Re: Atheists?
 

?!? if you saw God on TV, that would be all the proof you need?

Re: Atheists?
 

Well, to begin with, it would be necessary to establish what traits (etc.) have been attributed to that particular God, so that we would have a basis for comparison. In doing so, it would be very useful to ascertain which reported communications were from reliable sources, and which were not (after all, we want our basis of comparison to be accurate). Once we know what the working definition of God is—and I realize the inherent difficulty of the task, given the many interpretations of God's nature—we could then progress to testing a significant number of these traits, to see if they are compatible with our model.

But even if we've shown that these things could be godly traits, we're only part of the way there. We must additionally try to show that they are possesed by the god in question, since it is possible that other factors may have had a coincedental result. We would minimize this step by testing traits (if any exist) that are unique to God, and not possible through other means—of course, finding such a trait is rather problematic, given that any other omnipotent entity could potentially posess equivalent traits (unless we can show otherwise, either by definition or by example). Note that this step is crucial, and often forgotten: are you familar with instances where someone declares an event to have been miraculous, but in fact, a perfectly mundane explanation also existed?

Once some statistically significant amount of supporting evidence were achieved (I won't consider here how that statistical model would be defined and evaluated—I only have the faintest idea), with only a statistically small amount of counter-evidence, the proposition could be declared proven. (This is an empirical, scientific type of proof—it is not absolute, because we are generalizing based on a sample set of results; only by testing everything, and having everything come out positive, could we be absolutely sure. This standard of proof doesn't exist when dealing with material things, as a practical consideration—all of science is based on variations upon the above method.)

But we aren't quite done yet. Now we need to make sure that we conducted our research dilligently and correctly; traditionally, this would involve peer review and duplication of findings. If others can reproduce the result, using the information and procedures described in the original study, it would tend to become accepted by the scientific community.

Then, I would accept it.

Is this standard of proof impractical? Well, for a god, of course it is. But gods' powers are very likely too broad to capture with a small quantity of evidence: how does one test the ability to create a world as described in Genesis? Isn't this capability fundamental to the nature of God as he is defined in Christian scripture? Isn't testing that well beyond our means as a civilization? The mere fact that we can't test it says nothing about the truth; all it says is that we simply don't know.

It comes down to this: we can't practically prove that a god exists, nor can we prove that no god exists. Don't conflate the fact that I have outlined an impractical scenario with an attempt to divert attention, or dodge the question; I have merely set the standard of proof at the same level demanded of any other scientific study. We must not accept an insufficient proof, simply because it is convienient, even if that means we cannot conclude at all; no conclusion is much more helpful than making the wrong conclusion.

In the absence of sufficient evidence of any gods, I therefore take the position that I don't know for sure whether or not any gods exist, and as a practical matter, do not acknowledge the existance of any, through religious ritual, or any other means.

Re: Atheists?
 

Tristan, that is a very interesting reply.

You are approaching the question of proof of Gods existance as a scientific endevour. If the scientific community launched a study on the existance of God, and found sufficient proof of His existance then you would accept those findings.

Even if you did not participate in the study yourself? you would accept the findings of scientists (assuming of course you were allowed knowledge of the raw data, equations used, methods employed...) ?

Are you aware that science as a discipline deliberately chooses not to include the possibility of Gods existance in all of its fields of study? Science studys that which is physical in nature (matter and energy), and is observable, and is repeatable (control-able in the lab, or controlled observations). God is none of these.

In physics labs you run experiments, and you run them over and over. If you drop a ball ten times and it accelerates at 32'/S^2, and you record the velocity over time, but one of your trials has very different results - they teach you to ignore that data. That trial is tossed out, and attributed to sensor error, operator error... and the remaining trails are averaged to get the 'right' answer.

Why? because the one trial that produced 'unacceptable results' cannot be repeated. It cannot be explained. We dont know what caused it (impact with a mason, black hole flying by the earth, or the hand of God) so science ignores it and pretends it didnt happen.

In a way you have slammed the door shut. Science is not attempting to prove or disprove the existance of God, and you say that is the only proof you will accept. That would be like saying I will only belive OBL exists when the FBI finds him. The FBI does not look for people outside the United States. They never will look for him. The CIA will, the military will, Interpol will, but not the FBI.

Science, as a discipline, assumes there is no God - not from a moral sense, but for the sake of being able to run controllable and repeatable experiments and observations. Science would not be able to draw any conclusion otherwise unless they tacked 'God willing' onto the end of every theory or law - so they simply assume there is no God.

Its also interesting that you focus on evidence of Gods existance, but for some reason you dont even consider finding God Himself. If God came to your door and revealed Himself to you personally, you would reject Him? You would drag Him off to the nearest university to have Him tested by the physics department?

You would not be able to determine by yourself if you were standing face to face with the Creator of the Universe?

Re: Atheists?
 

If I had to believe something (and remember, "no belief" is a legitimate position), I'd tend to believe a well-reasoned study, conducted by competent parties, with compelling evidence and reproducible methodology. I don't put much faith in crackpots. But are you saying that you would ignore such a study entirely, instead putting all your faith in religion?


Where does it say that God is not observable (Moses conversed with God on the mountain) and not physical (what did they nail to the cross, if not Jesus)? And repeatablity refers to the principle that if I find something, I describe it so that someone else can duplicate my methods, and we can see if they find the same thing—this in no way limits the search for God. Science does not exclude God any more than it excludes unicorns; if evidence exists, it can be studied. So, are you therefore saying that there is no evidence?


Are you saying that science would systematically ignore God's influence, because God's influence is limited to occasional and seemingly insignificant effects? What about a plague of locusts—is this an outlier? A great flood, a new world created in a week, a booming voice from the heavens; what else could God do to get noticed by scientists. It is absurd to think that scientists are ignoring God because his past exploits have tended to be subtle.

As for the type of research you've focused on, instead consider ornithology: an expedition is organized to some godforsaken jungle, and there, a team of scientists looks for evidence of some godforsaken bird. They're not necessarily running a clinical trial, but they're still looking for evidence.


Can you fault scientists for believing that they won't be making productive use of their time in proving the existence of something for which it is exceedingly difficult to even gather data? I've outlined the scientific approach to finding proof of God's existence; perhaps they, as I, feel that there's simply too much to test to actually find him and show that he's not an impostor.


We can make up any fanciful, unprovable thing, and then be forced to qualify our science with "'thing' willing". The scientists' assumption is that there is not enough evidence for acceptance of God: therefore they don't factor God (or unicorns, or fairies, or talking animals) into their science.


You would? If the entity says, "I am the creator of the universe", and then stands there, expecting you to genuflect, or at least look impressed, do you? You just accept it? How do you know it's not Satan? How do you know it's not me?

As for me, I realize that there's a another little problem: what if it's a powerful alien (hypothetically), and not God, but the alien can do 99% of the things God can purportedly do. It's likely very hard to construct a test that can distinguish the two, especially on a face-to-face, conversational basis. If the entity shows off several of his parlour tricks (parting of Lake Ontario, etc.), I might be impressed, and might even say that for lack of a better category, he's a god—but we'd have to figure out something about his history to figure out whether or not he's your god.

How do we recognize people? We know their appearance, or their voice, or know something about the way they behave, etc.—but how can you know these things about God? Do you just read scripture, and hope that you can piece together a description that fits? You must have heard of people who claim to see images of religious figures in mundane items—windows, stains, burn marks, etc.—what are they recognizing, the face of God, or a stupid pattern in a mundane object?

So, to cut to the heart of the uncertainty, I could ask the purported god to prove himself to me; then, at least, I would only have to figure out whether or not he's lying. But isn't that just another nearly-unanswerable question? Sometimes, it's better to just admit that you don't know. It's not exciting, but at least it's intellectually honest.

Re: Atheists?
 

Tristan,

your reply indicates you do not accept what I have said about science ignoring God. It is a common misconception amoung people today that science HAS looked for God, looked for evidence of God, and concluded God does not exists, or as you have said, the evidence is inconclusive.

If you will not accept my words do a little research on your own. When did scientists put together a study to search for evidence of God?

Most of the scientists in your science books did believe in God, and most of them were Christians. Its only been in the last hundred years or so that science has delved into the question of "If God did not create the universe, and all life on it, then how did we get here"

but again, the starting assumption was 'If there is no God'.

Please dont take my word for it, or reject what I am saying out of hand, look into it for yourself. Philosophy studies man and God, theology studies man and God - but science deliberately excludes God from its realm of investigation. (for the reasons I have already pointed out).

No I am saying there has never been such a well-reasoned study, and there never will be. You apparently believe such a study has already been conducted and reached its conclusions, or that it has already been determined that such a study would be a waste of time (presuming the result without actually doing the investigation).

Ive already mentioned that a large number of scientists in history already did believe in God, and it never occurred to them to attempt to prove His existance. Science looks for understanding that can be implemented in the physical world - electric power, mechanical systems, medical research... That is the basis of their field, understanding the physical world so that WE can control it, modify it, and exploit it to our benefit.

What would be the end result of science finding God? would they put Him in a cage and hook wires to Him to tap into His unlimited power? Would they petition Him with suggestions for how to improve the universe? Would they appoint Him head of the University of California?

If or when you 'find God' the only logical outcome would be the establishment of a personal relationship. Science does not deal with personal relationships.

then science would be stood on its head. If some being has the power of life and death, has the power of creation from nothing, exists outside our time domain, can read your thoughts (telepathy), can control matter and energy with its mind (telekinesis)

then our science and technology has been reduced almost to zero, but the most important issue on that day would be one thing only: our relationship with that being. Whether or not that being is our Creator, we would have to understand what it expects from us, how we could co-exist

understanding its nature and character would be critical to our survival

and the only thing you would have to go on would be:

1. what it chooses to reveal to you about its nature and
2. the eyewitness accounts of people who have interacted with the being

in the end, it would come back to what type of relationship you had personally established.

in fact, you would then find yourself in a situation, or a field of study very much like the religion, philosophy, theology... fields we have now. You would have all these personal eyewitness accounts (like the 40 authors who wrote the 66 books of the bible), you would have living individuals who claim some sort of interaction, you would have leaders appointed to be the official alien go-betweens

you would have to worry about whether this being was evaluating us as a species or as individuals for some purpose

it would be like starting a new religion from scratch

this is what it all comes down to. God would have to reveal Himself to us personally, in a way that we would accept (my terms?)

This question does have an answer. Each person comes up with their own answer to what they will accept.

And as I talked about before, many people have accepted the reality of Gods existance (in one form or another). Its not something they can show you, or convince you of, because you have no way of knowing whether the evidence they accepted was real, or they made it up, or someone deceived them

so in the end, this is one thing in life that each of us must decide for ourselves, based on our own observations and our own personal conclusions.

(almost as if we are being tested somehow)
(tested? sorted? selected? measured? characterized?)

Re: Atheists?
 

Aha.... You are assuming that our world is deterministic. Actually according to one interpretation of quantum physics the IRS isn't neccessairly there until you actually observe it. I know that sounds stupid but that's one interpretation. You can't say the IRS is located in Washington D.C. because the world is based on probability. The many world interpretations says that the building is actually following different probabilistic patterns but we can only observe one. The many world interpretations is really interesting if you think of schrodinger's cat. Somewhere there is a cat that can get out of a posionous gas chamber alive while all our cats will just die. Yes.... I just threw a major monkey wrench into the argument. A really ugly monkey wrench. :)

Re: Atheists?
 

From a philosophical perspective the reality of our world is only a probability as well.

Do you know where your car is? Of course you do, you remember where you parked it, so you know where it is.

or do you?

has it been stolen?
is it legally your car in the first place (some paperwork mix up at the DMV?)
did someone take your car last night and replace it with one just like it?
did a sink hole open up in the parking lot and swallow your car?

if you consider all the possibilies then the only thing we can really prove to ourselves is that we exist (because we think). Everything else we perceive to be real could be an illlusion or a deception.

My present stream of conscouseness began at 6AM this morning when I woke up. Was yesterday real or only a dream? Are any of my memories real?

We only exist in the present, so the reality of anything else is a matter of probability. Most likely I did exist yesterday, and my car is where I left it, but can I be 100% certain?

honestly? No, I cant!

(dont think about this too long unless you have a fluffy teddy bear close at hand :^)

Re: Atheists?
 

I'm Agnastic really.. I don't know what to believe in, but its kinda close to being Atheist... eh?