Faith and not proof

[Menotu]

Thoughts on why God doesn't provide any proof of his realness/existence, instead relying on faith?

Surely, this all grand being, that created everything that is (even the things we don't know about which requires faith to believe) can provide proof* that everyone can see and accept that he's real.
Yet this hasn't happened. Instead, he dangles ambiguous tidbits in front of some, tells others to witness and spread the word, and requires faith (sometimes enormous leaps of faith) to accept him
Why is that?

* That's testable, verifiable by scientific mean and readily available to everyone

[Clownboat]

When it gets right down to it, it isn't really about evidence or a lack of it,

Actually, it really is.

it's about sin,

This is false due to sin being a made up religious concept. It is the sickness that the religions claims we all have. You must believe you are sick afterall before you will buy the medicine. That is why sin was imagined (not observed).

that is, whether we recognize we have sins or not and whether we recognize that only Jesus can do anything about it when we do acknowledge that truth.

Bam! Thank you for identifying the medicine being offered by your religion for the made up sickness that is sin.

Consider this:

"The fool says in his heart, there is no God" (Psalm 14:1).

If a fool can figure it out, what is your excuse?

"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19).

If this is relevant for you (it is not for me) then you should do some self reflection. Do you really love darkness and evil? What a terrible thing to impugn on to your fellow humans. Is there a limit to the amount of evil required in order to justify religious beliefs? Obviously condemning all humans as evil is on the table. Perhaps you do love darkness and evil, but I suspect you don't (like me). If you do though, it is not fair to project this on to the rest of humanity.

And, as I have stated elsewhere, the Christian faith is evidence-based, not blind.

What? The Christian religion is faith based, not evidence based. Not sure what you mean here.

[bjs]

Surely, this all grand being, that created everything that is (even the things we don't know about which requires faith to believe) can provide proof* that everyone can see and accept that he's real.

--

* That's testable, verifiable by scientific mean and readily available to everyone

You mean like:

The physical world exist (cosmological argument)
The physical world is ordered instead of chaotic (teleological argument)
Universal constants a set specifically to allow life (fine tuning argument)

This truths are each testable, verifiable by scientific means and readily available to everyone.

If these are insufficient “proof� then I would ask if you could give an example some “proof� that you believe would be testable, verifiable by scientific means and readily available to everyone.

[bluegreenearth]

Surely, this all grand being, that created everything that is (even the things we don't know about which requires faith to believe) can provide proof* that everyone can see and accept that he's real.

--

* That's testable, verifiable by scientific mean and readily available to everyone

You mean like:

The physical world exist (cosmological argument)
The physical world is ordered instead of chaotic (teleological argument)
Universal constants a set specifically to allow life (fine tuning argument)

This truths are each testable, verifiable by scientific means and readily available to everyone.

If these are insufficient “proof� then I would ask if you could give an example some “proof� that you believe would be testable, verifiable by scientific means and readily available to everyone.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
Premise 1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2) The universe began to exist.
Premise 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Premise 4) God is the best explanation for this cause.
Conclusion) Therefore, God exists.

The reason many apologists rely upon an argument like this is because it artificially satisfies a very common psychological need for cognitive closure. In general, people are discomforted by confusion and ambiguity. The desire to have an answer to a profound question often motivates people to accept any explanation as long as it muffles their uncertainty. The propensity to be satisfied with an immediate answer over the acceptance of no answer is a form of cognitive bias we all share. To complicate things further, humans also have an evolved tendency to perceive agency where none may actually exist. The cumulative effect of these biases amounts to stacking the deck in favor of the easily digestible proposition which concludes the universe was created by a creator. So, even before we examine the first premise, the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God is already suspicious.

Interestingly, the method for concluding the existence of God in this argument is tied to a cosmological mystery, the metaphysics of causality, and the notion that our universe has a finite age. Because universes don’t seem to pop into existence for no reason, then the reasonable conclusion must be that our universe had a cause. The proposition is not necessarily controversial. The scientists who investigate the properties of the universe acknowledge something caused the quantum material making up the singularity at hour zero to suddenly expand and subsequently evolve to become the observable universe. What makes this particular theistic argument controversial is the audacity required to assert such a cause can be known through reasoning alone. Nevertheless, we shall proceed to examine this particular theistic proposition for any fallacious logic or misleading language.

In premise 1, the phrase “begins to exist� is strategically chosen to invoke the mental image of something being created. For instance, a chair began to exist after it was assembled by a person. However, what actually happened was the chair was constructed from previously existing and naturally occurring materials which were then rearranged in a specific way. The specifically rearranged structure was assigned “chair� as its label. Everything humans observe in the entire universe exists as a rearrangement of pre-existing natural materials regardless of whether they were assembled by humans or through natural processes. The distinction is important because the Kalam cosmological argument intends for “begins to exist� to actually mean the creation of raw material from absolute nothingness despite the fact that such a phenomenon has no observable precedent.

While it may be intuitive to view the universe as resulting from a long causality chain, theists are drawing a conclusion about existence which has never been observed. For the argument to be taken seriously, apologist must first produce a comprehensive list of material things which were observed to have begun their existence from absolutely no pre-existing substances. From there, we would have a baseline by which to compare and thereby infer a possible cause.
In other words, until we observe something cause a material substance to begin to exist from absolutely nothing, we can’t simply assert such a thing is possible let alone serve as the cause for everything in the universe. Even if a God was indisputably observable, we couldn’t know such a deity was responsible for creating the universe without first observing that it was possible for God to produce a material substance from absolutely nothing.
Sure, it might be tempting to point out that God is defined as having the ability to create something from nothing. Unfortunately, though, we can’t just arbitrarily define God into existence without the tactic being immediately identified and rejected as logically fallacious. Nevertheless, the Kalam cosmological argument mischievously asserts God is the best explanation anyway.

Apologists respond by claiming the cause of the universe must exist beyond space and time because all space-time began with the universe. From there, they deduce the cause must either be an abstract object or intelligent mind since no other things could exist outside space-time. Apart from the fact that abstract objects don’t exist anywhere outside a thinking brain much less outside space and time, they can’t be the cause of anything. Apologists capitalize on that fact to insist the only possible option is for the universe to have been created by a transcendent intelligent mind. Of course, they conveniently ignore the fact that an intelligent mind has never been demonstrated to exist apart from a physical brain. Likewise, they fail to demonstrate how a disembodied mind is any more capable of being a cause than an abstract object. Last time I checked, there has never been a validated circumstance where a sentient being was able to cause something to happen in the external world by just thinking about it. The entire concept is therefore incoherent.

In any case, the whole argument is a non-sequitur because the potential existence of a space-time boundary for the universe does not require “nothing� to precede it. Our current inability to measure or understand the state of the universe prior to the Big Bang does not automatically validate an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal being with unfathomable power as the only alternative explanation. It basically doesn’t follow that a supernatural intelligence was necessary. So, let’s rewrite the argument for what it is:

Premise 1) Science can’t yet explain why there is something rather than nothing.
Conclusion) Therefore, God did it.

So, when the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God is reduced to its logical foundation, it is revealed to be nothing more than a God of the gaps fallacy. It makes no verifiable predictions. It confuses the meaning of the expression “begins to exist.� It deliberately equates “creation from something� with “creation from nothing.� It pretends to know what preceded the Big Bang. It falsely assumes time is unidirectional. It builds a false dichotomy between abstract objects and disembodied minds. It contradicts itself by first asserting nothing existed prior to the formation of the universe then concludes God (a something) existed prior to the formation of the universe. Even if we irresponsibly accepted the fallacious argument, we are still no closer to understanding how the universe was created, what being or beings were responsible, or what functional impact it could have on any decisions we could make in the reality we all experience.

The Teological Argument (a.k.a. The Fine Tuning Argument):
Premise 1) The fine tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
Premise 2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
Premise 3) Therefore, it is due to design.
Premise 4) That designer is God.
Conclusion) Therefore, God exists.

The argument is proposing to solve an unlikely phenomenon known as Cosmic Fine Tuning. Basically, the physical laws of the universe indicate their values must be within extraordinarily precise tolerances or life would not be possible in the universe. Therefore, it comes as no surprise when theists apply confirmation bias to this observation and immediately jump to conclude the “fine tuning� of physical constants proves the universe must have been designed by their specific God. Even if we offer no contention to the entire Teleological argument, what predictive power does it offer us? What experimental measurements confirm the proposition is true in the external reality we all experience? How does knowing a divine cosmic designer was responsible for creating the universe help us make decisions which have empirical consequences? The lack of answers to those questions exposes the Teleological argument to be nothing more than a biased framework for concluding God exists without demonstrating the existence of God.

Premise 1 of the Teleological argument for the existence of God fallaciously presents a false trichotomy. How was it concluded that fine tuning was only explainable by one of three philosophically exclusive options? The concept of “physical necessity� proposes the physical constants could not possibly have any other values. As such, there is nothing to fine tune because no other options are available to choose from. Then there is the concept of “chance� where the values of physical constants are purely random variables, but our universe just happened to acquire the life permitting values. The possibility is not all that unlikely because we observe favorable results from random chances in nature relatively frequently. For example, because our galaxy is estimated to contain more than 300 billion stars, it should be no surprise that at least one of those solar systems contains a planet in the habitable zone. Do apologists find it at all compelling that we routinely observe examples of unlikely events occurring by chance and physical necessity in nature but never any observations of God let alone God designing anything?

The notion is that an omniscient and omnipotent being had the capacity to create the universe on an arbitrary whim but was somehow restricted to fine tune the physical laws in order for life to emerge. Even if God can only do what is logically possible, how does this theistic proposition not describe a paradox? Furthermore, the best this God could construct was a universe which is mostly inhospitable to life. To illustrate the absurdity of this idea, imagine a brewery generating a thousand tons of waste each day to produce one molecule of beer per century. According to logic of the argument, the observable properties of the universe implicate its creator to be embarrassingly incompetent and weak.

When the scientific experts refer to fine tuning, they don’t highlight life as the only beneficiary of the physical constants. Everything in the observable universe depends upon those precise conditions in order to exist. Stars, galaxies, planets, black holes, and the nuclei of atoms would not be possible had the physical laws been slightly different. The phrase could just as easily have been, “finely tuned for black holes.� In fact, the premises of the Teleological argument are more supportive of black holes as the objects for which the universe was created rather than life. Indeed, the time and energy required for the construction of a black hole far exceeds that which is necessary for the development of a self-replicating organic molecule.

Another inconvenience for apologists is the fact that the experts are discovering the physical constants are not so finely tuned after all. The electroweak force, for instance, used to be considered finely tuned because slight deviations in its value would prohibit the fusion of heavy elements in stars. The false assumption is that the electroweak force is the only one adjustable at a given time. If other variables simultaneously adjust accordingly, it is entirely possible for the universe to function without a weak nuclear force.

Anyway, there is no practical purpose in proceeding further with the Teleological argument because it can be rewritten to mirror the apologists’ intended logic:

Premise 1) Either cosmic fine-tuning was designed by the God from classical monotheism or it was not.
Premise 2) Theistic dogma supersedes any possibility that a naturalistic explanation accounting for fine-tuning will ever be discovered.
Conclusion) Therefore, God designed the universe and theists are exempted from the burden of proof.

Obviously, in addition its reliance upon fallacious logic, the argument makes no predictions we can test. It makes ridiculous assumptions. It fallaciously asserts a false trichotomy. It fails to prove a negative. It disregards the fact that finely tuned parameters are found in nature with no need of a supernatural designer. It limits the power of the omnipotent deity it asserts. It rejects alternative theories for the same flaws inherent to its own premises. Finally, the argument depends on psychological tools of manipulation which appeal to the human desire for cognitive closure in the same manner as the Kalam cosmological argument.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 5 by 1213]

I think the existence of this world and the Bible are proof for God. But I understand it is not enough for atheists.

That should not be enough for anyone. It's like saying the existence of gold is proof of the existence of leprechauns.

The reason why I believe God doesn’t offer something more is that it would not make any good difference.

A genuine God would have no trouble providing evidence that did not fail to make a difference. The absence of such evidence is consistent with the absence of such a God.

I believe those who reject God, reject Him because they don’t like Him. It has really nothing to do with proofs.

How do you dislike or reject something that you do not believe actually exists? It really does have everything to do with evidence (not proof by the way).

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 12 by bjs]

Universal constants a[re] set specifically to allow life (fine tuning argument)

We don't know that the constants were actually 'set' in any way. There may be many other universes with completely different constants. Life arose in this one because it could. No God necessary.

[Mithrae]

Thoughts on why God doesn't provide any proof of his realness/existence, instead relying on faith?

The simplest and most obvious answer would be that, if he exists, he doesn't particularly care whether or not humans 'believe' in him. There are some stories in the Book which seem compatible with that conclusion.

• Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
  
  Matthew 25:44 They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
  45 He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

[1213]

…RESPONSE: Do you really believe everything you read in the Bible?

Yes, I don’t know anything in the Bible that I would have reason not to believe.

What about Jesus being born twice, once in King Herod's reign (died in 4 B.C.) see Matthew's gospel, and was born a second time during the 6 AD Judean census, read Luke's gospel. Thus Jesus 1 and Jesus 2 have at least a ten year age difference.

Please give the scriptures that tell so. I don’t think Bible says 4 B.C., or 6 AD, those numbers come from somewhere else, apparently from someone’s imagination.

[1213]

…How do you dislike or reject something that you do not believe actually exists?

For example, Jesus says in the Bible that we should love others. I like that and want to do so, because I think it is good. And that is so, even if Jesus would not exist. However, I don’t believe Bible would exist, if Jesus is not real. Those teachings would have been destroyed, and I think there is no way people would come up to those teachings without God. One reason why I think so is that atheists don’t understand Bible and when they try to show it wrong, they fail miserably. If the book would be just from humans, atheists would not have any problem to show mistake in it.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 18 by 1213]

For example, Jesus says in the Bible that we should love others. I like that and want to do so, because I think it is good. And that is so, even if Jesus would not exist. However, I don’t believe Bible would exist, if Jesus is not real.

We don't need Jesus to tell us that we should love others. Even if the Bible did not exist, the notion that it is good to love others would still be there. I find it hard to get my head around the need for some sort of instructional manual to tell us how to be good people. The Bible could really be reduced to one page that simply says "Every day try not to be a ****".

[otseng]

The Bible could really be reduced to one page that simply says "Every day try not to be a ****".

Moderator Comment

Profanity and obscenity of any sort are not allowed (this includes words that are abbreviated or coded).

I will note however that your question is a good one. I started a thread here:
viewtopic.php?p=1002090#1002090

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.