New book about the scientific evidence for God that's getting a lot of buzz

2,388 Views | 39 Replies | Last: 15 days ago by kurt vonnegut
KingofHazor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:16p, 10/14/25
Its title is "God, the Science, the Evidence" and it's by two French authors.

Here's one review: Is God real? This bestseller says yes and that science can prove it, too | The Standard

And another from The Times: Does God exist? Modern science shows he must, bestseller argues

Amazon listing: God, the Science, the Evidence - Kindle edition by Bollore, Michel-Yves, Bonnassies, Olivier. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.
Reply Quote
Mr. Thunderclap McGirthy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:34p, 10/14/25
AG
"so much straw"
In Hoc Signo Vinces
Reply Quote
1
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:08p, 10/14/25
AG
The description makes it sound like yet another repackaging of the same old arguments that have been discussed countless times in the past including on this forum. They even threw in an attempt to link rejection of creationism to Stalinism, so that's fun. And it looks to be supported by "the French Rupert Murdoch"! I'm willing to bet that there's already dozens of books out there making the same points but in a clearer and more entertaining manner.

Would be interesting to see a new and novel argument pop up. But this isn't it.
Reply Quote
2
KingofHazor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 3:42p, 10/14/25
Rocag said:
Would be interesting to see a new and novel argument pop up. But this isn't it.

Ahh, I didn't know it was available in an English translation yet. Which language is your copy? Can you summarize the key arguments for us?
Reply Quote
2
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KingofHazor • 3:54p, 10/14/25
AG
Did you bother to read any of the articles you posted? They outline the major points. Though I am curious if you haven't read the book and didn't bother to read the articles about it, why exactly are you posting this is the first place?

Anyhow, the articles list the same old arguments like "What caused the Big Bang?" and "How did DNA form?" and other various fine-tuning arguments. All things we've discussed over and over again on this forum.

Now perhaps there is a new argument to be found in this book that none of the articles saw fit to mention. Seems like an odd choice to make. But go ahead and let us know what this mysterious new argument is just as soon as you finish up your copy.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
KingofHazor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 4:06p, 10/14/25
The great fear of every atheist, "God is real."
Reply Quote
12
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KingofHazor • 4:45p, 10/14/25
AG
KingofHazor said:
The great fear of every atheist, "God is real."

LOL. Come on man, you've got to try a little harder than that weak sauce response.

The funny part is that I and many atheists/agnostics like me would love it if some form of deity were real. Existence after death? Sounds good to me. Getting to see my friends and loved ones who have died again? Great! Knowing that there might be some punishment waiting for the worst examples of humanity? Awesome.

But in the end I just don't see any good reason to think it's true. And that actually matters to me.
Reply Quote
7
KingofHazor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 6:30p, 10/14/25
C'mon man, yourself. Your response to my OP deserves derision. You haven't read the book but that didn't prevent you from making dismissive snarky comments. That's eyeroll level intellectual dishonesty. That's saying "I know what I know, and nothing you say can ever possibly change my mind." And I thought that we Christians were the ones with closed minds, lol.

Finally, riddle me this. If it's a fact that the book says nothing new, then why did the mighty Times deign to give it any attention?
Reply Quote
4
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KingofHazor • 8:15p, 10/14/25
AG
It's not intellectual dishonest or closed minded to say once you've discussed in length any specific argument literally dozens of times that unless there's some new information presented you're probably not going to change your mind with one more go around. So I ask, what is the new information or new argument? From the articles, none seems evident.

And am I supposed to be awed by the reputation of the News Corp owned Times? Because I'm not.
Reply Quote
4
FIDO95
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:05a, 10/15/25
AG


The truth has always been there. What science has done in many ways is to continue to provide more layers proof for those capable of understanding.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
2
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:28a, 10/15/25
Science, by its own admission, can never arrive at truth. It's a field of probabilities and estimations. It is ever evolving based on new hypotheses and conclusions. So how could it prove God?

I would venture to say that even a field that can arrive at truth, like philosophy, can't prove God. It's circular in nature that has axioms. God is outside of that.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
FIDO95
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 9:17a, 10/15/25
AG
Science can only measure what is physical in nature as it measures what is observable. What is metaphysical by definition falls outside that field of study. Nonetheless, what we know about the physical world is that nothing can come from nothing. Some metaphysical force had to be applied to being and support that process (much better articulated in the video I posted above). This truth was observed all the way back to Aristotle. As we learn more about science, we have a better understanding that something has to exist outside of what can physically be measured. A "thing" that is pure being, pure action. The I am, I am.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FIDO95 • 9:21a, 10/15/25
Quote:
Nonetheless, what we know about the physical world is that nothing can come from nothing.

This is axiomatic. In fact, the fundamentals of science - that what we have observed in the past will hold true in the future - is axiomatic. Atheist Bertrand Russell admitted this.

This brings us back to the question: Have we any reason, assuming that they have always held in the past, to suppose that they will hold in the future? It has been argued that we have reason to know that the future will resemble the past, because what was the future has constantly become the past, and has always been found to resemble the past, so that we really have experience of the future, namely of times which were formerly future, which we may call past futures. But such an argument really begs the very question at issue. We have experience of past futures, but not of future futures, and the question is: Will future futures resemble past futures? This question is not to be answered by an argument, which starts from past futures alone. We have therefore still to seek for some principle which shall enable us to know that the future will follow the same laws as the past.
-The Problems of Philosophy, Ch. 6 On Induction
https://dn710107.ca.archive.org/0/items/problemsofphilo00russuoft/problemsofphilo00russuoft.pdf
Reply Quote
2 edits
KingofHazor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:48a, 10/15/25
Most of what we know to be true cannot be established by science. Examples include:

  • Reality exists
  • the laws of nature are uniform
  • logic is valid
  • Mathematics and arithmetic
  • Cause and effect
  • Other minds exist
  • Consciousness exists
  • Free will exists
  • That the past exists
  • Any moral truth (e.g., that killing the innocent is wrong)
  • Beauty exists
  • Human life has meaning and purpose
  • Justice is better than injustice
  • It's OK for a male animal to kill young sired by another male, but it's wrong for humans to do so.
  • Nature is survival of the fittest, but if humans do that, it's wrong and a crime
Reply Quote
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KingofHazor • 9:57a, 10/15/25
KingofHazor said:
Most of what we know to be true cannot be established by science. Examples include:

  • Reality exists
  • the laws of nature are uniform
  • logic is valid
  • Mathematics and arithmetic
  • Cause and effect
  • Other minds exist
  • Consciousness exists
  • Free will exists
  • That the past exists
  • Any moral truth (e.g., that killing the innocent is wrong)
  • Beauty exists
  • Human life has meaning and purpose
  • Justice is better than injustice
  • It's OK for a male animal to kill young sired by another male, but it's wrong for humans to do so.
  • Nature is survival of the fittest, but if humans do that, it's wrong and a crime

  • God
Reply Quote
1
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:32a, 10/15/25
AG
Quote:
Nonetheless, what we know about the physical world is that nothing can come from nothing.

I don't know that we make that statement with any confidence at all. It depends on what you mean when you say "nothing". We know there's actually lots of interesting stuff going on within vacuums which has been the subject of quite a bit of recent research. But if you mean a complete absence of matter, space, or time I don't see how we can say anything about such a state at all. Under what conditions could we ever observe such a thing?
Reply Quote
2
KingofHazor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 11:38a, 10/15/25
Rocag said:
Quote:
But if you mean a complete absence of matter, space, or time I don't see how we can say anything about such a state at all. Under what conditions could we ever observe such a thing?


Precisely.
Reply Quote
DarkBrandon01
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FIDO95 • 12:38p, 10/15/25
AG
FIDO95 said:
Nonetheless, what we know about the physical world is that nothing can come from nothing. .


All theories of existence must accept something from nothing. The atheist must accept that the big bang comes from nothing. The theist must accept that god comes from nothing, even for an eternal and uncreated god. If god were to come from something, god wouldn't be god. Therefore, god must come from nothing.

Reply Quote
1
FIDO95
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DarkBrandon01 • 1:29p, 10/15/25
AG
I disagree. "Nothing can not come from nothing" relates to the physical world. God is metaphysical in nature and as such can not be limited or defined by a physical measurement, observation, or process. That would be akin to trying to define a volume of liquid with a yard stick. It's the wrong tool for the wrong substance. Science can only demonstrate to us that something exists outside of our observable world but it can't define what that is.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, God is the "I am, I am". He didn't and/or doesn't have to "come from nothing". It is something that always has been and always will be. The inability to accept and/or distinguish this metaphysical existence is the greatest roadblock into accepting the reality of God.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
3
KingofHazor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FIDO95 • 2:35p, 10/15/25
FIDO95 said:
I disagree. "Nothing can not come from nothing" relates to the physical world. God is metaphysical in nature and as such can not be limited or defined by a physical measurement, observation, or process. That would be akin to trying to define a volume of liquid with a yard stick. It's the wrong tool for the wrong substance. Science can only demonstrate to us that something exists outside of our observable world but it can't define what that is.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, God is the "I am, I am". He didn't and/or doesn't have to "come from nothing". It is something that always has been and always will be. The inability to accept and/or distinguish this metaphysical existence is the greatest roadblock into accepting the reality of God.

Extremely well put.
Reply Quote
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FIDO95 • 10:39a, 10/16/25
AG
FIDO95 said:
I disagree. "Nothing can not come from nothing" relates to the physical world. God is metaphysical in nature and as such can not be limited or defined by a physical measurement, observation, or process. That would be akin to trying to define a volume of liquid with a yard stick. It's the wrong tool for the wrong substance. Science can only demonstrate to us that something exists outside of our observable world but it can't define what that is.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, God is the "I am, I am". He didn't and/or doesn't have to "come from nothing". It is something that always has been and always will be. The inability to accept and/or distinguish this metaphysical existence is the greatest roadblock into accepting the reality of God.


The problem with this is that the proposed tool for verifying that God exists, comes from nothing, and has all of the proposed qualities is simply subjective. You know God is real because of your experience. Someone else knows Krishna is real because of their experience. There is no resolution to this discrepancy outside of discarding everyone else's subjective experience out of hand because it does not confirm your own.

If I've misunderstood what is the correct tool for understanding God, let me know.

Our current scientific understandings do not answer questions about our existence. And maybe they never will. And maybe they simply can't. But, there is an honesty involved in that admission. And there is honesty in Bertrand Russell's admission that scientific and logical presuppositions cannot be fully substantiated. And there is an arrogance in the religious creation of an infinite and unknowable God and the subsequent claiming to have God-like knowledge of the TRUTH of this infinite. Maybe you are wrong. The inability of the religious to admit the possibility of their own fallibility on this question is all I need to apply maximum skepticism toward the religious claims.

The proposition that God is not subject to the rules of causation is 100% unsubstantiated. The proposition that material existence must the result of the immaterial and metaphysical is 100% unsubstantiated. And the characteristics of God as this 'outside of time', 'immaterial consciousness', 'spaceless', and 'causeless' are worse than unsubstantiated - they cannot even be understood. Rather than propose some understanding for how God can be any of these things, we are lazily told they are self evident.

As always - religion finds a mystery of size x and shape y and invents a solution of size x and shape y and says 'look how good it fits'. Religious apologetics in this matter amount to: First, assume there is a supernatural, timeless, spaceless, all powerful, causeless, Creator God. Therefore, a supernatural, timeless, spaceless, all powerful, causeless, Creator God must exist. Checkmate, atheists, right?


As for the OP and the book. I haven't read the book. I am disinclined to spend hours reading 580 pages of re-packaged arguments unless there is something new in there. Similarly, If I were to post a link to articles on the latest Daniel Dennett book, why should I expect a believer to care unless I could offer reasons beyond opinion articles with clickbait titles?
Reply Quote
4
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 10:47a, 10/16/25
How can you know anything you just wrote is true if the only thing you know is all propositions are fallible? Even that "truth" implodes on itself.

Quote:
Religious apologetics in this matter amount to: First, assume there is a supernatural, timeless, spaceless, all powerful, causeless, Creator God. Therefore, a supernatural, timeless, spaceless, all powerful, causeless, Creator God must exist.

More, first, assume there is a supernatural, timeless, spaceless, all powerful, causeless, Creator God. Because the alternative is chaos where even human language breaks down (which we're witnessing today with deconstructionism).
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 11:27a, 10/16/25
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:
How can you know anything you just wrote is true if the only thing you know is all propositions are fallible? Even that "truth" implodes on itself.


I'm not the one claiming to know the mind of an infinite super being.
Reply Quote
1
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 12:58p, 10/16/25
I'm assuming you're trying to convince me of something. That's not possible if truth can't exist outside of your own mind. Even then, it's an immaterial "thing". How's that possible?
Reply Quote
1
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 3:03p, 10/16/25
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:
I'm assuming you're trying to convince me of something. That's not possible if truth can't exist outside of your own mind. Even then, it's an immaterial "thing". How's that possible?


My post wasn't specifically a response to you. However, part of my post is a general criticism of those convinced that they cannot be wrong. I don't know if this applies to you. And I'm not saying truth doesn't exist. I am saying that I think there is an arrogance of those who believe that their subjective experience supercedes everyone else's when it comes to understanding unverifiable metaphysical truths.
Reply Quote
1
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 5:10p, 10/16/25
What do you mean by supersede? The apostles either saw Jesus die and rise again or not. It can't be both. I wouldn't charge them with arrogance. They went to their deaths proclaiming it.
Reply Quote
1
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 8:47a, 10/17/25
AG
A lot of people go to their deaths (and are put to death) proclaiming things that you don't believe. How do you avoid confirmation bias?

I never knew the apostles. They were a bit before my time and so I don't feel comfortable saying much about them. Unless you happen to be one of the originals and are over two thousand years old, my question was about you.

Many people have deeply spiritual or religious experiences, visions, revelations, moments of transcendence. But these experiences don't converge on a single universal truth. At best, they align within cultures, which suggests that culture shapes our spiritual experiences, not the other way around.

About the idea of one experience "superseding" another: imagine you have a profound experience that confirms your Christian faith. Your neighbor has one that confirms their belief in Allah. And another neighbor has one affirming their Hindu tradition. It would be arrogant to dismiss your neighbors' experiences simply because they don't match your own as if yours were somehow superior or more "real."

From my perspective, all those experiences are 'real' in that I can accept that each person genuinely felt something meaningful. But I also don't take any of them as proof of representing universal, objective truth. They can't all be true. Perhaps one is. Or perhaps none are. I have my own beliefs about what's true, but it would be arrogant to think I'm uniquely enlightened and that I alone discovered truth while everyone else was deceived by falsehoods, delusion, hallucination, or demons.

Religion teaches humility before God, but often fails to teach humility toward people who believe differently. It rewards absolute certainty despite incomplete information. It tells you that God is with you and implies that anyone who disagrees must be against you. That's the arrogance of religion: the presumption that 'our group' alone can be certain that they speak for God. And the certainty that 'our group' alone offers truth.

TLDR; its not belief that I reject. Its the absolute certainty of belief that I have a problem with. Humility is 'I don't know'. Humility is NOT 'I know for absolute certain and everyone that disagrees is worshipping demons'.
Reply Quote
5
2 edits
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 9:19a, 10/17/25
You say I have my own beliefs about what's true, but it would be arrogant to think I'm uniquely enlightened and that I alone discovered truth while everyone else was deceived by falsehood.

Yet, you're on here trying to convince me that I am wrong and you are right. You have made a lot of truth statements on this thread. Is everyone arrogant but the one that actually knows the truth?
Reply Quote
3
KingofHazor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:28a, 10/17/25
Is it arrogant for a man who has full vision to insist that the world is full of color to a man that can only see in black and white?

If my neighbor's house is on fire, is it arrogant for me to warn him despite his insistence that it's not?
Reply Quote
2
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 12:23p, 10/17/25
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:
You say I have my own beliefs about what's true, but it would be arrogant to think I'm uniquely enlightened and that I alone discovered truth while everyone else was deceived by falsehood.

Yet, you're on here trying to convince me that I am wrong and you are right. You have made a lot of truth statements on this thread. Is everyone arrogant but the one that actually knows the truth?


I'm not trying to convince you that you are wrong and I am right. You could say that I am on here trying to argue why I think it is wise to approach questions about what we know of infinite super beings with a bit of humility.

There are billions of people on the planet who claim to know truth and none can demonstrate it. Unless you possess some power or insight or are in fact God Himself, then yes, I generally think there is an arrogance in presuming that you alone are the one who knows Truth.
Reply Quote
1
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KingofHazor • 12:35p, 10/17/25
AG
KingofHazor said:
Is it arrogant for a man who has full vision to insist that the world is full of color to a man that can only see in black and white?

No. a man with full vision can set up an experiment for the colorblind person demonstrating his ability of wider range of differentiation of electromagnetic radiation at specific frequencies.

Quote:
If my neighbor's house is on fire, is it arrogant for me to warn him despite his insistence that it's not?


While you are telling me my house is on fire, someone else is telling me that its flooding. And yet another person is telling me that a tornado is coming. And another is telling me it has termites and may fall at any moment. And billions of other people are all tell me what is wrong with my house.

To me, it does not appear my house is flooding, or burning, or rotting, of whatever.

What is arrogant is the suggestion that I ought ONLY listen to your warning and ignore everyone else's warning. Why should I place your warning over someone else's? Are you smarter than everyone else? Can you prove my house is on fire? Do you have some magical insight to my house that is inaccessible to others? Are you God?

A response to the above paragraph might be that I should in fact listen to everyone else's warning. And then I should investigate my house for myself and determine for myself what is happening. And should I arrive at the conclusion that I agree with someone else that my house is actually flooding, what then? Do you accept that reasonable and earnest people can look at incomplete data and arrive at different conclusions. Or do you insist that as long as I arrive at a conclusion other than my house is on fire, that I am not 'investigating' properly?
Reply Quote
5
KingofHazor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 12:58p, 10/17/25
Except in reading your responses on this board, you seem to be insisting on 100% proof before you will believe anything. Yet nothing is susceptible to that level of proof (except possibly mathematical proofs, although I recently read an article about Godel in which it claims that he called even those into question).

Even showing my vision-disabled friend electromagnetic graphs isn't "proof". If he's convinced that I'm biased, or even if he's just skeptical by nature, he will find a million reasons why those aren't sufficient for him to believe me. After all, why should he doubt what he sees versus what I am telling him?

Finally, your response doesn't address why you think that believers are "arrogant". Doesn't it just attempt to justify your own skepticism? Haven't you changed the argument?
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KingofHazor • 1:37p, 10/17/25
AG
Not trying to disrupt your conversation with kurt, but considering I've had similar statements directed at me I thought I'd provide my perspective.

It isn't about obtaining irrefutable proof that the claims of Christianity are true before I would accept it. Though, if God exists as you think he does he would presumably be capable of providing that. For me, it's about setting some standard by which we judge the religious claims of people in a consistent way. And I do not believe there exists any consistent standard of judgement by which the claims of Christianity can be accepted but the claims of all other religions would be rejected.

In the end, most people base their faith not on any logical argument but because they've had some personal experience that tells them their chosen belief is true. This isn't just the case with Christianity either. You'll find similar conversion stories in just about every religion. And many beliefs you'd probably dismiss as cults for that matter. Who am I to say that the person who has had a religious experience pushing them to Christianity is valid while the one whose experience is pushing them to Islam is invalid?
Reply Quote
4
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KingofHazor • 1:40p, 10/17/25
AG
KingofHazor said:
Except in reading your responses on this board, you seem to be insisting on 100% proof before you will believe anything. Yet nothing is susceptible to that level of proof (except possibly mathematical proofs, although I recently read an article about Godel in which it claims that he called even those into question).

Even showing my vision-disabled friend electromagnetic graphs isn't "proof". If he's convinced that I'm biased, or even if he's just skeptical by nature, he will find a million reasons why those aren't sufficient for him to believe me. After all, why should he doubt what he sees versus what I am telling him?

Finally, your response doesn't address why you think that believers are "arrogant". Doesn't it just attempt to justify your own skepticism? Haven't you changed the argument?


There are many things that I believe without 100% proof. And as you pointed out, that may be an impossible standard in any field. I believe my wife loves me. I based that on a million interactions and examples, subjective feeling and emotion, and the fact that I have become convinced that it is true. 100% proof is not the bar that must be reached for 'belief'.

You can devise an experiment which pulls human bias out of the equation by measuring radiation energy to show that they exist at different wavelengths and create an automated response mechanism to confirm your ability to personal distinguish those wavelengths. You can also ask 7+ billion people on the planet who are not colorblind to move the claim of color observation from 'subjective' to 'near subjective universality' with those not experiencing color observation all showing the same biological difference.

infrared is a electromagnetic radiation on the same spectrum where we find visible light. We cannot see it. But, we can test for its affects, demonstrate it, predict it, and utilize it. We should all be willing to doubt what we see based on our own biological limitations. Mine and your inability to see infrared is similar to someone else's colorblindness.

My response does address why I think some (not all) believers are arrogant. Put simply: " What is arrogant is the suggestion that I ought ONLY listen to your warning and ignore everyone else's warning." The ignorance that turns me away from religion is the absolute certainty that 'our group' is unquestionably right and everyone else is wrong because they are different. Religious ignorance is the inability to admit any possibility that maybe you got it wrong.
Reply Quote
6
FIDO95
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 2:40p, 10/17/25
AG
kurt vonnegut said:


My response does address why I think some (not all) believers are arrogant. Put simply: " What is arrogant is the suggestion that I ought ONLY listen to your warning and ignore everyone else's warning." The ignorance that turns me away from religion is the absolute certainty that 'our group' is unquestionably right and everyone else is wrong because they are different. Religious ignorance is the inability to admit any possibility that maybe you got it wrong.

Perhaps the answer to your viewpoint is a result of standing on the opposite side of the same coin. What you view as arrogance, I view as confidence. I would not stake my life and my soul on a philosophy or an ideology. I stake it on a relationship with a Creator. It is not easy living a life self-denying the pleasures of the flesh and of the world. One would only behave in that manner if they truly believed that was the way to show love and obedience to that Creator and wanted to be in relationship with that Creator. As you said earlier in your post, you know your wife loves you because you sense it in the way she behaves towards you. There is no physical measurement for love.

Finally (I don't expect you to agree, this is more to help you understand), if I am confident/arrogant that I am right and I am called to love my neighbor, I am duty bound to care about your soul. I don't try to bring you to "my side of the coin" as a means for personal gain or glory. I do so because I want you to be saved. But alas, it is only by the grace of God is anyone saved.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
2
Page 1 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.