Board index ‹ Faith and Knowledge

[Asker]

There is a basic flaw in your argument. You say you KNOW there is a god. Your entire argument assumes a god is real and that evidence is just not able to corroborate it. But that begs the question how you know god is real in the first place. You claim that you know because you have a personal experience with god. But we KNOW that a lot of those experiences people have claimed are hallucinations or misunderstandings of what actually happened. We also know that literally everyone in every religion has claimed to have an experience with their god that makes them know it is real. They cannot all be right, every single person in every single religion other than yours must be either a) lying or b) delusional. It is unlikely that everyone is lying (so unlikely it borders on impossible). So they must all be delusional except for your religion. But if this is the case, you have literally no reason to assume you aren’t one of those that is hallucinating. There is also no reason to assume that anyone is actually correct. It is likely that your religion hallucinates or personal experiences with god just like what you already believe every other religion does.

Also, this is something I want to clear up because I see this mistake all the time among theists. NOTHING is beyond science. Things can be beyond our current technology or even perhaps any technology we will ever achieve. But science is a process, not an entity. The process of science is the only reliable way we have to observe and expand our understanding of the universe. If the God you believe in is real, they made a real, objective impact on the physical world and humanity. They are a real sentient being. There is absolutely no reason to believe that such a god would be beyond science.

You do not KNOW that your god or any god exists. You believe it does based on how you were raised, where you were raised, and what you want to be true. This is evident because of how clearly religion is locked to location and circumstance of birth and childhood.
Finally, you claim that god is similar to emotions and feelings, not objectively verifiable other than personal knowledge. But that is a completely loaded argument. Emotions are subjective. The god that you are so sure exists can’t be subjective. It created and changed things in our physical universe. It is a sentient, being. This is something that needs to be objectively backed up with evidence, otherwise, it is literally a fairy tale no different than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. You think children aren’t convinced they’ve seen Santa Once? Or his work? Of course they think they did, that doesn’t make them right!

Morality is not anti-science actually. But it isn’t a science in the way you think it is. There is no such thing as exact, objective morality. It is actually a very interesting field of science. The study of how our morals came to be. All of our morals came from evolution and cultural progression. They have been discussed, debated, and thought out. They have changed as times change. Interestingly, religion is the opposite, it says there are strict morals that exist that will always be true, no matter how much time passes. I don’t really get why bringing up morals helps your case at all, it is just another example of something in the Bible that assumes there is a god and shapes rules out of fear of a fictional deity that will make you suffer if you disrespect them. The origin of morals is actually relativity basic.
Moving on from morals and back to the question at hand: It really is this simple, to believe in god is to act as if you are 100% sure something is true despite having absolutely no reason to other than here say and what you want to be true.

[jimwalton]

I don't know how it's possible, but somehow you have missed just about everything I said. My whole premise is that evidence comes first, belief later. I have said it over and over in multiple ways. In case you've missed it, let me try to be crystal clear: EVIDENCE COMES FIRST. What I believe is based on the evidence at hand. I KNOW there is a God because of the evidence, just as I know the chair will hold me, the doorknob will open the door, the key will start my car, and the grocery store is around the corner. It's that way in the Bible. God didn't ask Abraham to believe in him until he had appeared and spoken to him. God didn't ask Moses to believe in him until the burning bush, the voice, and the miracles. Jesus didn't ask people to believe in him until he did miracles to confirm what he was saying about himself. EVIDENCE PRECEDES BELIEF. My personal experiences with God are confirmations of beliefs based on prior evidences. My experiences are confirmatory, not causal.

> NOTHING is beyond science.

This struck me as ironically humorous. This statement itself is beyond science. This statement cannot be proved by the scientific method, observation, experiment, or reason. It is a PHILOSOPHICAL statement not subject to scientific verification. You may try to reason your way to this conclusion, but you can't experiment your way to it. You may believe this is true, but you can't confirm it by science.

Are you familiar with Goldbach's Conjecture? (It states that every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two prime numbers.) It is an unprovable theorem, but no one has proved that it is unprovable. It’s too large to pursue absolutely. Your statement is like that. In the same way, the existence of God is philosophically and logically unprovable, but no one is able to prove that it is unprovable.

> NOTHING is beyond science.

Let's keep pursuing this.

Is guilt in a courtroom always decided by science?
When someone is standing on a ledge and threatening to jump, can science tell us for certain whether or not he will?
Can science confirm for us that Beethoven's 9th symphony is the greatest piece of music ever written? Or that it's beautiful?
Can science tell us why we as humans seek abstract truth?
Can a science experiment prove that I have forgiven my friend for what he did to me a year ago?
This could go on for a long, long time...

>The process of science is the only reliable way we have to observe and expand our understanding of the universe.

This is the true purpose of science. Great statement.

> There is absolutely no reason to believe that such a god would be beyond science.

Of course there is. Science pertains to physical and dimensional phenomena, not with philosophical, juridical, artistic, theological, or even necessarily mathematical questions.

> You do not KNOW that your god or any god exists

Based on the evidences, I am 100% sure, as sure as I am that the world around me is real.

> You believe it does based on how you were raised

Many people around the world today and through history have changed the way they believe based on evidences. Our enculturation and socialization are not the determinants of what we believe.

> Emotions are subjective.

Of course they are. And emotions were the only foundation of my belief I'd be on shaky ground.

> There is no such thing as exact, objective morality.

All we have to do is establish one point and the case is made. I'm confident we can say in no culture or in any point in history would there be a society that would not agree "It is wrong to kill babies for the fun of it."

> It really is this simple, to believe in god is to act as if you are 100% sure something is true despite having absolutely no reason to other than here say and what you want to be true.

I have SO many reasons and evidences for what I believe. EVIDENCE COMES FIRST, belief comes second.

[Asker]

Somehow you have written an entire post arguing that you base all of your beliefs on evidence, including god. But you haven’t provided one piece of evidence to support god. You claim that god is outside science, but then you claim you know he exists because you have evidence to support it. If there was evidence to support it, then it would be science. Can you not see the flaw there? Please provide this evidence that you claim to have. But bear in mind, personal experience, and the Bible are not evidence of you need me to explain why, then I will. But I sincerely hope you have the intellect to understand why they aren’t.

I apologize for my overly broad statement. Let me clarify. Nothing objective and tangible in the universe is beyond the process of science. The quality of music is not objective nor tangible. The math theorem you mentioned is a ridiculous example. Of course we know that is true! The rules of numbers and math don’t just change randomly for no reason. We created the concept of numbers to explain order and value in a language we comprehend. So yes, that number is proven through logic. I don’t understand what you mean by proving things through philosophy. Philosophy is not a method of proving anything, it is a form of posing questions. To go through your other examples, forgiveness is not an objective or tangible thing. Guilt in a courtroom is actually determined in a very scientific way. Science is used to determine the objective truth of what the accused did. Then whether what they did is wrong is up to interpretation (often a jury’s) of the word of law. Law being another construct of humanity. There is no reason to suggest that when someone is about to jump from a ledge, we will not at some point in the future have technology that can read his neurons and the pattern at which they fire to determine whether he will jump. We know the brain functions like an extremely complex computer, discovering how it works specifically is just something we haven’t figured out yet. I’m a bit confused by what you mean when you say abstract truth. From what I can gather, you just mean “truths” that aren’t tangible or objective. Which, again, is not something that literally exists. They are fabrications humanity has made to provide order to the world and explain things. Finally, you claim god is not philosophically or logically provable. First of all, nothing is philosophically “provable”. If it is provable, then it is scientifically true. Science is just realty and the discovery of it. If the Christian god is real, then it is a physical entity. It must objectively exist. If Jesus was the son of god and did supernatural feats, then god is a physical being at least in some sense. There is no reason to believe that he is not subject to logical scrutiny.

Next you claim that there is plenty of reason to suggest that god is beyond science. You claim that philosophical questions are outside the scope of science. You are right about that (However you also said that math is. Which is flat out ridiculous and nonsensical) That is why philosophical QUESTIONS do not come with an sssumed answer. A basic example is the tree falling in a forest. It is a question. The philosopher doesn’t state, “trees don’t make a sound in the forest” or “trees do make a sound in the forest”, it is simply a question meant to inspire thought. The question “is there a god?” Does that as well. But theists like yourself do not ask any question. You state not only that there is a god, but that god is exactly the same as what you and no other religion claims it is. This is not philosophical, this is something stated as fact. And facts are subject to science.

You then claim that you know 100% surely that god is real based on evidence. You know what the method of discovering things based on evidence is? SCIENCE! So first you claimed that god isn’t proven by science or objective evidence, then you claim that you know he exists because of evidence (which you have still yet to share). But this is a no win scenario for you, because if you have evidence, then god is scientifically provable, I would accept that. But if you don’t have evidence, then you have no reason to believe he exists, and therefore are believing something completely baseless. But let’s say it does turn out that god is unknowable for humanity. Well then by very definition he would be unknowable and none of us could ever know he exists. So whether or not he is real, we wouldn’t know. So why do you assume that he is? Again, if you have evidence and he is therefore scientifically probable, please share it.

Next you claim that culture and socialization are not determinants of what we believe. That is flat out wrong. We have objective evidence through statistics and studies as well as thorough social, geographical, and cultural experimentation and research that for the vast majority of people, belief in a god is dictated by where they live and how they were brought up. There are exceptions, but there is undoubtedly a correlation. If you think that humans are completely unbiased by their circumstance, then I don’t know what to tell you. It’s plain wrong.

There have certainly been people who believe that killing babies for the fun of it isn’t wrong. Why do we not value their morals as highly as ours? Simply because we are the majority. And that majority is due to the fact that our species advances and survives more to reproduce if we don’t kill babies for no reason. So those that think it is wrong we’re the ones to survive and pass on their genes, those who did not think it is wrong, didn’t have as many (if any) children and their genes died out. This is evident today, because nowadays, the most developed civilizations in the world with the most power and population, think that killing babies for any reason is wrong. This is the science of morality and where it came from. It’s a fascinating field.

I will end it with this. If you have evidence, name it. If belief is truly secondary to evidence, then provide objective evidence, otherwise, your kind of in a tough situation because you will be showing that you believe something without evidence. Which by the way is exactly the opposite of what you claim your world view to be in the last sentence of your post.

[jimwalton]

I didn't name or list the evidence because this is a query about the nature of faith, not the substantiating arguments/evidence for the existence of God. I was merely establishing that faith is grounded in evidence, in contrast to faith ignoring evidence or being an a priori conclusion before evidence. That was the nature of this post, so that was the direction of my comments.

Again, you failed to prove your point that science is the only path to knowledge. You feel that you tore down my arguments, which you didn't succeed in doing, but also failed to vindicate your own. For instance, here are statements you have made that prove, in your own words, that all knowledge is not achievable by science:

1\. NOTHING is beyond science.
2\. "Truths that aren't tangible don't literally exist."

Now, I understand that you have created a demarcation to support your point: "...objective and tangible..." Of course I agree with you. The scope of science is a study of that which of objective and tangible. But there are many types of knowledge and paths to knowledge that have nothing to do with the objective and tangible. Science is limited to the objective and tangible, but even more limited than that. Science is often also limited to the reproducible phenomena that can be studied under controlled conditions and give confirmatory results.
You seem to be claiming that things that aren't objective and tangible don't really exist. What about time? memories? intuition? perceptions? logic? pain? dreams? Do these things not exist? You can see why I feel you are placing far too much on the shoulders of science. Science can only do its area; it can't do all areas of knowledge.

> There have certainly been people who believe that killing babies for the fun of it isn’t wrong.

Where's your evidence? Substantiate, please.

> If you have evidence, name it.

There are about a dozen logical arguments for the existence of God. I have learned from many previous experiences that posting all 12 is a ludicrous waste of time. People blow them off with inadequate rebuttals and try to move on as if this is all sheer nonsense. Perhaps a better approach would be to take them 1 at a time to determine the quality of each argument. The first 8 or so are from reason; the next several are from science, and the last ones are from experience. We can start with the first one, an argument from causality (which is a logical argument but overlaps with science).

1\. Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something else already in existence.
2\. Then there has to be at least one being that is distinct from and pre-existing all beings that began to exist.
3\. Therefore that first being is uncaused, and there is at least one first, uncaused being.

My claim is that science gives us no evidence of anything that began to exist spontaneously of its own volition. We know of nothing that at any time began to exist from its own nature (How can something pop itself into existence when it doesn’t exist?) If it had a beginning, it had a cause outside of itself. Can we agree that the universe had a beginning? (That's the first question.) Everything that had a beginning was brought into existence by something else that already existed, whether technological, mechanical, or even biological. Something had to have already existed.

So we have to examine the various alternatives:

1\. The universe spontaneously generated. It was its own causal mechanism. To me this flies in the face of both logic and science. We know nothing like this, and science has shown us nothing like this.

2\. There is no such thing as a first cause. The universe is an endless string of cause-and-effect. According to Kalam's cosmological argument, this is impossible. We cannot arrive at the present unless there was a beginning. Regardless of the logic of that, however, science tells us the universe had a beginning.

Kalam's argument, in a nutshell: Think of it this way: Suppose you go to the grocery store and, approaching the deli counter, you plan to take a ticket for your proper turn. But on the ticket-dispenser, you see a sign that says, "Before taking this ticket, you must take a ticket from the machine on the right." You reach for that machine, but it also has a similar sign on it. The third machine has the same sign. And the fourth. This could go on forever (which is Kalam's point), unless you finally get to a machine somewhere in the line that allows you to take a ticket. Unless there is a beginning, there can be no present.

3\. If the causal mechanism of the universe was not a thing (it was not matter, since science tells us the universe had a beginning and that it was a dimensionless singularity where all the laws of nature were non-existent and non-functioning), and since it was not, therefore, "scientific" (tangible and objective; physics, chemistry, biology), then we have to wonder if the causal mechanism was a metaphysical being with the capability to motivate the Bang. This is not assuming a God (I have not yet proven the existence of the spiritual realm), but it's bringing into the equation the only alternative to a material causal mechanism: an immaterial, metaphysical one.

In other words, the evidence tells us if something always existed, and it is not objective and tangible, not subject to scientific laws, and incapable of spontaneous generation, then logic tells us the cause must have been immaterial, eternal, and metaphysical. God is a possible, if not reasonable, choice as to that causal mechanism.

This is merely the first line of a dozen of evidence of the existence of God. Again, this is support that (from your original post) I am not guilty of hypocrisy, and secondly that evidence precedes faith. I'll be glad to hear your reply.

[Asker]

To respond to your first explanation of why you won’t give evidence. If you can’t provide evidence, then why should I just blindly believe you have it? The entire argument of whether theists are hypocrites hinges on whether you have evidence from which you base your belief. If you can’t provide any evidence, then you admit I am correct. You thinking you have evidence != you having evidence. Of course I believe you think you have evidence. How else would you rationalize your belief? You need to provide objective evidence to prove me wrong. Otherwise, you are talking circles. Thankfully, later in your post you do bring up something you call evidence. I will get to that in a bit.

My argument about science is simply common sense. Everything we know for sure about the objective universe that exists is known through science. Everything we know about humanity itself that is not just a subjective creation of our consciousness is known through science. If I am wrong, please provide an exception to that rule.

Then you tried to refute my two statements with examples. But it’s hilarious to me how you tried to do that. Time is an observable and objectively verifiable phenomena. Memories, dreams, pain, and perception are all biological processes that we are learning a lot about through science. Intuition is simply observing behavior and interpreting what will happen based on your past experience with people. Of course all of these things exist. They are all verifiable and exist tangibly. So you haven’t exactly disproved what I said. Provide an example of something that is absolutely true that does not have scientific backing. In Otherwords, provide something that is knowable but not knowable through science.

If there a people who murder for fun, and have no problem exterminating races of people, of course there has been at least some who are okay killing babies! Infanticide is a known occurrence throughout history.

Next you say basically, “I’m not going to give all my arguments because I don’t want them to be refuted.” I don’t have to point out why that is ridiculous.

Then you go on this long winded explanation of Kalam’s argument. I am familiar with that argument. All it does is prove that the universe cannot have existed forever. Of course the vast majority of scientists agree with this. Everything we know, including time itself, began with the Big Bang. Now obviously something triggered the Big Bang. But the fact is that we have no evidence to support any singular explanation. Sure, a God is possible. But that is just one explanation. Another possibility is that there is a higher dimension with completely different physics and science that our universe exists within. A quantum event there could perhaps have triggered the Big Bang. If a god could have existed forever, then who is to say this realm we know nothing about hasn’t existed forever? Or there is the possibility that the Big Bang was created from the death of an older universe. Or even that our universe is a simulation of a hyper advanced civilization. Or that a hyper advanced civilization is capable of just creating universes! Any of these and more could be true, but they are just guesses. The difference is that scientists don’t pretend to know which is correct, they accept many possibilities and understand that we have no idea which is true yet. So acting like we not only know the answer, but have detailed knowledge of the being that supposedly created us, is completely ridiculous. So even if the guess that there is a god turns out to be true (which it may), then how do you know that it is in any way similar to what any religion on earth has predicted? And if it is what a religion on Earth has predicted, then how do you know your religion is correct? You can’t. And here lies my point. Your arguments and beliefs start with faith in what you want to be true. Not evidence. How did I conclude this is true? Well let’s walk through the logic. As a Christian, you believe that the Bible is the word of god. That must be true in order for your faith to be correct. So you have a pre-held belief that the Bible, which is just a story, is in some way divine word. Then when you learn there are things about our universe we don’t understand, like what was before the beginning of this universe as we know it, you don’t just accept that we don’t know like any competent scientist does. Instead, you say “it must be god”. Not only god but the Christian god. Then you use the fact that we don’t know something as evidence for what you want to be true being true. This is flawed logic and clearly starting with a pre held belief. You simply cannot know for sure that any god exists let alone the Christian god if you start with the evidence and draw conclusions from it. To determine a god exists right now, by definition requires assumption based on the religion you believe. If you didn’t have blind faith that the Bible is the word of god, then you would admit that we simply have no idea what came before the Big Bang. God is one of infinite possibilities, and Christianity is but a tiny fraction of every possibility of what a god is.

Science doesn’t claim to know where the Big Bang came from. Nor does it know whether a god exists. It simply acknowledges what we don’t know instead of assumig something fills that gap in knowledge with no evidence to support it. If a logical argument that does nothing but show that a god is one of an infinite amount of possibilities of where the universe came from is the only “evidence” you are willing to provide of God’s 100% certain existence (which you must believe since you are a Christian), then you have proven my point for me.

It is this simple: you believe something is without a doubt real when there is no evidence to support the specific existence of that thing, let alone your personal interpretation of it. If there is a real god, we cannot know it is real yet.

[jimwalton]

> If you can’t provide evidence, then why should I just blindly believe you have it?

You shouldn't. Evidence matters.

> You thinking you have evidence != you having evidence.

I agree. "Thinking it" doesn't make it so. Agreed.

> Time is an observable and objectively verifiable phenomena.

I disagree. Time is immaterial and an unobservable and non-verifiable dimension. We create markers to measure time, but they are subjective. We choose to measure time by the sun; the ancients usually marked it by the moon, but as we know (leap days, leap years, adjustments) it's not objective—it keeps changing; we have to keep tweaking our subjective measures. And then what about space travel—how is time measured away from the sun? "Stardate 4790"?

> Memories, dreams, pain, and perception are all biological processes that we are learning a lot about through science.

They are immaterial, immeasurable, unobservable, and non-objective. How is that science? (According to your definition, "Nothing objective and tangible in the universe is beyond the process of science.") These realities are neither objective nor tangible.

> If there a people who murder for fun, and have no problem exterminating races of people, of course there has been at least some who are okay killing babies! Infanticide is a known occurrence throughout history.

Of course infanticide is known throughout history, but not for fun. It's often for cultic sacrifice, and sometimes in conquest, but never for fun. "For fun" is always wrong everywhere all the time. Objective.

> Next you say basically, “I’m not going to give all my arguments because I don’t want them to be refuted.” I don’t have to point out why that is ridiculous.

Please don't be so judgmental. To lay out all 12 arguments (1) is a veritable WALL of text that no one wants to deal with; (2) it's impossible to respond adequately to all 12, so (a) responses have to be short and therefore inadequate, and (b) the discussion starts going all over the map trying to keep 12 plates spinning. So it's not ridiculous; I was actually trying to be both thoughtful and focused.

> All it does is prove that the universe cannot have existed forever.

I'm glad you're familiar with Kalam's argument. Then you should realize that the universe having a beginning is NOT its point; what it seeks to prove is that the universe had a CAUSE.

> Sure, a God is possible. But that is just one explanation.

And this was my only point. The evidence not only can lead us to God, but I consider that God is the strongest and most reasonable candidate for the explanation. The point behind that, whether or not you agree, is that my faith is based on evidence that came before it. The evidence: the universe had a beginning. The conclusion: God is a reasonable explanation for such beginning. The consequence: I form my faith around the evidence and the logic.

> Another possibility is that there is a higher dimension with completely different physics and science that our universe exists within.

Obviously this is complete speculative with no evidence to support it.

> A quantum event there could perhaps have triggered the Big Bang. ... death of a universe ... hyper-advanced civilization...

Again, unknown and completely speculative.

So again we are left with a mental debate: was the causative mechanism a higher unknown science, or was it metaphysical? There are other evidences for God (as yet undiscussed between the two of us), but there are no evidences for these speculative sciences which you hope will fill a gap. If we are just dreaming up possibilities, our options are endless. If we are looking at realistic evidence, the possibilities are far fewer. Since metaphysical realities exist, the metaphysical avenue is logically a more reasonable pursuit at the present than wild speculations.

> So even if the guess that there is a god turns out to be true (which it may), then how do you know that it is in any way similar to what any religion on earth has predicted?

This is a completely different question, one for which we barely have room here. But if there is such a God, then we could most likely only know about him if he chooses to reveal himself to us. Then we have to interpret that revelation and discern the truth, but it most likely wouldn't be a scientific pursuit to discern divine revelation.

> And if it is what a religion on Earth has predicted, then how do you know your religion is correct? You can’t.

Don't jump to inappropriate conclusions. If God truly exists, and has truly revealed himself, then truth matters and would logically be part of the equation: That God has revealed himself as he is, and that the truth about him is achievable. Otherwise his revelation is fairly void. If he's going to bother to reveal himself, he needs to bother to make the truth about himself knowable.

> It is this simple: you believe something is without a doubt real when there is no evidence to support the specific existence of that thing, let alone your personal interpretation of it.

Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions. I just gave you one evidence that was a foundation for my faith. As I said, there are 11 more. While 1 doesn't make a case, all 12 (or so) create a formidable wall of probability.

So let's go to the next one. This is one is mildly based in scientific observation (that something caused what we see), and is a second piece of the puzzle after the cosmological evidence that could, by your admission, lead us rationally to a theistic conclusion. It's an ontological argument that comes from Dr. Alvin Plantinga, who argues that God is a necessary being.

1. If God (a supreme, supernatural divine being) does not exist, his existence is logically impossible. That doesn’t mean he can't be made up in someone's imagination (which is still possible even if he doesn't exist); what it means is that if God doesn't really exist, the very concept of God is inconsistent or self-contradictory with truth and reality. His existence doesn't even make sense.

2. But if God does exist, then it's necessary that He does. It cannot be otherwise if He is truly God and if He truly exists.

3. Therefore (first conclusion), God's existence is either impossible (inconsistent and self-contradictory) or necessary. There's no halfway position.

4. If God's existence is logically impossible, then even the concept of God and everything we think about him is contradictory. We are trying to make a reality what is not only nonsensical, but impossible.

5. But the concept of God is not contradictory. There's actually good sense to it in many ways, for example, that something caused what we see. While some may not agree, it's assuredly not contradictory.

6. Therefore (second conclusion), if God's existence isn't contradictory (if that choice is removed from the equation), then the only reasonable choice left is that God is logically necessary.

God is either impossible or necessary. Since He's not impossible, then He must be necessary, and therefore He exists.

[Asker]

You are actually making the argument to me that leap-years, imperfections in some of the arbitrary units of measurement we use to keep track of time, and the fact that an amount of time to do something is measured by correlating to to real events is actually evidence that time is not objective? That it changes? That is not constant? It's hard for me to know where to begin here. That is just fundamentally wrong. First of all, acting like time around our sun is different from time anywhere else is like saying that "a meter is only the length of a meter-stick, how long is a meter anywhere that isn't next to a meter-stick??" But that isn't even getting into the rest of that paragraph. Time is constant, the real world events we use to measure time is what's imperfect. For example, a year or a day. A year has meant the amount of time it takes for the Earth to go around the sun. A day means one rotation of the Earth. The problem with these (and the reason we have leap years and similar phenomena) is because they are imperfect measurements. The amount of time the Earth takes to go around the sun is changing not because time is not constant, but because of math and how orbits and gravity work. Same goes for days. So the scientific community has agreed on mathematical values for the amount of time in a year, day, second etc. because the real world counterparts they are based on, change due to forces we didn't understand when the idea of a day or a year were first introduced. We know time is constant and that it changes with speed and gravity. Its called relativity General and Special. These are tangible, objective, observable things.

Actually, all of those examples you mentioned that I said are biological processes are indeed observable and tangible. Go read about some Neuroscience and Biology. I am not going to explain that to you. Not enough time or room.

You are right, I have no evidence that anyone thought killing babies for fun was something that happened. It is just incredibly likely due to the fact that murder for fun has happened before all the time. There are many criminal cases on this. You also are confusing objective with inter-subjective. The novel "Sapiens: A History of Humanity" explains this very well. An example of objective reality is scientific facts about the universe. Examples of this are the biology of how animals function, the physics of how the universe works, and other things that really exist. Not fictions created by human consciousness. Subjective things are the other end. An imaginary friend or opinions for example. You can't prove them correct due to the fact that they exist in your own head and are unique to you. Then there is the inter-subjective category. A prime example of this is morality. Right and wrong does not exist without humans to make it up. All examples of morality in law are in writings created by humans. Killing a baby for fun is wrong simply because there is a common consensus that it is that way. The reason we all accept that is due to millions of years of evolution that has resulted in a carefully shaped morality that appears as intelligent design. Its similar to evolution in this way. It appears as we have always been this way and that we are designed when in reality we are a product of survival of the fittest. Again, I can't possibly explain this to you in a reddit post. But the science of where morality comes from is super interesting.

I understand that I may seem unreasonable asking for all your evidence. I am sorry to seem that way. It was not my intention. The problem is that I find your "evidence" reprehensible and not proof in any sense of the word for your claim (will explain in a minute). So I have no reason to think any of those other 12 pieces of evidence are any better until you provide them. Can you see my point? I appreciate that you provided another piece of what you think is evidence at the end of your post. But it is no better (I will explain that later in my post as well).

I know that is what Kalam's argument tries to prove. I am saying that it fails at proving anything other than the fact that the universe has a beginning and that something triggered that beginning. Nowhere does it prove any sort of god.

Okay surely you can see the contradiction with what you said next. First of all, I said that a god is POSSIBLE, not that there is any evidence to support it (because you still haven't provided any). Anything is technically possible since we have no idea what triggered the big bang. So I simply do not assume anything until evidence supports one of those infinite guesses. You and other religious people on the other hand, handpick one of those guesses because you want it to be true and assume that it must be fact for no reason. Then here is where the contradiction is. When I brought up other possible explanations for what triggered the big bang (none of which I "believe" until evidence is found to support it), you immediately dismissed them as baseless speculation. EXACTLY! You have hit the nail on the head. We have no idea what triggered it. So every explanation, including God, the Multiverse, etc. is all baseless speculation. The difference is that scientists accept this and continue their search for evidence. Christians and other religious people choose their baseless explanation out of a pool of a literally infinite amount and claim they know it as fact. Due to the sheer number of possible explanations, the probability that you are right is astronomically low.

Now then you try to argue that the difference is that God is rooted in facts and has much more support than the others. What facts? What evidence? What support? You are right that wild guesses about the origin of everything are only considerable if they haven't already been disproven. But there is literally an infinite set of guesses that have not been disproven. God is but one. Plus, like I said, when I say god, I mean any sort of intelligent higher power. If you go down to individual religions then the probability gets even worse. God has no more scientific backing than any other explanation of the origin of the big bang that is still on the table. If I am wrong, provide evidence (I will get to why what you have provided is not evidence in a bit).

Then you try to evade the issue of us being correct about god as a different question. It is not a different question. Christians aren't just claiming god exists. They are claiming that the Christian god exists. Not any other. If any other is the real god then you are just as wrong as if there is no god at all. Imagine if there is a god and it is actually just a hyper-advanced alien who created life as a cruel joke and controls the universe for no other reason that its amusement. Another possibility is that there is no afterlife? Maybe you still just die or maybe you are resurrected as a new person with no knowledge of your past life. None of these have evidence and all are just as likely as christianity. All would also make you wrong in your claim.

This post was that anyone who believes in god is a hypocrite because they haven't demanded evidence to support it while they have demanded evidence for other things. I still am sure this is true given the current information. But being a christian as you are makes it even worse and even more hypocritical. So no, they are not different questions.

I will discuss your evidence in a reply to this post due to character count limits.

[jimwalton]

This discussion is getting so broad it's difficult to keep track of all the threads and respond to them.

> TIME

Rather than continuing a conversation where I'm claiming that time is real but it's immaterial and you are claiming it is objective. Then you say "We know time is constant and that it changes with speed and gravity". If time is constant, then it can't change. Unless you're contending that it changes at predictable rates and therefore is "knowable" even if it's not constant. I don't disagree with part of that, but if time can stretch and shrink and is relative to velocity and mass, then in what sense can we say time is objective? I was trying to show that time is real but not objective because it varies according to context. We measure time by the sun or by nuclear action (atomic clocks, nuclear vibration). I guess the most fundamental question is "What is time?" Does it exist? Is it tangible and objective or immaterial and relative? I agree that the effects of time may be "tangible, objective, observable things" (though "tangible" is vastly debatable), its effects are not the thing itself. To me time is both a philosophical construct, a metaphysical way we interact with our environment, and a scientific way to measure relativity. But there's nothing about the metaphysical reality of time that is tangible or objective.

> It is just incredibly likely due to the fact that murder for fun has happened before all the time.

You've missed my point. I was not claiming that people never murdered a child for the fun of it, I was claiming that there is no culture where such things are considered to be right.

> I am saying that it fails at proving anything other than the fact that the universe has a beginning and that something triggered that beginning. Nowhere does it prove any sort of god.

I agree. The point of Kalam's argument is not to prove any sort of a god, but to prove that the universe had a causative mechanism outside of itself.

> So every explanation, including God, the Multiverse, etc. is all baseless speculation.

I don't agree that every explanation is baseless speculation. We have the ability to observe and to reason; some have more credibility than others, and some have some deposit of evidence to support them.

> It is not a different question. Christians aren't just claiming god exists. They are claiming that the Christian god exists.

We are not to this discussion yet. We just can't solve all the problems of the universe in one post. My first line of reasoning is that my faith is based in evidence and it's not fundamentally hypocritical. My second line of reasoning, though it's a long and involved one of which we have barely scraped the surface, is that theism is a reasonable option in our analysis of the evidence. But you have already jumped to your conclusion ("anyone who believes in god is a hypocrite because they haven't demanded evidence to support it" and "being a christian as you are makes it even worse and even more hypocritical"). It's tough to argue against presuppositional bias.

[Asker]

Time is a dimension, just like length, width, and height. The only difference is that we cannot move throughout time in any way other than forward at a set rate. There are plenty of scientific articles and theories that explain the nature of time. I am not going to teach you all of these things in a reddit post, look them up. It simply is not a source of controversy in the scientific community. What I can say is that just because something varies with context, does not mean that it is not objective. Gravity for example, is an objective and tangible thing. It does change force and its behavior depending on the mass of its source, but all of that conforms to laws and math. Time is no different.

Well clearly the people who did murder the children thought it was right. This alone shows that morality is not objective. Besides, of course the vast majority of people consider it wrong. Killing something that can survive and reproduce, prolonging our species, is irrational. Those that think it is okay to kill kids for fun simply wouldn't reproduce as much. Those that think it is wrong reproduce more. So naturally, the species would evolve to consider it wrong.

Sure, the universe may have had a causative mechanism outside of itself, we just don't know. I would say it most likely did. But the fact is we do not know. Even assuming it did, that does not point to god. So I don't really understand why you would bring it up?
I actually would agree with your statement that some are more likely than others. But I would contend that God is not one of the more likely explanations. There is no evidence that points to the plausibility that it is true.

Finally I will answer your last paragraph. If I am wrong, prove me wrong. Offer this evidence from which you base your claim? Of course you may start with the idea that any god exists and then move on to Christianity specifically. Just know that you haven't done either yet and will need to do both in order to prove me wrong.

[jimwalton]

My first evidence was a cosmological argument that everything that has a beginning was caused by something already in existence. It's both a philosophical and scientific argument based in evidence and logic (since you are implying that my faith isn't based in evidence and that it's contrary to science). You had refutations to it, the main one of which was we have to suspend conclusion for now. But we can at least also say that theism is no less reasonable a conclusion than many other alternatives.

I mentioned I have about 12 of these, so we can move to the next. It's an ontological argument, mildly based in science and evidence (it overlaps gently with the cosmological argument), but more an argument from reason.

1. If God (a supreme, supernatural divine being) does not exist, his existence is logically impossible. That doesn’t mean he can’t be made up in someone’s imagination (which is still possible even if he doesn’t exist); what it means is that if God doesn’t really exist, the very concept of God is inconsistent or self-contradictory. His existence doesn’t even make sense.

2. But if God does exist, then it’s necessary that He does. It cannot be otherwise if He is truly God and if He truly exists.

3. Therefore (first conclusion), God’s existence is either impossible (inconsistent and self-contradictory) or necessary. There’s no halfway position.

4. If God’s existence is logically impossible, then even the concept of God and everything we think about him is contradictory. We are trying to make a reality what is not only nonsensical, but impossible.

5. But the concept of God is not contradictory. There’s actually good sense to it in many ways, for example, that something caused what we see. While some may not agree, it’s assuredly not contradictory.

6. Therefore (second conclusion), if God’s existence isn’t contradictory (if that choice is removed from the equation), then the only reasonable choice left is that God is logically necessary.

God is either impossible or necessary. Since He’s not impossible, then He must be necessary, and therefore He exists.

This argument can't stand alone, but it's another in a battery of evidences, both logical and evidentiary, for theism.