scientific reasons for believing in god?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Good bloke
Says the person who cannot even accurately represent what his own sources say.
I am being honest. Prayer works but not always, what's wrong with that? It still doesn't alter the fact that God tells us to pray. We do pray in faith hoping our prayers will be answered but they are not always answered? Fact.
Original post by The Epicurean
If we start from the premise that our human senses are fallible; our eyes often fail us, we hear things incorrectly, should we not then exercise the greatest caution in regards to human testimony?
I am always reminded in these conversations of Thomas Hobbes who once asked what is the difference between saying "I dreamt God spoke to me" and "God spoke to me in a dream."
I am always reminded in these conversations of Thomas Hobbes who once asked what is the difference between saying "I dreamt God spoke to me" and "God spoke to me in a dream."
I am certainly not saying that we must believe whatever people tell us. From a car accident, to vandalism to a miracle claim - we must assess the testimony and the circumstances. But it seems people have an a priori problem with testimony mainly when it comes to miracles. Why pick miracles to take this biased view towards, as opposed to something else? E.g. Suppose that I say that I have so much trust in my friend Jim that I will never believe that he has done something really bad unless I can be "100% sure that my senses are not deceiving me." Would not this be said to be an unreasonable and closed-minded approach to any re-evaluation of Jim character? So, if I saw with my own eyes Jim beating a kitten to death, I would conclude that Jim is still a wonderful person unless I can be 100% sure that my senses are not deceiving me.
Such refusals to reconsider a proposition on the basis of future evidence are nothing more than closing oneself, a priori, to evidence. There is no justification for that sort of refusal. It is not as though "Miracles do not happen" is a mathematical certainty, any more than, "Jim is a wonderful person" is a mathematical certainty.
Naturally, with some things, we say that it would take a *lot* to convince us, and that is legitimate. That is why I do not lightly accept miracle claims and neither do other theists. But to state a principle of pure dogma against miracles, utterly closed to contrary evidence. I don't think this dogmatism can be justified.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Good bloke
So you are now aware that metaphysics isn't a science and that time cannot travel backwards or forwards in a quantum.
metaphysics is a science, a higher one at that
and time does appear to work in both directions in the quantum realm. don't ask me how. i don't fully understand it myself.
please watch the film down the rabbit hole i referenced earlier for further explanation of these facts. prepare to be amazed!
Original post by Copperknickers
I see. Although as a Classics student, I am now bound to inform you that the most common Latin word endings are in fact us/a, which is a distinction of declension rather than gender, in the case of nouns, and it is morphology not syntax.
Fair enough.
Original post by ThatOldGuy
What specific evidence would you accept?
What do you got?
Original post by chemting
I completely agree with your point about the evolution of society. Religion is actually a very good evidence for evolution (ironically). However that begs the question, do we need god now? Evolutionary traits are extremely malleable to the environment, and we all know that the environment 500-1000 years ago is much different to what we have now.
Do you think religion is needed for order now? or do you think morals, values and order can still be achieved through atheism.
Do you think religion is needed for order now? or do you think morals, values and order can still be achieved through atheism.
It's a difficult question because it's based around "how do we trick people to behave". I believe religion is VERY good for society, and religions have evolved over time to give the strongest possible society - marked by high trust, stability and high birth rates.
In the past, atheists who could prove God doesn't exist and there was no reason to behave in a "socially benefical" way were very dangerous because they could make the entire society collapse, hence why they were persecuted.
Now that atheism has won due to scientific advancement and sheer numbers it will be impossible to make people believe in God again and trick them into behaving well. So no, I don't think religion will work anymore and we need to find other ways to maintain social harmony. (Currently we're failing and society is collapsing). However countries like Russia are trying to reintroduce religious spirit to strengthen themselves, and it will be interesting to see if they manage against the wave of atheism sweeping the world.
Original post by mangala
you're implying religion teaches morality whilst boko-haram ( translated as Western education is sinful) slaughter nigerians
Well I'll tell you what, religion can organise a bunch of poor young men to take up arms, overcome the fear of fighting and the digust of killing someone, and commit their whole life to their cause. What else will give you such a dedication from people? This dedication can be used for great good as well as evil. Medieval cathedrals took hundreds of years to build, more than any builder's lifespan. And yet religious dedication means people kept working on them to give us beautiful megastructures today. As one example.
(edited 8 years ago)
I think the argument from causation has been mentioned here before, but i'll give my own reasons for believing in God
Firstly, everything finite has a cause - everything that we have come to observe has a cause for its beginning. The cause for my existence comes from my parents, and from their parents to their parents and so on.
If we continue down the line of causes, eventually we will reach the beginning of the universe - surely the universe is finite and must have a cause for its coming into existence right?
The cause for the universe coming into existence is due to God.
But what about God? Must God not have a cause if we agree that everything has a cause? If we still accept that everything has a cause, then an infinite regress would be apparent.
God's existence must abide by the implications of logic, therefore God must also have a cause!
However, the initial premise is that ' everything finite has a cause', God is not finite. Therefore God need not have a cause.
Secondly, if that doesn't work, then we can question logic itself. Valid inferences in logic are valid only because such rules are agreed upon by the academic community. Accepting a general rule for valid inferences in logic relies on individuals' intuition prior to adopting the logic in question.
God's existence isn't refuted based on a system that is manufactured by infinite minds, because the system that purports to refute God's existence is itself questionable.
Therefore God possibly exists
Anyways.. these are my thoughts...
Firstly, everything finite has a cause - everything that we have come to observe has a cause for its beginning. The cause for my existence comes from my parents, and from their parents to their parents and so on.
If we continue down the line of causes, eventually we will reach the beginning of the universe - surely the universe is finite and must have a cause for its coming into existence right?
The cause for the universe coming into existence is due to God.
But what about God? Must God not have a cause if we agree that everything has a cause? If we still accept that everything has a cause, then an infinite regress would be apparent.
God's existence must abide by the implications of logic, therefore God must also have a cause!
However, the initial premise is that ' everything finite has a cause', God is not finite. Therefore God need not have a cause.
Secondly, if that doesn't work, then we can question logic itself. Valid inferences in logic are valid only because such rules are agreed upon by the academic community. Accepting a general rule for valid inferences in logic relies on individuals' intuition prior to adopting the logic in question.
God's existence isn't refuted based on a system that is manufactured by infinite minds, because the system that purports to refute God's existence is itself questionable.
Therefore God possibly exists
Anyways.. these are my thoughts...
Original post by Infinite Potato
I think the argument from causation has been mentioned here before, but i'll give my own reasons for believing in God
Firstly, everything finite has a cause - everything that we have come to observe has a cause for its beginning. The cause for my existence comes from my parents, and from their parents to their parents and so on.
If we continue down the line of causes, eventually we will reach the beginning of the universe - surely the universe is finite and must have a cause for its coming into existence right?
The cause for the universe coming into existence is due to God.
But what about God? Must God not have a cause if we agree that everything has a cause? If we still accept that everything has a cause, then an infinite regress would be apparent.
God's existence must abide by the implications of logic, therefore God must also have a cause!
However, the initial premise is that ' everything finite has a cause', God is not finite. Therefore God need not have a cause.
Secondly, if that doesn't work, then we can question logic itself. Valid inferences in logic are valid only because such rules are agreed upon by the academic community. Accepting a general rule for valid inferences in logic relies on individuals' intuition prior to adopting the logic in question.
God's existence isn't refuted based on a system that is manufactured by infinite minds, because the system that purports to refute God's existence is itself questionable.
Therefore God possibly exists
Anyways.. these are my thoughts...
Firstly, everything finite has a cause - everything that we have come to observe has a cause for its beginning. The cause for my existence comes from my parents, and from their parents to their parents and so on.
If we continue down the line of causes, eventually we will reach the beginning of the universe - surely the universe is finite and must have a cause for its coming into existence right?
The cause for the universe coming into existence is due to God.
But what about God? Must God not have a cause if we agree that everything has a cause? If we still accept that everything has a cause, then an infinite regress would be apparent.
God's existence must abide by the implications of logic, therefore God must also have a cause!
However, the initial premise is that ' everything finite has a cause', God is not finite. Therefore God need not have a cause.
Secondly, if that doesn't work, then we can question logic itself. Valid inferences in logic are valid only because such rules are agreed upon by the academic community. Accepting a general rule for valid inferences in logic relies on individuals' intuition prior to adopting the logic in question.
God's existence isn't refuted based on a system that is manufactured by infinite minds, because the system that purports to refute God's existence is itself questionable.
Therefore God possibly exists
Anyways.. these are my thoughts...
Virtually every Atheist on the planet would agree that God possibly exists, but what is the liklihood of some God existing? The probability that some specific God exists is even less.
Why have you made a God existing your default belief, considering there is no actual evidence for any supernatural occurrences, surely it is wiser to believe that God does not exist unless evidence is forthcoming?
Original post by john2054
metaphysics is a science, a higher one at that
and time does appear to work in both directions in the quantum realm. don't ask me how. i don't fully understand it myself.
please watch the film down the rabbit hole i referenced earlier for further explanation of these facts. prepare to be amazed!
and time does appear to work in both directions in the quantum realm. don't ask me how. i don't fully understand it myself.
please watch the film down the rabbit hole i referenced earlier for further explanation of these facts. prepare to be amazed!
I think you are confusing your physics here. You seem to be confusing Einstein's spacetime continuum with Quantum theory. Maybe you might want to check up on Fay Dowkers work on the Quantum theory of time, where Time is not continuous but granular.
Metaphysics is a branch of Philosophy, I know some Philosophers like to think they are scientists, I doubt they are, unless they have multi-disciplines.
Original post by Scrappy-coco
But it seems people have an a priori problem with testimony mainly when it comes to miracles. Why pick miracles to take this biased view towards, as opposed to something else
That is an easy question to answer. Before you get to the explanation that an occurrence was a miracle you have to pass through many far more likely possibilities - lying (alongside an obvious history of such lying), mistake, atmospheric conditions, mass hysteria, trickery etc.
An hour spent looking at the tricks created by illusionists along with consideration of the fact that nobody has ever proved that they have paranormal powers, despite enormous sums on offer to do so, must tell any sane, analytical person that claimed miracles are unlikely in the extreme to be what is claimed.
Original post by john2054
metaphysics is a science, a higher one at that
and time does appear to work in both directions in the quantum realm. don't ask me how. i don't fully understand it myself.
and time does appear to work in both directions in the quantum realm. don't ask me how. i don't fully understand it myself.
I'm sorry, but metaphysics is not a science at all, and has no connection with physics; it is the branch of philosophy that deals with being, knowing and deities.
I'll leave you to find out for yourself what quantum really means and why time cannot travel across one. You'll kick yourself for not looking critically at the true meaning of what people using clever-sounding words are spouting. It is often completely nonsensical, just like your statement about time.
Original post by The Epicurean
If we start from the premise that our human senses are fallible; our eyes often fail us, we hear things incorrectly, should we not then exercise the greatest caution in regards to human testimony?
I would imagine that this justifies strong skepticism about religious testimony (including religious experience) only if a high proportion (say 0.2) of sensory experiences are non-veridical, but very few would want to say that.
Original post by The Epicurean
A con artist is someone who knows what is true, but says otherwise.
Now what David Hume points out as being one of the biggest issues is the conflicting nature of most religious beliefs. We have millions of people speaking with complete and utter conviction and who are willing to die for their beliefs, claiming that they hold the truth in regards to God, and many of these beliefs conflict one another. Are we to assume they are all right because they are numerous and hold their convictions so dearly, even though they conflict with one another?
Now what David Hume points out as being one of the biggest issues is the conflicting nature of most religious beliefs. We have millions of people speaking with complete and utter conviction and who are willing to die for their beliefs, claiming that they hold the truth in regards to God, and many of these beliefs conflict one another. Are we to assume they are all right because they are numerous and hold their convictions so dearly, even though they conflict with one another?
Hume's arguments do not come without their own criticisms though; for example, see this by Earman, or this
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by mangala
you're implying religion teaches morality whilst boko-haram ( translated as Western education is sinful) slaughter nigerians
As a Christian if I see God at work in people then they will be displaying the fruits of the Holy Spirit as evidence. These are:
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control." Galatians 5:22-23.
If they go against God's laws then they are not showing us God is alive in them. That means their God is non existent. If God is non exist in their lives then they can make up their own rules, and they do.
This is the evil we see in the world today but it goes deeper then that, if you believe in God (as a Christian) you realise there is a spiritual battle going on for the souls of men and the devil is very active. The bible says the devil prowls around the world looking for people to devour.
How clever of the devil to bind all religions up into one bundle and say all religions are bad. You hear atheists saying this all the time 'the world would be a better place without religion'. What they don't realise is that the evil they see is hiding under the name of certain religions, these should not be grouped together.
Original post by Racoon
As a Christian if I see God at work in people then they will be displaying the fruits of the Holy Spirit as evidence. These are:
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control." Galatians 5:22-23.
If they go against God's laws then they are not showing us God is alive in them. That means their God is non existent. If God is non exist in their lives then they can make up their own rules, and they do.
This is the evil we see in the world today but it goes deeper then that, if you believe in God (as a Christian) you realise there is a spiritual battle going on for the souls of men and the devil is very active. The bible says the devil prowls around the world looking for people to devour.
How clever of the devil to bind all religions up into one bundle and say all religions are bad. You hear atheists saying this all the time 'the world would be a better place without religion'. What they don't realise is that the evil they see is hiding under the name of certain religions, these should not be grouped together.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control." Galatians 5:22-23.
If they go against God's laws then they are not showing us God is alive in them. That means their God is non existent. If God is non exist in their lives then they can make up their own rules, and they do.
This is the evil we see in the world today but it goes deeper then that, if you believe in God (as a Christian) you realise there is a spiritual battle going on for the souls of men and the devil is very active. The bible says the devil prowls around the world looking for people to devour.
How clever of the devil to bind all religions up into one bundle and say all religions are bad. You hear atheists saying this all the time 'the world would be a better place without religion'. What they don't realise is that the evil they see is hiding under the name of certain religions, these should not be grouped together.
And Slavery! Still not refuted by the Christian apologists.
Original post by ThatOldGuy
That is a great question. Clearly, they can't all be correct - If only because Buddha states that there are many paths to Enlightenment while Jesus says He is the only way, right?
If Buddha is right then, even if Jesus was -a- way, he wouldn't be the -only- way as he said, correct?
This is essentially your question? That is a genuine and honest question and well-worth asking, but I want to know if that's your actual concern.
If Buddha is right then, even if Jesus was -a- way, he wouldn't be the -only- way as he said, correct?
This is essentially your question? That is a genuine and honest question and well-worth asking, but I want to know if that's your actual concern.
To an extent yes. Considering that there are some estimated 4,600 religions in existence right now, it would seem to me that there is almost certainly a competing or contradictory claim with regards to most fundamental religious claims between those 4,600. For example, the Abrahamic faiths take the stance that God created the universe, but the Jains believe the Universe has always existed and wasn't created by any God.
Original post by Scrappy-coco
I am certainly not saying that we must believe whatever people tell us. From a car accident, to vandalism to a miracle claim - we must assess the testimony and the circumstances. But it seems people have an a priori problem with testimony mainly when it comes to miracles. Why pick miracles to take this biased view towards, as opposed to something else? E.g. Suppose that I say that I have so much trust in my friend Jim that I will never believe that he has done something really bad unless I can be "100% sure that my senses are not deceiving me." Would not this be said to be an unreasonable and closed-minded approach to any re-evaluation of Jim character? So, if I saw with my own eyes Jim beating a kitten to death, I would conclude that Jim is still a wonderful person unless I can be 100% sure that my senses are not deceiving me.
The same issues that tends to arise with miracles, also arises with issues such as the paranormal and alternative medicine. William Lane Craig for example completely dismisses the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Would you argue that he is wrong there in taking such a stance?
Let us start with an example. I reject homeopathy and would only be willing to change my opinion should further strong evidence come to the contrary to prove homeopathy to be a valid form of treatment. This is in fact the whole basis behind evidence based medicine. Would you regard me in this case to be unreasonable and close-minded?
Such refusals to reconsider a proposition on the basis of future evidence are nothing more than closing oneself, a priori, to evidence. There is no justification for that sort of refusal. It is not as though "Miracles do not happen" is a mathematical certainty, any more than, "Jim is a wonderful person" is a mathematical certainty.
Naturally, with some things, we say that it would take a *lot* to convince us, and that is legitimate.
Naturally, with some things, we say that it would take a *lot* to convince us, and that is legitimate.
The problem is that it is a mathematical certainty that rare events happen. For example, a person with cancer goes to Lourdes and prays for the week. They come home and they go to doctor and the doctor finds the cancer has gone and s/he cannot explain it. Can the person now claim a miracle to have occurred? I would argue against jumping to such conclusions as it is still perfectly possible that an incredibly rare natural event may have happened that we just don't understand yet.
So much like the person who heard someone call their name, the person who is cured of cancer will speak with complete conviction about their cure. Other people will naturally be sceptical, but they can bring the doctors testimony as evidence. But even if we are to accept that their cancer has suddenly become cured, the truth is that we don't have an explanation for how or why. I believe it a reasonable claim to state "my cancer was cured", but to state that it was a miracle is for me quite a jump that needs more evidence, especially seeing that it is the case with all miracles that what we could be witnessing is in fact just a mathematically probable rare natural event. So to claim a miracle in this case is to claim that a mathematically probable event didn't happen.
In your example about your friend Jim, you were certain that your friend Jim was a good person, it would not be unreasonable to assume that maybe he was hallucinating or that some sort of insanity had come over him that led to him doing something that was out of the ordinary for Jim. So you can witness Jim killing a kitten, but still believe Jim to have a good character. I don't think that to be contradictory.
That is why I do not lightly accept miracle claims and neither do other theists.
I am more than willing to accept and believe the former, but I am sceptical that many theists set the bar equally high.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by dozyrosie
And Slavery! Still not refuted by the Christian apologists.
Yes it has been refuted many times. but you don't want to hear that.
Changes in slavery have been due mainly to Quaker/Christian influence.
Granville Sharp, Thomas Clarkson, and William Wilberforce,
Wilberforce being the main name associated with the abolition of slavery.
http://www.jubilee-centre.org/the-abolition-of-the-slave-trade-christian-conscience-and-political-action-by-john-coffey/
Original post by Racoon
Changes in slavery have been due mainly to Quaker/Christian influence.
Changes in slavery have been due mainly to Quaker/Christian influence.
Individuals that happen to follow those religions, yes. Those religions, no. If you claim for Christianity the credit that slavery was abolished then, I presume, you will be admitting Christianity's guilt for the Holocaust, since it was caused by someone born a Catholic. They are merely the opposite sides of the same coin: if you claim credit for abolition you must accept blame for the Holocaust.
Original post by Racoon
Yes it has been refuted many times. but you don't want to hear that.
Changes in slavery have been due mainly to Quaker/Christian influence.
Granville Sharp, Thomas Clarkson, and William Wilberforce,
Wilberforce being the main name associated with the abolition of slavery.
http://www.jubilee-centre.org/the-abolition-of-the-slave-trade-christian-conscience-and-political-action-by-john-coffey/
Changes in slavery have been due mainly to Quaker/Christian influence.
Granville Sharp, Thomas Clarkson, and William Wilberforce,
Wilberforce being the main name associated with the abolition of slavery.
http://www.jubilee-centre.org/the-abolition-of-the-slave-trade-christian-conscience-and-political-action-by-john-coffey/
Unfortunately none of these people are part of the Trinity that is God, God nailed his acceptance of slavery to the door, I cannot recall the Jesus part of God ever recanting his acceptance of slavery. I suppose these people that you mention are morally superior to God?
Original post by Good bloke
Individuals that happen to follow those religions, yes. Those religions, no. If you claim for Christianity the credit that slavery was abolished then, I presume, you will be admitting Christianity's guilt for the Holocaust, since it was caused by someone born a Catholic. They are merely the opposite sides of the same coin: if you claim credit for abolition you must accept blame for the Holocaust.
This is your deliberate 'misunderstanding' of what having faith in God is.
You can call yourself anything. Being called some thing doesn't make you that thing unless your actions reflect the message you are preaching.
As you are an atheist does that make you responsible then for the atrocities associated with Pol Pot and Stalin?
Original post by dozyrosie
Unfortunately none of these people are part of the Trinity that is God, God nailed his acceptance of slavery to the door, I cannot recall the Jesus part of God ever recanting his acceptance of slavery. I suppose these people that you mention are morally superior to God?
For some reason God has allowed a spiritual blindness to cover your eyes.
I think it might be so that in the future your testimony will be so much stronger. I look forward to that day.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Finding myself.
- Kallisto's Saturday Question: Miracle
- Christianity
- Morality is subjective in character with an objective compulsion.
- Masturbating - is it okay?
- Controversial views in Cambridge interview?
- are you religious? Wh? Why not? What do you follow?
- There is no Fermi Paradox.
- What is the meaning of life?
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 1 (H573/01) 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Eduqas A-level Religious Studies 1 (A120UA0-1-A120UF0-1) & 2 (A120U20-1) [Exam Chat]
- Explain two ways in which the belief about the creation influences Christians today.
- Anyone else struggle with which denomination church to go to?
- Can someone please mark my GCSE AQA Religious studies 12 marker :)
- archaeology/anthropology a levels
- (muslim/hindu advice)
- Edexcel A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 (9RS0 01) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- I'm an atheist but I like the idea of having a god to believe in
- I'm A Muslim. Ask Me Anything!
- OCR - Religious Studies
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 4 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 2 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset aboutTrending
Last reply 4 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 4 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 2 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset about
