petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance

[pe7erpark3r]

@Neeko said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

It's possible that something can both exist, and not exist at the same time. As postulated by Schrödinger - and observed in photons. They may only exist when the person observing it actually believes it exists.

The observability of quantum states indeed is a curious thing :grin:, and Schroedinger's cat could be dead and alive at the same time unless observed. However it has not been observed that photons don't exist (just like the cat definitely exists), when there is no observer. What has been shown is that a photon seems to be a wave if it is not observed and a particle if it is.

As far as some all knowing all loving sky-daddy, it's also easily observable that this probably either does not exist, or is untrue - as there are literally millions of scenarios where divine intervention could have prevented some of the worst instances of suffering, on some of the least deserving of people, including children. So my thoughts are, God might exist, but it definitely is not the God that Christians believe exists.

This is a very good argument. Here we have a piece of evidence against the existence of the Christian God at not such a low level. @ScruffyMutt What do you think? Level 5?

The bible clearly states that all suffering is the result of all our sins. But wouldn't it be more just if only the sinners suffered? That would be the case, if not suffering would allow us to share in the great sacrifice that will save everyone who wishes to be saved.

Christian theologicians have in the last century called this question the "Theodizee", the question of how it is possible that God lets so many bad things happen to so many good people. And they tend to forget to mention the core of Christian believe – which is what theologicians seem to do these days – Christ himself, the most innocent of all, died at the cross. And why did He die? Out of love to save us from our sins and bring us to Heaven.

But that is not the end of it. St. Paul says "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions." (Colossians 1:24). Somehow it seems to be possible that the apostle too suffers for the salvation of mankind (or rather christianity = those who agree with being saved).

How can this be? How can a human being help save humanity? The answer also lies in St. Paul's letters: "He is also head of the body, the church;" (Colossians 1:18). This means, that the church is Christ's body on earth, which means, that God lives in us if we really live in Him (e.g. if we fulfill the following: love God with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself). This means that God also suffers in us and therefore St. Paul can say that he suffers for what is lacking in Christ's suffering.

"The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him." (Romans 8:16-17).

[pe7erpark3r]

@WtfJudith said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

Y’all made this debate look so formal damn 😂
That was an interesting read too, thanks

Sure :grin:

It's not over though :yum: (I hope @ScruffyMutt)

[ScruffyMutt]

Respectfully, @petrapark3r you post way too much for me to reply with anything less than a book. So instead of replying to all points I will just reply to a few points (and perhaps you may wish to resubmit an ommited item in another reply)

Also, my interface product is the TWS Android app. I cannot read or review a post while replying.

You are quite correct, @petrapark3r , in regards to the Schroeder's Cat example place forward by @Neeko . Schroeder's Cat hypothetical example of quantum state does not declare that something may both exsist and not exsist at the same time. Instead it demonstrates that something may exsist (exsist) in multiple states until it is measured and that the act of measuring would be the force that places the "Schroeder's Cat" into one state of existence or the other. In no scenario of the Schroeder's example do you open the box to find the cat vanished and never existed.

In regards to the proposed debate rule that we accept conclusions based on fact as facts themselves (eg: criminal investigation - a dead body and a gun in the other man's hand. The other man must be guilty) I will accept this as an evidence based conclusion provided that we both can agree on the same conclusion.

This brings us to what I believe is your first arguement. To attempt to paraphrase this from what I recall of you writing:
"Because God is, by His very nature, unpredictable, random, and mysterious in the manner of which He interacts with us (God works in mysterious ways) then one must disprove His existence rather than be burdoned by proving it."

I can easily display why the burdon of proof falls on the "He Exsists" side of the debate:
You are stating that because you cannot disprove there is an invisible , non-corporeal, tone-deaf, Trump voting troll sitting on the hood of my car then it must be real.
-The troll reacts randomly by stalling my car.
-The troll is mysterious because he won't speak directly to us and can't be herd by us.

I'm sure we can both agree there is no invisible , non-corporeal, tone-deaf, Trump voting troll sitting on the hood of my car by the confession that I made him up as an example. But other than that, by your argument we MUST accept that such a troll exsists because it is impossible to disprove.

For this reason I find that the burdon is to prove rather than disprove. Much as a criminal prosecution must prove that one did infact fire the weapon (witnesses, powder burns, ballistics forensics, etc...) rather than be found guilty until proven innocent.

This logically leads to the reply: what is your first submission as proof that God exsists?

And @WtfJudith , @petrapark3r and I click real good this way. I think we are both intellectuals.

[pe7erpark3r]

@ScruffyMutt said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

Respectfully, @petrapark3r you post way too much for me to reply with anything less than a book. So instead of replying to all points I will just reply to a few points (and perhaps you may wish to resubmit an ommited item in another reply)

Np. And no need to reply to something you would agree with.

This brings us to what I believe is your first arguement. To attempt to paraphrase this from what I recall of you writing:
"Because God is, by His very nature, unpredictable, random, and mysterious in the manner of which He interacts with us (God works in mysterious ways) then one must disprove His existence rather than be burdoned by proving it."

I can easily display why the burdon of proof falls on the "He Exsists" side of the debate:
You are stating that because you cannot disprove there is an invisible , non-corporeal, tone-deaf, Trump voting troll sitting on the hood of my car then it must be real.
-The troll reacts randomly by stalling my car.
-The troll is mysterious because he won't speak directly to us and can't be herd by us.

I'm sure we can both agree there is no invisible , non-corporeal, tone-deaf, Trump voting troll sitting on the hood of my car by the confession that I made him up as an example. But other than that, by your argument we MUST accept that such a troll exsists because it is impossible to disprove.

I do agree, that this whole conversation would be completely senseless, if we had no reason to assume, that there might be a God. As is the case with the troll for whom nobody has any reason at all to assume he's sitting on your car.

However I am not arguing that we MUST accept God's existence based on the lack of proof of his non existence. I'm simply stating, that a lack of evidence would leave us with an undecidable question.

This logically leads to the reply: what is your first submission as proof that God exsists?

My above argument should have made clear, that there can be no such thing as proof of God's existence, there can only be evidence. My first submission was the fact, that we cannot think God without existence. But I assume to you this qualifies as a hint rather than evidence. Hence I will present the second philosophical way to God:

Causality. Everything in nature – everything that science deals with – appears to be causal.

Now don't throw in the seeming randomness of quantum mechanics, because it is indeed an unresolved mystery how the random quantum world allows for a clearly causal macrocosm. And yet it clearly does, so causality is real.

Hence every plant we see, grew because there was a seed, and the seed because there was a plant and so on. And the earth exists because immense ammounts of material created at the time of the birth of the sun collided. So the sun is there, because there were stars who died before it. Everything seems to be causal up until the big bang.

So if everything there is causes whatever follows, then we have a causal chain. And this chain needs a beginning, it needs a first cause. And even if the chain was eternal, if it had no first cause, it would still need a reason to exist in the first place. Why would the chain exist?

Think this through well, because this is not a problem that science has not yet found an answer to. It is a problem that will always be there, that no (mathematically based) theory could ever solve.

This reason is what people would call God (at least the God of the philosophers). This question IMHO is enough reason, to give this discussion a sense, e.g. to allow us to assume that there might indeed be a God (in contrast to the troll).

And @WtfJudith , @petrapark3r and I click real good this way. I think we are both intellectuals.

An interesting observation...

[ScruffyMutt]

@petrapark3r said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

@ScruffyMutt said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

there can be no such thing as proof of God's existence, there can only be evidence.

I concede that enough evidence stands as proof (unless/untill counter evidence becomes apparent). I think this is merely a matter of semantics and we agree on the general idea of evidence/proof.

@petrapark3r said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

My first submission was the fact, that we cannot think God without existence.

(However, it is possible to concive of exsistence without any god as the Atheists do)

@petrapark3r said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

Causality. Everything in nature – everything that science deals with – appears to be causal.

I concede that as a fact- science often concludes causality.

Why would the chain (of causality) exist?

Think this through well, because this is not a problem that science has not yet found an answer to. It is a problem that will always be there, that no (mathematical) theory could ever solve.

This reason is what people would call God (at least the God of the philosophers). This question IMHO is enough reason, to give this discussion a sense, e.g. to allow us to assume that there might indeed be a God

I maybe unclear on this, you may be saying "Why does causality itself exist except for by God?" or "what is the first link in the chain of causality if not God?"

It seems that you are placing an arguement of "We don't know, so the answer must/may be due to God or a god-like entity"

In this scenario ...
For lack of articulating myself properly I will point at my car. Your arguement is "I don't know how it works, therefore God must make it work"

The flip side is "I don't know how it works." The end.

With your arguement, when the car dies people must pray to God to get it working again.

With my flip side, when the car dies the only possible recourse to get it moving again is to take it appart, study it, learn how it works, learn how to fix it.

And so i put to you that not only does the apparent existance of a causality chain fail to prove that there is a God, but that the belief in God itself defeats the pursuit of knowledge.

Not understanding "Why/How" does not mean that "Why/How" is due to God. It only means that we do not (yet?) know.

I'll be back online in 40-ish hours.

[pe7erpark3r]

@ScruffyMutt said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

@petrapark3r said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

@ScruffyMutt said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

there can be no such thing as proof of God's existence, there can only be evidence.

I concede that enough evidence stands as proof (unless/untill counter evidence becomes apparent). I think this is merely a matter of semantics and we agree on the general idea of evidence/proof.

From here on out, if I agree with something, I will simply not counter it with an argument. I agree.

@petrapark3r said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

My first submission was the fact, that we cannot think God without existence.

However, it is possible to concive of exsistence without any god as the Atheists do

There is a missunderstanding here. I was not talking about existence itself, I was talking about the existence of God. I think I will simply post the argument from the other topic:

• Everybody can agree on the following definition: God is that above which you can think nothing greater
• Now think God like this, but think that he does not exist
• Woops, you can think of something higher can't you? Because a God who does exist, is definitely greater than one who doesn't
• Ergo: Our mind is not capable of thinking God without also thinking that he exists

If you think God, and think Him without existing, you are not thinking God...

@petrapark3r said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

Causality. Everything in nature – everything that science deals with – appears to be causal.

I concede that as a fact- science often concludes causality.

Yes, even more than that. Science is based on the idea of causality. Science is the endeavor of finding natural causes for all effects and finding the natural reasons for every phenomenon.

I maybe unclear on this, you may be saying "Why does causality itself exist except for by God?" or "what is the first link in the chain of causality if not God?"

Rather the second, if we assume a finite chain for simplicity.

It seems that you are placing an arguement of "We don't know, so the answer must/may be due to God or a god-like entity"

In this scenario ...
For lack of articulating myself properly I will point at my car. Your arguement is "I don't know how it works, therefore God must make it work"

The flip side is "I don't know how it works." The end.

With your arguement, when the car dies people must pray to God to get it working again.

With my flip side, when the car dies the only possible recourse to get it moving again is to take it appart, study it, learn how it works, learn how to fix it.

And so i put to you that not only does the apparent existance of a causality chain fail to prove that there is a God, but that the belief in God itself defeats the pursuit of knowledge.

Not understanding "Why/How" does not mean that "Why/How" is due to God. It only means that we do not (yet?) know.

The first link in the chain cannot be normal, like everything else in the chain. It must somehow be its own cause. It cannot be compared to a car, for a car, just like every element in the causal chain can be understood. It is not a "we don't know" it is a "we can never understand". This is the one gap, that science can never fill!

And this fact in itself leaves us with 3 options:

• accept the fact that we will never know because our minds simply are incapable of understanding this conundrum
• assume that the world has no reason, is eternal and can never really be understood
• assume that there is a God, who is eternal and can never really be understood, but have a world that can be understood because now it has a reason / first cause (God)

And this as I said, is enough reason (for me) to make this debate meaningful.

[pe7erpark3r]

@ScruffyMutt the thing to understand with both of those philosophical ways to God is that their nature is special.

In the first case (thinking God means thinking God existing) God's nature which can only be defined by the limit of our thinking puts Him apart from every other thing, including the mythical creature that people always bring up may it be a unicorn or a troll in your case :joy:.

In the second case, it is the fact that nothing else but this one first element in the chain must necessarily be its own cause. And that everything else we observe in nature seems to have a reason while this first reason, the reason for all existence, has no reason other than itself. Thus it cannot validly be compared to anything else, and it is not a simple question of "not knowing why/how (yet)".

I definitely see the second case as evidence of the possibility of God existing. The question is how convincing would you rate it on our scale?

[ScruffyMutt]

@petrapark3r said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

It is not a "we don't know" it is a "we can never understand". This is the one gap, that science can never fill!

Much of your arguement falls away at this section.
You are saying we can never understand, therefore we shouldn't try to and instead should turn toward God as being the answer.
Yet we once felt the same way about Planets (a word that originally ment "Wandering Stars"), electricity and lightning, and illnesses such as The bubonic plague.

Because we "do not" or "can not" understand something does not mean a greater being is responsible. That is an assumption that discourages education and discovery. It is not evidence nor proof of a god.

The parts about thinking god and thinking god- i do not understand.

[spaceboy]

---

[ScruffyMutt]

@spacegirl said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

Bravissimo, my friends! :clap: Really interesting to read
But after all.. Don't you think that this debate has no sense, as despite all of the conclusions that you found and that you will find, each of you will remain unconvinced?

I enjoy a good debate 😊
I don't think either of us expect to "convert" the other, so to speak. Only to pick each other's brains and move our last bishops around the board until we are both satisfied we explored all options.

[pe7erpark3r]

@ScruffyMutt said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

@spacegirl said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

Bravissimo, my friends! :clap: Really interesting to read
But after all.. Don't you think that this debate has no sense, as despite all of the conclusions that you found and that you will find, each of you will remain unconvinced?

I enjoy a good debate 😊
I don't think either of us expect to "convert" the other, so to speak. Only to pick each other's brains and move our last bishops around the board until we are both satisfied we explored all options.

Very true! :blush:

[pe7erpark3r]

@ScruffyMutt said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

@petrapark3r said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

It is not a "we don't know" it is a "we can never understand". This is the one gap, that science can never fill!

Much of your arguement falls away at this section.
You are saying we can never understand, therefore we shouldn't try to and instead should turn toward God as being the answer.

I am not saying we shouldn't try understanding it. What I am trying to say, is that the moment you understand the problem, you also understand why you cannot understand it, why it does not make sense to reason and never will.

I am not convinced you have understood me. I very much wish you would understand this point, before we continue to further evidence. Could you maybe say in your own words why this problem might be unsolvable?

Yet we once felt the same way about Planets (a word that originally ment "Wandering Stars"), electricity and lightning, and illnesses such as The bubonic plague.

Yes, we did. Most people did. But many of the early greek philosophers already suspected that those things were actually understandable. And we both agree that they are, we agree that all things in nature are understandable by science. With this one exception above and maybe the contents of consciousness and consciousness itself which is also a very curious case, but that would lead us astray too far.

Because we "do not" or "can not" understand something does not mean a greater being is responsible. That is an assumption that discourages education and discovery. It is not evidence nor proof of a god.

As I tried to explain understanding this conundrum means understanding that it cannot be understood and understanding why it cannot be understood. Thinking it through is a form of education and discovery.

It also means understanding that the first cause is special in nature for it must be its own cause, and this property alone already makes it seem godly to us. This fact I call evidence. (No proof. Please stop mentioning the word :sweat_smile:, it seems to trigger me :yum:)

Please convince me you have understood the conundrum. I will still disagree with you saying it is no evidence at all (scale = 0) once I am sure you have understood it, but then I'll be happy to continue to less abstract more historical evidence.

The parts about thinking god and thinking god- i do not understand.

It is not really relevant to the discussion for it does not qualify as evidence even to me. However I'll try to explain in a way that might be a little more clear:

• God is higher than anything we can conceive of (= Definition of God)
• if God was not existing we could conceive of something higher:
• God who exists
• Conclusion: God needs necessarily to be thought as existing

This is true, but it is only true in thought. There is no basis on which you could conclude that something which is true in thought has to be true in the real world, if you don't base your thinking on facts you perceive in the real world.

[Indrid Cold]

I greatly enjoyed this. Enjoyed may be wrong word, I don't think anyone actually enjoys this kinda run-in -- it's a compulsion. Just a nervous, dirty, dirty, scratchy, itchy, dirty compulsion, innit.

What I would say, both sides have carried themselves well. I'm a veteran of the perennial atheist v theist debates, on a coupla different sites. The argument is particularly weird and bitter on Unexplained Mysteries, where the atheist debaters have been so comprehensively stymied by the cheeky, all-pervasive humanity of the theists, that they've been forced to divide themselves into ever more subtle and nuanced branches of atheism, and now you can't actually discuss anything without a complex algebra of agnosticism -- which takes days on end to establish.

I'm a housefly. I only live for a month!

Thank GOD were on such a young, hip site as this. I like the crime scene analogy, I like the gradation of evidence. I like the roping in of Schrodinger's Cat (on Unexplained Mysteries, there's a collective rolling of eyes whenever anyone 'goes there'). But whereas @ScruffyMutt is right to point out that the Schrodinger model doesn't necessarily establish whether things exist in the first place, I'd say it's the greatest archetypal image (ironically) since Jesus himself, and we shouldn't be shy about trying to rope it in to our agendas.

For me, Schrodinger's cat might be less about the positioning of discreet units of energy, and rather (maybe) a kind of carefully seeded intellectual gambit, speaking of the need for consciousness to weigh all things in the balance. Think of it on a macrocosmic scale.

@petrapark3r seems preoccupied by the de facto existence of all things per se. I guess this is a valid thing to be preoccupied by. I'm the opposite, tho. One of the things I've been accused of is that, in my religious thinking, I'm 'chasing the god of gaps'. I'm seeing a gap in things and I'm shoe-horning God in there, whether He's applicable or not.

But He is applicable. We've just got to have the courage to go very dark and admit there's something gnostic going on. There's massive gaps. For instance, capitalism. No one can quite justify its existence on a personal level, yet still it rules our lives. And in as much as @petrapark3r wants to confine this to a debate on the Christian G, think on how much emphasis the New Testament puts on trade: Judas with his silver, the fact that half the disciples were fishermen, the Prodigal Son, etc.

Anyway, that's what I think. What do you think, Fortnite John Wick?

[ScruffyMutt]

@petrapark3r said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

I am not saying we shouldn't try understanding it. What I am trying to say, is that the moment you understand the problem, you also understand why you cannot understand it, why it does not make sense to reason and never will.

You are assuming we will never understand the beginning of the universe.

@petrapark3r said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

I am not convinced you have understood me. I very much wish you would understand this point, before we continue to further evidence. Could you maybe say in your own words why this problem might be unsolvable?

The first event in our universe may not be understood in our lifetime. But even if we NEVER understand it that does not mean it can only be due to a god.

Going back to the causality chain, you essentialy state that the universe, or basically anything, can't come from nothing. That something must exsist (in your postulations, a god) to create that something.

Something comes from nothing all the time. Astrophysicist Stephen Hawkings has proved it and it's a wildly accepted fact the has been tested and proven in laboratory environments. (It has to be done in a lab because there is no vacuum on Earth).

Hawking has shown that matter and antimatter particles appear out of nothing, annihilate each other, and disappear all the time all around us.
For a very boring explination on Hawking Radiation and Virtual Particles I point you to this PBS video:

It eludes me as to why you believe failing to understand something means a greater being is responsible. Failure to understand something doesn't prove a god, it only proves we fail to understand it.

[pe7erpark3r]

@ScruffyMutt said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

@petrapark3r said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

I am not saying we shouldn't try understanding it. What I am trying to say, is that the moment you understand the problem, you also understand why you cannot understand it, why it does not make sense to reason and never will.

You are assuming we will never understand the beginning of the universe.

Not exactly, it doesn't have to be the point of the beginning of this universe that we'll never understand. The beginning of the universe, the big bang, is just the least abstract instance, the easiest to talk about.

@petrapark3r said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

I am not convinced you have understood me. I very much wish you would understand this point, before we continue to further evidence. Could you maybe say in your own words why this problem might be unsolvable?

The first event in our universe may not be understood in our lifetime. But even if we NEVER understand it that does not mean it can only be due to a god.

Yes. Which is why this cannot be called proof.

Going back to the causality chain, you essentialy state that the universe, or basically anything, can't come from nothing. That something must exsist (in your postulations, a god) to create that something.

Something comes from nothing all the time. Astrophysicist Stephen Hawkings has proved it and it's a wildly accepted fact the has been tested and proven in laboratory environments. (It has to be done in a lab because there is no vacuum on Earth).

Hawking has shown that matter and antimatter particles appear out of nothing, annihilate each other, and disappear all the time all around us.

Yes, this happens. However it has not been proven, that they appear out of nothing, just that they appear in what we define to be "nothing", and that they are – mathematically – a zero sum game. We have no complete understanding of the natural world yet (we have no quantum-gravity theory yet). What I want to say is, that our definition of nothing and our knowledge of the quantum world is very incomplete as of yet. But that is just on a side note, please don't feel obliged to answer to this relativization.

To the actualy point I want to answer this with: these particles appear all the time. Which means there is a rule to it. There is a reason to why they can appear. The possiblity for them to appear is real and they are quite propable to appear, because they do so all the time. Why is there the possibility for them to appear?

Now the answer to this question of course lies in the nature of the universe. There is some thing (like gravity is a thing) that makes them appear. And this something is also there for a reason. The universe makes sense after all, none of us doubts that.

So can you understand why something like "quantum particles just appear out of nothing" or "universes just appear out of nothing" is not an answer in itself? Since it very much seems to me, that quantum particles indeed appear for a reason (because they do so all the time in the same kind of fashion. there is a pattern to it, a nature), and so do universes (if they do).

The quantum particles that appear out of "nothing" are not their own explanation. The quantum nature of the universe is not an explanation for itself, it is not its own reason. Gravity does not explain why there is gravity. So I, just as you, assume there is an explanation for everything. There is something in the nature of reality that explains why there is gravity. For everything there is a natural reason. We agree on this.

The idea now is that you can trace the chain of explanations, of reasons back and back and back. You can reduce it to the fact that there is something. Do you agree with me so far? And you should also be able to agree with me, that this something cannot be its own reason, since it is part of the natural world – where nothing is its own reason and everything happens for a reason... (or else we should stop doing science...)

And since nothing that is real in this world can be its own reason, you need a reason, that is not like anything in this world. And what is not like anything in this world?

It eludes me as to why you believe failing to understand something means a greater being is responsible. Failure to understand something doesn't prove a god, it only proves we fail to understand it.

Yet again, we have found a property that seems indeed godly to us. I do fully agree, that this is no proof, that we might just simply be incapable of even thinking about this properly. But it eludes me why you believe that something like this could not be called evidence by a rational thinker...

[ScruffyMutt]

It is only evidence that an event occured.
It is not evidence of a greater being.

[pe7erpark3r]

I see that you understand that there is an open question which is difficult to answer and hard to understand. I don't quite feel understood however about the implications of the question, which I see.

How can the fact that our mind (the thing we do science with!) demands a reason that is not like anything in this world only be evidence that an event occured?

I believe we do have a different definition of evidence after all. Evidence to me is something that points in a certain direction. It is not something that proves anything. It is not something that has to be conclusive.

To me the fact that through deduction we arrived at attributes that appear godly to us, does point in this direction. Its nothing more than that. It doesn't have to be. And since it is just evidence it might also point in the wrong direction, like all evidence can and often does. But that doesn't take away the fact that it does indeed point into this direction. It doesn't take away the fact, that it is evidence.

[ScruffyMutt]

The apparent evidence of the universe having a beginning does not point in the direction of a greater being. It only points to "The universe had a beginning".

This does not appear godly to me. Instead, I feel you are reading into it what you wish to see.

[pe7erpark3r]

Fine, I give up. But I will summarize the viewpoint on which I will remain, disagreeing with your conclusion.

You refuse to think further than "the universe had a beginning".

I on the other hand think: the beginning of the world needs a reason, (maybe even: the possibility of universes popping into existence needs a reason) which cannot be found in itself, or alternatively, the world does not actually have a beginning. In both cases the reason for being is irrational, non-understandable, is different than anything in the universe and cannot be compared to anything else that science deals with, it cannot be anything natural. And that isn't the worst philosophical definition of God I ever heard.

Yet you don't even allow me to call this evidence. I suspect you stop at thinking "the universe has a beginning" because you don't like where thinking further leads you.

From the point of view of my actual faith (which has little to do with this philosophical argument), I don't think there needs to be any proof of God whatsoever. I don't wish to see this kind of thing. I do see it however. But to put it into context for you let me tell you how I learned of it.

First of all I started to believe in God, which was quite the long process. And the more I relied on Him and acted how I believed He wanted me to act, the stronger my trust grew. Even after the moment, where one could have said, that I now believe in God, I was utterly convinced that there was no way to prove His existence to anyone. I mean I did believe that there was some historic evidence, but nothing definite. Just on a sidenote, I would have called historic evidence "evidence" (false evidence) before I believed in God.

It was only a few years later, when I encountered the philosophical ways to God. And I didn't believe they were evidence. It took me a few months to think them through... things like that don't let go of me. So it did take me a while to realize, that this one philosophical way actually points to God. Maybe you just need some time too. I did not wish it to point to God. I just realized it does after taking my time to really think it through. And I found that fascinating.

But to this day I believe that even definite evidence of God's existence would be meaningless, any proof of God would be meaningless. For to be with God is not about believing that God exists at all. It is something quite different. But I like a good debate, I like thinking, and this is why I'm even bringing it up. I really could not say, that I have a strong wish to see anything proving God. It would be meaningless...

[pe7erpark3r]

Let's continue to historical evidence then. Since we are talking about the Christian God, we have some historical facts to talk about. Jesus lived for about 30 years, died and then his disciples went and began to convert many parts of the roman empire. As you can see, here we are dealing with eye witnesses. Now lets assess them. I'll rely on you to point out, what speaks against believing them, I'll point out what speaks for believing them.

So lets begin with how things should have gone. Fella who claiming to be the messiah dies. His followers disperse. Or alternatively one of them claims to be the new messiah, and they continue to try and make their own kind of kingdom happen.

What really happens? First of all they disperse. But then, after some time, they come together again. And they let themselves be put into prison time and time again for saying that Jesus came back from the dead in the flesh and rose to heaven. They don't gain much glory from that. In fact they are being persecuted for the rest of their lives.

And yet those people, who for the most part started as simple fishermen, continue to travel through europe (instead of enjoying an easy life) without any security, and they tell people stories, that even back then were seen as absolute nonsense.

And then they go and get themselves killed for it. All but one of the apostles were killed. And they should have known. Even their master got killed for it. Reading the bible you realize, they actually did know. I for one think they make not the worst kind of witnesses.