Re: Theism and Deism (was Plague)

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:33:22 +0100, Michael J Davis
<?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>William <tielige@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>
>>I'd also made this clear with Ken in the previous posts. I have
>>accepted that we cannot even prove the existence of other humans, let
>>alone Gods. But sufficient evidence exists to convince even the worst
>>sceptic that other humans exist - why can't an omniscient deity know
>>how to convince even the most dyed-in-the-wool sceptic that he exists?
>
>Yes, but why should He, if the route is that of trusting Him. Do you (or
>your wife) demand that you prove to one another's satisfaction each day
>that you have been 'faithful'. Or do you just trust one another?

If I'm going to trust my wife then I demand that there is evidence she
exists. If I went round telling everyone that my wife is loving and
faithful but I can't provide any evidence to them that she exists they
would soon be sending for the men in white coats.

>>We were talking about miracles in the context of showing the existence
>>of God so I think foretelling a remarkable sign would be appropriate.
>>A remarkable and unexplained event labelled a sign *after* the event
>>loses most of it's impact. Anyone can observe something 'unexplained'
>>after it happens and claim it was from God. It would have far more
>>significance if it was predicted that God was going to do it.
>
>Yes. Again, you are in danger of demanding that God plays by your rules.
>It's a bit like turning up at a, say, scrabble competition and allowing
>the letters to be swapped!

It's not my rules, it's a matter of fact. If I see no evidence that
God exists then I am unlikely to believe he exists. That's all. The
rules are simple. If someone exists and wants folk to be convinced
that they exist then they have to provide convincing evidence that
they exist.

>>That latter is, in principle, the kind of thing I am talking about -
>>but not something as controversial as that. Thousands of people
>>staring at the sun through a cloudy sky and waiting for a miracle are
>>likely (perhaps almost bound) to see it dancing around after a while.
>>But this was 1917.
>
>No there weren't (IIRC) told what would happen, merely that 'something
>would happen', so it's not like that. But there you demonstrate exactly
>what I'd expect you to say.

Good. It did seem pretty obvious.
[snip]

>>I have to say that the Church citing such things seems to me to be
>>rather counter productive. What it is saying is that God wishes to
>>make his presence known through signs, but can only manage ambiguous
>>and inadequate ones that fail to convince the very people who need
>>convincing.
>
>Jesus sees exactly this in his parable of the rich man and the beggar
>(Luke 16): " . . they will not be convinced even if someone rises from
>the dead.'"
>
>I have seen the death certificate of some who rose from the dead
>(through prayer) - naturally, you will say, 'ah well, it wasn't in this
>country, it's easy to mistake the point of death......' etc. etc.

Maybe, Michael, and I'm getting a bit exasperated with this. These
stories are *not* the kind of things that will convince a seriously
enquiring sceptic. I have watched a faith healer on stage and have,
years ago, worked with folk who claim that fantastic miracles are
happening. I've seen how they tweak things to the point of dishonesty
but they still believe they are doing the right thing. I could relate
a dozen such stories but I won't because it won't help. I'm not
accusing you of this but it's all 'out there' and, in my experience,
these things are rather different when examined in the light of day.

What I do know is that if a claimed miracle is properly monitored and
if the evidence is overwhelming then it will be believed by *all*
reasonable people - sceptics or not..

We can be convinced of things we would normally find utterly
incredible or which we desperately don't want to be true. I believe
the earth is a sphere orbiting the sun even though it is incredible
and counter-intuitive; but there is overwhelming objective evidence
and I'm convinced. We don't even have a fraction of that for the
existence of God. Why not?

Does he exist but can't make existence convincingly known?
Or does he exist but doesn't want his existence to be known?
Or doesn't he exist?

[snipped stuff I have read but seems to have now been covered]

>>The point is that looking at transformed lives doesn't really tell you
>>much about the validity of the beliefs that induce that
>>transformation. The Heaven's Gate followers had their lives
>>transformed by their belief, and there are countless other beliefs
>>that transform the lives of the believer in less dramatic (but equally
>>misguided) ways.
>
>I understand the point you are making. When I take these issues up with
>God (and I do - frequently), He says, "What are *you* doing about it?"
>So I do. That's why I am now praying with people (lovingly) without
>worrying about how I look. If I get it wrong, it's God's problem. The
>amazing thing is that we are seeing more healings and conversions and
>changed lives.
>
>Why don't you take it up with God yourself? (And if you might say ' but
>I'd feel so silly doing that!' - I would say, in all seriousness, 'If
>God exists, is there anything more important in life than to discover
>that, and His plan for you, than anything else?)

As time goes by I see the arguments less and less convincing. And
seeing much of the apathy and bickering and materialism - and fear of
debate - amongst those who claim to believe I sometimes wonder whether
they have really been convinced.

William
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... >>> if you accept the existence of God, ... >> Indirect evidence which helps infer the existence of God? ... >>> have throughout recorded history, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... >>> No. Does not the existence of our free will and conscious mind give ... >> established by science. ... why is this an argument in favour of there being a God? ... > Indirect evidence which helps infer the existence of God? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: So much for "teach the controversy", an antidote for "Expelled"
    ... means that the existence of such creator is possible. ... "wilfull ingorance" that science has already provided conclusive evidence ... that God does not exist, and so a continued belief in such a God is just ... In some Christian traditions, yes. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "Liberty U" -- gotta laugh....
    ... philosophical arguments for the existence of God. ... evidence, are menaingless in terms of trying to prove that any deity ... You keep saying that without offering any support for your claim. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... >>> to follow the purposes of the designers by acting like just another ... Many aspects of our existence cannot be proven, cannot be tested, are ... > if you accept the existence of God, ... Indirect evidence which helps infer the existence of God? ...
    (talk.origins)