These Fellows Is Crazy!

Well, evidence that the universe is 13-15 billion years old can be found in any of a vast number of scientific texts.That God created is a whole lot harder to prove. Though I suppose the Bible would be a citable source (though one open to debate as to how good that evidence is and what it means).Though, as a Christian theist, I'm happier to say that God is creating the universe rather than he did create it.Alan

Of course it's a citable source. Anything is. Though, naturally, any source cited for any reason is automatically up for debate. Perhaps you ought to consider what is meant by citation. Certainly as a Christian I would cite Scripture to support my position. You, or anyone else, are at liberty to discuss the value of that supporting evidence (indeed dismiss it entirely if you can) or my interpretation of it. But that doesn't stop that being part of the basis of my beliefs.And, in my reasoned opinion, atheism is as nonsensical as you find my religion. I can't prove God exists, but have faith he does. You can't prove he doesn't exist, but have faith that he doesn't.Alan

Sorry for assuming you're an atheist rather than agnostic.Of course, you won't find any scientific evidence for the existance or non-existance of the non-material. Science works within the framework of materialism; it can't address anything outside that - be that the (non-)existance of a diety or how much I love my girlfriend.I use science to interpret the material world around me. My faith enables me to extrapolate beyond the material to understand the whole of my world - just as an atheist, Buddhist or anyone else does.Alan

quote:

---

If the bible can be considered a valid citable source then so can all relgion/mythologies, fairytales, and all works of fiction can be citable sources.

---

Quite right, and why not? If something illustrates a point (as, say, a lot of fiction or poetry does) then use it. If I want to discuss an idea I have to cite the relevant sources. Citing a source doesn't even imply agreement ... just recognition that you're aware of and willing to consider (even if long enough to reject it) all relevent data.

quote:

---

You have no proof that the bible contains more than an occasional correct historical reference.

---

And, I haven't claimed it does. All I've claimed here so far is that Biblical teaching forms a substantial part of how I understand the world.Alan

quote:

---

Yes, but nobody accepts that number simply because it's written down in a book.

---

Oh, I'm sure you can find someone who accepts it cos it's written in a book. There's no avoiding the sheep at times.But, I accept the date because anyone with a smattering of physics and maths can examine the evidence given and follow the arguments (to a greater or lesser degree). Other people will probably just have to trust that others who can follow what's said; just as I have to trust a doctor who prescribes a particular drug if I fall ill since my knowledge of biochemistry and human physiology isn't sufficient for me to fully assess the diagnosis and effects of the drug.I take it you were drawing a parallel with people who believe something about God "simply because it's written down in a book". Again, I'm sure there are sheep out there in this area to. Personally, I believe in God. That belief is, in part, based on Scripture - it's also based on reason and experience (including that of others).

quote:

---

Instead, the evidence that the universe is about 14 billion years old can be found by going outside and looking up. Anybody can do it.

---

I could also say "The evidence that God exists can be found by going outside at night and looking up. Anybody can do it", which, of course, doesn't make your statement wrong (I happen to accept it more or less - the less being that with the naked eye you can't see much more than a few hundred thousand years into the past ... actually reaching the number 14billion years takes a bit of maths on more data than given by the human eye).Alan

quote:

---

You'd think that if the evidence for god were so apparent, people would agree on the characteristics of that god, but we have yet to come up with a consistent description...even between people who claim to believe in the same god.

---

If I was trying to be disingenuous I might compare it with interpretations of quantum theory (eg: Copenhagen, hidden variables, many worlds etc) in which physicists looking at the same data come to different (often radically different) descriptions of what is happening. Of course, the history of science is such that when there have been similar disagreements in the past eventually new data and theories have settled into a single description - and there is no evidence of that ever happening in religion.But, of course, parallels with science aren't entirely appropriate. The evidence for God is simply not capable of being analysed by the scientific method, as it is of a non-material nature. Now if you happen to believe that anything that can't be addressed by science is either non-existant or totally trivial then I guess that's the end of the discussion for you. Personally I find assessing the evidence for God to be closer to describing why a particular bit of poetry is good - it just can't be done by science (remember that scene in "Dead Poets Society"?) and will result in a variety of "answers".Alan

quote:

---

Thousands of years and still there isn't even the slightest bit of consensus on even the most basic characteristics of god?

---

While it's, obviously, true that there is little consensus there is some. Most religions believe that god exists, though some (such as hinduism) might well consider that different expressions of God may be considers as seperate gods (of course, Trinitarianism in Christianity may be said to approach a similar position) most religions are fundamentally monotheistic. There is some consensus towards God being, in some sense, Creator. Deism and philosophical buddhism may be said to have God so remote as to be absent, but otherwise most religions state he is interested in what we do (eg: he issues commands he wants us to follow, gives sacred texts, judges etc).

quote:

---

quote:

---

Now if you happen to believe that anything that can't be addressed by science is either non-existant or totally trivial then I guess that's the end of the discussion for you.

---

I don't recall saying or even vaguely hinting at such a thing. Why would you immediately jump to such a conclusion?

---

I'm sorry. I meant a more generic "you" rather than refer to you specifically; you haven't stated that position, and indeed I'd be surprised if anyone who did think that would be spending a lot of time discussing things on a forum such as this. Allow me to phrase that so it better reflects what I meant, "Now, some people may believe that anything that can't be addressed by science is either non-existant or totally trivial, but then I guess that's the end of the discussion for them"

quote:

---

Ah, but whether or not we agree about the poem being "good," we both agree that the poem exists. That it has certain structural aspects. That it was written within a certain cultural framework from which it takes its metaphors.

---

Which is why it's not a great analogy, sorry I couldn't think of a better one. Ultimately I do believe that "evidence for God" is only really evidence for people who have already made the step of faith that God exists (in the analogy, it's for people who agree that the "God exists" poem exists). But, then again I find that evidence for the absense of God unconvincing for possibly the same reason (I don't agree that the "there is no God" poem exists).I know of no means to convince another person of the existance or otherwise of God. All I can do is point out evidence that is consistent with/supportive of the "God exists" axiom. And, my point in the earlier post, that that evidence is much more akin to appreciation of a work of art than scientific analysis.Alan

quote:

---

You can believe that extramaterial or supernatural things exist. They just don't matter scientifically unless they can also be said to exist in our material, natural plane. This is the only way science can be done, the first step in formulating hypotheses about the natural world: nothing is included that cannot be detected or verified.

---

Which is also my point. But, it is a big step from "don't matter scientifically" to "don't matter at all" ... which is a step some athiests seem to want to make.Alan

quote:

---

But the axiom is a self-fulfilling one. What evidence would you accept that would call that axiom into question?

---

Well, it isn't necessarily self-fulfilling. If I was to say that, for example, God always answers prayer then the undeniable fact that he doesn't negates my statement. Now, I admit that my position is somewhat circular (though I might say more like a spiral ... in that it is constantly open to refinement where new experience can often go back and cause me to reassess parts of my position). But, ultimately, like any axiom, it would take something very significant to reject the whole axiom in favour of another one.Also, I would note, that a position of "there is no God" is equally axiomatic.Alan

First off, sorry for the delay in answering. It wasn't a deliberate avoidance, just life getting too busy for me to get back on here recently.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But, it is a big step from "don't matter scientifically" to "don't matter at all" ... which is a step some athiests seem to want to make.

---

Evidence, please?

​

I know that people like to say this about atheists, but I have yet to find a single one who seems to think that atheists don't care about anything that can't be examined "scientifically."

---

You're right, I did overstep my ability to provide supporting evidence. I suppose the sort of thing I was thinking of (admittedly not as strong as what I stated) are the likes of Carl Sagans introduction the A Brief History of TimeAlmost as though once you have a scientific explanation for a phenomenon then there is no longer a need for any complementary description.Again, I admit that isn't as strong as the statement I originally made, and concede that my original statement is not representative of the views of the majority of atheists.Alan