<snip> If something is real, i.e. fact as opposed to fiction, then it can be observed in some way via the senses and independently verified.<snip>
So by these criteria are Caesar’s invasions of Britain in 55 and 54 BC a fact? If so how do we observe and independently verify them?
The over whelming evidence of Caesar's existence and life are objective enough. They were independently verified by more than enough people of the time were they not? Do you doubt the existence of his own writings, letters, etc etc?
But archaeology, history even geography are not science. Nobody is doing a double-blind clinical trial to determine whether these things happened.
These kinds of knowledge are experienced and observed and one must either experience them for oneself or trust the experience and interpretation of others.
If we are going to say that books and official records and supporting archaeology are enough to be sure about Roman emporers, then exactly the same kind of thing can be said about the deity.
If we are going to say that we trust people who say that they've experienced wide seas, or have experienced them ourselves, then exactly the same kind of thing can be said about the deity.
Yes, much science is based on the observation that seas exist and European history is based on the facts of the Roman empire. But neither has been scientifically proven because neither are that kind of knowledge.
True, the point you mention, about emperors for instance, could not, at this time, b taken through the scientific method and proved, but it could have been in its time. Whether there are people who do not believe in those historical facts is irrelevant since the historical facts remain objective.
The same can most certainly not be said of God, or of any other deity throughout human history. No physical remains or records of any God remain anywhere. Ancient statues exist of course, but they are human portrayals of what their creators imagined the gods they believed existed to be.
The second point is far too vague and relies entirely on subjective ideas.
<snip> If something is real, i.e. fact as opposed to fiction, then it can be observed in some way via the senses and independently verified.<snip>
So by these criteria are Caesar’s invasions of Britain in 55 and 54 BC a fact? If so how do we observe and independently verify them?
The over whelming evidence of Caesar's existence and life are objective enough. They were independently verified by more than enough people of the time were they not? Do you doubt the existence of his own writings, letters, etc etc?
Oh I believe in Caesar's existence all right (though it is arguably less well-attested than the existence of Jesus). But what I'm asking for is how we observe by our senses and independently verify (to use your criteria for facts) the 'fact' of his invasions of Britain in 54 and 55 BC.
Ok but you must surely admit that other people who believe in those "made up deities" also believe they are real and alive?
What a bizarre argument.
Yes, there are many reasons why people have and do believe in deities which have been made up, there have always been false idols.
I was wondering whether SD who thinks that the reasons for belief are 'clear, obvious and historical' includes the reason that the one living God exists. Her reply as ever did not address this. Rather, it accused me of making it up to give me strength, or so it seemed to me. Hence my reply. Not only do I sense God's presence, but there are sufficient points of reference between my testimony and that of other people past and present to corroborate that it is the same God we believe in.
This is probably why we don't often have these conversations about how to cling on to faith in the face of difficult situations, or why we quietly gave up on faith; any such discussion rapidly degenerates into assertions from those who have an unfailing, unshakeable faith countermanded by assertions from atheists that it's creations of our own brains, nothing real that can be pinned down, arguing at each other and drowning out the more nuanced conversations.
Yes. I was thinking this - just hadn't yet found the words to express it.
Christians are all too often judged by other Christians if they express doubts - the idea that doubting is wrong, a sin. So Christians often either suppress their doubts or give up their faith.
To have a place to express doubts is important. To me it's a healthy part of developing and growing in your faith - or indeed to honestly admit you don't believe, and don't want to continue in the faith. There needs to be that choice. But it definitely needs to be a more nuanced conversation than the two extremes of 'Doubting is bad - God loves you, so just believe!' or 'God is a made-up fiction, and belief in him is childish/deluded!'
For this reason, I wouldn't particularly want to have a personal discussion with SusanDoris (nor the Christians who assert that doubting is bad and wrong) about my faith, because neither of these two extremes allows for the subtleties and ambiguities and complexity. It is possible to have nuanced conversations between atheists and Christians, and I've had quite a few, but each side needs to be willing to simply listen to each other, and actually try to understand each other, rather than to try to shoot each other down.
True, the point you mention, about emperors for instance, could not, at this time, b taken through the scientific method and proved, but it could have been in its time.
I can't see any way that the scientific method can or could prove the existence of an emperor. I don't think DNA shows an individual is/was Caesar, does it?
Even at the time the only proof that existed that a certain person was Caesar was that people and official documents say so.
Today the equivalent would be that a person exists because of passport, photos, Twitter feed, other official documents etc.
But as we all know, these can be sophisticated fakes.
So no. Science can't do the thing you say it can do.
Whether there are people who do not believe in those historical facts is irrelevant since the historical facts remain objective.
But the problem is that the full information is never known, so history is always subjective.
The same can most certainly not be said of God, or of any other deity throughout human history. No physical remains or records of any God remain anywhere. Ancient statues exist of course, but they are human portrayals of what their creators imagined the gods they believed existed to be.
This makes zero sense, some of the Caesars said that they were deities. Are you trying to say that this was an objective fact on the basis that they existed? If not, why not?
The second point is far too vague and relies entirely on subjective ideas.
Yeah. All of your ideas are subjective, Susan. Welcome to the rest of the human race.
No I do not claim that. That is an assumption you are making. The reasonsfor belief over millennia are clear, obvious and historical.
Do the clear, obvious and historical reasons for belief which you accept include the obvious one, that the living God is real?
If something is real, i.e. fact as opposed to fiction, then it can be observed in some way via the senses and independently verified. Itsounds as if you would not agree with this.
As KarlLB says, by that logic, dragons are real; and I'll add pink unicorns and anything else you can imagine.
I am not denigrating the strength that your belief gives you, but to the best of our knowledge, it is entirely you that gives you that strength. Give yourself, your human self, the credit, say I!!
Once again you have not addressed my question.
that is not correct. I responded directly to your question. You did not like the answer, I suppose"
The reason people have believed in the one living God, as opposed to made up deities, is that God exists and people can and do sense God's holy presence. I do.
I think that can be classified as assertion, since to my knowledge no facts exist to corroborate it..
'the one living God': Living? How do you know? What is your definition of 'living' here? You have a faith belief. Many others have a similar faith belief, many others have faith beliefs in other gods, deities, separately existing souls, etc. No problem - that is their right and, of course, that of atheists to lack all those beliefs! Do you think there is a way in which any of the faith beliefs can be proved?
'God exists': Do you accept that that is an assertion?
'people sense God's holy presence': How do they sense this? Why do you think atheists and all the people who 'sense' the 'presence' of a variety of other spirits in other belief systems? do so
Do you think there should be proof of the focuses of these other beliefss as well as that of Christianity?
If something is real, i.e. fact as opposed to fiction, then it can be observed in some way via the senses and independently verified.
How would one go about independently verifying your assertion (August 21), that your eternal cheerfulness is due to your genetic makeup?
I read a book a few years ago which was called something like biography of chromosomes. It was all about the knowledge now available of chromosomes and brought in genes as well. I have only, and yes subjectively, to think of my three siblings and myself. Different characters from same parents. , and from what I have read and heard (New Scientist, science programmes etc) the evidence leads in the direction that the genetic make-up is very influential. Plenty still to know of course, but do you disagree?
Yes, there are many reasons why people have and do believe in deities which have been made up, there have always been false idols.
I was wondering whether SD who thinks that the reasons for belief are 'clear, obvious and historical' includes the reason that the one living God exists. Her reply as ever did not address this. Rather, it accused me of making it up to give me strength, or so it seemed to me. Hence my reply. Not only do I sense God's presence, but there are sufficient points of reference between my testimony and that of other people past and present to corroborate that it is the same God we believe in.
You realise that some see your god as a 'false idol', eh? (With respect.) I have, of course, no idea what 'reasons' have led to your belief in a deity.
Without wanting to deny your feelings, just because others claim experiences which happen to be the same as yours doesn't make them proof of anything. And certainly not proof of an entity called 'god'. So ISTM.
To be fair to your post ... I do see that multiple similar experiences could suggest a common god but I would respectfully suggest a god created in your imaginations.
<snip> If something is real, i.e. fact as opposed to fiction, then it can be observed in some way via the senses and independently verified.<snip>
So by these criteria are Caesar’s invasions of Britain in 55 and 54 BC a fact? If so how do we observe and independently verify them?
The over whelming evidence of Caesar's existence and life are objective enough. They were independently verified by more than enough people of the time were they not? Do you doubt the existence of his own writings, letters, etc etc?
Oh I believe in Caesar's existence all right (though it is arguably less well-attested than the existence of Jesus). But what I'm asking for is how we observe by our senses and independently verify (to use your criteria for facts) the 'fact' of his invasions of Britain in 54 and 55 BC.
SusanDoris, is this, my last question, one of the questions you are choosing to 'pass up'? It seems to me to go right to the heart of your assertion that
fact… can be observed in some way via the senses and independently verified
<snip> If something is real, i.e. fact as opposed to fiction, then it can be observed in some way via the senses and independently verified.<snip>
So by these criteria are Caesar’s invasions of Britain in 55 and 54 BC a fact? If so how do we observe and independently verify them?
The over whelming evidence of Caesar's existence and life are objective enough. They were independently verified by more than enough people of the time were they not? Do you doubt the existence of his own writings, letters, etc etc?
Oh I believe in Caesar's existence all right (though it is arguably less well-attested than the existence of Jesus). But what I'm asking for is how we observe by our senses and independently verify (to use your criteria for facts) the 'fact' of his invasions of Britain in 54 and 55 BC.
Whether he was there in person or not at those actual events makes no difference to the facts of the invasions and the subsequent Roman rule, or to the fact that he lived and died.
I wonder if you're going to say that the same thing applies to God?! Well, if so, it won't work! God has never been reported to be physically at anything.
I do not doubt the existence, the life, of Jesus. The assertion that he was resurrected, rose to heaven (why did he have to 'rise'?) and still *lives* I question every step of the way.
Have you seen this thread@SusanDoris? It was inspired by you
Quick peek - will look properly later!
A bit of fun, but at the same time you learn a lot about people.
I wonder if you're going to say that the same thing applies to God?! Well, if so, it won't work! God has never been reported to be physically at anything.
I do not doubt the existence, the life, of Jesus. The assertion that he was resurrected, rose to heaven (why did he have to 'rise'?) and still *lives* I question every step of the way.
Leaving aside that you are seeking to answer a statement that hasn't been made ...
I can think of occasions when GOD 'has been reported' to be physically present. I may reject those reports but they have been made.
As for your statement about Jesus and your belief in his existence... if you are going to be dogmatic in your assertion you could let us know which Jesus you are talking about. But perhaps I am being too provocative and pedantic?
This is probably why we don't often have these conversations about how to cling on to faith in the face of difficult situations, or why we quietly gave up on faith; any such discussion rapidly degenerates into assertions from those who have an unfailing, unshakeable faith countermanded by assertions from atheists that it's creations of our own brains, nothing real that can be pinned down, arguing at each other and drowning out the more nuanced conversations.
Yes. I was thinking this - just hadn't yet found the words to express it.
Christians are all too often judged by other Christians if they express doubts - the idea that doubting is wrong, a sin. So Christians often either suppress their doubts or give up their faith.
To have a place to express doubts is important. To me it's a healthy part of developing and growing in your faith - or indeed to honestly admit you don't believe, and don't want to continue in the faith. There needs to be that choice. But it definitely needs to be a more nuanced conversation than the two extremes of 'Doubting is bad - God loves you, so just believe!' or 'God is a made-up fiction, and belief in him is childish/deluded!'
For this reason, I wouldn't particularly want to have a personal discussion with SusanDoris (nor the Christians who assert that doubting is bad and wrong) about my faith, because neither of these two extremes allows for the subtleties and ambiguities and complexity. It is possible to have nuanced conversations between atheists and Christians, and I've had quite a few, but each side needs to be willing to simply listen to each other, and actually try to understand each other, rather than to try to shoot each other down.
I wonder whether you (you general, not particular) are so used to the idea of atheists wanting to 'shoot down' believers, that you
cannot accept that this one doesn't!! Why would I do that, when this forum is such a source of interest and where I can, I hope, speak straightforwardly,not tip-toe around, and,as here!!!, hear straightforward responses in return. And the basic format of the CofE was a constant background when I was young, not just a periphery.
Do you refute completely or partly the idea that religious ideas are not all in and from the mind? If so, what is the other source and what method is it using for transmission?
True, the point you mention, about emperors for instance, could not, at this time, b taken through the scientific method and proved, but it could have been in its time.
I can't see any way that the scientific method can or could prove the existence of an emperor. I don't think DNA shows an individual is/was Caesar, does it?
Even at the time the only proof that existed that a certain person was Caesar was that people and official documents say so.
Today the equivalent would be that a person exists because of passport, photos, Twitter feed, other official documents etc.
But as we all know, these can be sophisticated fakes.
So no. Science can't do the thing you say it can do.
Whether there are people who do not believe in those historical facts is irrelevant since the historical facts remain objective.
But the problem is that the full information is never known, so history is always subjective.
The same can most certainly not be said of God, or of any other deity throughout human history. No physical remains or records of any God remain anywhere. Ancient statues exist of course, but they are human portrayals of what their creators imagined the gods they believed existed to be.
This makes zero sense, some of the Caesars said that they were deities. Are you trying to say that this was an objective fact on the basis that they existed? If not, why not?
The second point is far too vague and relies entirely on subjective ideas.
Yeah. All of your ideas are subjective, Susan. Welcome to the rest of the human race.
Wel, I'll just mention Caesar's family and successors ... a pity they didn't have DNA checks then.
Is it a subjective idea that I can have faith in the fact that planes fly?!
This is probably why we don't often have these conversations about how to cling on to faith in the face of difficult situations, or why we quietly gave up on faith; any such discussion rapidly degenerates into assertions from those who have an unfailing, unshakeable faith countermanded by assertions from atheists that it's creations of our own brains, nothing real that can be pinned down, arguing at each other and drowning out the more nuanced conversations.
This is the reason the Stella Maris private group was formed. People who wanted to talk about Mary were constantly getting drowned out by people--largely low-on-the-candle Protestants--who wanted to go back to first principles and argue about mariolatry and the cult of the saints and other stuff that the people who really wanted to talk about Mary had already settled. It was fucking obnoxious.
Whether [Julius Caesar] was there in person or not at those actual events makes no difference to the facts of the invasions and the subsequent Roman rule, or to the fact that he lived and died.
I wonder if you're going to say that the same thing applies to God?! Well, if so, it won't work! God has never been reported to be physically at anything.
I do not doubt the existence, the life, of Jesus. The assertion that he was resurrected, rose to heaven (why did he have to 'rise'?) and still *lives* I question every step of the way.
Why not? It was reported to have physically happened.
True, the point you mention, about emperors for instance, could not, at this time, b taken through the scientific method and proved, but it could have been in its time.
No. No no no no no. The scientific method does not prove the existence of individual people. That's not what the scientific method does, and that's not how the scientific method works. The scientific method is about discovering repeatable patterns in nature, or its core constituents. Julius Caesar was not a repeatable pattern in nature. He could not be discovered -- even at the time -- by the scientific method. No disrespect but I start to question whether you know what the scientific method is, does, or is meant for.
No disrespect but I start to question whether you know what the scientific method is, does, or is meant for.
Susan clearly doesn't understand the first thing about the scientific method nor the philosophy of science.
This is another reason why this is so frustrating - it is like arguing with someone who is using words and concepts but hadn't done the minimum work to establish what people actually mean by them.
In this instance, of course one might be able to establish that a certain person was or wasn't related to another person (given the right equipment and knowledge about DNA), one cannot be given a person and establish beyond doubt, scientifically, that this is that individual.
In particular it is going to be tough* to do this with Caesars - given that the role was basically not hereditary.
* Impossible, actually. For all we know, there might have been multiple individuals claiming to be Julius Caesar.
I wonder whether you (you general, not particular) are so used to the idea of atheists wanting to 'shoot down' believers, that you
cannot accept that this one doesn't!! Why would I do that, when this forum is such a source of interest and where I can, I hope, speak straightforwardly,not tip-toe around, and,as here!!!, hear straightforward responses in return. And the basic format of the CofE was a constant background when I was young, not just a periphery.
Do you refute completely or partly the idea that religious ideas are not all in and from the mind? If so, what is the other source and what method is it using for transmission?
Personally, SusanDoris, I was going from my experience trying to interact with you. As I said, I've had quite a few meaningful, positive, nuanced conversations with atheists, that I enjoy immensely. But my conversations with you seem to go kind of as follows:
You: I don't believe in God, but I like to chat to people who are different from myself, because I'm curious to learn about a variety of different people.
Me: Okay, well, here's a bit about my personal experience. [gives a few details]
You: But do you ever consider the possibility that this might just be all in your head?
Me (and several others): Yes, yes, of course. [Elaborates a bit] What about you? Do you ever consider that you might be mistaken and that God may really exist?
You: No, I don't. I don't think God exists. No evidence.
End of conversation.
Now, I realise you probably don't interpret this as shooting me down, and you do it all very politely and cheerily, but it kind of leaves the conversation with nowhere to go. It's not really a genuine exchange of experience. It doesn't sound like you're curious about other perspectives at all. You simply want me to consider that I may be imagining God, as if this is something that has never occurred to me before - and in fact I have more than once talked about my experiences with this to you. So it doesn't really seem helpful for me to tell you more about my personal experience if all you are going to say is 'But don't you think you might be imagining it?'
(And I note that you are asking once again here! Can you not see that it seems pointless for me to be answering the same question again and again, and I would prefer a more nuanced conversation?)
You seem to be doing it again, SusanDoris: setting up some kind of dualistic divide between faith in something external to ourselves - faith in a deity - and faith in our own human strengths and capacities.
I quote: 'Give yourself, your human self, the credit, say I!!'
Say you. Again. And again. And again and again and again.
If someone claims that their religious faith gives them strength, how is that necessarily denying any sense that they are deriving strength from their own inner resources, their environment, conditioning, influences and examples etc etc?
As an atheist you seem to have an almost hyper-Calvinist idea of how people of faith approach the world.
Shipmate X says that their faith gives them strength to face a difficult situation. Therefore they must be denigrating their own personal abilities and resilience. How does that follow?
Nobody here, as far as I can see, is claiming that people of faith have a monopoly on resilience, determination, good will, integrity or whatever else.
I'll grant that particularly pietistic and somewhat dualistic forms of religious faith can and do lead to these kind of reductionist conclusions.
But - as Shipmates will expect me to say - surely it's a both/and thing?
If I've got any strength or resilience whatsoever there'll be a combination of factors at play. There'll be experience, force of habit, cultural and family influences and a lot more besides. Faith will be part of that but it isn't the only factor and I don't see any of the theists here, of whatever persuasion, claiming that it is.
Once again you have not addressed my question. The reason people have believed in the one living God, as opposed to made up deities, is that God exists and people can and do sense God's holy presence. I do.
I don't believe because I gain strength, or anything else, from faith. It's not about me.
Ok but you must surely admit that other people who believe in those "made up deities" also believe they are real and alive?
<snip> If something is real, i.e. fact as opposed to fiction, then it can be observed in some way via the senses and independently verified.<snip>
So by these criteria are Caesar’s invasions of Britain in 55 and 54 BC a fact? If so how do we observe and independently verify them?
The over whelming evidence of Caesar's existence and life are objective enough. They were independently verified by more than enough people of the time were they not? Do you doubt the existence of his own writings, letters, etc etc?
Oh I believe in Caesar's existence all right (though it is arguably less well-attested than the existence of Jesus). But what I'm asking for is how we observe by our senses and independently verify (to use your criteria for facts) the 'fact' of his invasions of Britain in 54 and 55 BC.
Whether he was there in person or not at those actual events makes no difference to the facts of the invasions and the subsequent Roman rule, or to the fact that he lived and died.
You seem to be slipping away from answering my initial question which was
So by these criteria are Caesar’s invasions of Britain in 55 and 54 BC a fact? If so how do we observe and independently verify them?
You have slid around to the question whether Caesar existed (which wasn't what I asked), and now you are raising a different question - whether he was there in person which is only partially what I asked. This kind of thing is what frustrates, and makes people think you are not engaging, because you don't deal with what is asked, but move on to something else instead. It's like hearing a politician interviewed on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. So, here are the questions which you appear to be passing up: are Caesar’s invasions of Britain in 55 and 54 BC a fact? If so how do we observe and independently verify them?
Crosspost - this @lilbuddha
But it is only Raptor Eye saying this on this thread. If you look at Boogie's thread in Heaven, asking people to rate their faith from 0-100, very few people are saying 100. Several others have acknowledged that all gods have similar characteristics. So attributing the views of one person to everyone on this thread is disingenuous.
Whether there are people who do not believe in those historical facts is irrelevant since the historical facts remain objective.
Not exactly. What actually happened in the past is what happened in the past regardless of belief. History is the record of what people, often only one, say happened. And there are different degrees of what we accept as likely being true. From nope, to dubious, to no reason to doubt, all the way through to here are the bones, the battle scars and the DNA which point to the accuracy of the text.
Quite a bit room lies between the no reason to doubt and definitive conclusions. Many of the broad strokes of history and a massive amount of the finer strokes.
<snip> If something is real, i.e. fact as opposed to fiction, then it can be observed in some way via the senses and independently verified.<snip>
So by these criteria are Caesar’s invasions of Britain in 55 and 54 BC a fact? If so how do we observe and independently verify them?
The over whelming evidence of Caesar's existence and life are objective enough. They were independently verified by more than enough people of the time were they not? Do you doubt the existence of his own writings, letters, etc etc?
Oh I believe in Caesar's existence all right (though it is arguably less well-attested than the existence of Jesus). But what I'm asking for is how we observe by our senses and independently verify (to use your criteria for facts) the 'fact' of his invasions of Britain in 54 and 55 BC.
SusanDoris, is this, my last question, one of the questions you are choosing to 'pass up'? It seems to me to go right to the heart of your assertion that
fact… can be observed in some way via the senses and independently verified
well, now, let me put it this way. The principal personalities of history, who were seen, heard, touched, and. even though in the case of Caesar the romans were a very bath-conscious lot, smelt, by thousands of their contemporaries are not figments of anyone's imagination. I will go back and re-read the OP in a minute, to check my exact wording, but the fact remains that there is no objective evidence for any god, any time.
Do you think there ever could be a method by which God can be proved scientifically?
Here is an added, but unanswerable, question: What are the advantages of believing God exists, even if there were agreement that there is no way of proving it scientifically? Actually, I think I'll provide an answer! The idea of an invisible god, rather than just the plain, old human one, as leader and protecter of a group may well have aided erly survival.
Whether [Julius Caesar] was there in person or not at those actual events makes no difference to the facts of the invasions and the subsequent Roman rule, or to the fact that he lived and died.
I wonder if you're going to say that the same thing applies to God?! Well, if so, it won't work! God has never been reported to be physically at anything.
I do not doubt the existence, the life, of Jesus. The assertion that he was resurrected, rose to heaven (why did he have to 'rise'?) and still *lives* I question every step of the way.
Why not? It was reported to have physically happened.
By the people of the time, with the very low literacy and knowledge of the time, with the political situation of the time, with whatever myths and ideas were current at the time, but with the people of the time doing the best they could to make their lives as
successful as they could, totally without the knowledge later discovered.
How do you assess their reports bearing in mind the information and knowledge you have at your fingertips?
True, the point you mention, about emperors for instance, could not, at this time, b taken through the scientific method and proved, but it could have been in its time.
No. No no no no no. The scientific method does not prove the existence of individual people. That's not what the scientific method does, and that's not how the scientific method works. The scientific method is about discovering repeatable patterns in nature, or its core constituents. Julius Caesar was not a repeatable pattern in nature. He could not be discovered -- even at the time -- by the scientific method. No disrespect but I start to question whether you know what the scientific method is, does, or is meant for.
Point taken. As you say, the scientific method is used for finding objective information about nature, with test to see if the hypothesis by testing if the patterns or behaviours are predictable and repeatable. The scientific method can be used to provide proof of people today, can't it, with DNA?! Also blood groups are useful for tracing back lines of lineage. Technology, engineering, medicine, all have relied on the scientific method, haven't they? If not, what method have they used?
Do you think there ever could be a method by which God can be proved scientifically?
If anyone were to answer "yes" to this question, I'd think they were nuts.
But I have yet to see anything explaining why the answer matters in the first place. Is it your position that no god can exist unless that god's existence can be proven scientifically?
Whether [Julius Caesar] was there in person or not at those actual events makes no difference to the facts of the invasions and the subsequent Roman rule, or to the fact that he lived and died.
I wonder if you're going to say that the same thing applies to God?! Well, if so, it won't work! God has never been reported to be physically at anything.
I do not doubt the existence, the life, of Jesus. The assertion that he was resurrected, rose to heaven (why did he have to 'rise'?) and still *lives* I question every step of the way.
Why not? It was reported to have physically happened.
By the people of the time, with the very low literacy and knowledge of the time, with the political situation of the time, with whatever myths and ideas were current at the time, but with the people of the time doing the best they could to make their lives as
successful as they could, totally without the knowledge later discovered.
I'm fairly confident that the people of the time were pretty familiar with death and the implications of it.
@SusanDoris you seem to keep wandering away from the question I have asked to questions about whether Caesar existed (not at issue), or to questions about the existence of God - neither of which are the question I am asking. The questions I am asking are repeated below:
<snip> If something is real, i.e. fact as opposed to fiction, then it can be observed in some way via the senses and independently verified.<snip>
So by these criteria are Caesar’s invasions of Britain in 55 and 54 BC a fact? If so how do we observe and independently verify them?
It is frustrating that you don't answer the questions, and I'm not sure whether it is because you are not registering them, or because you are choosing , in your words, to 'pass up' the questions.
Anything from the Disc World is right up my street! I would be most grateful if you could please type out the words for me?
It isn't a reference to Pratchett but a cartoon about articulate microbes on a dinner plate wondering about the meaning of life. In the final picture the scared human washes them up.
True, the point you mention, about emperors for instance, could not, at this time, b taken through the scientific method and proved, but it could have been in its time.
No. No no no no no. The scientific method does not prove the existence of individual people. That's not what the scientific method does, and that's not how the scientific method works. The scientific method is about discovering repeatable patterns in nature, or its core constituents. Julius Caesar was not a repeatable pattern in nature. He could not be discovered -- even at the time -- by the scientific method. No disrespect but I start to question whether you know what the scientific method is, does, or is meant for.
Point taken. As you say, the scientific method is used for finding objective information about nature, with test to see if the hypothesis by testing if the patterns or behaviours are predictable and repeatable. The scientific method can be used to provide proof of people today, can't it, with DNA?! Also blood groups are useful for tracing back lines of lineage. Technology, engineering, medicine, all have relied on the scientific method, haven't they? If not, what method have they used?
How irrelevant. If I said, "I am Steven Jones", what would DNA testing do for you? You can't scientifically discover if I'm Steven Jones. You might look at my identification papers, and talk to people who have known me since birth. But that's not SCIENCE.
Here is an added, but unanswerable, question: What are the advantages of believing God exists, even if there were agreement that there is no way of proving it scientifically? Actually, I think I'll provide an answer! The idea of an invisible god, rather than just the plain, old human one, as leader and protecter of a group may well have aided erly survival.
SusanDoris you are either talking a lot of tosh or I misunderstand you, or both. I have known, and know, many people for whom belief in their gods enables them to live wonderful, fruitful lives in service of their fellow women, men and children. I could say more but won't bore the pants off other readers who seem to get this and could provide their own answers to your question.
PS I don't get your own answer.
No I do not claim that. That is an assumption you are making. The reasonsfor belief over millennia are clear, obvious and historical.
Do the clear, obvious and historical reasons for belief which you accept include the obvious one, that the living God is real?
If something is real, i.e. fact as opposed to fiction, then it can be observed in some way via the senses and independently verified. Itsounds as if you would not agree with this.
As KarlLB says, by that logic, dragons are real; and I'll add pink unicorns and anything else you can imagine.
I am not denigrating the strength that your belief gives you, but to the best of our knowledge, it is entirely you that gives you that strength. Give yourself, your human self, the credit, say I!!
Once again you have not addressed my question.
that is not correct. I responded directly to your question. You did not like the answer, I suppose"
No, you did not address my question, so I will pose it differently and perhaps you will give me the courtesy of an answer.
You said that the reasons for belief are clear, obvious and historical.
Do the reasons you are speaking of include one which acknowledges the existence of God?
SusanDoris, to me, what it boils down to is this: are you wanting a scientific discussion with facts, figures and citation of research (which it often seems to me that you are saying you do) or are you just wanting a casual chat about your general impressions of the world?
I do not have any kind of want list, . I do not have in my mind a thought which goes: I hope the topic does this,, or leads there, or avoids, such-and-such, or introduces another aspect which I hadn't thought of, etc.
To me, that provides the context as to how literally to take you. And bear in mind everyone’s minds work differently and some people’s minds do work more literally than others, and some people have said they find it hard to read your tone or work out what sort of discussion you want.
well, I hope that by stating the above, there is no longer a question about that.
Yes, there are many reasons why people have and do believe in deities which have been made up, there have always been false idols.
I was wondering whether SD who thinks that the reasons for belief are 'clear, obvious and historical' includes the reason that the one living God exists. Her reply as ever did not address this. Rather, it accused me of making it up to give me strength, or so it seemed to me. Hence my reply. Not only do I sense God's presence, but there are sufficient points of reference between my testimony and that of other people past and present to corroborate that it is the same God we believe in.
You realise that some see your god as a 'false idol', eh? (With respect.) I have, of course, no idea what 'reasons' have led to your belief in a deity.
Without wanting to deny your feelings, just because others claim experiences which happen to be the same as yours doesn't make them proof of anything. And certainly not proof of an entity called 'god'. So ISTM.
To be fair to your post ... I do see that multiple similar experiences could suggest a common god but I would respectfully suggest a god created in your imaginations.
You and others are entitled to your beliefs, as I am to mine.
Some seem to assume that it never occurred to me that I might be imagining my experiences. Far from it. Not only has God affirmed my belief in his existence time and again, people have recorded their experiences throughout human history too. There are sufficient resonances to know that it is the same God who is with us yesterday and today, and if the promises of Jesus can be trusted, tomorrow too.
I would be more interested in a proposed way of disproving the existence of God. But then any sufficiently powerful entity concerned to conceal its existence would have no problem removing or disguising the evidence.
(posted in error, wrong forum, but it can stay here.
Do you think there ever could be a method by which God can be proved scientifically?
If anyone were to answer "yes" to this question, I'd think they were nuts.
guilty as charged!!
But I have yet to see anything explaining why the answer matters in the first place. Is it your position that no god can exist unless that god's existence can be proven
scientifically?
A qualified yes. Unless I hear something to the contrary, which is unlikely at my age, and the more I read, hear and learn about science today, and I am a keen listener to such radio programmes, the less likely I think it is, but I will most certainly not close my mind to other views and in any case I might miss something, and I'd hate to do that!
I find everything I read here interesting, whether I like it, disagree, agree, etc. Oh, and by the way, I only read some threads and the percentage of my posts compared with that of others and the total of daily posts must be vanishingly small.
@SusanDoris you seem to keep wandering away from the question I have asked to questions about whether Caesar existed (not at issue), or to questions about the existence of God - neither of which are the question I am asking. The questions I am asking are repeated below:
<snip> If something is real, i.e. fact as opposed to fiction, then it can be observed in some way via the senses and independently verified.<snip>
So by these criteria are Caesar’s invasions of Britain in 55 and 54 BC a fact? If so how do we observe and independently verify them?
It is frustrating that you don't answer the questions, and I'm not sure whether it is because you are not registering them, or because you are choosing , in your words, to 'pass up' the questions.
Since it is glaringly obvious that nobody can go back in time, and record, with witnesses, a video of Caesar invading, I really don't know what answer you expect except no, it is not possible. You may have a low opinion of my intelligence, and that's fine!, but I do hope you don't think I would say yes, we can independently now verify Caesar's invasions?!
I wonder whether you (you general, not particular) are so used to the idea of atheists wanting to 'shoot down' believers, that you
cannot accept that this one doesn't!! Why would I do that, when this forum is such a source of interest and where I can, I hope, speak straightforwardly,not tip-toe around, and,as here!!!, hear straightforward responses in return. And the basic format of the CofE was a constant background when I was young, not just a periphery.
Do you refute completely or partly the idea that religious ideas are not all in and from the mind? If so, what is the other source and what method is it using for transmission?
Personally, SusanDoris, I was going from my experience trying to interact with you. As I said, I've had quite a few meaningful, positive, nuanced conversations with atheists, that I enjoy immensely. But my conversations with you seem to go kind of as follows:
You: I don't believe in God, but I like to chat to people who are different from myself, because I'm curious to learn about a variety of different people.
Me: Okay, well, here's a bit about my personal experience. [gives a few details]
You: But do you ever consider the possibility that this might just be all in your head?
Me (and several others): Yes, yes, of course. [Elaborates a bit] What about you? Do you ever consider that you might be mistaken and that God may really exist?
You: No, I don't. I don't think God exists. No evidence.
End of conversation.
Now, I realise you probably don't interpret this as shooting me down, and you do it all very politely and cheerily, but it kind of leaves the conversation with nowhere to go. It's not really a genuine exchange of experience. It doesn't sound like you're curious about other perspectives at all. You simply want me to consider that I may be imagining God, as if this is something that has never occurred to me before - and in fact I have more than once talked about my experiences with this to you. So it doesn't really seem helpful for me to tell you more about my personal experience if all you are going to say is 'But don't you think you might be imagining it?'
(And I note that you are asking once again here! Can you not see that it seems pointless for me to be answering the same question again and again, and I would prefer a more nuanced conversation?)
This. Precisely. Thank you fineline.
Because I don't always say 'in my opinion' or 'I believe....' in my posts, (because I think it's taken as read), and because I am sure of my faith, some people seem to think I am the kind of Christian who has a narrow view and who thinks everyone else should have the same opinions as me. If that were the case, I wouldn't be on the ship. I listen, and hopefully I engage, when I do join in with threads.
Comments
The same can most certainly not be said of God, or of any other deity throughout human history. No physical remains or records of any God remain anywhere. Ancient statues exist of course, but they are human portrayals of what their creators imagined the gods they believed existed to be.
The second point is far too vague and relies entirely on subjective ideas.
A bit of fun, but at the same time you learn a lot about people.
Yes, there are many reasons why people have and do believe in deities which have been made up, there have always been false idols.
I was wondering whether SD who thinks that the reasons for belief are 'clear, obvious and historical' includes the reason that the one living God exists. Her reply as ever did not address this. Rather, it accused me of making it up to give me strength, or so it seemed to me. Hence my reply. Not only do I sense God's presence, but there are sufficient points of reference between my testimony and that of other people past and present to corroborate that it is the same God we believe in.
Yes. I was thinking this - just hadn't yet found the words to express it.
Christians are all too often judged by other Christians if they express doubts - the idea that doubting is wrong, a sin. So Christians often either suppress their doubts or give up their faith.
To have a place to express doubts is important. To me it's a healthy part of developing and growing in your faith - or indeed to honestly admit you don't believe, and don't want to continue in the faith. There needs to be that choice. But it definitely needs to be a more nuanced conversation than the two extremes of 'Doubting is bad - God loves you, so just believe!' or 'God is a made-up fiction, and belief in him is childish/deluded!'
For this reason, I wouldn't particularly want to have a personal discussion with SusanDoris (nor the Christians who assert that doubting is bad and wrong) about my faith, because neither of these two extremes allows for the subtleties and ambiguities and complexity. It is possible to have nuanced conversations between atheists and Christians, and I've had quite a few, but each side needs to be willing to simply listen to each other, and actually try to understand each other, rather than to try to shoot each other down.
I can't see any way that the scientific method can or could prove the existence of an emperor. I don't think DNA shows an individual is/was Caesar, does it?
Even at the time the only proof that existed that a certain person was Caesar was that people and official documents say so.
Today the equivalent would be that a person exists because of passport, photos, Twitter feed, other official documents etc.
But as we all know, these can be sophisticated fakes.
So no. Science can't do the thing you say it can do.
But the problem is that the full information is never known, so history is always subjective.
This makes zero sense, some of the Caesars said that they were deities. Are you trying to say that this was an objective fact on the basis that they existed? If not, why not?
Yeah. All of your ideas are subjective, Susan. Welcome to the rest of the human race.
'the one living God': Living? How do you know? What is your definition of 'living' here? You have a faith belief. Many others have a similar faith belief, many others have faith beliefs in other gods, deities, separately existing souls, etc. No problem - that is their right and, of course, that of atheists to lack all those beliefs! Do you think there is a way in which any of the faith beliefs can be proved?
'God exists': Do you accept that that is an assertion?
'people sense God's holy presence': How do they sense this? Why do you think atheists and all the people who 'sense' the 'presence' of a variety of other spirits in other belief systems? do so
Do you think there should be proof of the focuses of these other beliefss as well as that of Christianity?
You realise that some see your god as a 'false idol', eh? (With respect.) I have, of course, no idea what 'reasons' have led to your belief in a deity.
Without wanting to deny your feelings, just because others claim experiences which happen to be the same as yours doesn't make them proof of anything. And certainly not proof of an entity called 'god'. So ISTM.
To be fair to your post ... I do see that multiple similar experiences could suggest a common god but I would respectfully suggest a god created in your imaginations.
I wonder if you're going to say that the same thing applies to God?! Well, if so, it won't work! God has never been reported to be physically at anything.
I do not doubt the existence, the life, of Jesus. The assertion that he was resurrected, rose to heaven (why did he have to 'rise'?) and still *lives* I question every step of the way.
Leaving aside that you are seeking to answer a statement that hasn't been made ...
I can think of occasions when GOD 'has been reported' to be physically present. I may reject those reports but they have been made.
As for your statement about Jesus and your belief in his existence... if you are going to be dogmatic in your assertion you could let us know which Jesus you are talking about. But perhaps I am being too provocative and pedantic?
cannot accept that this one doesn't!! Why would I do that, when this forum is such a source of interest and where I can, I hope, speak straightforwardly,not tip-toe around, and,as here!!!, hear straightforward responses in return. And the basic format of the CofE was a constant background when I was young, not just a periphery.
Do you refute completely or partly the idea that religious ideas are not all in and from the mind? If so, what is the other source and what method is it using for transmission?
Is it a subjective idea that I can have faith in the fact that planes fly?!
Susan clearly doesn't understand the first thing about the scientific method nor the philosophy of science.
This is another reason why this is so frustrating - it is like arguing with someone who is using words and concepts but hadn't done the minimum work to establish what people actually mean by them.
In this instance, of course one might be able to establish that a certain person was or wasn't related to another person (given the right equipment and knowledge about DNA), one cannot be given a person and establish beyond doubt, scientifically, that this is that individual.
In particular it is going to be tough* to do this with Caesars - given that the role was basically not hereditary.
* Impossible, actually. For all we know, there might have been multiple individuals claiming to be Julius Caesar.
Personally, SusanDoris, I was going from my experience trying to interact with you. As I said, I've had quite a few meaningful, positive, nuanced conversations with atheists, that I enjoy immensely. But my conversations with you seem to go kind of as follows:
You: I don't believe in God, but I like to chat to people who are different from myself, because I'm curious to learn about a variety of different people.
Me: Okay, well, here's a bit about my personal experience. [gives a few details]
You: But do you ever consider the possibility that this might just be all in your head?
Me (and several others): Yes, yes, of course. [Elaborates a bit] What about you? Do you ever consider that you might be mistaken and that God may really exist?
You: No, I don't. I don't think God exists. No evidence.
End of conversation.
Now, I realise you probably don't interpret this as shooting me down, and you do it all very politely and cheerily, but it kind of leaves the conversation with nowhere to go. It's not really a genuine exchange of experience. It doesn't sound like you're curious about other perspectives at all. You simply want me to consider that I may be imagining God, as if this is something that has never occurred to me before - and in fact I have more than once talked about my experiences with this to you. So it doesn't really seem helpful for me to tell you more about my personal experience if all you are going to say is 'But don't you think you might be imagining it?'
(And I note that you are asking once again here! Can you not see that it seems pointless for me to be answering the same question again and again, and I would prefer a more nuanced conversation?)
I quote: 'Give yourself, your human self, the credit, say I!!'
Say you. Again. And again. And again and again and again.
If someone claims that their religious faith gives them strength, how is that necessarily denying any sense that they are deriving strength from their own inner resources, their environment, conditioning, influences and examples etc etc?
As an atheist you seem to have an almost hyper-Calvinist idea of how people of faith approach the world.
Shipmate X says that their faith gives them strength to face a difficult situation. Therefore they must be denigrating their own personal abilities and resilience. How does that follow?
Nobody here, as far as I can see, is claiming that people of faith have a monopoly on resilience, determination, good will, integrity or whatever else.
I'll grant that particularly pietistic and somewhat dualistic forms of religious faith can and do lead to these kind of reductionist conclusions.
But - as Shipmates will expect me to say - surely it's a both/and thing?
If I've got any strength or resilience whatsoever there'll be a combination of factors at play. There'll be experience, force of habit, cultural and family influences and a lot more besides. Faith will be part of that but it isn't the only factor and I don't see any of the theists here, of whatever persuasion, claiming that it is.
RE's criteria are met by people of other religions, even "spiritual" people of no defined religion and ghost hunters. But , noooOoooOOOoo, his are the RIGHT ™®© ones.
But it is only Raptor Eye saying this on this thread. If you look at Boogie's thread in Heaven, asking people to rate their faith from 0-100, very few people are saying 100. Several others have acknowledged that all gods have similar characteristics. So attributing the views of one person to everyone on this thread is disingenuous.
History is the record of what people, often only one, say happened. And there are different degrees of what we accept as likely being true. From nope, to dubious, to no reason to doubt, all the way through to here are the bones, the battle scars and the DNA which point to the accuracy of the text.
Quite a bit room lies between the no reason to doubt and definitive conclusions. Many of the broad strokes of history and a massive amount of the finer strokes.
Do you think there ever could be a method by which God can be proved scientifically?
Here is an added, but unanswerable, question: What are the advantages of believing God exists, even if there were agreement that there is no way of proving it scientifically? Actually, I think I'll provide an answer! The idea of an invisible god, rather than just the plain, old human one, as leader and protecter of a group may well have aided erly survival.
successful as they could, totally without the knowledge later discovered.
How do you assess their reports bearing in mind the information and knowledge you have at your fingertips?
* or other deity Susan doesn't believe in.
But I have yet to see anything explaining why the answer matters in the first place. Is it your position that no god can exist unless that god's existence can be proven scientifically?
I'm fairly confident that the people of the time were pretty familiar with death and the implications of it.
It isn't a reference to Pratchett but a cartoon about articulate microbes on a dinner plate wondering about the meaning of life. In the final picture the scared human washes them up.
SusanDoris you are either talking a lot of tosh or I misunderstand you, or both. I have known, and know, many people for whom belief in their gods enables them to live wonderful, fruitful lives in service of their fellow women, men and children. I could say more but won't bore the pants off other readers who seem to get this and could provide their own answers to your question.
PS I don't get your own answer.
No, you did not address my question, so I will pose it differently and perhaps you will give me the courtesy of an answer.
You said that the reasons for belief are clear, obvious and historical.
Do the reasons you are speaking of include one which acknowledges the existence of God?
You and others are entitled to your beliefs, as I am to mine.
Some seem to assume that it never occurred to me that I might be imagining my experiences. Far from it. Not only has God affirmed my belief in his existence time and again, people have recorded their experiences throughout human history too. There are sufficient resonances to know that it is the same God who is with us yesterday and today, and if the promises of Jesus can be trusted, tomorrow too.
(posted in error, wrong forum, but it can stay here.
I find everything I read here interesting, whether I like it, disagree, agree, etc. Oh, and by the way, I only read some threads and the percentage of my posts compared with that of others and the total of daily posts must be vanishingly small.
[/quote]
This. Precisely. Thank you fineline.
Because I don't always say 'in my opinion' or 'I believe....' in my posts, (because I think it's taken as read), and because I am sure of my faith, some people seem to think I am the kind of Christian who has a narrow view and who thinks everyone else should have the same opinions as me. If that were the case, I wouldn't be on the ship. I listen, and hopefully I engage, when I do join in with threads.
Posting more than anyone else and saying the same thing over and over again.