Is Christianity worth serious consideration

[KCDAD]

3sigma;My point is that the process that initiated the Big Bang is unknown so calling it God is unwarranted.

Calling it "Big Bang" is unwarranted. There was no noise nor anyone to hear it. Try another...

Actually, I said there is no explanation that answers the first-cause paradox. However, you seem to think there is an explanation and you call that explanation God. So let me ask: how long has your God been around? Has it been around forever? If so then you believe in an explanation that needs to invoke infinity for it to work. If not then your God must have had a beginning. In which case, something caused it to come into being so your God wasn’t the first cause.

No beginning... infinity... I know, science can't handle it.

I do some of those things directly and others indirectly. What does any of that have to do with pantheism?

I wouldn't know. I don't know anything about Pantheism. Are you a Pantheist?

Those things are what you NEED to do as a human being.

There are laws against blasphemy in many predominantly Christian countries around the world. I said they are now mainly toothless, but they remain as examples of Christians forcing others to comply with their demands. You can make light of them if you wish, but Proposition 8, the ban on government funding for embryonic stem cell research and the constant attempts to have creationism taught in public school science classes are still more examples of Christians seeking to force people to comply with their demands.

I'd like to see those blasphemy laws in "many predominantly Christian countries".
I know there are speech restrictions in many Socialist States, and Islamic States... (Usually they occur in totalitarian regimes) you will have to demonstrate your point in "many predominantly Christian countries".

Embryonic stem cell research is not necessary. It is a toe hold on the beach in the "abortion" wars. They are having good results with adult and umbilical cord stem cells.

Prop 8??? Same sex marriage? Another misdirection. It isn't about marriage and it isn't about gays, it is about eliminating the marriage preference in the tax and other financial laws. Oh yeah, the insurance companies are the biggest interest group in this fight. Who cares about who is married and who isn't?
Tax collectors, and insurance people.

 

[3sigma]

Am I correct in thinking your concern about the harm caused by people behaving according to their religious beliefs applies to all religions?

Absolutely. And it isn’t just religious beliefs that cause harm. Credulous beliefs of many kinds have the potential to cause unnecessary harm. Medical quackery is another example. However, I don’t think there is much that can match religious beliefs for the sheer amount of unnecessary death and misery they have caused through the ages.

Are there specific actions by religious people you consider harmful? Are there specific actions by religious people you consider "unharmful" or possibly even positive?

Let’s see… Specific actions by religious people (acting according to their religious beliefs) that are harmful… Well, there is imprisonment or death for blasphemy or apostasy. That seems pretty harmful to the victim and is one example of unnecessary harm that could not happen without religious belief. If we think about past and present harm that was or is generally caused by religious beliefs then I think you would have to include Islamic terrorism, the conflict between the Jews and Arabs, the troubles in Northern Ireland and other conflicts between Catholics and Protestants, much of the current conflict in Africa, some of the Balkan conflicts, the conflict between India and Pakistan, the crusades, the Inquisitions, human sacrifices due to various religions, witch hunts and general sectarian violence. Then there is the indirect harm caused by the suppression of learning and knowledge, the intolerance towards those of other religions or no religion, the psychological harm caused by suppressing natural desires, the harmful rituals and practices associated with some religious beliefs (for example, relying on prayer instead of medical intervention) and the general tendency of religious believers to try to impose their views on others. You may be able to think of other examples where religious beliefs cause harm—I’m sure I haven’t covered them all.

Now, actions that are positive… I can’t think of any that could not happen without religious beliefs, but I think the main benefit of religious belief for many people is that it provides emotional comfort. Religious people are generally happier than they would be without their religious beliefs, though they may be equally happy believing anything else that gave them simple answers to complex or difficult questions. You could include charitable works or a sense of community, but religious beliefs aren’t required for those. All in all, what little benefit there is to be gained from religious beliefs doesn’t seem to make up for the unnecessary harm they have caused through the ages and still cause today.

 

[Verv]

3Sigma,

Where do you count the 90,000+ Orthodox clergy that was executed by the atheist Lenin in the 1920s and 1930s?

Or how about the atheist Pol Pot's total destruction of Cambodia?

And Kim Il-seong? Nikkolai Ceauceasecu? Stalin?

Look, if you are looking for Christians to be without any form of crime you have to be prepared to know that messed up things are done in the name of politics and hatred all of the time.

 

[3sigma]

I'd like to see those blasphemy laws in "many predominantly Christian countries".

Follow the link I provided.

Embryonic stem cell research is not necessary.

Nevertheless, it is opposed by Christians seeking to force others to comply with their demands.

Who cares about who is married and who isn't?

Apparently Christians do because they are the ones who proposed the amendment. Proposition 8 was proposed by protectmarriage.com, whose chairman, Ron Prentice, is also CEO of the California Family Council. The CFC foundational pillars state the following.

The Plan for Marriage – Marriage between a man and a woman is God’s design. Only in the union of a man and a woman can a godly legacy be fruitfully multiplied. Marriage is the building block of a stable society, and from the commitment of a man and woman in marriage comes the best opportunity for children to thrive.

It should be obvious that Proposition 8 is another example of Christians forcing others to comply with their demands.

 

[3sigma]

Where do you count the 90,000+ Orthodox clergy that was executed by the atheist Lenin in the 1920s and 1930s?

Or how about the atheist Pol Pot's total destruction of Cambodia?

And Kim Il-seong? Nikkolai Ceauceasecu? Stalin?

I count them as instances of harm that were not due to the specific actions of religious people, but OldChurchGuy asked me to provide instances of harm that were due to the specific actions of religious people, which I did. What did you think, that providing these examples somehow means the examples I gave didn’t happen?

Look, if you are looking for Christians to be without any form of crime you have to be prepared to know that messed up things are done in the name of politics and hatred all of the time.

So what? It doesn’t excuse the harm caused by people behaving according to their religious beliefs.

 

[KCDAD]

3sigma;49362635]Follow the link I provided.

I did:
The Commonwealth of Australia

The Commonwealth does not recognize blasphemy as an offence.

Canada

The Criminal Code of Canada lists blasphemous libel as a crime; but the Code's provision contravenes provisions in the superseding Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Crown last prosecuted a charge of blasphemous libel in R. v. Rahard (1935). In that case, the court adopted an argument that prosecutor E. J. Murphy had proffered in the case of R. v. Sperry (unreported) 1926.

n Denmark, Paragraph 140 of the penal code is about blasphemy. The paragraph has not been used since 1938 when a Nazi group was convicted for antisemitic propaganda.

The last person to be jailed in the United States specifically for blasphemy was Abner Kneeland in 1838

Nevertheless, it is opposed by Christians seeking to force others to comply with their demands.

And other pro-life activists... not all prolifers are Christians

Apparently Christians do because they are the ones who proposed the amendment. Proposition 8 was proposed by protectmarriage.com, whose chairman, Ron Prentice, is also CEO of the California Family Council. The CFC foundational pillars state the following.

It should be obvious that Proposition 8 is another example of Christians forcing others to comply with their demands.

You think that ONLY Christians supported prop 8?

I know Doctors and other medical researches that are against embryonic stem cell research and I know non-christians that are against same sex marriage on LEGAL grounds.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

Absolutely. And it isn’t just religious beliefs that cause harm. Credulous beliefs of many kinds have the potential to cause unnecessary harm. Medical quackery is another example. However, I don’t think there is much that can match religious beliefs for the sheer amount of unnecessary death and misery they have caused through the ages.


Let’s see… Specific actions by religious people (acting according to their religious beliefs) that are harmful… Well, there is imprisonment or death for blasphemy or apostasy. That seems pretty harmful to the victim and is one example of unnecessary harm that could not happen without religious belief. If we think about past and present harm that was or is generally caused by religious beliefs then I think you would have to include Islamic terrorism, the conflict between the Jews and Arabs, the troubles in Northern Ireland and other conflicts between Catholics and Protestants, much of the current conflict in Africa, some of the Balkan conflicts, the conflict between India and Pakistan, the crusades, the Inquisitions, human sacrifices due to various religions, witch hunts and general sectarian violence. Then there is the indirect harm caused by the suppression of learning and knowledge, the intolerance towards those of other religions or no religion, the psychological harm caused by suppressing natural desires, the harmful rituals and practices associated with some religious beliefs (for example, relying on prayer instead of medical intervention) and the general tendency of religious believers to try to impose their views on others. You may be able to think of other examples where religious beliefs cause harm—I’m sure I haven’t covered them all.

Now, actions that are positive… I can’t think of any that could not happen without religious beliefs, but I think the main benefit of religious belief for many people is that it provides emotional comfort. Religious people are generally happier than they would be without their religious beliefs, though they may be equally happy believing anything else that gave them simple answers to complex or difficult questions. You could include charitable works or a sense of community, but religious beliefs aren’t required for those. All in all, what little benefit there is to be gained from religious beliefs doesn’t seem to make up for the unnecessary harm they have caused through the ages and still cause today.

You make good points which appear to be well thought out and considered.

The wording in the above reponse seems to imply that religious beliefs can compel someone to do harm but religious beliefs do not compel a person to do good. Am I understanding correctly?

I am curious if there are any studies drawing a direct correlation between religious beliefs and causing others harm? In other words, were the person or persons doing harm in the name of religion doing out of a sincere belief in their religious beliefs or using their religious beliefs as an excuse for their actions? If religion did not exist would these same people have done the same harm finding another rationale / justification or would the events have never happened due to the absence of religion?

Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy

 

[3sigma]

The wording in the above reponse seems to imply that religious beliefs can compel someone to do harm but religious beliefs do not compel a person to do good. Am I understanding correctly?

Not quite. I think religious beliefs cause some people to behave in ways that cause unnecessary harm, but they also can cause some people to behave in ways that help others. However, there is some harm—such as putting people to death for blasphemy or apostasy—that can only be caused by religious beliefs, whereas I don’t think there is an example of people helping each other that could only be caused by religious beliefs. Furthermore, there is much harm that is the result mainly of religious beliefs, for example, if you read about the training of Islamic suicide bombers, you will find that their training plays heavily on their belief in Allah and an afterlife.

I am curious if there are any studies drawing a direct correlation between religious beliefs and causing others harm? In other words, were the person or persons doing harm in the name of religion doing out of a sincere belief in their religious beliefs or using their religious beliefs as an excuse for their actions? If religion did not exist would these same people have done the same harm finding another rationale / justification or would the events have never happened due to the absence of religion?

The only study I know of that shows a correlation between religious belief and harm is this one, but there may be others. Mind you, this study only shows a correlation, it doesn’t prove a causal link. However, you only have to look at the news to see that religious beliefs cause people to behave in ways that cause unnecessary harm. Would the same people cause the same problems if religion didn’t exist? Probably, but this gets back to what I said earlier. The underlying problem is credulity and religious beliefs are just one aspect of this. I think that if people could be taught not to be so credulous then the harm that arises from such beliefs could be reduced. Perhaps if we trained people more in critical thinking as part of their education then the incidence of credulous beliefs—which includes, but is not limited to, religious beliefs—would subside. You can actually see this in the correlation between level of education and religious belief. I remember reading of a study of NAS scientists that showed that their level of religious belief was almost the opposite of the general population. I can’t find a recent version, but here is an older article.

 

[3sigma]

If religion did not exist would these same people have done the same harm finding another rationale / justification or would the events have never happened due to the absence of religion?

I’ve been thinking some more about this question and now I think the answer is no, the same people wouldn’t do the same harm if religion did not exist. Yes, they would still be credulous, but credulity by itself doesn’t necessarily cause harm. It is the unfounded beliefs the credulous follow that cause the harm. I think the teachings of the monotheistic religions are what cause the harm. They teach people to be intolerant of those who don’t share their unfounded beliefs. It is all well and good to say that Christianity is all about love, but how does one reconcile that with blasphemy laws? Where is the love in proposing and passing laws that threaten others with imprisonment if they don’t respect Christianity’s unfounded beliefs?

 

[OldChurchGuy]

Not quite. I think religious beliefs cause some people to behave in ways that cause unnecessary harm, but they also can cause some people to behave in ways that help others. However, there is some harm—such as putting people to death for blasphemy or apostasy—that can only be caused by religious beliefs, whereas I don’t think there is an example of people helping each other that could only be caused by religious beliefs. Furthermore, there is much harm that is the result mainly of religious beliefs, for example, if you read about the training of Islamic suicide bombers, you will find that their training plays heavily on their belief in Allah and an afterlife.


The only study I know of that shows a correlation between religious belief and harm is this one, but there may be others. Mind you, this study only shows a correlation, it doesn’t prove a causal link. However, you only have to look at the news to see that religious beliefs cause people to behave in ways that cause unnecessary harm. Would the same people cause the same problems if religion didn’t exist? Probably, but this gets back to what I said earlier. The underlying problem is credulity and religious beliefs are just one aspect of this. I think that if people could be taught not to be so credulous then the harm that arises from such beliefs could be reduced. Perhaps if we trained people more in critical thinking as part of their education then the incidence of credulous beliefs—which includes, but is not limited to, religious beliefs—would subside. You can actually see this in the correlation between level of education and religious belief. I remember reading of a study of NAS scientists that showed that their level of religious belief was almost the opposite of the general population. I can’t find a recent version, but here is an older article.

Very interesting article. I was surprised to see the results from Figure 1 which was comparing a belief in evolution with religious activity and belief. I would have thought the USA Atheist / Agnostic response would be higher for an acceptance of evolution compared to theists. But it is the same. This same pattern appears for the other countries as well. A cursory look at the other figures indicates a similar pattern. Perhaps it is nothing, I don't know.

I agree that there is no causal link and not sure one can be established. The article does ask some good follow up questions for further research.

It seems that you may be right that religion is not as critical as an individual being credulous. Which seems to beg the question is a person's degree of credulousness environmental or genetic or both? Can the degree of credulousness change?

So frustrating to have so many questions and only one lifetime to explore them.

OldChurchGuy

 

[OldChurchGuy]

I’ve been thinking some more about this question and now I think the answer is no, the same people wouldn’t do the same harm if religion did not exist. Yes, they would still be credulous, but credulity by itself doesn’t necessarily cause harm. It is the unfounded beliefs the credulous follow that cause the harm. I think the teachings of the monotheistic religions are what cause the harm. They teach people to be intolerant of those who don’t share their unfounded beliefs. It is all well and good to say that Christianity is all about love, but how does one reconcile that with blasphemy laws? Where is the love in proposing and passing laws that threaten others with imprisonment if they don’t respect Christianity’s unfounded beliefs?

I must have grown up and lived as an adult in a very sheltered theistic world. In the various churches I have been with and the people in those churches I don't recall the a corporate intolerance for different beliefs. Granted there were individuals who seemed willing to condem all those who differed with them but the vast majority of Christians I have known over the years are much more tolerant and willing to examine themselves and their beliefs than the picture painted above.

Even if the denomination took a stand on a given issue I have never felt that I was automatically obligated to support or condem it.

So my religious experience has been one of acceptance of different beliefs based on the understanding none of them can be proven as absolutely right or wrong.

Enough rambling.

OldChurchGuy

 

[3sigma]

It seems that you may be right that religion is not as critical as an individual being credulous. Which seems to beg the question is a person's degree of credulousness environmental or genetic or both? Can the degree of credulousness change?

I think credulity is likely due to both genetics and environment. It probably follows a normal distribution much like intelligence, though credulity is not necessarily linked to intelligence. There are intelligent people who hold religious beliefs. However, credulity does seem to yield to training. People can be taught critical thinking skills that reduce their tendency to believe anything that makes them feel better.

Credulity seems to be innate in humans, given the majority who hold religious beliefs. Again, it isn’t the credulity per se that is harmful, but the particular religious beliefs that credulous people hold. It is the teachings of religion that cause the harm.

So my religious experience has been one of acceptance of different beliefs based on the understanding none of them can be proven as absolutely right or wrong.

Well, that may have been your personal experience, but it is obvious from reading the daily news that harm caused by people behaving according to their religious beliefs is quite prevalent in the world. It is also obvious that intolerance is pervasive in Christian societies. Think about blasphemy laws again. Many predominantly Christian countries have had or still have blasphemy laws. These countries all have different governments and legal systems, yet time after time Christians collectively in each country independently proposed and passed laws threatening people with imprisonment or worse if they didn’t comply with Christian demands based on their unfounded beliefs. There were no outcries from the supposedly tolerant Christians in each of those countries. The laws passed apparently without incident and, even today, attempts to repeal them in some countries are met with strong opposition. It seems that the Christian trope of ‘love thy neighbour’ applies only to neighbours who hold the same beliefs.

 

[Simple_Mind]

Okay, let’s open this shiny new forum with a couple of fundamental questions exploring Christianity and its beliefs. I asked these questions in the General Apologetics forum, but didn’t receive a reasonable answer. Perhaps a different group of Christians will provide a reasonable answer.

It appears that Christian beliefs are founded and dependent on the claim that the Christian God exists. If your God doesn’t exist then Jesus was not the son of your God or your God incarnate, your God didn’t create anything, your God doesn’t perform miracles or answer prayers and any stories in the Bible that rely on your God are just make-believe.

I’ve been told on numerous occasions that the existence of your God cannot be proven, in which case, the claim that your God exists is not only unsubstantiated, but also impossible to substantiate.

So I have two questions for Christians here.

Ok

1. Do you agree that the existence of your God is an unsubstantiated claim, one that hasn’t been established by proof or competent evidence?

There is evidence for the existence of God (and for the veracity of the Christian God).

I have summarized some of the evidence at the following link (and article-links from that page):
http://www.godsci.org/gs/godsci/god.htm

If you disagree then please substantiate the claim with some evidence that is free from error, fallacy or misapprehension.

As above.

I am open to dialog and willing to change my views (if necessary) based on rational discussion.

If you respond to my post and I dont reply within a week, feel free to PM me.

2. Please explain how beliefs that are founded and dependent on an unsubstantiated claim are worth serious consideration? Christianity makes demands based on the supposed existence of its God—God says this, God demands that, Jesus (the son of God) says you should do something else, the Bible says so and so—but why should any heed be paid to those demands when their underlying justification is unsubstantiated? Why should Christianity be treated with any deference or respect when its basis is nothing but an unsubstantiated claim?

Christianity is not based on an unsubstantiated claim.

I used to be an atheist. Over time, I became disillusioned with Atheism, and ultimately became a Christian Theist. (If you wish, see http://www.godsci.org/gs/chri/testimony/seek.html for a summary of the path that led me from Atheism to Christ).

Cordially,
John

 

[3sigma]

There is evidence for the existence of God (and for the veracity of the Christian God).

I have summarized some of the evidence at the following link (and article-links from that page):
http://www.godsci.org/gs/godsci/god.htm

When I ask for evidence that your God exists, I mean sound, objective evidence that your God exists here and now not assumptions and credulous conclusions from weak or false arguments, which is all there appears to be at that link you provided. I’m asking for evidence that is free from error, fallacy or misapprehension, independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers. Please select from that web site or provide on your own the strongest, sound, objective evidence you think there is for the existence of your God here and now. Show me that your belief that your God exists is well founded and justifiable.

 

[KCDAD]

When I ask for evidence that your God exists, I mean sound, objective evidence that your God exists here and now not assumptions and credulous conclusions from weak or false arguments, which is all there appears to be at that link you provided. I’m asking for evidence that is free from error, fallacy or misapprehension, independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers. Please select from that web site or provide on your own the strongest, sound, objective evidence you think there is for the existence of your God here and now. Show me that your belief that your God exists is well founded and justifiable.

You seem to be badgering for DNA or fingerprint evidence. Why? What makes you think there could be "sound objective evidence" of something that exists outside of the created universe?

You are asking a model train set to provide evidence of the workers that laid the tracks and the creator of the tunnel the train drives through.

The fact that we are here is proof of something outside of natural laws and experience. Our laws of physics state that neither energy or matter can be created and/or destroyed, only transformed. There exists both energy and matter... in this universe. They did not spontaneously come into existence on their own. Or, if you prefer... "Row row row your boat, gently down the stream. Merrily merrily merrily, Life is but a dream."

 

[3sigma]

What makes you think there could be "sound objective evidence" of something that exists outside of the created universe?

I don’t think there could be or is such evidence. Are you saying that there is? If so, what is it? If not, then it appears that you are ready or willing to believe there is something outside the universe based on slight or uncertain evidence. In other words, your belief is nothing more than a credulous assumption.

The fact that we are here is proof of something outside of natural laws and experience. Our laws of physics state that neither energy or matter can be created and/or destroyed, only transformed. There exists both energy and matter... in this universe. They did not spontaneously come into existence on their own.

Please explain how the fact that we are here proves there is something outside the universe. Show us how you arrived at this conclusion because the sentences that follow that statement appear to be non sequiturs.

Or, if you prefer... "Row row row your boat, gently down the stream. Merrily merrily merrily, Life is but a dream."

Well, you may as well say that. It makes as much sense as anything else you’ve said so far.

 

[DerSchweik]

So I have two questions for Christians here.

1. Do you agree that the existence of your God is an unsubstantiated claim, one that hasn’t been established by proof or competent evidence? If you disagree then please substantiate the claim with some evidence that is free from error, fallacy or misapprehension.

It seems to me that the rigor demanded for “proof” of God’s existence is at once a practical impossibility for BOTH sides of this discussion. One side cites science as ‘proof’ positive that God does not exist; but there are many scientists who can, using science cite counter ‘proof’ in support that He does. Besides, how can anyone prove the non-existence of something that does not exist? And so both sides argue…

For those who do not accept God’s existence, any “proof” offered is typically met with skepticism as being mere foolishness. Another criterion posed for His non-existence is the ‘proof’ of reason; but again there are those who can demonstrate via reason He exists. And so both sides argue…

The premise posed here is that the existence of God is an unsubstantiated claim, one that hasn’t been established by “proof or ‘competent’ evidence.” With all due respect isn’t it equally valid to state that the non-existence of God is equally unsubstantiated, that “proof or ‘competent’ evidence" for His non-existence has not been established either – that such evidence itself isn’t free from error, fallacy, or misapprehension?

What “proof or ‘competent’ evidence” can I offer for why I believe God exists? According to the rigor demanded, I can’t. I don't think anyone can.


I have read and studied His word and it has left an indelible imprint on my mind and heart, touching me with conviction and truth about me and the world around me. I have prayed specific prayers and received specific responses that, given the plethora of circumstances surrounding such answers allow me no avenues for thinking they weren’t of God. He has acted on me in ways without my prayers that also leave me no room for thinking they weren’t of God. I have come to believe on the basis of His word and my response to it, in my acknowledging it as truth, in my confession of Him and who I am by contrast, in my willingness to repent, to publicly proclaim Him as God and rightful sovereign in my life, and in my submitting to His will in baptism, whereupon exiting the water something unalterably changed within me, a change I can’t deny nor rationalize away as mere happenstance, a change to my thoughts, my focus in life, my values, and hence my motivation.

The only “proof or ‘competent’ evidence” I can offer is this change in me that I know is not “of” me, a distinct and discernable (empirical) change that has resulted in a changed lifestyle and outlook on life that others who knew me before can see and agree that “something” with me did indeed change.

But I don't think that is the “proof or ‘competent’ evidence” you seek. One of your own asserted that we are motivated by what we value – a truth with which I wholeheartedly ascribe for I believe it can be shown that all rational behavior is a direct consequence of one’s underlying values. I value God and I value the things of God. Because you do not believe in God, you value something other than Him, are motivated by something else and so behave in all things accordingly (right or wrong, good or bad). I didn’t use to value these [Godly] things but I now do – in large part due to the fact that the things I used to value led to great heartache and trouble in my life, behaviors that I could neither deny nor change. And finding no reasonable, practical, useful answers from science, philosophies, other religions, etc., I came upon the one thing that did, that struck my capacity for reason and literally drove me to Him. But many see this as mere foolishness. I don’t know how I, being regarded thus as a foolish person, can ever hope to persuade those who hold what I value in such trivial regard. Where there is a spark of genuine interest or value, I attempt to replicate what worked with me for as long as the spark may exist; I open the bible and let the words therein have their effect. Thing is, no one reasoned God with me; they only opened the bible with me and let Him do the reasoning Himself. I came to view it as the one objective truth I could rationally grasp, all personalities aside, all religions aside, doctrines, teachings, histories, evidences, etc. – I read and studied the Word and that is the vehicle alone through which my heart was "captured."

So, incompetent as that may seem, that’s what did it for me. I firmly believe He exists and cannot be persuaded otherwise for the empirical “evidence” I carry within me is just too strong – “evidence” I believe He and only He put there. If that is an error on my part, a fallacy to which I am foolishly adhering, or pure misapprehension, then I am indeed a fool – a fool who has put my hope in something that does not exist, a fool of the most pitiable sort. I confess, I only “see” this in part right now. I believe that I will someday “see” all this clearly, without ambiguity, the evidence “measurable,” obvious and undisputed. That is my hope, and I am not ashamed of it, pitiful as it may seem to some.

In one sense, I'm glad I don't have the answers you seek - or the ability to reason with you and persuade you about what I believe and why. If I could do this, then everything I just posted would be a contradiction. The answers you seek are paradoxically with the One in whom you do not believe.

 

[KCDAD]

I don’t think there could be or is such evidence. Are you saying that there is? If so, what is it? If not, then it appears that you are ready or willing to believe there is something outside the universe based on slight or uncertain evidence. In other words, your belief is nothing more than a credulous assumption.


Please explain how the fact that we are here proves there is something outside the universe. Show us how you arrived at this conclusion because the sentences that follow that statement appear to be non sequiturs.

IF matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed... how is it that we can experience it? If within the "natural" physical laws of the universe matter and energy can be created or destroyed, then that matter and energy must have come into existence outside of the universe. We must presume they exist, no?

You may call that a credulous assumption if you wish. I prefer "axiom" or "a priori" knowledge.

So however, whatever or whenever they came into existence, something outside of our known universe is responsible or causal.

 

[3sigma]

…but there are many scientists who can, using science cite counter ‘proof’ in support that He does.

Show me this scientific proof you so casually claim exists. Show me that your statement above is true.

Another criterion posed for His non-existence is the ‘proof’ of reason; but again there are those who can demonstrate via reason He exists.

Again, please demonstrate via reason that your God exists. Show me that this statement of yours is true.

The premise posed here is that the existence of God is an unsubstantiated claim, one that hasn’t been established by “proof or ‘competent’ evidence.” With all due respect isn’t it equally valid to state that the non-existence of God is equally unsubstantiated, that “proof or ‘competent’ evidence" for His non-existence has not been established either – that such evidence itself isn’t free from error, fallacy, or misapprehension?

So what? It doesn’t alter the fact that the claim that your God exists remains unsubstantiated.

What “proof or ‘competent’ evidence” can I offer for why I believe God exists? According to the rigor demanded, I can’t. I don't think anyone can.

And here you confirm that the claim that your God exists is currently—and will probably remain—unsubstantiated.

I have read and studied His word and it has left an indelible imprint on my mind and heart, touching me with conviction and truth about me and the world around me. Etc… etc…

So you personally believe your God exists. So what? That doesn’t make it true. None of this personal testimony about how your feelings changed when you started to believe your God exists is sound, objective evidence. The claim that your God exists remains unsubstantiated.

The only “proof or ‘competent’ evidence” I can offer is this change in me that I know is not “of” me, a distinct and discernable (empirical) change that has resulted in a changed lifestyle and outlook on life that others who knew me before can see and agree that “something” with me did indeed change. Etc.. etc…

So your behaviour changed, but that isn’t credible evidence that your God exists.

So, incompetent as that may seem, that’s what did it for me. I firmly believe He exists and cannot be persuaded otherwise for the empirical “evidence” I carry within me is just too strong – “evidence” I believe He and only He put there. If that is an error on my part, a fallacy to which I am foolishly adhering, or pure misapprehension, then I am indeed a fool – a fool who has put my hope in something that does not exist, a fool of the most pitiable sort. I confess, I only “see” this in part right now. I believe that I will someday “see” all this clearly, without ambiguity, the evidence “measurable,” obvious and undisputed. That is my hope, and I am not ashamed of it, pitiful as it may seem to some.

You don’t seem incompetent, but it does seem that your belief that your God exists is the result of a previous anxiety coupled with a readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence. In other words, it appears that your religious belief is the result of insecurity and credulity.

However, the existence of your God remains an unsubstantiated claim. Your entire post confirms that. That being the case, should any heed be paid to Christian demands when their underlying justification is unsubstantiated? Why should Christianity be treated with any deference or respect when its basis is nothing but an unsubstantiated claim?

 

[3sigma]

IF matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed... how is it that we can experience it? If within the "natural" physical laws of the universe matter and energy can be created or destroyed, then that matter and energy must have come into existence outside of the universe. We must presume they exist, no?

You may call that a credulous assumption if you wish. I prefer "axiom" or "a priori" knowledge.

So however, whatever or whenever they came into existence, something outside of our known universe is responsible or causal.

I’m guessing that your argument is along the lines of, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” To which the answer is: no one knows for sure. In which case, any answer you may think you have is nothing more than a credulous assumption.

Do you have any sound, objective evidence that your God exists here and now? If so, please produce it. If not, then the claim that your God exists remains unsubstantiated. That being the case, should any heed be paid to Christian demands when their underlying justification is unsubstantiated? Why should Christianity be treated with any deference or respect when its basis is nothing but an unsubstantiated claim?