Hello

[Theophilus]

Yet, faith is indispensible, is it not?

Yes, I would agree faith is indispensable (in believing that mercy etc. are qualities that exist in and through God). But I do not believe it is an unreasonable faith. I hope my world view is internally consistent, and if I find something contrary to my beliefs I am willing to re-shape my beliefs, whether we are talking about scientific beliefs or theistic beliefs.

On the nature of love and mercy, you could also look to philosophy to understand their "nature". In the past I have done that but I personally did not find that approach satisfying. One may also say that it's just the behaviour of specific arrangements of atoms, but I find that rather unsatisfying as well. Personally I find love and mercy fit best in a theological context.

So, why have faith in something that you can never, by the tenets of the belief system itself, have clear evidence for?

Well, yes that beggars the question of why we have faith, and where it comes from, and you'll know there have been great theological disputes on that subject, and it is a subject that still causes great divisions in the Christian community (essentially the Calvinism-Arminianism divide). I have no great answer to that, I am uncertain about how much faith comes from God and how much is our response to a seed sown by God; all I know is that I have it (not that I always have had it, and I do have doubts at times).

[FBM]

Yet, faith is indispensible, is it not?

Yes, I would agree faith is indispensable (in believing that mercy etc. are qualities that exist in and through God). But I do not believe it is an unreasonable faith. I hope my world view is internally consistent, and if I find something contrary to my beliefs I am willing to re-shape my beliefs, whether we are talking about scientific beliefs or theistic beliefs.

How, exactly, is it reasonable to believe in something for which there is no evidence? Faith, by definition, isn't reasonable. It isn't rational, by definition. It's a leap, a claim against evidence, or against lack of it.

For example, if I told you I had a fire-breathing dragon in my basement (I'm doing a Carl Sagan imitation now ), you would want to see it before believing it, right? So I take you to my basement (church) and, lo and behold, you don't see any dragon. I explain that it's a magical invisible dragon that, for mysterious reasons, only I can see. So you decide to check on the fire-breathing part and suggest setting up thermometers. I respond by saying that the dragon's fire is also magical; it doesn't produce heat that humans can detect. Maybe you suggest spreading sand on the floor so you can see its footprints, but I counter with the claim that part of its marvelous magicality is that it is non-corporeal. And so on. Every time you suggest a way to test my claim, I counter it with a special reason as to why it won't work. In other words, I'm asking you to have faith. Would you? Neither would I. And this is in no significant way different from theists asking us to believe in God.

Like you, I'm perfectly willing to change my stance as soon as someone gives me a good reason to. "Because it feels good" isn't a good reason.

On the nature of love and mercy, you could also look to philosophy to understand their "nature". In the past I have done that but I personally did not find that approach satisfying. One may also say that it's just the behaviour of specific arrangements of atoms, but I find that rather unsatisfying as well. Personally I find love and mercy fit best in a theological context.

Maybe that's a big part of where we differ. (I'm a grad student in Philosophy, btw.) I'm not willing to be swayed by the siren's call of the feeling of satisfaction. The evidence is there or it's not. It's reasonable, or it's not. My preferences don't matter. I'd rather suffer through long periods of frustration than settle for the quick-and-easy answer that defies reason.

Well, yes that beggars the question of why we have faith...I have no great answer to that, I am uncertain about how much faith comes from God and how much is our response to a seed sown by God; all I know is that I have it (not that I always have had it, and I do have doubts at times).

Usually, when someone reaches a blank spot in their reasoning, it's a sign to re-think why you hold that position. There's always the danger of starting with your preferred answer and then working backwards to try to justify it. Reasoning, done carefully, starts with a question, collects evidence, and then proposes an explanation. But again, I'm not here to convert you; I'm just explaining how I (perhaps 'we') think about this question.

[Theophilus]

How, exactly, is it reasonable to believe in something for which there is no evidence?

Ah, we're in danger of going full circle here when I say "look around you, everything you see is evidence of creator".

But to avoid going around in circles and disappearing up our own rear ends, I could say that there are philosophical "proofs" for God which, while not a scientific proof, at least (to me) show that the existence of God is at least a reasonable presupposition to start with. So I might say that as a starting point it is reasonable to accept that the existence of God might be true and then proceed with that presupposition until a time where someone disproves the existence of God. Of course personally I would then add my sense of the numinous to strengthen my belief in God. At some point we might want to touch on prayer but I would say that is about strengthening faith rather than it being a starting point for faith.

[FBM]

How, exactly, is it reasonable to believe in something for which there is no evidence?

Ah, we're in danger of going full circle here when I say "look around you, everything you see is evidence of creator".

Only if you ignore my first response to that argument.

But to avoid going around in circles and disappearing up our own rear ends, I could say that there are philosophical "proofs" for God which, while not a scientific proof, at least (to me) show that the existence of God is at least a reasonable presupposition to start with.

Please feel free to present one or more of them. I've been at this a long time; it's unlikely that it's something I haven't seen before. I don't mean that in a condescending way, I hope you don't think that. Instead, I mean that there's a good chance I can show you the errors in those "proofs". Even if they did turn out to be real proofs, you'd run right back into the problem of faith, wouldn't you?

So I might say that as a starting point it is reasonable to accept that the existence of God might be true and then proceed with that presupposition until a time where someone disproves the existence of God.

I won't deny that it's hypothetically possible, but if you're the one proposing it as a truth, the burden of proof is upon you, not those who refuse to accept your premise. Think about it, essentially you're saying, 'It's theoretically possible, therefore I assert it is true.' There are plenty of possibilities much more probable than a supernatural, all-powerful, invisible, undetectable entity that somehow resides outside of space and time.

Of course personally I would then add my sense of the numinous to strengthen my belief in God. At some point we might want to touch on prayer but I would say that is about strengthening faith rather than it being a starting point for faith.

Again, if any of those things turned out to be substantial, you'd destroy faith. Faith is crucial to the God premise because there is no evidence.

Anyway, it's after 4 a.m. here and it really doesn't bother me if you choose to believe in the invisible, magical fire-breathing dragon in the basement. That's your right. I've really enjoyed this discussion! Thanks for being patient with me! I hope you find Ratz to be an agreeable place for you to hang out.

[Theophilus]

Good night FMB. I'll pick this up again tomorrow - that gives me a chance to remind myself of the the philosophical arguments for God

[FBM]

Good night FMB. I'll pick this up again tomorrow - that gives me a chance to remind myself of the the philosophical arguments for God

Hi, man! Had time to think of any proofs? Think about the analogy of the magical fire-breathing dragon in the basement?

[Theophilus]

Well, firstly I would want to say that I consider the theological proofs simply demonstrations that it is reasonable to consider that God may exist, and then move forward from there. I can't imagine many people are converted from atheists to theists from a philosophical proof.

Having said that the "proof" that has always provoked my natural sense of curiosity is the cosmological argument where we simple ask "why is there something rather than nothing?". What happened 15 billion years or so ago to create both time and space? why is there something here? I consider it a reasonable starting point to allow for a cause of the universe rather than an infinite regression of causes (though I accept the latter may also be a possibility).

So, I'm only asking that this, and other philosophical arguments, demonstrate that we are not barking mad to postulate the existence of God. I wouldn't want to go further than that from philosophy (or logic and reason).

[FBM]

Well, firstly I would want to say that I consider the theological proofs simply demonstrations that it is reasonable to consider that God may exist, and then move forward from there. I can't imagine many people are converted from atheists to theists from a philosophical proof.

Then...in what sense are they "proofs" at all?

I'm eliding the rest of the post because you said that you prefer keeping to one issue at a time. I can't help but notice that you ignored my question about the magical, fire-breathing dragon in the basement. Is there a reason for that?

[Theophilus]

Then...in what sense are they "proofs" at all?

I don't think they are proofs as we use the terms today. But from my limited understanding of philosophy a "proof" was the correct logical outcome if one accepts the premises proposed (and therein lies the rub?

Dragons in basements? The thing about that is that it purely hypothetical. It's like pink unicorns or pasta monsters - they are things that nobody has ever proposed really existed. But belief in God(s) - that is something that really does constantly emerge. So no, I don't really think the dragons, pink unicorns or pasta monsters really offer anything useful as they don't really relate to the natural cross-cultural belief in the supernatural.

Carl Sagan is of course famous for his phrase that extra-ordinary claims required extra-ordinary evidence. But I've never seen any philosophical, let alone scientific, basis for that statement - as far as I can tell it's no more than opinion (which is O.K., except that I think it gets a false authority because of who said it).

[FBM]

Then...in what sense are they "proofs" at all?

I don't think they are proofs as we use the terms today. But from my limited understanding of philosophy a "proof" was the correct logical outcome if one accepts the premises proposed (and therein lies the rub?

'Proof' at one time meant 'test', so it may very well be a linguistic problem, an unintentional equivocation. In any event, they don't qualify as proofs by modern conventional terminiology. Instead, they would better be described as 'errors in reasoning'. If you doubt that, please present one of them so that we can analyze it together.

Dragons in basements? The thing about that is that it purely hypothetical. It's like pink unicorns or pasta monsters - they are things that nobody has ever proposed really existed. But belief in God(s) - that is something that really does constantly emerge.

And the assertion of the existence of a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent creator who is undetectable is not hypothetical? How so? I notice in your last sentence that you switch from focusing on the existence of God to the existence of belief. Those are far from the same thing, and belief is not evidence for existence. If it were, then we could use the even more widespread existence of other superstitions as evidence for the veracity of astrology, witchcraft, a pantheon of gods, spirits, voodoo and so forth. Your answer simply doesn't hold water.

So no, I don't really think the dragons, pink unicorns or pasta monsters really offer anything useful as they don't really relate to the natural cross-cultural belief in the supernatural.

They relate perfectly to the cross-cultural belief in the supernatural, because they're further examples of the same desire to make reality conform to one's traditional, comfortable, warm-and-fuzzy, pie-in-the-sky delusion. People over here do seriously believe in dragons, spirits, ghosts, good luck charms, palm reading, astrology, etc, and there's no more evidence for your god than there is for any of them. They're all products of limited reasoning capacity, coupled with a trembling preference for a comforting fiction over a clear vision of the way things really are. Yes, belief is cross-cultural, but what is believed in is as diverse as the human imagination is capable of conceiving.

Carl Sagan is of course famous for his phrase that extra-ordinary claims required extra-ordinary evidence. But I've never seen any philosophical, let alone scientific, basis for that statement - as far as I can tell it's no more than opinion (which is O.K., except that I think it gets a false authority because of who said it).

If I tell you that I have a quarter in my hand, you'd probably say, 'OK, whatever'. It's not an extraordinary claim, it has no particular consequence to your life or your worldview. If I tell you that I have a magical, invisible fire-breathing dragon in my basement, you'd most likely say, 'Yeah? Prove it.' Why? Because if it were true, you'd have to revise your whole view of reality. Therefore, when theists claim that there is an invisible, undetectable, super-powerful being that created the whole universe (and the 'evil' within it??) yet cannot be detected by any human senses or devices...well....I hope you'll forgive me for responding, 'Yeah? Prove it.'

If you have any evidence for the existence of this super-magical-powerful entity that somehow exists beyond time and space, please present it. If you don't, please confess that you don't. If you don't, it's more reasonable to conclude that it's more likely to be a figment of your imagination, brought about by your cultural conditioning, coupled with a certain trembling in the face of reality, than it is that such being actually exists contrary to common sense.

(I hope that doesn't sound too harsh. It's just the limitation of typed communication. Please don't read any animosity or lack of compassion into what was written. )

[Theophilus]

I hope that doesn't sound too harsh. It's just the limitation of typed communication. Please don't read any animosity or lack of compassion into what was written.

No it doesn't sound harsh; just good robust questioning

But I must get back to you on this as its a little hectic here at the moment.

[Theophilus]

If you have any evidence for the existence of this super-magical-powerful entity that somehow exists beyond time and space, please present it. If you don't, please confess that you don't.

Hi FBM. Sorry for the delay - I hope you pick this up.

Evidence? Well, I'd say that there was quite a bit of evidence, though I would not say that there was any conclusive evidence (faith provides the final evidence for believers). In terms of evidence, I would say the historic Gospels and letters are evidence of Jesus Christ dying and resurrecting (just as we might look at ancient documents for evidence of other historic figures). We also have the evidence around us that point to creation (and now most people accept that there was indeed a point of ex nihilo creation some 15 billion years ago). And I would say that the common occurrence of the sense of the numinous is again evidence of their being something. So those are three pieces of evidence. Now, I am not saying that they are pieces of evidence that will convince you, I suspect you would set the bar for convincing evidence very high, but evidence they still are.

[Elessarina]

In terms of evidence, I would say the historic Gospels and letters are evidence of Jesus Christ dying and resurrecting (just as we might look at ancient documents for evidence of other historic figures).

We cannot even be certain who wrote Shakespeare's play how can any credibility be given to Gospels written a thousand years + earlier?

[Theophilus]

We cannot even be certain who wrote Shakespeare's play how can any credibility be given to Gospels written a thousand years + earlier?

Hello Elessarina

Well, I'm not sure how much it matters who wrote them, rather than we know they came from the Christian communities within the lifetime of those who were around with Jesus (with Paul's letters probably being the earliest). I think you also have a hard time explaining the sudden emergence of Christianity without the existence of Jesus (would you also doubt the existence of Paul, Peter and Luke?).

But I'm not arguing here that you must accept the Gospels - but rather accept that they are indeed evidence, just as ancient manuscripts are used as evidence in history in general.

[Elessarina]

Well, I'm not sure how much it matters who wrote them, rather than we know they came from the Christian communities within the lifetime of those who were around with Jesus (with Paul's letters probably being the earliest). I think you have a hard time explaining the sudden emergence of Christianity without the existence of Jesus (would you also doubt the existence of Paul, Peter and Luke?).

But I'm not arguing here that you must accept the Gospels - but rather accept that they are indeed evidence, just as ancient manuscripts are used as evidence in history in general.

Historical documents don't describe supernatural events. I am not entirely convinved on the existence of Jesus. Christianity may not have take off if Constaine had not converted,,.