h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

When the believer claims evidence for god(s) exists, the sceptic, not unreasonably, asks to see it.

For those with faith, the existence of a god is obvious. The shape of a banana will suffice. For a believer, there is no requirement for distinctive, characteristic, specific etc., evidence, which is fortunate, because there isn't any.

No sane person claims transcendence does not exist. The rich beauty of our universe, the wealth of sensory experience, and the intricate machinations of space/time discovered by scientific inquiry elicits such acknowledgment

However, despite repeated requests, so far I have yet to encounter any evidence, or even a compelling argument, for the existence of a personified, transcendent divine agent, aka 'God'.

Taliesin

I would suggest that it is impossible to either prove or disprove God's existence beyond a shadow of a doubt. I have jumped off the fence onto the believing side! I have not yet heard convincing argument to persuade me to climb back on or jump back over.

The website I mentioned earlier does give, to an agnostic, material to consider. I think it would give an atheist some things to explain away too!

mikey2

<>

Why?


az

If there is a God, he may not be like the major religions describe.
He/She/It may not be an all loving god. This god may not be interested in us, considering us very tiny in the entire universe. There might be a god and no after-life. He may not punish evil and reward good. If there is a god i dont think he will be the christian/moslem/jewish/hindu/buddist kind.

'benjaminpmoore - have you been watching 'that mitchell and webb look' by any chance?'

Yes. I write from Eastbourne, where, I believe, they filmed 'Jump off a cliff for five pounds'.

Come on boffins, lets sort this out.

Yes, I concur with mich2ael! There is a God, without any doubt whatsoever!



Vicky

No

best fishes........tod

This is the 21st century. No.

Az

Re- "Why?"

I first believed in God because I needed to...sad but true! ("Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" - Jesus' words in Matthew chapter 5) Since then I have looked into the New Testament account of Jesus Christ (The historical ground of my faith) and found it very convincing. I have looked into the reliability of the New Testament documents and have found them to be trustworthy. My own experience supports my faith (though that alone would not be enough to convince a skeptic). Reading of God's workings in times of revival in the church encourages my faith. Witnessing a cripple being healed encouraged me to go on believing. Jesus' warnings and encouragements cause me to fear losing my faith.

Other people's testimonies of God's work in their lives helps me to believe. I am naturally skeptical of people's testimonies of God's dealings with them if those testimonies are easily explained away by the fact that the person happens to be religious. There are many stories that I've found convincing though.

Hope that's enogh to be going on with!

mikey2

"I first believed in God because I needed to...sad but true!"

Which pretty much sums it up, I think. Belief in God, any god, is an emotional response to a confusing world. It is clearly comforting to believe that the deeds of the wicked will eventually be punished and (especially) that we will be reunited with our loved ones for eternity in Paradise. Unless our loved ones also happen to be wicked... Sadly, believing in something, or wishing it were true, does not make it so.


"Since then I have looked into the New Testament account of Jesus Christ (The historical ground of my faith) and found it very convincing. I have looked into the reliability of the New Testament documents and have found them to be trustworthy."

Unfortunately, as has been demonstrated elsewhere on this site, this is simply untrue. You continue to insist that it is true because it forms the basis of your rationalisation of your beliefs. I suspect that the emotional wrench of accepting this and the effect that would have on your beliefs, given the first quote above, is the reason you continue to deny the obvious.

"Jesus' warnings and encouragements cause me to fear losing my faith."

What exactly are you afraid of, Mikey2? Is it the eternal fire (Jesus' warnings) or the loss of this comforting feeling that 'someone up there cares' (encouragements)? Or is it just that, after first believing "because [you] had to" that you are scared to take the intellectual step of acknowledging that it is all just a made up story because this is simply too far outside your comfort zone?

F

Wittgenstein (paraphrasing): What you can't know you can't talk about.

I think that's a "no".

However, " ... the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the heavens and earth could be an advanced version of a guy who spends his weekends building model railroads or overseeing video-game worlds like the Sims."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html?ei=5090&en=22bfff4070a81187&ex=1344744000

So just to be on the safe side, "you should try to be as interesting as possible, on the theory that the designer is more likely to keep you around for the next simulation."

So I change my vote to "yes".

>>..without a doubt.<

>>..without any doubt whatsoever!<



The quoted phrases clearly illustrate a cliche of faith.
Unquestioning belief is acceptance of something as fact in the absence of supporting evidence, and occasionally in the face of contrary evidence.
Belief, however valued, is fundamentally incompatible with science, which relies upon logic, reason, and - most importantly - doubt.

You may draw your own conclusions from this.


>>I would suggest that it is impossible to either prove or disprove God's existence beyond a shadow of a doubt.<


I respectfully suggest the burden of proof rests upon the assertor, rather than the refuter.

Of course, there is no way to disprove my claim to keeping an invisible, impalpable dragon as a pet, nor is there any way to disprove Russell's teapot, or the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bbin).
Shall we then believe in just anything that is not capable of disproof?
Sadly, absurd belief in supernatural nonsense continues to plague our Demon-Haunted World.

Which god are we talking about here?
Just once I would like to see a coherent, meaningful description of the posited divine entity.
Typically, theists are usually reluctant or are unable to even attempt to fulfil a reasonable request for a meaningful definition, just as they typically are incapable of providing supporting, non-anecdotal, evidence for their fuzzy, ambiguous, ever-morphing god.
Lacking a clear definition of the 'God' concept, the theist argument never achieves argument status at all -- it simply disintegrates into so much meaningless babble.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
And so, with a mere flick of Occam's Razor all lesser supernatural entities vanish in myth.
As for the 'almighty', 'supreme', omni-whatever god of the big three religions, there are serious inherent logical flaws, including mutual contradictions between frequently claimed attributes such as omniscience, and requisite personal characteristics or abilities such as the exercise of free will.
Incidentally, but not insignificantly, the 'causeless randomness' of quantum mechanics is difficult to reconcile with the concept of an all-powerful personal agent, the alleged source of both free will and causality

Subjective reasons for believing are valid solely for the individual for whom the belief is important.
The religious rationalize the facts in order that they may fit the dogma, ignored where they conflict, or invented where required.
Reason, in the objective sense, has little to do with belief, because faith is not the result of a rational process.

'And so, with a mere flick of Occam's Razor'

I nominate that for the H2G2 flashy rhetoric award.

Fathom

<>

Of course it's not comforting to think of people enduring eternal punishment.
No, my sentence meant rather this: when I was a child I felt starved of acceptance and love. As I grew up I was intensely shy and developed many irrational fears. There are no words adequately to describe the sense of unreality and alienation that was my day to day experience. I failed at school and was unable to hold down a full time job.

When I heard the message of the love of God for mankind revealed in Jesus Christ, I welcomed it with open arms.

<>

On the contrary, I have 'demonstrated' on the "I'm going to raise a mass theological debate" thread that the New Testament documents are as reliable as historical documents can possibly get.

<>

Yes I'm afraid of eternal fire. As for your suggestion that I'm afraid of acknowledging its all made up....no way....in some ways I'd rather have found out now that it is not true, but my experience and research informs me that a supernatural, cataclysmic event of universal significance occured around 6 B.C. and over the following 30 years or so. The evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is compelling and demands a verdict and a personal response.

Taliesin

<>

Yes you're absolutely right...I shouldn't have said that...every sincere, thinking believer must acknowledge and wrestle with doubts, particularly regarding the question of human suffering.

<>

I respect your point of view. Do you respect mine? I am a reasoning, thinking adult and have concluded that there is a Creator God.

<>

My faith in God relies on the New Testament. In my view that's the place to look for a meaningful description. As I've mentioned, you won't find historical documents more reliable, in spite of what has supposedly been 'demonstrated' on this site.

<>

That went over my head...could you elaborate and put that in layman's terms?!

<>

I don't think of myself as dogmatic but rather, open to discover the truth.

<>

Reason has a lot to do with my faith in God: examining historical and circumstantial evidence surrounding the events of Jesus' life. Coming to a reasonable conclusion when confronted with occurences which appear to have no rational basis i.e. miraculous healings etc.

mikey2

'I have 'demonstrated' on the "I'm going to raise a mass theological debate" thread that the New Testament documents are as reliable as historical documents can possibly get.'

I confess I haven't read your demonstration (not subscribed to that thread) but I must say that I agree with your statement on its face o the reliability of the New Testament. Speaking for a moment as a (non-amateur) scholar of certain ancient texts, the New Testament documents are pretty much as reliable as most other texts from the period, which is to say, not very. I hesitate to agree with many contemporary critics who argue that Jesus didn't exist at all but I would have to argue that there is little evidence that *any* of the events or words attributed to Jesus by the Gospels are accurate. This is not to say that there is no accurate history in the Gospels, only that there is no reliable way to discern what particular bits are fact and which are fiction. It is quite possible, but not very likely, that *all* of it is fiction. But it is much less likely, almost to the point of impossibility, that all of it is fact.

On a different note, I've known many very intelligent educated people who feel that the Book of Mormon is absolutely convincing as history and that it is as reliable as any other historical document, including the Gospels.

<>

One major difference between Russell's teapot/the FSM etc... and Jesus is that we have historical evidence that Jesus really did exist.

<< I am a reasoning, thinking adult and have concluded that there is a Creator God.>>

Same here.

'we have historical evidence that Jesus really did exist. '

we have historical evidence that Alexander really did exist and that a great many Roman Emperors existed. Divinity was attributed to all of them.

ergo . . .




I'm sorry, but demonstrating the existence of a particular human is not in and of itself a demonstration that the universe was pulled out of nothing at a certain date by some intangible divinity who continues to work in the lives of individuals today.

I think reason can take you so far in the search for God, but there is probably a point beyond which you cannot go without taking a step of faith.

(I have witnessed one or two things that bolster my faith, but I wouldn't necessarily share them in an attempt to convince anyone. This is because they verge on the miraculous. I can say, "This happened" but then you could say I was lying or making it up. So I'm not even going to bother.)

What I do see is that there isn't really a very strong argument against faith in God. There's a chapter in R. Dawkins Delusion book entitled "Why God almost certainly doesn't exist". I read this chapter hoping to find some really compelling arguments.

Within that chapter there are several subsections: The ultimate Boeing 747; Natural selection as a consciousness-raiser etc...

But what there is not is anything approaching a convincing case that God almost certainly doesn't exist. A better title for the chapter might be "Some objections to arguments used to argue for the existence of God." That's honestly about as far as you can stretch it really. Funny.

<>

Like, yeah, but it's a starting point.

Let's face it, we all _know_ someone just dreamt up the FSM. So let's not waste time discussing it.

However, we also know that Jesus wasn't just dreamt up. He did live, and the claims connected with him go way beyond any made about any other real historical figure.