Questions to God. (1 Viewer)

[Isaac]

unny - I thought that to get approval for a new drug we do things like Randomised Clinical Trials - as we don't like to trust hearsay - the effectiveness and efficacy of new drugs are looked at in terms of measurements of physiology

Wrong. Not drugs having to do with how people feel - they're judged by how people feel. From pain to depression to attention deficit, the evidence is nothing more than what people say about how they feel. Your "randomised clinical trials" are based on information about what people said they felt.

 

[Isaac]

I have personally never witnessed any healing but Wes Huff's story is pretty compelling. It's his personal experience and that of the doctors that actually did verify the account. Wes Huff Story

They will go to endless lengths to discredit anything reported, because they can't afford to have any evidence exist - it would shake their paradigm of "it CAN'T be real" which is an answer begging a question

 

[Isaac]

You referred to Sam Wiggleworth where it is claimed to have raised someone (his wife) from the dead ... that is high quality rock-solid evidence - NOT. Were he and any onlookers primed

The sad thing is your blindness to the possibility of a spiritual world will impel you to discredit any numbers of witnesses.
There could be 1000 eyewitnesses to something (and have been), but you will say they are all crazy - which kind of makes this discussion a waste of time.

For the most part, you will not perceive the spiritual world with physical senses - that wouldn't make any sense.
So a lack of physical evidence is to be expected. It would be like trying to solve a math problem with psychology, then claiming math is nuts because none of your psychological solutions work on it

 

[The_Doc_Man]

They will go to endless lengths to discredit anything reported, because they can't afford to have any evidence exist - it would shake their paradigm of "it CAN'T be real" which is an answer begging a question

Au contraire, my friend. It is a matter of faith, but SOME of us put faith in what we can learn by observation because our faith is in our ability to perform experiments or test hypotheses. You have faith because some religiously related event resonates within you and gives you that moment of religious fervor, of something that triggers your emotions, of something you consider profound. We have faith as well, but faith in what we can see repeatedly, faith in tests that we can perform, faith in things that we can analyze through reason.

You should remember the statement, "Only through faith can you come to me."

My question to YOU is, is there only one kind of faith? What is evidence for you doesn't have to be evidence for me. Belief is a funny thing because it is so personal. What triggers belief in you might have absolutely no meaning for me. (We've discussed that many times.)

The question will always be whether you can present evidence - and so far, all of the evidence has been either anecdotal or unsupported. All of the miracles in the Bible were observed by people who didn't understand the idea of corroboration. But here is the kicker...

OK, let's say that at least SOME of these miracles actually happened. Why did the public miracles stop? It has been over 2000 years since we had public miracles. Did God give up on us, decide we were not worthy of seeing Him in action? Are we that bad that we are now to be left with uncorroborated descriptions of things that supposedly happened, things that if they WERE real would give people the chance to have the faith that would come of actually witnessing those events? Remember, Jesus refused to berate "Doubting Thomas." Are you doing what Jesus wouldn't do?

 

[GaP42]

Wrong. Not drugs having to do with how people feel - they're judged by how people feel. From pain to depression to attention deficit, the evidence is nothing more than what people say about how they feel. Your "randomised clinical trials" are based on information about what people said they felt.

I was going to say OMG but that would be wrong - it would seem you are prepared to accept without question hearsay as evidence in establishing the effectiveness and efficacy of a drug in testing - WOW! You do not need RCTs then. Why not skip the whole testing program and just take it by the bottle full. How people feel is reported - yes. An antidepressive drug for example, apart from earlier testing in animal models (rats etc) are checked to see if there are changes in say dopamine levels, and for side effects. Progress to RCTs involves having two cohorts - I hope you know this: the placebo group, and the test group (and must meet criteria that give sufficient numbers that differences in symptoms can be analysed using statistics (parametric analysis) to give a level of confidence about the difference being due to the treatment and not other confounding factors (eg ethnic background, diet, where they live etc) . Both report symptoms, both would be subject to blood test for eg to measure dopamine levels, both report side effects. In a rigorously conducted RCT the experimenters do not know who is in which group, those who analyse the data do not know who was given the drug and who was not - just that the belong to group A or B. So the results are produced : they do not report the individual participant results - they are categorised - from the survey: Please indicate on a scale of 1-10 your level of anxiety in the last 24 hours etc. How would you go about analysis? Of course we ask the question. We accept the response. The analysis is conducted so as to eliminate as best as we can hearsay: was the level of anxiety reported in both groups the same (or within the distribution of the normal range - established previously through standard sampling of a population(s). And then, if the drug was supposed to change the level of dopamine, perhaps we might want to see that in one group but not the other. But you say the evidence is "nothing more than what people say about how they feel" - haha
Are you so naive?

 

[GaP42]

They will go to endless lengths to discredit anything reported, because they can't afford to have any evidence exist - it would shake their paradigm of "it CAN'T be real" which is an answer begging a question

And there are those who will go to endless lengths to blindly believe the most extraordinary claims without evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Become a little sceptical and subject those beliefs to some rational assessment, or admit it is just faith - nothing more, nothing less.

 

[GaP42]

Blindness to the possibility of a spiritual world:

I wonder what that means - we can all feel awe-inspired, feel tiny in the majestic panorama of the universe and its wonder, or connected to one another. We are built that way, but to extend it to some fantastic being - with no discernible impact on the reality of living in the physical world - is simply your (collective) imagination.

For the most part, you will not perceive the spiritual world with physical senses - that wouldn't make any sense. So a lack of physical evidence is to be expected.

And so there we have it - lets revert to the dark ages. The untestable: we can just as well believe in ghosts because well ... whereas on the other hand we can use an approach which has led us to developing all the technology and understanding of the world today. There is no evidence - just faith - admit it.

It would be like trying to solve a math problem with psychology, then claiming math is nuts because none of your psychological solutions work on it

And do your methods work? Chose the right tool - or don't be a tool. You do not seem capable of applying the logic of maths and reach wrong-headed conclusions. Your position/ logic "I believe, therefore it must be" rather than the logical "if this then that is a consequence - so test it: do we see that outcome when we do that?" If not - then perhaps the "this" - the presumptive hypothesis is wrong, and needs to be reassessed, or this does result in that - it is "true", and we can make progress.

 

[GaP42]

Anyway @Isaac , @Mike Krailo it been fun to kick a few cans down the road, but as you say there is no point taking this further with you two. It is clear where the lines lie, unless you want to continue making nonsense claims. I'll take a break - going skiing.

 

[Isaac]

Au contraire, my friend. It is a matter of faith, but SOME of us put faith in what we can learn by observation because our faith is in our ability to perform experiments or test hypotheses. You have faith because some religiously related event resonates within you and gives you that moment of religious fervor, of something that triggers your emotions, of something you consider profound. We have faith as well, but faith in what we can see repeatedly, faith in tests that we can perform, faith in things that we can analyze through reason.

You should remember the statement, "Only through faith can you come to me."

My question to YOU is, is there only one kind of faith? What is evidence for you doesn't have to be evidence for me. Belief is a funny thing because it is so personal. What triggers belief in you might have absolutely no meaning for me. (We've discussed that many times.)

The question will always be whether you can present evidence - and so far, all of the evidence has been either anecdotal or unsupported. All of the miracles in the Bible were observed by people who didn't understand the idea of corroboration. But here is the kicker...

OK, let's say that at least SOME of these miracles actually happened. Why did the public miracles stop? It has been over 2000 years since we had public miracles. Did God give up on us, decide we were not worthy of seeing Him in action? Are we that bad that we are now to be left with uncorroborated descriptions of things that supposedly happened, things that if they WERE real would give people the chance to have the faith that would come of actually witnessing those events? Remember, Jesus refused to berate "Doubting Thomas." Are you doing what Jesus wouldn't do?

I agree with you that people come to God, or could conceivably come legitimately to God, by many different ways, and by different flavors of 'faith'.
This is why CS Lewis is such a 'big deal' to Christianity in my opinion, he was called to evangelize to people who wanted a more logically evident train of thought. I truly wish you would read Mere Christianity, it's a heck of a book, you might enjoy the train of thought despite being an atheist. (Or the Problem of Pain, equally good book). I would consider a trade whereby I read something you want me to in exchange - but I recognize that that may be of no appeal, since you aren't really trying to evangelize me in the first place : ) But it would be an interesting thing to do regardless.

You may not know or perceive this, but I go to some lengths to find common ground between us, and in fact, I rejoice when I find it, as it's always nice to feel a friendly connection with someone.

For miracles stopping, a lot of religious people (your Lutheran ancestors included) tend to believe that miracles stopped with the disciples, for theological reaons I don't fully understand so won't try to quote. But in countries outside the US, public groups witnessing miracles is not uncommon. I put zero effort into quoting them here, for obvious reasons and I value my time. I'm not sure I would say Jesus refused to berate doubting Thomas; that may be true on the technicality of the word 'berate', but he did admonish him strongly.

I see the old testament as being more 'physical', and the new testament being more 'spiritual'. I don't agree with many of my current popular Christian evangelists that God promises physical prosperity to all Christians, for example. In fact I see it rarely discussed in the new testament, mostly the benefits Paul and apostles talk about are spiritual benefits - which of course (to me) are a plenty reason to be a Christian - joy, peace, love, eternal security, a sense of power through Christ, forgiveness, etc. etc. So theologically, I do think there is a switcharoo between the two time periods. God used to require people to atone for their sins through all kinds of physical means; but since Christ, it's a spiritual reconciliation with God that happens through belief rather than a bunch of physical sacrifices - and I feel that that switch from 'physical to spiritual' is possible b/c of the giving of the Holy Spirit to us, and it extends to a lot of subjects. God used to physically prosper people who belived in him, but now he spiritually prospers them. Blessed are they that believe without seeing - and the blessings are real, though, and overwhelmingly wonderful.

If it's all in our (Christians') imagination, then it's a hell of a technique that everyone might as well get on board with - it's that beneficial. Not that I think it is all in our imagination. I draw a parallel here to the society of AA - many people who didn't believe in a higher power agreed to do so , or try to be open to doing so, on the basis of "it works and you need it". They did so and got well and stayed sober - by the hundreds of thousands, if not more. Some things are worth it even if you aren't sure by physical evidence. Of course this is the 'happy path' of Christianity; there are plenty of Christians abusing the faith for power, sex, money, fame etc.....but Jesus didn't say "follow my followers". He said "Follow Me".

 

[Isaac]

Anyway @Isaac , @Mike Krailo it been fun to kick a few cans down the road, but as you say there is no point taking this further with you two. It is clear where the lines lie, unless you want to continue making nonsense claims. I'll take a break - going skiing.

Enjoy - I tried to ski once and felt I was closer to killing myself than enjoying anything. Be safe and have fun!

 

[Mike Krailo]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

That statement originates from one of the most biased minds in the history of anything that can ever be called science. The reality is that extraordinary claims only require sufficient evidence. When the vaccine makers said they they created a working covid vaccine in record breaking time, that was an extraordinary claim that only needed sufficient evidence before people were able to be forced to get the jab. You can't use extremes for one thing and not the other. Be consistent.

It's amazing when evidence is presented using strict logic and observational science (the best kind of science that I know) using some of the best data we have ever had in history, suddenly that evidence is not valid in an AI query of the data. I wonder why? Then how dare anyone eliminate consensus of those with a clear bias and agenda to form desired conclusions based on excluding all evidence to the contrary of their own deeply held views and world views, they object crying foul. Well, if you actually looked at the available data with a clear and unbiased mind, you might be able to glean some REAL EVIDENCE that is so desperately desired.

Apparently this is turning into a series of specific questions: Here is another grok query specifically about geological evidence that filters out the bias and sticks to the data at hand. Of course if you put the consensus back in, it overshadows any of the real data on the subject in favor of the bias again. Why would the consensus do that to all of us? Could they have an agenda to hold on to their world view at all costs? Do they have special data that they are holding back? Just give us the unbiased data please. We can do that with a few simple prompts that limit grok to the unbiased data.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The reality is that extraordinary claims only require sufficient evidence.

Yep. Still waiting for sufficient evidence to come around, though. Starting with the Bible, we are talking about a lot of hearsay evidence, which is not even admissible in a mundane court of law.

 

[Mike Krailo]

1. Everything that exists had a cause.
2. Which is more logical; that the universe came from something, or that it came from nothing?
3. The first cause had to be the most powerful, most intelligent being imaginable.
4. We all have a conscience, imagine that.
5. We all have the ability to love each other and choose to do so even when it might cause suffering for ourselves.
6. We already know what we ought to do and that it could lead to cases where we experience suffering in the process.
   1. When we choose do things with selfish intent or for just one certain group, it usually leads to others suffering.
   2. All pursuit of materialist things never brings us true happiness.
   3. We all know having good human relationships is good, but takes work. The basic model of marriage is a perfect example of this.
7. Morality does not come from science or government. Science can tell us what is, but never what should be.
   1. If a city was destroyed thousands of years ago, science might be able to describe it, but it cannot tell us if it was right or wrong to destroy it.
8. We have free will and are responsible for our own choices that we make. We have all made bad choices and struggle to make right ones and none of us can call ourselves blameless in every way. We're simply not perfect. But what is the standard of perfect?
   1. Evolution has no ethics in it's process, only survival of self and species.
9. We all want justice for the wrongs done against us and to others. Evolution has no purpose to peruse any justice at all and what purpose would forgiving have in it's cold selection process?
10. The Earth has perfect harmonious balance for life unlike other heavenly bodies. There is just nothing like it anywhere else.
11. God's law is written on every human heart and we are all are aware of it whether we acknowledge him or not.

 

[Isaac]

1. Everything that exists had a cause.
2. Which is more logical; that the universe came from something, or that it came from nothing?
3. The first cause had to be the most powerful, most intelligent being imaginable.
4. We all have a conscience, imagine that.
5. We all have the ability to love each other and choose to do so even when it might cause suffering for ourselves.
6. We already know what we ought to do and that it could lead to cases where we experience suffering in the process.
   1. When we choose do things with selfish intent or for just one certain group, it usually leads to others suffering.
   2. All pursuit of materialist things never brings us true happiness.
   3. We all know having good human relationships is good, but takes work. The basic model of marriage is a perfect example of this.
7. Morality does not come from science or government. Science can tell us what is, but never what should be.
   1. If a city was destroyed thousands of years ago, science might be able to describe it, but it cannot tell us if it was right or wrong to destroy it.
8. We have free will and are responsible for our own choices that we make. We have all made bad choices and struggle to make right ones and none of us can call ourselves blameless in every way. We're simply not perfect. But what is the standard of perfect?
   1. Evolution has no ethics in it's process, only survival of self and species.
9. We all want justice for the wrongs done against us and to others. Evolution has no purpose to peruse any justice at all and what purpose would forgiving have in it's cold selection process?
10. The Earth has perfect harmonious balance for life unlike other heavenly bodies. There is just nothing like it anywhere else.
11. God's law is written on every human heart and we are all are aware of it whether we acknowledge him or not.

I agree in the sense of the specific point that the fact that we all have a sense of right and wrong that's very innate and not entirely learned is yet more evidence of intelligent design.

There would be no sense or even the existence of right versus wrong without an absolute truth-giver

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Mike, I have no intention to offer you any personal disrespect, but your logic just doesn't work here.

1. Everything that exists had a cause. According to quantum mechanics, that cause may be nothing more than a natural propensity, not a conscious action by your chosen Creator entity.
2. Which is more logical; that the universe came from something, or that it came from nothing? Actually, current findings based on recent observations by the James Webb Space Telescope suggest that the Big Bing is not accurate anyway. It is beginning to look like the universe is a LOT older and that the BB may have to be scrapped as a theory. There goes your "creation event." It becomes moot. HOWEVER, if you don't like a quantum event as the start of the universe from nothing, just remember that Genesis could be interpreted as starting from nothing. So which way were you going here?
3. The first cause had to be the most powerful, most intelligent being imaginable. This presupposes the existence of such a being and therefore suffers from unsupported assumptions. But "imaginable" seems appropriate for this being. Totally derived from imagination.
4. We all have a conscience, imagine that. First, there are certain people who appear to NOT have a conscience. However, I'll let that pass. The problem is that linking that to a proof of God's existence is a non-sequitur. There is no direct path between that statement and your God.
5. We all have the ability to love each other and choose to do so even when it might cause suffering for ourselves. Another non-sequitur.
6. We already know what we ought to do and that it could lead to cases where we experience suffering in the process. That claim of knowledge is not always with us. Many times we don't know what to do next. The problem is not necessarily knowing what we ought to do but rather deciding among multiple bad results. To say "we already know what we ought to do" presumes we have perfect knowledge - or at least sounds like that is your claim.
   1. When we choose do things with selfish intent or for just one certain group, it usually leads to others suffering. Yes. So?
   2. All pursuit of materialist things never brings us true happiness. Now YOU are speaking as though you had perfect knowledge. The pursuit of material things might include practical material things. And those material things might not bring true happiness, but many people will happily accept 2nd-best in that pursuit.
   3. We all know having good human relationships is good, but takes work. The basic model of marriage is a perfect example of this. Yes. So?
7. Morality does not come from science or government. Science can tell us what is, but never what should be. Morality comes from our ability to feel compassion. However, compassion can be learned behavior in a community of like-minded people - a "tribe" of some sort. We hear this from the science of Anthropology. This does not directly lead to anything from God.
   1. If a city was destroyed thousands of years ago, science might be able to describe it, but it cannot tell us if it was right or wrong to destroy it. Yes. And?
8. We have free will and are responsible for our own choices that we make. We have all made bad choices and struggle to make right ones and none of us can call ourselves blameless in every way. We're simply not perfect. But what is the standard of perfect? The fallacy here has to do with the word "blame." You presume there is a judge who could assign blame but that presumes the existence of a God, which has not so far been proved.
   1. Evolution has no ethics in it's process, only survival of self and species. Yes. And?
9. We all want justice for the wrongs done against us and to others. Evolution has no purpose to peruse any justice at all and what purpose would forgiving have in it's cold selection process? An interesting idea, but as you noted, not supported by evolution. Justice and vengeance are emotions resolving back to the concept of blame. If you would not try to assign blame, you would never have a burning desire for justice or vengeance.
10. The Earth has perfect harmonious balance for life unlike other heavenly bodies. There is just nothing like it anywhere else. Statement not supported by evidence, and never WILL be supported by evidence, because in logic you cannot prove a universal negative.
11. God's law is written on every human heart and we are all are aware of it whether we acknowledge him or not. A belief but not a provable fact since you STILL are presuming that a God exists.

 

[Isaac]

According to quantum mechanics, that cause may be nothing more than a natural propensity, not a conscious action by your chosen Creator entity

That only works so far. And no further. If you keep going back you'll eventually have to ask yourself, and how did that get there? Something doesn't come from nothing. Something or someone created the first things to exist. That's just one way to say it of course. You could also say there is some kind of eternal being or cause that lives on a different plane of existence and caused the first thing in our plan of existence to come into being. Either way you're essentially believing in God

 

[The_Doc_Man]

That only works so far. And no further. If you keep going back you'll eventually have to ask yourself, and how did that get there? Something doesn't come from nothing. Something or someone created the first things to exist. That's just one way to say it of course. You could also say there is some kind of eternal being or cause that lives on a different plane of existence and caused the first thing in our plan of existence to come into being. Either way you're essentially believing in God

If you keep on going back a little bit at the time, you are following that scientific method we now refer to as "drilling down." Since matter and energy are interchangeable, some matter can have come from no matter (but a bunch of energy). Using "different planes of existence" seems to require even MORE of a leap of logic than just having your God in this universe.

When you say "God is the First Cause", you got that way by going back farther and farther, finding yet another predecessor in a chain of cause and effect. But here is the big question. Why do you stop at some point and say "This must be the first cause"? JWST is telling us that the Big Bang theory is wrong, and the universe might not HAVE a beginning. Why do you not accept an infinite universe? You pick a stopping point in your causal chain because your mind cannot comprehend the current state of existence as not having been created. You require a God to feed that gap within you so you can HAVE a First Cause. But it is (to me) a manufactured stopping point.

 

[Mike Krailo]

Everything that exists had a cause. According to quantum mechanics, that cause may be nothing more than a natural propensity, not a conscious action by your chosen Creator entity.

I would love for you to prove that to be the case in the simplest way possible. The idea that the building blocks of life can simply arrange themselves into a single living cell is nothing that has ever been done and will never be done by anything natural. The reason is, it would require a mind to create something so magnificent. That's just a simple observable fact. Prove me wrong in a way that everyone reading can understand.

 

[Mike Krailo]

Which is more logical; that the universe came from something, or that it came from nothing? Actually, current findings based on recent observations by the James Webb Space Telescope suggest that the Big Bing is not accurate anyway. It is beginning to look like the universe is a LOT older and that the BB may have to be scrapped as a theory. There goes your "creation event." It becomes moot. HOWEVER, if you don't like a quantum event as the start of the universe from nothing, just remember that Genesis could be interpreted as starting from nothing. So which way were you going here?

Except there is no choherent current findings that can explain how the building blocks of life arranged themseslves using natural anything. Definitely not natural selection, because that would require a living cell that has already been programed to exist already. You cannot just skip over the critical point of contention and claim some sort of victory over creation.

 

[Mike Krailo]

The first cause had to be the most powerful, most intelligent being imaginable. This presupposes the existence of such a being and therefore suffers from unsupported assumptions. But "imaginable" seems appropriate for this being. Totally derived from imagination.

All the other explanations given do not reasonably align up. So although this will always be my axiom going forward, it is the most reasonable explanation simply based on observation of things that are obviously created and designed with unimaginable precision. There will never be any absolute proof of this, it is just the most reasonable cause. It also lines up with the human heart. Just like God cannot deny himself, none of us can deny ourselves either.