God Speaking...anyone listening?

[EvoWarrior5]

I agree. If the quotation was to be attributed to me, I would have excluded the part you point out. It is, however, the speech of a fictional character which I chose not to edit by removing that passage. (Probably should have removed it.)

Nah don't worry about it. Quotes should never be edited. I failed to realise when I made my post that it was from a fictional character, in my mind I thought for a second that it was from a religious philosopher or something. Well technically the writer of the novel (?) did write it so maybe he did in fact have this view himself. Where is it from?


Also, to this thread in general, I find it interesting how on both sides, the views seem to be strong, instead of some people having a midway. One side composes of people who do not believe in God and have used arguments such as 'then why do bad things happen?' or 'why can I not hear him?' and on the other side are the strongly religious people who believe that God has a big plan which will make us realise that everything is perfect. I would also have expected to see more of an Enlightenment point of view, where some people (deists) started to believe that God was not really this omniscient being that brings good to the people who deserve it and punish those who have done bad, but instead, that he was the creator of man who no longer takes action or influences our lives. That all of our developments, growth, good things, bad things etc. do not come from him, but from our own thinking. This gives the idea of freedom a lot more, and to me, gives a lot more sense to the concept of Hell. If there is a Hell, then people who have sinned a lot would go there. Why would God let this happen, since his plan would be to get everybody an eternal life in Heaven? If God created us but man is responsible for their own sins, those who do good can live with God, but those that do bad would go to Hell. As I said earlier, this, to me, gives more meaning to the concepts of freedom and of hell.

I must say that I am not religious myself, but I liked this point of view and I am wondering if there is anybody who believes in this, rather than believing in a bigger plan or not believing in any religion.

[mal4mac]

That something is defined as supernatural does not have to mean that it cannot interact with the natural, though. Supernatural by definition only means that it is something that cannot be explained by science, which is exactly what God is. Unexplainable by science. The fact that he is supernatural, however, does not have to mean that he cannot interact with us, and (to some people) we cannot interact with him.

We can only know God by his acts, and there is no good evidence that his supposed acts (immaculate conception, resurrection, burning bush...) ever happened. Therefore there is no good evidence that he exists, whether he is supernatural, natural, or "something else".

[EvoWarrior5]

We can only know God by his acts, and there is no good evidence that his supposed acts (immaculate conception, resurrection, burning bush...) ever happened. Therefore there is no good evidence that he exists, whether he is supernatural, natural, or "something else".

I can agree with this, but you said that if he was supernatural that there would be no way for him to interact with us, which I defended by saying that this does not have to be true by definition. What you said earlier differs from what you say now; that instead of it not being possible, that there is no proof that it is true. This is a different case and I cannot argue about it. There is no solid evidence that he is real or that he is fiction. What I think however, is that absence of proof does not have to be proof of absence. I am open to a lot of views (which unfortunately limits my debating, especially in this case when there is no concrete evidence).

[mal4mac]

If there is a Hell, then people who have sinned a lot would go there. Why would God let this happen, since his plan would be to get everybody an eternal life in Heaven? If God created us but man is responsible for their own sins, those who do good can live with God, but those that do bad would go to Hell.

Why would that be God's plan? Sounds more like your plan. Most Christian sects believe in the all powerful, Old Testament God, who condemns sinners to eternal torment in hell. Some of the "nicer" sects, like some branches of the good old Church of England, have come up with the concept of a "nicer" God. This holds that people don't go to a permanent torment in hell, they go to purgatory and work off their sins, so that eventually everyone ends up in heaven. They reckon it's still worth becoming Christian on Earth, because you avoid a very long slog through purgatory.

[mal4mac]

I can agree with this, but you said that if he was supernatural that there would be no way for him to interact with us, which I defended by saying that this does not have to be true by definition.

I didn't say that, I asked a question, "But if God is supernatural how can he interact with nature?" I can't see how a supernatural God could interact with nature. Every time people have looked for the cause of events they have been able to find a natural cause. For instance, when looking for the cause of life they used to think there might be a supernatural "elan vital", but then scientists showed we do not need to postulate such a thing, as chemistry and biology can quite adequately explain how life comes about from generation and growth of chemical & biological structures. Lightning bolts were once though to be caused by an angry (perhaps supernatural?) God, but meteorologists found a better explanation, using basic physics & chemistry. So for all the events we see there is a physical explanation. There are only a few events (immaculate conception, resurrection...) that are holding on as possibilities for being supernatural events, but it seems like a desperate holding on, especially as Christians hold that they can only happened once, and that was 2000 years ago. Very neat... beyond any chance of all conquering science explaining them away as well. But why should we believe that these "one off" events happened? There is no good evidence for them.

absence of proof does not have to be proof of absence.

I'll accept that, along with Richard Dawkins. There can be no absolute proof of absence. But there is no proof of absence for Thor, Tooth Fairy, or Zeus. But do you believe in these things? Will you put a fallen tooth under your pillow, or raise hymns to the Gods of Mount Olympus and Valhalla, just in case, just to keep them happy. If not, why should you believe in the Christian God, and make similar genuflections to an almost-certain absence.

[EvoWarrior5]

Why would that be God's plan? Sounds more like your plan. Most Christian sects believe in the all powerful, Old Testament God, who condemns sinners to eternal torment in hell. Some of the "nicer" sects, like some branches of the good old Church of England, have come up with the concept of a "nicer" God. This holds that people don't go to a permanent torment in hell, they go to purgatory and work off their sins, so that eventually everyone ends up in heaven. They reckon it's still worth becoming Christian on Earth, because you avoid a very long slog through purgatory.

Ah well, I do not know much about the "Old testament" or the New testament and such. It's not "my plan", it's what I've seen formulated here.
Yes purgatory would also work here, as man would still be responsible for their actions but end up in heaven eventually. That conforms to the idea of the Deists that there is a God but that we were born to be free and we have our own actions which he does not press influence on or even predetermines everything. As stated in earlier posts it is not what I personally believe in, but I liked the idea of it.

I didn't say that, I asked a question, "But if God is supernatural how can he interact with nature?" I can't see how a supernatural God could interact with nature.

Yes, sorry, you asked about it. I wasn't fully wrong in my assumption that you were of the view that a supernatural God could probably not interact with nature though, as you say so yourself now. What I was saying is that something supernatural is not by definition something that has no interaction with the natural world. Although I cannot provide any examples of supernatural happenings or beings interacting with us, so I have no further argumentation here.

Every time people have looked for the cause of events they have been able to find a natural cause. For instance, when looking for the cause of life they used to think there might be a supernatural "elan vital", but then scientists showed we do not need to postulate such a thing, as chemistry and biology can quite adequately explain how life comes about from generation and growth of chemical & biological structures. Lightning bolts were once though to be caused by an angry (perhaps supernatural?) God, but meteorologists found a better explanation, using basic physics & chemistry. So for all the events we see there is a physical explanation. There are only a few events (immaculate conception, resurrection...) that are holding on as possibilities for being supernatural events, but it seems like a desperate holding on, especially as Christians hold that they can only happened once, and that was 2000 years ago. Very neat... beyond any chance of all conquering science explaining them away as well. But why should we believe that these "one off" events happened? There is no good evidence for them.

I see your reasoning that we do not notice anything happening by influence of a supernatural God. What one does have to wonder though: if these events you named were truly fake (the resurrection of Jesus for example), would it not have been noticed by quite some people, even back then? Surely you cannot tell me that one person ran into a village saying that Jesus had come to life, and people just believed it with no questions asked? Either people simply believed it and the story kept being told without anybody questioning it, or something really happened and that is why people kept telling the tale.

As for why it was one off, I do not mean to be the desperate guy here who keeps defending religion against all proof, but ever since 2000 years ago there has been no Jesus on earth. He was the only one ever to be resurrected, and there is really no 'need' for God to resurrect anybody else. It is unnatural and shouldn't happen. There would be good reason why it only happened once back then (if it even happened).

I'll accept that, along with Richard Dawkins. There can be no absolute proof of absence. But there is no proof of absence for Thor, Tooth Fairy, or Zeus. But do you believe in these things? Will you put a fallen tooth under your pillow, or raise hymns to the Gods of Mount Olympus and Valhalla, just in case, just to keep them happy. If not, why should you believe in the Christian God, and make similar genuflections to an almost-certain absence.

I don't mean to use lack of proof of absence as my only excuse as to why something can be real. I think at this point I am only trying to defend something which I do not even really stand for myself, which does not work very well. I will leave the debate up to other people who have their own arguments for believing God is real. I'd appreciate it if you could answer to this post and clarify a few things!

[mal4mac]

... if these events you named were truly fake (the resurrection of Jesus for example), would it not have been noticed by quite some people, even back then?

The gospels were written many years after the event, and were copied and copied by fallible scribes with their own religious agendas. They are just not reliable sources. Now others will argue against me, and if you want to come to an opinion on this you'll have to read a book or two. Start with Dawkins "the God Delusion" p.92 - p.97 and maybe read some of his recommendations on this particular topic.

[Ecurb]

The gospels were written many years after the event, and were copied and copied by fallible scribes with their own religious agendas. They are just not reliable sources. Now others will argue against me, and if you want to come to an opinion on this you'll have to read a book or two. Start with Dawkins "the God Delusion" p.92 - p.97 and maybe read some of his recommendations on this particular topic.

As an atheist, I agree that the gospels are not reliable. Nonetheless, a great many ancient historians, from Herodotus to Livy, also wrote many years after the events and they had their own agendas, too. Yet I'm not quite so skeptical about their stories.

The "reliability" of stories is often influenced by the extent to which we are willing or eager to believe those stories. I have a friend here in Oregon who claims to have seen a Sasquatch. I don't buy it -- but the guy is normally reliable, reasonable, and credible. It's not the nature of the evidence that makes the story incredible, it's the nature of the story. (Well, it's the nature of the evidence, too. He says he saw it at night, peeking out at him from behind a tree, 60 or 70 yards away.)

[mal4mac]

As an atheist, I agree that the gospels are not reliable. Nonetheless, a great many ancient historians, from Herodotus to Livy, also wrote many years after the events and they had their own agendas, too. Yet I'm not quite so skeptical about their stories.

Really? You trust Herodotus? You believe in the dog-headed men, death-dealing gods, life-saving dolphins, and public sex with goats? Plutarch dubbed him the 'Father of Lies', so I think one needs to careful. He's a good example that, given half a chance, historians will just make things up, or repeat any old fantasy, because 'it's a good story'. These days they tend to get into a great deal of trouble for doing such things, but in Ancient Times, they could get away with it.

[Ecurb]

I actually knew that Herodutus was called "The Father of Lies", so he wasnt a good example (he was just the only ancient historian I could remember immediately, along with Livy). My point is reasonable, though. Plutarch also wrote years after the events he described. Some events are simply more credible than others, even when the "evidence" for them is identical. If my friend had said that he saw a cougar instead of a sasquatch, I'd believe him.

[YesNo]

No it's not, religions have nasty doctrines like "Don't suffer a witch to live" that explicitly propagate cruelty. Think of the Salem Witch trials, and the persecutions of old women in Europe simply because they muttered a few off-colour words, or were said to have done so. Also, Dawkins doesn't promote violence against religious people, or suggest they should be treated as second class citizens. He just argues against their ideologies, and encourages them to adapt more rational & liberal attitudes.

Atheistic righteousness against religion is as bad as any specific religious righteousness against another religion. It is the righteousness that is driving the hatred.

In general, bigots don't promote violence against other people in a state that protects civil liberties because that could get them into trouble. Basically, they have no power to implement that violence. That's the way it should stay.

[mal4mac]

I actually knew that Herodutus was called "The Father of Lies", so he wasnt a good example (he was just the only ancient historian I could remember immediately, along with Livy). My point is reasonable, though. Plutarch also wrote years after the events he described. Some events are simply more credible than others, even when the "evidence" for them is identical. If my friend had said that he saw a cougar instead of a sasquatch, I'd believe him.

Plutarch is an untrustworthy, lightweight, tendentious commentator. He wrote as an Academic in the second century CE as the movement toward making Plato as the principal authority in all philosophical matters was gaining momentum. Stoicism needed to be dethroned, and he used unfair methods in an attempt to do so. The Pyrrhonist Sextus Empiricus was far more thorough and fair-minded in his presentation of the doctrines, making him and the actual stoics much better sources for details of the Greek Stoics.

That said he can't be totally ignored. For instance, Plutarch tells us that Epicurus was famous for the maxim “live unnoticed”. This is a splendid addition to the other maxims found in the Principal Doctrines and Vatican Sayings. To “live unnoticed” means to live a completely private life, with no involvement, beyond what might be obligatory for all citizens, in the public life of one’s community, and also with no ambitions for making a mark in any other public realm—in any of the arts or professions. This fits with the maxims we have from Epicurus' own hands, and his general philosophy, so is something we can accept more readily.

I've just read "Pursuits of Wisdom" by John M. Cooper who draws out how difficult it us to get a complete picture of the Ancient Philosophies from the main sources, like Plutarch, Cicero, et. al.

Your "sasquatch vs. cougar" point is a good one, I think. I'm more likely to believe Plutarch on a common sense, everyday, observation that Epicurus suggested "live unnoticed" than any of the (differing) stories of the resurrection in the four gospels, some of which make it necessary to believe in angels and such like supernatural things, beings for which there is no more evidence than there is for sasquatch. The Christian scribes had a Christian drum to beat so I think it very likely they "talked up the story", just as Plutarch "talked down" the Stoics.

[YesNo]

There can be no absolute proof of absence. But there is no proof of absence for Thor, Tooth Fairy, or Zeus. But do you believe in these things? Will you put a fallen tooth under your pillow, or raise hymns to the Gods of Mount Olympus and Valhalla, just in case, just to keep them happy. If not, why should you believe in the Christian God, and make similar genuflections to an almost-certain absence.

You can prove things don't exist. For example, the deterministic materialism upon which atheism rests has been shown not to exist by quantum theory in the early 20th century. Without those deterministic billiard balls, atheism is a metaphysics without a universe to justify it.

You can also prove, using the same quantum theory, that Gods who are so omniscient that they know the initial state of the universe and can predict with that everything that will happen don't exist because that initial state of the universe doesn't exist.

However, what you are trying to do with reference to Thor, the tooth fairy and Zeus, which are metaphors, is to reduce what consciousness comes up with to a Spaghetti Monster. The Spaghetti Monster is easier to critique although I prefer to skip the critique and grate Parmesan cheese on mine. Atheism at core is a lack of imagination.

[mal4mac]

You can prove things don't exist. For example, the deterministic materialism upon which atheism rests has been shown not to exist by quantum theory in the early 20th century.

A scientific theory cannot show that something doesn't exists; a scientific theory is just a model. Reality may make a model obsolete or reveal its limitations. Who knows, a deterministic material model may make a comeback, to reject this out of hand is to show a lack of imagination. Also, I don't see how atheism requires deterministic materialism.

[The Atheist]

Atheistic righteousness against religion is as bad as any specific religious righteousness against another religion.

So, Richard Dawkins slagging off theists is as bad as the crazy islamist sects currently waging total war against people whose beliefs are slightly different to theirs.

I never considered looking at it that way, but now you bring it up, I can see the attraction.