Ah, Der Trihs, this stuff is spot on!
I may not agree with you on everything, but I think you’ve got religion all wrapped up. Seriously. I enjoy reading your responses to all these silly religion threads.
End Hijack!
Again, you need to define what exactly you mean when you use the word “spirit.”
I think there’s a pretty good standard idea for “love” - it’s an emotion of deep fondness. Love, like all emotions, happens in the brain. Are you saying that “spirit” is just another word for brain?
If not, PLEASE BE SPECIFIC.
Thank you.
Science rests upon the notion that the universe has a behaviour of its own–that is, things which happen in the universe happen because of relationships among space, matter and energy uninfluenced by anything outside of the universe.
We’re still figuring out what space, matter and energy are, but for the most part the physical laws we’ve doped out that describe them seem at least to be fairly consistent. Where they haven’t been a good description, we’ve often been able to make a more complete description–come up with a “law” that more accurately describes what happens consistently.
If something happened that seemed to completely defy one of those laws, some might embrace it as a miracle (a violation of natural law) and use it as evidence of proof for an influence outside of the Natural Universe–i.e., a proof for God. Others would wonder if it’s simply a result of crappy observation (David Hume’s argument) or perhaps an inadequately understood law. Hume argued that miracles could never be known to happen because a scientist would always invoke crappy observation before he invoked violation of natural law. This is a bit different from accepting that miracles cannot happen, and if I recall correctly the paper Dave wrote on this, he has a little paragraph at the end that talks about a “miracle” which incurs within his own person, subverts his understanding, and allows him to believe in the supernatural.
As pointed out above, you probably wouldn’t need some collider-based Qu’ran message to “scientifically prove” God. For most folks, a chap walking around poofing stuff right in front of you; flying without tricky camera angles on a dark stage or empty parking lot; making the moon really disappear at will, and so on, would do the trick. And the absence of that sort of God is what renders most people skeptical. You gotta have more convincing miracles than filthy windows that look like the Virgin Mary and nutty observers desperate to believe.
But it doesn’t have to be fancy; it just has to be obvious, consistent, on-demand, non-staged violations to at least get an audience with the Pope that God has showed up. Say, for instance, make all bodies of water all at once turn to purple coolaid with cool Bellagio dancing fountains and take requests for fountain patterns for 24 hours and then everything back to normal.
Well I think love comes from fluffy pink flying bunnies.
Wouldn’t the logical conclusions that could be drawn from the Koran-particle be, in order:
- Fraud/creative mapping of the signal
- Amazing coincidence
- The writers of the ancient text were somehow influenced by the meaningless fluctuations of a similar particle
- There was a very powerful/technologically skilled being that inflenced the particle, which says nothing about whether there is one now
I would expect a ‘god particle’ for a currently-existing god to be interactive.
I’ve often wondered what Christians would do if Allah or Buddha or some other traditional “god” showed up and started performing miracles and demanding conversion. Would Christians admit they were wrong and adhere to whomever showed up? Or even in the face of these actions, would they still hold that their Christian god was somehow higher up and going to save them at any time. What would it take for them to finally admit that their Christian god didn’t exist? Burning in a alternate religion’s hell?
If there was a discovery in pi much like the one at the end of the novel version of “Contact.” That may indicate a designer, however, I don’t know if I would attribute it to a supernatural being or just some superior intelligence that could create and design universes. How do we tell?
If all of the sudden, somebody came down and said “Hey, look, I am the guy who created the Universe. I can prove it.” And then manipulates the laws of physics and does whatever he wants and there is a videotape of him creating the universe and he has the recipe book and everything, would Christians accept him as “God?” or again, would they still be holding out that there is yet a supernatural being above him? It seems like there would be an infinite regression.
They’d claim he was the Devil, tempting people towards false gods.
Torture will make anyone admit anything, so that would work. For anything less, nothing would.
Only if he agrees with what they want to believe. Religion is about self indulgence, about believing what you want to believe.
Why do you believe the Christian God is true, but the Hindu gods are false?
Clearly either the Hindus or the Christians are horribly deluded about the true nature of the universe. What made you reject Hinduism?
Doesn’t sound to me any more like a god than a human is a god to a monkey because we can talk. So the are a creature with different abilities. So what? That isn’t a god that resembles any god I’ve heard a religious person talk of.
Search me. That, I believe, is my point.
Der Trihs, I disagree that the “patience with God is faith” thing is meaningless babble. It is highly instructive. It is an admission that faith is really just a word for waiting around for something to happen which you can attribute to your deity.
Jeebus, I totally mangled those sentences in my second last post. I think what I was trying to say was:
"Doesn’t sound to me like that sentient force is a god to a human, any more than a human is a god to a monkey because we can talk. So there are creatures with different abilities. So what?
Wrong. Love is a demonstrably repeatable phenomenon that can probably be shown by scientific study to occur in remarkably similar ways across cultures, resulting in such things as companionship, sex, joint ventures, life-saving, etc.
Necessity? Natural selection? Convenience? I can think of all kinds of possible sources that are all more believable than a godhead. And your hackneyed glurge of a so-called argument presents no reason to believe that the Abrahamic God is the source of Love, rather than, say, Krishna or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
This syrupy sap, while undoubtedly sweet, has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. Why don’t you go play in a thread called “What major organ does God look at?”
And this is related to the topic “Scientific evidence of God’s existence”…how, exactly?
An estimated 22 million people in Africa have AIDS.
Are we having fun yet?
Quantum uncertainty can certainly explain the existence of matter in the universe; it cannot explain the existence of the universe. For that, it’s either something we cannot comprehend or the very question of its comprehension is an artifact of our evolution.
Slight hijack: Without asking about those conditions you describe specifically, are they such that it would be possible for just you or a small subset of people to observe them without the majority of humanity having the chance to see, or are they more in the nature of scientific things that can be repeated with the correct conditions/equipment?
That is, is it possible for you to be convinced of God’s existence in a way that allows for other (theoretical) people with the same conditions as you to miss it completely?
You can believe that all day long, and don’t let me stop you. However, you have to admit that there exists hate in this world, too. In addition to people helping tsunami victims, you also see people crossing borders to blow each other up. Is there more hate than love in the world? I don’t know. If there were, would that convince you that god is hate, not love?
Anyway, there are people with certain kinds of brain damage that can’t recognize faces, or can’t recognize objects. Other kinds of brain damage causes people to lose empathy, or see others as automatons.
If a certain kind of brain damage resulted in the loss of the ability to love, would that convince you that love comes from your brain, not from “spirit”? That it is a product of natural selection, just like aggression, hate, hunger, language (probably), and so on? If that were the case, would you then say, well, I was wrong about love coming from spirit or god, it’s obviously seated in your brain, that about wraps up my faith?
People who believe in God have no problem with evidence. They see God everywhere they look and feel God within themselves.
People who don’t believe in God have a problem with evidence. They can find none anywhere no matter how hard they look.
Mark Twain said:
“Some people believe that they can…
and some people believe that they can’t.”
Both are correct.
A person who believes the world to be a jungle with little or no opportunity for success. A place where people put you down and care nothing about your existence. That person is very likely to be depressed.
A person who believes the world is full of opportunities and events waiting to be experienced. A place where others will help you learn and grow in skill and experience while encouraging and caring about you. That person will not be depressed.
It is all in the belief systems. The self-help media market is growing and prospering.
Nah. I’m suspicious of such “jealous phenomena”. I can picture myself having some kind of personal epiphany someday that might screw me up enough to believe things despite counter-evidence, though.
I feel I should make a distinction, though - it’s possible for me to believe in a God-like being when presented with sufficient repeatable objective evidence. But “believing in God” in this fashion does not, for me, translate into worship, adoration, reverence, love, deep personal insight, tossing aside reason etc.
I know it is pointless to ask, but do you have a cite for any of this? Belief doesn’t equal reality, no matter how hard you squint your eyes and wish it to be so.
Maybe religious people do see evidence for God everywhere. Probably they’re just deluded. Any way for an undecided person to tell? Of course.
Just try talking to a religious person about any statement of fact that their religion claims to make. I guarantee it will either be wrong, or directly copied from a science book.
Is there really a firmament above our heads holding back the rain? Hell no.
Is the universe a few thousand years old and everything in it was created out of nothing in less than a week? Not a chance.
Is the Earth roughly spherical, rotating about its axis and revolving around the sun in accordance with the law of gravitation? Of course.
God had thousands of years to inform his believers of this, but he failed to disclose even the most basic of facts about our world, ever. The only time he tried, by ‘inspiring’ the writers of the Bible, he was wrong about every statement of fact he tried to make. Then real people, scientists and scholars, had to come and correct all of ‘God’s’ misinformation.
So what is this evidence that believers see? Boobies are nice and sunsets are pretty? Sure there are a handful of data points indicating that God didn’t entirely fail at everything he tried to do. But the safe bet is on “No God” and has been for centuries. Now go ahead and try to convince me otherwise, lekatt. All it takes is a preponderance of evidence.
Besides, I know a lot of depressed people who are also optimists. It is a chemical imbalance in the brain, having almost nothing to do with what you believe about the world.