Convince me that God exists

[Kulindahr]

It's no more compelling than me saying I once saw the ghost of Howard Cosell in my living room.

But if millions of other people started claiming that they'd seen the ghost of Howard Cosell in their living rooms, it would make sense to take notice; and if there was a great deal of convergence as to what he did or said while appearing, even more so.

That's not a proof by any means, but it is an arrow that says the question deserves serious consideration.

True. But they are RATIONAL explanations, and not supernatural ones.

False distinction.

It's so damn better because there's not a shred of demonstrable evidence for the existence of anything supernatural. Belief in anything supernatural will affect how a person lives out his or her life and the person will inevitably make decisions based on these beliefs. In most all cases, it will be better to make a decision based on things that we can demonstrate are real as opposed to a decision based on fantasy.

I note merely in passing that your first statement stands in stark opposition to testimony down the ages.

Mostly I want to say that I could offer thousands of examples of decisions better made on the basis of religious belief. Where decisions get mucked up is when social imperialism is bonded to that religious belief.

How do you know that? Where is your proof for that?

Good question.

My rejection comes from the fact that I'm not buying it.

That's not an answer, it's a tautology.

 

[Kulindahr]

In response to the original poster -- who I think bowed out awfully quickly, given the generally slow pace of this forum -- I have these points:

1. As given in the title, it probably can't be done. I won't rule it out entirely, because missionaries through the ages have been successful in the most unlikely of circumstances.

2. As rephrased early in the thread, "that God could exist", I don't see as difficult. The original definition is clearly not contrary-to-fact, and does not violate any known science; ergo it's possible (the hypothesis has not been falsified, if you want to look at it that way).

3. I think the question you're really after is whether it's reasonable, or at least not unreasonable, to hold that God exists. That doesn't ask for proof; nor is it a mere exercise in logic. In fact it's something seriously looked at by a number of Christian writers (personally I like C. S. Lewis). If nothing else, one may ask whether assuming a Creator makes it seem more likely that the constants of the universe would establish conditions suitable for intelligent life; it is not unreasonable to answer "yes", and at that point it is not unreasonable to venture belief in a God such as given in the original definition (which is not, BTW, too extended; most of it is merely stating logical derivations from the term "creator").

 

[WillMc88]

I note merely in passing that your first statement stands in stark opposition to testimony down the ages.

That's not an answer, it's a tautology.

Testimony is not demonstrable evidence. Sorry.

And let me rephrase then: I reject the truth value of that statement because I have not been provided sufficient evidence to accept it.

Mostly I want to say that I could offer thousands of examples of decisions better made on the basis of religious belief. Where decisions get mucked up is when social imperialism is bonded to that religious belief.

I'm all ears.

 

[Kulindahr]

Testimony is not demonstrable evidence. Sorry.

There goes the court system.

And let me rephrase then: I reject the truth value of that statement because I have not been provided sufficient evidence to accept it.

Okay. But I'll note that given your rejection of testimony, that should be "evidence that meets my standards".

I'm all ears.

You can't possibly be ignorant of the decisions made to sacrifice for others, to engage in projects with no personal benefit, to donate for the sake of people never met, all because faith in God said those were the things to do?

Those things actually run in the millions, annually. That's why I said the problem comes when social imperialism is part of the mix, when the notion of imposing one's own religion on someone else comes into play. Believing that God is Three Persons in One Essence, or that Mohamed is the ultimate prophet, or that angels hang out on the highway to help people in trouble, or even that hanging crystals around people's necks promotes harmony and health, don't affect public policy in the least -- until people get the idea that everyone else has to agree, and that using government to accomplish that is acceptable, or worse, desirable.

One could invoke the denial of climate science, but that doesn't count as religion in my book, just as plain old deliberate ignorance.

 

[WillMc88]

There goes the court system.

Testimony is still not demonstrable evidence. If I was put on the stand and testified that a ghost killed Mr. Harper, would that be evidence to the existence of ghosts?

Okay. But I'll note that given your rejection of testimony, that should be "evidence that meets my standards".

Instead of asking why I reject the claim, how about you or the person who made the claim back that shit up?

You can't possibly be ignorant of the decisions made to sacrifice for others, to engage in projects with no personal benefit, to donate for the sake of people never met, all because faith in God said those were the things to do?

Those things actually run in the millions, annually. That's why I said the problem comes when social imperialism is part of the mix, when the notion of imposing one's own religion on someone else comes into play. Believing that God is Three Persons in One Essence, or that Mohamed is the ultimate prophet, or that angels hang out on the highway to help people in trouble, or even that hanging crystals around people's necks promotes harmony and health, don't affect public policy in the least -- until people get the idea that everyone else has to agree, and that using government to accomplish that is acceptable, or worse, desirable.

One could invoke the denial of climate science, but that doesn't count as religion in my book, just as plain old deliberate ignorance.

You said that these decisions were "better made on the basis of religion." Self-sacrifice and charity are not dependent on a religious mindset. They could have just as well been made by a secular mind.

 

[wenchine-mahtapasikan]

Testimony is still not demonstrable evidence. If I was put on the stand and testified that a ghost killed Mr. Harper, would that be evidence to the existence of ghosts?

Maybe. An HONEST confession may not always be the same as a TRUTHFUL one, but there may be something worth looking in to.

Instead of asking why I reject the claim, how about you or the person who made the claim back that shit up?

I don't recall saying it was impossible for some people to deal without religion. I meant to say it is WAAAAAAAY easier to deal when they have religion.
I think efforts to take this faith, rational or not, itself away from people for the sake of "being realistic" are unfounded, narcissistic, and inhumane.

You said that these decisions were "better made on the basis of religion." Self-sacrifice and charity are not dependent on a religious mindset. They could have just as well been made by a secular mind.

While I do not agree that this statement (religious statements are better) is necessarily true, I feel religious people can be equally and sometimes better equipped to make good decisions.

 

[altlover85]

Believing that God is Three Persons in One Essence, or that Mohamed is the ultimate prophet, or that angels hang out on the highway to help people in trouble, or even that hanging crystals around people's necks promotes harmony and health, don't affect public policy in the least -- until people get the idea that everyone else has to agree, and that using government to accomplish that is acceptable, or worse, desirable.

Is it necessary for religion to use government to become more accepted and gain numbers? I'm asking because I'm not sure.

You said that these decisions were "better made on the basis of religion." Self-sacrifice and charity are not dependent on a religious mindset. They could have just as well been made by a secular mind.

They could have been made by a secular mind, but I don't think we can really know one way or another if those ideas would be as widespread without religion because we don't exist in a society without religion.

I suppose if one thinks that God doesn't exist then they could say that religion is a natural idea or impulse and not a divine one and therefore even religions would be non-divine in origin. I hope that makes sense.

 

[WillMc88]

They could have been made by a secular mind, but I don't think we can really know one way or another if those ideas would be as widespread without religion because we don't exist in a society without religion.

I suppose if one thinks that God doesn't exist then they could say that religion is a natural idea or impulse and not a divine one and therefore even religions would be non-divine in origin. I hope that makes sense.

If you look back into the history of Christianity, you will see that any widespread charitable aspects of it are fairly recent developments. They arrived around the same time as humanism.

And yes I agree with the second paragraph. It's the nature of our species to find answers to phenomena, even if those answers aren't based on evidence at all. The scientific method wasn't fully developed and applied until fairly recently in human history. It's understandable that throughout the history of our species, people came up with their own explanations for natural phenomena and other things for which they didn't have answers.

 

[WillMc88]

Maybe. An HONEST confession may not always be the same as a TRUTHFUL one, but there may be something worth looking in to.

Regardless of whether or not a person believes what he or she says, it does not affect the truth value of that statement. If it's truth we are looking for, and not simply belief, then we would need evidence suitable to the type of claim made.

I don't recall saying it was impossible for some people to deal without religion. I meant to say it is WAAAAAAAY easier to deal when they have religion.
I think efforts to take this faith, rational or not, itself away from people for the sake of "being realistic" are unfounded, narcissistic, and inhumane.

I didn't remember honestly how that statement started in this thread, and didn't feel like going back to check. The point was that it is a claim I would reject.

And nobody here is trying to take away the faith of those who are not even engaged in this discussion.

While I do not agree that this statement (religious statements are better) is necessarily true, I feel religious people can be equally and sometimes better equipped to make good decisions.

Can you provide an example of a situation where religion is required in order to make a better decision?

 

[wenchine-mahtapasikan]

Can you provide an example of a situation where religion is required in order to make a better decision?

I say CAN. And it depends on the person.

Many, many (not ALL) atheists I know, while more mature intellectually, are so immature morally and often use this intellectual maturity to rationalize their self-serving behavior under the moral argument of "ethical" egoism.

Religious people that I know, while often intellectually less mature, are often better company to keep because the self minimizing tendencies of some religiosity keeps that egoism in check.

Who would you rather have making a decision impacting you? Somebody who sees the lack of existence of a higher power as an excuse to self serve (not ALL atheists do this, but MANY that I have encountered started doing this when they lost their religion), or someone who feels compelled to take the best interest of others into account? Does it matter THAT much if a compulsion comes from a "higher power" if that compulsion achieves a positive end?

I often find my most interesting friends are atheist, while the most reliable/valuable relationships I hold are often with the religious (in some form or another), even though my views differ.

Keep in mind, these statements are not generalizations. Even in my personal life, I have MANY experiences to the contrary of this. There are plenty of religious people I distrust, and some atheists whose morals comfort me. I'm just positing that SOME religious people seem more morally equipped than SOME atheists, in SOME part due to the compulsions of their religion.

 

[altlover85]

Razorz, I think Kulindahr has moved on from trying to convince you whether or not God is real or not and is evaluating the rationality of thinking that God exists, regardless of whether or not God exists.

The original question was convince me that God, as defined in the post, is possible and not that God definitely exists.

 

[Kulindahr]

Testimony is still not demonstrable evidence. If I was put on the stand and testified that a ghost killed Mr. Harper, would that be evidence to the existence of ghosts?

So, again, you're defining what evidence is acceptable to you. That's fine; I just want to be clear that your opinion of what evidence is acceptable is not some absolute truth.

Assuming you were being truthful, it would be evidence that something made you believe not merely in ghosts, but that they could kill. That in itself would be interesting, but questionable -- but if the attorney then put up a string of several thousand witnesses testifying to the very same thing, one ought to begin to think something was up, after all.

Instead of asking why I reject the claim, how about you or the person who made the claim back that shit up?

What, so you don't have to examine your own preconceptions? You're operating on assumptions here, but you act religious about it -- and not in the good sense, but in the sense that anyone who won't accept your position without question is just wrong.

And that, BTW, while it hardly proves the existence/reality of God, does demonstrate that a religious mind set can be found in the assertedly non-religious.

You said that these decisions were "better made on the basis of religion." Self-sacrifice and charity are not dependent on a religious mindset. They could have just as well been made by a secular mind.

Oh, so you're going to delve into the realm of fantasy or the hypothetical, now. Well, in that case, I'll merely point out that vile actions "are not dependent on a religious mindset", so every authoritarian, idiotic, ignorant, tyrannical and cruel decision made in the name of someone's God or church or religion "could have just as well been made by a secular mind".

Is it necessary for religion to use government to become more accepted and gain numbers? I'm asking because I'm not sure.

No (nor was I implying that). But for any ideologue, the temptation to utilize the power of the state, i.e. force backed by an aura of legitimacy, is what really messes things up. And when they think that using that power will actually gain them adherents, the results have never been good.

They could have been made by a secular mind, but I don't think we can really know one way or another if those ideas would be as widespread without religion because we don't exist in a society without religion.

That broadens the scope of my point, though in a way it makes it shallower. I was indicating that in historical fact people make good decisions all the time, based on religion.

I suppose if one thinks that God doesn't exist then they could say that religion is a natural idea or impulse and not a divine one and therefore even religions would be non-divine in origin. I hope that makes sense.

Yes. It's akin, though, to deciding that since there aren't fairies taking care of the flowers, just biological processes, the flowers actually aren't beautiful (not identical, just akin). It's also fairly like the mistake of thinking that because I can explain something, then no one did it.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you look back into the history of Christianity, you will see that any widespread charitable aspects of it are fairly recent developments. They arrived around the same time as humanism.

Right. But only if you consider the fifth century to be "recent".

There's a much higher correlation between charitable works and general prosperity than with humanism, BTW.

 

[Kulindahr]

Razorz, I think Kulindahr has moved on from trying to convince you whether or not God is real or not and is evaluating the rationality of thinking that God exists, regardless of whether or not God exists.

The original question was convince me that God, as defined in the post, is possible and not that God definitely exists.

I wouldn't say "moved on", though -- I was never trying to convince him that God exists -- in fact, I was never trying to convince him of anything, but rather the OP, though he seems to have gone absent.

But you're right; I'm addressing the preliminary question of whether it is not unreasonable to believe in God, which I think has to be dealt with before the more substantive question can be addressed. Part of doing that is puncturing the posture that begins with assuming that religion is just plain wrong because of preconceived, personally selected criteria that are not in fact the whole of human rationality.



personal note: It's frustrating at the moment because while I went through this on a personal level, due to incredible anxiety levels just now (due to facing maybe becoming homeless and having a friend arrested on the basis of planted evidence) I can't recall any of it clearly. The doc says that's not surprising, but that's neither much help nor great comfort.

 

[WillMc88]

So, again, you're defining what evidence is acceptable to you. That's fine; I just want to be clear that your opinion of what evidence is acceptable is not some absolute truth.

Assuming you were being truthful, it would be evidence that something made you believe not merely in ghosts, but that they could kill. That in itself would be interesting, but questionable -- but if the attorney then put up a string of several thousand witnesses testifying to the very same thing, one ought to begin to think something was up, after all.

You're the one who brought up the court system thinking you'd make a clever little quip. Try that defense while on the stand and see how far it gets you. If you're apt to accept things that have not been demonstrated to exist based on people (regardless of the number) telling you they witnessed them, then by all means, eat it up.

Just because a person sees something does not mean that their interpretation of what they saw is accurate. How would they know it's a ghost, or a god? Until I have a 'ghost' that I can examine and observe, then why should I believe what you saw is indeed a 'ghost?' Is it more likely that you really did see what you think, or that you actually saw something else and your mind played tricks on you?

What, so you don't have to examine your own preconceptions? You're operating on assumptions here, but you act religious about it -- and not in the good sense, but in the sense that anyone who won't accept your position without question is just wrong.

If someone makes a claim, it's their job to back it up. Quit trying to pin the burden of proof on me. Why should I accept that claim?

If I'm acting 'religious' by not accepting claims at face value, then I'll see you at mass. Otherwise, give me reasons/evidence/explanations/arguments or no deal.

And that, BTW, while it hardly proves the existence/reality of God, does demonstrate that a religious mind set can be found in the assertedly non-religious.

Ok. And the point?

Oh, so you're going to delve into the realm of fantasy or the hypothetical, now. Well, in that case, I'll merely point out that vile actions "are not dependent on a religious mindset", so every authoritarian, idiotic, ignorant, tyrannical and cruel decision made in the name of someone's God or church or religion "could have just as well been made by a secular mind".

Again, point?

 

[WillMc88]

I say CAN. And it depends on the person.

Many, many (not ALL) atheists I know, while more mature intellectually, are so immature morally and often use this intellectual maturity to rationalize their self-serving behavior under the moral argument of "ethical" egoism.

Religious people that I know, while often intellectually less mature, are often better company to keep because the self minimizing tendencies of some religiosity keeps that egoism in check.

Who would you rather have making a decision impacting you? Somebody who sees the lack of existence of a higher power as an excuse to self serve (not ALL atheists do this, but MANY that I have encountered started doing this when they lost their religion), or someone who feels compelled to take the best interest of others into account? Does it matter THAT much if a compulsion comes from a "higher power" if that compulsion achieves a positive end?

I often find my most interesting friends are atheist, while the most reliable/valuable relationships I hold are often with the religious (in some form or another), even though my views differ.

Keep in mind, these statements are not generalizations. Even in my personal life, I have MANY experiences to the contrary of this. There are plenty of religious people I distrust, and some atheists whose morals comfort me. I'm just positing that SOME religious people seem more morally equipped than SOME atheists, in SOME part due to the compulsions of their religion.

Ok well I can't think of any situations where a religious person would be better equipped to make a decision because of the mere fact that he or she is religious.

 

[WillMc88]

Right. But only if you consider the fifth century to be "recent".

There's a much higher correlation between charitable works and general prosperity than with humanism, BTW.

By all means, elaborate.

 

[wenchine-mahtapasikan]

Ok well I can't think of any situations where a religious person would be better equipped to make a decision because of the mere fact that he or she is religious.

Once again, your absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, especially considering a distinct possibility of confirmational bias.

I said there are examples in my personal life, but as personal testimony doesn't seem to mean much, a more well known example may be seen in the recent Shirley Sherrod (sp?) fiasco.

DISCLAIMER: I am NOT saying ALL theists are more equipped to make good decisions than ALL atheists. I am saying there are SOME theists that are more equipped to make helpful decisions than SOME atheists (YES because of their religion).

Shirley Sherrod had had a hard life and an easily understandable bitterness against whites not just for the institutionalized racism most minorities face, but, if I have the record straight, the fact that her father's life was taken at the hands of a racist.

Fast forward. A farmer evocative of these racists makes complaints to Sherrod as she is in a position to help. She at first considers taking an easily understandable vicarious revenge, but has an epiphany and realizes the struggle of farmers is in some ways beyond that. Undeniably, this took fortitude and maturity to resist such a karmic opportunity.

What does she cite as inspiration for this act? Logic? Therapy? Science? No. She cites her epiphany as God-sent. Could she have done this without religion? Maybe. Was religion a major player in this positive decision? Umm... duh. Does there exist an atheist in the world of similar moral stature to Sherrod that would have not made the same decision without influence from a belief in an egalitarian higher power? Surely.

I do not believe Shirley is more ethical than every single atheist, but she beats out a lot. Even if you think religion is beneath you, I feel the ends justify the means here. She may be "deluded", but more importantly she is comforted and enabled to make a positive decision. If anything, I think she was TOO merciful and positive. That condescending farmer woulda got his if I were her (note that I'm agnostic).

I think, if you did not even stop to consider my personal, anecdotal evidence, that is uber-limiting. If all possibilities require this level of discourse for you to even consider, and the honesty (not necessarily truthful) testimony of your fellow man isn't enough for you to conceive of another way of thought, you may be limiting yourself to more of the same.

No, I do not think an entire court case should be thrown any way based on a single unsupported testimony, but I think testimony has its value. At the very least it helps us check what we already believe.

 

[Kulindahr]

By all means, elaborate.

St. Benedict and others began hospitals and orphanages and schools back in the fifth century.

That beginning is itself evidence of my other point: these were men who had wealth and decided on the basis of their belief in God that it should be used to help others.

That charitable giving is correlated to prosperity is basic economics, and it doesn't matter whether the society is religious or non-religious. In fact, the difference in giving between Europe and the U.S. would suggest that a more religious society will give more.

 

[Kulindahr]

You're the one who brought up the court system thinking you'd make a clever little quip. Try that defense while on the stand and see how far it gets you. If you're apt to accept things that have not been demonstrated to exist based on people (regardless of the number) telling you they witnessed them, then by all means, eat it up.

Again, there goes the court system.
Most of people's knowledge is based on testimony. Most of what you know about science is based on testimony, for that matter.
We believe what the casualty numbers in Afghanistan are because of testimony. We believe what the weather was on the other side of the country yesterday because of testimony.

BTW, when you say "have not been demonstrated to exist", you're merely hiding your preconceptions in a serious-sounding phrase.

Just because a person sees something does not mean that their interpretation of what they saw is accurate. How would they know it's a ghost, or a god? Until I have a 'ghost' that I can examine and observe, then why should I believe what you saw is indeed a 'ghost?' Is it more likely that you really did see what you think, or that you actually saw something else and your mind played tricks on you?

When the testimony of witnesses converges, the result is more likely. That's a standard rule for assessing the truth of things.

If someone makes a claim, it's their job to back it up. Quit trying to pin the burden of proof on me. Why should I accept that claim?

Cute -- you made a claim, and now you want me to provide proof? The claim was that testimony is not evidence.

If I'm acting 'religious' by not accepting claims at face value, then I'll see you at mass. Otherwise, give me reasons/evidence/explanations/arguments or no deal.

I explained that -- and you're just acting religious again. You're demanding that all of us accept the position you have taken, and you provide no reasons to do so.

Ok. And the point?

Merely what I said. It's fuel for thought WRT the actual topic here.

Again, point?

I feel like I'm back teaching reading comprehension....

Your contention has been that non-religious minds by their very nature make better decisions. Your implication has been that this somehow militates against the possibility of the existence/reality of God. I took your own words and made the point that you're flat out wrong -- on the basis of your own statements.