Is there a god?

[LeedsRhinos]

Is there a god? I mean look at all the different relgions around the world who all believe that THEY are right & the others are wrong. They can't all be right can they. Which is why in my opion it all rubbish.

[Merlin]

Clanad

And thanks for the 'lucid' compliment, by the way. I wouldn't recommend reading too much Dawkins - from what I've seen of him, at least, he doesn't do much for my side. He makes too much of a meal of it; puts too many eggs in his omelette. And now and then he asks you to make such a leap from the premisses to the conclusion that one is almost persuaded to pray for salvation while crossing the abyss.

[TracyJ]

Personally I'm an atheist and I kind of liked Douglas Adams's view on things. When questioned about his beliefs by someone who did believe in God he would say that he believed in one less god than they did. After all nobody seems to stick up for all the Roman and Greek Gods any more, do they? I can understand the need for people to have faith but I like to act nice to people because that's the way I am, not because I'm in fear of being smitten by a thunderbolt.

[Clanad]

The problem I'm having with the conclusions reachedby slimfandango and reluctantly consented to by Merlin, is that you seem to argue that peer pressure and culturally inherant effects are all that it takes for one to believe in a god... any god.  How, then do you account for your own situations?  Merlin has stated previously that he/she? is a product of a Church of England (C of E is the phrase used) upbringing.  Merlin now professes atheism (although, I'm not quite convinced).  How then did he rebel against the cultural influences.  I can provide a long list of well educated, intelligent men and women that, after careful consideration, decided the evidence for the God of the Bible was valid. Are you saying that education in any realm, religious or otherwise, is only a product of cultural and peer pressures?  If that were true, no discoveries requiring education would ever be produced.

Without asking you to reproduce all of your previous posts, what evidence "shows irrefutable evidence that other, non-god explanations exist...."

The fact is that a belief that God does not exist requires faith, the very thing most criticized about believers.

Merlin and I have been 'round and 'round the mulberry bush of defining God.  While I believe I have a clear, cogent description of the God of Judaeo/Christian Scripture, it is only a partial description since I'm attempting to describe the infinite.  The problem is that my explanation doesn't suffice for the only arbiter(s) in the discussion... the non-beleiver(s)...

[Clanad]

I wouldn't want el duerino to feel left out... Firstly, don't confuse which Caesar you are referencing.  Julius or Augustus.  Julius died (ides of March, doncha know) in 44 B.C. Augustus (actually Octavian, A. Caesar being his title) had it out with Marc Anthony at Actium in 31 B.C.

But, more interestingly, you are more than willing to take as fact writings concerning the Caesars as establishing their historocity but are unwilling to grant the same bona fides to the Christ, when the written evidence for Yeshua is greater numerically with copies of the autographs much closer to the happenings than with Caesars.  So close in fact, that, as I've taken pains to demonstrate earlier, that most scholars now concede that the Synoptic Gospels, Acts, most of Paul's and all of Peter's writings were complete and in circulation by no later than 50 A.D.  The significance being that many people that could have easily refuted the contents of the writings were still alvie at that point.  The few years intervening between the events and the writings do not allow nearly enough time for myths to have sprung up...especially when a witness, any witness could have come forward and said "I know where the body is and I'll show you..." End of story. 

One simply cannot divorce the fact that Yeshua ha'Mashiac was active in history at a specific place and time and the tremendous evidence of what and who he was.

Is it not ironic that there is more written evidence for the life an itinerant Jewish rabbi who taught for three years in the backwaters of middle Asia far from the centers of government, culture and education than there is for the greatest Caesar of all? To cavalierly dismiss these writings is to dismiss all ancient texts, in my humble opinion...

[slimfandango]

Clanad,

Big pat on the back for you as the last of the "believers" to stick it out in this posting. You don't appear to have given me your definition of god, however. I am writing to you. You are writing to me. The only way this communication can ever work properly if it observes reason and reasonableness, I notice that nearly all such communications with 'believers' breaks down at the point when they start coming out with stuff that is simply unsupportable or indiscutable, e.g. 'It is only a partial description since I am attempting to describe the infinite'. Really. So before you start talking about something, you assume that what you are going to talk about is not really definable anyway and when later asked to define it..oh, surprise, it's indefinable.

I don't think you understood my posts at all, and this is the second time I've been wholly misinterpreted. I did not say that all you needed was culture and peer pressure, I specifically in my latest posts indicated that this was not what I meant.

No offence mate, but can you not see that you come to the table with your mind made up and any reading of opinions like mine are done with an intrinsic bias and your mind is already made up? How do you hope to learn anything since your only objective is to prove your point? I have been clear in what I said and have supported it with evidence, when you see something you don't like you either conflate the evidence or make some random insult.

 

[slimfandango]

Anyways. To compare the 'gospels', the Acts, or the Letters to other historical documents (such as those supporting the existence of the Caesars) is invalid. The latter can be relied upon as objective historical documents, whereas the former were written not as historical documents AT ALL, but as the written form of an oral tradition which took shape and was continued in order to convert various people to the 'christ'. Show me one major biblical scholar of repute who does not support this. The gospels were tailored for the people they were addressing, it was the way things were done at the time. They were not seen as liars, just trying to convert. To now rely on them as historical evidence is giving them a power they do not have. Plenty of christians tout the gospels as some kind of autobiography of the big J, which they simply are not.

I can see where you're coming from though, Clanad, the Gospels give all this great evidence of a Jesus guy, so his miracles must be true, so there must be a god guy, or magician or something pulling all them strings. Pleaaase...

[Clanad]

Slimfandango... and you're not coming to the table with your mind already made up?

You simply don't understand the content and intent of the New Testament writings.  This is because you have already made up your mind or your bias is showing. I find no discomfort in my descriptions of God.  The problem is one of perspective.  If I don't define God to suit your tastes you (and on this basis Merlin) discount it and state that a 'believer' is unable to make such a deffinition... circular reasoning at its highest.

You ask for one major biblical scholar, etc.,  I'll start with F.F. Bruce, continue with John Warwick Montgomery, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, F.J.A. Hort, J. Harold Geenlee, N.B. Stonehouse, Norman L. Geisler... ad infinitum...all aclaimed and credentialed scholars in the field of ancient texts.

The Gospels were not written primarily as a means to convert, but as a Testament to facts that many witnesses had observed and in many cases had been a part of.  Luke, especially says, " Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fullfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eyewitnesses.... Therefore since I have carefully investigated everything from the beginning...." Compare this to Julius Caesars writing of himself, and be aware the first copy of J. Caesars writings occurs 900 years after the events and only parts of 10 copies exist as compared to thousands of extant copies made within a few years of the events for New Testament events.  Have a nice weekend!

[slimfandango]

Therefore God exists.

I've been a very firm believer that Jesus is the Christ and that God is the guy who made us all and is responsible for all this great design around us. Then I got to standing back a bit, looked at some of the facts, and it's just not supportable. The impetus was prosyletizing: 'to explain to others the reason for the faith that is in you'. There were no reasons. I believe quite firmly that being religious is one of the very worst fates that can befall a human being, one has the capacity for such insight and yet this gets taken from you by one of the only possible ways, and, a real breakthrough excepted, you spend the rest of your existence with your head jammed stiff in a very dark, tight-fitting box. I thanks God every day, on my knees and with tears in my eyes, that I came to give up the sorry tripe that stole so many of my years. I can tell you, mate, there is little point in you discussing here beyond educational value and to show me how many biblical quotes you can rhyme off. Look at the tones of the musings of the likes of Merlin and el duerino. These are free men. They have smiles on their faces and they have every reason.

I really wouldn't have minded at all, I guess if people end up brainwashed then that's that. But I happen to have a right to some peace on earth during my existence and that is just not going to happen while religious nuts want to trade blows because they don't share the same shade of blindness.

[Clanad]

Well, you certainly told me off... I think.  Actually, I can't really decipher what you're trying to get across.  Perhaps you are trying to say that you are perfectly happy in your 'faith'.  That's certainly your perogative.  Far be it from me to try to "convert" you.  I thought the purpose of this forum was to exchange ideas, but I see that, unless one agrees with you, there is no purpose in explaining ones position.

What, excatly, does your last sentence mean... escapes me completely (must be my inability to reason).

[slimfandango]

Clanad.

1)What do you mean when you talk of 'God'?

2)As a person stands in front of the world, according to what criteria should they decide what is true and what is false, and according to what criteria should they make inferences from what they perceive?

Please answer these questions. Honestly.

 

[Merlin]

CLANAD. This will be a mega-posting addressed mostly to your good self. I apologise in advance for any inconvenience, but I have attempted to address every point raised since my last posting (and just when I thought this thread was about to dwindle out).
Like TraceyJ, I too understand the need for people to have faith and I too try to accord respect to people because that's the way I am and that�s the way people should be. Sort of Christian but without the God bits, if you like.
Culture: I wouldn�t argue that peer pressure and culture are all that it takes to determine what beliefs one holds. It is undeniably the case, however, that the circumstances of one�s birth do determine what religion, if any, a person is most likely to adhere to in their formative years and what one is exposed to in one�s formative years is likely to be difficult to shake off. But that is a generalization. What beliefs one holds later in life depends on the individual and many things such as the degree to which they question things, the strength of belief held by their parents, their own intellectual ability etc. For the avoidance of doubt I most certainly do not say that someone who believes in God is intellectually deficient in any way. I know as irrefutable fact beyond any doubt whatsoever that intellectually gifted people have a real faith in God. My comment on this topic was meant as an observation that, from my perspective, that phenomenon is a curious one.

[Merlin]

Atheist faith: We have thrust and parried over this one more than once and I shall now relent (sound your fanfare!) somewhat because the words we use are open to various interpretations and your view that atheism can be said to involve faith is arguable. Not all the definitions of �faith� apply, however. But if we take the meaning of �faith� to be �belief in something for which there is no proof�, and apply that to a belief that there is no God, then, because there is no irrefutable proof that God does not exist, then it must be conceded that, on those terms, atheism does involve faith. And to answer your next question (I�m guessing that it�s �Ha ha � then where do you get that faith from then eh eh??�): that �faith�comes the same way that �faith� in a theory comes and that �faith� that what we perceive of the physical world via our cognitive faculties comes � repeated testing delivers the same results every time and the view that that �faith� presents is coherent, logical, reasonable, sensible, tangible etc � it is real (please don�t start on me with �But what is reality?�).

[Merlin]

Regarding your understanding of the nature of God; we have discussed this point before but it remains unresolved: You say �He has done everything possible to reveal Himself to His created�. This is a point at issue where I can bring in the word �irrefutable�. If God is omnipotent, then anything that he wills to be done must necessarily be successfully achieved � yes? If he had indeed done everything possible to reveal Himself to His created, then his created would necessarily know him, because he is omnipotent. The fact of reality is that there are people on this planet (his created) who are in complete and utter ignorance of him (and I don�t just mean me!). The irrefutable conclusion from these premisses is either that God is not omnipotent or that he has not done "everything possible" to reveal Himself to His created.
You also say �He freely loves each and everyone� � this is at odds with the OT accounts of mass smiting by or on behalf of God (e.g. by prophets directed by God to do the smiting.) Other descriptions frequently trotted out by others are the virtually meaningless �God is Love� or �God is Truth�.

[Merlin]

The Trinity is another example. After 1700 years of examination by the best theological minds, the concept of the Trinity can still only be described as �ineffable�. It would seem more sensible to say that it is ineffable because it is wrong. But we can�t say that now because of the declaration of Papal Infallibility!!  God as described in the OT has, for me, another unresolved inconsistency � God�s anger.

It is not that your description �doesn't suffice�; it is that it is internally inconsistent. I am not asking you for a description of God that suits my �taste� � that is subjective. I ask for a description of your understanding of God that stands up to objective examination � that two characteristics you ascribe to God are not mutually exclusive, for example. Nothing to do with my �tastes� and no circular arguments (btw if we didn�t talk round in circles, we would have to off at a tangent!!).

[Merlin]

Scriptures: I will concede for argument�s sake that documents you refer to are genuine � the documents themselves, that is � the ink and paper, the tablet and inscription. I make a distinction between the physical document and the content of a document. It is possible to have a false story in a genuine document. So if I concede that your documents are genuine, I do not necessarily concede that the content of them is truth.
I don�t quite agree with Slim re documents. If there is a letter written by an historical figure (Paul), addressed to a group of people he is to meet on his travels, and that piece of paper (or whatever medium was used) has been dated accurately to be contemporaneous with Paul etc etc, then we have a genuine document. The content of that document may be true or untrue. Even if it is untrue or only partially true (as Slim would have it) it still has some meaning � it still says something about the time.
Slim says �being religious is one of the very worst fates that can befall a human being� � simply not true. It depends on the religion (with or without a �God�) and depends on what fates your imagination can conjure up.

[Merlin]

AND FINALLY. I thought Cobalt272 might be a Clanad pseudonym as there was a temptation to discourse on evolution. Now I�m beginning to wonder whether Slim is a pseudonym of El D � but only from the tone and content of the posting � nothing else! I actually understand the bit about �religious nuts want to trade blows because they don't share the same shade of blindness� � should I be concerned about that?
And Slim�s last two questions � yes, I actually support the spirit of them. (You know, with Slimfandango, El Duerino and Dawkins �on my side�, I am seriously considering looking for a 3rd way of my own!!).
I think that�s everything � back to you!

[Clanad]

Merlin, thank you for your well reasoned and presented comments.  I will be out of pocket for a over a week, so I hope this response does not seem to hurried.

1.  You seem to state that you find the phenomenon of intellctually "gifted" people having faith in God as curious.  Simply put... Why?  People that investigate the evidence arrive at a decision that the evidence demands a verdict, and based on reason, determine that the evidence fulfills the requirments of believability beyond what I choose to term the "90%" rule.  This rule, generally recognized in courts of law states (my words) that if one can arrive at a certaintity of 90%, based on the evidence presented, the balance should be assumed to have been proven as well.  As an example, "prove" to me or any other observer that you "exist".  All kinds of existentalist and/or psuedo-scientific "evidence" can be marshalled to deny your observation and experience that you exist. The 90% rule is easily satisfied, so the remaining 10% must, of needs be assumed.  Does this satisfy the demands of someone who requires 100%, obviously no.  But that person conducts their evryday life in line with the 90% rule.  If they didn't they most likely would not get out of their warm bed each day, fearing the advent of the other 10%.  I think you see what I'm getting at.

In my opinion, when considered in totality, evidence for the God of the Judaeo/Christian quite easily reaches more than 90%. It's also my belief that, generally, there exist a great gulf between the believer and the agnostic/atheist which is filled with misunderstanding... probably on both sides.

2.. I never entered this debate determined to "win", nor to neccessarily "convert" anyone from their position.  So, you'll hear no fanfare from me!

[Clanad]

However, your statement that "we (I take this to mean atheists in general) take the meaning of "faith" to be belief in something for which there is no proof" is a fallacy. It is such only if one accepts your definition and accepts the premise that no evidence exists. The evidence of witnesses, changed lives, documentary records is evidence. The fact that you dispute it does not render it as nihilo. It must be considered and explained by the antagonist.
Your "faith" must have a basis outside of your perceptions of the physical world via your cognitive faculties.  A philosphy must be developed and this usually relies on the evidence of others of like beliefs.  You approach the edge of the precipice of discussion of evolution on occasion, so I suspect that part of your philosphy uses that as a basis. So, I've given numerous examples of the underpinnings of my position and several reasons  why I believe them to be valid.  My "faith" is not based on just my cognitive observation of the world around me.

3.  Nature of God...

I don't find it all unreasonable to declare that there are inherant limitations in the finite attempting to describe the infinite.

 

[Clanad]

Firstly, I too, need to restate a previous posting. I did say "He has done everything possible to reveal Himself". That should be revised to reflect my true intent to read "He has done everything necessary to reveal Himself". The problem I believe you have with God's actions, is they don't fit your requirements. You attempt to impose on an infinite being, One almost.. almost beyond the ability of humans to describe, human understandings and perspectives. I'm willing to grant an omni - everything, sovereign "Other" (meaning totally outside of creation, totally self-sufficient) leeway in how He chooses to conduct Himself.
But...having stated that, I also recognize that He has qualities, a nature, if you will, that is absolute. He has absolute justness, beyond our ability to comprehend. And because of that nature alone, He will be absolutely just in His dealings with His created. Paul quite clearly states that those that have never know the Christ, will be held to the standards of what they do know.

When one understands that the Old Testament can be compared to a fine old mansion, rich with dark woods, carpets, tapestries, but quite dark and difficult to decipher, especially the details, until is is illuminated by the light of the New Testament. But he Old and the New both agree dramatically that God  has two primary purposes in His delaings with mankind.  They are interwoven but separate.  The first is the establishment and preservation of His people, Israel.  The second is to bring to all reconciliation to Himself.  Any who choose can be restored to right standing to Him. If one chooses not to accept the totally free gift of reconciliation, they are absolutely under no obligation to do so.  God does condemn anyone.  Their fate is in their own hands.

 

[Clanad]

God's preservation of Israel is generally the basis for "smitings" you describe. This has been addressed by many writers, both pro and con. Suffice it to say that in order to understand that the extinction of certain peoples at God's command is to understand those peoples threatened the very continuance of Israel. I know full well this is not a sufficient answer, but any answer that would have real meaning would entail more time than I have here.

Trinity...I have no background in Roman Catholicism so I don't hold with Papal Infallibility.  Having said that, I can bring to bear the "best theological" minds as well that can give a clear defense of the doctrine.  That, then leaves us at loggerheads. 

I will say that the concept of one God with three distinct "personages" holds no problems in my determination.  The opening passage of Genesis wherein Elohim in the beginning creates, etc. is a clear reference to the nature of God being more than one personage but still one God. The noun  is plural in form but singular in meaning. Many other examples are found and clearly indicate the triune nature of God. That you have a problem with the fact contributes to some basic misunderstandings I believe you have of scripture which inhibits our discourse.