Supporting Evidence vs Logical Proof

[ElCodeMonkey]

Many Christians claim to "know" that God/Christianity is real/correct rather than simply that they "believe" it. I am quite fine with people having beliefs about things without logic proving them. It is how we all operate out of necessity. But to claim knowledge and [often] to claim extreme damnation for being so "blind" to it, should require more than simple belief. There should be a logical progression of facts to prove it.

For example, hints can clue us into a cheating spouse: taking phone calls in another room, not sharing their phone, blank stares, eye rolling, distancing, no emotion, no hugging/kissing, etc, etc. When these all get added up, it tells a pretty good story that it is "likely" that your spouse is cheating on you. Still, however, one does not know for a fact and they should be cognizant of the fact that these things do not "prove" that their spouse is cheating. Proof would be pictures/video of sex, audio declarations, specific emails or texts, etc.

So, back to God, just seeing that the world is complex (as an example) is the supporting type of evidence. It proves nothing in and of itself. It's not an email from God. It simply supports an idea. It supports God just as much as an eye roll in and of itself supports the theory of a cheating spouse. By itself it means ultimately nothing since we can come up with another valid reason for it. Once you add enough of these ideas up, however, that it looks complex, that small differences throw it out of balance, that we have ancient documents and historical facts, and yadda yadda, it makes for a more "convincing" argument but still not a logical "proof".

With these things in mind, are there any "proofs" of God, or just supporting evidences? And if only supporting evidence, does the evidence necessitate your own God? Does it necessitate that the Bible is not half-corrupt? Could it be that such evidence makes many religions equally plausible? In short, just how sure can you really be? Do you have logical proof that leads undoubtedly to your conclusions or are there other potential ways to explain your evidences but you think one idea is simply more "likely" without actual logical proof? And if there is no logical proof, is damnation really all that fair for a loving God? Without proof, the only thing left is internal consistency with the beliefs. Sure, you can believe God made everything and that God is love, but is it logically consistent to believe God is also a self-centered war-mongering demon (for example)?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 1 by ElCodeMonkey]

I am entirely persuaded, in the same way as I am a 'believer', that there never has been, is not now, and never will be, an objective proof that God exists. I think it would be a worse world if an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God thrust Himself into our consciousness without our permission or desire, as would be the case if God were objectively proven to exist. And I think God wants the best world for us, because He loves us, including the option for the voluntarily reciprocated love necessary to enter the Christian communion.

But, for the faithful, there is more than enough subjective evidence. As some cleric (I can't remember who) once said, 'When I stop believing, coincidences stop happening'.

It's a viciously circular proposition; to know God, you must love Him; but to love Him, you must know Him. But the fact that an argument is circular does not necessarily entail that that argument is false.

Should you ever come to believe, you will find that God provides plenty of evidence. But if you never believe, you should not be too surprised if God respects your preference, and leaves you alone.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 11 by 2ndRateMind]

A very good and honest response. Thank you. I have actually believed in the past and saw all these same "coincidences". I actually wrote a book about it (see my sig). Science has a very good explanation for such coincidences making them far less likely (in my mind) to be God doing them. I agree with you, however, that it is logically consistent that an all-loving God would not impose himself upon us in an absolute and logical way that we could not possibly deny his existence. Given that, and our own ability to determine what a loving God would and would not do, I also think a loving God would never eternally damn people .

[2ndRateMind]

Given that, and our own ability to determine what a loving God would and would not do, I also think a loving God would never eternally damn people .

And I would whole-heartedly second that sentiment. Seems to me there is no mortal, and therefore time-limited, crime that justifies an eternity of torment.

Nevertheless, God being infinite justice, and infinite mercy, there needs be some righteous way to deal with the Hitlers, Stalins, and Pol Pots the world occasionally generates. What would be your solution, I wonder?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]

Precisely. I agree.

To be honest, I'm not sure punishment is ever particularly just except for as recompense to a victim (i.e. repaying stolen items) and as a deterrent to prevent future crimes. In the end, we all could have (and would have) become the Hitlers and Stalins if we we born with their genes and in their upbringing since that is indeed what makes a person who they are. So punishment for something like that is like punishing someone for being black. It's not a choice, per se. That said, that doesn't mean we simply let people off the hook, but the end goal should be that of reducing suffering as much as possible. So for the Hitlers, just poof 'em out of existence unless there's reason to believe punishment would prevent future Hitlers (fyi, it won't). Justice, in my opinion, is making right what went wrong. If someone stole something, paying it back is justice. If they murdered someone, justice is impossible, but the best possible outcome is either to fix the murderer so that they contribute a net good to the world or else blot them from existence to prevent future net negatives. Punishment just for punishment's sake is useless. In the end, we're all just products of what goes on around us and we're accountable only in such a way as the world would hold us accountable for the benefit of the majority. It benefits no one to simply torment another person no matter what they did. Tormentous retribution might make some people feel good temporarily, but I believe (with no real evidence at this time, I suppose) that it would ultimately be a negative. If someone killed my family, it would bring me no pleasure to watch them suffer. I hate all kinds of suffering and evil does not repay evil.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 11 by 2ndRateMind]

I think it would be a worse world if an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God thrust Himself into our consciousness without our permission or desire, as would be the case if God were objectively proven to exist.

Please explain the many Bible stories where God does just that, e.g. Moses and the burning bush.

Should you ever come to believe, you will find that God provides plenty of evidence. But if you never believe, you should not be too surprised if God respects your preference, and leaves you alone.

Is that how you think evidence works? Let's pretend right now that I don't believe that Elizabeth is the current Queen of Britain. Are (is?) evidence just going to respect my preference (or belief)? Am I going to see a different person wearing the crown? Whenever Elizabeth appears on TV, is evidence just going to change such that I see a different person with a different name?

Right now, I hate my biological father. Doesn't change the fact he's my biological father. Evidence points in that direction.

[ElCodeMonkey]

Should you ever come to believe, you will find that God provides plenty of evidence. But if you never believe, you should not be too surprised if God respects your preference, and leaves you alone.

Is that how you think evidence works? Let's pretend right now that I don't believe that Elizabeth is the current Queen of Britain. Are (is?) evidence just going to respect my preference (or belief)? Am I going to see a different person wearing the crown? Whenever Elizabeth appears on TV, is evidence just going to change such that I see a different person with a different name?

Right now, I hate my biological father. Doesn't change the fact he's my biological father. Evidence points in that direction.

I think you're over-simplifying the point. The idea is that the "coincidences" increase which are seen as evidence. It's not that "evidence" in general increases. Seeing such coincidences isn't necessarily evidence though. I mean, God could be doing it, and he could do it more for his followers, but it's quite likely a mere confirmation bias. Like how we see a lot more Chevy Sonics when we buy and drive a Chevy Sonic. Did God do it? Nah, just a coincidence! And when you're constantly on the lookout for and constantly asking God for favorable circumstances, you're a lot more likely to recognize and applaud favorable circumstances. Whether you believe or not, those circumstances may have happened anyway, but they now look like "evidence" of God's hand. I think the real "evidence" is in what he doesn't do, however. It's hard to say that God is providing coincidences of finding the right mate and getting into the right college, avoiding the poisoned spinache, etc, when there are so many people not receiving such coincidences and are dying of cancer, contracting painful diseases, dying in fires and tornadoes, etc, etc. In the end, it's pure confirmation bias rather than actual evidence. But that's the kind of evidence being remarked on here. If you believe Queen Elizabeth is a Lizard-Man ruler, you might also start seeing more "coincidences" of her policies that just so happen to benefit lizard people, etc. It's scientifically known as confirmation bias.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 16 by ElCodeMonkey]

Whether you believe or not, those circumstances may have happened anyway, but they now look like "evidence" of God's hand.

In which case, 2RM and I are talking past each other. He says "Should you ever come to believe, you will find that God provides plenty of evidence. But if you never believe, you should not be too surprised if God respects your preference, and leaves you alone."
Evidence, at least how I see evidence, exists independently of what one thinks about it. A DNA test exists, independently of whether one thinks it is legitimate or faked.
2RM didn't say that God would respect one's preference on how they view evidence, he said (as far as I was able to gather from what he said) that the actual evidence itself would be different.
Besides, his own Bible disagrees with him. What was Saul of Tarsus if not an opponent of Christianity (at least as far as Saul said), before Christ appeared to him in a vision? Was Christ, or God, "respecting his preference"? There are so many times in the Bible where the God character does NOT respect a human's preference that it boggles my mind as to why a Christian would claim this.

[Mithrae]

If you believe Queen Elizabeth is a Lizard-Man ruler, you might also start seeing more "coincidences" of her policies that just so happen to benefit lizard people, etc.

Damn those scaled monsters! And they're so blatant about it too - as if we're too dumb to notice their queen Lizzie!

Evidence, at least how I see evidence, exists independently of what one thinks about it. A DNA test exists, independently of whether one thinks it is legitimate or faked.

Some would say that millions of Christians disappearing from their homes and 'Jesus' appearing in the clouds with a heavenly host would be exactly that kind of independent evidence and yet a number of folk on the forum, including you, have insisted that it would be better understood as evidence of an alien invasion.

Presumably, Moses and Saul of Tarsus could have chosen to believe they were being tricked by djinni or demons, or their own minds for that matter.

[ttruscott]

Given that, and our own ability to determine what a loving God would and would not do, I also think a loving God would never eternally damn people .

And I would whole-heartedly second that sentiment. Seems to me there is no mortal, and therefore time-limited, crime that justifies an eternity of torment.

Seems to me that the following IFs are indeed all within Christian doctrinal boundaries...

IF we were created as eternally self and other aware spirits and
IF we were all created with a free will and
IF there is an unforgivable sin, a sin that puts the person outside of all grace and
IF some of HIS creation chose to sin the unforgivable sin and
IF it is true that a little leaven, ie sin, leavens, ie corrupts, the whole lump, ie person / community, then
IF the only way to protect HIS Church and heavenly Family from these eternally evil people was to banish them from HIS heavenly reality,
THEN banishment to hell is an absolute necessity to keep the eternally evil ones from corrupting HIS heaven.

As for the idea of sin as a finite, ie, time-limited, experience and guilt, this idea denies the doctrine that choosing sin changes our natures to BE sinful which interferes with every decision we make to some extent or another. It is like a computer infested with a virus which it can't detect on its own and so all its decisions are accepted as correct and proper to its programming - it has no way to detect the fault nor to act against it. In the same way, only outside help can save a person infected by evil as evil interferes with their ability to perceive evil and to repudiate it so as to be re-united with GOD.

Those who repudiated YHWH's offer of a heavenly marriage did so without proof but on the faith, their unproven hope, that HE was lying, a false god and a liar with no power over heaven or hell. PCE theology contends that they knew that if YHWH was ever proved HE was indeed our Creator GOD that they were doomed to hell if they should ever commit to this position, but so sure were they in their hatred of ever bowing to HIM that they chose to reject HIM, scorning the method of the sinful elect to first be free from any chance of hell by accepting HIM as their GOD and putting their faith in HIS Son as their saviour for sin AND ONLY THEN, WHEN SAFE from hell did they rebel and go their own way.

Their inability to change themselves and their eternal rejection of HIS help to bring them out of their addictive enslavement to evil by their free will made them incurably evil, unable to ever repent which made them unable to ever fulfill HIS purpose for them to be HIS bride, fit only to be banished from HIS reality so that HIS heavenly marriage would not be contaminated by their evil.

Their evil is eternal, not temporal because 1. they cannot change themselves and become holy and if they could, 2. the marriage proposal was to those who wanted to be married to HIM by a free will choice, not to those who were willing to marry HIM only if the alternative, hell, was proved to them AND

3. because they chose by their free will knowing that this meant that YHWH would never interfere with their decision because if a free will decison was not sacrosanct then there was not any true free will at all.

[ttruscott]

What was Saul of Tarsus if not an opponent of Christianity (at least as far as Saul said), before Christ appeared to him in a vision? Was Christ, or God, "respecting his preference"? There are so many times in the Bible where the God character does NOT respect a human's preference that it boggles my mind as to why a Christian would claim this.

It is the contention of PCE theology that GOD doesn't change our true free will decisions in any way. But HE is quite willing to interfere with the evil decisions of a sinner who has no free will due to their addictive enslavement to evil.

Since before they chose to be evil in HIS sight, the sinful elect chose by their free will to accept HIM as their GOD and to come under HIS promise of salvation as found in HIS Son the Christ, then after they indeed become evil and lost their free will, HE was able to bring them back to their first faith in HIM and the Savior and so be redeemed by HIS gift of faith.

Since the eternally evil reprobate never put their faith in HIM but accused HIM of being a false god and a liar motivated by evil purposes, they put themselves outside of HIS grace and loving mercy for ever, and became eternally condemned.

Since only sinners are born on earth, HE does not break any free will decision of anyone in their earthly life as no sinner has a will free from evil on earth, until they are reborn. HE disrupts our evil decisions, not our true free will decisions.