Searching for GOD...

[Maeght]

I heard an interesting snippet on the Chris Evans breakfast show last week.  He was speculating that perhaps we only know about 1% of everything there is to know about reality, and that even if we doubled our current knowledge there would still be 98% which remains unknown.

Of course no one knows how much there is to know, but we can be quite certain that there still remains much to discover about the reality we exist in.

So the big questions are these: 
Do we know enough about reality to be able to dismiss the concept of a Creator God, and especially the scriptural evidence of God making Himself known through numerous prophets and ultimately by becoming one of us in the person of Jesus Christ - as evidenced by numerous eye witness account in the New Testament?

And do we know enough about reality to be able to dismiss the concept of human free will in order to fit in with our knowledge of how material reactions work?

In our search for the truth, have we become blinded by current scientific knowledge?

In the "Harmony in Faith and Science" thread the videos show that there is no conflict between scientific knowledge and Christian faith.

You have made a few claims there that you need to show are true, such as the accounts in the New Testament being eye witness accounts and that the scriptures are evidence of God making himself known.

I don't dismiss the concept of a creator God but prefer to believe or accept things for which there is sufficient evidence and that isn't the case when it comes to God.

[Alan Burns]

You have made a few claims there that you need to show are true, such as the accounts in the New Testament being eye witness accounts and that the scriptures are evidence of God making himself known.

I don't dismiss the concept of a creator God but prefer to believe or accept things for which there is sufficient evidence and that isn't the case when it comes to God.

I was just contrasting people's faith in drawing conclusions and predictions from the current state of human scientific knowledge (which is acknowledged to be limited, but to what extent we do not know) with people's faith in what is deemed to be historical evidence of God making Himself known to us - ultimately in the person of Jesus Christ.

I noticed that you use the word "prefer", which seems to confirm the essence of Sassy's opening post which implies that many people choose to search for reasons not to believe in God rather than actively search for God.

[Alan Burns]

No they don’t. They rely either on very poor reasoning or on no reasoning at all, and thereby falsely imply that in some way scientific knowledge validates Christian faith when it does no such thing.   

They do not set out to use science to validate Christian faith.
They are simply showing that there is no conflict between current scientific knowledge and Christian faith.
Many people try to use science as a reason to dispense with Christian faith, but they are wrong.

[Maeght]

I was just contrasting people's faith in drawing conclusions and predictions from the current state of human scientific knowledge (which is acknowledged to be limited, but to what extent we do not know) with people's faith in what is deemed to be historical evidence of God making Himself known to us - ultimately in the person of Jesus Christ.

I noticed that you use the word "prefer", which seems to confirm the essence of Sassy's opening post which implies that many people choose to search for reasons not to believe in God rather than actively search for God.

Deemed by who? You are repeating the claim that your God made himself known through the person of Jesus and that isn't a fact but a belief so your comparison falls apart there surely.

The use of the word prefer refers to my position on everything in life, not jut God, and is what most people do with regard to virtually everything else in their life. You don't accept something unless there is sufficient evidence. If I said there was a pink dragon living in my spare bedroom would you believe me? If not are you choosing not to believe me or taking the position that you won't believe me until you see sufficient evidence to? It's not searching for evidence not to believe but requiring evidence to believe and there is insufficient evidence for me to believe in your God or any other of the many gods people have and do worship.

[Gordon]

They do not set out to use science to validate Christian faith.

Just as well then, since science is indifferent to faith claims that are portrayed by Christians as being instrinsically non-naturalistic: therefore, the recent series of videos you posted are pointless.

They are simply showing that there is no conflict between current scientific knowledge and Christian faith.

Don't be silly - there are Christian faith-based claims that our planet is but a few thousand years old in spite of scientific knowledge confirming that it is not.

Many people try to use science as a reason to dispense with Christian faith, but they are wrong.

Not really - but they may use scientific knowledge to show that some specific Christian faith claims are nonsensical, as I've just noted, but as recent UK surveys show the majority of adults in the UK are already dispensing with the Christian faith, and that probably isn't just a matter of science vs faith: it may be that more people are simply regarding Christiantity as being antiquated, and that its core tenets are vacuous nonsense. They may also deplore certain aspects of its ethos and these days they are no longer as exposed, by default or dictat, to its infuence in the UK: hence, Christianity can be readily dispensed with, as these surveys confirm.

I heard one C of E cleric being interviewed a while back about falling numbers and reduced influence: he bleakly commented that the core problem was that more and more people in the UK were, to use his term, "becoming unchurched" - I suspect that he is correct, and that as such the decline of Christianity in the UK will continue.

[Dicky Underpants]

They do not set out to use science to validate Christian faith.
They are simply showing that there is no conflict between current scientific knowledge and Christian faith.
Many people try to use science as a reason to dispense with Christian faith, but they are wrong.

The juxtaposition of Christianity and science is therefore irrelevant. This is perfectly demonstrated in the final video which purports to find a link between mathematics and the biblical narratives which culminated in the Incarnation.
In fact, it is a study of the mathematics involved in one (admittedly beautiful) window in Chartres cathedral. The mathematics involved uses various numbers which supposedly have esoteric significance in order to make a pattern. Well, any collection of arbitrary numbers can be used to make intricate patterns - oriental mandalas do just that, and any number of artistic and architectural structures throughout the world and history do that. A totally fatuous association of distinct phenomena in short, and certainly no apodictic relationship between them.

[ProfessorDavey]

I heard one C of E cleric being interviewed a while back about falling numbers and reduced influence: he bleakly commented that the core problem was that more and more people in the UK were, to use his term, "becoming unchurched" - I suspect that he is correct, and that as such the decline of Christianity in the UK will continue.

He is correct to feel bleak.

There are increasing numbers of people in the UK that are unchurched - in other words not having had any meaningful engagement with christianity through upbringing. These people are incredibly unlikely to become christians as adults. But there is also a group typically known as 'dechurched' - these are people who used to have meaningful engagement with Christianity, e.g. as children but don't anymore.

The problem for UK churches is that each person that converts from no religion to being christian there are 26 (yup that's right 26) people who convert from previously being christian to being non religious.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

They do not set out to use science to validate Christian faith.

Yes they do (science and mathematics in fact). They’re full of guff along the lines of “what moderns science tells us now we can also see already in the gospel of…” etc.

They are simply showing that there is no conflict between current scientific knowledge and Christian faith.

They don’t “show” that at all (they assert it), and in any case there actually is conflict when “Christian faith” make scientifically wrong claims and assertions about the universe – Adam & Eve, “free” will, purposive evolution, the age of the Earth etc. 
 

Many people try to use science as a reason to dispense with Christian faith, but they are wrong.

Nope. What “many people” actually do is to use the findings of science (and of the reasoning that underpins it) to dismiss the claims the Christian faith makes when those claims are are scientifically illiterate. When the Christian faith confines itself to non-scientific claims though then science is indifferent to them. There’s a difference.   

[Alan Burns]

Just wish to point out that Christian faith goes much deeper than mere belief.

here is a short reflection on today's Gospel reading:

Faith is an attitude of trust in the God who is always holding out new possibilities to us. When our lives and hearts are aligned to the God who creates the universe, when our wills are directed according to his purposes, we become the conduits of enormous power.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just wish to point out that Christian faith goes much deeper than mere belief.

here is a short reflection on today's Gospel reading:

Faith is an attitude of trust in the God who is always holding out new possibilities to us. When our lives and hearts are aligned to the God who creates the universe, when our wills are directed according to his purposes, we become the conduits of enormous power.

But your gospel quote is based on an absolute presumption that god actually exists, which is a matter entirely of faith or belief. So in effect the quote is basically saying that faith/belief is a product of faith/belief.

I'm not saying that many people's christian belief isn't fervently held, but then are so many other forms of belief. But it doesn't matter how fervently held a belief is, without evidence it remains just that, belief or faith.

[Alan Burns]

But your gospel quote is based on an absolute presumption that god actually exists, which is a matter entirely of faith or belief. So in effect the quote is basically saying that faith/belief is a product of faith/belief.

I'm not saying that many people's christian belief isn't fervently held, but then are so many other forms of belief. But it doesn't matter how fervently held a belief is, without evidence it remains just that, belief or faith.

I can look back on my life and see how my faith and trust in the power of prayer has worked in ways far beyond my expectations.  In my education, my career, my marriage, my children, my parents (particularly my father's return to faith), my unexpected retirement activity, my own growth in faith, my opportunities to witness.  I owe them all to the amazing power that comes from the combination of faith and prayer.

[Stranger]

Just wish to point out that Christian faith goes much deeper than mere belief.

here is a short reflection on today's Gospel reading:

Faith is an attitude of trust in the God who is always holding out new possibilities to us. When our lives and hearts are aligned to the God who creates the universe, when our wills are directed according to his purposes, we become the conduits of enormous power.

Quite amusing really. An unsupported assertion 'justified' by a trite statement of blind faith.

I can look back on my life and see how my faith and trust in the power of prayer has worked in ways far beyond my expectations.  In my education, my career, my marriage, my children, my parents (particularly my father's return to faith), my unexpected retirement activity, my own growth in faith, my opportunities to witness.  I owe them all to the amazing power that comes from the combination of faith and prayer.

So you've had a good life, so let's forget about everybody else and little things like earthquakes, childhood cancers, and all the other nastiness that your supposedly good and just god inflicts on humanity.

Oh, and of course, if you talk to Christians (or other people with strong faith) who've had terrible lives, they will just tell you how much their faith and prayer has helped. It's another rather comical aspect of faith in prayer, that you can pray and then, whatever happens next, you can claim it was what was supposed to happen.

Nobody denies that faith can be powerful. It helps some people through their lives in many ways and can motivate some to amazing acts of selfless kindness. Unfortunately, it can also motivate others to terrible acts of cruelty and violence. However, none of that says anything at all about the truth of what people have faith in.

[Maeght]

I can look back on my life and see how my faith and trust in the power of prayer has worked in ways far beyond my expectations.  In my education, my career, my marriage, my children, my parents (particularly my father's return to faith), my unexpected retirement activity, my own growth in faith, my opportunities to witness.  I owe them all to the amazing power that comes from the combination of faith and prayer.

You did these things yourself. Believing in things can have positive effects of course. doesn't mean the thing you are believing in is real.

[Enki]

I can look back on my life and see how my faith and trust in the power of prayer has worked in ways far beyond my expectations.  In my education, my career, my marriage, my children, my parents (particularly my father's return to faith), my unexpected retirement activity, my own growth in faith, my opportunities to witness.  I owe them all to the amazing power that comes from the combination of faith and prayer.

For crying out loud Alan, lots of people can swear that their lives have been enriched and modified by all sorts of things, it doesn't have to be becoming a Christian. It says nothing whatever about any truths, only about influences. I find this emphasis on your Alancentric view rather distasteful when I consider, for instance, what devastation your supposed God has imposed upon others in the recent Turkey/Syria earthquake..

[Gordon]

I can look back on my life and see how my faith and trust in the power of prayer has worked in ways far beyond my expectations.  In my education, my career, my marriage, my children, my parents (particularly my father's return to faith), my unexpected retirement activity, my own growth in faith, my opportunities to witness.  I owe them all to the amazing power that comes from the combination of faith and prayer.

Funny that - I can look back on my life and see how my absence of involvement in any particular religious tradition has worked in ways far beyond my expectations.  In my education, my career, my marriage, my children, my parents (particularly since they declined even to have me christened, which was far-sighted of them in 1952), my unexpected retirement activity, my own growth in realising the importance of reasonable doubting, my opportunities to interact with friends and family (and play with my toys).  I owe them all to the amazing power that comes from ignoring irrational superstitions and associated dogmas.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just wish to point out that Christian faith goes much deeper than mere belief.

here is a short reflection on today's Gospel reading:

Faith is an attitude of trust in the God who is always holding out new possibilities to us. When our lives and hearts are aligned to the God who creates the universe, when our wills are directed according to his purposes, we become the conduits of enormous power.

So just to be clear – your illustration of going “beyond mere belief” as another statement of mere belief?

Here’s a link to an article on circular reasoning that you won’t read or won’t understand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

I can look back on my life and see how my faith and trust in the power of prayer has worked in ways far beyond my expectations.  In my education, my career, my marriage, my children, my parents (particularly my father's return to faith), my unexpected retirement activity, my own growth in faith, my opportunities to witness.  I owe them all to the amazing power that comes from the combination of faith and prayer.

And here’s a link to an article on survivorship bias that you also won’t read or won’t understand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

Tell you what, it that’s too confusing for you here’s Tim Minchin making the same point in a more entertaining way:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEyJnwPIr4Q

You’re welcome. 

[Alan Burns]

So you've had a good life, so let's forget about everybody else and little things like earthquakes, childhood cancers, and all the other nastiness that your supposedly good and just god inflicts on humanity.

I can only witness to my personal experiences of answers to prayer and growth in faith.
I could witness to perceived negative aspects of my life -
I was born in a one bedroom terrace house with a tin bath and outside loo, living with my two siblings and two parents.
I later grew up in a council estate in Thorntree, Middlesbrough - classed as one of the most deprived regions in this country.
But I see these as external aspects of my life which pale into insignificance when compared with my journey in faith which brings me closer to God.  Yes, I have had a good life which is totally interwoven and enriched with my prayer life and relationship with God.  I truly believe that any person who can put their trust in God and prayer will have their lives enriched beyond expectations.

[Stranger]

I can only witness to my personal experiences of answers to prayer and growth in faith.

But all you're actually doing is looking at your life and interpreting it all on the assumption that your faith is true. Anybody at all can do that, regardless of any objective facts and regardless of the specific faith position they hold.

Its evidential value is precisely zero.

I truly believe that any person who can put their trust in God and prayer will have their lives enriched beyond expectations.

I know you do, but a belief appears to be is all that it is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I can only witness to my personal experiences of answers to prayer and growth in faith.

No you can’t. You can “witness” (ie describe) the events of your life but you have no justification for claiming answered prayers
 

I could witness to perceived negative aspects of my life -
I was born in a one bedroom terrace house with a tin bath and outside loo, living with my two siblings and two parents.
I later grew up in a council estate in Thorntree, Middlesbrough - classed as one of the most deprived regions in this country.

I take it you didn’t bother reading the link I gave you re survivorship bias, or for that matter the link to Tim Minchin?

Oh well. Your mistake here is to look at what did happen that you like, and to ascribe to it a purposive god. What you didn’t do though was to consider the silent evidence of what didn’t happen to you, but would have happened to other people. Imagine for example 1,000 babies born into exactly the circumstances you describe, and then fast forward 60 years. What do you think you’d find?

What you’d find is that some had died, some had fallen into addiction, some lived in poverty, some had never married, some had done relatively well etc. And let’s say that the “you” you describe is in the last group.

Now run the thought experiment again and guess what you’d find? Yep: some had died, some had fallen into addiction, some lived in poverty, some had never married, some had done relatively well etc. But here’s the thing: to some significant degree each of the these groups would be populated by different people from the original 1,000. And the same would happen if you ran the experiment again. And again. And again.

Your mistake here is to ignore what might have happened instead, and then to assume that your good fortune must have been designed especially for you rather than it being exactly what you’d expect to see with no god present at all. And that's called survivorship bias.

Consider this also: what if there’s another group after 60 years, this one consisting of people who had done even better than you… more money, longer lives, happier children, whatever success indicators you like. What, using your reasoning, would you conclude about these people: that they’d picked a superior god to yours; that it’s the same god, only He cares about these people more than He cares about you; that they were more devout in their behaviour? What?

Can you see now where your backward thinking of a top down, solipsistic model designed just for you leads you when in fact nature just doing what nature does would be much easier to reconcile with the facts?         
       

But I see these as external aspects of my life which pale into insignificance when compared with my journey in faith which brings me closer to God.  Yes, I have had a good life which is totally interwoven and enriched with my prayer life and relationship with God.  I truly believe that any person who can put their trust in God and prayer will have their lives enriched beyond expectations.

I don’t doubt that you’re sincere about that no matter how wrongheaded the reasoning you attempt to justify it.

[ekim]

  I truly believe that any person who can put their trust in God and prayer will have their lives enriched beyond expectations.

Unfortunately it doesn't always work out that way...... https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/november/mass-shooting-sutherland-springs-first-baptist-church-texas.html

[Alan Burns]

Unfortunately it doesn't always work out that way...... https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/november/mass-shooting-sutherland-springs-first-baptist-church-texas.html

I was not just referring to our earthly lives.

[ekim]

I was not just referring to our earthly lives.

Your post, however, seems to be about your earthly life.

[Sebastian Toe]

I was not just referring to our earthly lives.

So which part of your statement did refer to earthly life.

[Stranger]

I was not just referring to our earthly lives.

Yes, that's another rather comical 'get out' that means that objective facts can't affect your blind faith. It applies just as much to other religious faiths and any possible life and circumstances.

As I said, your 'witnessing' is evidentially worthless.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No you can’t. You can “witness” (ie describe) the events of your life but you have no justification for claiming answered prayers
 

I could reel off all the circumstances which lead me to believe that I have had miraculous answers to prayer, but I have no  doubt that you and others will endeavour to write them all off as coincidences or delusions.

I take it you didn’t bother reading the link I gave you re survivorship bias, or for that matter the link to Tim Minchin?
 

I did look at them - they express different viewpoints to mine with regard to my answers to prayer, but they did not convince me that I am wrong.
I found the performance by Tim Minchin quite nauseating.

Oh well. Your mistake here is to look at what did happen that you like, and to ascribe to it a purposive god. What you didn’t do though was to consider the silent evidence of what didn’t happen to you, but would have happened to other people. Imagine for example 1,000 babies born into exactly the circumstances you describe, and then fast forward 60 years. What do you think you’d find?

What you’d find is that some had died, some had fallen into addiction, some lived in poverty, some had never married, some had done relatively well etc. And let’s say that the “you” you describe is in the last group.

Now run the thought experiment again and guess what you’d find? Yep: some had died, some had fallen into addiction, some lived in poverty, some had never married, some had done relatively well etc. But here’s the thing: to some significant degree each of the these groups would be populated by different people from the original 1,000. And the same would happen if you ran the experiment again. And again. And again.

Your mistake here is to ignore what might have happened instead, and then to assume that your good fortune must have been designed especially for you rather than it being exactly what you’d expect to see with no god present at all. And that's called survivorship bias.

Consider this also: what if there’s another group after 60 years, this one consisting of people who had done even better than you… more money, longer lives, happier children, whatever success indicators you like. What, using your reasoning, would you conclude about these people: that they’d picked a superior god to yours; that it’s the same god, only He cares about these people more than He cares about you; that they were more devout in their behaviour? What?

Can you see now where your backward thinking of a top down, solipsistic model designed just for you leads you when in fact nature just doing what nature does would be much easier to reconcile with the facts?
 

I see you once again demonstrating what appears to be your consciously driven efforts to think up hypothetical scenarios to demonstrate how wrong my views are, but despite your considerable efforts I am afraid you still have not convinced me that I am wrong.

I don’t doubt that you’re sincere about that no matter how wrongheaded the reasoning you attempt to justify it.

No amount of wrongheaded reasoning will take away my God given freedom.