Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Evidence for God

I will present a few reasons why belief in God is different from belief in fairies. That is the only point I will address. I am not here interested in whether God exists, or even if belief in God is justified. I am simply pointing out the differences. The differences would be more pronounced if I were to compare belief in God with belief in an IPR.

1. The amount of people who say they have experienced fairies is in keeping with the amount of people that we know are suffering from one or another form of mental illness. The subset of people who claim experience of fairies fits easily into the set of those who are certified delusional.
On the other hand those who claim to have experienced God or claim to have had any experience of the divine, far exceeds the delusional set. In fact those who claim to experience God are less likely to be included in the delusional set. For instance, studies have shown that Christians are psychologically healthier than those who have no belief. See the ?Handbook of Religion and Mental Health? by Harold G. Koenig and a wealth of other studies.


This is clearly a difference that sets apart belief in God from belief in fairies.

2. The accounts of the nation of Israel?s history are steeped in the experience of God. People hundreds of years apart wrote about encounters with God and despite often not having access to other?s writings, still managed to present a remarkably consistent account of God?s character and dealings.

Regardless of whether we believe the accounts or not, people writing about their experience of God from ancient history through to contemporary writings, far exceeds any supposedly factual accounts about fairies. There is far more anecdotal evidence for God?s existence than for fairies.

This volume of evidence does not validate God, but certainly places belief in God in a different league.

3. The Kalam Cosmological Argument and other cosmological arguments including arguments from fine tuning are certainly not proofs, but would be expected in a universe that is the result of design. This still would not point to Theism, but ties in with the existence of a god of some type far better than any facts would tie in with the existence of fairies.

There is a good summary of the KCA here:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm

I would be interested to hear your thoughts.




Dan, I don?t know what has happened to the standards you would apply to objectively falsify something, but apparently we can now chuck subjective quotes at something and thereby prove it false. Obviously science isn?t quite what it used to be. Einstein would turn in his grave (well he might but we would never know unless we opened his coffin and collapsed the wave function, bum bum).

Quotes 1 and 2. Presuppose there is no god. But, if there is a god then it is entirely reasonable to believe in one god and choose the one that seems most reasonable or has revealed its existence to you. If there is a god then at least one of the 4,200 religions is right. I could go further to tell you why I would see the Christian god as being the most reasonable, but I want to get to bed tonight.

Quote 3. Seriously not worth commenting upon. Certainly doesn?t objectively falsify anything.

Quote 4. Again, only good when we presuppose that there is no god and therefore no written revelation of him. So a nice quote for atheists but far too weak to be capable of impacting a believer. It is the logical equivalent of looking at two opposing scientific theories and saying that when you understand why you reject each other?s theory you will understand why I reject all of your competing theories.



If we go with the Christian understanding of life?

We are here to choose whether we want to co-exist with God or whether we want to reject him. It is therefore necessary that we live in a world that presents that opportunity to us. Most people on this planet are presented with the possibility of God and choose either to reject or to explore further and then go on to accept or reject.

If that is accomplished, by whatever means, then that is what God set out to do and many theologians believe that it is essential that we experience evil in some form so that we can know what we are making a choice for and against. Now most Christians I have talked to about this believe that this choice is accomplished, throughout world history, either by people accepting what Christ did, or where they have not known about him or have had an inaccurate picture, then they make the choice by listening to their conscience however it may express itself. So Muslims are not born in the wrong place or family and will not be rejected by God simply because they believed in their prevailing worldview ? they will be judged on their willingness to do what is right by their conscience (even if their conscience is culturally conditioned). Christians on the whole believe that other religions will be fairly judged, as will those who have been persecuted by Christians and therefore see Christ in the role of persecutor ? it would be entirely unfair to judge these people for rejecting what they rightfully should reject.

I know that you will rip the above apart, but it is an indication that in Christian theology it is not essential for God to be in your face, but can accomplish what he wants through subtle as well as draconian means. In fact, Christians believe that God?s pervasive presence is simply not enough to make people choose not to reject him, because the story of God travelling through the desert with the Jews whilst presenting a physical manifestation ended with half of them building idols and rejecting him.

Penicillin.
You have asked many times why God never revealed penicillin. The above hints at the answer. Christians believe that God expects a choice while we are on this earth. He is interested in the choice we make and whilst we may expect him to behave like a cuddly teddy-bear and make sure we don?t get hurt or experience any kind of suffering, we are simply here to make a choice. We cannot hold God up to some ideal standard that we have of what it means to be loving and expect him to be constrained by it and accuse him of failure when he doesn?t meet our standard. God?s love may be justifiably framed as a concern for our eternal welfare and not particularly for our temporal welfare. Theologists believe that God is love, but also engenders many other qualities at the same time, unlike humans who can only really exist in one emotional state at any given moment. This may mean that Love does not always trump other qualities such as? ? we just don?t really know. Which goes to answer quote 3 ? God is certainly not created in the image of man, but is largely recognised to be incomprehensible. Look at the Greek Gods, very comprehensible and very human in their aspirations. Anyone who says the God of Christianity is created in man?s image has a limited understanding of theology.

Blacknad.