Why? I mean, there certainly are people who could argue over whether a good rap song exists and never even make it to “what is the nature of good rap”? Since faith is a personal matter, and a man is not morally beholden to anyone but his own God or conscience, why should there be some monolythic perspective. One God maybe, sure. (Or maybe not.) But why not as many perceptions as there are perceivers?
Or for that matter, our own existence has yet to be proved, though it has been a topic of philosophy for millenia. And nevermind our nature. That goes forty ways from Sunday out of fourty directions from fourty models of fourty interpretations. I think that a problem occurs when the wrong epistemology is used to examine the wrong evidence. I can’t prove that 1 + 1 = 2 using science. I need deduction for that. I can’t prove that physical laws are everywhere the same in the universe (Relativity’s first postulate) using deduction. I need induction for that. And I can’t prove that astrology is false using revelation. I need science for that. It seems to me that when we’re looking for God, we should apply a revelatory epistemology. First, make sure of what it is you’re looking for, and then just go there and see.
So, you and Daniel don’t exist in terms of molecules? Interesting.
Haven’t you seen a dog assume a submissive position? There are many explanations for your scenario besides Eternal Love. Assuming as a working hypothesis that there are two minds to engage in love, what is love without a mind? Do hydrogen atoms group due to love? Planets? What is love without a mind, and what is a mind without a body? Do paremecium love? Do dogs love, or are they in it for the food?
God is love.
Canada Dry tastes like love => love tastes like Canada Dry.
I get what you’re saying, and so I’ll make this short. When I said before that we could get a clean slate by my seeing you behave without vitriol or what I perceive as dishonesty for 30 days, I was serious. I appreciate what I’ve seen as respectful, civil, honest behavior to me over the past couple days, but at this point, that’s not enough for me. I don’t mean to belittle what you’re saying, but I want you to be aware that you’re asking something from me that I’m not at this point willing to give.
If this is your test for god then I am afraid that you have proven that god does not exist. If I repeat this test that you have outlined above the preponderance of examples will be of you being dealt a final defeat. Certianly the vast majority of tests will not result in the two parties crying in each others arms and loving each other as old friends.
It is true that is the end result of experiments in this subject have lead to the majority of test subjects being wiped out, and not embracing, but I think that post # 79 was in reference to a drama that I did not realize was going on and not really an argumimnt one way or another.
I’ve heard that term but never investigated. The more we discover about how the world works, the more likely the existance of a creative intelligence.
The question I want sciensts to answer in their theories of evolution, is how life sprang from non life. How did intelligence {such as it is} and free will develop?
There are many, few of which you would acknowledge. Most folks refer to miricles as something that violates the natural laws that we understand so far. To me those very laws are the miricle. For the sake of this duscussion, what are your thoughts on miraculous healings? Not bogus faith healers, but documented cases in which someone is healed for no measureable scientific reason. Thats only one area of ongoing studies of the spiritual realm.
The last one. In Science and the spiritual quest it is imperative we discern the difference between foundational belief and our latest theory in development. When someone in either promotes theory to the level of foundational belief they are within the paremeters of the third definition. Science also dabbles in the second definition. If it’s something they can’t study and measure in terms of their chooseing there is a tendency to dismiss it. That is irrational.
It is logical and reasonable to say “We really don’t know because we haven’t developed any means to measure it yet” It is illogical and unreasonable to say
“We haven’t developed a way to measure it yet so it must not exist”
There are many examples of this.
Anyone who embraces therory as fact can fall under the technical definition.
If they refuse to ackonowledge that they don’t have sufficient evidence to prove their belief, isn’t that a form of superstition?
What percentage of all knowable things are known? 25%? 50%? 75%?
More like 1% There are many areas of supernatural and spirtual investigation. Our lack of ability to measure and verify doesn’t invalidate the existance of. All it indicates is that we can’t verify or disprove. at this point. The spiritual quest isn’t about predicting things. It’s about being. It’s about discovering the truth of our human potential.
I grant you that organized religion has done little to assure people that God is. Quite the opposite. I’m talking about the personnel spiritual quest.
Both it and science are a search and passion for the truth. Both are subject to false conclusions. Both require that we abandon or expand previous misconceptions as we gain experience and evidence. The spiritual quest has discovered several verifiable truths. You’ll need to conduct your own expiriments to discover them. If people choose to live in denial of recognized scientific truth there are consequences. “I choose to deny the existance of gravity” I choose not to believe that fire can harm me" The same holds for living in denial of spiritual truths.
Granted there is much more superstion within the spiritual arena. Knowledge dispells superstition. Thats happened a lot in medicine and yet there remains a certain unknown about how the emotional and spiritual attitude of a person effects healing.
Speaking of miricles lets talk about dreams. Here is something totally unproveable at this point yet totally accepted because of common experience. I guess we can believe in things without hard evidence. Imagine, while our physical body is at rest something within us can create entire worlds and see and hear and interact in pleasent and unpleasent ways with others in that world. I wonder what that is?
Science takes therory to fact by expirimenting and limiting the number of possible conclusions. There are numerous possible conclusions to why an ominipotent God doesn’t prove his existance when he {sorry ladies} could.
To select one possible conclusion and tout it as solid evidence is pretty damed unscientific don’t you think?
We make choices for different reasons. One is what we believe to be true about our world and how it really is. These choices have consequences that effect ourselves and fellow beings. This is true in the physical scientific realm and spiritual. When it comes to dealing with the suffering of mankind in all its forms the questions may be, what are the true limits of what I or we can do about it? What is our responsibility and moral obligation in that area? These may seem like philosophical questions rather than scientific but they are questions we make choices about every day and have a very real effect on our world.
Are they more or less importent than questions like, “How many miles is it to the sun?”
I can’t see how you reached this conclusion. If God’s presence here is a form of spiritual energy then it can be at work all around us without people percieveing it.
There are many unseen forces and forms of energy that we reocgnize now that we weren’t aware of for thousands of years.
Christianity in all its varied forms is only one concept of God and they can’t even agree on that. Their misconceptions and superstitions don’t render God less real.
Interesting point. Some religions teach exactly that. The Sons or Perdition. Those who come to a full knowledge of God and still reject his spirit. They don’t beleive people are damed erternally for not knowing.
Great question! Scientists are working on coming up with good answers to it. What readings have you made on this subject, and what specific issues do you have with them?
I dunno. What are your thoughts on the Faerie Hunt? Not bogus hunts, but documented cases in which someone is chased through the stormy skies of England by the faerie host, left ragged and exhausted in the morning, if they survive at all?
I imagine–I hope–that your thoughts on the Faerie Hunt mirror my thoughts on miraculous healings.
Absolutely right. An omnipotent God might not prove its existence because it hates rational thought; because it plans to devour our souls and wants to enjoy the disappointed surprise in humanity when it discovers this; because we’re lab rats in an experiment; because it hates itself and doesn’t want anyone else to hate it; and for myriad other reasons.
That’s why I, and most other atheists, don’t deny outright the existence of an omnipotent being (although for logical reasons I deny the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being that correlates to principals of logic). We just say that we see no evidence of this being’s existence, and that if it does exist, we still can’t say much about it that’s interesting. It could be malevolent or benevolent; it could be brilliant or cretinous; it could be passionate about humanity or completely apathetic. Supposing its omnipotent doesn’t lead us to think it’s especially Biblical.
But since I don’t see evidence of the omnipotence part, that might be a good place to start.
I thought this thread was about evidence of God!
But to answer the above, if there is a natural disaster, should we pray to God, or go out there and help?
Since I don’t believe in God, I would help. (I also have no evidence that prayer works.)
Why do you think that?
Why would a loving God build in natural disasters, killing millions of innocent people?
Why are there claims that the World was created about 6,000 years ago, when the evidence is that it is billions of years old?
Sadly the question you need to ask is why people confuse evolution with abiogenesis!
Abiogenesis is the study of how life began on Earth.
Evolution describes how life changes over time, not how it began.
The question I want to ask believers is: who created God?
Intelligence, like many other characteristics, develops to help the organism reproduce successfully. We humans are not the biggest, toughest, fastest or best naturally-armed creatures on the planet. But we do have an opposable thumb and large brains. With our tools, we are now the dominant species.
It took a long time to achieve this (evolution requires time!), but those early ancestors of ours did better by using their brains rather than brawn. So we evolved intelligence.
Sharks have remained basically unchanged for millions of years. This is because they are already very successful predators, who don’t need to use tools, learn to read or write.
As for free will, this is a religious concept. If there is no God, I think we automatically have free will!
I don’t know of any documented cases - do post details.
If we have no evidence that something exists, why should we believe it exists?
If religions contradict each other, which faith do we follow?
I don’t have a figure for how much we know.
I do know that the scientific method has, for example, eradicated diseases, extended our lifespans and provided incredible advances in communications, transport and education.
What has religion done by comparison? Also, which is the correct religion?
Which verifiable truths?
What ‘consequences’ are there to being an atheist?
If there was no God, there would be no proof of His existence.
Since there is no proof, why do you think He exists?
I take this to mean that you don’t beleive their has ever been miraculous healings. Merely unexplained.
The exploration into the nature of God has been going on for centuries and speaks directly to all of your unknowns. Because the spiritual realm is unable to be measured by science at this point, those answers have to be experienced on a personnel level rather than proved for the masses. As I’ve stated before, spiritual truth is completely compatible with science logic and reason. Many spiritual and religous beliefs certainly are not.
I take it to me that you don’t believe there has ever been a Faerie Hunt. Me, I’m not so certain: maybe there has. I mean, I doubt it, but if you show me some documentation of one, I’ll take a look.
Same thing with miraculous healings. I know for a fact that there have been fradulent miraculous healings; I know for a fact that people have mistaken coincidence for miracle (in fact, there’s a whole genre of stage-magic that plays on that). But I don’t know for a fact that there have been miraculous healings.
If you show me some documentation, I’ll take a look at it. But I’m not going to go by your word that these documented cases exist; and all things equal, I’ll consider the fraud/coincidence explanation likelier than the miracle explanation, since it requires me to believe in fewer things, in accordance with Occam’s Razor.
I love the idea of experiencing spiritual matters on a personnel level–is that what the “My boss is a Jewish Carpenter” bumpersticker is all about? I gotta say, God’s medical plan sucks.
I tease, I tease. Seriously, I’ve got no objection to people experiencing God on a personal level; if that works for them, I’m genuinely and without irony happy for them. However, it doesn’t work for me. So when I talk about the evidence for God, I’m talking about evidence that I’d find convincing.
What does my boss have to do with this “god”. Every christian I met seems to think I am one of them when they hear I work for a jeweish carpenter. His name is Sol Levinson, of Levinson Carpentry.
I think we can only guess as to anything about God. We might be right, but we might also be completely wrong. Suppose God condemns atheists to hell, which we generally assume to be a bad thing…that would probably be a ‘consequence’ of being an atheist.
If there were proof of God’s existence, no sane, intelligent person would deny that God exists. Because any ‘proof’ that believers have is highly personal, we have to examine the evidence (which I suppose includes ‘proof’ that a person may claim to have one way or the other) and make a decision for ourselves whether or not we believe God exists.
If you accept that we are eternal spiritual beings the events of a short physical life time take on a different perspective. Those millions of people didn’t die. They gave up this phyisical incarnation for reasons we in the phyisical world have yet to fathom. As a loving parent it might be nessecary to let your child have a tempoary unpleasent experience in order to learn something valuable. Thats incredibly over simplified, but the just of it.
Because some people are a superstitious lot with the need to assert irelevent and /or illogical beliefs into their religion. There must be a phycological term for that.
I don’t accept the evidence that the earth is billions of years old either. Their method of measurement may or may not be accurate, rendering it an interesting and irelevent theory.
No! the question I need to ask is “what is that?”
Ahhhhh!! Thank you
And a good question it is. How do we who measure time {which doesn’t exist by the way} concieve of eternity? Emo Phillips has a good explanation but its not very scientific. A decade ago my roommate was a Physicist from Poland doing his doctoral thesis in the US. He explained to me in terms that were way over my head how a black hole could expand until it turned in upon itself and met and its own energy and force would perpetuate itself. All I could think of was the passage in the Book of Mormon. “The course of God is one eternal round.”
Interesting, so you look at the world around us and think we are intelligent and dominant. That might explain the need for those natural disasters you mentioned.
If the essence of God is what binds creation together and makes atoms and molocules be what they are, then if there is no God we won’t have to worry about free will. In order for free will to exist then we have to have things to choose from.
Do I have pie or cake? Do I love or hate. Do I help or hinder?
That would require more research. We’ll see if I have time.
How do scientific breakthroughs happen? How did science concieve and then verify what was once inconcieveable. Doesn’t a large part of the scientific search for truth have to do with inspiration and at least the question that something might exist that we have no evidence of?
The only correct religion is your personnel communion with God.
I do believe religion has had a lot to do with advanceing education.
Science has extended our life spans but not measurebly our quality of life.
Yes there have been advances in communications in and transport. We can get our bombs to Iraq a lot sooner and generals can command people to die from half way around the world. Hooray for science.
Yes some diseases have been iraducated only to be replaced by new ones that remian incureable. Perhaps if we spent more time searching for spiritual truth those things wouldn’t be so. We can’t tell if those things should be hailed as progress or misdirected energy.
That through our creator we are all connected and even in our deepest denial this remains true. When Jesus said “whatever you do unto the least of these” He wasn’t spouting some nifty moral concept. HE was stateing a fact of our existance and how the world is. It is undeniable, completely verifiable and still widely unrecognized. Science hasn’t done much to promote this.
Whenever we embrace something that isn’t the truth we limit our potential and run the risk of doing some damage, mostly to ourselves.
Can we suffer becuase of the things we don’t know, or the truths we refuse to acknowledge? Absolutely.
I’m not sure your logic is sound. Hasn’t science "proven’ things only to later discover their proof was faulty?
For me their is proof. Like the correct religion, it is my personnel communion with God that provides me with proof. Check out my comments on the Science vs. Relgion thread. I did get the two threads confused.
If the question is
Is there evidence God exists, then for me the answer is yes.
Is there evidence that God exists that everybody will accept?
Yes , but they have to seek it and experience it for themselves.
Because of free will, denial of the truth is an option.
Is there measureable evidence that will be widely accepted within known scientific limits? No.
I posit that the answer to the first question within the quoted portion is ‘no’, but I think it’s because some people will not seek it, some other people will seek it, but may look for the wrong things, and finally, some may seek it, but not find what they are looking for, for many reasons. The last question is more appropriately phrased, and relates to what I rambled about here.
I too am aware of the scam artists who disguise themselves as faith healers. I read and heard stories of unexplained healings from people who were from scientific and not religous backgrounds and some who were just convincingly committed to the truth. I accepted them without serious investigation probably becuase it felt good to do so. If I have time I’ll look for some. As you said. It doesn’t constitute proof. It’s just unexplained.
Actually his medical plan is amazing. The tricky part is that it takes several lifetimes to sign up and start recieving benifits.It’s worth it though. Eternal life with no more illness ever. Let’s see Blue Cross top that. Now I’m teaseing.
I understand and thats how it should be. People’s belief and relationship with God should be based on their personnel experience and not what their parents told them to believe or someone elses interpertation of the Bible, or any other so called Holy book. Guess what? The Pope, Mohammed, Buddha and Jesus don’t have any more access to spiritual truth than anyone else.
My point in the other thread was that when science wants to prove a theory don’t they start from a postion of assuming something is true and conducting expiriments to prove it? We didn’t wait for solar energy or microwaves to prove their existance to us. We pursued the truth based in a concept, or theory.
Find out for yourself. If God is and spiritual truth and energy is, then…X,Y Z.
You will find out you disagree with other spiritual scientists. “That guys theory is full of baloney” Isn’t that how science progesses? One scientists makes a discovery of truth and others expand on it and develop it as one bit of truth leads to the next. Spiritual truth. Same thing.
