Dear Cecil,
In your opinion, is there good evidence for the existence of God? If so, what is it?
The existence of God is not provable, at least not on a scientific level. If it were, the matter of faith would not enter into the equation. And faith is a priority when dealing with metaphysics and the supernatural.
While I have no doubt, personally, that God does exist, I cannot provide anything other than subjective experience (which translates itself into faith) to back up my belief. There are arguments that the order of the universe itself, the laws that govern nature, DNA, quarks, etc., all bolster the idea of God’s existence. But proof? I’m afraid not.
The Dave-Guy
“since my daughter’s only half-Jewish, can she go in up to her knees?” J.H. Marx
As Cecil rarely posts here (I believe its not required in his contract) could I take a stab at this?
Good evidence for the existence of God?
Personal revelation.
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
“You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reach through reason.”
I’m not a god person but I think the best argument for there being a God is that there are so many things in life, and the world, for which there are NO other explanations.
Even science has to say,occasionally, that it just doesn’t have the answer.
But at least we will admit we don’t have the answer. And we’re workin’ on it.
Easy one-step assembly instructions.
Pour Beer A in Uncle B.
Evidence for God’s existence in the form of personal revelation or subjective experience is trivial: not in the sense that it’s a small thing to people experiencing it, but in that it’s both self-evident and uniquely singular. I take the question to mean something like ‘what sort of objective evidence for the existence of God is available’.
I remember visiting the webpage of a pathologist who now believes in God because of the number and the quality of near death experiences he’s heard about first hand: people who have them in the hospital where he works are numerous enough, and detailed enough in their descriptions of the experience (including details of which they shouldn’t be aware because they were dead at the time) to have convinced him of an afterlife of some sort. Ergo, God.
While his interpretation of the evidence is arguable, the evidence isn’t: a number of unrelated people reporting the same experience with the same characteristics naturally suggests an external phenomenon.
Ezstrete, a lack of other explanations doesn’t constitute evidence for the one remaining. Saying that what science can’t explain is explainable as the work of God, turns God into an intellectual junkpile for that which we haven’t been able to figure out so far.
Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity.
If there’s no god, 1) who/what created the universe, and 2) how do you explain our self-awareness?
-
unknown – also not necessarily relevant. There may or may not have been a “who” involved.
-
Neurons, organization and sensory input.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
- who/what created the universe?
We don’t know yet. If there is a God, who/what created Him? Same question, but science actually tries to find out the answer to your question, whereas theists simply accept the universality and timelessness of God at face value.
- how do you explain our self-awareness?
We don’t know yet. How do you explain His? Same question, but the science actually tries to find out the answer to your question, whereas theists simply accept the awareness of God at face value.
Jesus saves… Gretzky grabs the rebound… He Scores!
I’ll answer that question if you tell me why God exists: either who created him, or how he came to be. If you say that he simply is and always was, explain how that could be.
There’s a question mark at the end of everything. That ultimate, dialectical uncertainty presupposes no particular answer. God seems no more likely or reasonable the creator of the universe than the Big Bang.
Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity.
Re: Near Death Experiences. Actually, there’s probably a pretty simple explanation for the similarity of NDE’s, we just haven’t figured it out yet (not to many people volunteering to be research subjects!). Loss of oxygen to the brain, chemical imbalances caused by the malfunction of bodily organs, etc. could certainly cause ‘hallucinations’. The basic elements of the ‘death event’ should be pretty similar in all cases - for example, the heart stops beating, certainly causing oxygen deprivation - and the effects on the body should be pretty similar. So it stands to reason that people’s experiences of ‘dying’ should all be pretty similar.
As far as knowing what was happening when they were ‘dead’ - since the person obviously survived to related their experience, they weren’t truly ‘dead’. Maybe they had no detectable heartbeat, or no brain activity detectable by our current equipment, but they weren’t ‘dead’. Who knows how much awareness they had of what was occurring around them? Medical professionals instruct visitors to talk to coma patients even though there is no detectable response because they don’t know whether or not these people are aware of external events.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
I can tell you my answers, although they’d be different than anyone elses.
-
God created himself and the universe along with him. BTW, hansel, I do believe in the big bang.
-
God’s self awareness is ours. We are all a part of God.
- Wow – nice paradox.
Something that does not yet exist creates itself. In that case, why bother with God at all. The universe created itself when it came into existence.
- If my self-awareness == God’s self-awareness, then I should be aware of God. I am not. Therefore . . .
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
As far as near-death experiences go- astronauts and fighter pilots discribe the same type of “experience” when the g’s get high enough (I believe this is during some sort of test). They report the edges of their vision going black, seeing a “light” that looks as though it’s at the end of a tunnel, and feeling peaceful. I can’t remember exactly how close their discriptions are to near-death experiences, but it is pretty damn close. I have the flu right now, so I am really fuzzy on details.
Anyway, the brain is a funny thing, and I would not count near-death experiences to be proof of anything. Bummer.
Dizzy
You people have been holding me back long enough! I’m going to clown college!
Wow! 14 posts and counting… and Nickrz hasn’t pushed this thread great debates yet?
You’re slipping in your old age.
I’m with Dr. Fidelius (as usual!),DAVEW0071 and Spiritus Mundi. It’s a matter of personal faith.
(In particular, the argument that someone MUST have created the Universe, and that therefore he created himself as well does not satisfy me at all.)
- Which God are we talking about?
- Jewish (who I understand do not accept Jesus as the son of God, though they do accept him as a prophet)
- Catholic Christian (who accept the Pope)
- Protestant Christian (who don’t accept the Pope)
Mormons
Jehovah’s Witnesses
7th Day Adventists
Buddhists
Hindus
Sunni Muslims
Shi’ite Muslims
Pagans
Scientologists
etc.
If you can’t agree which God is the real one, how can you search for evidence?
-
If God does exist, why doesn’t he reveal himself? It would be trivial to do this, then explain what he wants, instead of allowing us to argue.
-
If God is loving, why does he allow people to suffer? Yes, I’ve heard that it’s because people make their own decisions, but why should (completely innocent) babies die in pain?
glee:
Jews do not accept that he was a prophet.
Chaim Mattis Keller
cmkeller@compuserve.com
“Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks.”
– Douglas Adams’s Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
Try Great Debates should have about, say, 5000 messages on this topic…
Other than that, in the 70’s, there was a book called ‘Scientific Proof on the Existence of God is soon going to be annouced by the White House.’
Thus, already been done.
As I understand it, most of the worlds great (i.e. most widely accepted) religions require faith on the part of their members. Faith, by definition, requires one to believe despite the abscence of any physical evidence. This is the real paradox. We are given free will and are asked to believe.
From the church’s point of view, God wants to know who his REAL friends are.
From the atheists point of view, it’s the perfect scam.
So, Phil, do you think that anyone even knows what the word ‘God’ means? Gee, ask a hundred, get a hundred answers…heh. You’d be surprised at the word origin.