Board index ‹ God

[Don't Tread on Me]

What is the weakest being that could convince us it was a god?

You could imagine some advanced alien race but we know from our own history that mere humans have achieved this many times over, as emperor's, pharaohs, etc. For that matter, even animals and inanimate idols.

All we can say for certain is that as humans we are easily duped so you'd better have something that you can test objectively and repeatably before putting any stock in it. So could a deity exist? Perhaps, but we have as much reason to even hypothesize one, let alone prove, as to posit that a living manifestation of Bart Simpson exists at the center of every black hole.

[jimwalton]

I don't think any weak being could convince me it was a god. I would expect a God to be powerful. I would expect a God to be perfect and not make mistakes with His power. I wouldn't worship anything less.

> you'd better have something that you can test objectively and repeatably before putting any stock in it.

I agree. That's why in the Bible faith is evidentiary. Faith is making an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make that assumption reasonable. You'll notice in the Bible that evidence precedes faith. Faith doesn't pertain to "opinion" in the Bible. There is no "close your eyes and jump off a cliff" and good luck to ya! God appears to Moses in a burning bush before He expects him to believe. He gave signs to take back to Pharaoh and the Israelite people, so they could see the signs before they were expected to believe. So also through the whole OT. In the NT, Jesus started off with turning water into wine, healing some people, casting out demons, and then he taught them about faith. People came to Jesus to be healed because they had heard about other people who had been healed. They had seen other people whom Jesus had healed. People had heard him teach. Their faith was based on evidence. Jesus kept giving them new information, and they gained new knowledge from it. Based on that knowledge, they acted with more faith. People came to him to make requests. And they couldn't possibly understand the resurrection until there was some evidence to go on. Jesus could have just ascended to heaven, the disciples figured out that he had prophesied it, and went around telling people He rose. But that's not what happened. He walked around and let them touch him, talk to him, eat with him, and THEN he said, "Believe that I have risen from the dead."

[Magic Man]

Wow, I can’t tell if you’re satirical or not. Impressive. On the off chance you aren’t, the flaw in your reasoning is that the necessary quality of evidence is that it’s reproducible. None of the “evidence” you cited is.

[jimwalton]

I'm not being satirical. But you are mistaken about any flaw in my case. I just didn't write it all. I define Biblical faith as "making an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make that assumption reasonable." In my opinion, belief is always a choice, and is always based on evidence. When you sit down in a chair, you didn’t think twice about sitting down. You believe that the chair will hold you. Faith? Yes. You've sat in chairs hundreds of times, but you can't be absolutely sure it will hold you this time. Things do break on occasion. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you sit down. That's faith, and it was a conscious choice based on a reasonable body of evidence.

Almost all of life works this way because we can never know what lies ahead. Every time you turn a door knob you are expressing faith, because 10,000 times you've turned a door knob, and it opened the door. So you turn the knob and move forward. Does it always work that way? No. Sometimes you turn the knob and the door doesn't open. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you walk forward in faith.

We know chairs hold people. That's past experience and learning. We know turning door knobs open doors. We know that when we turn a key a car starts. But every time we turn a car key, we do it because we believe it will start. The evidence is compelling, and it was a conscious choice. We don't know for sure that the car will start, and unfortunately sometimes it doesn't. Then we use our knowledge to try to figure out what to do about it. We dial our phone (as an act of faith, assuming it will work and help us reach another person), and try to get help.

Then, as I wrote, "faith, in the Bible, is always preceded by evidence, just like the rest of our lives.

As far as reproducibility, we know that evidence in our courts is not particularly reproducible, and yet it still counts. At times scientists are able to reconstruct certain parts of a case, make plausible extrapolations about other parts, and can't comment about other parts because they are not reproducible. Yet some of those factors (eyewitness testimony, attributing motive, speculating causes and effects) are still put forth as evidence. Valid evidence is not always based on reproducibility.

We know that much of science is based on reproducibility, and technology demands it. But, for instance, what about astronomy? We can't do experiments on the stars, but we can study them, do the math, and draw conclusions even without reproducibility. We can't perform experiments on the phenomena of interest at will. And yet we still grant that astronomy is science. There are other types of evidence than the inductive model put forth by Francis Bacon. And what about paleoanthropology? Certainly not reproducible, but still able to be studied by making inferences based on material remains. What of geology? We cannot reproduce much of what we see in the earth's crust. But we can still make multiple observations, compare samples, and recognize patterns.

There are also occurrences in science that are random—not predictable or reproducible, such as quantum mechanics. Reproducibility has its limits. There are other ways to gain accurate information, assess evidence, and gain knowledge.

[Pyro]

Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. If you had evidence, it would just be evidence, not faith.

[jimwalton]

This is certainly not how the Bible defines faith. Good faith, according to the Bible, like good science, needs sound, rational thinking. Christianity is based in presuppositions combined with evidences, not in blind beliefs. In John 17.8 (also Jn. 14.11) we learn that faith is a judgment of certainty based on the evidence. Hebrews 11.1 confirms it. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." There’s no absence of evidence here. The word for "being sure of" is ὑπόστασις (hupostasis). It is defined as "assurance; what stands under anything (a building, a contract, a promise); substantial nature; essence, actual being; reality (often in contrast to what merely seems to be); confidence; conviction; steadfastness; steadiness of mind." "The steadfastness of mind which holds one firm." The term is common in ancient business documents as the basis or guarantee of transactions. There's nothing wobbly or blind here. It's not just confidence or optimism, but a guarantee. It's a real knowledge.

Belief is always a choice, and is always based on evidence. When you sit down in a chair, you didn’t think twice about sitting down. You believe that the chair will hold you. Faith? Yes. You've sat in chairs hundreds of times, but you can't be absolutely sure it will hold you this time. Things do break on occasion. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you sit down. That's faith, and it was a conscious choice based on a reasonable body of evidence.

Almost all of life works this way because we can never know what lies ahead. Every time you turn a door knob you are expressing faith, because 10,000 times you've turned a door knob, and it opened the door. So you turn the knob and move forward. Does it always work that way? No. Sometimes you turn the knob and the door doesn't open. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you walk forward in faith.

We know chairs hold people. That's past experience and learning. We know turning door knobs open doors. We know that when we turn a key a car starts. But every time we turn a car key, we do it because we believe it will start. The evidence is compelling, and it was a conscious choice. We don't know for sure that the car will start, and unfortunately sometimes it doesn't. Then we use our knowledge to try to figure out what to do about it. We dial our phone (as an act of faith, assuming it will work and help us reach another person), and try to get help.

I can only stand by faith on evidence, reason, and knowledge about things that haven’t happened yet, just like the chair, key, and doorknob. But I can make an assumption of truth about God and my Christian belief based on enough evidence to make it reasonable to make that assumption. And again, what we’re talking about is inferring the most reasonable conclusion.

Hebrews 11.1 also says we can be sure of what we hope for (what is still future). Faith is more than optimism, and it's more than wishful thinking. Faith is knowledge, pure and simple. But faith understands there are different kinds of knowledge. Some knowledge is because of what I've already experienced (I know I had Cheerios for breakfast), and yet other knowledge is because of evidence, even though I haven't seen (my getting in the car and heading to the store, "knowing" it is there).

The verse continues: "…and certain of what we do not see." The word for "certain of" is ἔλεγχος (elegchos). It means "proof; proving; conviction; being sure of." At what point did people get the idea that Christian faith is an absence of evidence? The faith of the Bible is distinctly evidentiary and based in knowledge. God never asked anyone to believe in Him without first giving some kind of evidence. Whether it is Abraham, Moses, David, Daniel, Jesus, Paul, or anyone else in the Bible, evidence precedes faith. God spoke to Abraham, appeared to Moses in a burning bush, performed miracles for Pharaoh, strengthened David in the killing of Goliath, and on and on. Jesus performed miracles, taught, and healed people before He ever asked that people believe in him.

[Vermont Choir]

"The disciples figured out that he had prophesied it"

That whole "after the fact" retro-spective and revisionary form of theology doesn't strike you as suspicious at all, huh?

[jimwalton]

I guess I don't understand that just because it wasn't obvious to them from the onset that it's illegitimate. I don't know about you, but there are a lot of things that come clear to me in the course of time that I didn't see right away. That doesn't mean it's revisionary.

The disciples are not painted in the Gospels as being an astute bunch. In the Gospel of Mark there is only ever 1 thing that the disciples get right. Everything else in the entire book portrays them as "guys who don't get it." And it's not much different in the other Gospels. Even now Jesus is a conundrum. He has engendered conversation and controversy for two millennia now, and we even have a retrospective advantage. So the disciples' "after the fact retrospection" doesn't bother me. I think we're all like that, and Jesus was that kind of guy, and I don't just automatically see it as revisionary. Do you have any evidence that they revised anything? In the Gospels they're quite blind. They don't get it. At Pentecost things come clear to them, and from then on they get it. Why does your mind jump to revisionism?

[Magic Man]

You’re conflating “best guess” with “faith”. That would trivialize faith for a lot of people.

I sit in a chair because I use both pad experience and a reasoned estimate of its soundness.if it looks unstable, I’lll lean down and teat it before putting my full weight on it. If it doesn’t look sturdy, I’ll just pick another chair.

[jimwalton]

I was not at all asserting that the everyday knowledge we call faith is "best guess." It's an assessment based on the evidence at hand, our knowledge of many disciplines (engineering, construction, etc.), our experiences, and history. So I completely agree with you that "I sit in a chair because I use both pad experience and a reasoned estimate of its soundness." But when you actually sit down, you don't KNOW it will hold you. You believe it will hold you, and by faith, you plant yourself down. If it doesn't look sturdy, you are also using evidences to choose, in this case, to believe it will NOT hold you, and by faith you move on to another chair that you believe will hold you.