Athiest's are wrong, God Exists, Science proves it

[wareyin]

It's a puzzler for sure. In all other areas, we honor the scientific method where primacy is given to discovering how a thing may be. Not God. I bring my own God box into the discussion and, if He don't fit, it's God's bad.

Has anyone discovered how a god may be in the scientific sense? Seems to me that people bring the god they were taught to believe into the discussion, and when what they were taught contradicts reality, they drop the god.

 

[Dinwar]

Most of the Christians I interact with seem to be able to state with some confidence what's allegorical, obsolete, etc., as if it was something they thought of on their own but if they're being taught such by their clergy, then doesn't that just move the problem back one step?

How do you identify the highlighted part? This is non-trivial; the better one understands a concept, the more it is integrated with the rest of their knowledge and the less able they are to pull out specific parts and point to where they learned them. I couldn't tell you where I learned half of what I know in paleontology, not with any specificity. I learned it, it's part of my general knowledge of the topic, and it's inseparably linked to the rest of that whole.

My point is, I doubt you can reliably differentiate between what someone knows because they learned it from someone, and what someone knows because they came up with it on their own. It's hard enough for people to do this internally, and I believe that it's impossible from the outside, excepting some extraordinary cases.

How does the clergy know?

You'd have to ask them. My guess is, they learned it the same way anyone learns anything--studying what came before, as well as modern thought on the subject. We can question the validity of the subject matterr, but the simple fact is that they find it valid (when they study it, at any rate). However, that's an entirely different question than the original, in the same way asking how a mechanic knows what's wrong with the car is very different from asking how a generic driver does.

 

[Pup]

The fact is that God either exists, or it doesn't. If it exists, it has certain properties. THAT is the important thing. Our feelings about those properties are as irrelevant to theology as they are to biology. And ironically, pretty much everyone accepts this besides Skeptics.

I think the way the argument usually goes, the skeptic is already convinced there's no evidence for the existence of God, so that's not the issue. Instead, the issue is the contradiction between descriptions of God's actions and how believers feel about God. A person who says they loved a mass murderer would seem odd, but a Christian who says they love God despite how God killed off humans ruthlessly is accepted by other Christians as normal.

 

[Pup]

How do you identify the highlighted part? This is non-trivial; the better one understands a concept, the more it is integrated with the rest of their knowledge and the less able they are to pull out specific parts and point to where they learned them. I couldn't tell you where I learned half of what I know in paleontology, not with any specificity. I learned it, it's part of my general knowledge of the topic, and it's inseparably linked to the rest of that whole.

Does that really make any difference to the underlying question, though? Whether people are deciding for themselves or clergy are teaching them, the Bible is not being followed literally, and therefore it can be adapted to fit modern science or ethics.

 

[Dinwar]

What properties does it have?

Ask a theologian. That's their job. If you can't be bothered to find out what they have to say on the matter, that's YOUR problem, not that of theists. They've presented the evidence, copiously.

To a theist, your question is an outright confession of being too ignorant to take part in this discussion. It's no different to them than a Creationist asking an evolutionary biologist "Where's the evidence for evolution?"

I think the way the argument usually goes, the skeptic is already convinced there's no evidence for the existence of God, so that's not the issue.

You're right--the Skeptics have their own issues, including repeatedly telling believers what they believe. It's one reason I've all but abandoned this forum.

Instead, the issue is the contradiction between descriptions of God's actions and how believers feel about God.

So again--feelings take center stage.

A person who says they loved a mass murderer would seem odd, but a Christian who says they love God despite how God killed off humans ruthlessly is accepted by other Christians as normal.

The real issue is why love enters into the equation at all. No one says "Mass murders disgust me, therefore they don't exist". But it's commonplace to say "God allegedly killed people, that disgusts me, therefore God doesn't exist". The question of God's existence is separate from the moral evaluation of it. And feelings don't matter in either case (ethics is far more than just how one feels about something).

 

[marplots]

I think the way the argument usually goes, the skeptic is already convinced there's no evidence for the existence of God, so that's not the issue. Instead, the issue is the contradiction between descriptions of God's actions and how believers feel about God. A person who says they loved a mass murderer would seem odd, but a Christian who says they love God despite how God killed off humans ruthlessly is accepted by other Christians as normal.

There's another element in the skeptic community that does us no credit.

It's the inability to accept relevant authority. In other areas, we readily grant that education and expertise grants some status to an opinion. Not so with theology, where any new entrant into the field gets just as much sway as someone who has devoted their life to the matter. Odd, that.

 

[Dinwar]

Does that really make any difference to the underlying question, though? Whether people are deciding for themselves or clergy are teaching them, the Bible is not being followed literally, and therefore it can be adapted to fit modern science or ethics.

The Bible was NEVER intended to universally be taken literally. Biblical literalism is a modern concept. However, it is seriously wrong to conclude that just because it's not literal, it therefore can mean anything--non-literal DOES NOT mean "without meaning". Poetry is non-literal, but has a specific meaning. "Animal Farm" is non-literal, but it would be extremely moronic to say that it therefore is an alegory of food packing plants. Portions of the Bible were clearly not meant to be literal, but they are acknowledged to have specific meanings.

 

[Dinwar]

There's another element in the skeptic community that does us no credit.

It's the inability to accept relevant authority. In other areas, we readily grant that education and expertise grants some status to an opinion. Not so with theology, where any new entrant into the field gets just as much sway as someone who has devoted their life to the matter. Odd, that.

That's assuming they grant that theology exists at all. There's a large segment that is downright proud of its ignorance of theology. The argument is "God doesn't exist, therefore theology is all fantasy, therefore it can be ignored".

 

[wareyin]

Ask a theologian. That's their job. If you can't be bothered to find out what they have to say on the matter, that's YOUR problem, not that of theists. They've presented the evidence, copiously.

To a theist, your question is an outright confession of being too ignorant to take part in this discussion. It's no different to them than a Creationist asking an evolutionary biologist "Where's the evidence for evolution?"

I can ask any 2 evolutionary biologists for evidence for evolution, and they will not contradict each other. The same cannot be said for theologians. If the theologians cannot agree with each other, how do I know which one, if any, is correct?

Theologians have presented their opinions, but no evidence.

The real issue is why love enters into the equation at all. No one says "Mass murders disgust me, therefore they don't exist". But it's commonplace to say "God allegedly killed people, that disgusts me, therefore God doesn't exist". The question of God's existence is separate from the moral evaluation of it. And feelings don't matter in either case (ethics is far more than just how one feels about something).

You are missing a few steps, and getting others wrong. "We are taught god is a loving god, god's book claims god is a mass murderer, that is not the act of a loving god, therefore the god we are taught doesn't exist. If the god we are taught doesn't exist, does any god? No evidence for a god, therefore, god doesn't (or might as well not) exist."

 

[wareyin]

There's another element in the skeptic community that does us no credit.

It's the inability to accept relevant authority. In other areas, we readily grant that education and expertise grants some status to an opinion. Not so with theology, where any new entrant into the field gets just as much sway as someone who has devoted their life to the matter. Odd, that.

That seems an odd thing for you to complain about. Didn't the bible have a story in there about some 12 year old kid teaching the experts who had devoted their lives to the matter? It seems that theology has granted the johnny come latelys just as much sway as the life-longers for millennia.

 

[marplots]

I can ask any 2 evolutionary biologists for evidence for evolution, and they will not contradict each other. The same cannot be said for theologians. If the theologians cannot agree with each other, how do I know which one, if any, is correct?

One assumes you are not without resources, such as logic and reason. But you may have jumped the shark here with the assumptions that:

1) One or the other has to be correct
2) That there is such a thing as "correct"

As an outsider interested in the question, I might start by asking, "What's the theological consensus here?" I think you'd find that a God of some sort was part of the mix.

I think economics is a valid discipline because it offers insights. I do not trust economists to either agree or make useful long/mid-term predictions. I accept this as the nature of the discipline.

ETA: I just remembered Lamarck - biologist, academic, naturalist. He lost.

 

[Dinwar]

I can ask any 2 evolutionary biologists for evidence for evolution, and they will not contradict each other.

You've obviously never run the experiment. Ask a Uniformitarianist and a Neocatastraphist about evidence for evolution sometime, and get ready for the fight.

If the theologians cannot agree with each other, how do I know which one, if any, is correct?

Ask them about the other's arguments. Odds are both theologians are aware of the other's arguments, and of the implications for those arguments to their own, and have formulated responses to them.

Understand, however, that you're not going to learn theology in a day. There are a lot of things in any field that at first appear contradictory. It's only after long study that you understand the interconnections that make the apparent contradictions not only not contradict each other, but actually require each other in many cases. It's like that in biology, in physics, and in every other field. We should expect it to be like that in theology as well.

In other words, you're going to be getting Theology 101, if you get that much--whereas the theologians are beyond the 600/700 level courses. Expect it to take time to understand their perspectives.

You are missing a few steps, and getting others wrong. "We are taught god is a loving god, god's book claims god is a mass murderer, that is not the act of a loving god, therefore the god we are taught doesn't exist. If the god we are taught doesn't exist, does any god? No evidence for a god, therefore, god doesn't (or might as well not) exist."

While I admit to being a bit hyperbolic in my statement, yours is flat-out wrong. The highlighted part is simply wrong. Read the first chapter of the Rule of St. Benedict to see one example of why (it's freely available online and very short).

 

[marplots]

That seems an odd thing for you to complain about. Didn't the bible have a story in there about some 12 year old kid teaching the experts who had devoted their lives to the matter? It seems that theology has granted the johnny come latelys just as much sway as the life-longers for millennia.

And you find this half-remembered story a compelling counter-argument? I would suggest a little less antithesis and a little more synthesis. But, frankly, I cannot evaluate the strength of the parable, not being theologically trained myself.

 

[wareyin]

You've obviously never run the experiment. Ask a Uniformitarianist and a Neocatastraphist about evidence for evolution sometime, and get ready for the fight.

Ask them about the other's arguments. Odds are both theologians are aware of the other's arguments, and of the implications for those arguments to their own, and have formulated responses to them.

Understand, however, that you're not going to learn theology in a day. There are a lot of things in any field that at first appear contradictory. It's only after long study that you understand the interconnections that make the apparent contradictions not only not contradict each other, but actually require each other in many cases. It's like that in biology, in physics, and in every other field. We should expect it to be like that in theology as well.

In other words, you're going to be getting Theology 101, if you get that much--whereas the theologians are beyond the 600/700 level courses. Expect it to take time to understand their perspectives.

Are you under the impression that all theologians are Christian? Will the 600/700 level Jewish, Muslim, and Roman Catholic theologians all only appear to contradict each other, but actually require each other?

While I admit to being a bit hyperbolic in my statement, yours is flat-out wrong. The highlighted part is simply wrong. Read the first chapter of the Rule of St. Benedict to see one example of why (it's freely available online and very short).

Mass murder is the act of a loving god? You're going to have to explain that one better than to tell me to go read a description of the four kinds of monks.

 

[Dinwar]

And you find this half-remembered story a compelling counter-argument? I would suggest a little less antithesis and a little more synthesis. But, frankly, I cannot evaluate the strength of the parable, not being theologically trained myself.

Not a parable--an alleged anecdote from the life of Jesus.

That said, if one believes the Bible in any fashion one must admit that Jesus was not representative of the human race. It's rather disengenuous to say "Because Jesus did it, obviously it's allowed", to say the least. One may as well argue that humans can turn water into wine instantly as argue that since Jesus engaged in theological discussions at 12 therefore non-theologians should be granted equal footing to theologians in matters of theology.

Bear in mind (again), I'm not saying that I accept theological arguments. I am merely stressing the importance of allowing the other side to make their own arguments, and the absolute necessity to not cram our arguments or viewpoints into the place of their arguments. Theology is important to these discussions because theology is where and how religion defines God. Once everyone's on the same page regarding the definitions, THEN we can evaluate them.

 

[Dinwar]

Are you under the impression that all theologians are Christian?

No, of course not. We've been discussiong Christianity thus far, so I continued with that, is all.

Are you under the assumption that comparitive religion doesn't enter into theological training? Because as long as it does, my argument still stands.

Mass murder is the act of a loving god? You're going to have to explain that one better than to tell me to go read a description of the four kinds of monks.

You skipped a few parts.

ETA: From the perspective of a theist, punishment IS the act of a loving God, just as punishment is the act of a loving parent. A loving parent teaches their children right from wrong--and this often involves punishment. Time-outs, spankings, taking away toys, etc. God's methods are different, but then again, so are the things being punished.

Think of it this way: We like to believe the USA is a fundamentally good nation, and that WWII was a fundamentally moral war. We nuked two cities. We did exactly--EXACTLY--what God is said to have done to Sodom and Gahmora. Our nation is mass murderers. Does that make us evil? No--the best military minds at the time concluded that it would safe Japanese lives, as well as American. The action is repugnant in the extreme, but it was not an evil act.

 

[wareyin]

One assumes you are not without resources, such as logic and reason. But you may have jumped the shark here with the assumptions that:

1) One or the other has to be correct
2) That there is such a thing as "correct"

As an outsider interested in the question, I might start by asking, "What's the theological consensus here?" I think you'd find that a God of some sort was part of the mix.

I think economics is a valid discipline because it offers insights. I do not trust economists to either agree or make useful long/mid-term predictions. I accept this as the nature of the discipline.

ETA: I just remembered Lamarck - biologist, academic, naturalist. He lost.

You may note that my question was "If the theologians cannot agree with each other, how do I know which one, if any, is correct? This obviously is not making an assumption that one or the other has to be correct.

For your ETA, Lamarck was not an evolutionary biologist.

 

[wareyin]

No, of course not. We've been discussiong Christianity thus far, so I continued with that, is all.

Are you under the assumption that comparitive religion doesn't enter into theological training? Because as long as it does, my argument still stands.

You skipped a few parts.

No, that is the entirety of Chapter 1.

 

[marplots]

You may note that my question was "If the theologians cannot agree with each other, how do I know which one, if any, is correct? This obviously is not making an assumption that one or the other has to be correct.

I stand corrected.

For your ETA, Lamarck was not an evolutionary biologist.

Also true. Not surprising though, since Lamarck died when Darwin was 20.

 

[Dinwar]

No, that is the entirety of Chapter 1.

Scroll up. The first part is not Chapter 1.