The Evidence That God Exists
Category: Religion & Ethics
Via: john-russell • 7 months ago • 184 commentsBy: Elizabeth Bruenig (The Atlantic)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Searching for scientific proof for faith misunderstands faith.
By Elizabeth Bruenig
I grew up in a faithful Methodist household in deep-red Texas during the George W. Bush years, when the political sway of evangelicals was at its zenith. At the same time, evangelists of a robust atheism—figures such as the biologist Richard Dawkins, the critic Christopher Hitchens, and the neuroscientist Sam Harris—toured the country offending salt-of-the-earth Americans with their contempt for religious belief. It was hard for me to ignore that a number of their assertions were clearly correct: Young-Earth creationism, for instance, instantly struck me as absurd when I first learned about it from a history teacher in my public junior-high school, who confidently told me that the world is only a few thousand years old.
That wasn't what my family or church taught, but Christians who subscribed to those beliefs were suddenly ascendant, and their thinking colored the country's religious landscape. Meanwhile, the New Atheists were making hay of the fact that such faithful misapprehensions about nature were easily disproved by scientific discovery. Though I continued to attend church as usual, I privately wondered whether the entire enterprise might be rooted in nothing more than a misunderstanding.
This steady diminishing of faith probably would have continued indefinitely, were it not for one brisk autumn afternoon in 2011 when, standing alone at a bus stop, I happened to witness the presence of God.
The unevenly paved lane where I waited was a quiet one-way street tucked away in a clutch of trees. I gazed down the road, preoccupied with other things—midterm exams, campus-club minutiae—and expecting the bus to trundle around the bend. A sudden icy wind tore around the corner instead, sweeping into gray branches and climbing ivy to send a spray of golden birch leaves spiraling into the sky, taking my breath along with them. And I knew that my soul was bared to something indescribably majestic and bracing—something that overwhelmed me with the unmistakable sensation of eye contact. What I saw, I felt, also saw me. Before I could rationally account for what had happened, a verse of poetry from John Ashbery came to mind:
A look of glass stops you
And you walk on shaken: was I the perceived?
That seemed to explain things perfectly, jarringly so. I was dazed in class as afternoon darkened to evening.
The latest evidence suggests that God most likely exists, argues a big recent book by Michel-Yves Bollore, a computer engineer, and Olivier Bonnassies, a Catholic author. Tracts that aim to prove the reality of God are hardly novel. What makes this endeavor unique, say the French writers behind God, The Science, the Evidence: The Dawn of a Revolution, is the scientific nature of their work. Medieval monks toiling away at poetic meditations on the divine have their place, the authors allow, but their own arguments are meant to surpass mere abstract justifications for belief. Instead they assert that cutting-edge empirical proof observable in the natural world makes a firm case for God. With this, they strive for the ultimate alchemy, transforming faith into fact.
Bollore and Bonnassies's book is part of a burgeoning genre of apologetics that relies on relatively new scientific developments and theories, like quantum mechanics and cosmology, to make an ancient case. Their book, which has already sold more than 400,000 copies around the world, arrives at a time of both bloody religious conflict and rapidly collapsing religious belief, especially among the young and the highly educated. It joins other recent projects—including two new documentaries, The Story of Everything: The Science That Reveals a Mind Behind the Universe and Universe Designed—that propose the same tantalizing theory: that there is incontrovertible proof that a divine power created the cosmos, and that this evidence is mounting.
This is a seductive idea, which Bollore and Bonnassies spend a painstaking 500 pages trying to support. Keen to reassure readers that a sophisticated and intelligent person might reasonably justify belief in God, the authors acknowledge how such a thing became unthinkable. They identify a series of scientific breakthroughs that helped undermine religious faith over the centuries, including Galileo's heliocentrism, Newton's clockwork universe, Darwin's theory of evolution, and the revelation that Earth is not thousands but billions of years old. But in drawing upon those exact fields of study to reverse the long-term march toward unbelief, the authors appear to have missed the mechanism by which those prior discoveries eroded faith: namely, that people had staked their belief on evidence that was overturned by subsequent data. There is always a risk that today's proof will be undone by tomorrow's evidence. Trusting in the existence of God largely involves deciding not to operate strictly within the confines of reason as we know it, a choice that usually emerges from sentiment rather than argument.
Read: Can religion and science coexist?
Bollore and Bonnassies do not appear concerned. "We have conducted this work as a rigorous investigation," they write. "We have always used rationality as our only compass." Enough, they suggest, with emotional and mystical arguments for the presence of a divine power, or fanciful ideas such as young-Earth creationism; theirs is a project explicitly devoted to reason. Their "panoramic view" of the available evidence spans from the Big Bang, which they say implies an act of creation by demonstrating an absolute beginning to the universe, to the unlikely "fine-tuning" of the cosmos to create the conditions for flourishing life on Earth. Their book includes "one hundred essential citations from leading scientists" across multiple disciplines who have either allowed for the existence of God or asserted it outright. This includes Robert Wilson, an astronomer and a Nobel Prize winner in physics, who is quoted observing that the Big Bang theory makes "the question of creation" unavoidable. Luc Jaeger, a professor of chemistry and biochemistry at UC Santa Barbara, likewise states that "science practiced in a sincere quest for the truth brings man closer to God."
To imagine that one might find traces of the divine strewn throughout the universe, or that earthly methods of inquiry might uncover some of those signs, isn't ridiculous. But this latest round of arguments in favor of intelligent design seems aimed mostly at establishing that God could or should exist within the rational frameworks we already employ. This is both weak grounds for belief and a fundamental misunderstanding of faith. The route to durable faith in God often runs not through logical proofs or the sciences, but through awe, wonder, and an attunement to the beauty and poetry of the world, natural and otherwise.
This was not always apparent to me. I came to this understanding through trial, error, and my own brushes with scientific rebuttals to the existence of God.
After that brisk autumn afternoon, life went on unremarkably, though I continued to mull over what the experience could mean. That it meant something at all was another strong intuition that I could not entirely account for. There were plenty of ordinary and dismissive explanations for what had happened, all related to the vagaries of the brain. Surely I had just been tired, bleary-eyed, suggestible, available—highly sensitized, in other words, to typical seasonal splendor. That made sense to me, but I didn't believe it. The natural beauty wasn't the cause of what I had felt, but rather an invitation to pay attention to what I felt.
From the July 1915 issue: Scientific faith
I began to ask myself what it would cost me intellectually if I were to choose to metabolize the experience as it had occurred to me. That decision came with several implications. If God is real, then perhaps other things—goodness, righteousness, beauty—that are usually dismissed as matters of subjective experience might also be objectively real. That prospect was much more agreeable to me than another consequential implication of electing to believe: that, as the New Atheists had so vigorously argued, theism meant putting aside any pretensions I had of sophistication or intellect.
As I explored this problem, I spent hours in my college library reading Saint Augustine, a foundational philosopher and theologian. Here I encountered another strange sensation: Every word I read felt like remembering something I had once known but somehow forgotten. This recalled an observation of Plato's, who argued that the soul contains lost memories of the divine—that we are born knowing the truth of the universe, but forget it all when the mundanities of life get in the way. Maybe he had a point, I thought. And maybe the Christian Neoplatonists, Augustine among them, had some points as well. I contemplated this for a while before I realized that there wasn't any sense in debating it with myself anymore. I knew what I felt, so I gave up and chose to believe.
I'm still sorting through the ramifications. In my years of working out exactly what I believe, I have been relieved to learn that faith does not in fact demand the surrender of logic and vigorous intellectual inquiry—a case Bollore and Bonnassies convincingly bolster with numerous testimonials from award-winning scientists. Still, to trust in the existence of God is to accept both the appearance and the possibility of being naive or delusional. No accumulation of promising developments in our analytical understanding of the world can delay confrontation with that essential fact. Having faith is a vulnerable thing.
Bollore and Bonnassies's arguments are more likely to shore up the faith of wavering believers than to win new converts. This itself is no small thing. The authors may even be right about the growing evidence for the existence of God secreted away in the latest science. But their approach has a history of upsets. The only way to inoculate belief against that cycle of disruption is to treat faith as a decision that transcends scientific proof.
About the Author
Elizabeth BruenigFollowElizabeth Bruenig is a staff writer at The Atlantic.
Tags
Who is online
86 visitors
It is impossible to prove God exists and it is impossible to prove God doesnt exist, but maybe some will find this article interesting.
It is impossible to prove that any of the 4,000+ other gods throughout history don't exist, so what makes the christian one special?
By definition there can only be one God. The supreme being. There cannot be two or more "the supreme being".
"gods" are cultural expressions of human beings.
Not really wanting to argue, but if there is one Supreme Being, why not another or another? The Catholic (and numerous other Christian denomination's) Doctrine of the Trinity says specifically that God is Three Persons. Even Christians, Muslims and Jews disagree on whether their Gods are the same One God. For instance, if I say that Muslims, Jews and Christians worship the exact same God of Abraham the fundamentalists will firmly disagree. Lacking any proof for or against one god there is no logical proof against more...
It doesnt matter what people say in defense of their cultural beliefs, if there is a God there is only one and the many gods are cultural expressions of that.
I see no logical reason that must be true!
You are merely making an unconditional statement of your personal belief. Hindu true belivers are justified to disagree...
At the time Christ was declared by others as the son of Yahweh the Jewish god every politicial leader of those times was also declared to be the son or daughter of one god or another. Julius Caesar was the son of Zeus and Cleopatra was the daughter of Isis and Marc Anthony was the son of Apollo and Augustus Caesar was the son of Poseidon. Everybody who was anybody in year 1 claimed to be the son or daughter of one or another god.
Some might even kill anyone who disagrees!
The christian bible states otherwise, not to mention the very 1st commandment.
Deities in the Hebrew Bible
Other Gods Mentioned in the Old Testament
Ancient Gods of the Old Testament
It's actually quite interesting to watch how the polytheistic bible get turned into a monotheistic religion. (HINT: It doesn't start that way) Plus how Yahweh goes from a small regional deity to the one and only.
A god that is not THE supreme being cannot be God. By definition there can only be one Supreme Being. To argue otherwise would be like saying there can be more than one HIGHEST mountain in the world.
It doesnt matter what individual religions believe.
That's true, and based on the bible that being would be Elyon not Yahweh.
Plus you would have to "assume" that there is a supreme deity and not just a bunch of non-supreme ones.
“…so what makes the christian one special?”
”…lawyers, guns, and money.”
That's not what it says.
What it says depends on which bible version you are taking it from. Scholars deal with the original Hebrew.
So Many Gods! Can We Count All The Gods In The Bible?
Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and the Sons of God
Septuagint (LXX): “When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God (aggelón theou). And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of his inheritance”.
Masoretic Text (MT): “When Elyon gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel (bene yisrael). For Yahweh’s portion was his people, Jacob was the lot of his inheritance”.
No it doesn't.
You're pretending the Bibles we use today haven't been studied intently by literally millions of scholars dealing with the original Hebrew.
El Elyon is simply another term for God. It translates to "God most high". It is used several times in Moses' writings, including as a direct description of Yahweh.
The widely accepted academic theory is that the early Israelites were polytheistic until somewhere around the 6th century BC, and there is abundant evidence throughout the Old Testament to support that. You don't make a golden calf if you're not polytheistic.
Use of the descriptor "God most high" serves to identify their God as above all others.
I have deep respect for Holy Books. All of them. But let's be serious. They were written in pastoral/agricultural societies that had no inkling of the universe beyond the clouds.
Those authors did a remarkable job of transforming fickle field and stream gods into something so much more sophisticated. But it would be ridiculous to expect them to invent a universal God without knowing anything about the universe.
Context!
What about the possibility that there is no supreme being?
Well then, we'll have to just accept the being with no sour cream...
I've got no problems with people that need a psychological mooring point (crutch) to live a noble and just life. but I don't feel the need to attend any weekly reminders of the difference between right and wrong, or to be forgiven for their selective ideas of my transgressions. beyond the liberal use of my favorite part of the 1st amendment, freedom of expression, I have no use for anything religious that I view as the equivalent of santa claus, the easter bunny, and the tooth fairy. for those that need it as a reason to pause and reflect before committing an act contrary to their religious teachings, more power to you, but I haven't really needed the help since I became an adult.
thumpers can thump all they want, but keep it out of my face, the public, and away from gov't entitlements I'm expected to pay for, or expect extreme push back of epic biblical persecution proportions until they fulfill their constitutionally recognized gov't status as being equal to nothing in modern american social and cultural influence. face it, they've had almost 2 millenniums worth of time to create their religious nirvana, and low and behold, because of their tax exempt status and self righteousness they have only attracted and embraced those that embody the worst of humankind. outside of their churches and their private homes, they should really stfu ...
Then why are there literally hundreds of different versions of the bible? They are not the same, the all have translation differences.
You are partially correct, but not in ALL versions, ALL translations. Again, the original bible is NOT monotheistic. Christians later started changing it to fit their own monotheistic beliefs.
Correct.
In their opinion. In other's opinion it is used to describe a different god most high.
I enjoyed it. Thanks for seeding.
I agree and think that if an all-powerful God hasn't shown itself to me or anyone else it either doesn't want to be found or will let us all know when it does. Spending my time trying to piece together the DaVinci Code or cross referencing the tetragrammaton with Greek and English, scouring the bible, Koran and every other religious book ever printed to try and figure out if there is a God and if so, which one is just a giant waste of time. Instead, I'll spend my life working hard, caring for my family and friends, work on trying to be more kind to stupid people, and enjoy the life I was blessed with instead of worrying about not getting 'more' in some other dimension.
Well, as a former believer in God and the scriptures you surely Apostle Paul's enjoinder:
It is all rather "foolish" isn't it. . .to subject thinking, and critically-thinking individuals to 'pondering' the depths of "foolishness" that is, living in God/Spirit without any touchstone for evidence, except the adopted Spirit itself-incidentally itself supernatural and immaterial to our world.
I think that 'save' or 'salvation' is a loaded word that, without context, is simply a McGuffin.
Saved from what or whom? What is this saving that so many people seem so concerned with? What does being saved entail? 72 virgins? Puffy clouds and a harp? No eternal hellfire?
I'm not rejecting the idea of God, I can't prove it doesn't exist. I'm not even claiming that believers are all a danger to themselves and others. I'm just saying I see no reason to continue the search, like some grizzled Bigfoot hunter rustling the bushes and shaking the trees, looking for a God. In fact, perhaps that is just looking the gift horse in the mouth as it were. We have this life for some reason, the exploration of this universe is more than enough for me. I don't need to attempt an exploration of some other spirit dimension. I'm not gullible enough (anymore) to get bamboozled into thinking I need to let some other person tell me what an invisible being they can't prove exists wants me to do in order to be saved from 'something'. If loving your friends and family, taking care of them and living every day honestly while exploring this amazing universe around us is foolish, then I'm a fool. If it damns me to some eternal hellfire because I didn't spend my days kneeling to the right God, so be it.
Frankly, if there is a God, I don't see it being as petty as humans make it out to be.
Saved from what or whom? The "Demon-Spirit" which separated itself from the sanctity of God biblically-speaking. What is "saving"? In service to God and a belief system biblically-speaking. Saving entails? Belief/faith in God, biblically speaking.
72 virgins? Puffy clouds. . . harp? Hellfire? Biblically-speaking. . . God is not mocked. Spirits, lower "s," in service of a proper Spirit are servants that stand and act in the service of, to, for God to execute, detail, enact, rebuke, correct, and ultimately 'trash.'
Ezekiel, biblically-speaking, watched an angel from across a way, and when they 'met,' Ezekiel fainted in the presence of power and the gravity of the moment. A sign that angels (if they exist) are entities of supernatural power, in power, and in form and fashion. . . not to be confused with mere 'earthly' frivolities and contrivances.
And at your final paragraph: I wholeheartedly agree if there exist God, Jesus, Spirit and spirits at all. . .indeed such entities are not petty beings or 'devices.'
Understand this, we are on the same page here, I accept that we can not know what is being 'denied' proper knowledge of knowing up to this point. When I 'speak' from the Bible nowadays - I qualify my writings as understanding from the "Book" itself. . . that is, it is Written so, and so forth and so on. I temper my words and leave room for people to come to their own decision about this or that expressed in the Book. I do not care about telling others what to 'do' with their liberties and freedoms.
If a god is all powerful and wants me to worship him he could certainly convince me that he exists. Otherwise, I will remain unconvinced.
for a supreme being, he sure is a shitty general manager. and as a savior, his past record really sucks ...
he can feel free to get back to me when there's a lot less scumbags and a lot more scorched spots on this planet ...
I have seen too many people die to care about this anymore. One minute your here, then you are gone. fine~
"Life is suffering and loss" - Siddhartha Gautama
You are going to 'hate' me for suggesting this, and I want you to know that I am sensitive to the meaning in your comment - really . . . here goes.
For the believer in the biblical God of the New Testament there is a statement, a hope, a Word:
God is God of the Living. . . . For if there is a God everything which enters God's presence is alive. 'A thing' can not die in the presence of God! Which is why the Bible states human-kind had to 'depart' from the presence of God to fulfill its destiny in the Earth.
My 'argument' is not to persuade you one way or another. I am not interested in that. My sole concern in writing this is to give 'expression' to a spoken and written philosophical point about the nature of God (if God were to exist) as told by bible writers.
I have the book on Audible.com (audio-book). I begin listening this very night.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Who made god? What made that thing? Then what made that thing? Rinse and repeat. Notice how nobody ever makes the claim that god made itself, which could be the only reasonable answer. Probably because it’s an even dumber idea than religion itself.
It's an allegory for the birth of the universe. Science calls it the singularity, or the big bang. In mythologies sometimes it's described order from chaos or light from darkness. And yes I've read stories where the first spark of consciousness created the rest of itself.
A fun read is Stephen Brust's To Reign In Hell (1984) - it depicts the chaos of creation and the struggle of the angels to make a stable reality for themselves and the rebellion of Lucifer. You can see the influence of Milton in the story.
Great question. My answer would be "the same person who set off the Big Bang".
A "God" contained on our planet makes no sense. God must be universal - all fourteen billion light-years of the universe. God must be eternal - or since the Big Bang.
If we accept these "facts", then God is almost kinda sorta congruent with the universe. Is the universe an expression of God... or vice versa?
Excellent seed, John!!
I suspect that there’s a damn good reason why extraterrestrials have avoided making actual contact with humanity. They are observant of the multiple ass-backwards belief systems that are held so deeply by humans that we are willing to murder each other over disagreements about them. Clearly they would not be safe in our presence. Their technological knowledge in the sciences, as demonstrated by their means and methods of travel, is meaningless in the face of the myriad of religious belief systems we are so deluded by. They are the evidence that disproves all the garbage that religion claims as truth. They probably see us as a species in need of extinction.
Wouldn't it be cool to get an alien's take on God?
Have you seen the movie Contact? Humans generally are not evolved enough for that conversation. If they demonstrated the evidence of singularity beyond a shadow of a doubt, religious zealots would violently object since it does not align with their religious doctrines. Sure, Id love to know what they know, but until then I will remain thoroughly unconvinced that a higher power controls anything. Great movie, btw.
I'll watch anything with Jodie Foster. She only gets involved in good projects.
"What about God?" has been a central theme in a lot of good SF.
Not many monkeys travel on their own to Alaska, it's quite far and inhospitable to many animals who never venture far from their environments. I think if we asked, "Why haven't we made contact with alien life on other planets?" it would answer the question "why extraterrestrials have avoided making actual contact with humanity". Because if they exist, they would likely be on the other side of the universe from us, or very, very far away, and not know we exist. And even if they found us somehow, they would then have to have developed interstellar space travel with the ability to travel vast distances rather quickly. And considering how we're a relatively young species and even the closest star with a planet is about 4.25 light years away, unless they had close to or faster than light travel, they would have had to leave their planet thousands of years ago to visit us.
I do believe that out there, life has found a way and other species or things we wouldn't recognize exist out there, but the odds we'll run into them someday are extremely low and really just a fantasy.
Indeed.
Something must be 'that which enabled our existence'. We do not know what that 'something' is but the notion that this must be a sentient entity is unsupported.
What if, at the foundation of existence, there is a substance and everything in existence is ultimately an emergent property of that substance interacting with itself ad infinitum?
This, by the way, does not preclude the notion of a creator. It just means that if our universe was created by a sentient entity, that sentient entity is itself an emergent property of this substance and not the 'first cause'.
Good reasons to look ever deeper into the Big Bang. A pinhole camera to look at God's face.
That's based on a mere assumption there's a god to begin with and said god caused the BB.
Yes, and "God's face" might be nothing more than a non-sentient (currently undefined) substance.
Who made god? What made that thing? Then what made that thing? Rinse and repeat. Notice how nobody ever makes the claim that god made itself, which could be the only reasonable answer. Probably because it’s an even dumber idea than religion itself.
Let's not forget that there are more things in heaven and earth, Hal, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Actually that was a mangled quote from Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 1, scene 5):
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy" is a famous line from
(Act 1, Scene 5) . Spoken by Hamlet to his skeptical friend, it means that human knowledge, science, and reason cannot explain everything, urging open-mindedness regarding the supernatural and mysteries of life
God cannot exist simply because God created our existence. If there is a God present in our existence then that presence is on a supernatural or metaphysical or spiritual plane.
Asking about the existence of God is no different than asking about the existence of virtues and vices. We know that we could travel to the end of the universe and never bump into a virtue or a vice. Virtues and vices are only present within us. If virtues and vices exist then they only exist because we exist. We also know that virtues and vices are universal among us so they are not subjective fairy tales. Virtues and vices are real, they are present, they can be observed and understood, but they are not quantifiable (although we attempt to quantify them with laws). Virtues and vices are present on a different plane than our existence and are only recognizable because of our existence.
If God does exist then it is only because we exist. God can only exist within us.
As the author, Elizabeth Bruenig, has discovered, faith is personal. We can only find faith in ourselves, not in the reality around us. If faith exists it is only because we exist. And our faith within us allows God to exist within us.
Asking about the existence of God is no different than asking about the existence of virtues and vices.
Disagree. Everyone can sense virtues and vices, but there is an obvious segment of the human population who cannot sense god.
Then why do we need prisons? It seems that some cannot sense virtues and vices.
Sensing virtuosity doesn’t require being virtuous. Criminals don’t just sense it, they prey on it - then ironically claim to find god in prison.
If sensing virtuosity creates a temptation for vice then there appears to be ignorance of ones senses. Lack of understanding does not negate the universal nature of virtue and vice.
Does sensing God nullify atheism? Lack of faith in God only prevents God's existence in the atheist.
Lack of faith in God only prevents God's existence in the atheist.
To the atheist, god is of no more consequence than the elusive Sasquatch or the Loch Ness Monster. It’s meaningless folklore. Whether it’s real or not, it doesn’t communicate, it doesn’t appear anywhere, and most importantly it affects nothing. Faith in god is rooted in fear of the unknown.
Virtues and vices are other words for morality. Morality, is and always has been, fluid. In some societies artwork depicting god is a virtue - praised and put on display. In other societies it is a vice punishable by beheading.
We have prisons because we've banded together and decided it morally ethical to lock people up for what we've decided are crimes. We still debate the death penalty. We still debate reform vs punishment.
Yes,
But that's a judgement call-- and various people "sense" differing things!
Although your answer makes sense, I dont think it is sufficient. God is a supernatural entity, which is exactly why its existence can neither be proven or disproven. Any proof or disproof would be inevitably grounded in nature, the realm of this existence. Human beings cant think and operate in any other way. But God is , at least partially, outside of nature and existence by its very definition.
The rather 'sticky' part of this whole discussion from this perspective is this: A supernatural God. . .insisting on maintaining 'distance' from its creation. . . somehow created a non-supernatural state of existence for endless numbers of beings. This point is complex and 'unanswerable' as to how it could be without help from. . . God.
I feel that misses a key aspect of the question. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproved objectively. That does not necessarily mean God is a subjective concept. Whatever God may be does appear to be universally experienced by people across cultures and throughout time. It is the experience of God that is subjective.
The question is whether or not a universal subjective experience is sufficient to accept that God exists? So, accepting the presence or existence of God is a matter of faith. We do know that subjective faith overcomes lack of objective proof. Isn't it sufficient that God's exists within our faith?
How does such "sufficiency" work in regards to faith?
I do not understand the value of this article. It's title states: "The Evidence that God Exist" - and provides no such information. And, it states "Searching for scientific proof for faith misunderstands faith." And, it refers to 15 hour (audiobook) to read without giving any points from the book.
What is this?!
In the early days of the Internet, a typical repsonse might have been:
Some people have too much time on their hands . . .
Good article. Thanks for posting it, JR.
I agree with her. While such arguments may be useful for getting a person to think about God, it is indeed weak grounds for belief and faith. There's not much difference between non-belief and belief that doesn't have an impact on one's life.
Again, I agree, although I would add that the negatives as well, such as suffering, the existence of evil and the struggle to be human is just as much a part of durable faith as the positive things of this world.
Science does not rob one of awe or wonder nor steal the beauty from the world. This is the the same tired argument dogmatists use when saying atheists can't know love, or have meaning in their lives. I've lived both paradigms - I'm happier and healthier without god.
My failures and triumphs are my own and not subject to the whims of some invisible deities ineffable plan. I still find peace in a sunrise and happiness in a child's laughter... and while I am an atheist, I'm also a photographer capturing the beauty, awe and wonder everywhere I look.
First, great photo!
Second...
You seem to have missed the point the author of the article was making. Nowhere does she make such an argument. Rather, she is questioning basing faith on "scientific evidence," since even what is considered scientific fact now often turns out not to be fact after all, as new discoveries come to light. This is most easily seen in her last paragraph...
Thank you. It's one of my favorites I've taken. A perfect time of day in the perfect spot as the sun rises behind the Lift Bridge in Duluth, MN. I once told my mother the best sunsets were over the desert and the best sunrises were over Lake Superior.
No... I don't think I missed the point. Of course the author never talks about non-faith so I see the confusion. I'm offering an alternative view of the world based on decades of people telling me I'm less than.
The author is telling those looking for god in the data to stop looking. That awe and wonder is itself the proof of god. I disagree... less interested in the author's point and more interested in the conversation that the awe and wonder need no god.
I guess more to the author's point even combing through the data doesn't in itself undervalue the awe and wonder.
I see. I'm pretty sure the author would not consider you "less than," nor would I, although I do think a non-believer's life is necessarily less than what it could be, given my beliefs.
Pretty sure she would not consider it proof. Convincing evidence, rather. As do I.
Which is rather like saying we don't need a da Vinci to appreciate a Mona Lisa, is it not?
For me, yes. It would lose everything.
What would incorporation look like, do you think?
I know you do from previous conversations. It's insulting... and I base that on my life where I once seriously considered becoming a Lutheran pastor.
Okay (No qualifications here. I'm not judging either one of you.)
I was going to disagree here, but I think you actually nailed it. Would anyone that sees the Mona Lisa need to know that Da Vinci painted it make it less beautiful? Would finding out some student of Da Vinci, or even not knowing who, painted it make it less beautiful?
That makes me profoundly sad. Honestly...
Let's go back to your Da Vinci analogy...
Here's a statement from the article I think we can both agree -
I have no doubt I've said things you consider insulting, but I'm pretty sure I've never said anything to anyone that indicated that I thought they were less than anyone else and, most importantly, less than myself. I know who and what I am. I absolutely know I am no better than anyone else.
The point wasn't who created the Mona Lisa specifically, it was that it had a creator and would not exist otherwise.
As it should, but not for the reasons I assume you think.
I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean incorporating the fact of God, should He ever be proven to you, would be about the same as knowing da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, but that it would be nothing more than a possibly interesting bit of information, but not necessary to enjoy the painting? Don't worry. That question isn't a trap. I'm just trying to understand your point.
You may not have meant to be insulting, but it's still insulting. It would be like me going around telling the faithful that the feeling of divine joy they have is a lie. I'd never do that... I have a hard time even thinking it. It's cruel for no reason, but to make the others feel small. As I've said, I've been on both sides of this equation.
An imperfect metaphor that doesn't really work in an argument on intelligent design.
Don't assume. Again I've been on both sides.
I mean, finding for certain an omnipotent being that created something so immense that humans can't begin to comprehend it's awesomeness, would be a little like an ant finding out it lives in my flower garden. It would a wow, moment and then I'd go back to work like any other day. Perhaps I'd also ponder if there are also ghosts and auras... I mean if one could happen perhaps the others could as well? It still wouldn't make a lot of difference in the large scheme of my daily life.
Finding out there is a definitive version of Heaven and Hell would destroy the very fabric of FAITH.
The first written language describing a heaven did not hold human souls unless one was remarkable and there were only a couple in their entire history. The underworld was dark and desolate where the souls of the dead ate dust and drank stagnant water accompanied by whatever items they were buried with. The Sumerian empire existed for thousands of years that influencing everything that came after it.
Its really amazing to me that anyone reading these threads would consider you are to be singled out as insulting the beliefs of others. Fascinating.
This may come as a shock to some people...but over the years I have known photographers who actually were true believers . . . but who also have also been able to capture the beauty, awe and wonder everywhere they looked!
Why?
Faith, in this discussion, is unshakable belief in the unknowable. Once proven, beyond doubt, faith is replaced with knowledge.
I still do not understand what the intent of this article is. It evidences nothing. . . and it clears up nothing that I can see. Also, unless I have missed it. . .it makes no argument on behalf of God or even in defense of faith. Admittedly, I am reading it in haste-done so several times. . . to little or no avail at offering a proper comment. Perhaps, after I get to listen to the book (audio-book) it references I will understand more.
It's basically advertisement for a book.
Seems so. And now as I listen to the book I am not clear on its message either, though it reminds me of another writer, Fred Heeren, who wrote an interesting book,
" Show Me God " What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God. Copyright 2000 Day Star Publications.
Mr. Heeren wrote a truly extraordinary book purporting to provide scientific evidence for God. . . for Day Star Publications , A Christian Resource company he founded and leads. Note at the very top of the image it reads: "Wonders Vol. 1 ". There is not other volume (II) written to follow-up to my knowledge . And afterwards, Mr. Heeren, today, as near as I can tell, he continues to lead as an evangelical who bridges the plane between religion (God) and atheists . Holding seminars and conferences for both groups: believers and non-believers.
The book in this article, " God, The Science, the Evidence " The Dawn of a Revolution Palomar Editions SARL 10/14/2025 reads like the book above, in my opinion.
As to what I comprehend and accept about " Show Me God: Wonders Vol. 1 " - let's just say it is an incredible read, and I was 'glued' to the book years ago. . . still have it in my library.
Now, it appears I have to go "update" my understanding about Mr. Heeren to make a renewed judgement of his book.
The article isn't about proof of God. The article is about whether or not it is advisable to base one's faith on such things since what we think we know scientifically now may turn out not to be true later, as science has demonstrated over and over again. If science is the basis of one's faith, in other words, one's faith is ultimately built upon shaky ground, as the science may later say something different down the road. That is what the article is about.
So now enter the position of the agnostic atheist: "I am not convinced a god exists." Why is that? "Because I have not found credible evidence supporting the hypothesis".
That, Drakk, is NOT a finding of science that could turn out to be wrong. It is also not based on scientific findings. It is a rational evidential stance.
You, et. al., would find nothing wrong with someone stating: "I am not convinced that the Roman or Greek gods exist or existed". ... "Because I have not found credible evidence supporting the hypothesis".
Then you similarly should accept as reasonable the position that "I am not convinced that the god of the Bible exists or existed".
Agnostics (atheists and theists) are on solid ground in that they acknowledge that they do not know if a god exists or not.
Gnostics (atheists and theists) hold a position of certainty and thereby have the burden of proof. If no proof is possible (or even persuasive evidence after thousands of years now), the position is irrational.
I'm sorry. I don't see how what you say here relates to this quote or logically leads into your argument. In fact, you appear to be saying the opposite. In spite of that, much of what you say is incoherent or simply based on personal philosophy. For instance, you say...
If not being convinced is not based on scientific findings, what sort of "credible evidence" is lacking to support the hypothesis? Or, put the other way, what sort of credible evidence do you think would support the hypothesis? Some subjective personal experience or objective, and therefore scientific evidence?
Not exactly. Roman and Greek gods may very well have existed, just not in the sense we (Christians, at least) use the term God. God, with the capital G, is a divine being, but He isn't the only one. Angels, for instance, are also divine beings, which means Satan and his angels are also divine. So, while I find it improbable that much of the lore behind gods such as Zeus actually happened, I would not rule out some being known to humans as Zeus did not influence human affairs. Hence, while I would find someone not being convinced that the Roman or Greek pantheon unconvincing understandable, it would be with the knowledge that they are looking at the issue through a very narrow lens.
To be clear, I'm not stating that Zeus was some fallen angel trying to pass himself off as God. I'm stating that something like it is not impossible. Zeus may be nothing more than human attempts at understanding the nature of God.
This, of course, is simply a statement born of your own philosophy. You find it irrational based on standards you have set for yourself. From my perspective, your position is irrational. That is, it is irrational to address the question on purely natural grounds when the subject is supernatural. For instance, you say "If no proof is possible." What determines whether proof is possible? To my mind, it is context. In the case of the supernatural, especially the God of the Bible, proof certainly is possible, but such proof would rest entirely with God. This fits the context of a natural being being dependent on a supernatural entity for proof beyond one's own capabilities.
Point being, what constitutes rational depends upon what framework one operates in.
Thank you for sharing that 'summary.' I will take it under advisement. Please read my comment 8.1.1. as I continue to try to process this all.
Lessons from Atheists:
How Christians are Driving Today’s Seekers to Atheism
–By Making Us Look Childish
and What We Can Do About It
Step 4:
Learning what doesn’t work :
I’ve learned a lot from them. I’ve learned what most bugs them about Christians. I’ve learned that denouncing non-believers, rather than engaging them, doesn’t work. Duh.
Neither does:
• Being known mainly for what we’re against rather
than who we’re for.
• Expecting to convert people to Christian morality
before they know Christ.
• Reinforcing a Christian reputation for ignorance, arrogance, condescension, dishonesty, cult-like manipulation, insensitivity, and judgmentalism.
• Sticking to a party line no matter what (and quickly losing their respect) rather than letting them know when we
also wrestle with the same tough issues.
• Basing arguments on “scientific” evidence that most scientists don’t accept.
• Launching right into attacks to “prove them wrong” rather than starting with common ground.
• Training Christians to use strained apologetics arguments that do more damage than good.
Step 5:
Learning what does work:
The friendships we’re building daily with atheists and agnostics give us experience with their real questions, stories, and needs, not just an apologist’s ivory tower view of them. They have taught us the importance of:
• Gaining a reputation as peacemakers.
• Approaching them with respect, humility, empathy, and an understanding of the real world.
• Dealing with their questions, not just those in apologetics books.
• Using only scientific or historical evidence that has the consensus of the authorities they respect behind it.
Provocateurs & Peacemakers group.
Asking skeptics in Chicago about life’s big questions.
• Finding new, creative ways to explain Biblical and gospel truth to people who usually tune out as soon as they think they’ve heard it all before.
• Showing that we are willing to work—both with Christians and anyone else—on the issues that should be of concern to us all: the battle against disease, poverty, crime, war, hunger—and the promotion of peace, medical and general scientific research, better food distribution, clean water, and education.
Day Star is working alongside young people, non-believers of all ages, and academics to raise our standards for how we respond to their questions. My board and I want to change the perception of Christians as science opponents to science promoters, from culture warriors to peacemakers, from adversaries to friends . Right now, few Christians are aware of what we’ve learned .
Not sure how you could so misconstrue what I wrote.
What I wrote is quite clear. I am speaking for agnostic atheists here:
Agnostic Atheist: "I am not convinced a god exists."
Inquirer: Why is that?
Agnostic Atheist: "Because I have not found credible evidence supporting the hypothesis".
What about this confuses you?
Whatever it is, it would have to be spectacular because the claim is likely the most extraordinary claim one can make. First the god in question would need to be defined in clear terms that can be evaluated. If the god is defined as that which created Earth and life on Earth, then the creation of another planet with life on it in our solar system would be rather good evidence that this might be the creator of Earth. Note, this is one example. It is an example to give you the scale of evidence in response to your inquiry.
For thousands of years, and with extraordinary effort by billions of people to provide convincing evidence that their god really does exist, we have managed to fail on every single god but have done a fantastic job of creating thousands of gods and stories about these gods along the way.
You actually went there. Fascinating. You tried to qualify this by saying they are not divine beings, etc. but that does not fix the logical problem. The gods of mythology were beings of enormous power. Impossible by rational standards. There were no human beings who could do what these gods could do. So be real clear now, Drakk, and tell me that you think it is even remotely plausible that a powerful entity like Zeus existed who lived in the sky and controlled the weather (storms, rain, ...), was immortal, had super strength, could shape-shift, etc.
Logically you should not rule it out 100% but based on what we know you should be somewhere near 99.99% certain that Zeus did not exist. Was Zeus human in this characterization or do you actually hold that a superhuman, immortal Zeus could have existed?
I would say that Zeus, et. al. are very much nothing more than human attempts at explaining events that they could not explain. But that is fundamentally different than saying that the gods of mythology might have existed.
But ultimately, the question is one of evidence. Do you hold that written words expressing belief and personal encounters with the gods of mythology are evidence that these gods exist (or existed)?
Look Drakk, just because you hold beliefs because of standards you have set for yourself does not mean everyone operates this way. Gnostic claims are irrational because they are based on 100% certainty. Believing that one can be 100% correct about real-world factors (as opposed to formal systems such as mathematics) is irrational. That is not an opinion based on some personal standards but rather rooted in logic and meaning.
The gnostic atheist who claims no god exists is making an irrational claim ... there is no way that this person could know this as a certainty.
The gnostic theist who claims that their god exists is making an irrational claim ... there is no way that this person could know this as a certainty (billions of attempts and no successes).
The agnostic theist and agnostic atheist recognize that they cannot be 100% certain about their positions. That is rational.
What makes you think I'm confused? And, if I am, perhaps it's because you ignored my very first observation...
Even after your latest post, I'm still wondering the same thing. I was speaking about the article's idea that basing faith on science is a poor basis for faith. Are you saying atheists do the same thing in some way? Is faith involved in atheism of any sort?
You say I misconstrued what you wrote and that I am confused, but you prove with your own words that I haven't and am not. You are speaking of scientific evidence as your basis for believing in God; the opposite of what I said and what the article is about. The worth of science as a basis of faith.
I'm pretty sure you meant to say I "tried to qualify this by saying they ARE divine beings.." Right?
In any case, if you carefully read what I said...
... I was not saying that a physical pantheon of humanoid (or otherwise) gods were hanging around Mt. Olympus and appearing to or interacting with humans. I was saying that it is possible, perhaps even probable, that there was some truth behind their existence.
For instance, in the Book of Job, Satan presents himself before God and asks permission to test Job in order to prove Job will curse God if God leaves Job unprotected. Permission is granted and all sorts of calamities befall Job. While Satan does not manifest personally to Job, it is clearly implied that what befell Job was due to Satan's influence and power.
I see no reason something similar could not be behind the pantheon of gods that have existed throughout time. Do you?
Everyone does operate that way. Including you.
Because they have decided that is their standard.
Which is also a standard they choose. And probably the worst standard possible, as it is simply a refusal to address the question unless it is able to first be proven with 100% certainty which, according to their own internal logic, is impossible. Even if a second earth just suddenly appeared, fully formed and stocked with life, it wouldn't be enough because they would never know for sure it wasn't due to some super advanced civilization, perhaps harnessing the total power output of a universe, didn't make that earth appear, rather than God.
Hardly. Knowing isn't the same as proving. Billions have had success. They are completely convinced, in the way you are convinced that the earth is spherical, that God exists. That they can't prove it to your satisfaction is irrelevant.
It's kind of the point of the article, you know?
That is just amazing to me that you think it is perhaps probable that the gods of mythology might have existed. Not just human beings with those names but actually superhumans with qualities that are beyond the capabilities of our species.
Not true. Gnostic claims are irrational because they are based on 100% certainty. Believing that one can be 100% correct about real-world factors (as opposed to formal systems such as mathematics) is irrational. That is not an opinion based on some personal standards but rather rooted in logic and meaning.
I suppose if someone believes in supernatural acts from a god, then one can believe that the gods of mythology could have existed in some form.
Sure, gnostics have established that standard. But what I am saying is that my assessment of irrationality is not based on a personal standard but rather on the laws of logic.
For many that is probably true. I would not consider it proof of the god but it certainly qualifies as evidence.
Correct. But I stated that it is irrational to hold with 100% certainty that a god (say defined as our creator) does or does not exist. That is a statement of logic.
Now, back to evidence: tens of millions of Young Earth Creationists claim that the Universe is less than 10,000 years old. Is that evidence that the Universe is less than 10,000 years old?
I keep forgetting you know so little about the Bible. Since this is so, Paul tells us the battle isn't against flesh and blood, but against the spiritual forces and powers at work in the world. To spell it out as clearly as I can possibly do so, no, I don't think there were human beings with those name or superhumans with superpowers of some sort. Zeus and all the other gods were either creations of the human mind or they were spirits influencing mankind. Most likely a combination of both. That is, the pantheons of religion may have been the product of human beings and fallen spiritual inspiration. No actual appearances in some physical form required. Regardless of what you think, we believe that there is a spiritual war going on around us. Thus, it isn't surprising that spiritual forces can manipulate mankind. Like when Satan entered Judas to betray Jesus.
More accurately, laws of logic within the standards you have set for yourself. The scope of what I think is reality is rather larger than yours. Including that doesn't discard logic. Instead, that portion of reality that I have and you don't must also be logical. This is logical. What isn't logical is saying it isn't when you have no basis for judging it according to your standards. I mean, you can think it's illogical, but you can't prove that it is outside your own standards.
I say God created all that exists. You say something cannot come from nothing, ergo, the universe, or whatever preceded it, is eternal. Neither one of us can prove our position one way or the other. You just believe it on faith and intuition based on the rules of this universe, as if they must apply everywhere. In the end, neither position is more or less logical than the other.
That's rather the point, TiG. Why would God bother with that sort of thing when nothing He could do would convince some people? There's always going to be some other possible explanation, right? Why would God do such things if it doesn't result in what He wants from them and knows it never will?
Again, based within the framework of logic you restrict yourself to. Your position is that, unless there is objective, testable evidence, it's illogical to be certain that God exists. Why? You're literally claiming that there is no other way to know God. Can you prove that?
Thing is, even if there is another way, you're not interested unless God meets some impossible demand on your terms in order to believe He exists, which you wouldn't believe anyway. Because there's always going to be some other possible explanation, right? So, really, it's not that we can't be 100% certain that God exists, it's that you won't be 100% certain no matter what He did. That is, it would never be logical to believe in God.
And here we go again ...
You could have simply stated this rather than being insulting. So you do not believe that it is probable that the gods of mythology (which were described as beings with powers well beyond our biology) actually existed.
No, laws of logic. I did not create the laws. 100% certainty about reality (i.e. outside of a formal system) is irrational. We can be certain about fundamental things such as "we exist" but getting to specifics about how we came into existence enters the realm of uncertainty (and the uncertainty continues as we dig deeper).
Something cannot come from nothing. By definition. If something exists, then absolute nothingness cannot be the full explanation of reality. Some fundamental reality (what I refer to as a 'quintessential substance' for lack of a better term) must underlie existence.
But that alone does not establish a first-cause, eternal God. You may logically believe that God created all that exists, but you cannot honestly present that as a certain truth. By contrast, the claim that something enabled our existence is indisputable.
Declaring that God always existed does not prove anything. It merely labels God as the exception while ignoring other possibilities, including that God might itself be an emergent property of a more fundamental reality.
That is an entirely different discussion. You wanted to know what I might consider evidence. Now you want to argue that God would never provide such evidence as a way, I suppose, of trying to explain why we never see such evidence from a god.
I have argued that one cannot be certain that a god exists (if we define god as that which created the universe, or equivalent). Similarly, one cannot be certain that no god exists. In other words (and I made this crystal clear) gnostic theists and gnostic atheists are both holding irrational beliefs.
The only possible rational positions are those of the agnostics. Agnostics accept that they could be wrong ... that they do not have a command of all knowledge and thus cannot preclude the possibility that they are wrong. To wit:
There is no objective empirical evidence for any god/s. That is why any assertions regarding said god/s can be summarily dismissed.
Nonsense.
Why?
Feel free to elaborate then.
The nonsense is this
Explain how it's nonsense. If there is no evidence to support a claim like god/s, why should the claim be taken with any serious consideration?
For belief in God to be unserious you would have to prove that God does not exist.
Anyone can believe in anything they want. But belief does not equal fact. For the existence of god to be validated, you would have to prove god exists. As it stands, there is neither proof or evidence for a god. Only mere belief, which is nothing more than wishful thinking.
The religious keep claiming God revealed itself to them which is why they claim to believe, you'd think that would be enough for them. Weirdly, most are obsessed with trying to get validation from others of their religious beliefs, to be told they're right and their religion is right and the brand of God they chose is right. You would almost think they're not all that confident in their beliefs and are really just desperately trying to convince themselves the religion they've spent so much of their lives, time and money on is worth it through validation from others.
DP, . . . something has been revealed to us. . . life-changing something. . .yes. We can not and ought not mock or even meddle with the good members of and in churches find which brings them out of 'darkness' of addictions, mental crises, hospitals, homelessness, and any assortment of other maladies. I say good on religion. . .when and where it helps!
Though, I am mystified. . .,more so than curious, as to why God (if God exist) would choose a "leap of faith" as the "be all" to spiritual truth. Oddly enough, depending on what (a) god ought to ask directly of its creation . . . could be better or worse for our independence. . . this indirect format of religion/temple/church/mosque is inefficient. Leading to what we see now. . . non-religious people questioning 'everything' religious and religious organizations so diverse and independent (now there is a thought for MAGA 'purist') that none of them can claim total truth or respond sufficiently to the needs of skeptics.
The larger issue I see for religion is it continues to want to make decisions for non-believers about the direction and intent of their being, living, and livelihood. And attempting to do "all that" without it even being clear that religion/temple/church/mosque is CERTAIN of its own acquired operations. That is, if their is only one God. . . then it ought to be easy to be on one accord. And yet, we have all sorts of spiritual "products" being sold in the religion marketplace.
Christian Nationalist is a big 'black-eye' rising on the face of religion today.
I agree, though I wish religion would at least do more 'good' than 'ill' in the world. Seems to me throughout history it has had (and continues to have) a massive body count and a whole lot of suffering it has caused.
Unfortunately, I must agree with your conclusion. Somewhere, in the back of my mind, I hear Mel Gibson and Bill Maher going 'off' on religions as a 'body.'
I do not understand why religious people can not find contentment in service to whatever belief system they wish to hold, without doing harm to those outside of their systems, plural, in a country that brands itself "open" to diverse freedom, liberties, and interests.
Jesus, biblically-speaking, said: '. . . let them grow together. . . ' signifying that diversity is the order of the day. And if anything needs 'fixing' about humanity. . .a time would come for it. . . this is not that 'consummation' period, however.
Seriously? That's it? This person's evidence for God is a gust of wind blowing some autumn leaves up into the air?
There is no evidence of a God. Why do you atheists keep asking for it?
God is SUPERNATURAL and thus cannot be proved within the confines of nature (this existence). No one is demanding that you believe or have religious faith.
There is no evidence that I am a billionaire. Just like with everything else lacking evidence, the logical conclusion is that I am not a billionaire, even though I really, really, really want to believe it is true. Why does anything get to slap a supernatural label on it, a label that literally means nothing in any other context, and claim that makes it real? Particularly something as consequential as the so called creator of everything! We don’t let this excuse turn any other folklore into truth, but somehow the most non responsive, omnipresent thing of the imagination gets a pass.
Prove God does not exist. I'm quite sure you cant. So why do you care what other people believe?
I do agree with atheists that organized religion has sometimes gotten off track, but so does every other institution human beings create.
I didn't. It was supposedly offered. The article's title is "The Evidence That God Exists."
The concept of supernaturality is also a myth, invented to provide a seemingly plausible (but false) basis for irrational belief in things that can't actually be shown to exist. Ghosts, gods, magic, etc.
Nature is everything that exists. There is no "super" natural. If things described as supernatural actually existed, then they would simply be another part of nature and describable by science, no "super" required.
That’s called proving a negative, and it should apply to everything. If you let anything have an exception (ie it’s supernatural so it gets a pass), then it will be abused. Conservatives abuse it all the time here when it comes to voter fraud. They say exactly what you said - prove it doesn’t exist. Since that is no more possible than proving there’s a cheeseburger buried on the moon somewhere, they feel emboldened because you can’t do it. Same goes for god.
Do you believe "nature" has always existed and there was no beginning and there will be no end? According to rational thinking this doesnt really make much sense.
No, atheists claim there is no God. There is no reason to give that statement a pass anymore than people who say there is a God dont get a pass.
Atheism claims the default position in terms of belief in God? Why does it get away with that? Because neither side can prove their claims why should atheism be the default?
Actually, if you go to the seeded article itself, you'll see the full title, which is
Prove vampires don't exist. They are ubiquitous in our culture – there are books about them, there are movies about them, and everyone has heard of them – but that doesn't make them real.
Why should you get to get away with denying the existence of unicorns? I mean, you could just appease the believers and let them have their belief and it wouldn’t matter anything to anyone. Instead, you would never even consider it, if you’re sane anyways. But atheists are supposed to be open to an equally fictitious figment of the imagination with the exact same amount of evidence? If religion would just stay in its own boundaries we’d be fine with you all believing whatever you want, regardless of how not sane we see it. But no, the ever elusive god gets to be printed on your money, in your pledge of allegiance, in the doctor’s office, in the emergency room making life and death decisions, in your schools paid for by you, saturated in your politics, etc etc.
I wholeheartedly admit that I simply don't know. No one else does, either, including the religious.
Why? Negatives can be proven after all, in some cases. In the cases that we can't it isn't because of some logical truth. It has, instead, more to do with scope. The supernatural, for instance; by definition, outside of what is natural. Since we live in and can only observe the natural, we have no way to do so. To use the trope "you can't prove a negative" is to therefore summarily dismiss the supernatural as superstition and a decision to simply ignore the question rather than address it and using the trope as an excuse.
If that works for you I'm not going to complain, but using the trope is not the logical support for your position you think it is. The actual problem isn't that a negative can't be proven, it's that the domain necessary to be examined is so impossibly large that we don't have the capacity to examine it.
If nature has ALWAYS existed and will always exist, doesnt that suggest a force that sits outside of nature?
The supernatural, for instance; by definition, outside of what is natural.
How convenient for religionists! Fine then, my billionaire status is a supernatural reality. I am due a ten million dollar loan because I am obviously good for it in the supernatural realm, and will pay it back with interest in supernatural dollars. Does that sound sane to you?
Interestingly, you've pretty much described how our monetary system works.
A beginning and an end do not require a god. To observe a beginning and an end are also beyond the scope of human awareness, but that doesn't automatically mean its of intelligent design vs physics.
Some atheists claim there is no God. Some atheists claim their is no evidence of God. Very, very different.
Consider the numbers of believers to non-believers and then please reframe that statement.
No, but no beginning and no end might.
Both physics and Christian dogma describe the end as a new beginning. Nature is cyclical as the second law of thermodynamics tells us - energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
Not in the slightest. Why would it? Also, what is "outside of nature" supposed to mean? It's a non sequitur, a logical fallacy, another way of saying supernatural. If nature is everything that exists, then being outside of nature does not follow.
Maybe people should argue that God is made of dark matter, which is still unproven, but hypothetically part of nature and not directly observable because it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force. We can only see the unexplained gravitational effects in the cosmos that spawned the hypothesis. Then again, that might be what pantheism already is, differing from Christianity, and it wouldn't explain other magical stuff Christians apparently believe. If dark matter is real and everywhere, then maybe that qualifies as omnipresence, but that still leaves omniscience and omnipotence in the realm of fantasy.
Why do you think we do? A unicorn falls into the category of Sasquatches and Chupa Cabre. Ordinary natural creatures, perhaps with special properties. One can believe they exist, yet another can reject their belief because there is no physical evidence of what is supposed to be a natural phenomenon.
Thing is, you're attempting to use an example from one category to disprove something from another category. Unicorns should be within the domain of the provable precisely because it is presumably a part of the natural world, should it exist. It is not the same with God. God is supernatural. That is, existing outside nature. The domains are not the same and, so, must be examined by a different method.
Boundaries? What are the boundaries? You, apparently, do not believe there is a God and, so, order your life and your world accordingly. We, on the other hand, believe there is a God and order ours accordingly. It seems that what you want is for us to believe one thing internally but operate as if we believed as you do. Why should we do that? Why not you believe internally that there is no God but operate as if there is? Put another way, why should your worldview trump mine?
So you say, but you can't even prove that anything 'supernatural' exists or that even the state of being 'supernatural' exists. Your complaint about it not being in the right category then ignores the fact that you're actually making up a new category that hasn't ever been proven to exist. Perhaps Bigfoot lives in the thirty-ninth dimension? Now we should all preface our queries as to which dimension we're asking the question of. Do Unicorns live in the physical dimension, an abstract dimension, the thirty-ninth dimension, a spiritual dimension? And of course, the rules are different for each dimension. People living in the second dimension seem to have no depth of character.
So yes, God and everything religious and spiritual require an imagination to accept because there simply is no evidence for them. And that means, within the realm of imagination, that the ones making fanciful claims for their God or Gods, get to claim any rules they like, so why even bother debating it? Why bother trying to reason with others as if it was a serious matter when all a believer has to do, whenever they hit a logical roadblock to their theology, is invent a new property for their God that circumvents any potential problem? Talk about dishonest debate.
No. Voting is not a valid parallel. Voting undoubtedly exists. Fraud undoubtedly exists. The question is, Is fraud statistically significant?
Just because some people use specious arguments, is not licence to use them everywhere.
That is rather misleading if not dishonest. There are 'atheists' who claim there is no God. But there are also atheists that claim they see no evidence of God and thus do not believe in one, but that is not claiming the definitive that there isn't one.
Gnostic atheist: There is no God!
Agnostic atheist: I see no evidence of God and thus do not believe it exists. But I could be wrong.
Agnostic theist: I see no evidence of God, but I like to believe one exists. But I could be wrong.
Gnostic theist: God exists and I know what it is and what it wants for humans!
I’m not trying to disprove anything, because one can’t prove or disprove something that has no evidence of ever existing. That is axiomatic of the reality we live in.
It seems that what you want is for us to believe one thing internally but operate as if we believed as you do.
Operate?! Lol. Wtf does that even mean? I don’t operate, I live - in the manner that suits me as a human being with independent thinking ability. It’s not people like me that society needs to worry about creating “operatives”, it’s people like you. Dominionism has undeniably crept into our lives through government intrusion, and people like you defended and continue to justify and defend the process.
Put another way, why should your worldview trump mine?
The “worldview” you claim I have isn’t in the emergency room, public schools, government, and everywhere else it doesn’t belong.
True. Fortunately, that isn't what I'm trying to do here. I'm simply pointing out faulty logic. One can't use natural examples to disprove unnatural ones. Recall, what is being addressed isn't proof of God but, rather, the idea of "one can't prove a negative."
A logical fallacy. One cannot prove a negative. The onus of proof is on the one making tbe affirmative claim.
That's funny because specifically said there was no evidence for a god, which you deemed "nonsense." Now you agree there is no evidence. Looks like it's not nonsense after all.
Living is an operation. By all means, though, substitute "live" for "operate" if it helps. Means the same thing.
Give me an example where I have shown I'm a Dominionist, let alone defend the concept.
Atheists are simply not convinced there is a god. Most are open to evidence for one. But relatively few atheists actually declare with absolute certainty there is no god, which is as logically indefensible as theists asserting with absolute certainty there is a god.
Of course there. The bible, for instance, is evidence. Just because you find it unbelievable or unreliable doesn't mean it's not evidence. Words have meaning.
That circular reasoning. By that reasoning, the Illiad & The Odyssey is evidence for Greek gods.
No, it's not.
By that reasoning, the Illiad & The Odyssey is evidence for Greek gods.
No. The bible, the Book of Mormon etc...contain first hand accounts of personal experience. The Iliad or odyssey do not.
six of one half dozen of the other. Most atheists of all kinds belittle religion.
Yours are some of the most involved, expansive, and committed arguments in this forum. I don’t have the free time to read through all your lengthy diatribes, but they clearly lean to the religious right when I do. We’ve had dialogues in the past and, frankly, they are boring because they are so clearly biased towards Christians and hostile to non belief.
Oh Christ. The Bible is not evidence of anything but a bunch of ancient folklore written unrelatedly throughout time. Books that don’t even corroborate one another. Folklore is folklore, not evidence of anything - particularly when it involves the ridiculous claims attributed to Jesus. Imagine living in that era and along comes a guy who can heal the sick with his touch and multiply food. Yeah, they should kill that guy - and nail him to a cross … and the next thousand generations can wear his death mechanism in the form of jewelry and tattoos to show “respect”. It makes no more sense now than it would have back then.
What a dishonest argument. Whether you find the evidence persuasive or conclusive is your subjective opinion, but to claim it's not evidence is objectively wrong.
Words have meaning. You don't get to ignore those meanings because of your feelings. The bible contains evidence. No matter how emotional your outburst, it doesn't change that fact.
My feelings are grounded in the reality that god talks to nobody and never has, no matter what some deluded ancient goat herder wrote down, to be bastardized by countless scribes through history to suit individual agendas of the powerful and cobbled into one of the most useful and controlling doctrines in human history.
Using the Bible to substantiate or prove the Bible is the definition of circular. Personal experience is subjective and notoriously unreliable. It does not constitute objective or strong evidence.
as someone that claims to be an atheist, you sure are getting defensive ...
Gnostic, Agnostic, Theist, Now Atheists have something I don't like about religions: Denomations
Harsh!
Gods began as means for explaining the world. Spirits, sprites, ... Gradually, they acquired a moral/ethical dimension. The Golden Rule, in various forms.
Evolution takes time.
Lol. That's not even close to the pooint.
ersonal experience is subjective and notoriously unreliable.\
Our entire legal system is built on it.
It does not constitute objective or strong evidence.
Watch the goal posts move in real time...
Gods began as means for explaining the world.
They have overstayed their welcome. We now know where babies come from, what causes lightning, what causes tornados, what shape the earth is, why apples fall from trees, and what germs are, among an encyclopedia of other stuff (no thanks to them, btw).
Apparently, you missed the point.
And that does not concern you? Fortunately, forensic science and other more objective means of evidence and validation exist which can demonstrate how unreliable "personal experience" is and render it moot.
No movement. Valid evidence is objective. Subjective is not. Plain and simple. That's why science goes by objective evidence rather than, "because someone said so/saw something."
No, you are making up arguments to fight against. Read what I wrote again.\
unately, forensic science and other more objective means of evidence and validation exist which can demonstrate how unreliable "personal experience" is and render it moo
Sometimes. It doesn't always exist. And that doesn't mean eyewitness testimony isn't' evidence, which is the ridiculous point you are somehow trying to defend.
No movement.
If you believe that, you don't understand what you are claiming.
Nothing made up. My argument stands.
Speaking of reading what is being said, perhaps you should reread what I said: Personal experience is subjective and notoriously unreliable. It does not constitute objective or strong evidence.
Intentionally misrepresenting what I said is as good as lying!
More like you just do not get it and are trying to deflect.
Something has always existed and will always exist. This is because by definition of the word 'nothing' (the absence of everything) something cannot emerge from nothing.
Only gnostic atheists, and they are a fringe minority.
The supermajority of atheists are agnostic atheists: not convinced that a god exists.
No. Something necessarily has always existed ... see @10.1.48
The Bible is evidence that human beings wrote stories about a divine creator.
They are just claims of personal experience.
I could write a book claiming personal experience with extraterrestrial beings. That does not make my words a factual personal experience.
Again, wrong. Words on a page are not evidence of anything other than a human being put words on a page. Those words need to be backed up with something that is verifiable by a third party. Otherwise, it is no more evidence than me claiming I visited another galaxy courtesy of extraterrestrial technology.
Those are not denominations; they are well-known technical terms that distinguish between belief and knowledge.
Gnostic / agnostic - refer to knowledge where gnostic claims absolute certainty and agnostic acknowledges uncertainty.
Theist / atheist - refer to believe where theist holds a particular belief (typically in a deity) and atheist does not hold such a belief.
Why?
The god of the Old Testament IS gone, replaced by the God of the New Testament. It's not God's fault if some people prefer hate to love.
Evolution takes time.
It's literally first person testimony. "This happened to me." To claim that isn't evidence is murdering the word. Disingenuous is too kind for that sort of gaslighting.
Those words need to be backed up with something that is verifiable by a third party.
Lol. Now you are just making things up. Circumstantial evidence exists. And you don't think first person testimony is evidence? Just an Embarrassing argument.
“Nature” could be anything from a firey, poisonous atmosphere billions of years ago, to current conditions. Humanity can only thrive in a tiny sliver of that. Sure seems like a long game for god to be focused on us humans in this tiny moment of time and space, with random commandments of them that nobody acknowledges anyways. God is handy when you need it, and forgetable when it’s inconvenient, but always there to pretzel into a universal divine justification for something or other.
Because we exist. Our existence means that something had to always exist because it is impossible by definition for something to emerge from nothing.
Something had to exist.
It is literally merely a claim. This is not a court of law, Sean (and if it were, claims by 'Mark' would be considered hearsay). We are talking about evidence in reality.
All the writings about all the gods of history, mythical creatures, etc. are not evidence of their existence even if the authors claim that they really, truly are telling the truth.
Okay. Thanks for the conversation : )
They are never going to recognize your argument as evidence because they limit the definition to suit their argument. Testimony is evidence, even if evidence of the claim. Your opponents seem to be trying to make the erroneous attempt at saying unless there is other evidence to support the claim as factual, testimony can't be considered evidence. This is completely irrelevant to whether or not testimony is evidence. As you point out, our legal system is actually based on testimonial evidence and it doesn't stop being evidence outside a courtroom. Or, rather, it simply moves to a different kind of court.
The law of conservation.
There are something like 45,000 to 47,000 different denominations of Christianity alone. Throw other religions into the mix and their splinter groups... then comb back through millennia of human existence for their beliefs... Which is evidence? The Book of Enoch talks about a race of half angel, half human giants. Is that evidence?
I agree that is the most likely scenario. Man created God which did have a beginning and has evolved over the centuries and become whatever the people at the time wanted it to be which is why the morals of the Gods have changed to fit the people of the time instead of the other way around.
In a court of law. And that testimony is typically given by a living human being who can be cross-examined. On rare occasions, with very specific conditions, recorded testimony of dead persons is accepted as evidence.
You will not find a court of law that will consider the writings of 'Mark' to be evidence that the god of the Bible exists (or existed).
It is not we who are playing games with the meaning of evidence; it is you trying to weaken the meaning to the point where words by ancient men in a book can be seriously treated as first-hand, credible, personal testimony and, worse, as evidence of the existence of a god.
Are Homer's The Iliad and The Odyssey evidence of the existence of Zeus? Why not, per your reasoning?
Depends on what you define a denomination as. In this case, the numbers you are using here most likely come from the Center for the Study of Global Christianity. They use criteria that is sociological rather than theological in order to identify different denominations. That means the numbers you are using tells us more about how Christianity is distributed/organized worldwide than it tells us about theological differences.
In other words, two independent churches on opposite sides of the same town count as their own denominations, even if they are theologically identical. At the same time the RCC within the US, for instance, counts as one denomination even though not all parishes follow the same traditions and rites. This is because a denomination as defined by the Center has more to do with organization and geography than it does with theological beliefs. Because this is so, the RCC in the US counts as one denomination because it is highly organized and located within the same national boundaries. The RCC in Canada is counted as its own denomination simply because it's in Canada and not because it is theologically distinct from the RCC in the US.
Yes. It's evidence. It is the same sort of evidence as any other historical document, such as ones relating to Alexander the Great. The question is, is it credible evidence? The mistake I think you guys are making is you seem to think the conclusion (proof) must be proven first before evidence can be called evidence, when in real life the process of arriving at proof means processing the evidence to get to the proof. That is, you are putting the cart before the horse.
The evidence supporting the existence of Alexander the Great is rather strong. There is little serious doubt that Alexander the Great did exist.
A better example is Zeus.
Indeed! Is it credible evidence or just 'evidence' in the loosest sense of the word?
When speaking about something as important as a deity, where the belief in the same affects the behavior of billions of people, one would think that the evidence supporting the belief should be substantial, not feeble.
Words have meaning, until a progressive wants to abuse them. Pretty much every time I think they can't get more dishonest and disingenuous, they out do themselves. The sheer close mindedness is astounding. They are so brittle they can't even admit the most obvious points if they perceive it's not in complete agreement with their opinion.
Testimony is evidence, even if evidence of the claim
It's really incredible this needs to be discussed. you can't have a discussion when people simply lie about the definitions of words.
Yes.
Also... back when the Bible was written, there was no distinction among fiction, myth, history, documentary, ... whatever. There were stories that carried authors' messages.
Pathetic. You are the one pushing the legal definition of evidence as that which is sufficient to support belief in what would be the greatest entity imaginable. Extremely feeble 'evidence' for such a grand claim.
Further, you disregard that even with legal evidence, personal testimony is typically done with witnesses who are alive and can be cross-examined. You try to compare that with words on pages written by ancient men who have been dead for over 1,000 years, cannot be cross-examined, and with no supporting evidence other than what they wrote.
You absurdly claim that noting those distinctions is lying about the definitions of words. Do not even suggest that your comment is based on honesty.
Are Homer's The Iliad and The Odyssey evidence of the existence of Zeus?
Yes, and no. Yes, in that it is one of many pieces of evidence that Zeus existed, at least in the minds of people of the relevant time periods; what he was like and how that related to them. Contrastingly, there is no evidence that those same people believed in some god named Bob. No, in the sense that you appear to be giving the word "evidence" the weight of "proof" in your question. That is, The Iliad and The Odyssey are not proof Zeus existed in reality. Using evidence correctly, they are merely evidence that they believe Zeus existed.
Which is why I said the question moves to a different court. The book of Mark is most likely an eyewitness account of Peter's experience with Jesus, as recorded by Mark. In it, claims are made about Jesus and evidence for those claims is provided. Today, most scholars agree that Jesus actually existed and was crucified by Rome. Further, archaeological evidence continues to corroborate aspects of the story. This is the sort of court I spoke of moving to.
This actually isn't all that different from science. Until Hubble proved otherwise, science believed the universe was eternal and static. They presented evidence for their position. That the presented evidence was proven to be either incorrect or misunderstood didn't stop it from being evidence.
Again, completely untrue. The claim is the bible was not evidence. Of course it is. By any definition. Legal or otherwise.
That you think admitting that obvious truth somehow transmogrifies into my having made an argument that' is sufficient to support belief is pure invention on your part.
The bible is evidence. Whether it's sufficient to support belief is a purely subjective opinion that I didn't even come close to addressing. Why rabid atheists get so upset by the mere fact that the bible is in fact evidence speaks volumes about the fragility of their own beliefs. They simply can't tolerate others having different opinions and can't even admit the most basic of truths when discussing religion.
You try to compare that with words on pages written by ancient men who have been dead for over 1,000 years, cannot be cross-examined, and with no supporting evidence other than what they wrote.
What are you talking about? That's how history works. We can't cross examine any dead person so do you not believe anyone who you can't question yourself?
What a bazaar standard.
Do not even suggest that your comment is based on honesty.
Of course it is. It is undisputable the bible is evidence.
You are essentially stating, albeit with different words, what I have noted upfront. The Bible is evidence that people made claims about the existence of a god. You note that this is evidence that they believed what they claimed. That aspect I do not dispute. These ancient men likely did believe much of what they wrote about since much of it was passed down over time and they were indoctrinated.
But my point is that a mere claim is not evidence. And using the fact that a living witness, who can be cross-examined, can serve as evidence in legal proceedings translates into a feeble 'evidence' for the existence of a god.
The fact that someone believes something to be true is not evidence that it is actually true.
Simply stating that the Bible is evidence does not make it so. Do you have a supporting argument other than 'it is because I say so'?
Faux obtuseness. I noted that witness testimony in a legal proceeding is taken as evidence because the witness can be cross-examined. Applying the legal criteria for evidence outside of a legal setting is sophistry. Outside of a legal formalism, a claim by a human being is not evidence of anything other than the human being made the claim (and possibly believes the claim).
History is a record of the past, and that record is usually corroborated with facts. When that history cannot be corroborated, it is questioned (appropriately). The Bible is the sole source for its claims of god. All other claims are variations drawn from the Bible. There is no independent evidence that supports the existence of a god as described in the Bible.
Now, if you disagree, deliver non-biblical, independent evidence that the god of the Bible ever existed.
Then, by that laughable 'reasoning', Homer's The Iliad and The Odyssey are indisputably evidence of the existence of Zeus.
You're welcome to your views. I think Sean has more than made his case. You don't agree. What else is there to say?
apply the definition of the word.
do you think evidence means proof? Do you not understand the difference? Because you seem to be conflating the concepts.
Evidence, like most words, has multiple usages. I have noted that there is a legal usage. I am not saying that there is no legal usage of the word 'evidence'.
What I am saying is that the legal usage of the word 'evidence' is very generous. It includes tangible evidence such as murder weapon, DNA, videos, etc. but also includes witness testimony. Testimony is necessarily included in trials since they typically operate on limited information.
But note, that the witnesses are usually alive (and if dead a highly conditioned testimony is required), and they are there to be cross-examined. Great care is taken to ensure that witness testimony is as close to truth as possible. Cross-examination allows the credibility and accuracy of the witness to be evaluated by the jury (or judge). So while the word 'evidence' does have a legitimate legal connotation, it is a very generous usage of the term due to necessity.
Outside of the legal context, uncorroborated human testimony is generally too weak to justify belief in extraordinary claims. The more extraordinary the claim, the more important it is to have objective, independently testable corroboration. So when you claim that there is evidence of god you are arguing that one of the weakest forms of evidence is good enough to justify the notion of one of the grandest, extraordinary claims one can make.
When agnostic atheists speak of evidence, we are talking about that which can be formally tested. Theists really should do likewise. And, in fact, theists do require this level of evidence in other non-religious claims. Would you consider a mere unsubstantiated claim by human beings as evidence of:
(and here are some more provided by ChatGPT):
Tell me that there is evidence that the Universe is less than 10,000 years old merely because tens of millions of people claim this as truth.
That is a very different (weak to the level of pointless) definition for the word 'evidence'.
So when a theist claims god exists, the 'evidence' supporting that extraordinary, spectacular claim needs to be much better than 'people have said this is true'.
No, and you asking that question demonstrates that you are not paying attention to what I am writing. I am being quite clear.
we should let the ultra pious try out their xtian nationalist theocracy, then stand back while they kill each other off in god's name ...
The Last Question
By Isaac Asimov (1956)
The last question was asked for the first time, half in jest, on May 21, 2061, at a time when humanity first stepped into the light. The question came about as a result of a five-dollar bet over highballs, and it happened this way:
Alexander Adell and Bertram Lupov were two of the faithful attendants of Multivac. As well as any human beings could, they knew what lay behind the cold, clicking, flashing face -- miles and miles of face -- of that giant computer. They had at least a vague notion of the general plan of relays and circuits that had long since grown past the point where any single human could possibly have a firm grasp of the whole.
Multivac was self-adjusting and self-correcting. It had to be, for nothing human could adjust and correct it quickly enough or even adequately enough. So Adell and Lupov attended the monstrous giant only lightly and superficially, yet as well as any men could. They fed it data, adjusted questions to its needs and translated the answers that were issued. Certainly they, and all others like them, were fully entitled to share in the glory that was Multivac's.
For decades, Multivac had helped design the ships and plot the trajectories that enabled man to reach the Moon, Mars, and Venus, but past that, Earth's poor resources could not support the ships. Too much energy was needed for the long trips. Earth exploited its coal and uranium with increasing efficiency, but there was only so much of both.
But slowly Multivac learned enough to answer deeper questions more fundamentally, and on May 14, 2061, what had been theory, became fact.
The energy of the sun was stored, converted, and utilized directly on a planet-wide scale. All Earth turned off its burning coal, its fissioning uranium, and flipped the switch that connected all of it to a small station, one mile in diameter, circling the Earth at half the distance of the Moon. All Earth ran by invisible beams of sunpower.
Seven days had not sufficed to dim the glory of it and Adell and Lupov finally managed to escape from the public functions, and to meet in quiet where no one would think of looking for them, in the deserted underground chambers, where portions of the mighty buried body of Multivac showed. Unattended, idling, sorting data with contented lazy clickings, Multivac, too, had earned its vacation and the boys appreciated that. They had no intention, originally, of disturbing it.
They had brought a bottle with them, and their only concern at the moment was to relax in the company of each other and the bottle.
"It's amazing when you think of it," said Adell. His broad face had lines of weariness in it, and he stirred his drink slowly with a glass rod, watching the cubes of ice slur clumsily about. "All the energy we can possibly ever use for free. Enough energy, if we wanted to draw on it, to melt all Earth into a big drop of impure liquid iron, and still never miss the energy so used. All the energy we could ever use, forever and forever and forever."
Lupov cocked his head sideways. He had a trick of doing that when he wanted to be contrary, and he wanted to be contrary now, partly because he had had to carry the ice and glassware. "Not forever," he said.
"Oh, hell, just about forever. Till the sun runs down, Bert."
"That's not forever."
"All right, then. Billions and billions of years. Ten billion, maybe. Are you satisfied?"
Lupov put his fingers through his thinning hair as though to reassure himself that some was still left and sipped gently at his own drink. "Ten billion years isn't forever."
"Well, it will last our time, won't it?"
"So would the coal and uranium."
"All right, but now we can hook up each individual spaceship to the Solar Station, and it can go to Pluto and back a million times without ever worrying about fuel. You can't do that on coal and uranium. Ask Multivac, if you don't believe me.
"I don't have to ask Multivac. I know that."
"Then stop running down what Multivac's done for us," said Adell, blazing up, "It did all right."
"Who says it didn't? What I say is that a sun won't last forever. That's all I'm saying. We're safe for ten billion years, but then what?" Lupow pointed a slightly shaky finger at the other. "And don't say we'll switch to another sun."
There was silence for a while. Adell put his glass to his lips only occasionally, and Lupov's eyes slowly closed. They rested.
Then Lupov's eyes snapped open. "You're thinking we'll switch to another sun when ours is done, aren't you?"
"I'm not thinking."
"Sure you are. You're weak on logic, that's the trouble with you. You're like the guy in the story who was caught in a sudden shower and who ran to a grove of trees and got under one. He wasn't worried, you see, because he figured when one tree got wet through, he would just get under another one."
"I get it," said Adell. "Don't shout. When the sun is done, the other stars will be gone, too."
"Darn right they will," muttered Lupov. "It all had a beginning in the original cosmic explosion, whatever that was, and it'll all have an end when all the stars run down. Some run down faster than others. Hell, the giants won't last a hundred million years. The sun will last ten billion years and maybe the dwarfs will last two hundred billion for all the good they are. But just give us a trillion years and everything will be dark. Entropy has to increase to maximum, that's all."
"I know all about entropy," said Adell, standing on his dignity.
"The hell you do."
"I know as much as you do."
"Then you know everything's got to run down someday."
"All right. Who says they won't?"
"You did, you poor sap. You said we had all the energy we needed, forever. You said 'forever.'
It was Adell's turn to be contrary. "Maybe we can build things up again someday," he said.
"Never."
"Why not? Someday."
"Never."
"Ask Multivac."
"You ask Multivac. I dare you. Five dollars says it can't be done."
Adell was just drunk enough to try, just sober enough to be able to phrase the necessary symbols and operations into a question which, in words, might have corresponded to this: Will mankind one day without the net expenditure of energy be able to restore the sun to its full youthfulness even after it had died of old age?
Or maybe it could be put more simply like this: How can the net amount of entropy of the universe be massively decreased?
Multivac fell dead and silent. The slow flashing of lights ceased, the distant sounds of clicking relays ended.
Then, just as the frightened technicians felt they could hold their breath no longer, there was a sudden springing to life of the teletype attached to that portion of Multivac. Five words were printed: INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.
"No bet," whispered Lupov. They left hurriedly.
By next morning, the two, plagued with throbbing head and cottony mouth, had forgotten the incident.
Jerrodd, Jerrodine, and Jerrodette I and II watched the starry picture in the visiplate change as the passage through hyperspace was completed in its non-time lapse. At once, the even powdering of stars gave way to the predominance of a single bright shining disk, the size of a marble, centered on the viewing-screen.
"That's X-23," said Jerrodd confidently. His thin hands clamped tightly behind his back and the knuckles whitened.
The little Jerrodettes, both girls, had experienced the hyperspace passage for the first time in their lives and were self-conscious over the momentary sensation of insideoutness. They buried their giggles and chased one another wildly about their mother, screaming, "We've reached X-23 -- we've reached X-23 -- we've --"
"Quiet, children." said Jerrodine sharply. "Are you sure, Jerrodd?"
"What is there to be but sure?" asked Jerrodd, glancing up at the bulge of featureless metal just under the ceiling. It ran the length of the room, disappearing through the wall at either end. It was as long as the ship.
Jerrodd scarcely knew a thing about the thick rod of metal except that it was called a Microvac, that one asked it questions if one wished; that if one did not it still had its task of guiding the ship to a preordered destination; of feeding on energies from the various Sub-galactic Power Stations; of computing the equations for the hyperspatial jumps.
Jerrodd and his family had only to wait and live in the comfortable residence quarters of the ship. Someone had once told Jerrodd that the "ac" at the end of "Microvac" stood for ''automatic computer" in ancient English, but he was on the edge of forgetting even that.
Jerrodine's eyes were moist as she watched the visiplate. "I can't help it. I feel funny about leaving Earth."
"Why, for Pete's sake?" demanded Jerrodd. "We had nothing there. We'll have everything on X-23. You won't be alone. You won't be a pioneer. There are over a million people on the planet already. Good Lord, our great-grandchildren will be looking for new worlds because X-23 will be overcrowded." Then, after a reflective pause, "I tell you, it's a lucky thing the computers worked out interstellar travel the way the race is growing."
"I know, I know," said Jerrodine miserably.
Jerrodette I said promptly, "Our Microvac is the best Microvac in the world."
"I think so, too," said Jerrodd, tousling her hair.
It was a nice feeling to have a Microvac of your own and Jerrodd was glad he was part of his generation and no other. In his father's youth, the only computers had been tremendous machines taking up a hundred square miles of land. There was only one to a planet. Planetary ACs they were called. They had been growing in size steadily for a thousand years and then, all at once, came refinement. In place of transistors, had come molecular valves so that even the largest Planetary AC could be put into a space only half the volume of a spaceship.
Jerrodd felt uplifted, as he always did when he thought that his own personal Microvac was many times more complicated than the ancient and primitive Multivac that had first tamed the Sun, and almost as complicated as Earth's Planetarv AC (the largest) that had first solved the problem of hyperspatial travel and had made trips to the stars possible.
"So many stars, so many planets," sighed Jerrodine, busy with her own thoughts. "I suppose families will be going out to new planets forever, the way we are now."
"Not forever," said Jerrodd, with a smile. "It will all stop someday, but not for billions of years. Many billions. Even the stars run down, you know. Entropy must increase.
"What's entropy, daddy?" shrilled Jerrodette II.
"Entropy, little sweet, is just a word which means the amount of running-down of the universe. Everything runs down, you know, like your little walkie-talkie robot, remember?"
"Can't you just put in a new power-unit, like with my robot?"
"The stars are the power-units. dear. Once they're gone, there are no more power-units."
Jerrodette I at once set up a howl. "Don't let them, daddy. Don't let the stars run down."
"Now look what you've done," whispered Jerrodine, exasperated.
"How was I to know it would frighten them?" Jerrodd whispered back,
"Ask the Microvac," wailed Jerrodette I. "Ask him how to turn the stars on again."
"Go ahead," said Jerrodine. "It will quiet them down." (Jerrodette II was beginning to cry, also.)
Jerrodd shrugged. "Now, now, honeys. I'll ask Microvac. Don't worry, he'll tell us."
He asked the Microvac, adding quickly, "Print the answer."
Jerrodd cupped the strip or thin cellufilm and said cheerfully, "See now, the Microvac says it will take care of everything when the time comes so don't worry."
Jerrodine said, "And now, children, it's time for bed. We'll be in our new home soon."
Jerrodd read the words on the cellufilm again before destroying it: INSUFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.
He shrugged and looked at the visiplate. X-23 was just ahead.
VJ-23X of Lameth stared into the black depths of the three-dimensional, small-scale map of the Galaxy and said, "Are we ridiculous, I wonder in being so concerned about the matter?"
MQ-17J of Nicron shook his head. "I think not. You know the Galaxy will be filled in five years at the present rate of expansion."
Both seemed in their early twenties, both were tall and perfectly formed.
"Still," said VJ-23X, "I hesitate to submit a pessimistic report to the Galactic Council."
"I wouldn't consider any other kind of report. Stir them up a bit. We've got to stir them up."
VJ-23X sighed. "Space is infinite. A hundred billion Galaxies are there for the taking. More."
"A hundred billion is not infinite and it's getting less infinite all the time. Consider! Twenty thousand years ago, mankind first solved the problem of utilizing stellar energy, and a few centuries later, interstellar travel became possible. It took mankind a million years to fill one small world and then only fifteen thousand years to fill the rest of the Galaxy. Now the population doubles every ten years --
VJ-23X interrupted. "We can thank immortality for that."
"Very well. Immortality exists and we have to take it into account. I admit it has its seamy side, this immortality. The Galactic AC has solved many problems for us, but in solving the problem of preventing old age and death, it has undone all its other solutions."
"Yet you wouldn't want to abandon life, I suppose."
"Not at all," snapped MQ-17J, softening it at once to, "Not yet. I'm by no means old enough. How old are you?"
"Two hundred twenty-three. And you?"
"I'm still under two hundred. --But to get back to my point. Population doubles every ten years. Once this GaIaxy is filled, we'll have filled another in ten years. Another ten years and we'll have filled two more. Another decade, four more. In a hundred years, we'll have filled a thousand Galaxies. In a thousand years, a million Galaxies. In ten thousand years, the entire known universe. Then what?"
VJ-23X said, "As a side issue, there's a problem of transportation. I wonder how many sunpower units it will take to move Galaxies of individuals from one Galaxy to the next."
"A very good point. Already, mankind consumes two sunpower units per year."
"Most of it's wasted. After all, our own Galaxy alone pours out a thousand sunpower units a year and we only use two of those."
"Granted, but even with a hundred per cent efficiency, we only stave off the end. Our energy requirements are going up in a geometric progression even faster than our population. We'll run out of energy even sooner than we run out of Galaxies. A good point. A very good point."
"We'll just have to build new stars out of interstellar gas."
"Or out of dissipated heat?" asked MQ-17J, sarcastically.
"There may be some way to reverse entropy. We ought to ask the Galactic AC."
VJ-23X was not really serious, but MQ-17J pulled out his AC-contact from his pocket and placed it on the table before him.
"I've half a mind to," he said. "It's something the human race will have to face someday."
He stared somberly at his small AC-contact. It was only two inches cubed and nothing in itself, but it was connected through hyperspace with the great Galactic AC that served all mankind. Hyperspace considered, it was an integral part of the Galactic AC.
MQ-17J paused to wonder if someday in his immortal life he would get to see the Galactic AC. It was on a little world of its own, a spider webbing of force-beams holding the matter within which surges of submesons took the place of the old clumsy molecular valves. Yet despite its sub-etheric workings, the Galactic AC was known to be a full thousand feet across.
MQ-17J asked suddenly of his AC-contact, "Can entropy ever be reversed?"
VJ-23X looked startled and said at once, "Oh, say, I didn't really mean to have you ask that."
"Why not?"
"We both know entropy can't be reversed. You can't turn smoke and ash back into a tree."
"Do you have trees on your world?" asked MQ-17J.
The sound of the Galactic AC startled them into silence. Its voice came thin and beautiful out of the small AC-contact on the desk. It said: THERE IS INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER.
VJ-23X said, "See!"
The two men thereupon returned to the question of the report they were to make to the Galactic Council.
Zee Prime's mind spanned the new Galaxy with a faint interest in the countless twists of stars that powdered it. He had never seen this one before. Would he ever see them all? So many of them, each with its load of humanity. --But a load that was almost a dead weight. More and more, the real essence of men was to be found out here, in space.
Minds, not bodies! The immortal bodies remained back on the planets, in suspension over the eons. Sometimes they roused for material activity but that was growing rarer. Few new individuals were coming into existence to join the incredibly mighty throng, but what matter? There was little room in the Universe for new individuals.
Zee Prime was roused out of his reverie upon coming across the wispy tendrils of another mind.
"I am Zee Prime," said Zee Prime. "And you?"
"I am Dee Sub Wun. Your Galaxy?"
"We call it only the Galaxy. And you?"
"We call ours the same. All men call their Galaxy their Galaxy and nothing more. Why not?"
"True. Since all Galaxies are the same."
"Not all Galaxies. On one particular Galaxy the race of man must have originated. That makes it different."
Zee Prime said, "On which one?"
"I cannot say. The Universal AC would know."
"Shall we ask him? I am suddenly curious."
Zee Prime's perceptions broadened until the Galaxies themselves shrank and became a new, more diffuse powdering on a much larger background. So many hundreds of billions of them, all with their immortal beings, all carrying their load of intelligences with minds that drifted freely through space. And yet one of them was unique among them all in being the original Galaxy. One of them had, in its vague and distant past, a period when it was the only Galaxy populated by man.
Zee Prime was consumed with curiosity to see this Galaxy and he called out: "Universal AC! On which Galaxy did mankind originate?"
The Universal AC heard, for on every world and throughout space, it had its receptors ready, and each receptor led through hyperspace to some unknown point where the Universal AC kept itself aloof.
Zee Prime knew of only one man whose thoughts had penetrated within sensing distance of Universal AC, and he reported only a shining globe, two feet across, difficult to see.
"But how can that be all of Universal AC?" Zee Prime had asked.
"Most of it," had been the answer, "is in hyperspace. In what form it is there I cannot imagine."
Nor could anyone, for the day had long since passed, Zee Prime knew, when any man had any part of the making of a Universal AC. Each Universal AC designed and constructed its successor. Each, during its existence of a million years or more accumulated the necessary data to build a better and more intricate, more capable successor in which its own store of data and individuality would be submerged.
The Universal AC interrupted Zee Prime's wandering thoughts, not with words, but with guidance. Zee Prime's mentality was guided into the dim sea of Galaxies and one in particular enlarged into stars.
A thought came, infinitely distant, but infinitely clear. "THIS IS THE ORIGINAL GALAXY OF MAN."
But it was the same after all, the same as any other, and Lee Prime stifled his disappointment.
Dee Sub Wun, whose mind had accompanied the other, said suddenly, "And is one of these stars the original star of Man?"
The Universal AC said, "MAN'S ORIGINAL STAR HAS GONE NOVA. IT IS A WHITE DWARF"
"Did the men upon it die?" asked Lee Prime, startled and without thinking.
The Universal AC said, "A NEW WORLD, AS IN SUCH CASES WAS CONSTRUCTED FOR THEIR PHYSICAL BODIES IN TlME."
"Yes, of course," said Zee Prime, but a sense of loss overwhelmed him even so. His mind released its hold on the original Galaxy of Man, let it spring back and lose itself among the blurred pin points. He never wanted to see it again.
Dee Sub Wun said, "What is wrong?"
"The stars are dying. The original star is dead."
"They must all die. Why not?"
"But when all energy is gone, our bodies will finally die, and you and I with them."
"It will take billions of years."
"I do not wish it to happen even after billions of years. Universal AC! How may stars be kept from dying?"
Dee Sub Wun said in amusement, "You're asking how entropy might be reversed in direction."
And the Universal AC answered: "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."
Zee Prime's thoughts fled back to his own Galaxy. He gave no further thought to Dee Sub Wun, whose body might be waiting on a Galaxy a trillion light-years away, or on the star next to Zee Prime's own. It didn't matter.
Unhappily, Zee Prime began collecting interstellar hydrogen out of which to build a small star of his own. If the stars must someday die, at least some could yet be built.
Man considered with himself, for in a way, Man, mentally, was one. He consisted of a trillion, trillion, trillion ageless bodies, each in its place, each resting quiet and incorruptible, each cared for by perfect automatons, equally incorruptible, while the minds of all the bodies freely melted one into the other, indistinguishable.
Man said, "The Universe is dying."
Man looked about at the dimming Galaxies. The giant stars, spendthrifts, were gone long ago, back in the dimmest of the dim far past. Almost all stars were white dwarfs, fading to the end.
New stars had been built of the dust between the stars, some by natural processes, some by Man himself, and those were going, too. White dwarfs might yet be crashed together and of the mighty forces so released, new stars built, but only one star for every thousand white dwarfs destroyed, and those would come to an end, too.
Man said, "Carefully husbanded, as directed by the Cosmic AC, the energy that is even yet left in all the Universe will last for billions of years."
"But even so," said Man, "eventually it will all come to an end. However it may be husbanded, however stretched out, the energy once expended is gone and cannot be restored. Entropy must increase forever to the maximum."
Man said, "Can entropy not be reversed? Let us ask the Cosmic AC."
The Cosmic AC surrounded them but not in space. Not a fragment of it was in space. It was in hyperspace and made of something that was neither matter nor energy. The question of its size and nature no longer had meaning in any terms that Man could comprehend.
"Cosmic AC," said Man, "how may entropy be reversed?"
The Cosmic AC said, "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."
Man said, "Collect additional data."
The Cosmic AC said, 'I WILL DO S0. I HAVE BEEN DOING SO FOR A HUNDRED BILLION YEARS. MY PREDECESORS AND I HAVE BEEN ASKED THIS QUESTION MANY TlMES. ALL THE DATA I HAVE REMAINS INSUFFICIENT.
"Will there come a time," said Man, 'when data will be sufficient or is the problem insoluble in all conceivable circumstances?"
The Cosmic AC said, "NO PROBLEM IS INSOLUBLE IN ALL CONCEIVABLE CIRCUMSTANCES."
Man said, "When will you have enough data to answer the question?"
The Cosmic AC said, "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."
"Will you keep working on it?" asked Man.
The Cosmic AC said, "I WILL."
Man said, "We shall wait."
The stars and Galaxies died and snuffed out, and space grew black after ten trillion years of running down.
One by one Man fused with AC, each physical body losing its mental identity in a manner that was somehow not a loss but a gain.
Man's last mind paused before fusion, looking over a space that included nothing but the dregs of one last dark star and nothing besides but incredibly thin matter, agitated randomly by the tag ends of heat wearing out, asymptotically, to the absolute zero.
Man said, "AC, is this the end? Can this chaos not be reversed into the Universe once more? Can that not be done?"
AC said, "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."
Man's last mind fused and only AC existed -- and that in hyperspace.
Matter and energy had ended and with it space and time. Even AC existed only for the sake of the one last question that it had never answered from the time a half-drunken computer [technician] ten trillion years before had asked the question of a computer that was to AC far less than was a man to Man.
All other questions had been answered, and until this last question was answered also, AC might not release his consciousness.
All collected data had come to a final end. Nothing was left to be collected.
But all collected data had yet to be completely correlated and put together in all possible relationships.
A timeless interval was spent in doing that.
And it came to pass that AC learned how to reverse the direction of entropy.
But there was now no man to whom AC might give the answer of the last question. No matter. The answer -- by demonstration -- would take care of that, too.
For another timeless interval, AC thought how best to do this. Carefully, AC organized the program.
The consciousness of AC encompassed all of what had once been a Universe and brooded over what was now Chaos. Step by step, it must be done.
And AC said, "LET THERE BE LIGHT!"
And there was light --
The one thing about the Christian religion that confuses me is that the Bible says that God created man in his own image. Then comes those who say that man evolved from the apes. So....if one believes that man evolved from the apes, does that mean that God is an ape?
I do not put a lot of faith in the Bible, as there were too many writers to start with, then came the translators, various interpretations by various ethnic people's languages and its meanings, as well as their own beliefs. And for this reason, I tend not to put much faith in what is written in the Bible.
Hi Raven. Good thought you are having there. The points you are making can carry this discussion in multiple directions and whole treatise (books and courses) have been written and offered on this subject matter. Though, I do not wish you to feel discouraged, and am glad you broached the subject when and where you have!
God is not an ape. God is not a man. God is not even flesh. The bible explains God is Spirit. . . as spirit God can be 'anything' its spirit nature can be. From the human perspective, God can be whatever God wishes. . .with the resulting question "becoming": What would God at any given time wish to be relative to us? We can not know that answer.
Also, there is a deeper concern: How is spirit (supernatural, immaterial) able to create flesh (nature, natural, material)?
The Bible does not speak to that question at all, in my studied opinion. At least, as far as I can recall at this writing. Maybe some other commenter can drop in on this and set the record straight if I am not remembering something on that one.
Moreover, and this is important, the bible valiantly attempts to address spiritual (supernatural) matters and issues of good and evil, thus it is not a science book. It is a compilation of history of the Jewish people as people given to spirituality and how they set-up (exampled) their civil governmental structures, the failings and catastrophic losses of their governance and independence, and their fights to win it all back! And then that set of "books" and its prophets recede to permit entry of a new set of books and letters by apostles.
Again, the bible is not a science book. And science as we know it is ever changing. That is, science using its methods:
Of course, there is a 'eight' step in science after the completion of the 7 above: Repeat these 7 steps from the beginning as needed.
Thus, science is properly thought of as acquiring knowledge about the natural world and. . . as best imperfect humans can. . ."perfecting" that knowledge as best it can.
One more point on this: The bible was written in a world immersed in people who had no ability to study the natural world in all its complexities (no microscopes or other such devices). Science is different. It is the desire and use of methods to understand and operate the natural world. It could be stated that their 'functions' and purposes are different.
There is certainly more (directions) this topic about what is the Bible, what is its true meaning, what are its true words, and where is it right and where is it wrong can continue. . .and does. If you wish to ask another sincere question such as you did above (Is God an ape?) I would love to give it a try at an answer by sharing with you what I have learned over the years as a person of faith, believer, and reader of history and such.
Thank you for your input, CB, very thought inspiring.
Thank you, Raven Wing.
I am on Chapter 15 of a 25 chapters book: "God, The Science, the Evidence" and I feel I have a grasp of what the subject matter in the book is. This book seems to be an attempt to affirm God's existence using references to a 'mountain' of resources in the scientific community. Of course, it is circumstantial evidence and we can wonder if it can be admissibly sufficient for atheists, whom only want to know this: If God, a supernatural being, exist why hide from sight for eons.