The benefit of experimentation comes from experience, not belief. But, you seem to be saying, finally, that religion is useless for explaining things about reality - and I certainly agree with that! Have you changed your opinions right before our eyes?
Note that the current sub-topic is empirical evidence for holding a position. You claim Edison believed he could experiment his way to better products.
The problem with this example is the belief didn’t come from simple faith. It came from thousands of years of history showing the results of trial and error.
Your analogy fails when trying to compare that body of documented evidence with something as nebulous as personal belief (backed by no documented evidence).
As Marley23 noted, you need to stay away from examples. Yours don’t make any sense.
The documented evidence is the Bible, or various bibles from different faiths going back thousands of years.
The Bible is documented evidence for God in the same way that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone is evidence for wizards.
Ummmmm…what?
I get that some people really don’t understand the scientific process, but it’s pretty well known that you can duplicate just about any experiment.
The point behind the documented history of experimentation is that you can repeat it yourself and get the same results. You don’t have to take it on faith that it works.
Now, contrast that with the situation you suggest, where you do have to take things on faith.
Wow, we just saw your opinion evolve in half an hour! It’s impossible to take this kind of thing seriously. You wrote that your beliefs about god “turned around 180 degrees,” and now you’re claiming that doesn’t count as a change. Evolution is change over time, and not only that, you said that your views changed pretty quickly. And this isn’t the first time you have … let’s say … revised your opinion so you could say one thing, then say the opposite and claim you hadn’t contradicted yourself. It’s not working. You are simply murdering your own credibility here.
Circular reasoning is not the same thing as a tautology, and what you are describing is neither circular logic nor a tautology. You need to stop dressing up your statements in formal terms you don’t really understand. It doesn’t impress anyone and it doesn’t make your arguments stronger. It just wastes everyone’s time while they stop to explain how you are misusing the terms. Seriously, just say what you mean. And make an effort to stay on topic, please.
Convince us. How did Guillermo Marconi’s Catholic faith inhibit him? Or that of Georges Lemaître, a priest who laid the groundwork for Hubble’s Law? What about Philo T. Farnsworth, a Mormon? Even Issac Newton was a religious man (a radical for his time, who felt that worshipping Jesus was an idolatrous sin). All through history, there are prominent inventors and pioneers who somehow succeeded despite their faith.
The Tale of Gilgamesh is even older, so is that documented evidence that Gilgamesh really did get old Enkidu laid and tamed him? That there really were ogre guardians in the Cedar Forrest? 
Over 30 years my belief in whether God existed did change. But my basic belief that the Universe was rational did not change.
When I was in school, I rationally believed that God did not exist. At least most of you believe that’s a rational conclusion.
As I got older I grew disenchanted with a scientific approach, so I started to look for a spiritual approach to life. I started looking at the Bible (or bibles) as people on a spiritual quest. In other words, I did not look at the bible as having answers, instead it was rational people searching for God. When I looked at the bible this way, it made a lot more sense to me.
As a consequence, my basic belief in a rational Universe did not change in 30 years.
So, at this point, I have to ask…why did you ask the question you did in the OP? You obviously already have made up your mind, and no amount of evidence is going to shift you. That’s fine…you have faith and all that…but what’s the point of all of this? You aren’t going to shift anyone to your point of view on this unless they have a similar disposition, and no one is going to shift you because it’s impossible make someone see what they clearly don’t want too.
No, but it’s proof that in a past life, I got my freak on with ancient Sumerian deities. Oh wait, wrong thread.
You were a prostitute in a former life and scrumped Enkidu?? :eek: Man, you must have been SO drunk…
You can’t wriggle out of this by making up a distinction between beliefs and basic beliefs. You didn’t believe in god, now you do. You’ve already established that your belief in god is the basis of other beliefs you hold. Just let it go. Your philosophy professor overgeneralized, and the whole example was irrelevant to your point anyway.
Why did you get disenchanted with the scientific approach? You should be aware that science works no matter what you feel about it.
I don’t understand your comment on the Bible. Are you saying it is full of hooey but still valuable? Or do the people searching for god live in the Bible. In that case I disagree - the Bible is full of God contacting people, like Abram.
You can get spiritual solace from nearly anywhere - the Bible, Shakespeare, Harry Potter, even Atlas Shrugged :eek: None of these says much about the real world, though.
I thought that I had convinced you that God existed…lol.
I suppose the point of this thread was to see if there was a different vantage point which would allow us to resolve some of the differences of opinion between those that believe that God exists and those that don’t.
So hey, about the personal (empirical) experience that convinces you god had a hand in the design of your body? What about that? Or any of the other stuff you were asked about before leapfrogging to some other subtopic…
[QUOTE=pchaos]
I thought that I had convinced you that God existed…lol.
[/QUOTE]
I’m an agnostic…I COULD be convinced, if you could show me some proof. I’ve yet to see any, however.
There isn’t though. If you believe, then you believe…if you don’t, then you don’t. The only real difference is that most people who follow the scientific method COULD be convinced of God or the gods…or wizards, unicorns or even honest politicians…if you could show them real, solid and verifiable evidence. While on the other side of the coin, basically nothing could or would convince someone like you, because it’s not about evidence, it’s about faith. So…there really isn’t any common ground or shared viewpoint that could allow for a resolution, because there isn’t any evidence of God or the gods…which you and other theists don’t care about, but which would be essential to convince someone who is an agnostic or atheist that there is, in face, a God. So, no point to any of this except to go round and round the mulberry bush and keep chasing that damned weasel. Freaking monkey…
I agree with you to a certain extent, science does work when you are trying to design a better smart-phone.
But it doesn’t work, when it comes to answering the most important questions of life, because we cannot reproduce the experiment.
An example would be trying to decide whether you should charge up the hill into machine gun fire with fellow marines or just lay back and watch for a while. If you lay back and watch maybe the enemy will run out of bullets and then you can walk up the hill.
How would you reproduce that type of experiment?
That really isn’t an experiment in the first place.