The existence of God and the efficacy of prayer

[turingtest]

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1.1, NIV) The clue here is in the word 'beginning', implying that there was in fact a beginning, a start to things, a point of departure. The verb 'created' implies creation, and the subjects, 'the heavens and the earth', are a fair description of the universe from the point of view of tribal man. Ergo, the universe had a beginning.

The implication is that God already existed, before he began to make the heavens and earth. So there wasn't a start to the universe God lives in, because he was already living in it. It's all going to hinge on a definition of "universe" and possibly interactions between universes. Then there's the question of whether God always existed or whether he too was spoofed into existence somehow.

Science is complicated enough without having a need to reconcile it with tribal fiction.

And let's don't forget that BT's point with all this was to claim that "science is getting closer to the bible." Now even the part of Genesis to be read literally to show this (as opposed to the "creation in six literal days" part) must be taken by implication to get there; it's not actually any more specific or literal than the "six days" part, which would also have been "a fair description of the universe from the point of view of tribal man."

Science is certainly getting closer to the bible when the bible can be read loosely enough to move it closer to science; it's not science on the wheels though.

 

[MikeG]

Ha! Good point. This is where the outliers (in every sense) hang out.

Nope. Atheists and critical thinkers may be outliers in your country or community, but here in the UK, as with all of western Europe, that's the default position.

 

[Donn]

Now even the part of Genesis to be read literally to show this (as opposed to the "creation in six literal days" part) must be taken by implication to get there; it's not actually any more specific or literal than the "six days" part, which would also have been "a fair description of the universe from the point of view of tribal man."

And, such single union of thought with expression has surely gifted us a mathematically pregnant Bible spawning triangles of all areas!

Science is certainly getting closer to the bible when the bible can be read loosely enough to move it closer to science; it's not science on the wheels though.

The Bible gets closer to science only by the preening larks who thrust it into every maw. By protracted deceit alone does its influence proceed. Not one full stop's span past the last dead digit on the last limp limb of its last repugnant pusher will that tome ooze onwards.

 

[blue triangle]

That was my point entirely: if I'm to worship a fictional character, I might as well go with the interesting ones.

I know. And my point was that there is a difference between mythology and the living God, who, incidentally, is bigger and far more interesting than the gods of man's imagining.

I'm absolutely open-minded. All I need is evidence. Solid evidence.

But here's the question: are you open-minded?

Open minded enough to reject Christianity at the age of eleven, because it no longer satisfied my standards for truth, then 27 years later to reject scientific materialism for the same reasons.

Think about it this way: you live at the base of a mountain in your neolithic village. All is well. One day, the mountain explodes, killing a lot of people, and you barely escape with your life. The village is destroyed. But this is your home, and the soil is more fertile than ever, so you stay and rebulid. The soothsayer in the village then claims that the mountain was angry at the village because of sin. If you know nothing of science and tectonics and magma, it makes sense, doesn't it? You figure there _are_ spirits around, after all, and what do people do when they're angry? They make loud noises and destroy stuff, just like the mountain did. How do you appease an angry man? Sex. What do you have in your village? Virgins.

I suspect that's a rather simplistic assesment of how they thought, but there's probably an element of truth in it.

So you throw a virgin into the volcano and pray to the mountain and for generations, nothing happens, so you all figure that the prayer works and that the mountain is happy with your regular human sacrifices.

But you and I both know that there is no god in the mountain, and that the prayers and virgins have nothing to do with it not exploding for a few centuries at a time. But the priests' rhetoric is convincing, and the mountain's behaviour fits with the theory.

It's about people sticking with establish patterns of behaviour out of fear. They take a £10 Fine rather than a Chance. Science works because it is evidence based and (in principle at least) theories are abandoned in favour of new ones that fit the evidence more closely. As Robert M. Pirsig so memorably put it "The pencil is mightier than the pen." But it took a lot of courage to eventually trust the scientific method.

That's why you need more than the theory in order to convince people like me. All the words in the world are useless without solid evidence.

And that's the problem. I have shown some evidence in another thread. However, in general science has had little, or arguably no, success in detecting paranormal phenomena and spiritual experiences. Yet many people, throughout history and across all cultures, have reported spiritual experiences and psi phenomena. Therein lies an abyss, between what many people, including myself know to be real, and what science has detected. Yes, people can be mistaken and deluded and science has done a good job of showing where people can be mistaken, exposing charlatans and diagnosing mental illness (with reservations about some of those diagnoses). But many spiritual and psi experiences, as reported by people of obviously sound mind, are very compelling and suggest at the very least that the mind, the heights of which science has never scaled, is the key to understanding them. And if science ever does scale those heights it may well find philosophy and theology already sitting there, waiting patiently for their precocious but arrogant child to catch up.

It really doesn't. Science is the best and only tool we have to determine the truth value of objective facts.

Not quite. Why to we appreciate the value of science? Because we have minds to judge its value. Spiritual experience, hidden from scientific investigation but open, in principle, to all minds, can be judged for its value too. Again though, it takes courage to follow where they lead, and for the same reason it took courage to throw superstition away in favour of science.

Why? If you cannot prove that your god exists, why would I be required to make a leap of faith? Muslims and people of other faiths use the exact same reasoning. Who am I to believe, if anyone, if none of them can show that they have the edge of reality over the other claimants?

Can you prove the outside world beyond your mind exists?

 

[John Nowak]

Not necessarily. There is a definite possibility that the original means "in the beginning" to read as following a previous state instead. The word for "god" is also possibly plural.

Yes, in most texts, a phrase like "in the beginning" would be taken to mean "the first event related in the account."

 

[Belz...]

I know. And my point was that there is a difference between mythology and the living God, who, incidentally, is bigger and far more interesting than the gods of man's imagining.

First of all, please show the difference. Second, no he's not. He doesn't really do much in the story, and much of his attributes are part of dogma, not scripture. Third, as long as you can't show evidence that he exists, he IS a god of man's imagining.

Open minded enough to reject Christianity at the age of eleven, because it no longer satisfied my standards for truth, then 27 years later to reject scientific materialism for the same reasons.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "standards for truth", which itself sounds a lot like mystical claptrap, if you don't mind me saying.

It's about people sticking with establish patterns of behaviour out of fear.

And this doesn't apply to believing that the scary thought of death is an illusion because...?

And that's the problem. I have shown some evidence in another thread.

Could you show one such piece of evidence here?

However, in general science has had little, or arguably no, success in detecting paranormal phenomena and spiritual experiences.

That should tell you something, and here's why: every action of every thing in the universe has an effect on the universe. If you walk, you move the air around you, and crush stuff under your feet. If a photon hits an electron, it can knock it out of its orbit, etc. The things we observe are detectable even when we can't determine the exact cause. If science is unable to even detect the effect that people claim to see, then it should throw the claim into serious doubt, not the science.

Yet many people, throughout history and across all cultures, have reported spiritual experiences and psi phenomena.

Many people have reported thousands of different, weird experiences, some of which are mutually-exclusive. UFOs, ghosts, bigfoot, fairies, gods, you name it. If we follow your logic, they are ALL true, but they can't be, so your logic must be wrong: people report things and are mistaken about them, because humans have a tendency to fill in the blanks of their knowledge with nonsense. I'm sure you have personal experience in that as much as I have.

Therein lies an abyss, between what many people, including myself know to be real

This is why your "standard for truth" rang alarm bells for me. You seem to be conflating perception with knowledge. Some people believe that they can move objects with their minds or survive on air and sunlight alone, among other things which are demonstratably not true. What's the most likely explanation? That they are wrong, or that the entire body of scientific knowledge, and logic itself, is wrong?

But many spiritual and psi experiences, as reported by people of obviously sound mind, are very compelling and suggest at the very least that the mind, the heights of which science has never scaled, is the key to understanding them.

That is very naive. First, you are assuming that one's experience necessarily correspond to objective reality. Someone's fear of elevators is very compelling, too, even though elevators are the safest means of travel in existence. Second, why do you assume that it is of a "higher" level? why not lower? Because it feels so?

Not quite. Why to we appreciate the value of science? Because we have minds to judge its value. Spiritual experience, hidden from scientific investigation but open, in principle, to all minds, can be judged for its value too.

I spoke of objective facts, if you read properly. Personal beliefs are not objective facts.

Can you prove the outside world beyond your mind exists?

Yes, but you first. Don't change the subject, and don't change the burden of proof. You are the one making the claim, and I am challenging that claim. If you cannot or will not provide the evidence for your claim, then at least admit that it is not an objective truth but a personal belief.

 

[Darat]

Yes, in most texts, a phrase like "in the beginning" would be taken to mean "the first event related in the account."

According to the text of Genesis the only thing god creates ex nihilo in Genesis is light, the rest of his "creating" is all ex materia so something other than god existed prior to the start of the story in Genesis.

 

[Donn]

I know. And my point was that there is a difference between mythology and the living God, who, incidentally, is bigger and far more interesting than the gods of man's imagining.

How amusing: incidentally! [Aside, to audience: It works! Now comes the fog of reason and the moment of faith!]

I have shown some evidence in another thread. However, in general science has had little, or arguably no, success in detecting paranormal phenomena and spiritual experiences. Yet many people, throughout history and across all cultures, have reported spiritual experiences and psi phenomena. Therein lies an abyss, between what many people, including myself know to be real, and what science has detected.

It is not an abyss, but a scar where old mistakes were amputated; it throbs sore for many who have not sense's luck to see how close extinction was.

Yes, people can be mistaken and deluded and science has done a good job of showing where people can be mistaken, exposing charlatans and diagnosing mental illness (with reservations about some of those diagnoses).

This is an exemplary yesbut. I could not go from one hand to the other so oblivious to the hoodwink happening.

But many spiritual and psi experiences, as reported by people of obviously sound mind, are very compelling and suggest at the very least that the mind, the heights of which science has never scaled, is the key to understanding them.

Poor Science, forever climbing as Mind soars away before it, on tantalizing psails of psi.

And if science ever does scale those heights it may well find philosophy and theology already sitting there, waiting patiently for their precocious but arrogant child to catch up.

For nothing out-paces stepwise sifting like saltations of assumption. Your comparison is akin to granting comic book superheroes credibility; Usain Bolt, winded, chided by The Flash waiting at the finish line.

Why to we appreciate the value of science? Because we have minds to judge its value. Spiritual experience, hidden from scientific investigation but open, in principle, to all minds, can be judged for its value too. Again though, it takes courage to follow where they lead, and for the same reason it took courage to throw superstition away in favour of science.

The mind that judges science to have value is only human. It is quite possible to demean and cherish in the same embrace. For objection: the value of sifting truth is inverse to grifting sooth.

Can you prove the outside world beyond your mind exists?

Do they furnish you lot with canards when you leave sense?

 

[turingtest]

According to the text of Genesis the only thing god creates ex nihilo in Genesis is light, the rest of his "creating" is all ex materia so something other than god existed prior to the start of the story in Genesis.

"In the beginning" seems to me to be functionally equivalent to "once upon a time"- there's no implication in the one fairy-tale start that there was no time before the one that begins the story, and no necessary implication in the other that there was no other place than where the story is set. Most of what is termed "creation" sounds more like "organizing."

In any case, if the thing was written so it could be understood by men of the time, it's a fair inference that it was written by men of the time. It would have been a more impressive demonstration of knowledge foreshadowing what was theorized by science millennia later if it had said something like "in the beginning, in a place that was no place, at a time when there was no time, god banged it all out, and he saw it was big, etc."

(And so the recourse to "code"- if the bible doesn't say plainly to men of the time what was only known to men of a later, it must be made to say so by meanings hidden from the former and "discovered" by the latter)

 

[John Nowak]

According to the text of Genesis the only thing god creates ex nihilo in Genesis is light, the rest of his "creating" is all ex materia so something other than god existed prior to the start of the story in Genesis.

The first line is "God created the heavens and the earth." Light came later, and I agree it doesn't explain where the water came from.

 

[Shalamar]

And that's the problem. I have shown some evidence in another thread. However, in general science has had little, or arguably no, success in detecting paranormal phenomena and spiritual experiences. Yet many people, throughout history and across all cultures, have reported spiritual experiences and psi phenomena. Therein lies an abyss, between what many people, including myself know to be real, and what science has detected. Yes, people can be mistaken and deluded and science has done a good job of showing where people can be mistaken, exposing charlatans and diagnosing mental illness (with reservations about some of those diagnoses). But many spiritual and psi experiences, as reported by people of obviously sound mind, are very compelling and suggest at the very least that the mind, the heights of which science has never scaled, is the key to understanding them. And if science ever does scale those heights it may well find philosophy and theology already sitting there, waiting patiently for their precocious but arrogant child to catch up.

Religion and philosophy are stuck at the bottom of the canyon, pretending to answer questions. It's science that is scaling the sheer wall of the cliff in the pursuit of knowledge and answers.

Mainly because science is willing and open to the possibility of the answer being 'I don't know'. Religion claims to have all the answers if you would only believe. Unchanging, and endless is religion. Nothing new ever found or discovered. Science wants to know the answers for what is. Sometimes that answer is 'I don't know. Lets find out'. Religion has the only answer it can accept. 'god did it'.

Religion is the shaman at the back of the cave screaming that the thunder and lightning are because the gods are angry. Science is the person at the mouth of the cave looking up and asking 'Why is this so? What causes this?'

Religion is an unsatisfying answer. I want to learn. I don't want to be told 'Because thousands of years ago, it was written'. Religion is written in stone. Harsh and unchanging. Science is written in the sand. Sand because tomorrow new information could come to light to rewrite what we know.

I chose to not live in ignorance. And religion is ignorance.

 

[ComfySlippers]

This was the saddest thing I've read. Misery sure likes company, but trolling is no route to lasting joy, my friend. Get out of those slippers and get a life. And if it takes you six years to find one, it will still have been more than worth the effort - and then you too will be in a position to see the trollers for what they are.

A mighty pile of claptrap, as expected.

I have a life, 'my friend'.
I have no need to pretend to believe in poorly written fairy tales.
I'm not terrified of reality, or what an imaginary friend will do to me.
Nor am I scared of what some hypocritical bunch of weirdos at some local church will think of me.
If I thought my life would be improved by believing in imaginary beings, I'd admit myself to a psychiatric hospital.

Why on Earth you feel it's okay, as an adult, to state publicly that you searched for six years to find a non-existent invisible man, is truly sad.
Embarrassingly so, because you claim to have found him, and that you speak to him!

But, as with others of your ilk, your only answer is to call names and pretend to be better than others. An oh so typical believer tactic.

You believe in claptrap, and no matter how much you wriggle around, deep down you know that's true.

You're just too scared to say so.

 

[arthwollipot]

The first line is "God created the heavens and the earth." Light came later, and I agree it doesn't explain where the water came from.

It's not a linear narrative.

 

[logger]

So, be faithful to your wife... sometimes.

That is a place where I'm doing quite well. But as to your point. Christ can give many different versus on the best way to live, as human beings we could never obey 100% of the time. That is why we need forgiveness and grace.

 

[logger]

Shame your god is so impotent.

He's just choosy.

 

[logger]

Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven...sometimes.

You must be perfect...sometimes; as your father in heaven is perfect...sometimes.

I vote we renamed the commandments 'The 10 things you may or may not have to do, Sometimes, If you feel like it'

Not as catchy as I know.

How hard do I have to search for gawd? I looked under my couch, Behind the computer desk and even in my garden, That bugger is more elusive than my cat.

You guys clearly do not understand why Christ came do you.

Is it possible for a human being to obey the Ten Commandments?

 

[logger]

He came to save us from the fire he had kindled.

Yes, if you want it, its a free gift.

 

[logger]

If God wants me to believe, then by definition he knows exactly what would cause me to do so. I spent years looking for a reason to believe, but never found one.

Hence, I have concluded that God wants me to be an atheist.

Agreed

 

[logger]

Did you tie a bell around his neck when you found him?

That has to be the saddest thing I've read today.

Lol

It's the most spectacular event in my life and a small percentage of people are as blessed as I.

It's incredible that it would be so sad for you, and quite telling.

 

[logger]

I couldn't agree more. I would go further in fact. God doesn't do it the way believers want either.

God always does it in God's way, a way indistinguishable from blind chance. Weird that. There must be some rational explanation somewhere.

You've never been told of answered prayer?