Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Christians make all sorts of claims. Which ones are you referring to?
We could start with the general claim that God exists.
I will give a list of things that could be considered evidence but everyone is looking for something different when they ask for evidence of God's existence. So after giving this list it would be helpful to know what evidence for the existence of God would be like in your view. If MacBeth wants evidence of Shakespeare's existence, what would he be looking for? That being said:
[*]The existence of the universe itself.
[*]The existence of persons and consciousness.
[*]God's miraculous works in history such as the exodus event and the resurrection of Christ.
[*]The Bible.
[*]The existence of moral norms.
[*]The existence of natural law.
Well let's start more simply. What do you suppose the evidence for a creator would be like? What would qualify as evidence for you?
A non nested hierarchy for life with different species using different codon tables.
God throwing lightning bolts down from heaven.
A hundred foot avatar walking the Earth and smiting evil doers.
Amputees suddenly having their limbs back.
I can think of tons of things.
This is an interesting criterion of evidence. Perhaps you doubt God's existence because you're looking for the wrong things?
I will give a list of things that could be considered evidence but everyone is looking for something different when they ask for evidence of God's existence. So after giving this list it would be helpful to know what evidence for the existence of God would be like in your view. If MacBeth wants evidence of Shakespeare's existence, what would he be looking for? That being said:
- The existence of the universe itself.
- The existence of persons and consciousness.
- God's miraculous works in history such as the exodus event and the resurrection of Christ.
- The Bible.
- The existence of moral norms.
- The existence of natural law.
Is God not capable of those things?
God is certainly capable but he by no means owes them to us. We should be satisfied with the evidence that he has chosen to provide.
I will give a list of things that could be considered evidence but everyone is looking for something different when they ask for evidence of God's existence. So after giving this list it would be helpful to know what evidence for the existence of God would be like in your view. If MacBeth wants evidence of Shakespeare's existence, what would he be looking for? That being said:
- The existence of the universe itself.
- The existence of persons and consciousness.
- God's miraculous works in history such as the exodus event and the resurrection of Christ.
- The Bible.
- The existence of moral norms.
- The existence of natural law.
Those things are evidence of God exactly like rainbows are evidence of pots of gold and lightning is evidence of Zeus.
Is God not capable of those things?
You are close: If the universe is the perfectly fine-tuned and distributed rainbow, then God is white light. Everything He did in the beginning was dividing individual things (colors) from a whole state (white light).
Tell me how you can deduce the rectilinear 3d travel of white light from the tangential 2d spread of non-moving separated colors?
Fair enough. I agree that our model building has improved. But I dont think you can eliminate god, just like you cant eliminate other "skeptical alternatives" to scientific realism, like the brain in the vat idea of Putnam, or the evil genius idea of Descartes. They are logically possible, but empirically unfalsifiable. IIRC I saw an formal proof somewhere showing as much.It eliminates the supernatural as a force that operates in violation of natural laws. There are still religious views that see God acting through nature which really doesn't make any methdological claims. At the end of the day, the gaps in our knowledge that people try to squeeze God into keep getting smaller and smaller. That is the fate of the God who has to act in violation of nature.
I am fascinated by the principle of epistemic closure, and also Russel's principle of explosion.
Say, if you know (or claim to know) that naturalism is true, then you know what it deductively entails, ie. that there is no supernatural God. But may naturalists are only agnostics rather that "gnostic strong atheists"*, so how is that consistent?
Also if inconsistency entails and implicit contradiction, then according to the logical "principle of explosion" anything follows from a contradiction such as 2+2=5 follows from "A and not-A".
So, I am a bit lost. I have contradictory beliefs (probably) but I dont believe 2+2=5 either. I think I must have a fallible "database" or something, in that stored beliefs are prone to human error.
Also I believe I possibly know God, but I am at least open to naturalism. But that sounds ok to me. However, is belief "binary" (yes or no, believe or not) but rationality more "fuzzy" (maybe, probably, % weightings)?
*People who believe they know there is no God.
So Dogmahunter, in your view "faith" in the religious sense is belief without justification?
Thats contestable, unless you say we still dont understand religious experience, and the cause of the natural world. We have natural understanding yes, but I am not sure that eliminates the supernatural.
Christians make all sorts of claims. Which ones are you referring to?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?