As a man who understands the concept of the right tool for the right job, you will understand that the same is true of sources of knowledge. You will understand that an empirical system is worthless for that which cannot be seen — for example, proving that 1 + 1 = 2. You will understand that a deductive logic system is required for that task. Scientific experiments are fine and dandy, but when you must find the measurement of a circle’s circumference, knowing its diameter, a pencil beats a tape measure any day. So long as you are driving nails, a hammer is a fine tool. But when entropy has claimed your body — your tool is worthless to you. Now, you will say that once your energy capable of doing work is spent, you are finished as an entity. But I would say that that is only because you value that which dies.
And the pencil is as useful a tool as the hammer at times. Yet, the ability to use the pencil had to come from observations of real world. I can prove that 1+1=2. Put one apple on the table then add another one. When I count them the result should be two apples. I can prove that ~3.14 x diameter = the circumference by using a tape measure. How accurate I am depends on the accuracy of the tools used to do the measuring. How accurate I have to be depends on the task I am working on. This sort of mathematics is based upon observation, is it not? Am I correct in saying that more advanced mathematics builds upon what is observable and extrapolates that to what is not observable? At that point a theory is created and someone figures out a way to test that what the mathematical theory predicts is actually demonstratable?
And we are back to what I can see and what you can prove. It is irrelevant what happens afterwards as I can in no way measure or calculate the end result of something unless I have the ability to observe at least the basic way in which that something works. eg, I can’t calculate the circumference of a circle until I get past 1+1=2.
Now I can imagine many things that could occur after I am worn out, but that is my imagination and what I imagine is probably as valid as what anyone else has to say about the matter including mainstream religions and spiritual types alike.
We choose to be seperate from God and each other , and not share the love that is available to us, until, we begin to make choices that draw us closer to God and each other. Better? 
I find myself more concerned about what type of person they are. Trustworthy, considerate, humorous, etc. Just the info “christian” doesn’t reveal any important details to me. Neither does just the spiritual label. I know plenty of people who are spiritual who are not flakes. The fact that they{we} don’t have a common doctrine or dogma is an indication that we hold the qualities of an individual is higher esteem than the details of their spiritual beliefs. Our core connection may be as broad as a belief as a spiritual connection that runs through all creation.
It may not be as specific as other doctrines but it is just as valid.
But what of us happy outlaws? Seems to me from this thread this is what I’m hearing:
Spiritual people: “Spirituality rules the universe, it connects you with greater forces, it calms you and gives you purpose.”
Nonspiritual people: “But we’re perfectly happy and content and fulfilled without believing in any of that.”
Am I on the right track?
Well now you’ve gone and blown out the circuits of my bs-o-meter.
Not for me, it isn’t. I don’t see where the “choice” comes in. If he’s there, and he loves us…we would all know it. We wouldn’t question his existence anymore than we would question the existence of our own bodies. You may choose to believe something is there, whether conventional logic and understanding disagrees or not. But I can’t choose to ignore something that isn’t there in the first place.
I don’t understand the logic in this. How do you assume that if God were real we would all know it? Someone tells you God is real and you say “I refuse to believe that until I see evidence that is acceptable to me” Thats your choice.
Thats true, but simply declaring that something isn’t there doesn’t make it a truthful statement does it? Com’on you knew that all along didn’t ya?
Simply put, there’s no reason for someone or something to love me and NOT let me know it. Why must this “love” be hidden in mystery? Why wouldn’t a god prove himself to the object of his affection? There’d be more in it for him!
All I’m saying is that I don’t need to prove a negative. If and when a higher power makes itself known universally, I’ll most certainly acknowledge it. Until that time, I see no reason to behave as if it exists when nobody really knows that it does.
. . . and simply declaring that something is there doesn’t make it a truthful statement, does it?
How do you figure that? Why would a being who is the source of all love need to prove it to anyone. Since we’re speaking of a supposed omniscient and omnipotent being I can hardly see how there can be “more” in it for him.
Why is anything hidden or a mystery? Our knowledge and understanding is incomplete.
That is indeed your choice. It has nothing to do with proving a negative. It’s just decideing what you believe and why. Have at it.
I’m glad not everybody waits for someone else to prove something before they entertain the idea. We need the visionaries as much as we need those who call themselves realistic and practical.
you are correct. I never claimed otherwise. We are free to choose what we believe for our own reasons. That was the point of my response.
Yes, absolutely. Morality is not about ethics, but aesthetics. God’s gift to every person is that which the person values. You will have the desires of your heart because, as Jesus teaches, where your treasure is, there your heart is also. Hell is not a punishment; it is a reward.
As long as they’ll stop trying to convert me the first time I ask them to, and don’t insult me because of my religious beliefs or lack thereof, I don’t have a problem with them either.
No, sorry. All you proved was that, in that particular instance, you counted two apples. You did not prove that,* upon the next try*, you will count the same number. You have not shown that there is a general analytic rule that we can always use to be assured of the same answer.
Keep in mind that scientific tests cannot determine truth, but only falsity. Thus, a theory is identified as scientific if and only if it is falsifiable. Otherwise, once a theory has been tested, there would be no point in continuing to examine it — you will have arrived at the truth. There is controversy over whether mathematical statements are synthetic or analytic. It is reasonable to argue it either way. But what is not controversial is whether mathematical rules are analytic. They are.
Again, you value things that you can see — like measurements. So your viewpoints are to be expected. But given the brain’s proclivity for lateral inhibition, it turns out that what you really are trusting is what you don’t see.
Some men can see what others can only imagine.
Well, for starters, letting mere mortals know that there was someone in the drivers seat through all of eternity would be the fair and right and kind thing to do. I love my husband. I know I will be losing my job in a few months. I let him know ahead of time because sneaky, disingenuous behavior is generally frowned upon in a loving relationship.
That’s right. Which is to say that our knowledge of the existence of a god is incomplete. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I’ll have to continue to believe that anything is possible, but not necessarily probable.
I agree about the need for visionaries. In fact, they’re some of my favorite people. I don’t agree that believers in a higher power necessarily fall into that category…in fact, I believe most fall short. But that’s what makes the world go 'round, right?
I was with you up to the sentance I bolded. Our choices conscious and unconscious have consequences and so , we get what we choose, makes some sense. Are unpleasent consequences a reward or simply a natural result?
We pursue what we treasure, and we get what we pursue. My wife would love nothing more than an endless supply of popcorn shrimp, while I would consider that to be the foulest possible fate. It is ironic that some Christians will find themselves in the place of the prodigal son’s brother, mumbling and grumbling while people like Eve enjoy for eternity what she has always treasured. I tell you that God’s love for her is so great that He is willing to let her go, rather than impose Himself on her, since she has no interest in Him. And He wishes her nothing but the happiness that will be hers.
Doesn’t the quarry outrun us, sometimes?
I feel connected, but not necessarily to a deity or a “greater force”. I feel connected to more of the physical world than just myself, more than just my family, more than just my friends, more than just my species, more than just other living things.
I’m not “calmed” by my perspective. If anything it creates more questions than it answers. Questions that cannot currently be answered empirically. Do any of the unique byproducts of the chemical reactions within our physical selves that make us alive, aware, or self-aware (e. g. perceptions, instincts, behaviors, memories, emotions, preferences, personalities) endure after death? Are they distributed and recycled into other living beings as our physical selves are? My hypothesis at this point is yes, and that is based on applying what is empirically observed with our physical selves and applying the same principles to our selves that are not as clearly defined as “physical”.
I don’t feel my existence has more purpose or justification when viewed through my “connected” perspective. It is the best hypothesis I can come up with based on my scientific knowledge and the knowledge of myself in an attempt to reconcile both. I don’t think trying to reconcile the two requires a motivation of seeking purpose or justification.