The God Who Wasn't There

[Minstrel]

But that goes both ways, doesn't it? If science can prove to me how life can to be, fine, I can accept that. But what if science can one day prove that God exists?

I'm not sure the thrust of your question. If it can, great. If god can prove its own existence, great. Evidence would be great. Until then, why believe in god over invisible, non-material elves or any of an infinite number of non-evidenced theories that could be true?

Like I said before, I don't claim to know how the universe was created, it just seems thickheaded, to me, to rule out one possibility.

Like crowTrobot said, I don't see anyone doing that. I certainly haven't said a god simply does NOT exist, and I don't think he has, either. Simply that without evidence, there's no reason to believe in something. That goes for science, too, of course. Nothing a scientist says should be accepted without solid evidence.

But it's okay to leave gaps in understanding as just that...gaps. Just because science can't fill it in is not de facto evidence that science has failed and religion is the logical answer. Not knowing is simply not knowing...not evidence, itself, for "something else."

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny, I was referring to the other claims in the film, not specifically to the questioning of the historical evidence for Jesus. Outside of the Bible, as far as I know, the only historical references to Jesus are in the writings of a few historians of the time: Josephus, Pliny the Younger, & Tacitus. These references are pretty slim and subject to dispute. Given the nature of the times, where historians primarily wrote only of royalty and famous warriors, it's not too surprising that there are so few non-scriptural references to Christ. After all, he was born to common people of a suppressed Jewish culture. The Romans had no interest in writing down anything that would aid in the spread of Christianity.

From wikipedia:

Jesus is mentioned in two passages of the work The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, written in the late first century AD. One passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, discusses the career of Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was at a minimum embellishment by early Christian scribes, if not a forgery. The other passage simply mentions Jesus as the brother of James, also known as James the Just. Most scholars consider this passage genuine,<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1]</sup> but its authenticity has been disputed by Emil Schürer as well by several recent popular writers.


Josephus' other major work, The Jewish War, makes no mention of Jesus.

 

[Denny Crane]

i always find this line of reasoning curious. You believe without any evidence that a universe can arise from nothing through strictly natural processes and you believe, again without any scientific evidence, that life can arise within that universe absent any external processes, and yet you deny as wishful thinking the thought that some power beyond what we can see could be a causative agent in these events.

+1

astute

 

[Denny Crane]

Not true. There's no requirement that you check your brain at the door of a church. The Bible says that there is enough evidence in creation for anyone who is willing to look to see that God exists. However, you'll never be able to offer a scientific test that will prove it. One has to accept that this is one area where we're not going to know with absolute certainty in this lifetime. In the face of that, as I see it there are three options:

1. Accept God's existence on faith.
2. Deny his existence and believe in the origin of the universe and life through strictly natural processes even though science has limitations that ultimately make this a statement of faith of another kind.
3. Simply don't make a choice.

4. Corollary to #2 - believe in the origin of the universe and life through strictly natural processes and reduce science's limitations through continuous improvement over existing theory through hypothesis, experimentation, observation, and proper conclusion.

 

[crowTrobot]

astute

astute in the sense that it's not easy to cram 3 straw men into one short paragraph, sure.

 

[MARIS61]

Jesus says BAKE IT!

 

[Denny Crane]

astute in the sense that it's not easy to cram 3 straw men into one short paragraph, sure.

There is nothing in science that explains how life started in the universe, let alone on Earth. It's no strawman.

 

[CelticKing]

There is nothing in science that explains how life started in the universe, let alone on Earth. It's no strawman.

Exactly Denny. I'd love to believe in evolution, etc but you cannot prove to me (not meaning you personally Denny lol), that you can have something created out of nothing (big bang, etc). At the same time I will not believe that there is a "god" out there who has all that power to create whatever he/she/it wants and knows good from evil and yet chooses not to act to help humanity and leaves it upon us.

 

[Karl Malone's Elbows]

Did Hitler kill 6M Jews b/c they were followers of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or they didn't fit in with his plan for world domination?

Don't forget that Hitler killed 25 million russians. For some reason American's don't really care about that. But to answer your question, Hitler was a Christian himself and led his Nation as a Christian Nation. He used his Christianity as his reason.

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the Creator of the universe.

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

Compared to the absurd catchword about safeguarding law and order, thus laying a peaceable groundwork for mutual swindles, the task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission."

Did Stalin and Mao kill tens of millions b/c they believed in a God, or because they didn't believe Stalin was God?

What would be the difference? That still sounds like religious violence.

Christians don't tell you to be like them.

Lot's of different Christians say and do lots of different things. There aren't two people exactly alike anywhere on the planet. Each person has their own individual beliefs, they may be similar, but they are never the same.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Many euro's came to this country and killed millions of Indigenous people and villages in the name of Jesus. Nearly wiped out the entire race. A near genocide.

 

[crowTrobot]

There is nothing in science that explains how life started in the universe, let alone on Earth.

nobody said science explains how life started at this point. nobody said they believed the universe could arise from nothing. nobody said there couldn't be a causative agent. that was a bunch of astute arguing against nobody there.

 

[crowTrobot]

Exactly Denny. I'd love to believe in evolution, etc but you cannot prove to me (not meaning you personally Denny lol), that you can have something created out of nothing (big bang, etc).

1. evolution is just the theory that speciation on earth occurs gradually by descent with modification. it has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

2. i'm not aware of any scientists working in related fields that believe the big bang was actually "something from nothing" in the sense you mean. that's another straw man.

 

[blazerboy30]

I respect your choice, but that doesn't seem like a compelling reason to believe in religion to me. The so-called "God of Gaps," filling in unknowns with god, is what cultures have done for eons and it rarely seems to have been necessary in hindsight. At one time, thunder and lightning were "unanswered questions," and thus people used god as the answer. Now we can answer questions about the nature of thunder and lightning using scientific explanations, so the God of Gaps is applied to new things. Many of which may well be answered with rational, testable explanations, which will push religion (for those who are inclined) to be about something else.

Far be it from me to tell other people what to think, but it seems like an unnecessary exercise to me.

Interestingly, there are large portions of the scientific community that admit to not even trying to find the root of everything. For example, string theorists state that we don't need to look deeper than the strings to find the root of creation because it "doesn't make sense". Well, if scientists are willing to stop there, with that explanation, they are admitting that some things just exist because they exist. Some of us believe in a God as the reason they exist.

More importantly, you are assuming that people only use God as an explanation for why something is created. Many people believe in a God for things much more abstract. I consider myself a technical, scientific type, and I am religious not because I think God created dinosaurs or something like that. I'm religious, and believe in a God because of things that are not physical and can not really even be tested such as love, our souls, etc.

 

[Minstrel]

Interestingly, there are large portions of the scientific community that admit to not even trying to find the root of everything. For example, string theorists state that we don't need to look deeper than the strings to find the root of creation because it "doesn't make sense". Well, if scientists are willing to stop there, with that explanation, they are admitting that some things just exist because they exist.

I wouldn't say that that's a "large portion" of the scientific community. And I've read plenty of things by string theorists, and I've read none of them say that we don't need to look any further. I'm not saying there aren't string theorists who claim that (I haven't read from or spoken to every physicist in the field, obviously), but I think you're incorrect if you're representing that as the standard view in the field. What they do say is that physical evidence of strings hasn't been found yet, the evidence is currently entirely mathemtical. But string theory has already evolved into m-theory, so obviously the idea isn't to just stop researching.

More importantly, you are assuming that people only use God as an explanation for why something is created.

I'm assuming nothing of the sort. I was responding directly to someone who gave that as his reason. I didn't generalize it in any way. I simply said I don't find the "God of Gaps" idea compelling. That applies only to people who advance religion on that basis. If that doesn't include you, it's no comment on you.

I'm religious, and believe in a God because of things that are not physical and can not really even be tested such as love, our souls, etc.

That strikes me as a non-sequitor, at least as far as love goes. What does one thing have to do with the other? One can believe in "love" without postulating a deity (and certainly it can be probed scientifically and rationally, in terms of the neuroscience involved, the evolutionary reason for it, etc).

Believing in souls is fine...it's equivalent to believing in "all-pervasive spirituality" or "Heaven" or any other unobservable, faith-based phenomenon. I don't have anything against such a personal belief; there's just nothing about it that can speak to another who doesn't intrinsically believe the same thing. Which makes it difficult to discuss meaningfully.

 

[crowTrobot]

Interestingly, there are large portions of the scientific community that admit to not even trying to find the root of everything.

you won't find many astro or particle physicists that say that.

For example, string theorists state that we don't need to look deeper than the strings to find the root of creation because it "doesn't make sense".

string theorists might say looking for something more elemental than a string doesn't make sense, but that has little to do with the search for the "root of creation" in a general sense. as currently formulated string theory is falling out favor anyway because it lacks explanatory power.

they are admitting that some things just exist because they exist.

like god?

Some of us believe in a God as the reason they exist.

what's the reason god exists?

I'm religious, and believe in a God because of things that are not physical and can not really even be tested such as love, our souls, etc.

all current evidence indicates everything we experience including consciousness and emotions are physical in origin.

and if you want to postulate something that definitionally can't be physically tested, you can't know it exists (internal "revelation" being demonstratably unreliable and useless as evidence).

so in fact you're religious because you want to be.

 

[rocketeer]

Quote from your own link:

"In fact, there is very little evidence for a historical Jesus. Questioning his historicity is, in my view, a valid line of enquiry."

does that really matter?

wouldn't it be pretty much impossible to prove or disprove the existence of jesus?

 

[Denny Crane]

does that really matter?

wouldn't it be pretty much impossible to prove or disprove the existence of jesus?

A grave would do. Period writing about him (most everything is a century or more after he lived). Portraits of him drawn or painted when he was alive.

Those things would prove he existed.

I wrote in my opening post that I believe he existed. FWIW

 

[Denny Crane]

I know a bit about string theory. What do you guys think it's based on? Other than the pursuit of some holy grail, that is.

 

[blazerboy30]

so in fact you're religious because you want to be.

I'm sorry, did you just say it is a "fact" that I'm religious because I want to be? You're just talkin' out of the ol' hind end this entire thread. I'll leave it at that.

 

[rocketeer]

A grave would do. Period writing about him (most everything is a century or more after he lived). Portraits of him drawn or painted when he was alive.

Those things would prove he existed.

I wrote in my opening post that I believe he existed. FWIW

any of those things would be enough proof for someone who wanted to believe he existed, but i don't think they would be enough proof for someone who did not want to believe that.

 

[Denny Crane]

any of those things would be enough proof for someone who wanted to believe he existed, but i don't think they would be enough proof for someone who did not want to believe that.

I have no reason to want him to have existed, but I do believe in what the evidence would tell me.

 

[Minstrel]

I know a bit about string theory. What do you guys think it's based on? Other than the pursuit of some holy grail, that is.

A pursuit of "elegance." Not just the "holy grail" (unifying gravity with the other forces) but also having a simple model rather than one involving so many sub-atomic particles.

The problem is that it isn't predictive, so it's really just an abstract, mathematical model, rather than a usable one.

 

[crowTrobot]

I'm sorry, did you just say it is a "fact" that I'm religious because I want to be? You're just talkin' out of the ol' hind end this entire thread. I'll leave it at that.

i meant it's obvious you're not religious based on an objective view of evidence. and if anything was talking out of a hind end it was your entire last post.

 

[blazerboy30]

I wouldn't say that that's a "large portion" of the scientific community. And I've read plenty of things by string theorists, and I've read none of them say that we don't need to look any further. I'm not saying there aren't string theorists who claim that (I haven't read from or spoken to every physicist in the field, obviously), but I think you're incorrect if you're representing that as the standard view in the field. What they do say is that physical evidence of strings hasn't been found yet, the evidence is currently entirely mathemtical. But string theory has already evolved into m-theory, so obviously the idea isn't to just stop researching.

Hmmm. I'm not talking about discovering evidence of strings. I understand it is purely mathematical at this point. But the entire idea of string theory is to find TTOE. From what I have read, very few string theorists, as opposed to philosophers, are set on determining why strings exist. Many string theorists use the analogy of strings being like letters. You can break paragraphs into sentences, sentences into words, words into letters, but trying to break down letters is futile and meaningless. To me, I can say people created letters, like I would say God crated strings.

I'm assuming nothing of the sort. I was responding directly to someone who gave that as his reason. I didn't generalize it in any way. I simply said I don't find the "God of Gaps" idea compelling. That applies only to people who advance religion on that basis. If that doesn't include you, it's no comment on you.

I agree with the dislike of the "God of Gaps" idea. I don't use God as an explanation for why things happen. I'm confident that we will prove and understand many processes that we currently don't. And you're right, looking at the past, when we have applied this "God of Gaps" is looks a little silly.

That strikes me as a non-sequitor, at least as far as love goes. What does one thing have to do with the other? One can believe in "love" without postulating a deity (and certainly it can be probed scientifically and rationally, in terms of the neuroscience involved, the evolutionary reason for it, etc).

I don't mean the evolutionary sense, or the neuroscience. I'm talking about why it exists. Why do we have a inate desire to live and love? We have these strange urges to survive and protect offspring at all costs, and I wonder why.

 

[Denny Crane]

A pursuit of "elegance." Not just the "holy grail" (unifying gravity with the other forces) but also having a simple model rather than one involving so many sub-atomic particles.

The problem is that it isn't predictive, so it's really just an abstract, mathematical model, rather than a usable one.

In other words, the study of something that can't be seen or touched or otherwise proven.

Science!

 

[Minstrel]

In other words, the study of something that can't be seen or touched or otherwise proven.

Science!

Well, it's a model that fits mathematically. String theorists are pretty up front about the weaknesses of the theory. It hasn't become the prevailing model for good reason. Thank goodness for scientific rigor!

 

[blazerboy30]

i meant it's obvious you're not religious based on an objective view of evidence. and if anything was talking out of a hind end it was your entire last post.

\

I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Obviously religion isn't about clear cut evidence. That is why it is religion and faith. If the existence of God is proven, it won't be called faith anymore. Just like it doesn't take faith to know that death exists.

It is interesting that you are so quick to go on the attack towards those that believe and have faith.

 

[barfo]

In other words, the study of something that can't be seen or touched or otherwise proven.

Science!

Can't be right now. Doesn't mean that we never will be able test the theory.
Making hypotheses is part of science.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Can't be right now. Doesn't mean that we never will be able test the theory.
Making hypotheses is part of science.

barfo

Hypothsis: God Exists.

Let's see science do a full court press to prove it.

 

[barfo]

Hypothsis: God Exists.

Let's see science do a full court press to prove it.

It will take some time. You may not want to wait up.

barfo