Evidence for God

Diana Hignutt said:

Cool. I'm a pantheist!

Click to expand...

Pantheism and Panentheism are a little different, though most pantheist beliefs are also not clearly defined enough to be logically examined. But some are.

I think it's true that Christian thought (being 'the thought of Christians') continues to develop. But secular thought (being 'thought outside religion') seems to be developing faster than most Christian thought is.

Click to expand...

It may seem to develop faster. However, it's hard to say if we aren't aware of what it is that is being developed. Also, I have to say that unlike science, something being "developed" in Christianity is more often than not a mutation. This is kind of development misses the mark. The aim in true Christian thought is not to make better or build on that which preceded it but only to "magnify" that which already is. However, given the Western influence many Christian groups feel that that which you can not improve needs improved. This is a controversial subject within Christianity. In many ways and I say this respectfully, the way in which Rome and the protestants view "development" are often two sides of the same coin. In both Roman Catholicism and in most Protestantism "development" is less magnification and more attune to the idea of evolution or "perfection". However, again, we're dealing with words here and often times though different traditions use different words they can overlap and wind up meaning the same thing.

So, as an example, if you look at the various strains of doctrines and practice concerning subjects like rapture, justification or even "how" to worship you find that these are under constant revision and are constantly being modified. Some build theirs off of systems that came before and others are pre-existent beliefs that wind up being mixed with an outside experience (not necessarily bad). The mere fact that the reformers would not recognize the very churches that bare their names is testament to this change. Though, I would say that even certain Christians who worked to create a tradition they believed to be a purer expression of Christianity only twenty years ago would also have a difficult time recognizing the changeless.

Sola scriptura (scripture alone) has, in my opinion, created a puralistic system where as there are as many people that can read, there are as many contradictory interpretations as to what those scriptures say about any given aspect of Christian living (which is supposed to be all inclusive). Each individual is his or her own pope with divine authority to interpret. This is counter to Orthodoxy and even Roman Catholicism but I won't go there.

The more prescriptive Christian thought has been about the world, the more this has caused strain for the more authoritarian Christian thinkers.

Click to expand...

Well, under the broad nominal umbrella of "Christianity" we have universalists and the emergent church groups that lean heavily on post-modernism and humanism and then we also have groups like the quakers and the shakers, the amish and anabaptists, who seem to focus on ascetic minimalism. Some say that Calvin is to thank for Capitalism but I think Locke had more influence on Western Christians than Calvin in that regard.

I dunno. I wouldn't call it strain so much as what probably looks like fancy footwork to those standing in the distance. Some groups and individual are, excuse me for saying so, I mean no offense, "hot-steppers". Most of these "thinkers" make a living off books and so have to come up with something novel and usually sort of just use the academic world to supply their material.

In terms of what's true and what's not, I'm very relaxed at having a range of human thought from the credulous to the skeptical. I think it's very helpful.

Click to expand...

I can say that God is true but again, what does this mean? I can't say. True how? True where? Exist how? How can I prove that there is an uncreated being? Do I, a finite being, experience eternity or merely catch a glimpse of it? Or do I only suspect that since the opposite of finite is infinite, there is then, therefore, the infinite? I don't know. I don't know if each person finds faith in God in the same way or if the way in which that faith is "kept" even matters so long as it's kept. Most of the focus on Christian living in the tradition I adhere to is less about thinking that you "know" and more about seeking out the face of the one that does know. Faith isn't really the right word in the "bible" but is more literally "faithing" (the Greek anyway). So it implies a "seeking out". It's constant.

A verse and a saying that are applicable as to the Orthodox disposition might be:

1 Corinthians 8:2
The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know.

different translation:

1 Corinthians 8:2


2If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know


And the saying:

God became man so that man might become, by grace, what God is by nature.

But in terms of how to treat one another, I'm less sanguine. Thought that encourages cruelty or indifference on grounds of strained and largely unsupported arguments about how reality is, strikes me as immensely arrogant.

Click to expand...

Agree. In the tradition I adhere to each person is an icon of Christ, no matter how seemingly despicable. All were made in the image of the invisible God and Jesus, who is the Christ, is that image.

It seems to me that when our dogma isn't working, the biggest benefit of admitting ignorance is that we don't exclude compassion.

Click to expand...

Dogma in Christianity (though it sort of varies, a lot see it as a dirty word) is more or less those things that must be believed in order to be "saved". They are things to be lived. Again, that probably reads all kinds of crazy and presumptuous but at the same time I can also write that God is not bound by the very models of the things that He has established to save us. So the Orthodox (The Church) perspective is not to judge outside of Herself.

Who is to say that such and such a person God has judged or will be judged to be doomed or glorified to such and such state? He knows our hearts - our true "inner" selves. We are not privy to this. Our job is to seek with every inch of our existence, His face in every inch of existence we come into contact with, so that our true inner self might be illumined by the same light that He is.

Eucharist. Commune.


You caught me rambling. Thank you.

Has anyone brought up St Augustine's proof for God?

1. God is (by definition) a being to whom there is nothing superior.
2. Truth exists (3 + 7 = 10) and is superior to humans.
3. If nothing is superior to truth, then God equals truth, and God exists.
4. If there is something superior to truth, then that thing is God, and God exists.
5. Either 3 or 4
6. Therefore, God exists

I think it's pretty neat.

Grand_Maester said:

Has anyone brought up St Augustine's proof for God?

1. God is (by definition) a being to whom there is nothing superior.
2. Truth exists (3 + 7 = 10) and is superior to humans.
3. If nothing is superior to truth, then God equals truth, and God exists.
4. If there is something superior to truth, then that thing is God, and God exists.
5. Either 3 or 4
6. Therefore, God exists

I think it's pretty neat.

Click to expand...

I think it's the weakest argument for God I've ever heard. Who defined God as a being to whom there is nothing superior? Why is truth superior to humans? No answer. And then the argument makes the quantum leap from truth being superior to humans to there being nothing superior to truth. Why is nothing superior to truth? Who made that decision? I would say that a jellyfish is superior to truth, because it's real whereas truth is a concept. So if jellyfish > truth, and God = truth, then jellyfish > God.

See? It's just word games.

*while this isn't really a "definition" it might be fair to say that it is the closest thing you might find to being one, in Orthodoxy anyway

Here's a brief summary of the basic elements in the Orthodox doctrine of God:

1. God is absolutely transcendent. ‘No single thing of all that is created has or ever will have even the slightest communion with the supreme nature or nearness to it (Gregory Palamas, P.G. 150, 1176c). This absolute transcendence Orthodoxy safeguards by its emphatic use of the ‘way of negation,’ of ‘apophatic’ theology. Positive or ‘cataphatic’ theology — the ‘way of affirmation’ — must always be balanced and corrected by the employment of negative language. Our positive statements about God — that He is good, wise, just and so on — are true as far as they go, yet they cannot adequately describe the inner nature of the deity. These positive statements, said John of Damascus, reveal ‘not the nature, but the things around the nature.’ ‘That there is a God is clear; but what He is by essence and nature, this is altogether beyond our comprehension and knowledge (On the Orthodox Faith, 1, 4 (P.G. 94, 800B, 797B)).

2. God, although absolutely transcendent, is not cut off from the world which He has made. God is above and outside His creation, yet He also exists within it. As a much used Orthodox prayer puts it: ‘Thou art everywhere and fillest all things.’ Orthodoxy therefore distinguishes between God’s essence and His energies, thus safeguarding both divine transcendence and divine immanence: God’s essence remains unapproachable, but His energies come down to us. God’s energies, which are God Himself, permeate all His creation, and we experience them in the form of deifying grace and divine light. Truly our God is a God who hides Himself, yet He is also a God who acts — the God of history, intervening directly in concrete situations.

3. God is personal, that is to say, Trinitarian. This God who acts is not only a God of energies, but a personal God. When man participates in the divine energies, he is not overwhelmed by some vague and nameless power, but he is brought face to face with a person. Nor is this all: God is not simply a single person confined within his own being, but a Trinity of three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of whom ‘dwells’ in the other two, by virtue of a perpetual movement of love. God is not only a unity but a union.

4. Our God is an Incarnate God. God has come down to man, not only through His energies, but in His own person. The Second Person of the Trinity, ‘true God from true God,’ was made man: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). A closer union than this between God and His creation there could not be. God Himself became one of His creatures

-- Kallistos Ware

God is love.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is blind.
Therefore, Ray Charles is God.

Bradley, you've made a believer out of this sinner!

Ephrem Rodriguez said:

The aim in true Christian thought is not to make better or build on that which preceded it but only to "magnify" that which already is.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, if we 'magnify' old dogma on the basis of new information we can lose can accountability for what we originally thought, taught, advised and claimed.

A related example would be the thalidomide prescribed by doctors as a sedative, once it was discovered to cause birth-defects. Morally, I believe that one can't simply 'magnify' harmful advice to consumers -- one must retract the information, repudiate it and reissue new information. Doing so acknowledges not simply that we understand more but that we are not always competent to advise and direct others.

The more we understand about people, the more our old traditions and beliefs about them -- including perhaps our moral beliefs -- are called into question. If ancient knowledge about people were perfect, people would not have suffered the many physical and mental conditions they once did. If we felt that ancient societies dealt fairly with people, ancient punishments would continue today.

Dogma in Christianity (though it sort of varies, a lot see it as a dirty word) is more or less those things that must be believed in order to be "saved".

Click to expand...

I think it's more than that. I think it's a model in which the world and people are understood, and decisions are made. Those decisions can affect what people learn about, how they learn and thus inform not only day-to-day decisions, but who people become. Dogma can as easily close avenues of thought and enquiry as open them.

benbradley said:

No, energy in physics and science is a very specific physical phenomenon (I effectively buy energy from both the electric company and the gas station), and it has no connection with the way I see you using the word. Many people similarly confuse the scientific term power with its common meaning of personal power, political power and others.

Click to expand...

All I can say here is that one must really have extensive knowledge and experience in BOTH -- physics AND the "energy" (for want of a better word) of which I speak -- in order to have a qualified opinion on whether there is any correlation. The physicist von Weizsaecker does have that experience of both, and made that correlation.

But if you CAN control THAT type energy with your mind, you can do telekinesis. Money may not motivate you, but James Randi among others would pay you a large pile of money for a successful demonstration.

Click to expand...

I'm not referring to "THAT type of energy" at all. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with mind control, telekinese, magic, "mysticism"* ( in the misused, cliched sense) , the occult, "psychic powers", anything supernatural at all. In fact, I eschew those things and avoid them like the plague. I don't know anything about them.

I'm sorry for the confusion, but in this instance language fails me!
I can say what it's not, but not what it is -- sorry!

*re mysticism: I didn't mean you, Diana! But it's one of those words which for me has lost its original meaning.

Grand_Maester said:

Has anyone brought up St Augustine's proof for God?

1. God is (by definition) a being to whom there is nothing superior.
2. Truth exists (3 + 7 = 10) and is superior to humans.
3. If nothing is superior to truth, then God equals truth, and God exists.
4. If there is something superior to truth, then that thing is God, and God exists.
5. Either 3 or 4
6. Therefore, God exists

I think it's pretty neat.

Click to expand...

Neat rhetoric more than neat logic perhaps.

This is an ontological proof, much as Gödel's is. Like Gödel's (and like many other ontological proofs) it uses an 'excluded middle' argument, but unlike Gödel's it jumps categories all over the place, which makes it more sophistry than logic.

'Superior' isn't defined, but in an Augustinian sense, the intention is perhaps 'that which is more reliable than human reason'.

'Being' isn't defined, but apparently one can 'be' in consequence of mathematics (or vice versa), though I'm not sure how. The issue here is the Platonic jump that 'if I can think of it and it's perfect it must exist'.

The definition of 'God' varies wildly to suit the proof. For example if we say that 'fact' is superior to reason then St. A jumps in with the sophistry 'Then God is fact.' To which one might reply: 'Facts are simply how things are, but facts can change. Can God change?' or 'Many facts are utterly pointless. Is God?' or 'Facts are just the shared record of nature on the human mind. Are you a Deist?'

Meanwhile, 'Whatever is beyond facts' is not a definition at all. For example, one thing more reliable than facts is narcissistic fantasy. Whatever the facts, a narcissistic fantasy can reliably skew them to fit one's own self-deceits in such a way that the facts can't penetrate. Is God then a narcissist's fantasy?

Finally, if we agree that fact trumps reason, then this proof is just reasoning. That doesn't make it fact.

In physics, energy is a measure of the ability to do work.

I don't know what these other meanings are.

The ontological arguments are a lot less ridiculous when you realize that they presuppose a certain philosophical attitude towards existence. I think they're working off Plato's idea of appearances and forms. If you start by assuming an unseen world of perfect forms, then you can pick out the most perfect form and discuss whether or not it's God. Strangely, the idea of forms and appearances pretty much went away after the scientific method was invented, and I'm not entirely sure why. I don't mean that people question it now--I mean that people don't question it. No one ever looks at it except in class where they're studying Plato. It seems just strange nowadays.

On the other hand, we have a lot of people following this sort of pseudo quantum mechanics, arguing that the subjective nature of perception implies we should be able to mold reality completely, without following through on how or why this should work. So maybe people will scratch their heads at this in a few thousand years as well.

aruna said:

All I can say here is that one must really have extensive knowledge and experience in BOTH -- physics AND the "energy" (for want of a better word) of which I speak -- in order to have a qualified opinion on whether there is any correlation. The physicist von Weizsaecker does have that experience of both, and made that correlation.

Click to expand...

That's interesting. After a year in AA I was told I didn't have enough "Time" to interpret and understand the twelve steps and twelve traditions.

What I eventually discovered was I hadn't had the understanding of words that Humpty Dumpty does in "Through The Looking Glass." That's when I stopped looking in the dictionary for the meanings of the words they used, and looked at them in context. They only used the dictionary meanings of words to the very new beginners.

In other words, this appears to be (this sounds so mean-spirited and belittling, but it's the phrase that comes to mind) the "you just wouldn't understand" argument.

aruna said:

I'm not referring to "THAT type of energy" at all. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with mind control, telekinese, magic, "mysticism"* ( in the misused, cliched sense) , the occult, "psychic powers", anything supernatural at all. In fact, I eschew those things and avoid them like the plague. I don't know anything about them.

I'm sorry for the confusion, but in this instance language fails me!
I can say what it's not, but not what it is -- sorry!

*re mysticism: I didn't mean you, Diana! But it's one of those words which for me has lost its original meaning.

Click to expand...

Hmm ... maybe if you list all the things it's not, what it is would have to be in whatever's left over. At least that's the way things work in the physical world. I'm not so sure about those non-physical worlds.

ChristineR said:

I think they're working off Plato's idea of appearances and forms. If you start by assuming an unseen world of perfect forms, then you can pick out the most perfect form and discuss whether or not it's God. Strangely, the idea of forms and appearances pretty much went away after the scientific method was invented, and I'm not entirely sure why. I don't mean that people question it now--I mean that people don't question it. No one ever looks at it except in class where they're studying Plato. It seems just strange nowadays.

Click to expand...

Platonic thinking is lurking at the back of many religions still, and while it can still occasionally be found in science, it's more often found in the pure sciences than the applied.

In applied science, Platonic thinking outright fails. Where we expect to see circles, we see ellipses. Where we expect evolution to produce increasingly perfect examples of species, instead it produces deformities, atavisms and lotteries of extinction. Where we expect clockwork or re-creation we see entropy, erosion and decay. And the human mind itself, far from being a perfect Platonic mirror of reality, has proven deceitful, self-interested and narcissistic in its ideals.

So Platonic thinking tends to find its home among the theorists who don't have to trouble themselves too much with facts, but can instead focus on elegance. And oddly enough, when Platonic theorists can span facts and elegance both, some do quite a good job of creating theories that have extensive application. I often cite Newton, Gödel and Einstein as examples of these. But for each of them you can't just take whatever they say as Absolute Truth... you have to test every claim because (as Gödel's proof of God shows), they'll sometimes stretch past their competence into pure idealism.

On the other hand, we have a lot of people following this sort of pseudo quantum mechanics, arguing that the subjective nature of perception implies we should be able to mold reality completely, without following through on how or why this should work. So maybe people will scratch their heads at this in a few thousand years as well.

Click to expand...

I studied physics at a time when Fritof Capra's Tao of Physics was gaining popularity and saw the shambles it made of the discipline being instilled into many young scientists' minds.

We may imagine that every scientist is some hard-eyed skeptic, but it ain't so. Among theoreticians are many woolly-haired cloud-gatherers. They delight in Platonic discussions, and sometimes these fertilise their ideas for future theorising -- and I think that's well and good. Heisenberg and Bohr for instance, delighted in Eastern philosophy. Certain scientific minds (especially theoreticians) just thrive in ambiguity and paradox and word-games. It's exercise and invigoration and sometimes even inspiration, but that doesn't make it Truth.

Between the mountains of Scientific Idealism and the marshes of the Real World lies the dragon of Empirical Testing. Anything that can't get past the dragon doesn't normally come down off the mountain...

Except sometimes, as with Capra's rantings, it does. Scientists too can fall into the trap of narcissistic idealism, of speaking outside their own peer-reviewed competence and considering it truth. Linus Pauling's ravings about vitamin C are an example. And that can confuse scientists and lay punters both.

And all one can say in reply is: just because a scientist said it, doesn't make it science.

benbradley said:

In other words, this appears to be (this sounds so mean-spirited and belittling, but it's the phrase that comes to mind) the "you just wouldn't understand" argument.
.

Click to expand...

I don't deny the "you just wouldn't understand" argument. In this case, it's true, but it seems you take this as insulting? Why? What is wrong with not understanding something, if you have not spent time studying it? I freely admit that I know little about physics beyond what I learned in high school, and if, in discussing physics, a physicist told me "you just don't understand" I would not feel insulted. It would probably be the truth. Equality in any subject is not a given. Why the pretence? Why the offence?

If you want to understand a subject, you must spend some time, a lot of time, studying it. How much time have you given to understanding Advaita? How many books on the subject have you read? How many teachers of it can you name, right off the bat? How many hours have you spent in advaitic meditation? Your misconceptions of what it entails (equating it with telekinese, for example) lead me to believe that your answers to all these questions is "not much", or even, "nothing".

Here, as in every other area of life, it's "show me your credentials". Guesswork and preconceptions are not enough. If I made a totally stupid assumption on physics (or American politics, or sport, or any area in which I have no or little experience) I would expect to be called on it; to be told "you just don't understand". Why not here? Why do you find it mean-spirited or belittling?*

Do you feel that people who have given decades of their life on spiritual study/meditation, and have perhaps made some progress, might not know "a little" more than you on the subject? Do they have nothing of importance to say? Are their conclusions not worthy of respect? Do 5000 years of collective wisdom mean nothing?


I kind of feel that the answer to all those questions is "NO".

In fact, I suspect that your basic underlying attitude, and initial, spontaneous response, to all I've said here is an unequivocal "Bullshit". How scientific is that?

It doesn't bother me; it's to be expected and I'm used to it, and I have no intention of arguing my case -- argument leads nowhere. But that "bullshit" response says more about you than about the subject itself!

* or maybe you were saying I might interpret your accusation ("you just wouldn't understand") as mean-spirited or belittling? No, I don't! It's perfectly true!

Is the argument of 'many years of studying God' alone evidence for God?

I think it's not.

If it were, then conspiracy theorists who spend a lifetime investigating a conspiracy would have evidence for the conspiracy, and they generally don't. What they have after all that time are complex, carefully-crafted arguments of their own confection, propping up a tottering edifice of grandiose fantasy. The substantive evidence tends to be pretty weak.

Conspiracy theorists are known for circular definitions, for arguments based on negative evidence, for reasoning by analogy, for making wild claims in disciplines over which they have no demonstrated competence or authority, and for never delivering a single significant, specific, verifiable prediction, except retrospectively. (Does this sound familiar?)

Which is not to say that a conspiracy theorist's study doesn't produce insight -- it can. A conspiracy theorist can learn about all manner of topics in support of their conspiracy -- 9/11 conspiracy theorists often know heaps of metallurgy, architecture, aerodynamics, flight procedures, government operations and all manner of interesting trivia, for example.

But what they don't understand is the original topic of study, because they don't undertake their study in a manner that will actually teach them anything. They assume that they are accumulating knowledge without ever applying rigorous, independent testing to the knowledge they think they have.

I'd suggest that if we don't like conspiracy theories because of how they're confected then it's hard to defend the same confections in support of theology or mysticism. Which is not to say that these aren't legitimate areas of study, but it is to say that if one wants to be independently credible, one can't go about study of these areas the way that conspiracy theorists do.

Ruv Draba said:

Is the argument of 'many years of studying God' alone evidence for God?

.

Click to expand...

Are you responding to me, Ruv? I'm assuming this is so.

Advaita does not mention God. Not at all. "God" is considered a concept., and is not the subject of study.

One does not require a Higher Diploma in Pink Unicorn Husbandry in order to dismiss the possibility of their existence.

And, if one did hold such a qualification, there would then be the problem of Purple Dragons, and Mauve Gryphons.

Hey! You just proved my point!

zornhau said:

One does not require a Higher Diploma in Pink Unicorn Husbandry in order to dismiss the possibility of their existence.

And, if one did hold such a qualification, there would then be the problem of Purple Dragons, and Mauve Gryphons.

Click to expand...

aruna said:

Hey! You just proved my point!

Click to expand...

Which one?

I wasn't replying directly to you, Aruna because I fear that many of my comments irritate you. But you picked up a 'years of study/no smoke without fire' argument that I thought was relevant to the main topic. I replied to the argument as it applies to God, since that's our topic and there's nothing about your argument that makes it specific to your own faith, but I don't plan on commenting about Advaita in particular because I don't want to offend you further and risk driving you off.

My comments however, are general. Swap out 'God' and put any metaphysical concept in. Suddenly we have a conspiracy about the universe, whether religious or otherwise. I have no idea how one could possibly investigate such theories, but I do believe that using the techniques of conspiracy theorists is doomed to produce the same sort of outputs they do.

So if metaphysical study is possible (I personally believe it's not), I think that we have some good examples in how not to study it.

ChristineR said:

On the other hand, we have a lot of people following this sort of pseudo quantum mechanics, arguing that the subjective nature of perception implies we should be able to mold reality completely, without following through on how or why this should work. So maybe people will scratch their heads at this in a few thousand years as well.

Click to expand...

Or maybe they will have figured out the hows and whys of it in a few thousand years.

Diana Hignutt said:

Or maybe they will have figured out the hows and whys of it in a few thousand years.

Click to expand...

Or... maybe we'll have more of what we have now... the equivalent of a few thousand competing metaphysical 'conspiracy theories', each ignoring the other except to spat and steal ideas, none able to establish themselves through any independent evidence, each still waiting for the 'killer demonstration', and a bunch of indifferent bystanders with a lot more secular knowledge than we have, wondering why anyone would bother with metaphysics when psychology, physics, medicine and sociology work just fine.

zornhau said:

Which one?

Click to expand...

BULLSHIT!!!!!!

Ruv Draba said:

I replied to the argument as it applies to God, since that's our topic and there's nothing about your argument that makes it specific to your own faith, but I don't plan on commenting about Advaita in particular because I don't want to offend you further and risk driving you off.

Click to expand...

I can assure you that you neither irritate me, nor am I in the least offended by what you say; on the contrary, I enjoy many of your posts, though I do believe you think you know more than you do, and are too loose with some words (mysticism, metaphysics) without really defining their content; you generalise a lot and sweep several concepts together under one fuzzy label. But that is a common fallacy, I understand it and don't hold it against you in any way.

I'm not easily offended, you know! I toughed it out 30 years ago when I discovered the marvels of Hatha Yoga and told everyone about it, and I was ridiculed out of town. And now the whole world seems to be "into" Yoga, and nobody denies its benefits for the physical body.
The same people who developed Hatha Yoga also developed systems for the mind, that work better and more thoroughly than any therapy the West has developed. But it will take a few decades before it's common knowledge; scepticism must take its course.

(I also believe there's a general mistrust and condescension about anything coming from the East, in particular India. I don't know if it's due to a feeling of cultural superiority, or if the hippies and New Age fuzziness spoilt India for good.)

So ridicule me all you want; no need to tread on eggshells! I'm not easily drven off, you know, though I do get bored with too much palaver about these matters.

I certainly don't want to ridicule you, Aruna. I think you'll find that I'm very clear on what I mean by mysticism and metaphysics, and if you're interested you're very welcome to ask.