Original Sin?

Quote: FrGamble

There are lots of things that confirm the hypothesis that there is a God

Hypothetically all the gods exist.

hy·poth·e·sis
noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence

Or in this case, no evidence. Some of us
need more than a hypotheses before we
throw ourselves at the feet of a god who
shows no evidence that he even exists.
This appeals to two kinds of people; those
that have been trained from an early age,
and those that are desperate. There really
in no middle ground. If you aren't one or
the other, god will be of little use to you.

Quote: FrGamble

Are you familiar with a hypothesis. A very important step in the scientific process is to take an educated guess as to why a certain thing happens and what will happen if this or that happens and why you think that. Then you proceed with the experiments and the collecting of evidence and data and objectively use the data to evaluate your hypothesis to see if your idea was confirmed or not. There are lots of things that confirm the hypothesis that there is a God (N.B. this is very different than proving something to be true).

There is no evidence of God's existence (or that of any other god). The only way you can possibly say there is is to distort the meaning of the term "evidence" and/or lower your standards of proof. Think about how science validates the existence of something. Could the mythological God withstand such scrutiny?

You refer to experimental proof. Very well. How would you design an experiment to test whether or not God is real? What would be your methodology? Note that you would have to start from a neutral premise--that it is unknown whether or not there is a God. You could NOT state that God exists and then set out to prove that premise--that isn't science.

What I've seen from Christians who do attempt this approach is an unwarranted extrapolation of the data. Stars exist--there must be a God. The human body is unfathomably complex--there must be a God. We don't understand the universe--so there must be a God. I'd just ask you this--what criteria do you use to determine if something is real, that it exists? Now, can you honestly apply those criteria to your belief in God?

I have a chocolate sundae in front of me. I believe it exists, because one of my senses (sight) tells me it is a chocolate sundae. I add data by smelling it and tasting it. Is it real? Not necessarily, because my senses could be in error. I ask someone else--what is this? They tell me it is a chocolate sundae. I take a picture of it and email the picture to a friend in Atlanta. I ask her what it is and she tells me it is a chocolate sundae. I want to test its physical characteristics, so I throw it against a wall. It sticks and drips chocolate syrup. At some point, eventually, I have gathered enough evidence so that I can say with some reasonable degree of certainty: this is a chocolate sundae, and it exists.

Can I do any of that to test the premise of the existence of God?

Quote: stinkingliberal

Can I do any of that to test the premise of the existence of God?

Yes, I believe I can.

You mentioned that you have seen, smelled, and tasted this sunday? If God is real, which of course He is, then you need to experience God and come to know Him. I know that no one is going to be won over to God's existence by the clear logical arguments or the cummulative perponderance of evidence. Evenbob has shown over and over again that he won't even entertain or listen to them. He has made up his mind and is not open to truly experimenting and discovering the truth. So really the best way is to taste the sunday, to experience it.

The test is simple; if God exists then pray. Honestly and openly ask God to reveal Himself to you. Listen and be silent, talk to someone about how to pray, visit a Church, or other holy place. I know that if you do this over time God will make Himself known to you and enter your heart even if the doorway to your mind is closed. If you do this simple test you will realize the existence of God. Then theological and philosophical discussions can ensue as to who God is and how He has revealed Himself.

One more thing, often we close ourselves off sometimes without knowing it to God through obstacles we have put in our lives. If we are harboring hatred or grudges, if we are living a lie or cheating without remorse, if we are suffering from addictions to not only drugs or alchool, but also to sex or entertainment or even gluttony without striving to get the help we need to fight against them then it makes it so much harder to experience God.

So the test is simple - truly pray from your heart for God, if He is real, to reveal Himself to you and strive during this time to let go of past hurts and unforgiveness. Strive to be kind and honest and seek help if we need it from addictions. Do this for a month and you will know God exists. It is only a month and if you do this and at the end do not know at least in your heart that God exists I will leave the forum. If you have any questions or need any guidence along the way speak to your rabbi, imam, priest, pastor, religious friend, or you know where to find me.

Quote: FrGamble

The test is simple; if God exists then pray. Honestly and openly ask God to reveal Himself to you... I know that if you do this over time God will make Himself known to you

You know no such thing. There are legions
of people in every religion that prayed
their whole lives and heard not a peep
from any god. There are written works
by people in your own Church that beg &
plead with god to reveal himself to them.
Some of them are heart wrenching to read.

So saying you 'know' praying works is just
wishful thinking on your part. And this is
as far from the scientific method as you
can get. That you went straight to the
supernatural for evidence betrays your
lack of faith in proving gods existence
in a logical or scientific manner.

I have no problem with what you do or
the people you try and help. I'm sure
you do much good in your job. Just
realize that your 'thing', your choice
in life, might not be everybody's thing.
Surely your god has room under his big
umbrella for us all, even the filthy atheists.

Even if I did that, and I saw a blinding, miraculous manifestation that to me, was incontrovertibly God revealing himself to me, it would prove...nothing. Why? Because I still could be imagining it all. I could be less than objective. That would not be scientific proof.

What would be closer to such proof would be the recording of God's manifestation to me by something or someone that had no vested interest in the outcome. An audio or video recording would be partial proof (partial, as those can be faked). The testimony of someone who also saw the "miracle" would help. It would be scientifically accurate if that person had no idea that the manifestation was going to take place, and no particular interest in it happening.

This sort of evidence is cumulative in nature. If God appears to me and I report it, that means nothing. If another person--not warned in advance of the event--independently reports the same manifestation, then that increases the probability of it being an actual rather than an imagined event. More people independently observing and reporting the phenomenon would further reinforce the premise.

At some point, the probability of all these witnesses being wrong--or lying--would drop below the probability of the manifestation being true. At that point, we could say that it is more likely than not that God manifested himself to me. But not before.

It's like the life of Jesus. We have independent corroboration from many sources of the events of his life, including his execution, which was witnessed by thousands. Crucially, those events were recorded and archived by parties who were disinterested in Christian mythology--Jewish and Roman record-keepers and historians. We do NOT have any corroboration of his resurrection and ascension, which you would think would have been witnessed by more people than just his disciples. Therefore, from a standpoint of what we know happened, we can say that he lived, preached, and was executed, but we can't say that he lived again.

The key to scientific proof is physical evidence. Failing that, corroboration by as many independent sources as possible. I would be inclined to believe someone who said they had seen God if there was independent corroboration of the event from several other people who had no idea at the time that it would occur and who had no vested interest in the event. Every "divine witness" so far has failed to meet that criterion.

Quote: stinkingliberal

Even if I did that, and I saw a blinding, miraculous manifestation that to me, was incontrovertibly God revealing himself to me, it would prove...nothing. Why? Because I still could be imagining it all. I could be less than objective. That would not be scientific proof.

What would be closer to such proof would be the recording of God's manifestation to me by something or someone that had no vested interest in the outcome. An audio or video recording would be partial proof (partial, as those can be faked). The testimony of someone who also saw the "miracle" would help. It would be scientifically accurate if that person had no idea that the manifestation was going to take place, and no particular interest in it happening.

This sort of evidence is cumulative in nature. If God appears to me and I report it, that means nothing. If another person--not warned in advance of the event--independently reports the same manifestation, then that increases the probability of it being an actual rather than an imagined event. More people independently observing and reporting the phenomenon would further reinforce the premise.

At some point, the probability of all these witnesses being wrong--or lying--would drop below the probability of the manifestation being true. At that point, we could say that it is more likely than not that God manifested himself to me. But not before.

It's like the life of Jesus. We have independent corroboration from many sources of the events of his life, including his execution, which was witnessed by thousands. Crucially, those events were recorded and archived by parties who were disinterested in Christian mythology--Jewish and Roman record-keepers and historians. We do NOT have any corroboration of his resurrection and ascension, which you would think would have been witnessed by more people than just his disciples. Therefore, from a standpoint of what we know happened, we can say that he lived, preached, and was executed, but we can't say that he lived again.

The key to scientific proof is physical evidence. Failing that, corroboration by as many independent sources as possible. I would be inclined to believe someone who said they had seen God if there was independent corroboration of the event from several other people who had no idea at the time that it would occur and who had no vested interest in the event. Every "divine witness" so far has failed to meet that criterion.

Is there scientific proof for the origin of life on planet Earth? Is there scientific proof of neo-darwinian evolution? Is there scietific proof of the origin of the universe?

Quote: stinkingliberal

It's like the life of Jesus. We have independent corroboration from many sources of the events of his life, including his execution, which was witnessed by thousands.

Really? I was under the impression the evidence for the mere existence of Jesus was rather sketchy.

Regardless, there is nothing odd, abnormal, extraordinary or even weird about the execution, even by fairly brutal means, of a troublesome preacher in late antiquity.

Quote:

We do NOT have any corroboration of his resurrection and ascension, which you would think would have been witnessed by more people than just his disciples.

What we do have are many accounts of other alleged miracles played up to garner support, and attested to by people who found it in their interest to do so. The resurrection is more of the same. The only difference is the Jesus myth stuck.

Quote: pew

Is there scientific proof for the origin of life on planet Earth? Is there scientific proof of neo-darwinian evolution? Is there scietific proof of the origin of the universe?

Yes, yes, and yes. Though proving that something happened in the past is different from proving HOW it happened, and in turn, those are different concepts from proving that something currently exists.

Science still refers to the "theory of evolution" because it is not possible to validate the theory empirically with the existing evidence, and scientific observations haven't been around long enough to observe the evolution of existing species--though that's starting to be no longer true, and current as well as fossil evidence validates the theory. Likewise, science still refers to the "theory of gravity" even though the existence of gravity would seem to be indisputable, because science doesn't completely understand the mechanism.

The origin of life on earth can be traced fairly accurately through the fossil record and the reasonably accurate dating of the rocks in which the fossils lie. We also understand how the atmosphere and oceans changed over time (so we can tell when the climate would have been hospitable or inhospitable for various types of creatures).

As for the origin of the universe, we know that it is expanding outward, at a measurable speed and from a discernible point, so we can infer that it has a discrete time and location of origin. What exactly happened then, we don't know, which is why the "Big Bang" theory exists. So far, nothing has surfaced to disprove it, but like the theories of gravity and evolution, science does not call the theory factual as yet.

If religion considered its beliefs and tenets in the same objective way--slowly accumulating evidence and refusing to say something is true without incontrovertible proof--then we'd hear the Catholic church talking about the "theory of God." But they refuse to admit they could be wrong. Science, by stating some of its most fundamental concepts as theories, leaves open the possibility that it could be wrong about the phenomena that those theories have been formed to explain.

Quote: stinkingliberal

Even if I did that, and I saw a blinding, miraculous manifestation that to me, was incontrovertibly God revealing himself to me, it would prove...nothing. Why? Because I still could be imagining it all. I could be less than objective. That would not be scientific proof.

Wow, this type of radical skepticism and doubt reminds me of Descartes. You should read his meditations they will show you how to come back to sanity from the radical doubt you are expressing. I'm curious as why you only apply your idea that everything could be your imagining to a religious experience? Why don't you consider that your understanding of gravity or a delicious sunday could also just be your imagination? Anyway, read Descartes.

Quote:

This sort of evidence is cumulative in nature. If God appears to me and I report it, that means nothing. If another person--not warned in advance of the event--independently reports the same manifestation, then that increases the probability of it being an actual rather than an imagined event. More people independently observing and reporting the phenomenon would further reinforce the premise.

You are aware that 99% of human beings throughout history have believed in God and independently report an experience of the divine in various ways. Taking just Catholicism you could have the testimony of billions of people who have experienced Christ in the Eucharist all similar experiences and all independently observed. By the way, I do think you are wise to be looking for evidence that is cumulative. I wish you would widen your definition of evidence outside of just personal experience and scientific observation as history and logic could even add more evidence, nevertheless just the two types of evidence you seem to allow will lead to a preponderance of evidence that all points to the existence of God.

Quote:

At some point, the probability of all these witnesses being wrong--or lying--would drop below the probability of the manifestation being true. At that point, we could say that it is more likely than not that God manifested himself to me. But not before.

Okay, all these witnesses are awaiting to testify to you there experiences, the only think left is for you to try and experiment with reality of God.

Quote: Nareed

Regardless, there is nothing odd, abnormal, extraordinary or even weird about the execution, even by fairly brutal means, of a troublesome preacher in late antiquity.

There is everything odd and extraordinary about a troublesome preacher rising from the dead and forming a religion that has lasted and grown for over 2,000 years.

Quote:

What we do have are many accounts of other alleged miracles played up to garner support, and attested to by people who found it in their interest to do so. The resurrection is more of the same. The only difference is the Jesus myth stuck.

How do you think it would be in anyone's interest to attest to Jesus' miracles? It meant you would make the Roman oppressors angry and be ostracized or worse from your own community. There was no way that the Resurrection of Jesus spread because it was the cool thing to say or it somehow would elevate your status or opportunities in the world. It was exactly the opposite. This type of thing only spreads when it is true and when it has made such an impact on someone that despite the social blowback and threat to one's life you simply cannot remain silent about what you have seen, witnessed, or mysteriously experienced.