Do Christians have sufficient evidence to believe God exists

[Helandhighwater]

The atheist is like a man that walks into a field to find a 747 aircraft, never encountering one before and calls it a natural occurence.

Poppycock. Atheists are smarter than this.

Then atheists agree that there must be an intelligent designer? You don't know atheism very well do you?...

Couldn't resist.

I believe in God, but this cracked me up, gets posted regularly on the sites I hang around on: priceless.

[James S Saint]

Do you really believe that just having an opinion should trump the scientific method? If so who the hell will care what you think? And rightly so. Put your money where your mouth is, opinions I am told are cheap and everyone has one.

Okay, bright guy, point out even one experiment using the scientific method that demonstrates that time began.

Already did.

That is the second (at least) time you have lied in saying that you had already done something that you hadn't.
No such experiment can exist.

[Helandhighwater]

That is the second (at least) time you have lied in saying that you had already done something that you hadn't.
No such experiment can exist.

The big bang theory provides that, you don't except it what else do you want me to do?

This is the 100000th time I have asked you to prove that contrary theories have more evidence and or are more likely to be right and or have some backing that you can link. Do I win an award for pointing that out again? You can't win science by repeating fallacies like a nodding duck. Evidence is important, your opinion is not. So show me some or STFU.

No such experiment can exist.

No such experiment, yes, but that does not render a theory incorrect because we can not travel back to the beginning of time. Good lord. What are you even trying to say? So we can't observe t>0 at the big bang or whatever theory I or you care to name and that makes any observable evidence subsequently false? Do you even know what science is? Is this really your argument from ignorance? I mean I am religious, I believe in God, but I would have a hard time trumping your faith based rhetoric?

[omar]

Helandhighwater
Loved the video. That is part of what I am saying, that "evidence" is framed by a person's interpretation of what they see.
At the end of the video the priest gives an atheist's like explanation. He quickly retracts but really he didn't. Is evolution not part of that 747 parked in the field? Christians get jumpy about evolution, but even Catholics have become more nuanced about their now partial rejections of only parts of the theory.

[James S Saint]

No such experiment can exist.

The big bang theory provides that, you don't except it what else do you want me to do?
.
.
No such experiment, yes, but that does not render a theory incorrect ..

Wow..

"You have presented no evidence for your proposal"
"You haven't provided any against it and Science is better than your opinion"
"Science doesn't have anything to say about it"
"I know that, but that doesn't mean it's wrong and Science counts more than your opinion"

Gyahd...

[Helandhighwater]

No such experiment can exist.

The big bang theory provides that, you don't except it what else do you want me to do?
.
.
No such experiment, yes, but that does not render a theory incorrect ..

Wow..

"You have presented no evidence for your proposal"
"You haven't provided any against it and Science is better than your opinion"
"Science doesn't have anything to say about it"
"I know that, but that doesn't mean it's wrong and Science counts more than your opinion"

Gyahd...

Are you for real, you haven't seen the evidence for the Big Bang, or are you just a bit ignorant?

Read a book or google it.

Then look up WMAP images, radio wave telemetry and model iterations and all the other host of data that make the theory one. Or you can just go on claiming you are the best thing since sliced bread and have all the answers. Which will immediately relegate you to being not just a crackpot but dangerously deluded in your thinking.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) is a NASA Explorer mission that launched June 2001 to make fundamental measurements of cosmology -- the study of the properties of our universe as a whole. WMAP has been stunningly successful, producing our new Standard Model of Cosmology. WMAP's data stream has ended. Full analysis of the data will be completed in the remaining two years of the mission.
Latest Results (based on 7-years of WMAP Data in 2011 Publications)

The WMAP team has reported the first direct detection of pre-stellar helium, providing an important test of the big bang prediction.
WMAP now places 50% tighter limits on the standard model of cosmology than our previous 5-year WMAP results.
WMAP has detected a key signature of inflation.
WMAP strongly constrains dark energy and geometry of the universe.
WMAP places new constraints on the number of neutrino-like species in the early universe.
WMAP has detected, with very high significance, temperature shifts induced by hot gas in galaxy clusters.
WMAP has produced a visual demonstration of the polarization pattern around hot and cold spots.


WMAP's Top Ten

NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has mapped the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the oldest light in the universe) and produced the first fine-resolution (0.2 degree) full-sky map of the microwave sky
WMAP definitively determined the age of the universe to be 13.73 billion years old to within 1% (0.12 billion years) -as recognized in the Guinness Book of World Records!
WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to within 1% of "flat" Euclidean, improving on the precision of previous award-winning measurements by over an order of magnitude
The CMB became the "premier baryometer" of the universe with WMAP's precision determination that ordinary atoms (also called baryons) make up only 4.6% of the universe (to within 0.1%)
WMAP's complete census of the universe finds that dark matter (not made up of atoms) make up 23.3% (to within 1.3%)
WMAP's accuracy and precision determined that dark energy makes up 72.1% of the universe (to within 1.5%), causing the expansion rate of the universe to speed up. - "Lingering doubts about the existence of dark energy and the composition of the universe dissolved when the WMAP satellite took the most detailed picture ever of the cosmic microwave background (CMB)." - Science Magazine 2003, "Breakthrough of the Year" article
WMAP has mapped the polarization of the microwave radiation over the full sky and discovered that the universe was reionized earlier than previously believed. - "WMAP scores on large-scale structure. By measuring the polarization in the CMB it is possible to look at the amplitude of the fluctuations of density in the universe that produced the first galaxies. That is a real breakthrough in our understanding of the origin of structure." - ScienceWatch: "What's Hot in Physics", Simon Mitton, Mar./Apr. 2008
WMAP has started to sort through the possibilities of what transpired in the first trillionth of a trillionth of a second, ruling out well-known textbook models for the first time.
The statistical properties of the CMB fluctuations measured by WMAP appear "random"; however, there are several hints of possible deviations from simple randomness that are still being assessed. Significant deviations would be a very important signature of new physics in the early universe.
WMAP has put the "precision" in "precision cosmology" by reducing the allowed volume of cosmological parameters by a factor of 30,000. The three most highly cited physics and astronomy papers published in the new millennium are WMAP scientific papers--- reflecting WMAP's enormous impact.

Here's a link. Now stop waffling on about how everything is wrong and dispute the evidence or go back into your hole and complain about science being horrible or whatever, either way I really am not fussed.

Incidentally there are a host of other theories out there too you probably don't believe, why not give them a whurl too. Couldn't hurt.

Say I want to create a theory called evolution, because I can't prove how abiogenesis formed viable life forms but can make some educated guesses based on biochemistry and physics, does that make evolution false? In the same way I cannot see very moment or iota of time in history but I can look at all the available data, make models to run time backwards and make some valid hypotheses that are testable, does that render my theory wrong? It's still a theory, whether you like it or not.

[Typist]

Is evolution not part of that 747 parked in the field?

Good point! Evolution seems more an argument for a God than disproving a God. As example, imagine how challenging it would be for us to create such a self regulated system? Throwing a bunch of XYZ on the ground in a random fashion and then walking away probably wouldn't work.

[omar]

Is evolution not part of that 747 parked in the field?

Good point! Evolution seems more an argument for a God than disproving a God. As example, imagine how challenging it would be for us to create such a self regulated system? Throwing a bunch of XYZ on the ground in a random fashion and then walking away probably wouldn't work.

It is only the atheist of today that is fond of speculating a strike of luck to then posit a universe where law and uniformity prevail. Weird. Theist were at the forefront (I say theist, because Deism, while theism, goes largely unacknowledged) of science by positing, yes, a rational creator, which worked as the foundation of their lawful physics.

[omar]

Helandhighwater,
WMAP measures X. the rest of the stuff is an speculation as to what is being measured. Is it the radiation at T >0, or is it the measure of a moment in eternal time, eternal existence? The fact is that the original theory of the big bang failed to explain inflation. Scientists were unprepared to explain, through the original theory, the state of the art measurements being taken then. So just as the Christians get accused of worshiping the God of gaps, science created for itself "Dark Energy"...they might as well have said "the Spirit of ..." and retained the same wish-fulfillment.

The supreme virtue of science is it's ability to improve upon itself, but you have to wonders if sometimes what is actually improved is an idea in our heads that better explains the conjunction we have made, rather than an improvement in actual knowledge of reality as is.

[Typist]

It is only the atheist of today that is fond of speculating a strike of luck to then posit a universe where law and uniformity prevail. Weird.

What makes it even more challenging for atheists is that their approach is built upon a declared loyalty to the authority of reason. I don't think most of them, in net forums anyway, really grasp what a demanding "god" reason really is.

Your 747 example does an excellent job of shining a light on this internal conflict within their world view, imho. Imagine that it was written in the Bible that observable reality is highly ordered, and that it all came to be from random chance. They would snort their derision of such a proposal, if it was anybody else's proposal other than their own.

The theists have it much easier, as their system tends to be built upon faith. They can declare faith in anything they want, and remain internally consistent. Thus, the theists may be more logical than the atheists, a delightful irony.

Theist were at the forefront (I say theist, because Deism, while theism, goes largely unacknowledged) of science by positing, yes, a rational creator, which worked as the foundation of their lawful physics.

The first tenant of my personal religion is that I have no clue. But once that's clear, it can be fun to speculate.

Nature is my bible, and I'm reading it all the time, trying to see the bigger picture it may illustrate.

It's true that nature is ordered, and this argues for an ordered rational maker. But it's also true that nature is all things. It's day and night, up and down, ordered and chaotic, beautiful and ugly, something and nothing, tender and merciless etc.

Thus, I reason that if there is some maker such as a God, it too may contain all things, be beyond any polarity. If true, then such a God would be both rational and orderly, and irrational and chaotic too. Evolution is an example of a process that is great order built upon random chaos. It's not one or the other, but both.

Our dualistic minds tend to have a great deal of trouble with the idea of two apparently opposing things at the same time. We desperately want it to be this or that, either or, black or white, what box do I put this in???

This demand may be a limitation of the equipment we are using more than it is a requirement reality is constrained by.

[Helandhighwater]

Helandhighwater,
WMAP measures X. the rest of the stuff is an speculation as to what is being measured. Is it the radiation at T >0, or is it the measure of a moment in eternal time, eternal existence? The fact is that the original theory of the big bang failed to explain inflation. Scientists were unprepared to explain, through the original theory, the state of the art measurements being taken then. So just as the Christians get accused of worshiping the God of gaps, science created for itself "Dark Energy"...they might as well have said "the Spirit of ..." and retained the same wish-fulfillment.

The supreme virtue of science is it's ability to improve upon itself, but you have to wonders if sometimes what is actually improved is an idea in our heads that better explains the conjunction we have made, rather than an improvement in actual knowledge of reality as is.

Er no it didn't and if you read that link you would know why. The original Big Bang was looking for evidence for inflation a hypothetical period, but then just like evolution, science evolves, the original big bang theory is still the same theory just 10-30 years ago.

I'm not here to defend any theory, but a theory doesn't become less credible because some anonymous person on the web says he doesn't like it. Like I say there are many possible theories, some more likely than others, some more hypothetical entirely.

Dark energy and matter are hypothetical indeed. There are some alternatives though which mean neither actually needs to exist. No one is saying the standard or most popular theories are the only game in town, so I don't see what the problem is. Like everything else theories have their fan boys, some last some dont, what will out is evidence though not opinion. I don't know if quantum mechanics and The BB are true in fact I am not even remotely qualified to suggest a likelihood of them being accurate, I don't care, because science is not about truths or if something is truthy or how qualitative it is it is about hard facts and logical extrapolations based on observable data. What I do know though is no one is going to give you the time of day unless you put up.

[omar]

Helandhighwater,
WMAP measures X. the rest of the stuff is an speculation as to what is being measured. Is it the radiation at T >0, or is it the measure of a moment in eternal time, eternal existence? The fact is that the original theory of the big bang failed to explain inflation. Scientists were unprepared to explain, through the original theory, the state of the art measurements being taken then. So just as the Christians get accused of worshiping the God of gaps, science created for itself "Dark Energy"...they might as well have said "the Spirit of ..." and retained the same wish-fulfillment.

The supreme virtue of science is it's ability to improve upon itself, but you have to wonders if sometimes what is actually improved is an idea in our heads that better explains the conjunction we have made, rather than an improvement in actual knowledge of reality as is.

Er no it didn't and if you read that link you would know why. The original Big Bang was looking for evidence for inflation a hypothetical period, but then just like evolution, science evolves, the original big bang theory is still the same theory just 10-30 years ago.

I'm not here to defend any theory, but a theory doesn't become less credible because some anonymous person on the web says he doesn't like it. Like I say there are many possible theories, some more likely than others, some more hypothetical entirely.

Dark energy and matter are hypothetical indeed. There are some alternatives though which mean neither actually needs to exist. No one is saying the standard or most popular theories are the only game in town, so I don't see what the problem is. Like everything else theories have their fan boys, some last some dont, what will out is evidence though not opinion. I don't know if quantum mechanics and The BB are true in fact I am not even remotely qualified to suggest a likelihood of them being accurate, I don't care, because science is not about truths or if something is truthy or how qualitative it is it is about hard facts and logical extrapolations based on observable data. What I do know though is no one is going to give you the time of day unless you put up.

What indeed do they have to put out? Logical extrapolations...how are these "facts"?
You have to make distinctions here. If what you want to interpret is the velocimeter data on a propeller balancing run then you are dealing with facts. Why? Because everything happens under your glance. Very few guesses where the end result, a balanced prop, is attainable or not.
But theoretical physics is another animal and even as you describe it I can only think of the scholastics, the Thomists, the people Ucissore is emulating. To them, it is also about "logical extrapolations".

My point is that at the fringes of Reality everything becomes a bit more uncertain. And we move by faith or call it "by the spirit of science" from conclusion to conclusion with little else than a "hypothesis".

[James S Saint]

Science requires observation because its only purpose is to verify a hypothesis or philosophy.
Because it requires observation, it is restricted as to what it can verify.
Fields like Quantum Physics attempt to extrapolate through reasoning and guess work.
But Science cannot verify their guesses and in many cases verify that their guesses are very probably wrong.

Deducing physical history is not something Science can do very well other than test the age of a few artifacts.
They cannot verify from where those artifacts came and certainly not "why".

Logic is the only hope for deduction concerning history because history cannot be observed.
Logic and epistemology are the foundation of thought and nothing gets known without them.
Science is merely a tool to verify that a thought might not be wrong, but it can never verify that it was right.
Only Logic can do that (a philosophy).

Christianity is intentionally NOT based on evidence nor logic (due to homosapians very poor ability to handle it), but on hope and faith.
The Atheist exists merely to take such hope away by destroying faith ("Believe is US instead").

[felix dakat]

The presupposition of this thread is that someone has the authority to stand above the controversy and determine how much evidence is necessary to believe God exists. Obviously, Christians believe they have enough evidence to believe God exists. Agnostics don't believe there is enough evidence to decide the issue conclusively. Atheists may think the evidence demonstrates that God does not exist. So there are a range of opinions of the subject. This thread asks for a meta-opinion about the opinions, when in fact all we can do is produce opinions along the range of the existence-of-God question. To suppose you can answer this thread's question definitively is to unwittingly enter into a vicious circle of opinions about opinions. There is no epistemologically privileged POV from which you can get above the fray to make the call.

The problem isn't really just a matter of "sufficient evidence" anyway. There is plenty of evidence of something [...or nothing if you prefer]. The problem is that the evidence is ambiguous like the optical illusion of the beautiful woman that flips into a hag depending how you look at it. Thus, it requires interpretation and no interpretation is final. There is always the possibility that the way you see it now can flip on you and reverse your gestalt. In religious terminology it's called "conversion" and it goes both ways. The phenomenon has also been called "snapping.' Thus, Christian hater Paul suddenly becomes one of the foremost Christians of all time, or evangelist Bible thumper Bart Ehrman turns on years of religious training and education to become an ardent debunker of Biblical inerrantism. The dogmatist in either camp builds up a shit load of cognitive dissonance denying the possibility that the beautiful woman could be a hag or vice versa as it were. When the quantum of cognitive dissonance is reached, the gestalt flips to the other side.

[Helandhighwater]

Science requires observation because its only purpose is to verify a hypothesis or philosophy.
Because it requires observation, it is restricted as to what it can verify.
Fields like Quantum Physics attempt to extrapolate through reasoning and guess work.
But Science cannot verify their guesses and in many cases verify that their guesses are very probably wrong.

Deducing physical history is not something Science can do very well other than test the age of a few artifacts.
They cannot verify from where those artifacts came and certainly not "why".

Logic is the only hope for deduction concerning history because history cannot be observed.
Logic and epistemology are the foundation of thought and nothing gets known without them.
Science is merely a tool to verify that a thought might not be wrong, but it can never verify that it was right.
Only Logic can do that (a philosophy).

Christianity is intentionally NOT based on evidence nor logic (due to homosapians very poor ability to handle it), but on hope and faith.
The Atheist exists merely to take such hope away by destroying faith ("Believe is US instead").

I disagree, logic and science are and always have been close bed fellows, to throw the baby out with the bath water is stupid. Scientific method is founded on a rigid logical structure, just as its achievements rely on the application of logical review and review of peers. Losing one or any of the tools science has to purely philosophical arm waving or a method that lacks evidential observation, data collection and rigid analysis and a lack of bedrock method is frankly preposterous. What you are it seems is a Luddite, someone who wants to smash apart all the progress that has been made and set us back to the time before the age of reason. No field relies on speculation alone, sure there may be popular theories, some weak and some strong but at the end of the day no one will win any prizes for an idea, for a reasonable argument or for a model alone, an applicable, practical and proven idea maybe. Whilst I agree that humans are natural herders, at the end of the day it is the mavericks who win the most acclaim, I can name a dozen scientists of the 20th century who spent most of their life revolutionising science and stepping on the trail less travelled, I would be hard pressed to equal such a list with scientific conservatives. This is because science has but one real rule if we want to get down to it, or at least one hard and fast rule, if not several sub rules that are related by the method: that which does not kill it makes it stronger and if it does kill it it makes it stronger, it's evolution baby, like evolution science is, as someone famous I forget the name of once opined, but one death after another. Perhaps he could of said followed by one birth and or death after another but meh.

[omar]

The presupposition of this thread is that someone has the authority to stand above the controversy and determine how much evidence is necessary to believe God exists. Obviously, Christians believe they have enough evidence to believe God exists. Agnostics don't believe there is enough evidence to decide the issue conclusively. Atheists may think the evidence demonstrates that God does not exist. So there are a range of opinions of the subject. This thread asks for a meta-opinion about the opinions, when in fact all we can do is produce opinions along the range of the existence-of-God question. To suppose you can answer this thread's question definitively is to unwittingly enter into a vicious circle of opinions about opinions. There is no epistemologically privileged POV from which you can get above the fray to make the call.

The problem isn't really just a matter of "sufficient evidence" anyway. There is plenty of evidence of something [...or nothing if you prefer]. The problem is that the evidence is ambiguous like the optical illusion of the beautiful woman that flips into a hag depending how you look at it. Thus, it requires interpretation and no interpretation is final. There is always the possibility that the way you see it now can flip on you and reverse your gestalt. In religious terminology it's called "conversion" and it goes both ways. It has also been called "snapping.' Thus, Christian hater Paul suddenly becomes one of the foremost Christians of all time, or evangelist Bible thumper Bart Ehrman turns on years of religious training and education to become an ardent debunker of Biblical inerrantism. The dogmatist in either camp builds up a shit load of cognitive dissonance denying the possibility that the beautiful woman could be a hag or vice versa. When the quantum of cognitive dissonance is reached, the gestalt flips to the other side.

Of course we agree. I would only add that each camp, and I cannot stress that this is not the existential condition of man, but only at these fringes of cognition, has to struggle with the subject or avoid thinking of it. Cognitive dissonance, bad faith as Sartre might have put it, is a way in which we avoid actually thinking.

[Mutcer]

The burden of proof is upon those making the positive claim.

No. The burden of proof is upon the one making ANY claim.

Asserting a God exists is a claim

Not asserting a God exists is to NOT make a claim.

[Mutcer]

You are making an appeal to common sense Mutcer.
If you tell me you saw a man get shot I am looking at the same evidence, your testimony, which might be true or false, as your testimony that you saw a milk jug float in air. Now I understand that one claim is less abnormal than the other, but that in itself does not make one of your testimonies more infallible or certain than the other. The evidence is in both cases, like it or not, your word.

Because one of the two things claimed to have occurred is far more implausible to occur than the other, the human mind will require more evidence to be convinced a milk jug levitated through the air at a grocery store than a man got shot at a grocery store - this is assuming all other things equal (e.g. person making the claim; directness of the claim, etc.)

Now, in the case of the universe, atheist claim that all came about through chance. Given the lawfulness of the universe it is more abnormal as a testimony than the testimony that theist make, which is that the universe had an intelligent creator. The theist (note: not necessarily Christians) has the evidence of order in the universe. The speed of light is constant, the force of gravity is constant....lucky happenings in the atheists mind-- that is what would require evidence. The atheist is like a man that walks into a field to find a 747 aircraft, never encountering one before and calls it a natural occurence.

Not true; The atheist does not claim all came about through intelligent design. There is a difference between that and claiming everything came about through chance.

Whatever order is in the universe is evidence for not just the theist, but all atheists as well. This "order" is no more visible to theists than it is to atheists.

The atheist wouldn't call the 747 a natural occurrence. He would recognize that it is likely a man made object - just as the theist would.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

[Typist]

Not asserting a God exists is to NOT make a claim.

If one is not asserting a God exists, and also not asserting a God doesn't exist, then no claim is being made, and there is no burden of proof.

What often happens on forums though, is that some atheists adamantly claim there is no God, and then they claim their claim is not a claim. With such a blatantly transparent operation they reveal that they aren't actually interested in reason after all, and their points are largely driven by emotional ego competition agendas.

[Typist]

The atheist wouldn't call the 747 a natural occurrence. He would recognize that it is likely a man made object - just as the theist would.

Right.

Now ask, why would both parties conclude that the 747 arose from some intelligent source? They've never seen a 747 before, and have no idea what it is really, but somehow they conclude somebody made it. Why?

[omar]

The burden of proof is upon those making the positive claim.

No. The burden of proof is upon the one making ANY claim.

Asserting a God exists is a claim

Not asserting a God exists is to NOT make a claim.

Then the subject at hand is not an atheist but an agnostic. Atheism is claiming that there is NO gods. Agnosticism is avoiding claiming either that there are or that there aren't any gods.

[Mutcer]

The atheist wouldn't call the 747 a natural occurrence. He would recognize that it is likely a man made object - just as the theist would.

Right.

Now ask, why would both parties conclude that the 747 arose from some intelligent source? They've never seen a 747 before, and have no idea what it is really, but somehow they conclude somebody made it. Why?

Because it is more plausible that it was made by humans than by natural occurrences.

[Mutcer]

Asserting a God exists is a claim

Not asserting a God exists is to NOT make a claim.

Then the subject at hand is not an atheist but an agnostic. Atheism is claiming that there is NO gods. Agnosticism is avoiding claiming either that there are or that there aren't any gods.

Either way, it is one who does not believe that the God of the Bible exists.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

[omar]

Hello Mutcer,

--- Because one of the two things claimed to have occurred is far more implausible to occur than the other, the human mind will require more evidence to be convinced a milk jug levitated through the air at a grocery store than a man got shot at a grocery store - this is assuming all other things equal (e.g. person making the claim; directness of the claim, etc.)
O- The human mind is a fallible gauge. But suppose that 500 hundred saw the milk jug float while only one man saw the guy get shot? Is the mere number of witness equal to the "more evidence" requirement? Again, who or what is the judge? That is what really determines the satisfaction or not with the presented evidence.

--- Not true; The atheist does not claim all came about through intelligent design.
O- I know. Where did I say that?

--- There is a difference between that and claiming everything came about through chance.
O- I know. That is my point.

--- Whatever order is in the universe is evidence for not just the theist, but all atheists as well. This "order" is no more visible to theists than it is to atheists.
O- It is a simple question Mutcer: Why is there order?

--- The atheist wouldn't call the 747 a natural occurrence. He would recognize that it is likely a man made object - just as the theist would.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.
O- It is an analogy Mutcer. The uniform, lawful, ordered universe is the 747 here. Are these universal laws the product of intelligence, as you would posit an intelligent design when encountering a 747, so you say, or random chance?

[Typist]

Because it is more plausible that it was made by humans than by natural occurrences.

Right.

Why?