# The reason God's existence can never be proven?



## Buck Trax (Jun 6, 2011)

Hello All,
Just want to start by saying I've never used this forum for anything other than the discussion of outdoors-related topics until a few nights ago. Until then, I'd never imagined that such deep religious, philosophical and scientific discussions were going on right under my nose, a few scrolls down the page! 

I’ll preface this by saying I'm a non-denominational Christian. However, I'm also a scientist and, as a result, generally question everything. I've enjoyed many of the recent ongoing threads, and they've prompted some heavy thinking on my part. One thread in particular, "The opponent of Atheists and the Religious", got my attention- http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=611961 In it, TTom made the following statement: 

"If [a] belief is based on reason and evidence it does not qualify as faith."

Achilles went on to post a graphic which illustrated differences in the terms atheist, theist, agnostic, and gnostic. The graphic's author made the following statement (although I don't know what evidence he has to support the latter sentence):

"A theist agnostic is someone who believes in gods, but thinks that they could not know for sure that their god exists. This is quite a rare position, as most people who believe in gods also think that their god can be known to be real."

Now, I know I'm in the AAA forum so most here don't believe in God and even fewer are Christians. However, I know that many of you are nonetheless familiar with the teachings of Christianity so I think you'll follow my reasoning here. Here are the assumptions necessary to my argument (I know many of you disagree with a couple of these assumptions, but entertain me). 

1.	The Bible is God’s word and is true.
2.	The Bible teaches us that we must have faith to be saved (multiple passages).
3.	If a belief is based on reason and evidence it is not a faith-based belief.

So, in bringing it all together… If we must have faith to be saved, and a reason/evidence-based belief is not a faith-based belief, does it not then follow that God would never allow us to absolutely PROVE his existence in a physical, tangible way since it would eliminate the need to have faith in Him? If so, this makes a strong case for why God's existence can never be 100% proven to us until it's too late to change our minds (i.e., death or Judgement Day).

Furthermore, shouldn’t all Christians be classified as theist agnostics? According to the graphic, I feel as though this is the category I fall into. I believe in the God of Abraham, but this belief is faith-based rather than evidence-based and, thus, I do not know for sure that my God exists. But according to the Bible, since I have faith, I’m still saved. 

I’m not preaching or ramrodding here, just pontificating.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 6, 2011)

That sounds logical to me although I disagree with your number one assumption. It seems to me you're leaving out at least a couple other possibilities. The first is that the cosmos could be the work of a deity who walked away after creation and could care less about what we do or what becomes of us. The other is that there simply is no such thing as a deity in reality. Your second assumption is true. It's also true though that the bible is chock full of cases of God revealing himself to man in order to change mans behavior. Yet these days it seems God only reveals himself to those who already believe in him. And the revelations now seem to be trivial matters that could have happened absent a God. Not like the earth stopping its rotation for a few hours so one group of men can finish slaughtering another.

If a belief depends on accepting something without reason or evidence then it becomes indistinguishable from any other belief that must be taken on the same basis. And it sure doesn't seem moral to me to expect that from creatures who are so dependent on a rational mind. A deity that created everything could if it wanted to, reveal itself to us in no uncertain terms and remove all doubt. As that hasn't happened I can only assume it is because they choose to remain unknown in which case it is completely pointless to seek them out OR... there is no such deity and these are just stories that men made up a very long time ago. Now which of those possibilities do you think more likely?


----------



## pnome (Jun 6, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> A deity that created everything could if it wanted to, reveal itself to us in no uncertain terms and remove all doubt. *As that hasn't happened*...



In the bible, doesn't God reveal himself to Moses? 

I think this presents a problem for the OP's logic.   How to account for instances in the Bible where God does reveal himself to men.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 6, 2011)

pnome said:


> In the bible, doesn't God reveal himself to Moses?
> 
> I think this presents a problem for the OP's logic.   How to account for instances in the Bible where God does reveal himself to men.



As I read the OP, I was thinking the same thing.  According to that logic, anyone God revealed Himself to, including the disciples of Jesus, could not possibly be saved.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 6, 2011)

It's not the OP logic that is faulty, the bible does say salvation depends on faith. But it also makes miracle claims and suggests that those miracles be used as a basis for faith. In other words according to the bible some are given evidence by God for his existence while others are expected to believe without evidence.

    Joh 14:11  "Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves."

    John 10:37,38 "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

     John 20:30,31 "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jun 6, 2011)

Buck Trax said:


> Hello All,
> 
> Now, I know I'm in the AAA forum so most here don't believe in God and even fewer are Christians. However, I know that many of you are nonetheless familiar with the teachings of Christianity so I think you'll follow my reasoning here. Here are the assumptions necessary to my argument (I know many of you disagree with a couple of these assumptions, but entertain me).
> 
> ...



I'd like to address assumption #1.
Can your reasoning explain some of the extraordinary tales of the bible?  Do credibility and believability play any roles?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 6, 2011)

Buck Trax said:


> If we must have faith to be saved, and a reason/evidence-based belief is not a faith-based belief, does it not then follow that God would never allow us to absolutely PROVE his existence in a physical, tangible way since it would eliminate the need to have faith in Him? If so, this makes a strong case for why God's existence can never be 100% proven to us until it's too late to change our minds (i.e., death or Judgement Day).



Using this line of reasoning, how do we determine which diety to have faith in?


----------



## Buck Trax (Jun 6, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> That sounds logical to me although I disagree with your number one assumption.


Well, I expected that  Just curious, have you read "A Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel?


atlashunter said:


> It seems to me you're leaving out at least a couple other possibilities. The first is that the cosmos could be the work of a deity who walked away after creation and could care less about what we do or what becomes of us.


Yes, this would follow, but you're violating assumption 1.


atlashunter said:


> The other is that there simply is no such thing as a deity in reality.


I agree this is another possibility.


atlashunter said:


> It's also true though that the bible is chock full of cases of God revealing himself to man in order to change mans behavior. Yet these days it seems God only reveals himself to those who already believe in him. And the revelations now seem to be trivial matters that could have happened absent a God. Not like the earth stopping its rotation for a few hours so one group of men can finish slaughtering another.


Yes, it is. However, isn't it possible that it was necessary for God to reveal Himself in those situations because, at that time, the Bible did not exist and thus there was nothing (i.e., a record) to make one lean towards having faith in His existence? Again, I stated the assumptions my conclusions operate within, and one of those assumptions is that the Bible is true. 


atlashunter said:


> If a belief depends on accepting something without reason or evidence then it becomes indistinguishable from any other belief that must be taken on the same basis.


This would be a logical conclusion if not for the fact that I have researched the history and the "holy books" associated with different religions and the evidence I have examined makes a stronger case for Christianity than it does for other belief systems. 


atlashunter said:


> And it sure doesn't seem moral to me to expect that from creatures who are so dependent on a rational mind. A deity that created everything could if it wanted to, reveal itself to us in no uncertain terms and remove all doubt. As that hasn't happened I can only assume it is because they choose to remain unknown in which case it is completely pointless to seek them out OR... there is no such deity and these are just stories that men made up a very long time ago. Now which of those possibilities do you think more likely?


How are you defining moral? How does your perception of what morality is have any bearing on that of a supreme being? However, if the Bible is true, (again not the point I want to argue here and one of my assumptions that was clearly stated) God is not asking us rationally minded beings to make a completely faith-based decision, rather a decision partly informed by evidence and fortified by faith.


----------



## Buck Trax (Jun 6, 2011)

pnome said:


> In the bible, doesn't God reveal himself to Moses?
> 
> I think this presents a problem for the OP's logic.   How to account for instances in the Bible where God does reveal himself to men.


See above response to Atlas.


----------



## Buck Trax (Jun 6, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> As I read the OP, I was thinking the same thing.  According to that logic, anyone God revealed Himself to, including the disciples of Jesus, could not possibly be saved.


However, remember that there was no Bible at this time. I'm not 100% sure how salvation was attained then, but it had not yet been outlined as faith-based. At least as I understand it.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 6, 2011)

Buck Trax, nice to have you around, I hope you stick, most dont. There is alot of good conversation that goes on around here!


----------



## Buck Trax (Jun 6, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> I'd like to address assumption #1.
> Can your reasoning explain some of the extraordinary tales of the bible?  Do credibility and believability play any roles?


While I agree that it is a very important assumption, and as Atlas indicated, my logic falls apart if it's violated, this isn't the point I wanted to discuss in this thread. I will say that I have investigated the credibility of the Bible though.


----------



## Buck Trax (Jun 6, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Using this line of reasoning, how do we determine which diety to have faith in?


Again, addressed in first reply to Atlas.


----------



## Buck Trax (Jun 6, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Buck Trax, nice to have you around, I hope you stick, most dont. There is alot of good conversation that goes on around here!


Thanks for the welcome. I'll stick around as much as possible, but I sometimes spend several weeks in the field, without internet access. Unfortunately, I'm so behind when I get back, I typically don't have much time for internet forums. I will, however, try my best


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 7, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Using this line of reasoning, how do we determine which diety to have faith in?





Buck Trax said:


> This would be a logical conclusion if not for the fact that I have researched the history and the "holy books" associated with different religions and the evidence I have examined makes a stronger case for Christianity than it does for other belief systems.



So, choosing which diety to worship is accomplished through evidence, then the salvation comes through faith?


----------



## Buck Trax (Jun 7, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> So, choosing which diety to worship is accomplished through evidence, then the salvation comes through faith?


I see your point. However, in bringing it all together, the way I see it is that we can pick up bits and pieces of evidence here and there, but we'll never be able to have 100% solid, physical proof of God's existence. Thus, there always will remain a need for some faith. It's the way I believe anyway.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 7, 2011)

I think with your assumptions, your argument can have some solidity... And you've said it several times that you understand that your assumptions have to be met... Most of the non believer's belief (or non-belief, whatever you want to call it), comes even before your assumptions... an assumption that has to be true for your assumption to be sold... "God's," assumes that there is one to begin with.. So if most of us fell off even prior to your assumptions, there's not a whole lot of conversation to be had...


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 7, 2011)

Buck Trax said:


> Thanks for the welcome. I'll stick around as much as possible, but I sometimes spend several weeks in the field, without internet access. Unfortunately, I'm so behind when I get back, I typically don't have much time for internet forums. I will, however, try my best



I really appreciate your post. We need more structure in our postings with these guys (They know God does not exist...so they have to be pretty smart ya know) and you have hit the head of a nail that I have been trying to drive for a long time... that will happen when someone is equipped with a good dose of wisdom. Thanks again.


----------



## Buck Trax (Jun 8, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> I think with your assumptions, your argument can have some solidity... And you've said it several times that you understand that your assumptions have to be met... Most of the non believer's belief (or non-belief, whatever you want to call it), comes even before your assumptions... an assumption that has to be true for your assumption to be sold... "God's," assumes that there is one to begin with.. So if most of us fell off even prior to your assumptions, there's not a whole lot of conversation to be had...


Triple, thanks for the mutually considerate debate. I know we've reached an impasse, but I enjoy exploring my beliefs with the help of objective individuals, such as yourself. Look forward to those to come


----------



## Buck Trax (Jun 8, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> I really appreciate your post. We need more structure in our postings with these guys (They know God does not exist...so they have to be pretty smart ya know) and you have hit the head of a nail that I have been trying to drive for a long time... that will happen when someone is equipped with a good dose of wisdom. Thanks again.


Glad you enjoyed the posts. Similar to what I said to Triple, if more Christians were willing to explore their beliefs, or really even realize what they actually believe for that matter, we'd all be better off. Furthermore, if more Christians were willing to LISTEN to the ideas and opinions of others instead of brow-beating them with short-sighted one-liners, more non-believers might actually be willing to listen to what we have to say.


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 8, 2011)

Buck Trax said:


> Glad you enjoyed the posts. Similar to what I said to Triple, if more Christians were willing to explore their beliefs, or really even realize what they actually believe for that matter, we'd all be better off. Furthermore, if more Christians were willing to LISTEN to the ideas and opinions of others instead of brow-beating them with short-sighted one-liners, more non-believers might actually be willing to listen to what we have to say.



One of the biggest faults of Christians today is not getting involved with people of non-belief, or refusing to inject themselves into the "world" because they are scared of it. Or, they turn out to be pharisees. When Christians realize preaching about God and Jesus to one another is comparable to one piece of clay telling the other piece how to mold itself we will be better off as a whole.


----------



## masiaka (Jun 8, 2011)

1st off, I fall into the same category of Theist Agnostic as you Buck Trax. But how do you define "proof"? To me, it's any amount of evidence or convincing needed to adopt a position. The problem as I see it is that proof varies from person to person; there would be no hung Juries or political parties if it didn't. This leads to a sort-of logical fallacy where people can have adequate proof for their own beliefs that pokes a hole in your logic. If proof is personal (and not universal), and some people claim to see evidence of God or miracles or what-have-you, then faith and proof aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## Buck Trax (Jun 9, 2011)

masiaka said:


> 1st off, I fall into the same category of Theist Agnostic as you Buck Trax. But how do you define "proof"? To me, it's any amount of evidence or convincing needed to adopt a position.


Good post. Glad to know I'm not alone. I define proof and evidence differently. To me, evidence is the little bits and pieces that point one's beliefs in a certain direction. An example would be a person's fingerprints at the scene of a crime. While you know that person was there, you still don't have conclusive proof they committed the crime. Proof would be the sum of all the evidence that makes a certain statement or belief undeniable. Using the same simple example, you might have a person's fingerprints at the scene of the crime as well as a video showing a person that looks like them committing the crime. Until you have proof, you can only go on what the evidence at hand tells you. For me, it leads me to believe in God, but I don't have 100% proof of his existence. I use faith to fill in the gaps.


masiaka said:


> The problem as I see it is that proof varies from person to person; there would be no hung Juries or political parties if it didn't. This leads to a sort-of logical fallacy where people can have adequate proof for their own beliefs that pokes a hole in your logic.


Good point, but here you're using proof to mean what I consider evidence. When a case for something isn't solid, but there are bits and pieces of evidence, different people will say the evidence tells different stories. Thus, things will be interpreted differently. We see this happen all the time in the field of science. A group of researchers will perform a study and say the results point to one conclusion, while others will say that it points to just the opposite. A prime example would be the idea of anthropogenic climate change.


masiaka said:


> If proof is personal (and not universal), and some people claim to see evidence of God or miracles or what-have-you, then faith and proof aren't mutually exclusive.


I definitely follow your reasoning, but I'm not sure I can confirm or deny it. With belief in God, it's easy for me to say that I use faith to fill in the gaps and lead to my interpretation of the evidence. With the scientific example, I can't use that term quite as easily. However, I guess scientists do actually use some faith in the formation of their opinion on the outcome of a particular study without saying so. An example would be the interpretation of a study that shows correlation rather than causation. They have the evidence to say two things have some sort of relationship with each other, but can't necessarily say for sure that one directly causes the other. Thus, they sometimes use faith in their interpretation of what the evidence means, while allowing for the fact that they aren't 100% sure the interpretation is correct. In this example, faith is more implicit, while in Christianity, it's explicit. I guess that's what I'm saying concerning my beliefs. I have a lot of correlative evidence that leads me to believe in God and His Word, but I'm not 100% sure my interpretation is correct, so I must have some faith.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 9, 2011)

I was trained not to associate myself with that kind of stuff. I wasn't scared of it. I was told not to do it. 



Thanatos said:


> One of the biggest faults of Christians today is not getting involved with people of non-belief, or refusing to inject themselves into the "world" because they are scared of it. Or, they turn out to be pharisees. When Christians realize preaching about God and Jesus to one another is comparable to one piece of clay telling the other piece how to mold itself we will be better off as a whole.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 9, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> I was trained not to associate myself with that kind of stuff. I wasn't scared of it.* I was told not to do it*.



I'm assuming here, but I would venture to say things like the above statement is why you have a bad taste for Christ now. I dont even know if you would know it or not because you would have had to have been brought up with people that did not make such unfortunate statements. I feel bad that you had to deal with that kinda stuff.... sucks. 

Thanatos is very very correct in his post!


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 9, 2011)

What do you mean? Being told to do things? Nah. That didn't bother me. I was just saying I didn't associate with people who weren't christians like me because I wasn't told I wasn't supposed to in church. Witness all you want, but don't associate with them or I might fall in to temptation. Something like that. 

For myself as a southern baptist, I wasn't afraid of hanging out with them, I was just under the impression that I shouldn't.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 10, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> What do you mean? Being told to do things? Nah. That didn't bother me. I was just saying I *didn't associate with people who weren't christians like me* because I wasn't told I wasn't supposed to in church. Witness all you want, but don't associate with them or I might fall in to temptation. Something like that.
> 
> For myself as a southern baptist, I wasn't afraid of hanging out with them, I was just *under the impression that I shouldn't*.



That was the point of my post, that is sickening that a young person(or anybody) in a Church body would be told that, those are the kind of things that lead people away from Christ. "We are not supposed to be hanging around those nasty sinners!"...... nobody wants to hear that crap. Jesus did just the opposite in His time on earth, ate,talked, and loved sinners, the main reason the Pharisees had such a problem with Him.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 10, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> That was the point of my post, that is sickening that a young person(or anybody) in a Church body would be told that, those are the kind of things that lead people away from Christ. "We are not supposed to be hanging around those nasty sinners!"...... nobody wants to hear that crap. Jesus did just the opposite in His time on earth, ate,talked, and loved sinners, the main reason the Pharisees had such a problem with Him.



See this is where the non believers like to stoop to and rest their case on, but in reality who in their right mind is going to tell child their child its ok to "jump in the car with that man, hes only a child molestor, Jesus did" 

There comes a time when folks have to use common sense. You can love, eat or associate with non believers 7 days a week, you always have to remember your reasoning for it and know that there is line where you cut it off. You cant lead them anywhere if you follow them.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2011)

Common sense.........


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 10, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Common sense.........



Yes.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 10, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> See this is where the non believers like to stoop to and rest their case on


What exactly do you mean by this?



> but in reality who in their right mind is going to tell child their child its ok to "jump in the car with that man, hes only a child molestor, Jesus did"


Your right, I didnt mean throw reasoning out the window, I was more on the lines of crossing the street when "one of those sinners" is coming your way. 



> There comes a time when folks have to use common sense. You can love, eat or associate with non believers 7 days a week, you always have to remember your reasoning for it and know that there is line where you cut it off. You cant lead them anywhere if you follow them.


Right again, I never meant to imply that it was ok to live a life of sin, or "if you cant get through to them join'em".


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 10, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> What exactly do you mean by this?



filter back through all of the threads, the non believers like to thrive on and highlight the words "trained" "taught" etc portions of post. Thats what I meant by saying they stoop to that try go the route of brainwashing when it comes to religion.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 10, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> filter back through all of the threads, the non believers like to thrive on and highlight the words "trained" "taught" etc portions of post. Thats what I meant by saying they stoop to that try go the route of brainwashing when it comes to religion.



oooohhhhh.... gotcha

I at first thought you were speaking of my post, I understand what you mean now.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 10, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> filter back through all of the threads, the non believers like to thrive on and highlight the words "trained" "taught" etc portions of post. Thats what I meant by saying they stoop to that try go the route of brainwashing when it comes to religion.



I call it training now. Taught I don't feel is me trying to equate it to brain washing. In church, I used to learn (something, maybe) so I must have been taught. 

I say training somewhat jokingly to myself thinking about goose stepping. I have too many personal experiences with it feeling way to much like brainwashing for me not to think it isn't. And it's not stooping. I'm not trying to be mean or call people names. It's sincerely what I feel happens at church.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 10, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> I call it training now. Taught I don't feel is me trying to equate it to brain washing. In church, I used to learn (something, maybe) so I must have been taught.
> 
> I say training somewhat jokingly to myself thinking about goose stepping. I have too many personal experiences with it feeling way to much like brainwashing for me not to think it isn't. And it's not stooping. I'm not trying to be mean or call people names. *It's sincerely what I feel happens at church.*



Of course you do, why would you think any differently with people "training" you to alienate yourself from non-believers. Hopefully one day you will decide to give Christ another try, if you do, sincerely ask Him to guide you in the right direction.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 10, 2011)

It wasn't alienate. And I'm not just referring to that aspect. It's believing the bible... I'm talking BASICS here.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 10, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> I call it training now. Taught I don't feel is me trying to equate it to brain washing. In church, I used to learn (something, maybe) so I must have been taught.
> 
> I say training somewhat jokingly to myself thinking about goose stepping. I have too many personal experiences with it feeling way to much like brainwashing for me not to think it isn't. And it's not stooping. I'm not trying to be mean or call people names. It's sincerely what I feel happens at *church*.



Thats a word used too loosely and used to paint with a broad brush. I know some folks that gather together and created their own "church", Sorry you had a rotten experience, trust me, theres some good apples on that tree.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 10, 2011)

I can't not speak from my own experience. But again, I'm still going back to basics. The basic ideas of the bible that are talked through in within the walls of some kind of a worship center.. However strict or giving the restrictions may be.


----------



## Asath (Jun 14, 2011)

I understand, sort of, what you’re trying to get at here Triplex, but you must certainly understand the difficulty with the OP, and the reason you’ve only had the equivalent of the local ‘Amen Chorus’ respond.

When you start with: “Here are the assumptions necessary to my argument . . . ,” and all three of those assumptions are pre-determined and based only in the conclusion you wish to arrive at, well, where is the discussion? 

You essentially asked, “ If you agree with my conclusions, presented as parameters for the discussion, then please present an argument in favor of that agreement.”  Your terms have no basis, so no real thoughts are being asked, and thus none have been offered.  This is hardly the scientific method of arriving at a conclusion.

First assumption that must be embraced: “The Bible is God’s word and is true.”  Fiction.  This cannot be demonstrated on any level, at any time, or by any person.  The assumption itself contains three further assumptions, internally, and is logically excluded for that reason alone.  

Next assumption that must be embraced: “. The Bible teaches us that we must have faith to be saved (multiple passages).”  Well, okay, but this is not a separate term, since it is hinged entirely on the first assumption, and thus qualifies as a following conclusion rather than as a term upon which an argument can be based. This is no longer, then, an assumption for the sake of argument, but the next level of argument taken from the first set of assumptions, which are already excluded logically and scientifically from serious consideration, and so this second condition must also be excluded.  

The third assumption is a complete non-sequitur, “If a belief is based on reason and evidence it is not a faith-based belief.”  This assumption cannot follow from the preceding two, and allows the sequence to derive at random. This makes the third assumption highly suspect, but not in and of itself invalid.

Clearly this set of ‘assumptions’ which were set as the edges of the argument were arrived at backwards, where the conclusion was first assumed, then the conditions for arriving at that conclusion were set.  But heck, it’s late at night, and it seems like folks around here are pretty forgiving of that sort of thinking, so I’ll play anyway . . . 

I’ll take the Third condition one thought further – If a belief is a ‘belief,’ and is not based in reason and evidence, then it is by definition irrational.  Further even than that – ‘faith’ is a word with many meanings.  

A child has ‘faith’ that the parents will protect and nurture them, being otherwise helpless.  As the child grows, and begins to doubt that ‘faith,’ having witnessed the many failures of the parents, that child then turns to a ‘belief,’ that the intentions are good, while the actions are not always as one wishes them to be.  It is a long process, this journey from infancy and complete dependency to self-reliance, and if one takes the same process of assumptions presented here, from one through three, that you placed above, and replace the word ‘God’ with the word ‘Parent,’ you may well have described the entire process of maturing.

If there is reason, and sufficient evidence to support that reasoning, then faith is unnecessary, as is ‘belief.’  But first, as a condition of a proposition becoming independently self-supporting, that proposition must first learn to walk alone, and not use other propositions (parents or gods) as a crutch.

To the same degree that the scientific method is additive, it is also skeptical, and relies on successive verifications of all prior results.  At no point is anything at all taken as a given.


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 14, 2011)

Asath said:


> I understand, sort of, what you’re trying to get at here Triplex, but you must certainly understand the difficulty with the OP, and the reason you’ve only had the equivalent of the local ‘Amen Chorus’ respond.
> 
> When you start with: “Here are the assumptions necessary to my argument . . . ,” and all three of those assumptions are pre-determined and based only in the conclusion you wish to arrive at, well, where is the discussion?
> 
> ...



These answers answer themselves in a way. If we had proof/disproof of God, we would not sit on our computers arguing about who has more faith in their beliefs, measured or not.


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 14, 2011)

Asath said:


> A child has ‘faith’ that the parents will protect and nurture them, being otherwise helpless.  As the child grows, and begins to doubt that ‘faith,’ having witnessed the many failures of the parents, that child then turns to a ‘belief,’ that the intentions are good, while the actions are not always as one wishes them to be.  It is a long process, this journey from infancy and complete dependency to self-reliance, and if one takes the same process of assumptions presented here, from one through three, that you placed above, and replace the word ‘God’ with the word ‘Parent,’ you may well have described the entire process of maturing.



You are comparing a human being (carbon based creature on a single planet) to God (omnipotent, omnipresent, creator of the universe, etc).


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 15, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> As I read the OP, I was thinking the same thing.  According to that logic, anyone God revealed Himself to, including the disciples of Jesus, could not possibly be saved.



Salvation doesn't come from simply believing Jesus existed....
Faith, has to be faith that Jesus is Lord, the resurrected Son of God.  The Messiah who's shed blood became the sacrifice for our sins.


----------



## BERN (Jun 15, 2011)

I would respectfully disagree on these two points.

1st point. The first step in the demonstration of truth of the Bible is to answer the question "are all people sinful?". My evidence: you do not have to teach a child to lie. No, that alone does not constitute proof. However, the series of philosophical tests formulated such as this one demonstrate the truth.

2nd point. Conclusions from scientific experiments carry assumptions that certain things are given all the time. For instance, theoretical physics assumes that the laws of thermodynamics are valid at the fringe of the observable universe even though that assumption is not testable.





Asath said:


> First assumption that must be embraced: “The Bible is God’s word and is true.”  Fiction.  This cannot be demonstrated on any level, at any time, or by any person.  The assumption itself contains three further assumptions, internally, and is logically excluded for that reason alone.
> 
> 
> To the same degree that the scientific method is additive, it is also skeptical, and relies on successive verifications of all prior results.  At no point is anything at all taken as a given.


----------



## Asath (Jun 16, 2011)

Bern: "The first step in the demonstration of truth of the Bible is to answer the question "are all people sinful?". 

Once again, if I may offer my own thoughts, I'm not sure that asking such a question can be a 'first step’ in any direction at all, since it presupposes a definition of 'Sin.'  I'm not sure that such a definition actually exists, since society at large has stopped (and wisely so) punishing its members for transgressions of ancient Biblical ideas.  Many of the Biblically defined 'sins,' and the prescribed punishments for such things, have fallen away.  How can this be if the Bible is the only True Source?  Conversely, morality has changed quite a bit, and if the Bible is the Sole Source of morality, then things such as slavery (which Jesus Himself is quoted as having endorsed and is clearly seen placing conditions upon the slaves) are thereby endorsed.  Most of us don't think so, including most 'believers.'  My only point in this thought is that what is 'sinful' has changed rather dramatically over the ages, and it isn't quite so easy to put one's finger on just what one can or cannot do from a strictly Biblical interpretation.

Addressing the 'evidence:' You don't need to teach a politician to lie either, but it is in the job description.  The fact that children learn to lie in order to get their way is hardly a ‘proof’ of anything other that that. 

And: " Conclusions from scientific experiments carry assumptions that certain things are given all the time."  Not true.  Maybe in early 7th-Grade Earth Science, where they are trying to teach the basics, and doing a lousy job of it, but even a short reading of modern science gives the lie to that -- the more they learn the more it seems that things are not at all cut-and-dried.  Any modern scientist worthy of his position will reject the notion that any law applies universally.  They simply start with a set of ideas (such as the long rejected idea that thermodynamics obtains with unfailing accuracy throughout the observed universe), and they test those propositions.  Virtually EVERY assumption that if something works here it must then work everywhere has been tested and rejected, because it simply isn't true.  

Unfortunately, this idea that religion must be right because science is flawed or incomplete ends up accidentally undermining the religious position.  Rationalizing aside, if there were actually a 'mind-before-matter' deity, one would expect to see quite a lot of uniformity in the behavior of the universe.  There is exactly none.  Theoretical physics makes no such assumptions, and has actually advanced to the point that they are trying to test such excessively odd ideas as string theory, multi-dimensional space, dark-matter theories, and a host of things too complex to describe in a single post.

The real reason, going back to the OP, that God's existence can never be proven is that there is no such thing as a God.  That doesn't seem to be a popular item of news, but even if one doesn't embrace or understand actual science as it currently exists it is easy to conclude that a hugely disorderly universe has no need to explain itself, and the easily observed fact that the universe IS disorderly argues rather conclusively against a 'Creating' mind that may have somehow wrought this mess.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 17, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Salvation doesn't come from simply believing Jesus existed....
> Faith, has to be faith that Jesus is Lord, the resurrected Son of God.  The Messiah who's shed blood became the sacrifice for our sins.



True.
But it requires a whole lot more faith from someone who is given no proof that Jesus even existed, than it did for a disciple who personally lived with Jesus and spoke with him daily and witnessed him performing numerous miracles and witnessed the crucifixion and resurrection and spoke with him after the resurrection and touched his nail-scarred hand and witnessed the ascension.  Anyone given that amount of proof should logically come to the conclusion that Jesus is telling the truth.  Belief through proof and logic is different than belief through faith.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> You are comparing a human being (carbon based creature on a single planet) to God (omnipotent, omnipresent, creator of the universe, etc).



Those are two comparisons but it is impossible to compare one thing that is proven to exist with another that solely exists in your mind.


----------



## BERN (Jun 17, 2011)

You are jumping way ahead and drawing conclusions that are not remotely related to the points I am making.

Also, your points about sin obfuscate the truth. I am not asking about a particular sin. Sin in general, does it exist? It is a simple yes or no question.

I am not arguing that religion is true solely on the basis of the weaknesses of science. There are those who claim that science is perfect and a method to discern the absolute truth. I am claiming that is not so. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please refrain from putting words into my mouth. Thanks.





Asath said:


> Bern: "The first step in the demonstration of truth of the Bible is to answer the question "are all people sinful?".
> 
> Once again, if I may offer my own thoughts, I'm not sure that asking such a question can be a 'first step’ in any direction at all, since it presupposes a definition of 'Sin.'  I'm not sure that such a definition actually exists, since society at large has stopped (and wisely so) punishing its members for transgressions of ancient Biblical ideas.  Many of the Biblically defined 'sins,' and the prescribed punishments for such things, have fallen away.  How can this be if the Bible is the only True Source?  Conversely, morality has changed quite a bit, and if the Bible is the Sole Source of morality, then things such as slavery (which Jesus Himself is quoted as having endorsed and is clearly seen placing conditions upon the slaves) are thereby endorsed.  Most of us don't think so, including most 'believers.'  My only point in this thought is that what is 'sinful' has changed rather dramatically over the ages, and it isn't quite so easy to put one's finger on just what one can or cannot do from a strictly Biblical interpretation.
> 
> ...


----------



## BERN (Jun 17, 2011)

A point that I would like to make here is that the definition of the word "faith" is being drastically misunderstood.

Biblical faith means dedication. We return to God's word faithfully. 

One problem with the discussion in general is that faith is commonly misunderstood to mean "blind faith" and that may be your claim. Let's be clear though that is not what I mean when I use that word.

I don't blame those who are skeptical of the Bible for drawing this conclusion. The overwhelming majority of Christians are challenged by it also.





HawgJawl said:


> True.
> But it requires a whole lot more faith from someone who is given no proof that Jesus even existed, than it did for a disciple who personally lived with Jesus and spoke with him daily and witnessed him performing numerous miracles and witnessed the crucifixion and resurrection and spoke with him after the resurrection and touched his nail-scarred hand and witnessed the ascension.  Anyone given that amount of proof should logically come to the conclusion that Jesus is telling the truth.  Belief through proof and logic is different than belief through faith.


----------



## BERN (Jun 17, 2011)

Asath said:


> the easily observed fact that the universe IS disorderly argues rather conclusively against a 'Creating' mind that may have somehow wrought this mess.




The disorder in the universe is explained by the thermodynamic principal of entropy. Testable and observable as you mention. So I assume you do not believe in evolution then since the emergence of well defined order in DNA and intelligent multicellular organisms would refute your point.


----------



## vowell462 (Jun 17, 2011)

BERN said:


> A point that I would like to make here is that the definition of the word "faith" is being drastically misunderstood.
> 
> Biblical faith means dedication. We return to God's word faithfully.
> 
> ...



This is a good point. In that case, the word faith is misunderstood by some. But I think its also overused by some christians as an answer to why they believe.
But based on what your saying, if the word faith is supposed to be taken as dedication, then does that mean that a christian is not allowed to have other thoughts? So if they dedicate themselves to the belief, that means they must reject every other possibilty out there? Is that correct?


----------



## diamondbowhunter (Jun 17, 2011)

jus askin are ya'll christian or what cause y'll are confusing the mess outta mee!!


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2011)

diamondbowhunter said:


> jus askin are ya'll christian or what cause y'll are confusing the mess outta mee!!



No, not all of us are christian. This is the A/A/A forum.


----------



## CAL (Jun 17, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> This is a good point. In that case, the word faith is misunderstood by some. But I think its also overused by some christians as an answer to why they believe.
> But based on what your saying, if the word faith is supposed to be taken as dedication, then does that mean that a christian is not allowed to have other thoughts? So if they dedicate themselves to the belief, that means they must reject every other possibilty out there? Is that correct?



I can only speak for myself and what my Christian belief is.I don't reject other possibilities,I truly don't believe there are any possibilities out there.I never ever look at possibilities.Like most everybody,and I use the term everybody loosely,there are questions I wish I could have answered but i really believe that God can only give me the true answer.I don't really think a human can answer my questions,if this makes any sense.

Just an example,why did a wave the size of whatever have to hit Japan and destroy all those people.Another,why are some prayers answered and some are not?Why do good people have bad problems it seems and the wicked low life just continue to do better and better each day.My question list can go much farther than this too.My belief in God and Jesus does not falter,I just wonder about certain things that happen.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 18, 2011)

CAL said:


> I can only speak for myself and what my Christian belief is.I don't reject other possibilities,I truly don't believe there are any possibilities out there.I never ever look at possibilities.Like most everybody,and I use the term everybody loosely,there are questions I wish I could have answered but i really believe that God can only give me the true answer.I don't really think a human can answer my questions,if this makes any sense.
> 
> Just an example,why did a wave the size of whatever have to hit Japan and destroy all those people.Another,why are some prayers answered and some are not?Why do good people have bad problems it seems and the wicked low life just continue to do better and better each day.My question list can go much farther than this too.My belief in God and Jesus does not falter,I just wonder about certain things that happen.



An answer of: "because no one is at the helm." or "because God doesn't care" will satisfy those questions more elegantly and to my mind, with less confusion than: "because He has a plan but I can't for the life of me imagine what it could be."


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 18, 2011)

CAL said:


> I can only speak for myself and what my Christian belief is.I don't reject other possibilities,I truly don't believe there are any possibilities out there.I never ever look at possibilities.Like most everybody,and I use the term everybody loosely,there are questions I wish I could have answered but i really believe that God can only give me the true answer.I don't really think a human can answer my questions,if this makes any sense.



You don't reject other possibilities but you never ever look at them? Well if the truth happens to lie in them I suppose you're content to never find it?




CAL said:


> Just an example,why did a wave the size of whatever have to hit Japan and destroy all those people.Another,why are some prayers answered and some are not?Why do good people have bad problems it seems and the wicked low life just continue to do better and better each day.My question list can go much farther than this too.My belief in God and Jesus does not falter,I just wonder about certain things that happen.



I've asked many questions like those and more. Then I asked what we should expect a world to look like where God didn't exist and I got my answer.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 21, 2011)

BERN said:


> A point that I would like to make here is that the definition of the word "faith" is being drastically misunderstood.
> 
> Biblical faith means dedication. We return to God's word faithfully.
> 
> ...



I agree that the word "faith" has more than one meaning in the bible, but it seems to me that when Jesus used the word "faith", He was referring to belief, or as you called it "blind faith".

Matthew 21:21-22
Then Jesus told them, "I assure you, if you have faith and don't doubt, you can do things like this and much more. You can even say to this mountain, 'May God lift you up and throw you into the sea,' and it will happen. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

Mark 4:39-40
When He woke up, He rebuked the wind and said to the water, "Quiet down!" Suddenly the wind stopped, and there was a great calm. And He asked them, "Why are you so afraid? Do you still not have faith in me?"

Luke 17:5-6
One day the apostles said to the Lord, "We need more faith; tell us how to get it."  "Even if you had faith as small as a mustard seed." the Lord answered, "you could say to this mulberry tree, 'May God uproot you and throw you into the sea,' and it would obey you!"


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 21, 2011)

CAL said:


> I can only speak for myself and what my Christian belief is.I don't reject other possibilities,I truly don't believe there are any possibilities out there.I never ever look at possibilities.Like most everybody,and I use the term everybody loosely,there are questions I wish I could have answered but i really believe that God can only give me the true answer.I don't really think a human can answer my questions,if this makes any sense.



You truly don't believe there are any possibilities out there. That sounds like someone that I've discussed here about my upbringing in the church... I wasn't "scared" of other possibilities, I was just told that there was no way they could be right, so there was no reason to even look at them. I believe I was misled to believe this so that I would keep my faith by not understanding anything about the possibilities that seem so much more logical and much more believable by a rational person than any kind of a god.


----------



## Asath (Jun 21, 2011)

Thanatos: "You are comparing a human being (carbon based creature on a single planet) to God (omnipotent, omnipresent, creator of the universe, etc)."

Not really.  There would first have to be a God for that comparison to be made, and no convincing argument in favor of the assertion of any god has ever been made.  I'm comparing the educated and the mature with the innocent, uneducated, and immature, in the quote you cited . . . 

Bern: "Sin in general, does it exist? It is a simple yes or no question."

I wish that were so -- that the question were so simple.  If forced to choose between 'yes' or 'no,' I suppose the answer would have to be NO.  'SIN,' as a concept, seems to be relative to the times and to the observers.  The Great Christian Saint Joan D'Arc insisted that she heard the voices from above directly, and since this 'ability' was not sanctioned by the Church Fathers at the time it was declared to be witchcraft, and she was burned at the stake for the same 'SIN' that many celebrate as 'Prophesy' if they approve the source.  As recently as the 1800's, in the U.S., a girl of fifteen who was not married was already considered to be an old maid, where today if one dares to touch a girl of such tender years a prison sentence results.  'SIN,' you see, is relative, and changes regularly. Seems to depend entirely on just who is in charge of deciding what constitutes 'SIN' at the time.

" We return to God's word faithfully."   I understand that.  The problem you face, in that pursuit, is that there is no God, and no such Word.  All gods throughout all of recorded history have been man-made constructs, and all of the 'Words' of those gods have been man-made words.  Yours is no different by being approved by King James.  Absent evidence, which does not in any fashion exist, that the Words you have faith in are actually the Words of a God, you're sort of left with just another Book in a world full of books. I know that is rather unfulfilling, and sort of a let-down, but it is true just the same.

"The disorder in the universe is explained by the thermodynamic principal of entropy. Testable and observable as you mention. So I assume you do not believe in evolution then since the emergence of well defined order in DNA and intelligent multicellular organisms would refute your point."   

Got much past Eight-Grade Earth Science?  Rudolph Julius Emanuel Clausius, who died in 1888, stated that the entropy of a thermodynamically CLOSED system cannot decrease.  This suggests that in any process that is thermodynamically reversible, the entropy of a thermally isolated system is unchanged.  Unless you've noticed that the surface of the Earth has been burnt to a crisp by incident solar input, an observation the rest of us missed, you may have learned that the the atmosphere functions as a heat engine, and the so-named 'Ozone'Hole' functions as a release valve.  The Earth is not by any means a closed thermodynamic system, and if it were we could not possibly exist.  Incident energy is received by the planet, and energy is also radiated by the planet in a number of forms.  This is a scientifically underinformed argument you make, and has no validity.

The disorder in the universe is wholly unexplained, and it is selective -- giant clouds of cosmic gasses and debris congeal sometimes to make stars and planets and galaxies, and other times those same forces conspire to cause those same ingredients to congeal into quasars, black holes, and other less hospitable realities.  I'd be gratified if entropy at the Eighth-Grade level explained all of that, but unfortunately it doesn't.  Nor does reliance on a God.

But we're working on it.


----------

