Author |
Topic: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist (Read 5510 times) |
|
ThudnBlunder
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
The dewdrop slides into the shining Sea
Gender: 
Posts: 4489
|
 |
"Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« on: Mar 8th, 2004, 12:41pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
A scientist has calculated that there is a 67% chance that God exists.
Dr Stephen Unwin has used a 200-year-old formula to calculate the probability of the existence of an omnipotent being. Bayes' Theory is usually used to work out the likelihood of events, such as nuclear power failure, by balancing the various factors that could affect a situation.
The Manchester University graduate, who now works as a risk assessor in Ohio, said the theory starts from the assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing, and then factors in the evidence both for and against the notion of a higher being.
Factors that were considered included recognition of goodness, which Dr Unwin said makes the existence of God more likely, countered by things like the existence of natural evil - including earthquakes and cancer.
The unusual workings - which even take into account the existence of miracles - are set out in his new book, which includes a spreadsheet of the data used so that anyone can make the calculation themselves should they doubt its validity. The book, The Probability of God: A simple calculation that proves the ultimate truth, will be published later this month.
Dr Unwin said he was interested in bridging the gap between science and religion. He argues that rather than being a theological issue, the question of God's existence is simply a matter of statistics.
"On arriving in America I was exposed to certain religious outlooks that were somewhat of an assault upon my sensibilities - outlooks in which religion actually competes with science as an explanation of the world," he said.
"While I could not be sure, having slept through most of the cathedral services I had attended during secondary school, this did not seem like the version of faith I had remembered. In many ways, this project was for me a journey home - a reconciliation of my faith and education."
Despite his findings, Dr Unwin maintains that he is personally around 95% certain that God exists.
However, Graham Sharp, media relations director at William Hill, said there were technical problems with giving odds on the existence of God. "The problem is how you confirm the existence of God. With the Loch Ness monster we require confirmation from the Natural History Museum to pay out, but who are we going to ask about God? The church would definitely confirm his existence."
Mr Sharp said William Hill does take bets on the second coming, which currently stand at 1,000/1. For this confirmation is needed from the Archbishop of Canterbury.
"We do take bets on the second coming, whether that confirms the existence of God is up to the theologians to argue, most people wouldn't believe that, though."
This is not you, is it towr? 
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1164894,00 .html
|
|
 IP Logged |
THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH.....................................................................er, if that's all right with the rest of you.
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #1 on: Mar 8th, 2004, 1:32pm » |
Quote Modify
|
nah, I like to think I have a better grasp of probability than to try something like this..
How does he get numerical values for things like
P('god exists' | 'goodness in the world') ?
It's more likely just guessing than educated guessing..
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Ulkesh
Junior Member
Posts: 147
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #2 on: Mar 8th, 2004, 6:27pm » |
Quote Modify
|
This is quite an interesting topic to bring up T&B.
Being of a scientific background and upbringing myself, it seems curious to me how very educated people within the scientific community (Einstein, for example), could be convinced that God existed despite there being no real scientific evidence for this. Given that all evidence for anything is based upon observation by instruments of some sort (machinery, senses etc.), and we simply interperet this logically, how can a 'mere' faith in God be justified? Surely evidience such as miracles, which wouldn't stand up to the slightest scientific scrutiny, aren't nearly as powerful as the world's cleverest people (scientists(?)) working in collaboration (generally) to reach a more acceptable truth.
This doesn't nearly cover all of the issues I have regarding this topic, but I'd be interested to listen to anything anyone else has to say about it.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Speaker
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1118
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #3 on: Mar 8th, 2004, 11:19pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Personally, I am still trying to figure out the evolution thing, and making only slow progress. As soon as I got a grasp on that one, maybe I will take a stab at the Omni-sentient being in who's name people are willing to make the ultimate sacrafice for (as well as adminstering the ultimate sacrafice on others).
But, isn't what he is doing a sort of blasphemy. Isn't faith dependent on the unprovability of its object? I thought faith was similar to the "surprise quiz" riddle. In that if you can determine with certainty the answer, than what you have determined is not the answer.
(I guess I mean religious faith. As opposed to faith in Schrodinger's theory keeping enough molecules of oxygen in the room so that you can breath. [Is that his theory, I am thinking of, or do I have it all wrong?] 
|
|
IP Logged |
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. <Ben Franklin>
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #4 on: Mar 9th, 2004, 12:43am » |
Quote Modify
|
Interestingly, Ulkesh, it is thought that around 1/3 of scientists are believers; this is a much higher representation than among non-scientists.
As a believer myself, and an aspiring mathematician, I would suggest that the sense numinousness from exploring the perpetual depths of hidden truths pushes them closer to believing.
The other point is that belief is independent of every facet of human experience. Some of the cleverest/stupidest people on the planet believe and some don't. The same is true of athletism, beauty, wealth, geographical location, culture, traumatic experiences, and so on. It is this mystery of faith that should make most people ask questions and realise that answers will not necessarily be found in the places you expect.
|
|
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
    
Gender:
Posts: 2873
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #5 on: Mar 9th, 2004, 5:14am » |
Quote Modify
|
Even starting at 50:50 seems an interesting choice... what the guy seems to have proved is that his interpretation of the evidence he's looked at makes it slightly more likely that God exists than if you don't consider that set of evidence at all. Whether his interpretations are correct, and whether the evidence he overlooks (there's got to be some) would tilt things the other way are open questions. For instance, the existence of evil has been argued as overwhelmingly compelling evidence against God, so valuing it highly would almost certainly drop his figure...
On the subject of miracles, the definition of a miracle is a tricky one to get right - if you define it as supernatural, then you run into the problem that science, which works by incorporating anything that has been reliably observed to happen, will incorporate any "miraculous" event that is reliably observed to happen, or will accept as a more likely explanation that the account as given is unreliable in some way. Either way, the "miracle" gets scientifically explained away as not actually being "supernatural". If you don't believe in miracles, there is no possible evidence that could change your mind, conversely, if you believe in miracles, there are many occurences for which you will accept divine intervention as the likeliest explanation. Since it's thus not capable of being empirically tested, the concept of "miracle" is not terribly useful for a scientist.
C S Lewis argued that one should only believe in God as the result of extraordinary evidence, but that, once convinced, it should take equally extraordinary evidence to change your mind. The fact that evidence sufficient to convince you once was once presented to you should, in itself, be sufficient proof for the rest of your life - that one should not require miracles to be ongoing to sustain faith; faith, once attained, should be self-perpetuating without requiring constant fresh extraordinary evidences. After all, if God exists, then the whole of our existence is testament to Him, and every breath is no less a miracle than walking on water or feeding 5000...
I think all Dr Unwin has done is what bad statisticians are notorious for: provided evidence that seems to give the answer he wants, but which is based on highly questionable assumptions and judgements. I seriously doubt anyone will be convinced either way by this, but a (small) number of "religious" people will make a large amount of noise claiming this as proof...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Benoit_Mandelbrot
Junior Member
Almost doesn't count.
Gender:
Posts: 133
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #6 on: Mar 9th, 2004, 1:02pm » |
Quote Modify
|
God must exist, because somehow, everything must have started. Scientists say that we are billions ahead of evolving than predicted. The chances of humans turning out this way with these brains and self-awareness are pretty non-existant. But here we are. Before the big bang, where did the mass come from? Did it just appear? Is the entire universe just a figment of my imagination? Is the universe a computer simulation? If string theory is correct, and there are branes in higher dimensions, then there must be another dimension higher to hold more of the same dimension. So if there are different universes of universes, then there could be even more than that. The universe, instead of being built on large branes, could actually start with infinitely small strings inclosed around themselves. We could just tear a hole in the string and walk out, and become nothing. This couldn't happen because there must be an anti-particle for each particle. Am I making any sense at all? Pretty much all we can do is make theories about the existance of a God or higher being so far.
|
|
IP Logged |
Because of modulo, different bases, and significant digits, all numbers equal each other!
|
|
|
ThudnBlunder
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
The dewdrop slides into the shining Sea
Gender:
Posts: 4489
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #7 on: Mar 9th, 2004, 1:20pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:| God must exist, because somehow, everything must have started. |
|
The idea that time must have a beginning and an end assumes that 'duality' is a universal constant.
Quote:| The chances of humans turning out this way with these brains and self-awareness are pretty non-existant. |
|
Google 'anthropic principle'.
Quote:| is the entire universe just a figment of my imagination? ] |
|
How would you know if it was?
Quote:| Am I making any sense at all? |
|
You started off OK, ("God must exist because...), but, by the time you were finished, He was probably shaking His head wearily.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 30th, 2006, 3:56pm by ThudnBlunder » |
IP Logged |
THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH.....................................................................er, if that's all right with the rest of you.
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #8 on: Mar 9th, 2004, 1:40pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 9th, 2004, 1:02pm, Benoit_Mandelbrot wrote:| God must exist, because somehow, everything must have started. |
|
Then when did God start to be? Did supergod create him? And did supersupergod create supergod? etc?
If however you're of the opinion God has allways been, then why can't that be so for the universe as well?
Quote:| Scientists say that we are billions ahead of evolving than predicted. |
|
Which scientists said that? I've never heard that from any scientist that knows what he's talking about.. Must have been creatists that can't distinguish a purely random process from evolution.
Quote:| The chances of humans turning out this way with these brains and self-awareness are pretty non-existant. |
|
Evidently not. Besides, you don't know how many worlds sufficiently similar to our own are out there where it didn't happen. Even if it's a one in a billion chance, if there are a billion worlds you'd expect it on one of them.
Quote:| Is the entire universe just a figment of my imagination? |
|
yes
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Blaise
Guest
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #9 on: Mar 9th, 2004, 2:53pm » |
Quote Modify
 Remove
|
Does it seem that scientists are more and more relying upon God or a god for our existence? Take the membrane theory. Our existence, our creation depends entirely on something that can't be seen, can't be proved or disproved, something from outside our universe that came and touched it. That other brane is a deus ex machina that comes in from nowhere when no other solution is possible and saves the day. And they believe it not on the evidence but on a feeling of rightness, a sort of beauty, symmetry, completeness and simplicity that it gives to their church, the worship of numbers and equations. I think if fits a definition of a god and of faith in an unknown, unknowable higher power.
Take string theory, that reduces everything down to the point where we're no longer dealing with something as big and clumsy as matter or energy, but something more basic, information. But what's information at levels where matter and energy don't exist? Could string theory be the thoughts and knowledge of God's mind?
How about the bizarre quantum theories that posit that subatomic events neither happen nor don't happen; they're just probability wave functions until someone observes them. Who observed them before we came along? If noone, then are we all just Schroedinger's cats neither here nor not here until someone comes along and opens the box to observe us? To me those theories are a lot easier to get a handle on if God is the one who observes and controls all things, and perhaps deliberately chose to leave some things in flux until the moment when it is observed and has an effect on us, his creatures (kind of like a computer programmer of virtual reality who doesn't waste computer time plotting out parts of his virtual world that no one is observing).
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Blaise
Guest
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #10 on: Mar 9th, 2004, 3:05pm » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
Oh yeah, I was going to talk about Pascal's Wager, a rather foolish argument for God for the same reason this scientist has missed the boat. Faith is neither probability nor taking a "leap of faith" by going against the odds. It's trust. It's a personal relationship with God. That's why those people in the Bible who saw miracles, and were given proof positive of God's existence, were no more likely to have faith in him than those today who have no such proof and for whom all the mysteries of the universe are more and more being explained away without need of a god.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Ulkesh
Junior Member
Posts: 147
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #11 on: Mar 9th, 2004, 5:52pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Interesting discussion...
First of all, faith. I don't understand why someone simply beleives something just because they want it to be true. Just because something is unexplained and has been of great importance to people over the ages, this doesn't justify treating it any differently from any other claims. You remain skeptical. If someone says that there are pink elephants on Mars, and you think it'd be cool it this were true, you don't believe them for the sake of it. Surely, in principle, this is what faith boils down to.
Ok, if you have faith that God exists, fair enough. But why? We are logical creatures; we act according to what we see and hear etc, and we believe that things do and don't exist using these senses. Why believe something which has simply no scientific evidence supporting it? Saying that scientific evidence isn't the be-all and and-all of truth isn't valid. We as humans act logically; scientifically. It's how we work. Surely using a logical viewpoint when looking at the existence of God is best for us. In which case, faith, or other systems of truth seem ridiculous. That isn't to say they shouldn't be explored, but they simply can't hold as much water as using logical reasoning.
T&B: Denying existence of the infinite? Perhaps you could point out the consequences of doing this.
Next is the statisitical evidence regarding how it's very unlikely humans could have evolved naturally. Half of this evidence, as towr says, is purported by creationists, many of whom despise science and have no grasp of simple statistics. So I am dubious of many of the claims, and until I see how they figures have been worked-out, I tend to take them with a pinch of salt.
Then there is using the issue of mis-using physical theories to prove what you want to prove. For example, saying that the unknowability of string theory is analogous to the unknowability of God. Strings aren't detectable because they're small. And this is all in theory anyway. It seems that rather than using science to explain things, people just say that God's existence can explain everything. It seems like a bit of an easy fix.
There's also the Schrodinger's cat thing. People who read popular science, read one or two theories without understanding the underlying facts and then use them to prove God's existence annoy me. Quantum mechanics is simply a (successful) theory that fits experimental observations. It does predict unusual things, but this theory is full of philisophical problems as well. A conscious observer collapsing a wavefunction isn't necessarily what QM predicts. There are plenty of other possibilities. Therefore it seems a bit premature to muse over what/who is observing the wavefunction of the universe.
There is the argument that the universal constants of nature seem just right for life to exist. This does seem like a coincidence. But then again, we are far from understanding the nature of the universe, so I'd more readily believe that there are more fundamental unknowns to us than just to explain everything through the existence of God.
There is also no reason why a God needs to have created us in the first place. Surely it is conceivable that some natural phenomena brought about the universe. Why does it necessarily need to be a conscious being?
Saying that information exchange could represent God's thoughts is just redefining what God is. If you beleive that God is a collection of all matter in the universe, great. I'll call my cup of tea 'God'. Therefore God exists.
It is more reasonable to say that everything in the universe in conscious on some level, and then to say that is God. But it is still a far cry from the deity represented in the bible. I understand not everyone believes in the bible and defines God in different ways, but until it's clear what each person believes God to be, it's hard to argue the issues.
Hmm... I've run out of things to say for now.
Basically, it seems silly how a rational person can believe in God when there are more realistic explanations. I'm not claiming to disprove the existence of God. I believe that to be impossible. I'm still interested however, in what leads intelligent people to the conclusion that God exists. Have the believers on this board always believed in God, or did you change your mind over time?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Blaise
Guest
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #12 on: Mar 9th, 2004, 8:51pm » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
on Mar 9th, 2004, 5:52pm, Ulkesh wrote:Interesting discussion...
Basically, it seems silly how a rational person can believe in God when there are more realistic explanations.
I'm still interested however, in what leads intelligent people to the conclusion that God exists. Have the believers on this board always believed in God, or did you change your mind over time? |
|
Since you asked, I don't think this board is the place for religion. (That's why I'm Blaise for now, so this discussion doesn't spill over into your general opinion of me; this topic ends here). My previous post was a somewhat light-hearted attempt to spur discussion in a more theoretical, less specifically religious direction. I don't really think strings are the thoughts of God. I don't think I understand QM enough to do anything more than maybe make someone say "hmm" for a second. (and my second post was a suggestion of the triviality of the whole question of proof, no need to be serious here.) But I suspect scientists and rationalists don't appreciate the limits of their philosophies or grasp the point where their wisdom comes up against the infinite and falls short.
But since you asked: Why do I believe when "there are more realistic explanations"? I believe there must be a first cause and by its very nature it must be beyond our grasp or comprehension. The finite cannot hold the infinite. The very question of whether a supergod created God says the question is beyond simplistic answer, or even complex answer, whether the answer is God or some other first cause. There is no "more realistic explanation" of the first cause.
I believe because my faith works. Christianity has made a lot of huge mistakes over the years, caused wars and hatred and oppression at times, but only because it strayed from the basic principles established by Christ. And my own life has worked much better when I have held to those principles. I have seen no moral, ethical or philosophical system that seems more right and true and beneficial to society (to me, I admit. You may disagree, but that's irrelevant to why I believe).
I believe because you can't "believe something just because they want something to be true," and yet I believe anyway. I didn't decide to believe. I believe. That's the Holy Spirit, but again I don't want to get into specific religion or "chapter and verse" here. So, nuf said.
I believe for a hundred reasons, some philosophical, some historical, some moral, some personal, none is particularly scientific, although I don't think science is a threat to my faith either. And I really don't plan on placing any bets based on the God-odds anyway.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2873
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #13 on: Mar 10th, 2004, 4:01am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 9th, 2004, 5:52pm, Ulkesh wrote:| We as humans act logically; scientifically. |
|
It's not often I actually laugh out loud at something someone writes, but humans, logical? You are joking, right? If not, then consider this: logic, as far as it exists in human thought processes, exists in the very topmost layers, and works primarily to help us get what we have already decided we want by following illogical thought processes. Logic makes a very poor motivator of actions - it can enable us to evaluate potential courses of action within an existing framework of values, and even help us to make implicit value judgements and conflicts explicit, but it can't originate values from nothing. "good" and "bad", or "desirable" and "undesirable" are not logical concepts: they're value judgements.
If humans are logical, then why 9/11? Why the continuing popularity and multiplicity of religions? For that matter, why love? hate? joy? sorrow? all our emotions? From personal experience, love isn't about logic; love transcends logic. But love doesn't replace logic either. The human logic processes continue to operate, just with a new axiom.
Quote:| Basically, it seems silly how a rational person can believe in God when there are more realistic explanations. I'm not claiming to disprove the existence of God. I believe that to be impossible. I'm still interested however, in what leads intelligent people to the conclusion that God exists. Have the believers on this board always believed in God, or did you change your mind over time? |
|
"more realistic explanations." Who decides how realistic an explanation is? For that matter, how well do these explanations actually explain things? It's all very well talking about how "some natural phenomena brought about the universe." but that doesn't make the questions go away - what context did these phenomena have? What does "natural" mean when talking about things that happen outside the universe? Does it even make sense to talk about "before" when linear time is a property of the universe, and subject to various distortions even within this context? And what caused these phenomena to occur? Iterate the question. Do you end up with an infinite chain of prior causes - which doesn't really solve the problem of the beginning - just defers it indefinitely. Or do you resort to some first cause?
Terry Pratchett mentioned the tale of an old lady who claimed the world was carried on the back of a turtle. When questioned as to what supported the turtle, her response: "it's turtles all the way down". To her mind, that was a far more realistic explanation than the world being a spinning lump of rock constantly falling around a giant ball of burning gas...
And I resent the assertion that people who believe in God are being silly. I believe in God for much the same reason I believe in the internet, and for much better reason than I believe in most predictions of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. I have directly percieved, however dimly and briefly, something that I can only label as "God", and from that, and the indirect evidence I have of something guiding the web of interactions around us, I consider I have ample reason for belief. Current theoretical physics, I have no direct evidence of, so rely entirely on the word of others for evidence that these theories are good approximations to reality. I regard my belief in the current worldview of theoretical physics as far more of a matter of faith than my belief in something for which the only label I've found that could fit is "God"...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #14 on: Mar 10th, 2004, 10:02am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 9th, 2004, 8:51pm, Blaise wrote:
Since you asked, I don't think this board is the place for religion. (That's why I'm Blaise for now, so this discussion doesn't spill over into your general opinion of me; this topic ends here). |
|
"Blaise" is absolutely right, and I would extend that to the internet in general. If we had these types of discussions sitting around in a pub with a few beers, we'd recognise the difference between a light-hearted comment and a personal assualt on our belief system. The electronic medium we're communicating on now is incapable of either detecting or expressing those subtleties.
The original article was posted by T&B to offer a diversionary discussion on the study in question and its objectivity/usefulness or lack thereof.
Discussions pertaining towards religious philosophies will never resolve by reason. As I tried to convey in my previous post, historically there have been and always will be people who are much more intelligent than anyone on this forum, and they have had their reasons for believing; equally matched genii have had their reasons for not believing. Belief is entirely independent of logic, reasoning, or intelligence. If we could be persuaded one way or the other, a book would be written, we'd all read it, and we'd all believe/not believe.
Actually, a book called the Bible has been written... 
[e]Edited to clarify, in case the smilie didn't make it apparent, that the last remark was a light-hearted comment.[/e]
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 10th, 2004, 10:08am by Sir Col » |
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
Ulkesh
Junior Member
Posts: 147
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #15 on: Mar 10th, 2004, 10:58am » |
Quote Modify
|
Yeah, you're right, Sir Col. Sorry if I caused anyone any offence. My style of writing did seem a little agressive on re-reading. I didn't intend to act with contempt; I'm merely interested in reasons for and against.
I'd be happy to continue a discusstion with anyone who's interested, but I think it's best this thread either goes back to what T&B originally posted, or stops here. 
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2873
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #16 on: Mar 11th, 2004, 5:25am » |
Quote Modify
|
I haven't reread my post, and don't really want to - I suspect I was probably also rather more aggressive than is appropriate. Nothing I said was intended as an attack against persons, or against any individual (dis)belief in the existence of God. As I said, my personal belief is based on personal experience, and I don't expect anyone to believe just because I do.
Some of the things I (over)reacted to are things I am currently sensitised towards, and the phrase "red rag to a bull" springs to mind.
To get back to the original topic: While there are many intelligent people who believe in God for personal reasons, which seem good and sufficient to them, I do not believe that a calculation of this kind is a good reason for believing in God, or that the assumptions behind the calculations are liable to stand up under any sort of hostile examination. I may be doing Dr Unwin an injustice, but I doubt anyone who understands his calculations is going to find them persuasive. If they are, after all, capable of surviving peer review, then I'd be very interested in his opinions on my chances of getting a job!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Speaker
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1118
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #17 on: Mar 11th, 2004, 5:15pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I agree that a calculation of the probability of the existence of God is not a good reason to have faith. Faith is itself a miracle. (Depending on who you talk to it can be a huge miracle.)
So, it is circular, but: The miracle of faith proves the existance of a miraculous God, thus justifying faith in God.
|
|
IP Logged |
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. <Ben Franklin>
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #18 on: Mar 11th, 2004, 8:22pm » |
Quote Modify
|
An interesting discussion. I disagree that it should stop or limit itself only to T&B's original subject. However, I do agree that it should limit itself to humility and respect. (For those who have been confused about it, "humility" is in essence the willingness to recognize you could be wrong.) It is quite possible to be in strenuous disagreement with someone and still respect them. Patience is key, and a willingness to consider their side even though you disagree are key.
I have avoided in the past making overt statements of where I stand on religious matters because I wanted people to consider my arguments on their own merit rather than reacting in blind prejudice against my religious stance. But in this case, I would like to make clear at the start: I am a christian. More specifically, I am an evangelical christian, what some of you would call a fundamentalist, though this is a term with an abundant amount of baggage that does not apply to me (or to most to whom it is applied).
on Mar 9th, 2004, 5:52pm, Ulkesh wrote:| I'm still interested however, in what leads intelligent people to the conclusion that God exists. Have the believers on this board always believed in God, or did you change your mind over time? |
|
No. At one time, I was an "atheistic agnostic", much as you are. I.e., I did not believe in a god, but admitted that believing in the non-existance of God required faith beyond any evidence, just as believing in Him does.
How did I change? Evidence. I found myself interacting with a bunch of people with the same problems and flaws as everyone else who somehow managed to show real love and community with each other anyway. These people were on the whole happier and more content than anyone else I had ever met. When faced with problems, they managed to rise above them consistently. I have seen them pull through tragedies that break others without stumbling, and still reach out with love to those most people would have nothing to do with. They are not "saints" as most normally think of that word (the Bible clearly calls all true christians "saints"). But they demonstrate what christianity is really about.
As I came to understand this about them, it was clear something was different here. They had a power to overcome their bad habits and desires that I was missing. It was becoming clear to me that I wasn't as smart as I thought I was. So I looked again. It helped that I already had a better understanding of the limitations of science than you (Ulkesh) apparently have (more about that later, though rmsgrey has said some of it). For this reason, I was not bogged down by certain misconceptions that are very common. What I saw was a God that I not only could believe in, but who loved me dearly and wanted me to love Him. And so I became a christian.
Since then, I've been in the middle of two camps. On one side is the science camp. I have not turned my back on science or the scientific method to become a christian. Far from there being "being no real scientific evidence for" God, I am surrounded by evidence, and I see it in my own life. Perhaps you could call it "unscientific". It is generally not suitable for repeatable experiment, but it is real non-the-less. "Repeatable experiment" is not the end-all for truth. It is simply a useful tool for the discernment of it. But it is evident that not all things which are true are subject to repeatable experiments. This is the case even in Science itself. The most basic maxim in Archeology is that to investigate a site is to destroy it. Despite this unrepeatability, scientists neither reject archeology as a science, nor it's findings. ("When I escavated the same site Johnson did, all I found was undifferentiated fill. Clearly his claim to have found layers and artifacts is false!")
Though seldom repeatable, the evidence is around me. In the changed lives of those I have known, and in the great changes in my life. In the love I feel (and more importantly, act on) toward those around me, including some I would have avoided at all costs were it not for God. An extraordinary example of this is a couple in Missouri that I have heard about who have reached out and befriended the man who raped & murdered their daughter. Though they have every cause to despise this man, they chose instead to forgive him - not legally, they recognize the need to protect others - and try to redeem his life. You cannot act this way without something very different in your heart. This along is strong evidence to me.
But the evidence does not end there. Miracles do occur, though most are not recognized as such. A miracle does not have to always violate physical law. The best definition I have heard is that a miracle is an event that occurs with perfect timing to bring glory to God. For example, if someone is involved a ministry which has a financial need, say a bill that must be paid now, but the money is not available. If on the day the money must be paid, the exact amount, to the cent, needed to pay the bill arrives in various checks in that day's mail, I would call that miraculous. If it occurred once, it could be discounted as coincidence. If it happens repeatedly, coincidence becomes a very unlikely explanation. One ministry I am aware of claims this has occured for them, though I cannot verify it, so I do not offer it as proof - merely as an example to broaden your concept of what is a miracle. Around my church, we have a saying, "God sure lucked out on that one", that we use whenever chance seems to operate in accordance to God's will, to remind us that luck is not necessarily responsible at all. We have cause to use it quite a bit.
Then there is the historical evidence. History is another subject in which repeatability is sadly (or gladly!) not possible. So the scientific method is of little use in determining what events have occured in the past (archeological results and scientific laws can be used to give better credence to certain histories than to others, but this is about the limit of scientific input into the discovery of historical truth). So historians must turn to other means for evaluating evidence. I have many times heard the claim that you cannot prove that Jesus ever existed. This is true. But by the same token you also cannot prove that George Washington ever existed, or Abraham Lincoln. Indeed, I cannot even easily prove that you exist, nor you me, other than to say that these posts did not appear out of nothingness. And that is the primary means by which we do provide evidence for the existance of these men. Without Washington, the country I live in would not exist. Without Lincoln, it would not be whole. The artifacts of their lives are plentiful. So there is no doubt to their existance. Yet the influence these men have had on our current world is dwarfed by that of Jesus. In the latter half of the first century, a religion arose with ideas significantly different from any around. Those ideas have formed the basis of our modern civilization. Even those from other religious traditions have been influenced by them. Those who reject christianity often argue against it using moral concepts it introduced. This religion did not spring up without a source. The historical record tells us that those who first spread it suffered hardship and execution for doing so. If they had lived lives of wealth and power (like the founders of some modern religions I could name but will not), we could easily imagine them making up the story of Jesus, or lying about who and what Jesus really was, as part of their efforts to establish and maintain such a position. But to have undergone privation, torture, and execution rather than renounce something that they knew was a lie is much harder to explain. I find it far more likely that the apostles believed exactly what they taught. But how could they believe it if they had not witnessed it?
There is much to say on this topic and I have already run long. Textually, the New Testament is far and again the most attested document in all antiquity. The writings of Luke (the books of Luke and Acts) were once thought to be riddled with geographical and historical errors. Archeology has since shown that in every case, it was Luke who was correct and the other source wrong.
The point of all of this is not to try to convince you of the truth of christianity, but rather to show you that christians do not believe in spite of the evidence, but rather because of it. It comes down to what evidence you accept and what you reject as being dubious. I see clear evidence. I cannot reject it.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #19 on: Mar 12th, 2004, 2:10am » |
Quote Modify
|
The 'problem' with a lot of evidence is that it doesn't force you to one direction.
The simple fact the universe exists is evidence for the existence of god, but it is also evidence for the big bang, and probably a few other ideas. There isn't really any evidence that forces a distinction, like the famous evidence of the bending of light during a solar eclipse did in favor of special relativity .
There is a lot historical evidence for Jesus, and I'm sure he was a swell guy, just like Buddha, or Albert Schweizer and mother Theresa. Whether he was the (only) son of God, or even God incarnate as some seem to believe, I dunno.. I don't believe so. I don't think he ever said so himself either, I mean he taught to pray "our father who is in heaven", so I figure we're all sons and daughters of God.
If nothing else the mythical image of Jesus portrait in the bible is a good role model, regardless of whether or not he was actually like that (If I ever get the ability to travel back in time I'll be sure to take a look  )
Personally I have my doubts about the bible, if not the rest. People's memory isn't generally that good, and most parts of the new testament were written 50-150 years after the fact whereas many contempory writings didn't make it in. Also around 300 AD emperor Constantin seems to have had a good time editing it (and who knows what later popes did). And by that time there had allready been several schisms in the church. So, if that's all true, one is left to wonder what other versions of Christianity have disappeared from our history.. I'm pretty sure the main point of the story hasn't changed though, as it is the same as in Judaism and Islam, '[exists]!one true God', the rest I'm less sure about.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #20 on: Mar 12th, 2004, 5:08am » |
Quote Modify
|
Thank you very much for sharing part of your testimony, Icarus.
I offer the following with humility and respect...
towr, I don't want this to turn into a Bible study (although reading the Bible is my favourite pastime), as what I am about the say requires confidence that the Bible has some authority. However, I would like to dispel one common misconception about Jesus Christ. For Christians, the Bible makes the divinity of Jesus absolutely apparent from the beginning to the end...
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, let there be..." (Genesis 1:1-3)
Apart from this being the first of countless references to the Trinity, the key phrase is at the beginning of verse 3: "Then God said, let there be..." It is repeated throughout the first chapter of Genesis.
In the first chapter of St. John's gospel we read,
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." (John 1:1-3)
The Word spoke in the beginning and all things were made. So who is the Word? In the same chapter...
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)
St. Paul makes similar claims when he wrote to the Churches in Colossus, in talking about Christ he said,
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." (Colossians 1:15-17)
In a vision to St. John, and recorded in the book of Revelation, Jesus says,
"'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,' says the Lord, 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.'" (Revelation 1:8)
Again in John's gospel, Jesus says,
"'I and the Father are one.' Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' 'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'" (John 10:30-33)
Please note that I am not citing this as evidence of God, but I am merely demonstrating that Christians believe in the divinity of Christ because the Bible repeats it throughout: from the Pentateuch (the books of Moses) and the Old Testament prophets right through to the New Testament gospels and letters.
I have spent my whole life studying the Bible and the more I read the more I accept that it is a divine works. There is too much uncontested consistency and truth to make me believe that it is the result of separate people's hidden agendas over thousands of years. Of course this is my experience and I realise that other people look at the same book and come to different conclusions. Personally, I love God with my whole being and I continue to get excited every time I am touched by His Word.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 12th, 2004, 11:13am by Sir Col » |
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #21 on: Mar 12th, 2004, 9:42am » |
Quote Modify
|
I must say I disagree that all those passages testify to Jesus divinity. But if that means I'm not a Christian, I don't mind much. I wouldn't know where to begin to discribe what my believes are anyway, and not just because they change (and have changed) throughout my life.
Just for the record I'm not too fond of Paul and some of the other apostles, and rather take (my interpretation of) Jesus words (as read from the bible) over theirs. And so lend just a smidgen of credence to their words on any subjects..
But this just goes to show it is an easy thing to disagree about. I'm sure God (if he exists) will forgive is for getting any details wrong (As long as we follow the right line, like say not kill each other over them). After all, to err is human and to forgive divine.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
John_Gaughan
Uberpuzzler
Behold, the power of cheese!
 
Gender:
Posts: 767
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #22 on: Mar 12th, 2004, 12:11pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 12th, 2004, 9:42am, towr wrote:| I'm sure God (if he exists) will forgive is for getting any details wrong (As long as we follow the right line, like say not kill each other over them). |
|
I agree. This is the reason why I have no faith in organized religion anymore -- my perception is that every religion is intolerant of others, and enough of them are out for blood that I am surprised we still have a species.
|
|
IP Logged |
x = (0x2B | ~0x2B)
x == the_question
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2873
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #23 on: Mar 12th, 2004, 12:27pm » |
Quote Modify
|
For the record, I don't regard myself as Christian. On the other hand, I find that I actively agree with a lot of Christian beliefs, and can't think of any I actively disagree with.
On the other hand, while I sympathise with Towr's statements, I regard the assumption of divine forgiveness as a very dangerous one to make - once you allow yourself to assume that every mistake you make will be forgiven, it's not so very far to the attitude that it doesn't matter what you do: you can repent it all in the end and be forgiven.
On the subject of Judgement, and the sorting of the saved from the damned, I am very strongly inclined to believe the version put forwards by C S Lewis in "The Last Battle" (the last book in the Narnia series) - that when the Day comes, all those who live, or have lived, will find themselves in the presence of Truth, and in meeting His gaze, will see themselves as they truly are, naked of all self deception. And some, filled with joy, will go up into paradise, while others, full of fear and self-loathing will turn aside into the great Darkness and be destroyed. OK, so this is my interpretation of C S Lewis' fictional account of the end of Narnia, and may not be quite what he intended, but he also wrote, in "Letters To Malcolm: Chiefly On Prayer" that he believed in purgatory, not as a temporary Hell to punish those not quite naughty enough to be banished permanently, but as a place of cleansing - purgation - where the ashamed saved could have their contaminations expunged and fit themselves (in their own minds, for He would as gladly welcome them in rags and grime as cleansed and in fine raiment) for Heaven.
Anyway, the point of the digression is that, while divine forgiveness is assured, it may not be divine forgiveness that is required, but self-forgiveness. I know that there are many things in my past, mostly things which would seem quite trivial to others, of which I am deeply ashamed, and I honestly cannot say whether, brought face to face with the full record of my life, I would be able to forgive myself. I know I could forgive any of my sins easily in another, but I find it very hard to allow myself to be anything less than perfect.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #24 on: Mar 12th, 2004, 2:15pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 12th, 2004, 12:27pm, rmsgrey wrote:| On the other hand, while I sympathise with Towr's statements, I regard the assumption of divine forgiveness as a very dangerous one to make - once you allow yourself to assume that every mistake you make will be forgiven, it's not so very far to the attitude that it doesn't matter what you do: you can repent it all in the end and be forgiven. |
|
I'm not at all for taking advantage of God's forgiveness. Besides, in so far as it wouldn't be malice, that would probably still be gross negligence; at least not understandable mistakes.
There are a lot of situations where you can't know what choice is the right one, and you will have to choose something anyway. I suppose it just comes down to trying your best, you can't, nor be expected to, do any more than that. And I like to think that if I were God I'd keep that in mind, and I also like to think the real God is a better person than me, regardless of whether or not he exists
Sometimes I wonder though. Is it the point to be good, or the point to believe in God? Again personally, I'd much more like to see good athiests get admitted to heaven, rather than let's say a pillaging cruisader who thinks he's on a mission from God.
I suppose if I were God I'd be miffed if people didn't believe in me, but still, considering, I wouldn't hold it against them, I mean, if they're good people I'd still believe in them..
*sigh* sometimes I wish I knew the truth about life, the universe and everything. Then again, I'm not sure I want to know..
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print