This requires more work from you, for now, it would only mean that life is consequent and our definitions, emergent.

Whaleboy, you are left with the problem, if it is true that there exists an absolute and universal truth, how does that truth come about in the absence of a god?

It can't. However, I do not think that there exists an absolute and universal truth. That one considers a proposition to be absolute doesn't make it so, and if you communicate it, one can falsify it. In other words, that something exerts an apparently absolute (and this is arguable) hold over us, doesn't make it absolute. That argument would require the human ego to be absolute too.

My objective in this thread is to work out how we can prove or disprove the existence of God, and in what context that would be applicable. It would also be nice to establish some kind of benchmark but I know that's unlikely, and more so on this thread. My own opinion at this moment is that God is not provable or disprovable because of its supposedly supernatural nature. To leave it at this is, in my opinion, little more than an intellectual cop-out. This is because the majority of the human race believe in a God of some description, and most of them believe in a God of the Abrahamic religions. It is this fact that may well lead us the answer to my question.

It's not just the distance, but as Whaleboy shows, a whole constellation of effects coming together.

True, but to take in the direction you requires the asking of a treacherous question; "so who made all this then?". You may say "Earth is perfectly suited to life", but I would say that "life is perfectly suited to Earth".

Oh, you don't believe that Jesus really existed?

Actually, I do think he existed, I don't believe he did. There is sufficient documentary evidence to show that there was a very good Chance that Jesus existed, as well as a host of other "quirky" Jews at that time. Evidence that Jesus existed |= evidence of Jesus' miracles.

Ah, comparative religion. I don't know if Whaleboy wants to take on that argument in this thread.

Not just yet. The God of Christianity and the God of Judaism are what I'm working with at the moment. This debate looks like it may well head in the direction of transcendentalism, but we must discipline ourselves to the questions at hand at let it progress naturally. Incidentally, my understanding is that the God of Islam is something of a combination of the first two.

Give me one sceintific attempt to prove God's existence.

I can think of none. I don't know if UR is BS'ing but it's a question that most scientists would consider outside the remit of their profession.

Those values just appear to make no consistent sense. The conclusions do not follow the premises. We all have a moral inclination or conscience of some type, and we follow it, but we're damned if we know why. Secular explanations of morality appear to be rationalizations of that impulse which fall apart under close examination. I try not to speculate too much on what atheists might be drawing their values from, for fear of strawmen, but rationalization is the best explanation I've found that works.

This is an interesting observation, and one that in my opinion is starved of evidence. A rationalisation would be a description, not a prescription. There is utilitarianism and Kant's categorical imperative as the obvious examples. You contention could only plausibly apply to Aristotles virtue ethics which are, in my opinion, definitions of sociologically convenient sides of human nature.

Where I differ from Sartre (aside from, obviously, not being an atheist) is that he did not believe in a preexisting human nature, which I think is more or less undeniable. The existence of the conscience seems clear, and it fights social norms too often to be explained away as a social construct itself. There is no "radical freedom" from my point of view. Sartre's language itself implies certain assumptions which cannot be made in a truly valueless universe, and making your own values seems not only pointless but impossible if the values are to be anything but arbitrary whims, like rooting for a sports team because it comes from your city.

Remember that Sartre was a phenomenalist, to truly understand him you must understand the question "what would happen if there were no others". The study of ferral children would seem to bear out his observations.

Whaleboy: I'm not sure, but I think you might have misread me. I'm saying that, without working in an element of the supernatural, something beyond the empirically verifiable (not necessarily a God, Buddhism doesn't use one), you can't explain ethics in a way that works.

Well I sort-of agree. Emotions aren't something science truly understands at the moment (depends how you define them science ever could). It requires somewhat more extra work from you to make this supernatural thing external.

Why does everything have to be tangible? You don't see oxygen but you know it's there because you still breathe.

You can observe oxygen, you can observe its effect. YOu can scientifically show it exists in the same way you can scientifically show my keyboard exists.

Is that a simple statistical probability question or could the answer simply be that without divine intervention that the probability is zero?

All things being equal the simplest explanation must (be accepted) as true. Given the complexity of the Earth and mankind as we know it to be, the simplest answer is creation, certainly not chance and evolution.

That demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, and the sad reality of a poor education thereof. Evolution does not require chance as you hold it. It does not postulate that the cells of a human are thrown together and by some astronomical piece of luck, they fit together to create myself or yourself. We are instead the product of cumulative selection, whereby the results of differences between individuals (which are observable both in the lab and real life) cause an individual to be more or less likely to survive and spawn the next generation. I strongly recommend you read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.

And while you are at it, when you have proven evolution by pizza production please also forward proof that God did not create evolution.

Actually, the onus is on the theist to show that God caused abiogenesis, since that is an additional proposition. That science does not currently have an answer does not reduce the problem to a conceptual free-for-all, and even if it did, it would mean you are making a God in the gaps argument. Most intelligent Christians try to avoid that.

Your prejudices automatically assign all negative traits to stupid backwards primitives like me, no matter how often I try to demonstrate that I am not in fact retarded or vicious. That's not argument, that's just acting like a condescending weasel.

True, it was an unnecessary thing to say. I think however that he was trying to say that one does not immediately have inconsistent morals as soon as one rejects God. It raises the question of how one determines the consistency of moral holisms... would you say that this is simply a case of "one rule cannot contradict another"? or "one premise cannot contradict the conclusion?". *Whaleboy opens Leviticus, and laughs*.

I guess Christ could be figuratively be called a "human sacrifice," but his was voluntary.

Christ to the Romans: "It's alright lads the Apostles have gone home, you can take me down now."

I think it is presumptous for you to take me to task for not understanding an unproven theory.

Unproven? The only sense in which it is unproven is that it, like any other empirical fact, is falsifiable. I would rather like you to say that my existence, or the existence of your hand, is unproven.

Now, with regards to BK's appeals to bibical statements on which various religions have concurred, I would say that it is futile to argue using the bible against someone who does not believe in it. To do so requires either trickery or an appeal to the undeniably compelling fictional style... in much the same way an advertiser could appeal to the beautiful writing of a good novel.

I believe Neitzsche says the same. It's an important point that atheists have to ask themselves, are upon what basis do I justify my system of morals, when other atheists who agree with me that there is no God, argue against the existence of any moral system.

One atheist does not necessarily have to concur with all atheists. Morality is a vast philosophical issue, as is God. It is not a question of war or alliegiance... Team Atheism vs. Team Theism.... it doesn't quite work like that.

Sometimes when I go for a walk I can feel the spirit. It just comes. Can't explain it.

It's an endorphine rush you get when you exercise. It's the only way I can justify spending £59 a month with my gym!

I will argue against the theory of evolution insofar as it is used to disprove that God created all; the "facts" of evolution are not proof one way or another. Who is to prove that God has not used evolutionary processes as a tool of creation?

It's a silly question to ask, same logical validity as me saying "Who is to prove that Mace Windu didn't have some hand in the evolution of life". Because the burden of proof is on you, the question is "Who is to prove that God has used evolutionary processes as a tool of creation?".

Furthermore, there are some very good examples in nature to show that intelligence is not behind evolution... for example in the mammalian eye, neurons leading to the optic nerve pass over the cells of the retina, not under as any good designer would have thought.

So you would say then that we are conditioned by evolution to find a starry night beautiful?

I would say that it is a consequence of evolution that this is so... Just as a consciousness and a sense of ego is the consequence of evolutionary pressures to live socially (sic).

However we can bring enough doubt upon enough sections of the book that it brings the first assumption back into consideration, the onus removed from us to disprove and moved onto the those who have to now prove rather than assume.

On the contrary, if we are to take the bible as a historical piece then we must also consider the Chinese whisper effect, not to mention the propaganda value, for example, the Old Testament in the reign of Hezekiah. One should use archeological evidence to back this up, for example, Noah's flood might be considered a memory of the inundation of the Euxine Lake to form the Black Sea. This is also echoed in Gilgamesh. That this is a strong example, doesn't by itself make, say, the Burning Bush, a strong example.

A miracle just proves that there exists a being that is either able to contravene the laws of physics (completed laws) or provide a spontaneous event that is sufficiently awe inspiring, not a being that has specific attributes outside of omnipotent and omniscient.

Any technology or phenomenon sufficiently advanced or complex will appear to someone sufficiently retarded, as magic. With apologies to Arther C Clarke.

[Whaleboy]

"If God is this and that or if he exists, why doesn't he do something", as in no action - no reason for belief.

That is absurd... a reason for belief? Consider:

1) God is omnipotent (premise)
2) God is benevolent (premise)
3) Benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise)
4) God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 2 and 3)
5) God can eliminate evil completely. (conclusion from 1)
1) Whatever end result of suffering, God can bring about by ways which do not include suffering. (conclusion from 1)
2)God has no reason not to eliminate evil (conclusion from 5.1)
6) God will eliminate evil completely. (conclusion from 4, 5 and 5.2)
7) Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)
9) Conclusions 6 and 7 are contradictory; therefore the premises are wrong
God is not omnipotent and benevolent, or God does not exist.

Stolen from Wikipedia I should say, I couldn't be bothered to write my own .

To be more precise, the very facts that we accept about the universe to be true. It's age, the process of evolution and our existance added together = God on a longer time scale. Since the universe as we know about it already existed for many billion years, God is inevitable.

That is based on the assumption that God is either interwoven or the cause of the universe which goes back to your elementary objection of "does the hole fit the puddle, or the puddle fit the hole?"

I fail to see how not accepting a conclusion for which there are unsatisfactory premises, is a "cop-out". You imply that it is an inevitability of the intellect. Why, then, is there a higher incidence of atheism among intellectuals than the uneducated... and those executed or tortured for herecy and apostasy throughout history, are those who bothered to examine such questions?

My question is why do we need God to make us love each other anyways? Is it only through the fear of reprisal after our death that makes us obey? If it is God threatens us to love each other.

There is no fear in Judaism.... there isn't the threat of hell or Pascal's wager.

Why do you believe that everyone will accept a miracle even if it is performed in front of them?

We do have high standards of evidence.... for what it's worth, the proposition of God is highly important and would require quite a large leap of faith for me to believe in it. Imagine the standard of evidence that would require in me?

What happens when those go away?

We'll all turn into nihilistic savages? Seems odd that you're implying the best use of religion is to "tell us what to do!"

Sure it does. For how would God, if he were the only creator, create himself? He therefore must be uncreated, which also means that he is eternal.

Then, how does he exist, and why do you believe in him?

They believe that the messiah was Mohammed, and that Christ was one of the prophets, like Elijah.

For without choice we cannot truly love.

Clearly not a fan of S&M then?

Do you believe that to have arisen solely through random chance?

But again, random chance doesn't come into it. Permit me to quote the late and great Douglas Adams, and tune up my typing speed in the process...

Where does the idea of God come from? Well, I think we have a very skewed point ov view on an awful lot of things, but let's try to see where our point of view comes in. Imagine early man. Early man is, like everything else, an evolved creature and he finds himself in a world that he's begun to take a little charge of; he's begun to be a toolmaker, a changer of his environment with the tools that he's made, and he makes tools, when he does, in order to make changes to his environment. To give an example of the way man operates compared to other animals, consider speciation, which, as we know, tends to occur when a small group of animals gets separated from the rest of the herd by some geological upheaval, population pressure, food shortage, or whatever, and finds itself in a new environment with maybe something different going on. Take a very simple example; maybe a bunch of animals suddenly finds itself in a place where the weather is rather colder. We know that in a few generations those genes that favour a thicker coat will have come to the fore and we'll come and we'll find that the animals have now got thicker coats. Early man, who's a toolmaker, doesn't have to do this: he can inhabit an extraordinarily wide range of habitats on earth, from tundra to the Gobi Desert = he even manages to live in New York, for heavens's sake - and the reason is that when he arrives in a new environment he doesn't have to wait for several generations; if he arrives in a colder environment and sees an animal that has those genes which favour a thicker coat, he says, "I'll have it off him." Tools have enabled us to think intentionally, tomake things and to do things to create a world that fits us better. Now imagine an early man surveying his surroundings at the end of a happy day's toolmaking. He looks around and sees a world that pleases him mightily: behind him are mountains with caves in them-mountains are great because you can go and hide in the caves and you are out of the rain and the bears can't get you; in front of him there's the forest - it's got nuts and berries and delicious food; there's a stream going by which is full of water - water's delicious to drink, you can flat your boats in it and do all sorts of stuff with it; here's cousin Ug and he's caught a mammoth - mammoths are great, you can eat them, you can wear their coats, you can use their bones to create weapons to catch other mammoths. I mean this is a great world, it's fantastic. But our early man has a moment to reflect and he thinks to himself, "Well, this is an interesting world that I find myself in," and then he asks himself a very treacherous question, a question that is totally meaningless and fallacious, but only comes about because of the nature of the sort of person he is, the sort of person he has evolved into, and the sort of person who has thrived because he thinks this particular way. Man the maker looks at his world and says, "So who made this then?" Who made this? = you can see why it's a treacherous question. Early man thinks, "Well because there's only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me, and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he's probably male". And so we have the idea of a God. Then, because when we make things, we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself, "If he made it, what did he make it for? Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking "This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely," and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him.

Uh, then why did I bother to work with Whaleboy without any citation from the bible.

Indeed, and I appreciate the effort you're making, I know we both enjoy a good intellectual sparring match! That you do so demonstrates understanding of my disposition... arguing from the bible with me is a pointless exercise because I dont accept the bible... he's not making the effort imo.

I was drowning and had lost all strength. A voice came into my head and told me that is was not my time to died, but it also told me that I had to fight. A moment later I had strength to try to swim again. A few moment later the people that were with me found a tree limb for me to grab and pull me to the side of the canal and pull me out. I was in the water alone.

And herein we see the evolutionary advantages of faith, and the possibility of a biological explanation (if not exploration, I know that'll make sense to BK, what I mean is that we can explain faith, we may not ever be able to prescribe it because it's outside of science's remit).

[Ben Kenobi]

I have some trouble with this. If such an entity is omnipotent, eternal and unchanging, then it must also be allknowingly - that is every kind of knowledge, sentation, feeling, experience etc will also be known to it.

If it is so, then what is the continual existence worth for it ? Nothing new to learn, no new feelings, know precicely what are going to happen - it will just be existence, or more correctly, the same state as a braindead - live to exist.

Why would such an entity want to create a whole universe with a single planet inhabited with worshippers ? These worshippers will not contribute anything to the entity because of it's total omnipotence.

Not even increasing the joy in heaven when adding yet another beliving soul makes any sense - how can you add to something already unlimited ?

Sufficiency is an important point, but flip it around. If God were not omnipotent and omniscient, would he be worthy of worship? God does not need our worship, for whatever reason he wants and desires our worship.

I think the free will of man plays an important part in all this, and the age-old question of the interchange between free will and omnipotence. God may know all that is to happen, but he cannot decide for us the choices that we may make in life. Christians have came up with different ways of resolving this conflict, some say that we make the choice even though the choice has already been decided for us, others, that God sees all possible futures.

Secondly, do you believe a relationship should be founded on the principle of needing someone, or in wanting to be with someone? While it is true that God does not need our love, who is to say that he does not enjoy love given freely?

Look at your own life. Do you not feel joy in giving yourself to someone and seeing how they respond? How does it make you feel to give pleasure to someone else, to make them feel good?

[Ben Kenobi]

I seroiusly doubt that I can change people such as BK, but I try to make them ask themself a question or two - guess they try the same.

I thought the purpose was not to change people's minds but to uncover the truth. Of course that presupposes that there can in fact be truth.

[Whaleboy]

I thought the purpose was not to change people's minds but to uncover the truth. Of course that presupposes that there can in fact be truth.

Indeed. If I sought to change you, that would imply some disrespect on my part for your opinions. But I do respect your opinions, I think we and some others all recognise the subtle pleasure of a good brain joust!

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I thought the purpose was not to change people's minds but to uncover the truth. Of course that presupposes that there can in fact be truth.

Doesn't uncovering the truth involve changing peoples mind ? Ok, there are people that, when presented the truth, ignores it

Anyway, I seriously doubt the the truth will be revealed in this thread

[Whaleboy]

Anyway, I seriously doubt the the truth will be revealed in this thread

While I might quibble over the word "truth", I think that shouldn't stop you. A Christian might argue that at the time, people doubted that the "truth" would have been revealed to some carpenters kid in the Galileean scrub, and yet they claim otherwise.

[Ben Kenobi]

How about because we're sentient and we're curious about things? The sense of wonder is our curiousity at the natural feat that is the universe. We feel dwarfed by it, insignificant regardless of whether we believe the universe evolved as it is now or was created as it is now.

Personally I've always got more a sense of wonder about things because I believe it evolved how it did just because. Due to whatever cause that caused it. I don't find a sense of wonder in believing that a diety sat down so to speak and designed everything. It kinda ruins the magic.

I was an astronomy major. I can sit, and I have for hours off my porch and look up and just wonder. Now I would call it the indwelling of the spirit inside of me, but then I could not account for why I have always responded to these things. Saying that God created all of these makes me curious to find out what he made, with the heavens being so vast.

God could change morally (possibly seen through Gods changing nature throughout the Bible whilst still retaining the attribute of omnipotence. Do you follow my point? I don't feel I'm being very clear. Basically the unchanging attribute isn't an encompassing attribute of God (possibly).

Suppose God could change morally, what would that mean? That would mean that we could not trust his word in anything, that he was not omniscient, and we would be left with the important question of why we should believe God over anyone else.

If God were not omniscient, then he would not be omnipotent, since both of them work together. A God that could increase his knowledge, could increase the effectiveness and his efficiency, since he would in a sense, learn how to use his powers better. You would have to say that God would gain in power, and is not in fact omnipotent.

That being said, you say that God changes from the New Testament to the Old Testament. I believe that there is a change in how he deals with man, but that has to do with the atonement, something that was not there in the Old Testament. God has not changed, but because of Christ, our standing with God has.

Acknowledging that bad **** happened in the past isn't comparable to Original Sin. The Germans do not have to do anything past admitting that Hitler's Germany wasn't the best. I acknowledge that original sin took place (if the bible were true) but I don't see why I should be held to it?

Why should the Germans today who did not participate in the Holocaust apologise to the Jews who suffered in the Holocaust? I agree they do not have to do this, but the fact that they should do so, says that we do not always hold people only responsible for the sins that they commit.

In fact, thats partly what I see in why Christ was killed. To atone for the sins of human kind. What is the only sin we all have in common? Original sin. Christ was killed to atone us for original sin. Thus cancelling out original sin. We're still ****ed so to speak because as you say we inherited the ability to sin or the weakness to sin. Thats why we must follow christs message and make our way to the happy place.

That's exactly why, and why we can be forgiven for our sins by God as we could not before the atonement.

Isn't it only Catholics that still beat themselves up over original sin?

It's an issue across Christianity, the difference is in the terminology between Catholics and Protestants.

That makes a lot of sense. Though some serious issues surrounding the hmm percieved superiorty of humans will come about for religious types though.

If they understand that we are told only the plan for us, that certainly does not imply superiority of man. However, God does give us the responsibility as well as the privilege of dominion over every other animal here on Earth. Beyond that, who knows? We shall have to see what is in store.

Free will has nothing to do with the question whats Gods purpose. Why does God exist? If you answer because God just does there is no reason why that logic can't be applied to the universe without God.

Oh, I thought the question was why does the world exist? Why would God make us?

The only answer I can think of to your question as to why does God exist, is that he does. No one made him, if he is eternal and uncreated, he just is. Why else would he say that his name is I am?

As for the rest I'll come back and answer later tonight (NZ Time of course). Peace

[Ben Kenobi]

Too bad there isn't any actual proof that Jesus was the son of god. It being faith and all. We're talking about proof here, not a person that has very little evidence to have even existed in sources other than the bible, much less be the son of god.

Why is it necessary to have proof outside of the Bible? Even if you do not believe in Christ, the bible does provide substantial evidence in favour of Christ as the Son of God. Certainly, some of what is said targets the earlier prophecies in the Old Testament fulfilled by Christ that the Jews believed would signify the coming of the Messiah, but that is not the best evidence.

The best evidence in favour of Christ as the Son of God, is that he died on the cross, killed by the Romans, buried and sealed him in the grave, going so far as to guard the tomb. And three days later the tomb was empty, the stone rolled away. If Christ rose, as the disciples claimed, then he told the truth when he claimed earlier that he was in fact the Son of God. If he did not, then he was just another man, a holy prophet, but just a man.

[Ben Kenobi]

Whaleboy:

Will try to answer your good points, don't know if I will have the time today.

But I do respect your opinions, I think we and some others all recognise the subtle pleasure of a good brain joust!

As do I. It has been a pleasure to have a decent thread without the usual tropes and trolls.

[Whaleboy]

Why is it necessary to have proof outside of the Bible?

That's an interesting point.... would one begin by believing in Christ and then -> God -> The Bible, or would one start by believing in God -> The Bible -> Christ? In the latter case, external proof would be unnecessary since you already believe in the bible and God. To someone like me of course it's a different game, but Christ is marketted differently to me.

[Elok]

Whaleboy: My time is not my own at the moment, but just as a quick answer to your most pressing note, Kant and Mill do not in fact work on their own. Henry Sidgwick noted the problem with Mill, plus I did a paper on Mill this year examining the problem; he glosses over the leap between the general and individual good. He doesn't address the question of why the individual should act in the interests of society. Sidgwick's answer to the problem was an endorsement of "intuition," ie an appeal to sentiment.

Kant...gives no reason at all. You follow this categorical imperative. Why? You just do. You do the right thing because it's right. Sorta circular.

[Whaleboy]

Henry Sidgwick noted the problem with Mill, plus I did a paper on Mill this year examining the problem; he glosses over the leap between the general and individual good. He doesn't address the question of why the individual should act in the interests of society. Sidgwick's answer to the problem was an endorsement of "intuition," ie an appeal to sentiment.

Ah I've been there, had to answer a similar question many moons ago. Answer? Self interest / egoism. It removes the altruism from morality.

Kant...gives no reason at all. You follow this categorical imperative. Why? You just do. You do the right thing because it's right. Sorta circular.

Well I'd certainly agree there, I'm no fan of Kant, but he shows that it can be done. I prefer to use what he'd call a hypothetical imperative but that's another story. WHen studying Kant, I prefer to take him as speaking of himself, rather than prescribing to others. That's obviously not his intent, as he's preaching to the world.

It's as if to say "do what you do if you'd have everyone do it"
"but why?"
"it's what I do".

To be less oblique, he assumes we seek a moral system that is internally consistent, and that consistency is the premise. Given that, it's hard to fault Kant, but the hedonist would argue "why be consistent when you can be happy?".

Like I said, a minefield, but my purpose of introducing it was to show you that theism is not a necessary condition for consistent morality.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Sufficiency is an important point, but flip it around. If God were not omnipotent and omniscient, would he be worthy of worship? God does not need our worship, for whatever reason he wants and desires our worship.

That actually is an interesting question. Is an omnipotent god interested in or does such an entity even care about worshippers ? If that is the case then why should we bother to worship it ?

I think the free will of man plays an important part in all this, and the age-old question of the interchange between free will and omnipotence. God may know all that is to happen, but he cannot decide for us the choices that we may make in life. Christians have came up with different ways of resolving this conflict, some say that we make the choice even though the choice has already been decided for us, others, that God sees all possible futures.

This doesn't make sense. Either the entity is omnipotent or it isn't. If it's omnipotent, then it knows exactly what every person will descide to do and knows precicely the future. If there are several possible futures and wich will be chosen depends upon the choice of a human, then it is not any longer omnipotent. It may know all possible outcomes, but if it doesn't know wich one will be chosen, then the omnipotence fails.

Secondly, do you believe a relationship should be founded on the principle of needing someone, or in wanting to be with someone? While it is true that God does not need our love, who is to say that he does not enjoy love given freely?

Look at your own life. Do you not feel joy in giving yourself to someone and seeing how they respond? How does it make you feel to give pleasure to someone else, to make them feel good?

Well, you have hit the main trouble I have - if god is as omnipotent as we currently has come up to, then his enjoyment must be equal, and then no matter how much we humans tries to improve this by our worshipping him, it won't change.

About the personal part, then you are quite right - giving or doing something for others is a good feeling. The same goes being the recieving part.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


While I might quibble over the word "truth", I think that shouldn't stop you. A Christian might argue that at the time, people doubted that the "truth" would have been revealed to some carpenters kid in the Galileean scrub, and yet they claim otherwise.

You are quite rigth, the word "truth" is a dangerous one and different viewpoints can have their own interpretation of it. Though, that doesn't frigthen me, so I'll continue posting as long as I think that I make sense