Does God exist? (13 Viewers)

[Drsoccerball]

Yes, unfortunately, but those are mostly a combination of delusional insanity, mentally...neuro atypical and also the law of large numbers. It's mainly the law of large numbers. In case you haven't figured it out by now, the law of large numbers is the statistical equivalent of divine intervention.

Are you really betting eternity on assuming massive groups of people where all delusional ? Read my edit above btw.

 

[Paradoxica]

But it's different when people ask for a miracle and that moment something improbable happens. But that's based on history and I can't use that argument with you guys because you don't believe things that you havn't seen

And also if something is impossible no matter how many tries you take the probability would still be 0.

Due to the law of large numbers, nothing is impossible, in principle.

Practically, though, you wouldn't expect to be able to use quantum tunnelling to phase through a brick wall in any lifetime.

The point is that the laws of reality are more creative than the limited human imagination.

 

[Paradoxica]

Are you really betting eternity on assuming massive groups of people where all delusional ? Read my edit above btw.

That also applies to the people who believe vaccines cause autism, the moon landing is fake, etc. except they haven't formed a religion out of it yet. Also I don't want to live forever. Seriously. Immortality sucks. You will eventually get bored of existing. Like I have, and I'm not even immortal.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Due to the law of large numbers, nothing is impossible, in principle.

Practically, though, you wouldn't expect to be able to use quantum tunnelling to phase through a brick wall in any lifetime.

The point is that the laws of reality are more creative than the limited human imagination.

Okay then. Ill give you a standard dice and you keep rolling it and call me when you get a 7

 

[Paradoxica]

Okay then. Ill give you a standard dice and you keep rolling it and call me when you get a 7

Why do you assume things are impossible. Seriously. Nature is more creative than your self-imposed rules.

 

[Drsoccerball]

That also applies to the people who believe vaccines cause autism, the moon landing is fake, etc. except they haven't formed a religion out of it yet. Also I don't want to live forever. Seriously. Immortality sucks. You will eventually get bored of existing. Like I have, and I'm not even immortal.

But you can't claim that you saw the moon landing be staged unless you actually saw it being staged. Did you hear about that mathematician who proved how long it would've taken to be revealed if it was fake? And no, he didn't work for NASA. When something so great happens such as the moon being split, someone being raised from the dead etc... in front of the eyes of many then you can't deny it. Also these wern't an act of "magic" as some people asked exactly what they wanted and it was given to them. Maybe on this world you may but upon infinite different things you will never be bored

 

[Drsoccerball]

Why do you assume things are impossible. Seriously. Nature is more creative than your self-imposed rules.

Then why can't nature allow me to roll a 7 on a standard die ?

 

[Paradoxica]

Then why can't nature allow me to roll a 7 on a standard die ?

Because that is mathematically defined abstract concept which nature has no control over. Unless, of course, something improbable happens.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Because that is mathematically defined abstract concept which nature has no control over. Unless, of course, something improbable happens.

If something in nature is deemed as impossible such as a miracle or in this case (not really) rolling a 7 on a six sided dice there would always be a 0 probability.

 

[Paradoxica]

unfortunately that argument boils down to
I choose to construct this system that can only be interpreted in this way

then asking
why can't this thing which is not admissible to my interpretation happen

nature does not impose arbitrary restrictions on events of realty, but those events can be self-imposing once they happen

e.g. once something falls out of an unstable equilibrium, thermodynamics makes it impossible without outside interference for it to hit that equilibrium again, be it a supernova, solar flare, jet stream, or meteor strike.

but that possibility will always exist, like any improbable event

also at this point I am fairly certain we are messing with semantics

 

[Drsoccerball]

unfortunately that argument boils down to
I choose to construct this system that can only be interpreted in this way

then asking
why can't this thing which is not admissible to my interpretation happen

nature does not impose arbitrary restrictions on events of realty, but those events can be self-imposing once they happen

e.g. once something falls out of an unstable equilibrium, thermodynamics makes it impossible without outside interference for it to hit that equilibrium again, be it a supernova, solar flare, jet stream, or meteor strike.

but that possibility will always exist, like any improbable event

also at this point I am fairly certain we are messing with semantics

Regardless would every prophet that preformed a miracle rely on the laws of probability to perform a miracle exactly when theyve been asked to?
Have to go continue later

 

[Paradoxica]

Regardless would every prophet that preformed a miracle rely on the laws of probability to perform a miracle exactly when they've been asked to?
Have to go continue later

...There are more failed attempts at these so called "miracles" than there ever will be successes, but because of the way human memory (and subsequently ancient recorded history) works, we only see all these "wonderful" events occurring, without seeing all the failed prophets who probably let people die in the process, and then claimed "it was all part of god's plan all along". This is the problem with religion. You can't win. You can only stand by and watch people suffer unnecessarily. Woe is me, the external observer who has little empathy. I will place my trust in the naturalistic progression science and engineering over a faith "healer" any day.

Also placebo effect. Not that's it's relevant or anything, but placebo effect.

Also nocebo effect.

We have naturalistic explanations for most of your so called "miracles", you know.

Note: Drsoccerball is currently busy, and I have marathons to post in, so expect more later.

 

[dan964]

Every once in a while something improbable happens and humans with their naive understanding of probability declare miracles. It's called the law of large numbers. Look it up.

The whole point of a miracle is that it unprobable. Rather than worried about whether it is a miracle, the main concern is can such a miracle be ascribed to a supernatural deity.

Some are, some can be loosely only by an extension of "working through the laws of nature" or using the expertise of the doctors/modern medicine...

the clear ones such as the resurrection of Jesus, being the main one that comes to mind from the Christian faith, are of the former category, and can be prescribed to something beyond naturalistic bounds. The vague ones such as healing of cancer etc. can be attributed mostly to the latter, which can be only through a general attribution of good things to God, such as rain on crops, through nature (as an extension of providence/divine will)

 

[dan964]

Many of the nations ask for miracles to prove that you're from God and also other reasons like to save themselves from certain things.

So? I didn't disagree with what you said.

That's one problem you have. I said something trying to get point A across but it covered point B a bit and you're criticizing point B disregarding point A all together. And now since you criticized point B I also have to address that. Stop doing that. By dominating I don't mean being oppressed. But that is one aspect of being dominated. Dominated I also mean as we are looked down upon etc... I'll give you his answer... :

Depends on whose looking glass you are using. I wouldn't say Muslims are being looked down, in specific, except maybe by the SylviaB types.
And one thing to note:
When I agree, I tend to not have much to say. When I don't have an opinion on something, I tend to not have much to say. Otherwise I will say.


Why did unbelievers triumph over believers? Consider the fol-lowing four points:

First: Although every means of truth must be right, it cannot always be so in actual life. In contrast, not every means of falsehood must be false. Since falsehood sometimes follows a true, right way, it can triumph over a truth that does not follow that way.

When does the ends justify the means? What do you mean by "means of truth", with truth there is only true or not, the only grey areas, are lack of explanation/knowledge, which are few.

Second: Although Muslims must be Muslims in all attributes and actions, they cannot always be so in real life. Likewise, not every attribute and action of the transgressors or unbelievers necessarily originate in unbelief or transgression. Therefore, by virtue of having Islamic attributes and conforming to Islamic principles more than non-practising [sic] Muslims, unbelievers may triumph over Muslims.

Possibly, but I wouldn't call them distinctively Islamic attributes. The whole question is what grounds can you compare for instance virtue? Well using the Bible as a standard, doesn't work for atheists, that don't believe in it for instance. The second thing, take this as constructive, is that motive is also needed to play.

Third: God has two kinds of laws. The first is the Shari‘a, which comprises the laws issuing from His Attribute of Speech, governs humanity’s religious life, and serves as the basis for Divine reward or punishment (usually in the afterlife). The second is comprised of the Divine laws governing creation and life as a whole. Issuing from His Attribute of Will and generally (but incorrectly) called “laws of nature,” their reward or punishment mostly pertains to this world.

The Qur’an insistently draws our attention to natural phenome-na, the subject matter of science, and urges their study. In the first 5 centuries of Islam, Muslims united science with religion, intellect with heart, and material with spiritual. After that period, however, the West took the initiative in science through its scientists’ (unconscious) obedience to the Divine laws of nature. This obedi-ence engendered the West’s domination of the Muslim world, for the latter no longer pursued Islam’s religious and scientific aspects. Power and force have some right in life, and have been created for some wise purpose. Equipped with force through science and tech-nology, the West triumphed over the Muslim world.

I already addressed that, and you even addressed in your previous point. I don't think most would agree with the second sentence, cannot comment on the first sentence concerning the Quran saying this. As I mentioned, there are other factors, not all of those of the West do science purely out of obedience to the laws of nature, but rather observe the laws of nature and wish to find out about them.

I think my "latter" you might mean "former" as in the West did not pursue Muslim's scientific or religious advancements. The reason for the latter (second of the two), can be ascribed to two things, Christianity and the second is secularism/atheism. These two world views have been the main driving force in the West. For Christians, they see the order in creation and beauty as a work of God, and seek to understand it, for the atheist (or technically the naturalist), this world is all that there is, so they seek to understand it, to better understand the extent of which is for them, reality.
[/quote]

Fourth: Muslims gradually deprived Islam of its force, allowed it to become diluted, and caused it to lose its purity and authenticity. Just as a hawk’s attacks causes a sparrow to develop its power of defense, God allows unbelief to attack Islam successfully so that Muslims will restore Islam to its original purity and force.

That last quote is probably concerning, because the last thing Islam needs is a reformation to its roots, because in the minds of most Western people, its roots aren't that pretty. Yes there may be many moderate Muslims today, but a more strict "undiluted" literal reading of the Quran, is
the last thing the religion needs.

Again... I said that although the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, if any, we still have to confirm with our hearts and minds God's existence proving him logically. I never said that it's a proof of God did I?

No you implied it, it was more of a forewarning. Your dialogue that continued with paradoxica, suggests that your emphasis was on it more than the "confirmation in hearts" part though. Like I said, sociological arguments and Pascal's arguments are weak in the eyes of non-theists, as I say this as a theist.

There were also Muslim scientists what's your point? Science seemed as contradicting religion through Galileo's proof of celestial bodies not being perfect appearing wrong in regards to the church and many other observations ? Look at ustadh's answer. Also what Islam thread?

I was addressing #3 and making an observation, that the factors you presume for the West dominance over Muslim, are not necessarily "obedience to the divine law" but rather because they are operating from two remotely different frameworks, Christian or naturalistic.[/quote]

Yes, I agree because the Quran isn't a book of science its a book of signs. It's not sent down to teach science rather to encourage it and we Muslims' can see even if a slight scientific fact no matter how vague it is, is a sign for us.

I would agree that the Quran doesn't teach science. With the regard, we have already discussed the supposed vague scientific facts in the Quran, so need for me to rehash anything on that.

 

[Paradoxica]

The whole point of a miracle is that it unprobable. Rather than worried about whether it is a miracle, the main concern is can such a miracle be ascribed to a supernatural deity.

Some are, some can be loosely only by an extension of "working through the laws of nature" or using the expertise of the doctors/modern medicine...

the clear ones such as the resurrection of Jesus, being the main one that comes to mind from the Christian faith, are of the former category, and can be prescribed to something beyond naturalistic bounds. The vague ones such as healing of cancer etc. can be attributed mostly to the latter, which can be only through a general attribution of good things to God, such as rain on crops, through nature (as an extension of providence/divine will)

Yeah, no, I'm gonna need at least every single historian in the world agreeing on that one for that to even be in the slightest convincing.

Also, history is written by the insane, as I have seen.

 

[dan964]

Also, history is written by the insane, as I have seen.

To use your words, Yeah, no, I'm gonna need at least every single historian in the world agreeing on that one for that to even be in the slightest convincing.

And since when did we appeal to authority/majority like that? And I don't recommend out-of-hand dismissals, there are just about as fallacious as blind faith (believing without checking the evidence)

When was science done like this? I am going to need every single scientist on the world agreeing for instance on climate change to be the slightest convincing.
I don't think history or studying historical* literature is any different.

So I am afraid, your expectations may be a bit unrealistic.

*or other forms, in case you dispute my usage here.

In the case of the resurrection which I suspect your original quip was in response to.

Biblical scholar Géza Vermes analyzes this subject in his book, The Resurrection. He concludes that there are eight possible theories to explain the "resurrection of Jesus". Vermes outlines his boundaries as follows,

"I have discounted the two extremes that are not susceptible to rational judgment, the blind faith of the fundamentalist believer and the out-of-hand rejection of the inveterate skeptic. The fundamentalists accept the story, not as written down in the New Testament texts, but as reshaped, transmitted, and interpreted by Church tradition. They smooth down the rough edges and abstain from asking tiresome questions. The unbelievers, in turn, treat the whole Resurrection story as the figment of early Christian imagination. Most inquirers with a smattering of knowledge of the history of religions will find themselves between these two poles."

From his analysis, Vermes presents the remaining six possibilities to explain the resurrection of Jesus account,
(1) "The body was removed by someone unconnected with Jesus",
(2) "The body of Jesus was stolen by his disciples",
(3) "The empty tomb was not the tomb of Jesus",
(4) Buried alive, Jesus later left the tomb", (a variant on the swoon theory)
(5) Jesus recovered from a coma and departed Judea, (another variant on the swoon theory)
and (6) the possibility that there was a "spiritual, not bodily, resurrection".
[I will also add there are more, if you consider Islam's view of the death of Jesus as not occurring at all]

Vermes states that none of these six possibilities are likely to be historical.

(1) is speculative, (2) is the claim documented as being held by the Jews, which is if you are really really optimistic, plausible.

(3) I will just say very quickly, that the whole thing was fairly public, a public execution. So we have no evidence for this claim, and we have evidence that suggest otherwise.

(4) and (5) I can discredit if needed, in either detail or in a short reply. (5) is held by some other faiths.

(6) is held by liberal Christians, but it seems inconsistent with the testimony of the disciples.
(7) I highly doubt, evidence suggests the contrary.

 

[dan964]

...There are more failed attempts at these so called "miracles" than there ever will be successes, but because of the way human memory (and subsequently ancient recorded history) works, we only see all these "wonderful" events occurring, without seeing all the failed prophets who probably let people die in the process, and then claimed "it was all part of god's plan all along". This is the problem with religion. You can't win. You can only stand by and watch people suffer unnecessarily. Woe is me, the external observer who has little empathy. I will place my trust in the naturalistic progression science and engineering over a faith "healer" any day.
Also placebo effect. Not that's it's relevant or anything, but placebo effect. Also nocebo effect.
We have naturalistic explanations for most of your so called "miracles", you know.
Note: Drsoccerball is currently busy, and I have marathons to post in, so expect more later.

There isn’t much I would dispute, in the first sentence. Indeed, in very of Jews for instance, Jesus is a false teacher. In the view of Christians, Mohammed (and the Ba’hai’s prophet equivalent) are both false etc. Failed prophets tend to also be false prophets.
[1] Concerning people suffering unnecessarily.

Religious people have indeed different explanations for suffering, for instance suffering for the Buddhist, is because of desire. For the Hindu it is part of karma (balance), so wouldn’t be described as unnecessary. For Islam, suffering is the will of Allah, and one just needs to submit (DrSoccerball, please correct if wrong).

For Christians, suffering is a result of the brokenness of the world, and offers hope in two ways, one in that God himself becomes involved in our sufferings and afflictions as a man (Jesus Christ), and that also that, let me use an analogy, this reality is comparable to the period of history in World-War II, except that we are living in the period between D-day and V-day. The victory over suffering, evil and death has been won, but the end of the war is not over if you get what I am saying.
I'd also be very careful to put all religions into the same basket. Even Christianity & Islam, which are supposed to be related religions, are very much different, especially on just this topic.

[2] Concerning naturalism.
Paradoxica, your position seems possibly too well summarised by this Freudian quote:
“They [religions] are illusions, fulfilments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind... As we already know; the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection – for protection through love – which was provided by the father.... Thus the benevolent rule of divine providence allays our fear of the dangers of life. “

I have every reason to be sceptical of a lot of faith-healing ministries myself, and “miracles” can be indeed false attributed, but not necessarily in all cases. I know I wouldn't be one to place my bets in naturalism any more than a faith healer, because I find that both lead to the same disappointment.

I can expand on either later, but like most I have other things to attend to.

 

[Paradoxica]

There isn’t much I would dispute, in the first sentence. Indeed, in very of Jews for instance, Jesus is a false teacher. In the view of Christians, Mohammed (and the Ba’hai’s prophet equivalent) are both false etc. Failed prophets tend to also be false prophets.
[1] Concerning people suffering unnecessarily.

Religious people have indeed different explanations for suffering, for instance suffering for the Buddhist, is because of desire. For the Hindu it is part of karma (balance), so wouldn’t be described as unnecessary. For Islam, suffering is the will of Allah, and one just needs to submit (DrSoccerball, please correct if wrong).

For Christians, suffering is a result of the brokenness of the world, and offers hope in two ways, one in that God himself becomes involved in our sufferings and afflictions as a man (Jesus Christ), and that also that, let me use an analogy, this reality is comparable to the period of history in World-War II, except that we are living in the period between D-day and V-day. The victory over suffering, evil and death has been won, but the end of the war is not over if you get what I am saying.
I'd also be very careful to put all religions into the same basket. Even Christianity & Islam, which are supposed to be related religions, are very much different, especially on just this topic.

[2] Concerning naturalism.
Paradoxica, your position seems possibly too well summarised by this Freudian quote:
“They [religions] are illusions, fulfilments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind... As we already know; the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection – for protection through love – which was provided by the father.... Thus the benevolent rule of divine providence allays our fear of the dangers of life. “

I have every reason to be sceptical of a lot of faith-healing ministries myself, and “miracles” can be indeed false attributed, but not necessarily in all cases. I know I wouldn't be one to place my bets in naturalism any more than a faith healer, because I find that both lead to the same disappointment.

I can expand on either later, but like most I have other things to attend to.

Unfortunately, I remain here in this position, because Naturalism has given us essentially everything in modern society. The same cannot be said for faith.

If by disappointments, you mean the limitations of what science can do, that is meaningless to me, because I am a nihilist who has already accepted that nothing can ever be perfect, and because of the way I experience things, death can knock on my doorstep at anytime, because my life is the definition of suffering.

You have no idea what it is like to have messed up neural networking and wiring. Such is the double edged sword of autism.

 

[dan964]

Unfortunately, I remain here in this position, because Naturalism has given us essentially everything in modern society. The same cannot be said for faith.

If by disappointments, you mean the limitations of what science can do, that is meaningless to me, because I am a nihilist who has already accepted that nothing can ever be perfect, and because of the way I experience things, death can knock on my doorstep at anytime, because my life is the definition of suffering.

You have no idea what it is like to have messed up neural networking and wiring. Such is the double edged sword of autism.

You'll never know my friend... either.
Suffering does indeed dreadful, honestly I haven't probably been through as much as you, but I know people who are at the moment, suffering psychological and mentally at the moment. That is all I can say.

Well at least with nihilism you take it to its consistent conclusion then, and that is kind of the disappointment for me, because it is a very negative view of life. Again there are multiple variants on nihilism, for what I have heard.

The one thing naturalism doesn't give us is music, art or language. (and even to a lesser extent literature). The history of science isn't just by death old white atheists either, but those despite the evil in the world, saw great order that remained amongst the chaos. It doesn't explain why.

While I agree that suffering is bad, that human nature tends towards evil, I am not one without hope, and it certainly isn't naive. Am I being unrealistic? No, absolutely not, as I am firmly convinced of the resurrection.
Now you may not be, that is understandable.

And also for me, there is something of great value I can take in things in life, and something of truth and substance also.

 

[Paradoxica]

The one thing naturalism doesn't give us is music, art or language. (and even to a lesser extent literature). The history of science isn't just by death old white atheists either, but those despite the evil in the world, saw great order that remained amongst the chaos. It doesn't explain why.

This is not even remotely close to what is historically true. You are extremely naive if you think that the sciences and the arts are mutually incompatible.

And your point on language isn't even a valid one. Communication must occur before naturalism can, otherwise, how else would we share our observations, thoughts, ideas and hypotheses?