If the scientific process illustrates that the phone works reliably, predictably and consistently then is that not evidence leading to the notion that the phone is actually there? And if the phone does not work reliably, predictably and consistently, and if there is no solid evidence for the phone at all, is that not evidence leading to the notion that the phone might not be there after all?
Only if I'm already assuming things that can lead me to those conclusions. If there's a Factor X that distorts my initial perception of the phone, and distorts my perception of the phone in the same way all throughout my investigation, and I'm not aware of it, how can I know my conclusion is sound?
For just one possible example, what separates you and I from the little old lady in a nursing home who's looking for a crossing guard to "help me cross the street?" Sure, we as outside observers can see that she has dementia, but how do we get an outside perspective on our own perceptions? If it's really the year 2072, and we're merely lost in our own sea of memories, then we could do science until we're blue in the face, but what good does that do us if we're not even in the right decade?
This is nothing more than the evolution of the God concept, is it not? The problem I see with that is that evolution does not imply a progression toward truth... only a progression toward being more 'fit for survival'. Could it not simply be that the modern concept of God exists in it's present form because science has completely obliterated the old ways of thinking?
That's certainly a possibility, and one I don't discount. And in saying that it occurs to me that, while I've mentioned in other threads that I consider myself an agnostic theist, I did not remember to restate that here. Hopefully that didn't cause any confusion.
That being said, I don't give that conjecture much credence for a few reasons:
- The scientific method became formalized around the 17th century, while most of the concept of a modern "omnimax" deity were formalized around the 3rd century.
- Empiricism, which encompasses science, did not gain much traction until the Middle Ages when Aristotle's writings were recovered from the Arabs, translated, and distributed in Europe. By then, rationalist writings containing modern ideas about God had been circulating in Europe about ~1000 years, with many of the translators (such as Thomas Aquinas) being theologians who talked about those same concepts.
- The earliest criticisms of anthropomorphic polytheism (that I'm aware of) were from Xenophanes in the 500s BC, who rejected the Greek pantheon for a more "out there" eternal, singular, universal deity somewhat reminiscent of deism. The earliest materialist/prescientific criticisms of God (again, that I'm aware of) were from Epicurus in the 300s BC.
So, while I doubt we'll have any way of knowing for sure, I think we'd be hard pressed to make a case that science was a driving factor for our current conception of God, as the timing just doesn't appear to work out. You might be able to make a case with some specific doctrines--for example, the idea of Hell as a state rather than a physical place didn't become popular in Catholic theology until the 20th Century, after the scientific revolution--but I just don't see how we can say science was the driving force for the theological evolution of God.
Furthermore, why do you think it will not continue to evolve even further than it has? Do you honestly think that at this present time, all evolution of the God theory is suddenly going to stop because it's finally been figured out? Don't you think the people in ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt thought the EXACT same thing about their positions?
Have I given the impression somewhere that I do not think the idea will evolve? If so, that's the wrong impression. I don't think I'm smart enough to have the final, most complete answer on anything, especially God.
Rather, as someone who believes God can and does reveal Himself to humanity, I'd be worried if our concepts of God stopped
evolving, because that would suggest that God stopped talking, or that we stopped listening, or that we never really had a clue in the first place (an option most atheists would surely agree with.) I'd be elated if/when it evolves further, because that would mean we have new ways of understanding God, and perhaps could lead to more people deepening their relationships with Him.
And in another 250 years, that thought process might be considered a religious 'transitional fossil'.
Maybe. Then again, maybe not. Who's to say?
That's fine, and I can see your thought processes here. But do you have any evidence that such a being exists? And if you do not, what makes you think it exists? From my point of view, Aristotle's unmoved mover might be possible, but everything else is a major reach.
Yes and no. As I mentioned earlier, I think God can and does interact with the world, and thus these interactions are evidence of God's existence. However, they require one to both recognize that interaction of God and be right in that recognition, and even if both of those are met, the evidence is anecdotal at best, and there's always a possible alternative explanation. For this reason, I would say that this evidence isn't really suitable as a foundation for proof of God, but rather is more of an icing on the cake for those who already believe.
Ultimately, my faith has a basis akin to axiom, which probably sounds a bit strange in a vacuum. Hopefully, though, parts of it are starting to become a little clear with respect to my thoughts on science, objective reality, and what it means to be ontologically prior to the universe. All of them are intertwined, but I don't want to complicate things by trying to say it all in one post.
Also, can you please explain how a deity can be perfect and omnimax at the same time?
The definition of perfection with respect to God has changed loads of times throughout history. When I use it, I'm generally equating it to the idea of God as absolute, so I'm basically using it as shorthand for "omnipotent, omniscience, omniprescent."
Yes. Just like Jesus. Instead of a bunch of them, its just one.
Sort of. Though in the ancient pantheons, the anthropomorphic superhuman beings were the deities, whereas Jesus is a deity in human form. In other words, Thor and Zeus were not
human, while Jesus was.
And Thor and Zeus' deity did not extend past being superhuman, while Jesus is considered to be consubstantial with the Father as God.
Do you think you could convince a follower of Thor that Thor does not exist? Why or why not?
Probably not, because faith isn't usually gained or lost in conversation with a single person.
By being a follower of a specific religion, however, you're taking it a lot further than just saying 'this appears to be the most complete picture', aren't you? Also, how does this differ from what everyone else does with their religion?
It's one thing to reach a conclusion, it's another to apply it. And religions offer a community of people with similar ideas all attempting that application. Religion allows me to express my faith in God by giving me a direction and context in which to do it.
And it doesn't differ. I have no issues with people of other faiths. In fact, conversations with people of other faiths generally lead me to appreciate how they express their faiths through those different beliefs.
What is it about the atheist position gives you pause?
I'm not quite sure how to answer this just yet, and I'm hoping to end this post soon, and this post is already pretty lengthy, so I'm going to defer this to later. It has a lot to do with my overall world view, though.
Are you completely ruling out the idea that everything could just be natural?
No, I have not ruled that out.
It seems that the sum total of your beliefs in God are not furnished by using the scientific method. Do you find that the process you have used, which seems to largely be a product of philosophy and logic applied with very few corroborating facts, is better than the scientific method at determining the existence of anything? How about determining the existence of God? If there is a difference, please explain why the existence of God is better determined by not using the scientific method.
In short, I don't think the scientific method has anything to do at all with God's existence. It's based on naturalistic principles, and thus is operating under the assumption that the universe is based on laws. Since the supernatural tends to break those laws, I don't see how science could ever form valid theories about the supernatural's existence/nonexistence.
No, Mooby, Santa Claus doesn’t actually live at the North Pole because, like your god, Santa Claus is imaginary. Fact is the quality of being actual. So it isn’t factual to say Santa Claus lives at the North Pole and it isn’t factual to say your god is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent or the source of all being.
I think you are conflating a description of Santa with the reality/fictionality of Santa. If we did a poll with the question, "True/False: Santa lives at the North Pole," what do you think the results would be?
Are you trying to say, “Is there anything to distinguish that claim from imagination?” If so then my answer is, yes. I am not imagining the fact that you have failed to provide a factual description of your god. I’m not imagining the fact that you’ve failed to provide a shred of sound evidence or a single sound argument to show your god is real. Consequently, I’m not imagining the fact that you have completely failed to distinguish your belief in your god from imagination.
Sorry, yes. "Distinguish."
And you're not addressing the claim I quoted. Here is the claim:
Without any facts, observation or experience there is nothing to distinguish your a priori god from imagination.
Is there any way to show that, in the absence of the things you mentioned, there is nothing to distinguish god from imagination?
Let’s review your progress so far in answering the OP. You’ve failed to provide a factual description of your god. Your descriptions so far tend towards defining your god as non-existent or imaginary. You’ve failed to provide any sound evidence or sound arguments to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your god is real. You’ve failed to explain what, if anything, distinguishes your belief in your god from imagination. So far, you’ve failed to validate your belief in your god. Allowing yourself to believe an unvalidated feeling, idea or situation is true is self-deception. Consequently, it would seem that you are simply deceiving yourself.
Interesting. Perhaps you could show me what a factual description that validates something's existence looks like?