Do you believe in God?

[VirtualPA]

I am interested to know what the majority of people belive.

I personally believe in a Christian God, Heaven and hell etc.

I raised a strict an athiest

I didn't say wrong. I said pointless.

psammead, I tried to take the discussion somewhere else (what fallenmadonna also talked about), the rational part of the mind and the 'other', but didn't have any takers....oh well...I'd genuinely love to know more, if people know about it. Part of my 'proof' is this 'need' for spirituality in people throughout time/ across cultures.

onagar, I still have a very strong father figure in my Dad! [Though he is also one of the most humble people I have ever met]. I'm not sure exactly how it worked for the Jews in the time of Abraham (who also believe in God by the way ), but I'm not sure there was such a thing as 'leaving home'.

permanentvacation - thanks! You said it the way I wish I could!

MerryMarigold That's interesting. Do you think that it is a need for spirituality? I would argue it is more a need for answers to questions and to some extent a way of shielding ourselves from terrible truths (ie when people die). Even the most strict atheists I know have the odd crisis where they suddenly say 'it's fate' or the like, which is on a par (to me) with believing a God - it's as though it's a default setting.

That's not to say there isn't more to modern Christianity than a crutch and an explanation - I think it's evolved since the time when people couldn't explain much about the world around them into something much larger and more complex.

UQD, do you REALLY think there is 'as much or as little evidence for any one of them'?

Now there we can disagree. I don't know many (no make that ANY) adults who believe in fairies because I can't think of ANY evidence (even flimsy) to support their existence. Whereas I can think of quite a lot to support the existence of God (as per permanentvacation's post) - which personally I don't find flimsy, but it's still 'evidence'.

Genuine question: How would you explain start/ survival of the early church, a bunch of fishermen/ peasants (mostly) with a dead leader? How on earth did it ever get off the ground?

UQD - do you take my point (see post on page 35) that there are many aspects of life (e.g. choosing whether to marry or not) where we do without the excessively high standards of Cartesian radical doubt? You seem to make out that there is a single standard of evidence for all facets of human existence. I doubt this. I see at least four epistemological levels where we try and understand what is true:

Logical or mathematical truth is at the high end of the scale, requiring 100% indubitability. This is Descartes position, and one which none of us could live by.

Empirical truth is not quite as strong, but good enough for most scientific enquiry. There is no absolute proof that having observed a particular phenomena in all of 100 cases that it will happen in the 101st, but most of us would be happy about it.

Another notch down is historical truth, which requires interrogating primary and secondary evidence to build up a picture of what probably happened. This is a weaker form again, but still relates to truth (i.e. the state of affairs as they actually are or once were).

And down from that is a lot of real life stuff, including aesthetics, a good deal of ethics and a good chunk of theology (although different theological branches do relate to logical, empirical and historical approaches to truth).

Many, many decisions we make relate to this fourth category. Often these are questions we cannot avoid (e.g. should we marry or not, what does it mean to love, is there such a thing as spirituality), but where some forms of evidence are not as abundant as others. That does not invlaidate these questions, it just shows that we have to adapt our methodology according ot hte nature of the question. And just as our methodology has to adapt to the nature of the question, so the nature of the answer we get has to be applied in a different way.

Where some religious people slip up is to apply a fourth order response (e.g. does God exist) as if it were first order/logically proven. I would say (as a Christian) that there is evidence for God, as good as the evidence by which I chose to commit my unobservable and unknowable future to a person by marrying them. But I recognise that I cannot impress my belief on others with the same force as, say, my belief that a triangle has three sides.

So, UQD, which is the universal epistemology that you use in all matters of human experience? Or do you, like me, see that different questions have to be approached in different ways?

psammead, I think it's a need. [I would!] I think we are built that way - somehow our minds/ brains are not purely rational. There's emotions too of course which we have more understanding of than we did in the past. Maybe the 'spiritual' element will be uncovered at some point. But yes, I do believe it is something in the way we were created.

The example you use of death is interesting. I am a Christian and I still haven't decided what I finally believe on it!! There's a lot of debate on this - I think biblically it seems there is currently no heaven - although there will be at the end of the world. I don't find it necessary to understand life after death, though I would like to - that may sound weird to you. For those who do believe in heaven and hell, it's agonising to think someone you love may have gone to 'the wrong one' or that you may...to be honest, I'd rather believe you die and that's it, it's over. It's a lot more comfortable!

Dipplodoris

I repeat because you did not answer my question - all you did was mention writings from the Dead Sea Scrolls and other texts that quoted Jesus!!!!!

Please read again
A few years ago I was witness to a very tragic accident on the motorway which led to the death of a young girl.

The next day the police turned up to take witness statments from myself and my then boyfriend.

We could not even agree on the colour of the main car involved and this was 24 hours after the event.

I have posted earlier saying that reading the Bible is like Kate Adie broadcasting a 'live' account from the Battle of Agincourt. Most of the Bible was written many, many years later.

How can you be certain that Jesus did say this, that or the other and that the person transcribing (many years) after the event did not have their agenda. Or how can you ignore the 'Chinese Whispers' of distortion?

I repeat. I am not asking you to memorise the Bible but when you quote it can you back it up with the dates and times etc. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT JESUS ACTUALLY SAID THESE THINGS? I MEAN ACTUALLY KNOW WITH EVERY SENSE OF YOUR BEING?

I am frequently perplexed as an English scholar whether or not Shakespere wrote this that or the other. Personally I feel he did not write all that is attributed to him. I feel the same about the Bible.

Also the same goes for 20th century quotes attributed to Oscar Wilde, Dorothy Parker, Gandhi etc- all written by others or warped by time and wannabes.

The only answer you can give is because you believe it to be true not that you know that it is true.

permanentvacation, like I said. you don't have to prove anything to me unless you want something.

but your points don't prove the existence of the christian god.

It's perfectly ok to suppose that 'something special made it' but not to say "oh that was god. he has a beard and wants you not to work on sunday"

How is the universe not proof of the existence of really powerful elves? maybe they made it.

Second, the general belief in some sort of ethics.>>

Having given it serious thought I don't believe there IS such a thing as right and wrong. I think it's all simply 'what mummy and daddy told us" and that there is no basis for morals at all.
I can and have worked out some practical rules, but there is no way to say mine are good or bad.

And even if there were that doesn't prove the existence of the christian god. I could just as easily say it proves the existence of Thor and his mighty hammer.

As for asking each individual christian what their proof is. Nope. Not had time to ask them all yet, but none have come forwards with ANY proof at all. Not some, not a jot, not any.

MerryMarigold there is no evidence at all. if there were it would be world wide news. There are just stories and feelings just like with fairies/Thor/Hanuman etc

Macdonalds is in every country. This doesn't prove it's from god. Democracy got around a bit too. So did music. Lots of things spread if they are popular. Actually if the popularity of a club proves it's from god then Allah is probably the true god and the christian one is false.

lamplighter, the only "agenda" of the early Christians was to put into writing the life of Jesus. If the four writers had each had their own agendas then how do you explain the gospels all saying the same things about Jesus? I've already given links about the historical reliability of the gospels; did you read them? There are no accounts anywhere from the time disputing anything written in the gospels. Jesus died when he was 33 and the gospels were completed by around 70AD so really not much time in between. A bit like us in 2010 discussing or writing a historical record of events in 1977.

"How can you be certain that Jesus did say this, that or the other and that the person transcribing (many years) after the event did not have their agenda. Or how can you ignore the 'Chinese Whispers' of distortion?"

psammead

What is the score?

Also I agree with you on the feminist point of view - women cannot be Catholic priests yet a man elected as God's representive on earth who is celibate and lives in luxury can decree that a woman cannot control how many children she has!!

Sounds very, very odd to me.

Yet - followers of his Holiness are still listening to this!!!

My mother is a Catholic and chose to go ahead with a pregnancy that she was warned would lead to her death or the child's or both. The child died and my mother barely survived. She would have left my Dad and two children (my brother and I) both under 4 years old without her. All because a guy in Rome said she could not abort a very dangerous pregnancy.

Well if he represents God then I won't be wearing a veil to rush and meet him.

Make that 1973

UQD To put it a little bit differently, when I ask someone "Why do you (not) believe X?" I expect to get a simple one-line answer which is logically consistent, evidence-based and intellectually honest.

My usual answer to that questions is 'what's it got to do with you? If it's a fundie type or, 'There's more wonder and spectacle in a blade of grass than can currently be explained by science, until science comes up and answers all the questions in the world I'll be fine with my gods, thank you The is usually saucy

TheFallenMadonna But some people think their religion/belief is a fact and want everyone else to go along with it - these are the people who absolutely should be challenged every single time they try to coerce others to thinking the same way. I've not once said anyone is stupid/mis-guided for their belief or non belief, live a let live as far as I'm concerned but I will not allow people to go unchallenged who are fundie in attitude. BTW you've come closest to anyone ever turning around and saying when challenged, I don't know, but I have faith that my God will show me when the time is right and that's about the only answer acceptable most of the time from a belief perspective that shows any kind of honesty.

robberbutton either the Bible is the literal word of your god or it's open to interpretation. If you fall in the second camp then talk to me about your interpretation of the verses - but then that's all it is, an interpretation and not a literal word and others will have a different pov. BTW you assume that I'm coming at this raw, I'm not I've spent many years discussing this with various scholars.

backtalkaboutthis you managed to avoid this fairly well.

LookingForwardToYourTakeOnThisTiggaxx

onagar, since you're here and UQD isn't. Can you offer some hypotheses on how the early church started/ survived, given that they were a group of mainly uneducated fishermen whose leader was dead? I am not being facetious. I'm just interested as it is one of my 'proofs'.

lamplighter, there is a lot of supporting evidence for the Bible from the British Museum (maybe permanentvacation can help me out here!). Also Jewish and Roman historians writing about the period. A lot matches up historically. That doesn't prove it is the Word of God though! I don't 'know' Jesus said those things, but I have come to believe he did, because I believe the rest of it.

In terms of your example of the car... That's why I would say, if you read all the gospels and start with the things they do agree on it's a good start. Like your's and dh's account of the accident, I'm sure you did agree on a fair bit. For example, because you didn't agree on the colour of the car it doesn't mean the accident didn't happen. I'm sure you will remember it for a long time.

Diplodoris

Thirty three years is NOT MUCH TIME!! In an era before recorded sound, television, pencils and ready to hand notepads.

How about you view the Vietnam war from the American side then go to Vietnam and see it from their side?

Different perspectives and a very different story.

The only answer you can give is you believe the Bible to be true. You can in no way, shape or form know it is true.

Lamplighter...there's a lot of things you will remember in 33 years time eg. things your Mum said to you (especially if they were repeated often or had a big impact on you).

But you're right about believing the bible to be true. It's like God and also takes faith. There is much evidence for its validity, but you can't 'prove' that it's God's way of communicating with mankind!

dawntigga - I like that 'fundie' term (not heard before)! Are you an aussie?

onagar, there's plenty of evidence, it's just not conclusive. To say there is no evidence WHATSOEVER is to be very disrespectful to intelligent people.

You didn't answer my question about how come the church got started at all.

Onagar

1. If you do not believe there is such a thing as right or wrong, would you mind if I came round your house with a sawn off shotgun and an appointment with your kneecaps? Without right or wrong someone inflicting such damage on another person is a neutral act. As would child abuse. As would murder. As would genocide. Would you like to revise your view on whether there is such a thing as onjective morality?

2. Many of my points regarded the specific point of the general existence of God, which has been the point of debate for much of this thread. I did point to the historical evidence regarding the life of Christ and the early church for specific witness to the Christian narrative. But the majority of this thread is more a philosophical debate about God's existence, rather than the specific nature of such a God.

3. I know I don't have to prove anything to you, and I don't mind what you believe. But when people state there is no evidence for something I believe, and I think there is evidence, I am happy to state my case. Not to convert you, but to redress the balance.

4. My points do not prove the existence of God (in the logical sense) as such proof for either the existence or non-existence of God does not exist. But many (if not most) important aspects of life demand decisions for which conclusive, 100%, indubitable proof does not exist. Hence my example about deciding whether to marry or not. When I got engaged I couldn't prove to people that I had made the right choice, given that my knowledge of how it would work out was very limited. In such cases you must look to the balance of evidence upon which a reasonable decision could be made. I have provided a small amount of the evidence that theistic believers use, along with some thoughts on epistemology and the proper use of evidence and proof.

5. Subjective experience is still evidence, although has to be treated as subjective and not objective evidence (and I say evidence, and not proof). If I were to justify why I believe the paintings of Edward Hopper to be beautiful the evidence I could provide you with would mostly be my subjective experience. But there is such a thing as the perception of beauty, just as there is such a thing as experiencing God. That someone else does not perceive Hopper's art as beautiful does not invalidate my subjective judgement on the matter. And while it is only my opinion, if the vast majority of humanity were to experience Hopper's paintings as beautiful then there is probably something objective to them to cause that experience. Just because one individual were to experience them as ugly would not automatically undo the weight of human experience in favour of their beauty. And it is the same with the experiencing God. Many, many people claim to have had an experience they would ascribe to God. Are they all hallucinating? Or is there something in this account which is real for the majority of humans that we cannot casually dismiss, just because it does not accord with our own experience?

That is not to say that "popularity=truth", but it also follows that "minority opnion=greater claim to truth" is also fallacious.

McDonald's is in every nation, true (we'll see if it is in 2,00 years though - hope not!). And they've managed that in the 'digital age', with the backing of the US 'Empire'.

I still don't get how Christianity kicked off so quickly in a time when there wasn't even a postal system to speak of - let alone planes, emails etc.

Merry - the church getting off the ground... I wasn't there and nor were you. These things spread through people's belief in them, I suppose. Does't make that belief "real". How did the belief in the Greek gods persist throughout their entire culture, and what gives us the right now to say that they are less "real" than the christian god?

dawntigga - nice answer, but science isn't there to answer all the questions. I'd rather live in a world where science is progressing slowly, starting to understand by asking questions and constantly re-defining them in the face of new evidence, than one where the answers are to be found in religion.

Regarding the composition of the New Testament, the earliest texts (e.g. the letter to the Galatians) were probably written in the AD 40s - 55s, about 20 to 30 years after the events.

A bulk of the NT was probably written down in the 60s-70s (about 30-40 years after the events).

The latest texts (Revelation, and possibly John's Gospel) were probably upto about AD90-100, still only c.70 years after the date. Many people who were around during the period of Jesus' ministry would have been available to confirm or deny the gospel accounts, and the accounts that come through other parts of the NT. If I published a book about World War 2 and just made it all up I am sure that plenty of veterans, along with people who had heard first hand accounts from veterans, would line up to prove me wrong. This did not happen with the New Testament, even though the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem and the Roman authorities across the Empire had a lot of motivation to do so.

With regards to the extent of original manuscripts, the Bible is the single best represented document from the period. Caesar's Gallic War (written about 50BC) has its earliest surviving copy from AD 950 and we only have 10 copies. Tacitus (AD 100) has its earliest manuscript from AD 1100 (so a 1000 year gap) and we only have about 20 manuscripts. The New Testament texts were written c. AD 40 - 100. The earliest document we have is from AD 130, the earliest complete manuscript with all the texts brought together is from AD 350 (and it wouldn't be much earlier, given that the Canon was affirmed in the 4th Century), and we have over 25,000 early copies in Greek, Latin and other languages. You can be pretty sure that what you read in a good translation such as the NRSV is astoundingly close to the original text of the New Testament.

That still means you have to treat it like a historical document, look for the editorial reasons behind the text, check for internal consistency, understand the purpose of each document and their context, etc. But the NT text itself is remarkably solid.

As for whether the Gospel accounts are accurate recollections, by comparing the four of them you can do pretty well. While the example given of the motorway car accident shows that memory is fallible, the witnesses all agreed that there was a car accident. Using the gospels together, and using historical critical analysis of the text, it is possible to build up a good picture of some of the key events in Chris's life, death and resurrection.

UQD wrote:

"I'd rather live in a world where science is progressing slowly, starting to understand by asking questions and constantly re-defining them in the face of new evidence, than one where the answers are to be found in religion."

The progressing steadily, working out answers as we go along and discarding old ones that no longer fit is my understanding of how mainstream religion progresses. As you will see from my earlier posts on epistemology, theology is an appropriate tool for some questions but not all. And theology is continually evolving as human experience grows.

The view that religion is a monolith, uncapable of reacting to real world changes is one of the fallacies of the atheist movement. It is possible to paint this picture of religion by selecting a narrow band of religious fundamentalists, but the majority of believers are not from that demographic. It would be like claiming all atheists are like Stalin and Pol Pot. Which they aren't!

Can I ask a serious question of those (and there seem to be a good few) who seem to think you don't need evidence to believe something, or that asking for evidence to distinguish between the real and the made-up is not fair?

What criteria do you use to distinguish between something which is real and something which is fictional/made up? Given that you are not allowed, by your own decision, to weigh the existing evidence and make an informed choice, as I would? What, in other words, distinguishes a lizard, Harry Potter, fairies and Doctor Who's TARDIS console from a dragon, Tommy Cooper, butterflies and your kitchen table?

For the record, I don't consider personal testimony to be objective evidence - which rules out rather a lot of what people claim as "evidence".

And the point that Merry is making about the beginnings of the early church are a very real point. The disciples had followed Jesus around for 3 years, given up a lot to follow him, really believed in him. Then they saw him killed. Most of us would be gutted if that had happened to us.

But somehow all of them, within a short space of time, started saying that they had seen him alive again. Not one of them. Not a few, but lots of them (the apostles minus Judas and other followers such as those on the road to Emmaus).

Most critically, the Apostles not only said he was alive but were prepared to travel around the known world from Rome to India and tell people this. Again not just one of them, but many of them. Even when they were threatened with execution if they did not stop saying it they continued to do so. Not just one of them, but many.

Can you come up with a reason that they would do such a thing? If you had believed in someone, seen them killed and you hadn't seen them risen from the dead would you be prepared to live the rest of your life for something you knew to be untrue? Would you travel to strange lands desperate to spread this good news if you had made it up? And wouldn't you be tempted to say "alright then, I was having a laugh" when faced with execution for spreading this story?

The other fact that is hard for atheists to explain away is why the Jewish and Roman authorities didn't produce Jesus' body to disprove the early church's claims. It would have been very easy to do, and goodnes knows they wanted to get rid of the Christians (e.g. persecutions in Rome in AD 50 and many well attested run-ins with the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem and further afield).

Stopping Christianity would have been very easy to do. They only way you couldn't have done it is if (1) you couldn't produce a body and (2) many of his followers absolutely believed that he had risen from the dead and were prepared to put ther lives on the line to spread the news.