On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:45:35 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> The "burning bush" that Moses saw could have been anything - it
>> could've been something red and glowing that, I don't know, aliens used
>> as a communications device.
> 
> It could've been only in his own mind, indeed.  His very personal
> experience of the divine.  Still, it has led us today where we are. 
> Believers or non-believers all drawn into the same whirlwind of events
> chained by the Jewish Christian sect being adopted and spread by the
> Roman Empire and decidedly influencing the course of human history...
> 
>> Personally, I don't believe any of it, but can I (or anyone) prove it
>> didn't happen?  Not really, no.
> 
> see?  In the end, it's all a matter of faith, either believing or not.

No, actually, because my belief (or lack thereof) is subject to change 
based on more evidence becoming available.  Assuming you believe in it, 
is your belief subject to change due to a lack of verifiable evidence, or 
due to evidence that it couldn't have happened?

I find that *most* religious people (not all, certainly) have faith that 
is unshakable regardless of what facts are presented.

>> I don't know that even those theists you point to in history would
>> really have that - many/most seem to have taken the approach "God must
>> have meant for this to happen" as a way of working around the bad that
>> happens in the world (and that happened to them).
> 
> The bad that happens in the world is a fact of physical existence, just
> as the good.  So, of course it's all part of God's plan, which we
> witness in very tiny pieces and doesn't make any sense at all.

That's one possible view based on a faith-based approach to life.  To 
those who don't have faith like that, it's because people have free will 
and do what they want, and some do good things, and some do bad.  There 
doesn't have to be a reason for any of it, it just is.

>> I do know some
>> atheists whose list consists of things like "God can do something
>> that's impossible" - and with that, there's a certain degree of faith
>> that that will never happen - and it's that faith in the impossible not
>> happening that provides them with the comfort of their beliefs.
> 
> of course, that faith is always broken whenever a new physical law is
> discovered.

And frequently the reaction of "the faithful" is strongly negative 
against those who demonstrate that their faith is ill-placed.  Look, for 
example, and what Galileo endured for pointing out that the earth 
revolves around the sun (ie, the heliocentric view of the solar system).

It took hundreds of years for the Catholic Church to admit to its mistake.

>> God:  I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
>> without faith, I am nothing.
>> Man:  But the babel fish is a dead giveaway, it proves you exist, and
>> so therefore you don't.  Q.E.D.
>> God:  Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that. (vanishes in a puff of logic)
> 
> I love the HHGT books too!

I'm more a fan of the radio series (all 5 of them now), but the books are 
outstanding as well IMHO.  But I prefer the radio series because it 
really cuts the imagination loose.

> But sure, the babel fish here is the instant translator fish that lives
> in your brain, a very unlikely and useful creature.  Thus, I wouldn't
> call it exactly "scientifically proven", more like "fictionally proven".
>  Still, this is such a big universe that anything is possible,  :)

The underlying point of the dialogue, though, is that something that 
improbable (whether it be the babel fish, life on Earth, or anything that 
could be considered 'miraculous' by a large enough group of people to 
matter) provides that kind of "proof" of the existence of God.

It's a paradox unto itself, because anything that proves that faith is 
well-founded removes the need for faith.  If God exists purely because 
"we" believe he does (and some have argued that point over the years), 
then proof is unachievable because it would cause the need for God to 
exist to vanish.

Just like the Roman & Greek gods & goddesses.  Apollo doesn't exist in 
modern times as a god (but rather as a mythological figure) because his 
role in his heyday was to drag the sun across the sky in his chariot.  We 
know what causes that now, so Apollo is no longer necessary to sustain 
our "understanding" of what makes that part of the universe work.

That's what I think Adams was getting at in that hypothetical/fictional 
discussion between man and God.  Deities are there so we can understand 
those things which we have no basis for understanding.

The more modern use for God in this way is to explain things to children 
- for example, Thunder is God bowling.  That's easier for a child to 
understand than "rapid expansion of air caused by the supersonic speed of 
lightning moving through the atmosphere".  That analogy isn't used as 
much today (I don't think) as it was 50 years ago, but the principle is 
"you can't understand it now, so we'll use God to explain it".

>> Put another way, if there's
>> evidence, you don't need faith.
> 
> if you saw God opening the river in two, yes, you wouldn't need faith:
> you are then a direct witness, like there were many in those early days
> of the covenant.

What evidence is there today, though, that the parting of the red sea 
really happened - and that that event was caused by the hand of God, as 
opposed to a geologic event?

Jim

Post a reply to this message