Original Sin?

Quote: Evenbob

I can't disprove it either. Of the two
alternatives, it's the most logical.

So all your blustering about needing proof really wasn't true. I knew that already of course, but I'm glad to hear you say it. I also appreciate your honesty in recognizing it is your feelings that get in the way of believing that there is a God who cares very much how we treat one another, who holds us accountable for our actions, and that evil will always meet justice in the end. A lot of people feel that their actions will have no ultimate consequences and they can do as they will to benefit themselves without regard for others. A lot of people want to feel that they are gods and answer to no one.

Quote: FrGamble

So all your blustering about needing proof really wasn't true.

Proof is all there is. Even you insist you have proof,
when there is none. Having a 'feeling' is not the same
as 'letting your feelings get in the way'. We're all
part of all there is, that's obvious. That there is a personal
god running it is not obvious. Not provable. Not true.

The universe and our part in it is far more complicated than
we could ever explain with OT gods or far fetched theories.
These are just stories we use to entertain ourselves, make
us feel more important than the cockroach under the sink.
Which, of course, we are not..

Quote: Evenbob

Proof is all there is. Even you insist you have proof,
when there is none.

I don't think we are using proof in the same way. There is not scientific or mathematical proof of God's existence and I don't think I ever claimed there was. There is not scientific or mathematical proof of the vast majority of things we all believe and believe in strongly. God is the best explanation of the universe given the evidence we have.

Quote:

We're all
part of all there is, that's obvious. That there is a personal
god running it is not obvious. Not provable. Not true.

Hate to be Dalex again but this is convulsed and contradictory statement. You claim pantheism is obvious, without proof and then say a personal God is not obvious, again without proof. Then you end by saying, "Not provable. Not true." If you hold to this last ridiculous statement you must apply it to your pantheistic view as well as the view of the personal God.

Quote:

These are just stories we use to entertain ourselves, make
us feel more important than the cockroach under the sink.
Which, of course, we are not..

I cannot let you get away with this crap. Earlier you said that, "we are all part of all there is, that's obvious." Well it is not obvious but compared to your statement about cockroaches it shines out like the sun. There is nothing more counterintuitive, nothing more offensive to our sensibilities, nothing more illogical, nothing that could be less obvious than saying we are no more important than the cockroach under the sink. How do you square this problem with your instance that things must be obvious and provable to be true. Can you prove to me that I or any human being is not more important than a cockroach under the sink?

Quote: FrGamble

There is not scientific or mathematical proof of God's existence and I don't think I ever claimed there was. There is not scientific or mathematical proof of the vast majority of things we all believe and believe in strongly. God is the best explanation of the universe given the evidence we have.

Not only is there no proof to the existence of any god, but there is absolutely NO evidence for any of them.

To go from that to a god being the "best explanation of the Universe," is completely arbitrary. You may as well pick any imagined, mythical, fictional or otherwise non-existent being or creature, and say that's the "best explanation of the Universe."

I know we have both gone through this before that is why it is a little tiresome. There is scientific evidence pointing to a beginning to the universe, the fact that there are material things which we know from our experience don't just pop randomly into existence but are contingent on something existing before them leading us logically back to a first cause or non-contingent being or force, there are countless examples of human beings encountering and witnessing something supernatural or miraculous that defies any scientific explanation. This is just a few pieces of evidence that point to God who is not fictional or imagined but very real.

Quote: FrGamble

I know we have both gone through this before that is why it is a little tiresome.

The truth has infinite stamina :)

Well, not really. But it sounds better than Churchill's "bodyguard of lies" line.

Quote:

There is scientific evidence pointing to a beginning to the universe,

There is scientific evidence to the effect that 13.5+ billion years ago all the Universe was contained in an infinitesimally tiny volume, which then "exploded" and expanded and evolved into its current state. Whether that was when the universe began or not, we don't know.

Quote:

the fact that there are material things which we know from our experience don't just pop randomly into existence

Look up "virtual particles." If Quantum Mechanics get any weirder, we'll have to lock it up in an asylum.

Quote:

there are countless examples of human beings encountering and witnessing something supernatural or miraculous that defies any scientific explanation.

I could say the same thing about UFOs. But I know better. There are fragmentary observations reported by poorly equipped observers which are neither written down nor otherwise rigorously recorded, and which often contain imagined or assumed elements which just muddle up the issue. I would hate to base a philosophical/ideological system of belief around that.

Quote:

This is just a few pieces of evidence that point to God who is not fictional or imagined but very real.

Did you ever see Sagan's "Cosmos"? Or read the companion book? There is a priceless sequence about what's under Venus' impenetrable cloud layer.

Better yet, consider the question of dark matter.

What we know is galaxies spin so fast that they ought to be flying apart, if gravity is what holds them together. That is, the mass of the visible, accountable matter in a galaxy cannot account for the gravity needed to hold them together.

Now, this may mean some as yet unidentified form of matter provides the missing gravity. Or it may mean that Newton's and Einstein's works on gravity are not quite complete; perhaps gravity behaves differently under galactic conditions. It may also mean an as yet unidentified, and undetected, attractive force holds galaxies together.

But based on what we know about fundamental forces and the universe in general, it makes more sense to suppose there is an as yet unidentified form or matter out there, which makes up most of the known universe. That's the most sensible view.

The most sensible view, though, has failed spectacularly in the past, perhaps as often as it has succeeded. A deviation in Mercury's orbit could be most sensibly explained by assuming the existence of a planet between Mercury and the Sun. That turned out not to be the case.

As time passes and no dark matter is identified, the odds seem to grow against it as an explanation. Likewise with the idea of dark energy.

The point is that though there is evidence pointing towards the existence of dark matter, we don't even know whether it exists. Sometimes when one reads the assumed and deduced properties of dark matter based on negative observations (ie what is not seen), I can't help but think of how sensible the idea of negative mass seemed to scientists trying to determine the existence and full properties of phlogiston.

Quote: Nareed

The truth has infinite stamina :)

Indeed, and it will always win out.

Quote:

There is scientific evidence to the effect that 13.5+ billion years ago all the Universe was contained in an infinitesimally tiny volume, which then "exploded" and expanded and evolved into its current state. Whether that was when the universe began or not, we don't know.

It is about what does this evidence point to. Your statement about "we don't know" is avoiding the issue. Logically where does such evidence lead us towards?

Quote:

Look up "virtual particles." If Quantum Mechanics get any weirder, we'll have to lock it up in an asylum.

Your comments alone about "virtual particles" belie the seriousness of such things.

Quote:

There are fragmentary observations reported by poorly equipped observers which are neither written down nor otherwise rigorously recorded, and which often contain imagined or assumed elements which just muddle up the issue. I would hate to base a philosophical/ideological system of belief around that.

Nobody is basing a philosophy or ideology or a religion on any one such thing. It is the convergence of a multitude of events, evidence, thoughts, ideas, science, and logic that point unmistakably to God. Some of which you can try to weaken, but as you mentioned earlier truth has infinite stamina and there is always more and new events, experiences, and evidence to step up and encourage us to march on towards the truth of all things - which is God.

Quote: FrGamble

Indeed, and it will always win out.

That would explain why religion keeps loosing ground.

Quote:

It is about what does this evidence point to. Your statement about "we don't know" is avoiding the issue. Logically where does such evidence lead us towards?

Logically it leads towards: we don't know, and more observations and research are needed in order to find out.

Quote:

Your comments alone about "virtual particles" belie the seriousness of such things.

No, my humorous comment about quantum mechanics does. Virtual particles are a real phenomena.

Quote:

Nobody is basing a philosophy or ideology or a religion on any one such thing.

You're not. I can believe that. But plenty of people expect me to fall to my knees when they bring up any so-called miracle. it's as though their faith and their faith alone contains such claims.

Quote:

It is the convergence of a multitude of events, evidence, thoughts, ideas, science, and logic that point unmistakably to God.

If you ever find one that does, which does not end in "If it wasn't Jehovah on one of his good days, then what was it?" I'd be interested to know about it.

Your very good and informative post about dark matter makes it clear that you are at least sympathetic towards those who use evidence to suggest the best possible solution even if that solution cannot be seen or proved outright. Maybe 'dark matter' doesn't exist, I know a lot of things I have read feel strongly that it does, but they might not be up on the newest tests or observations. Nonetheless, I am sure there have been many times that thinking people using given evidence have pointed out that this is the best possible solution. Those who disagree point to instances where it doesn't seem to hold or present other possibilities. What I don't see represented in your discussion about 'dark matter' is those who out of hand reject the concept because they simply don't like the idea or those who deny that it is a least a sensible attempt to explain unmistakable evidence in the universe.