Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

O.T. - Climbing For Christ Australia

dalai

7-May-2010
7:41:32 PM

Like every thread on Chockstone, they have already all been argued to death before... This is no different.


rodw

7-May-2010
9:08:20 PM

Agree with Dalai, but it kills time and thats what forums are for.


voodoo

7-May-2010
10:14:01 PM

On 7/05/2010 Pat wrote:
>What about total and unequivocal proof that God doesn't exist. Do you have
>that?

I don't have total and unequivoval proof that unicorns don't exist either, but that doesn't mean I believe in them.

In all other non-faith areas of life it is generally accepted that that we assume things do not exist unless there is evidence that they do. Even theists subscribe to this rule most of the time - they tend not to believe in the Easter Bunny, Russell Bertram's teapot or the man in the moon even though they can't conclusively prove that they don't exist. So why is it that God should be exempt from the same degree of critical thought they already apply to every thing else?


Hendo

7-May-2010
10:26:01 PM

On 7/05/2010 voodoo wrote:

>I don't have total and unequivoval proof that unicorns don't exist either,
>but that doesn't mean I believe in them.

Existence and belief are interesting things which come in a variety of forms. Who believes in the value of money? It only exists if people believe in it, a bit like fairies. Most people seem to believe in the value of money, unlike fairies.


Pat

7-May-2010
11:37:12 PM

On 7/05/2010 voodoo wrote:
>On 7/05/2010 Pat wrote:
>>What about total and unequivocal proof that God doesn't exist. Do you
>have
>>that?
>
>I don't have total and unequivoval proof that unicorns don't exist either,
>but that doesn't mean I believe in them.
>
>In all other non-faith areas of life it is generally accepted that that
>we assume things do not exist unless there is evidence that they do. Even
>theists subscribe to this rule most of the time - they tend not to believe
>in the Easter Bunny, Russell Bertram's teapot or the man in the moon even
>though they can't conclusively prove that they don't exist. So why is
>it that God should be exempt from the same degree of critical thought they
>already apply to every thing else?

Couldn't agree more. It just seems that sometimes the thinking (on both sides) is not so critical.

It can tend to become more a case of constructing a straw person - then knocking it down.

I don't have perfect proof that God exists, but it is not necessary. Nor is it intellectually indefensible to believe without that level of proof. There are different kinds of certainty. Objective scientific certainty is what I want when I go to the dentist. However philosophic certainty is enough when it comes to belief. That is: given the evidence is a certain belief reasonable. I feel that if I were to be asked by someone that was interested I could show that my belief is reasonable at that level of certainty. If you like, that it is plausible, while maybe not palatable or acceptable to others.


voodoo

8-May-2010
12:03:38 AM

On 7/05/2010 Pat wrote:
>I don't have perfect proof that God exists, but it is not necessary.
>Nor is it intellectually indefensible to believe without that level of proof...
>However philosophic certainty
>is enough when it comes to belief. That is: given the evidence is a certain
>belief reasonable. I feel that if I were to be asked by someone that was
>interested I could show that my belief is reasonable at that level of certainty.

Without trying to sound flippant, this does sound rather like "God exists because I want him to exist".

I would be perfectly happy to take you up on your offer for you to, as you put it, detail the reasonableness of your belief.


Pat

8-May-2010
1:20:11 AM

Well its late and I've had a big week, so my telling it might need a bit of work. When I say reasonable, I mean that I accept that I can never offer 100% proof as some on this thread would seem to need. I think that to say I could is simplistic and ignores and disrespects very real barriers to belief in God that others hold. However, we all operate in the real world where 100% isn't always a luxury afforded us and we manage to make decisions and workable ways of living within that limitation.

I guess, to take a discussion further, we would have to both agree that less than 100 % certainty is acceptable as long as I can show that I am not being totally illogical or implausible or perhaps deluded.

Thanks for not being flippant. I hope that I don't sound like I am projecting some kind of wish fulfillment. What I was trying to convey was that in terms of proof, for me, belief in God can be shown to make reasonable sense of the information available, while not claiming 100% certainty. I fully accept that if I want to claim God exists, then "because I want him to" is not acceptable and I must allow my view to be critiqued.


Nooj

8-May-2010
8:22:41 AM

On 7/05/2010 Wendy wrote:
>Before everyone gets too carried away, this debate has all happened before,
>we've just changed particpants
>

maybe every important thought in life has been thought before...

8-May-2010
9:49:39 AM

On 7/05/2010 voodoo wrote:
>I don't have total and unequivoval proof that unicorns don't exist either,
>but that doesn't mean I believe in them.
For you non-believers...
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/unicorns-are-re/
Unicorns do exist! :p

dmc

8-May-2010
10:45:01 AM

A couple of questions for all people.

Have you read the Bible? This is where Christians get their information about God from. (we could debate the historicity of the Bible till the cows come home but check out these sites http://publicchristianity.org and http://thechristfiles.com.au and remember even Richard Dawkins believes Jesus existed)

Are you approaching the question of the existence of God with the openness that you could find that God exists? or are you simply investigating to reinforce your preconceived idea that there is no God?
If you have read the Bible. Who is Jesus? and What are His claims? What did He do?

Where is your Hope for the future placed?


mattjr

8-May-2010
1:34:55 PM

settle down dmc, sounds like you have it all sorted, in fact it sounds like you have been doing enough bible research for us all?


Phil S

8-May-2010
2:18:30 PM

I can't help but wonder if our outspoken un-believers are consistant. What about belief in intuition? Love? Mass consioucness? UFOs? The Loch Ness Monster?

There was no evidence that bacteria existed until recently... But some people had a hunch it was something other than bad vapours that made us ill. A some point someone somewhere had "faith" that there was more to the story.

Life could be pretty dry without the fantastic(ness).

Tris

8-May-2010
2:19:42 PM

dmc - openmindedness works both ways.


Macciza

8-May-2010
3:07:30 PM

I believe goD does not exist . .
My proof : RingBolts . . .
MM ;~}


voodoo

8-May-2010
9:38:52 PM

On 8/05/2010 dmc wrote:
>A couple of questions for all people.
>
>Have you read the Bible? This is where Christians get their information
>about God from. (we could debate the historicity of the Bible till the
>cows come home but check out these sites http://publicchristianity.org
>and http://thechristfiles.com.au and remember even Richard Dawkins believes
>Jesus existed)
>
>Are you approaching the question of the existence of God with the openness
>that you could find that God exists? or are you simply investigating to
>reinforce your preconceived idea that there is no God?
>If you have read the Bible. Who is Jesus? and What are His claims? What
>did He do?

Believing that a person 'Jesus' physically existed and believing that this person was the son of God, who used his mystical powers to perform all the acts attributed to him in the Bible are two wildly different things.

I understand, as you point out, that the Bible is the definitive resource that Christians get their information about God/Jesus, etc. But it strikes me that it doesn't exactly have the hallmarks of an incredibly accurate resource - we're talking about a collaboration of a number of different authors recording a tale, told previously in the oral tradition, many years after the fact - we're not talking about a first-hand or even second-hand account, but many many hands-old. In the case of the New Testament there's somewhere between 50 to 100 years between events supposedly taking place and it actually being written down. Now I know how out of hand a game of Chinese Whispers can get in 5 minutes let alone 50 years!


Sabu

8-May-2010
10:56:15 PM

On 8/05/2010 voodoo wrote:
>Believing that a person 'Jesus' physically existed and believing that
>this person was the son of God, who used his mystical powers to perform
>all the acts attributed to him in the Bible are two wildly different things.

I agree, but if one believes that he existed then at what point does one stop believing in the accounts that are given? That starts to create a grey area don't you think?

>I understand, as you point out, that the Bible is the definitive resource
>that Christians get their information about God/Jesus, etc. But it strikes
>me that it doesn't exactly have the hallmarks of an incredibly accurate
>resource - we're talking about a collaboration of a number of different
>authors recording a tale, told previously in the oral tradition, many years
>after the fact - we're not talking about a first-hand or even second-hand
>account, but many many hands-old. In the case of the New Testament there's
>somewhere between 50 to 100 years between events supposedly taking place
>and it actually being written down. Now I know how out of hand a game
>of Chinese Whispers can get in 5 minutes let alone 50 years!

You have a very valid point here. The accounts were only written many years after they occurred and being only oral before that. However, here are some points for consideration:
1) As you said the chinese whispers can get out of hand, but that is why a lot of the bible is in the form of songs. With the story being part of a song this makes it much easier to remember and pass on.
2) In modern times, consider if we were told the same (or similar) story by 4 different people or one story by 1 person. Which would you be more inclined to believe? Of course the one told by 4 people, because the fact that several different people are saying the same thing means that story is likely to be more reliable.
3) Finally on your point about the stories being very old before they were written down. In the context of other historical accounts the period between Jesus being alive and the account being written (approx 70 years I believe) was fairly early. For example other significant emperors of that time only had their accounts written about 100 years after their death. So to question the written account of Jesus on the basis that it was written too late would mean you would also have to question the account of other historical figures of the time (I'm sorry I can't remember their names). It was pretty normal to have a gap like that. In the interest of comparison, I believe the written account of Mohammed appeared well over 100 years after he died and I think the account of Buddha was written approx 500 years after he died (don't quote me though I have a rusty memory of that lecture!).

These arguments are elaborated on and written much better in 'The Christ Files' (Dave posted a link earlier). Your points are directly addressed in the book voodoo so if you want a better explanation check it out.


rodw

8-May-2010
11:00:22 PM

On top of that its a very censored version of events, put together by a bunch of people with there own agenda (not having a go at the church in particular, just the failing of every person through out history, as the saying goes "absolute power corrupts absolutly")...as far an historical document goes it is it a bit wanting.

There is a difference between a historian writing down historical events and non historians producing a text they will use to push there own agenda, be it the bible, koran, torah and whatever the buddist use as a holy book.

The problem with "religious" text is that if you dare to question its accuracy it you can line youself up for a storm of insults or even worse a jihad proclaimed on your arse...but to look at any of the afore mentioned text as being historically accurate without question, is a bit rich.

hipdos

9-May-2010
12:09:10 AM

Fer fussake! You bible folk are part of a huge cult who are all scared of dying. Wake up! Live your life for what it is, there is nothing after you die morons!!

stonetroll

9-May-2010
12:56:21 AM

On 8/05/2010 Phil S wrote:

>
>There was no evidence that bacteria existed until recently... But some
>people had a hunch it was something other than bad vapours that made us
>ill. A some point someone somewhere had "faith" that there was more to
>the story.
>
Nice point of view, and nice to see this conflict put into a sensible context.

Talk about beliefs.

I believe that being in harmony within oneself promotes a confidence that allows a peacefull mind to listen quietly to what others have to say. By stepping outside of the ego and accepting that we each travel our own journey, we should be able to tolerate and even celebrate each others differences.

And by listening, with respect, to what others have to say about their spirituality and any other subject for that matter we might be able to learn about things that perhaps we haven't been able to see for ourselves.

There's a little saying that i allways remember and i'd like to share it with everyone :

"TALENT IS BEING ABLE TO HIT A TARGET THAT OTHERS CAN'T HIT, BUT GENIUS
IS BEING ABLE TO HIT A TARGET THAT OTHERS CAN'T SEE."

Thankyou ladies and gentlemen, have a nice day :)


GravityHound

9-May-2010
7:59:58 AM

On 8/05/2010 Phil S wrote:
>I can't help but wonder if our outspoken un-believers are consistant. What
>about belief in intuition? Love? Mass consioucness? UFOs? The Loch Ness
>Monster?

1) Love is a demonstrable effect of hormones and brain functions
2) The monster was a marketing strategy
3) UFO's. Seeing as we are finding huge numbers of exoplanets and the universe is 13 billion years old it is a possibility
4) Mass conciousness = subjective experience

>
>There was no evidence that bacteria existed until recently... But some
>people had a hunch it was something other than bad vapours that made us
>ill. A some point someone somewhere had "faith" that there was more to
>the story.

What is recently? Bacteria have been known to exist for centuries (1600's?), since microscopes were discovered pretty much. Unlike God they were discovered because they could be seen with the human eyes. Evidence of links between bacteria and illness were found through rationale scientific enquiry, something which will never provide evidence of God. Faith in God is based on evidence in a book, a scientist may have faith that something is going on however this is not quite the same thing because their faith will be based on some form of rational evidence. Trying to say they are both the same is just plain wrong. Kant wrote about this in the 1700's and I have to admit to feeling his thoughts having more creedance on this issue.

There are 159 messages in this topic.