Who/What is God?

[Freethinker]

In December, 1943, George Ritchie died of pneumonia.

"An orderly who had been preparing the body (of George Ritchie) for the morgue noticed feeble signs of life in the 'corpse' and called the doctor, who hastily injected adrenaline directly into the heart."

He was not DEAD. But such FACTS screw up the story and are not included in presentations. When they are, they are minimalized and moved past rapidly.

 

Or from Amazon:

 

"There are remarkable differences between two versions of Ritchies report about his experiences during the Near Death Experience....Ritchie wrote that in that picture he had recognized every detail. But in a conversation with the famous reincation researcher Ian Stevenson he said that in the picture he had only recognized one of the instruments. This conversation is quoted completely in chapter 11 of Jeffrey Iverson's book "In Search of the Dead"...In "Return from Tomorrow" Ritchie tells about a Polish Jew. Ritchie had met him in a concentration camp near Wuppertal in April 1945. ... Unfortunately there was no concentration camp however near or in Wuppertal in 1945...In his youth Ritchie was strongly evangelic... In Ritchie's life the experience may have been the basis for a vivid way of being a christian, but unfortunately Ritchie seems to be a bit negligent about exact truth."

Amazon.com: Profile For A Dutch reader: Reviews http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A3DUMV5130PATN/104-8708279-5556767?_encoding=UTF8

Here are two I could find in about fifteen minutes. So much for there not being any.

And in 5 I found how bogus it is.

 

Yes for those not wanting to evaluate this garbage critically, there are tons of unscientific claims posted on thousands of web sites. But not a single one stands up to critical review. NOT ONE!

[blazer2000x]

Excuse me. What happened to Rev. Howard Storm? That's the one I found most remarkable. And my unanswered question as to why you care so much about battling against God.

[bumab]

I've read a fair amount of philosophy and theology, and have never read a "proof" for the existence of God. Please point me toward one.

 

Descartes, 3rd meditation. Probably the most famous, although there are others. Good place to start though.

 

And he has his views. The fact of the matter is that religion isn't something that can be defended purely on a basis of logic. I'm with Hume, no rational person can believe in a miracle, it takes a certain surrender of logic to believe. It is, in fact, an act of faith.

 

Perhaps. How would you define a miracle, however? Something that occurs without any cause, perhaps? (that's what I would say). Then, to believe in a miracle, all you really need to believe in is that things can occur which are uncaused.

 

If you think a miracle has to be "an event directly caused by God," then you are taking the existence of God on faith, not the miracle. God could be the cause of a miracle- thus the miracle would have a cause.

 

So, arguments against miracles are not arguements against God. I can't speak for Hume, I've not read any Hume for about 6 years now, but I think he made this distinction.

 

And there are many theists who wage a war on science. Its good to see someone attacking back a bit, even if he is a bit abrasive.

-Will

 

Perhaps. The difference between an anti-theist and an atheist is certainly visible, though. I don't mind the attacks either, despite being a theist, nor the abrasive tone. But it's obvious the point of many is to attack theism, not justify atheism. There are many waging war on science, yes, and many doing the reverse. Frankly, one is too many.

[blazer2000x]

I think a miracle should be something not only that has no physical apparent cause, but contradicts scientific explanation. An until someone can answer my question of Rev. Howard Storm. I will continue to cite it as proof for God's existance.

[Biochemist]

I've read a fair amount of philosophy and theology, and have never read a "proof" for the existence of God. Please point me toward one.

I think Francis Schaeffer's "He is there and He is not Slient" is a good one.

And he has his views.

He is welcome to share them, even though he is inconsistent. It is incumbent upon us to note when he is dodging an issue

The fact of the matter is that religion isn't something that can be defended purely on a basis of logic.

Fact? Didn't you mean "opinion" of the matter? Of course religion can be defended based on logic. Anything can be defended based on logic. The issue is whether the assumptions are valid and accepted at the start. The book I mentioned above is fundamentally a logic argument. You certianly don't have to agree, but it is a stretch to suggest that the argument is not logical. "Logicial" does not mean irrefutable.

I'm with Hume, no rational person can believe in a miracle, it takes a certain surrender of logic to believe. It is, in fact, an act of faith.

Last I looked, no one elected Hume the senior arbiter of logic. Miracles are in the mind of the beholder. I think DNA is a miracle. I do not regard belief in DNA as an act of faith.

And there are many theists who wage a war on science. Its good to see someone attacking back a bit, even if he is a bit abrasive.

No one is suggesting FrT should waive his right to debate. But FrT is certainly not defending science. He is defending himself.

[bumab]

I think a miracle should be something not only that has no physical apparent cause, but contradicts scientific explanation.

 

Why? Science searches for causes. That's the ENTIRE point, you make predictions based on known causal relations. By definition, science could NOT find out about something that does not have a cause. Probably, somebody would hypothesis something. Perhaps there are two valid causes for something. Why must God's work and nature's work be incompatable?

[Erasmus00]

Descartes, 3rd meditation. Probably the most famous, although there are others. Good place to start though.

 

You are right, I had briefly forgotten about Descartes. Descartes meditations fall apart logically, though that should be the discussion of another thread. I also think it particularly interesting that Descartes wrote the meditations largely as an introduction to his system of the world, a largely mechanical universe that creation Christians despise.

 

Perhaps. How would you define a miracle, however? Something that occurs without any cause, perhaps? (that's what I would say). Then, to believe in a miracle, all you really need to believe in is that things can occur which are uncaused.

 

Taking the deffinition Hume gives, something against the laws of nature. (water turning to wine, men rising from the dead, etc).

 

If you think a miracle has to be "an event directly caused by God," then you are taking the existence of God on faith, not the miracle. God could be the cause of a miracle- thus the miracle would have a cause.

 

Hume's whole point is that religion cannot be grounded in logic, only faith. It was a reponse to the "logical" apologists of his day.

-Will

[Biochemist]

OK show me ANY THEIST that is logically consistant ANY! ONE that does not have self contradictory beliefs.

I would probably pick Francis Schaeffer. He is certainly more consistent in his theism than you are in your anti-theism. But I suspect there are others.

[bumab]

You are right, I had briefly forgotten about Descartes. Descartes meditations fall apart logically, though that should be the discussion of another thread.

 

True, although some people still defend him. It's still a good introduction to the form.

 

I also think it particularly interesting that Descartes wrote the meditations largely as an introduction to his system of the world, a largely mechanical universe that creation Christians despise.

 

insert: SOME Christians despise. Then, yeah, it's pretty funny. :)

 

Taking the deffinition Hume gives, something against the laws of nature. (water turning to wine, men rising from the dead, etc).

 

Then it's an argument about causality. There's nothing in the laws of nature that say water could not turn into wine (to the extent the phenomena is described in that particular passage). Nothing we know of could CAUSE water to turn into wine. Maybe, there is nothing that could cause water to turn into wine. But it's still an argument against miracles based on the theory that all things have a causal history.

 

That's not something I would argue against yet, but it's good to get the terms of the discussion straight.

 

Hume's whole point is that religion cannot be grounded in logic, only faith. It was a reponse to the "logical" apologists of his day.

-Will

 

Am I wrong in remembering that he wasn't saying religion wasn't logical, but rather, religion is based on some premises, the validity of which, must be taken on faith? Subtle difference, but I think it could be important.

[Erasmus00]

Fact? Didn't you mean "opinion" of the matter? Of course religion can be defended based on logic. Anything can be defended based on logic. The issue is whether the assumptions are valid and accepted at the start. The book I mentioned above is fundamentally a logic argument. You certianly don't have to agree, but it is a stretch to suggest that the argument is not logical.

 

Religion is an expression of faith, not an expression of logic. If it weren't about faith, if the answer were logical, this test we are all living in would be meaningless, everyone would pass.

-Will

[Biochemist]

WOW! You can be the first in recorded history to provide "intellectually valid proofs for the existence of God". Don't make the world wait any longer. Please share your incredible insights for us!

All this statement proves is that you are poorly read. Well, it also proves your lack of social skills as well, since apparently you cannot engage in structured debate without hostility and condescension. Go ahead and try it. See if you can actually entertain a discussion without belittling your interlocutor.

 

There are probably dozens of intellectually valid proofs for the existence of God.

 

Two have already been referenced in this thread.

[bumab]

if the answer were logical, this test we are all living in would be meaningless, everyone would pass.

 

Do you see the religious viewpoint as "life is a test?"

[Erasmus00]

Then it's an argument about causality. There's nothing in the laws of nature that say water could not turn into wine (to the extent the phenomena is described in that particular passage). Nothing we know of could CAUSE water to turn into wine. Maybe, there is nothing that could cause water to turn into wine. But it's still an argument against miracles based on the theory that all things have a causal history.

 

I beg to differ, several laws of chemistry and physics do indeed prevent water from turning into wine.

 

Am I wrong in remembering that he wasn't saying religion wasn't logical, but rather, religion is based on some premises, the validity of which, must be taken on faith? Subtle difference, but I think it could be important.

 

You are not, thats why I used the word "grounded in". Religion cannot be grounded in logic, but rather must be grounded in faith.

-Will

[Erasmus00]

Do you see the religious viewpoint as "life is a test?"

 

Of course it is. Pass the test, get into heaven. Most religions, in fact, view life as a test. Buddhists pass to get to Nirvana, Christians pass to get to heaven,etc. The wicked don't pass and reincarnate or go to hell.

-Will

[bumab]

I beg to differ, several laws of chemistry and physics do indeed prevent water from turning into wine.

 

Add some sugar and yeast- water will turn into wine. :) No laws of nature are broken. That is why I added the "as described in that passage" cavat.

[Biochemist]

Religion is an expression of faith, not an expression of logic. If it weren't about faith, if the answer were logical, this test we are all living in would be meaningless, everyone would pass.

I can only speak in detail about Christianity on this topic, not theism in general. God did not ask us to suspend our brains to be faithful. On the contrary, we are commanded to love God with all our soul, strength and mind. I think that a lot of disservice is done to the concept of faith by suggesting that it is not associated with logic or intellect.

 

Paul never suggested anyone should take Jesus' resurrection on faith. The faith issue was what the resurrection meant. By suggesting that we take the resurrection, the Bible, the creation, etc on faith obviates the core proposition that faith gives facts meaning. If we don't have facts, there is nothing to give meaning to.

[blazer2000x]

Why must God's work and nature's work be incompatable?

 

Because God created nature and He is above it. If a miracle can be explained to have a physical and natural cause, it is removed from the category of the miraculous and supernatural. (hense the word "super"-"natural")