Alan Brennan wrote: > But the issue here is not the > existence of God. The issue is whether or not belief in an unprovable > hypothesis constitutes self delusion. That is a topic that interests > me.....
Me too. But I think one has to start by defining what one means by 'belief', in this context. However I think it will be hard to avoid an element of self-delusion in 'believing' in the existence of an entity, while also maintaining that it's existence cannot be proven. Which leads on to the need to define 'proven'. Etc, etc.
Lennier wrote: > Brian Tozer wrote: >> Alan Brennan wrote: >>> But the issue here is not the >>> existence of God. The issue is whether or not belief in an >>> unprovable hypothesis constitutes self delusion. That is a topic >>> that interests me..... >> Me too. >> But I think one has to start by defining what one means by 'belief', >> in this context. >> However I think it will be hard to avoid an element of self-delusion >> in 'believing' in the existence of an entity, while also maintaining >> that it's existence cannot be proven. > The non-existence of G-d is just as unprovable as is the existence of > G-d. > In your terms, professing a non-belief in G-d requires, in your terms, > just the same degree of delusion as would professing a belief in G-d. > So, if you're going to start slinging mud around by suggesting that > believers are deluded then you should be prepared to claim that you > too are deluded.
Do you believe that there are fairies living at the bottom of my garden? If not, why not.
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:25:49 +1300, Lennier wrote:
Hi there, I'm an agnostic, part time atheist.
> The non-existence of G-d is just as unprovable as is the existence of > G-d.
Does that hold in the face of it being even more difficult to prove a negative?
> In your terms, professing a non-belief in G-d requires, in your terms, > just the same degree of delusion as would professing a belief in G-d.
We all begin with no belief in God. For someone to turn that upside down to expect us to believe in the seemingly impossible, the extrodinary even, requires extrodinary proof.
> So, if you're going to start slinging mud around by suggesting that > believers are deluded then you should be prepared to claim that you too > are deluded.
Good point, but why do you fear to type the word God. It's as if you fear to type the whole thing, in case he's listening. It doesn't seem right for it to appear that He has such power over you.
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:03:23 +1300 Brian Tozer ( brian...@ihug.co.nz ) wrote
> Alan Brennan wrote:
> > But the issue here is not the > > existence of God. The issue is whether or not belief in an unprovable > > hypothesis constitutes self delusion. That is a topic that interests > > me.....
> Me too. > But I think one has to start by defining what one means by 'belief', in this > context.
When talking about belief in God, we are not talking about cognition, so talk of evidence and proof is fairly meaningless. Faith is a better word than belief: faith is more akin to trusting than to knowing.
> However I think it will be hard to avoid an element of self-delusion in > 'believing' in the existence of an entity, while also maintaining that it's > existence cannot be proven.
Most of the things that make life most interesting cannot be proven.
Alan Brennan wrote: > Brian Tozer wrote >> Alan Brennan wrote: >>> But the issue here is not the >>> existence of God. The issue is whether or not belief in an >>> unprovable hypothesis constitutes self delusion. That is a topic >>> that interests me..... >> Me too. >> But I think one has to start by defining what one means by 'belief', >> in this context. > When talking about belief in God, we are not talking about cognition, > so talk of evidence and proof is fairly meaningless. Faith is a > better word than belief: faith is more akin to trusting than to > knowing.
And then apon further reflection one slides from faith to hope as a more accurate description of the situation.
>> However I think it will be hard to avoid an element of self-delusion >> in 'believing' in the existence of an entity, while also maintaining >> that it's existence cannot be proven. > Most of the things that make life most interesting cannot be proven.
True, but one can benefit from analysis regarding their 'reality' and the part that they should play in one's attitudes, actions, and interaction with others.
> When talking about belief in God, we are not talking about cognition, so > talk of evidence and proof is fairly meaningless. Faith is a better word > than belief: faith is more akin to trusting than to knowing.
I am inclined to agree. Recently I have been reading quite a few comments, debates and articles on the web. It seeks atheists have no feeling for religion so approach the subject logically. Religious people on the other hand seem to feel their beliefs are right. There is probably a lot of intuition. I was impressed by one article, which I did not bookmark, by a sincere Christian trying to articulate his feeling for God. When a Christian tries to present his religious feelings logically he often fails making his religion sound silly. It is like an intuitive feeling which you can't explain.
That doesn't mean I think religious people are right in their beliefs but that Christian/Atheist debates are a waste of time. We are on different tracks.
>>When talking about belief in God, we are not talking about cognition, so >>talk of evidence and proof is fairly meaningless. Faith is a better word >>than belief: faith is more akin to trusting than to knowing.
> I am inclined to agree. Recently I have been reading quite a few comments, > debates and articles on the web. It seeks atheists have no feeling for > religion so approach the subject logically. Religious people on the other > hand seem to feel their beliefs are right. There is probably a lot of > intuition. I was impressed by one article, which I did not bookmark, by a > sincere Christian trying to articulate his feeling for God. When a Christian > tries to present his religious feelings logically he often fails making his > religion sound silly. It is like an intuitive feeling which you can't > explain.
> That doesn't mean I think religious people are right in their beliefs but > that Christian/Atheist debates are a waste of time. We are on different > tracks.
> Bob Howard.
Hi All,
I don't think that the debates that we have here are a waste of time. I find them helpful in making me think through a little more carefully that I might otherwise.
I do however get a little upset with those who make the unequivolcal claim that "God" does not exist. I am quite happy for people to say that I believe that God does not exist for the following reasons ...
I think that the fundamentalist, literalist Christian is in quite the same mould as the fundamentalist, determinist Atheist. Both are so absolutely convinced of their beliefs that they regard them as unassailable facts, and disregard any differing opinion or evidence.
I am however waiting for the next essay from Michael Cree who is now getting to the knubb of his argument, and I am very interested to see how he developes it.
>>> When talking about belief in God, we are not talking about >>> cognition, so talk of evidence and proof is fairly meaningless. >>> Faith is a better word than belief: faith is more akin to trusting >>> than to knowing.
>> I am inclined to agree. Recently I have been reading quite a few >> comments, debates and articles on the web. It seeks atheists have no >> feeling for religion so approach the subject logically. Religious >> people on the other hand seem to feel their beliefs are right. There >> is probably a lot of intuition. I was impressed by one article, >> which I did not bookmark, by a sincere Christian trying to >> articulate his feeling for God. When a Christian tries to present >> his religious feelings logically he often fails making his religion >> sound silly. It is like an intuitive feeling which you can't explain.
>> That doesn't mean I think religious people are right in their >> beliefs but that Christian/Atheist debates are a waste of time. We >> are on different tracks.
>> Bob Howard.
> Hi All,
> I don't think that the debates that we have here are a waste of time. > I find them helpful in making me think through a little more carefully > that I might otherwise.
> I do however get a little upset with those who make the unequivolcal > claim that "God" does not exist. I am quite happy for people to say > that I believe that God does not exist for the following reasons ...
> I think that the fundamentalist, literalist Christian is in quite the > same mould as the fundamentalist, determinist Atheist. Both are so > absolutely convinced of their beliefs that they regard them as > unassailable facts, and disregard any differing opinion or evidence.
> I am however waiting for the next essay from Michael Cree who is now > getting to the knubb of his argument, and I am very interested to see > how he developes it.
> Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all!
I think that the focus is often misplaced. The question is often posed as 'Can you prove that God exists', which often degenerates into a semantic discussion of what constitutes "proof" and whether one can prove that God does not exist, etc, etc, ad nauseum. The question should rather be posed as whether one should believe in the existence of something without significant unambiguous objective supporting evidence, and whether there is sufficient such evidence of the existence of 'God' as a sentient entity to warrant such a belief by a person of reasonable intelligence and education.. I am open to consideration of such evidence but so far have not been presented with any. Therefore any such 'God' is in the same position as the fairies at the bottom of my garden. Which is a great pity because the concept has great potential.
>>>>When talking about belief in God, we are not talking about >>>>cognition, so talk of evidence and proof is fairly meaningless. >>>>Faith is a better word than belief: faith is more akin to trusting >>>>than to knowing.
>>>I am inclined to agree. Recently I have been reading quite a few >>>comments, debates and articles on the web. It seeks atheists have no >>>feeling for religion so approach the subject logically. Religious >>>people on the other hand seem to feel their beliefs are right. There >>>is probably a lot of intuition. I was impressed by one article, >>>which I did not bookmark, by a sincere Christian trying to >>>articulate his feeling for God. When a Christian tries to present >>>his religious feelings logically he often fails making his religion >>>sound silly. It is like an intuitive feeling which you can't explain.
>>>That doesn't mean I think religious people are right in their >>>beliefs but that Christian/Atheist debates are a waste of time. We >>>are on different tracks.
>>>Bob Howard.
>>Hi All,
>>I don't think that the debates that we have here are a waste of time. >>I find them helpful in making me think through a little more carefully >>that I might otherwise.
>>I do however get a little upset with those who make the unequivolcal >>claim that "God" does not exist. I am quite happy for people to say >>that I believe that God does not exist for the following reasons ...
>>I think that the fundamentalist, literalist Christian is in quite the >>same mould as the fundamentalist, determinist Atheist. Both are so >>absolutely convinced of their beliefs that they regard them as >>unassailable facts, and disregard any differing opinion or evidence.
>>I am however waiting for the next essay from Michael Cree who is now >>getting to the knubb of his argument, and I am very interested to see >>how he developes it.
>>Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all!
> I think that the focus is often misplaced. > The question is often posed as 'Can you prove that God exists', which often > degenerates into a semantic discussion of what constitutes "proof" and > whether one can prove that God does not exist, etc, etc, ad nauseum. I agree. > The question should rather be posed as whether one should believe in the > existence of something without significant unambiguous objective supporting > evidence, and whether there is sufficient such evidence of the existence of > 'God' as a sentient entity to warrant such a belief by a person of > reasonable intelligence and education..
Here again we get into difficulties indeed. I and others have said that there is no proof of the existence of God. I think that Allan Brennan summed it up very well when he yslkrf about faith. I like the expression from the Anglican Burial Service which talks about the "sure and certain hope" which is of course a paradox that does not bear too close looking into, but the idea is there.
As I have said before - it is OK to look for certainty, but to find it is folly indeed!
> I am open to consideration of such evidence but so far have not been > presented with any.
You will not find any as it is not to be found.
> Therefore any such 'God' is in the same position as the fairies at the > bottom of my garden.
Very different indeed. The God you look for is indeed like the fairies at the bottom of the garden, but the God that I worship regularly is certainly not! This is a matter of faith and not of proof.
The fairies at the bottom of the garden do not have a Lord who speaks of love and unconditional forgiveness. The fairies at the bottom of the garden have not risen from the dead. The fairies at the bottom of the garden have not given the commandment "To love God with all your heart and mind and soul, and to love your neighbour as yourself"! They are not demanding at all as far as I can see. However depending upon the fairies you mileage may vary!
> Which is a great pity because the concept has great potential.
> The fairies at the bottom of the garden do not have a Lord who speaks of > love and unconditional forgiveness. The fairies at the bottom of the > garden have not risen from the dead. The fairies at the bottom of the > garden have not given the commandment "To love God with all your heart > and mind and soul, and to love your neighbour as yourself"! They are > not demanding at all as far as I can see. However depending upon the > fairies you mileage may vary!
There is only one prob. with your anti "faires at the bottom of the garden" anecdote there is no "Lord who speaks" faires and lords only occurs in the mind of man.
I have always liked your "reasonable" approach to the Atheist, but in the end you will in perpetuum end up the standard xtian msg. of hate, (believe or burn in hell ! etc.) its built in.
> I do however get a little upset with those who make the unequivolcal > claim that "God" does not exist. I am quite happy for people to say > that I believe that God does not exist for the following reasons ...
I think those who say there definitely isn't a god are not thinking well. It's the old story of the difficulty of proving a negative.
>>The fairies at the bottom of the garden do not have a Lord who speaks of >> love and unconditional forgiveness. The fairies at the bottom of the >>garden have not risen from the dead. The fairies at the bottom of the >>garden have not given the commandment "To love God with all your heart >>and mind and soul, and to love your neighbour as yourself"! They are >>not demanding at all as far as I can see. However depending upon the >>fairies you mileage may vary!
> There is only one prob. with your anti "faires at the bottom of the garden" > anecdote there is no "Lord who speaks" faires and lords only occurs in the > mind of man.
This of course depends upon faith and your point of view.
> I have always liked your "reasonable" approach to the Atheist, but in the > end you will in perpetuum end up the standard xtian msg. of hate, (believe > or burn in hell ! etc.) its built in.
The standard Christian message is not believe or burn in hell. It most certainly is not a message of hate. I believe you have it wrong when you say that this message is "built-in", its not.
John Fulton wrote: > Brian Tozer wrote: >> I think that the focus is often misplaced. >> The question is often posed as 'Can you prove that God exists', >> which often degenerates into a semantic discussion of what >> constitutes "proof" and whether one can prove that God does not >> exist, etc, etc, ad nauseum. > I agree. >> The question should rather be posed as whether one should believe in >> the existence of something without significant unambiguous objective >> supporting evidence, and whether there is sufficient such evidence >> of the existence of 'God' as a sentient entity to warrant such a >> belief by a person of reasonable intelligence and education.. > Here again we get into difficulties indeed. I and others have said > that there is no proof of the existence of God. I think that Allan > Brennan summed it up very well when he spoke about faith.
Which is just dressed up hope.
>> I am open to consideration of such evidence but so far have not been >> presented with any. > You will not find any as it is not to be found. >> Therefore any such 'God' is in the same position as the fairies at >> the bottom of my garden. > Very different indeed. The God you look for is indeed like the > fairies at the bottom of the garden, but the God that I worship > regularly is certainly not! This is a matter of faith and not of > proof.
Faith based on what evidence? You have just conceded that there is none.
> The fairies at the bottom of the garden do not have a Lord who speaks > of love and unconditional forgiveness. The fairies at the bottom > of the garden have not risen from the dead. The fairies at the > bottom of the garden have not given the commandment "To love God with > all your heart and mind and soul, and to love your neighbour as > yourself"! They are not demanding at all as far as I can see.
You refer to a particular creation with Judeo-Christian origins. Why is it more deserving of credence than any of the many others with different ethnic origins? Not to mention which of the countless contradicting 'Christian' interpretations. Why not Joseph Smith's version? Or the Vatican's?
>>>I think that the focus is often misplaced. >>>The question is often posed as 'Can you prove that God exists', >>>which often degenerates into a semantic discussion of what >>>constitutes "proof" and whether one can prove that God does not >>>exist, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
>>I agree.
>>>The question should rather be posed as whether one should believe in >>>the existence of something without significant unambiguous objective >>>supporting evidence, and whether there is sufficient such evidence >>>of the existence of 'God' as a sentient entity to warrant such a >>>belief by a person of reasonable intelligence and education..
>>Here again we get into difficulties indeed. I and others have said >>that there is no proof of the existence of God. I think that Allan >>Brennan summed it up very well when he spoke about faith.
> Which is just dressed up hope.
This depends upon your point of view does it not? You seem to be taking an extreme rationalist view point it seems to me.
>>>I am open to consideration of such evidence but so far have not been >>>presented with any.
>>You will not find any as it is not to be found.
>>>Therefore any such 'God' is in the same position as the fairies at >>>the bottom of my garden.
>>Very different indeed. The God you look for is indeed like the >>fairies at the bottom of the garden, but the God that I worship >>regularly is certainly not! This is a matter of faith and not of >>proof.
> Faith based on what evidence?
See above - you question is not the right on to ask from my view point.
> You have just conceded that there is none.
Why ask the question then? It gets us nowhere does it?
>>The fairies at the bottom of the garden do not have a Lord who speaks >> of love and unconditional forgiveness. The fairies at the bottom >>of the garden have not risen from the dead. The fairies at the >>bottom of the garden have not given the commandment "To love God with >>all your heart and mind and soul, and to love your neighbour as >>yourself"! They are not demanding at all as far as I can see.
> You refer to a particular creation with Judeo-Christian origins.
I refewr to what I have faith in - The One True Almighty God creator of all things.
> Why is it more deserving of credence than any of the many others with > different ethnic origins?
See above - again this is the wrong question is it not?
> Not to mention which of the countless contradicting 'Christian' > interpretations.
There are a lot of interpretations that various people have made in attempts to exercise unreasonable control over other people, I do not regard this type of activity as "Good Christian behaviour" - It seems to me that many of the interpretations that are extreme do not gel with the words of Our Lord which for me form the basis of my faith - together with the teachings of the catholic church (note that I do not say Catholic Church - there is a difference!). The teachings of Our Lord in the Gospels form for me the pinnacle of Christian teaching - not to be taken as word for word literal, but with study to distil His message.
> Why not Joseph Smith's version?
It does not seem to me to meet the test of Our Lord's "Great Commandment". If you are happy with Joseph Smith's version follow it faithfully and completely - do it properly!
> Or the Vatican's?
This is much nearer to what I believe, but I do have some problems with it also - the Jesuits seem to me to want too close a control over the inner workings of it to be healthy - however I do believe that God works in mysterious ways and that the Vatican will come right in time.
The Christian Faith is not static and frozen as it existed 2004 years ago, but develops as we discover more of God's creation. It seems to me that we do not need a God which meddles in the world - He has made his perfect creation and to meddle with it would suggest that it is not perfect as I think that either Michael Cree or Allan Brennan has already said.
The world would be a much better place if we all adopted the "Great Commandment" of Our Lord - I find it difficult to say that about any other religious activity. However YMMV depending upon your view point.
John Fulton wrote: > It seems to > me that we do not need a God which meddles in the world - He has made > his perfect creation and to meddle with it would suggest that it is > not perfect as I think that either Michael Cree or Allan Brennan has > already said.
I am not sure about Michael but I would be very surprised if Allan would regard this world as perfect, leaving aside human behaviour. Are earthquakes an example of perfect design, and a necessity? Genetic abnormalities in babies? Tornadoes? I am sure that you can supply many more example of natural phenomena that I would consider neither necessary nor 'perfect'. Does your perception of this perfect creation come from dogma rather than reason?
>> It seems to >>me that we do not need a God which meddles in the world - He has made >>his perfect creation and to meddle with it would suggest that it is >>not perfect as I think that either Michael Cree or Allan Brennan has >>already said.
> I am not sure about Michael but I would be very surprised if Allan would > regard this world as perfect, leaving aside human behaviour. > Are earthquakes an example of perfect design, and a necessity? > Genetic abnormalities in babies? > Tornadoes? > I am sure that you can supply many more example of natural phenomena that I > would consider neither necessary nor 'perfect'. > Does your perception of this perfect creation come from dogma rather than > reason?
Here I thinnk that we disagree. Why are natural events not perfect. It is our view point that provides us with the wish that it were different is it not. Evolution is not a comfortable theory, but none the less it seems to be the way things happen. It must be part of God's will for the world. I don't claim supernatural understanding of God's mind, nor do I try to second guess what His design is. We observe, theorise and try to develop models of the creation that work. Our physics and mathematical models can only ever approximate what creation is all about, we cannot know it fuly - for as Michael Cree has said it is not deterministic, nor fully rational - that is always that uncertainty that will rise up to bite any theory!
I can and do marvel about what I see and about what others describe to me about the workings of the creation.
You are trying to find imperfections in the model because they do not match up with what you think God's design should be! I think that it is a little arogant to assume that God's creation should be as one would wish it to be- you would agree with that would you not?
Christianity is full of paradoxes, and I have no problem with those because we have an imperfect understanding of creation. These paradoxes will remain until we have a complete understanding, This will not be any time in the foreseeable future as far as I can see, but you never know!
John Fulton wrote: > Brian Tozer wrote: >> John Fulton wrote:
>>> It seems to >>> me that we do not need a God which meddles in the world - He has >>> made his perfect creation and to meddle with it would suggest that >>> it is not perfect as I think that either Michael Cree or Allan >>> Brennan has already said.
>> I am not sure about Michael but I would be very surprised if Allan >> would regard this world as perfect, leaving aside human behaviour. >> Are earthquakes an example of perfect design, and a necessity? >> Genetic abnormalities in babies? >> Tornadoes? >> I am sure that you can supply many more example of natural phenomena >> that I would consider neither necessary nor 'perfect'. >> Does your perception of this perfect creation come from dogma rather >> than reason?
> Here I thinnk that we disagree. Why are natural events not perfect.
I assume that you are familiar with the Guinea Worm. Malaria. Polio. And you could supply many other examples. There is no problem until you propose that they are either created by God directly, or as part of Her plan and according to Her will and purpose. You exacerbate the problem enormously by taking the attitude that they are part of a 'perfect' creation. I do not see any other reason for this attitude than adhering to Xtian dogma. Now let's see how you try to handle this self-inflicted problem:-
> It is our view point that provides us with the wish that it were > different > is it not. Evolution is not a comfortable theory, but none the less > it seems to be the way things happen. It must be part of God's will > for > the world. I don't claim supernatural understanding of God's mind, > nor > do I try to second guess what His design is. We observe, theorise and > try to develop models of the creation that work. Our physics and > mathematical models can only ever approximate what creation is all > about, we cannot know it fuly - for as Michael Cree has said it is not > deterministic, nor fully rational - that is always that uncertainty > that will rise up to bite any theory!
> I can and do marvel about what I see and about what others describe to > me about the workings of the creation.
> You are trying to find imperfections in the model because they do not > match up with what you think God's design should be! I think that it > is > a little arogant to assume that God's creation should be as one would > wish it to be- you would agree with that would you not?
> Christianity is full of paradoxes, and I have no problem with those > because we have an imperfect understanding of creation. These > paradoxes will remain until we have a complete understanding, This > will not be > any time in the foreseeable future as far as I can see, but you never > know!
Hmmmmmm. I suggest that perhaps it is time to stop digging? :-)
Allan, comments please. Forget about LOTR for some serious stuff. :-))
> Bob Howard wrote: > I do however get a little upset with those who make the unequivolcal > claim that "God" does not exist. I am quite happy for people to say > that I believe that God does not exist for the following reasons ...
I believe God does not exist because there is no proof. I believe green men from the moon don't exist because there is no proof. I believe flying pink elephants don't exist because there is no proof. So on and so forth.
>>Bob Howard wrote: >>I do however get a little upset with those who make the unequivolcal >>claim that "God" does not exist. I am quite happy for people to say >>that I believe that God does not exist for the following reasons ...
> I believe God does not exist because there is no proof. > I believe green men from the moon don't exist because there is no proof. > I believe flying pink elephants don't exist because there is no proof. > So on and so forth.
I have no problem with that at all. You may believe what you like. I also do not believe that geeen men exist on the moon, not because there is no proof, but because it seem to me to be unlikely. I do not believe in pink flying elephants, because our current understanding of pink elephants does support their being able to fly, not because there is no proof.
Proof of existence is not the problem, the real problem is that there is no body of opinion that supports these phenomena, either by faith or by belief!
Faith in the existence of God has been around for many thousands of years, but a belief in pink flying elephants has not, nor has the idea of green men in the moon. Faith in the existence of God is in a very different class to green men in the moon, or pink flying elephants, or for that matter fairies at the bottom of the garden!
You know full well that proof of God's existence is not possible. For me it is a matter of faith. However I hope that you realise that the world is not a deterministic as you seem to wish it to be.
John Fulton wrote: > Tintin wrote: >> I believe God does not exist because there is no proof. >> I believe green men from the moon don't exist because there is no >> proof. I believe flying pink elephants don't exist because there is >> no proof. So on and so forth. > I have no problem with that at all. You may believe what you like. I > also do not believe that geeen men exist on the moon, not because > there is no proof, but because it seem to me to be unlikely. I do > not believe in pink flying elephants, because our current > understanding of pink elephants does support their being able to fly, > not because there is no proof.
> Proof of existence is not the problem, the real problem is that there > is no body of opinion that supports these phenomena, either by faith > or by belief!
> Faith in the existence of God has been around for many thousands of > years, but a belief in pink flying elephants has not, nor has the idea > of green men in the moon. Faith in the existence of God is in a very > different class to green men in the moon, or pink flying elephants, or > for that matter fairies at the bottom of the garden! > You know full well that proof of God's existence is not possible.
However is it to be expected? Does the Bible give us an expectation that there should be evidence of the existence of God, and of Her daily involvement with mankind? In this context, does not the lack of any credible objective evidence advance our consideration of the nature of both the Bible and God? Lack of any evidence is often very powerful evidence in itself.
>>>I believe God does not exist because there is no proof. >>>I believe green men from the moon don't exist because there is no >>>proof. I believe flying pink elephants don't exist because there is >>>no proof. So on and so forth.
>>I have no problem with that at all. You may believe what you like. I >>also do not believe that geeen men exist on the moon, not because >>there is no proof, but because it seem to me to be unlikely. I do >>not believe in pink flying elephants, because our current >>understanding of pink elephants does support their being able to fly, >>not because there is no proof.
>>Proof of existence is not the problem, the real problem is that there >>is no body of opinion that supports these phenomena, either by faith >>or by belief!
>>Faith in the existence of God has been around for many thousands of >>years, but a belief in pink flying elephants has not, nor has the idea >>of green men in the moon. Faith in the existence of God is in a very >>different class to green men in the moon, or pink flying elephants, or >>for that matter fairies at the bottom of the garden!
>>You know full well that proof of God's existence is not possible.
> However is it to be expected?
No not at all. Do you love your children? Can you prove this to me? How do you feel about the performance of the Government? Can you prove this to me? Life is full of situations for which only subjective evidence is available. I have no problem with you looking for objective evidence, but don't read too much into the lack of finding of any.
> Does the Bible give us an expectation that there should be evidence of the > existence of God, and of Her daily involvement with mankind?
Who does God's work in this world? Not God but us! There is the rub indeed. We all have free will and do our own thing! Some people reject God and others do not. That is just how it is.
> In this context, does not the lack of any credible objective evidence > advance our consideration of the nature of both the Bible and God?
Why? If God's creation is working as She intended why meddle?
> Lack of any evidence is often very powerful evidence in itself.
Perhaps, but not conclusive! You know the story about proving negatives.
John Fulton wrote: >>> You know full well that proof of God's existence is not possible. >> However is it to be expected? > No not at all.
Is it not promised in the Bible? Does the Bible not state that it is God's earnest wish that all would come to know him? Would it not be trivial for God to provide incontrovertable proof of Her existence in any of countless ways that we could think of? How about the Tetragrammaton spelled out in a star formation as an example?
>Do you love your children? Can you prove this to me?
The evidence can be evaluated.
> How do you feel about the performance of the Government? Can you prove > this to me?
The evidence can be evaluated.
>Life is full of situations for which only subjective > evidence is available. I have no problem with you looking for > objective evidence, but don't read too much into the lack of finding > of any.
I think what it is valid to conclude from the lack of objective evidence is one of the most important issues we are faced with.
>> Does the Bible give us an expectation that there should be evidence >> of the existence of God, and of Her daily involvement with mankind? > Who does God's work in this world? Not God but us! There is the rub > indeed. We all have free will and do our own thing! Some people > reject God and others do not. That is just how it is.
Would that be a Dunford Sidestep?
>> In this context, does not the lack of any credible objective evidence >> advance our consideration of the nature of both the Bible and God? > Why? If God's creation is working as She intended why meddle?
Guilt would seem to be an appropriate motivation. Do you know how many people die from malaria every day? I find the fact that you claim the natural world is perfect, rather mind-boggling.
>> Lack of any evidence is often very powerful evidence in itself. > Perhaps, but not conclusive! You know the story about proving > negatives.
Careful. This is the non-productive semantic trap that we are seeking to avoid.
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:21:33 +1300, John Fulton wrote: >> I have always liked your "reasonable" approach to the Atheist, but in >> the end you will in perpetuum end up the standard xtian msg. of hate, >> (believe or burn in hell ! etc.) its built in. > The standard Christian message is not believe or burn in hell. It most > certainly is not a message of hate. I believe you have it wrong when > you say that this message is "built-in", its not.
Atheists are those who refuse to believe.
Revelations 21:8 8 But cowards, those who refuse to believe, who do evil things, who kill, who sin sexually, who do evil magic, who worship false idols, and who tell lies - all these will have a place in the lake of burning sulphur. This is the second death."
Those who refuse to believe ... will have a place in the lake of burning sulphur.
I fail to understand how the message could be less apparant, that unbelievers will burn in hell.
Paul Wilkins wrote: > On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:21:33 +1300, John Fulton wrote:
>>>I have always liked your "reasonable" approach to the Atheist, but in >>>the end you will in perpetuum end up the standard xtian msg. of hate, >>>(believe or burn in hell ! etc.) its built in.
>>The standard Christian message is not believe or burn in hell. It most >>certainly is not a message of hate. I believe you have it wrong when >>you say that this message is "built-in", its not.
> Atheists are those who refuse to believe.
> Revelations 21:8 > 8 But cowards, those who refuse to believe, who do evil things, who kill, > who sin sexually, who do evil magic, who worship false idols, and who tell > lies - all these will have a place in the lake of burning sulphur. This is > the second death."
> Those who refuse to believe ... will have a place in the lake of burning > sulphur.
> I fail to understand how the message could be less apparant, that unbelievers > will burn in hell.
Revelations has always been a difficult book of Scripture for Christians. However it is mostly allegorical, and not factual at all.
We separate ourselves from God by what we do and must suffer the consequences of that ourselves. We do it to ourselves, and it is not God doing it to us! There is a very big difference in that one! It is all in the view point.
I would never claim that Revelations is literally true. It gives us the experience of one person in a Revelation experience. For me that is fair enough, and it also provides some measure of the Magnificence of God as well, which I suppose is part of the message that John was trying to give us.
It does not consign me to burning sulphur if I sin, but it does indicate what I might feel if I do, and what separation from God might mean for me!
You seem to be trying to make Holy Scripture a scientific manual which it is not!
You might not accept this Paul but thinking atheists can't see a reason to believe.
> Revelations 21:8 > 8 But cowards, those who refuse to believe, who do evil things, who kill, > who sin sexually, who do evil magic, who worship false idols, and who tell > lies - all these will have a place in the lake of burning sulphur. This is > the second death."
> Those who refuse to believe ... will have a place in the lake of burning > sulphur.
> I fail to understand how the message could be less apparant, that unbelievers > will burn in hell.
I'm an atheist but I don't see myself in that Revelatory description. I swear I am just a boring suburban husband and father who has had one woman since the day I was married and brought up my kids to the best of my ability and kept my lawn mowed. Don't you think the author was a bit over the top?
You can't make yourself believe something if it doesn't seem right so why punish anyone for sincerely held ideas? You can put on a show of believing but it won't be sincere. In our democratic society we respect different beliefs but apparently God doesn't.
