NationStates Jolt Archive

I think you miss my point. You can't place the burden of proof on the atheists, because they aren't the ones claiming that something hitherto unproven exists. The burden of proof is on the religious.

What constitutes "proof" of God's existence?

So what you're saying is, you can come up with whatever you want whitout having any proof for it, and it's up to me to proove you wrong? It's up to you to proove that god excists, when you have done that, then I'll be able to proove you wrong but I can't proove something wrong that hasn't been prooven right yet.

Shit, what happend did you just read my post first and never scanned back to spot what tripe I was responding to?

No that is not what I am saying, all that I am saying is that I see the irony in that statement.

Exactly. So when an Atheist says, and all based on subjective beliefe;
'Relious people are narrow minded'
I can see the irony in this statement.

Though an atheist can genrally be convinced he is wrong if you show him proof.
A Believer will be convinced he is right, and all other beliefs - including the atheist lack of belief - are wrong no matter what.

A subtle, but important difference.

What constitutes "proof" of God's existence?

Certainly not him coming down to earth, dealing out a few righteous smitings, declaring himself God and taking everybody to heaven to boogie with Jimi Hendrix and Elvis.

Any sufficiently powerful being could do that...

Trilby63;12069299']Certainly not him coming down to earth, dealing out a few righteous smitings, declaring himself God and taking everybody to heaven to boogie with Jimi Hendrix and Elvis.

Any sufficiently powerful being could do that...

And that somehow makes him not God? That's pretty damn impressive regardless of if someone else could do it or not.

Again, you run in to the problem of "what is God?".

Though an atheist can genrally be convinced he is wrong if you show him proof.
A Believer will be convinced he is right, and all other beliefs - including the atheist lack of belief - are wrong no matter what.

A subtle, but important difference.


Hehe again, somebody else falls into the same trap. You mean of course some belivers will be conviced he is right.

If you use an absolute term and then fail to show how objectivly it is true then, it is nowt more than a subjective belief.

If you belive this to be true of all religouse people, then you either poces objective verifaction, or it is a subjective belief of yours.

If as I supect it is a subjective belife, then you (I know it was not you that said it, I use you as an example) are guilty of showing the same narrow mindedness as you accuse religous people of.

Can you not see the Irony in that?

Though an atheist can genrally be convinced he is wrong if you show him proof..

And nobody ever defines what that proof is, which means the atheist can't be wrong.

The problem is that proof is so ill defined. It is an overworked word.

And that somehow makes him not God? That's pretty damn impressive regardless of if someone else could do it or not.

Again, you run in to the problem of "what is God?".

If that happened I'd probably believe it was God but that's not the point. I don't think God could even prove he was God.

My brain hurts.

And nobody ever defines what that proof is, which means the atheist can't be wrong.

I personally would be at the very least intruiged by a decent motivation as to why believe in your god, and not in that of your neighbour, your greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgrandfather or even that guy living on the next continent.
Assuming you do not believe in them as well.

However, as far as proof is concerned me meeting God would be convincing to me. Possibly not to others, but that is their problem.

What keeps you from believing in the Easter Bunny (assuming you don't).

Atheists still follow rules. Morals are derived through logic, which, when properly applied will also lead one to conclude that it is in one's best interest to not only determine right from wrong, but to do right.

If faith, or the belief that you are being watched by an all powerful, all knowing being, is the only thing keeping you from behaving immorally, can you really say you're a good person?

If faith, or the belief that you are being watched by an all powerful, all knowing being, is the only thing keeping you from behaving immorally, can you really say you're a good person?

According to the reasoning of some Christians it is the ONLY way to be a good person. They say that someone who behaves well but does not believe will still rot in Hell - and therefor they cannot be good persons.

I wonder why people allow those sayings, but frown when I turn it around and state that no matter how decent you behave, if you are a Christian you can NOT be a good person.

So if you had actually read it you would have concluded that I think people that close their eyes for scientific evidence and say that they are wrong without being able to proove them wrong, in spite how many and strong they are, are narrow minded. And I think that god is an answer for all the things we don't know which I made very clear. Before, people thought rain and thunder was caused by gods because they didn't knew what caused it. Now we know.

Btw, agnosthic is a much better word than atheist when I think about it.[/QUOTE]

Ohhh it was you was, it. You are quite right I did misquote you, put that down to lazyness on my part, and please except my opplogies.

It was this bit here:


Unfortunately, I think religions will still survive even if science prooves everything that can be prooved because some people are just so narrow minded that they wouldnt be prepared to admit that they are wrong. Like today, it's even silly that there's a debate over evolution and creationism when there are so many prooves that support evolution and dismiss creationism."


You say:

'....some people are just so narrow minded..'

Now given the context, it was not non religouse people you where talking about. However I was mistaken, I did not see that word some.

And so because you did not use an absolute statment, but rather you indicated this was a subjective non generalised think, I was wrong, I should not have said about you what I did, so please acept my applogy.

However I will stand by my initial thought, which was merley people who say that all religous people are narrow minded, show their own narrow mindedness, and thus are being ironic. irony makes me laugh, which was why I said this rethoric is laughable, note I did not say that you personaly were laughable.

As to proof, I don't care of you belive or not, so I have no need to prove anything.

What keeps you from having faith? .

Faith is the belief in something with no evidence. I've no need for faith. No need for basing my life on fairy tales.

Faith is the belief in something with no evidence. I've no need for faith. No need for basing my life on fairy tales.

He nooo faith is the beliving in things with only subjective evidance, rather than objective proof. Something that we all do.

He nooo faith is the beliving in things with only subjective evidance, rather than objective proof. Something that we all do.

I bet the odds. When I drive I have no faith that the road won't fall out from under me. The chances are it won't. I bet on what previous experience tells me works. Sometimes I lose.

Assuming you do not believe in them as well.

However, as far as proof is concerned me meeting God would be convincing to me. Possibly not to others, but that is their problem.

Me? I'm agnostic. I don't think the atheist arguments against God are any better than the theists' arguments for him.

What keeps you from believing in the Easter Bunny (assuming you don't).

They're not the same. I can clearly demonstrate that the Easter Bunny does not exist, while God can't be shown to not exist in the same way. The concept of "God" is a lot broader than that.

Atheists still follow rules. Morals are derived through logic, which, when properly applied will also lead one to conclude that it is in one's best interest to not only determine right from wrong, but to do right.

But logic has its shortcomings. Your morality is at some point based upon fundamental axioms that have no knowable logical justification.

Because I find it impossible to follow a faith with nothing but blind belief. I mean, i'm not going to sell my soul just because thousands of years ago a guy said that God came down and told him to be a leader. How can you justify an omnipotent being just appearing out of a puff of smoke and creating the entire galaxy? Whats more is that religion has caused nothing but grief. The Crusades, the Nazis, Racism, Populace Division... all these stem from religion. Years back, the Church was corrupt and used its power for their own gain. Not much has changed. And I find that Evolution is a much more feasible idea on how we were created than the fact that God got bored and waved his magic wand and made Adam and Eve.

I'm agnostic mainly because there are so many religions out there today, most of them pretty much believing that they are the correct one. How am I supposed to know which of these to follow? If God wants me to praise Him, he needs to narrow it down a bit. Maybe have bad holy books burst into flames for no reason. He's God, he's supposed to be able to do anything... right? Why not give me a tiny little clue.

Also, I feel religion breeds hatred and has undermined civilization since people could pick up a sword. What if the Dark Ages had never happened? Where would we be today? Also, religions tend to conflict with my own sense of right and wrong. I, for instance, have no problem with gay people and I think they should enjoy the same rights everyone else has under the law. And yet, some people, have argued to me that it is against God for them to have certain rights. So I've decided that everyone can keep their gods, goddesses, idols, temples, and/or 2,000 year old books, but I'll go it alone.

If God has a problem with that, he can take it up with me when I'm dead. Until then, I'm not going to worry about it.

And I find that Evolution is a much more feasible idea on how we were created than the fact that God got bored and waved his magic wand and made Adam and Eve.

Evolution and God are 100% compatible. Besides, most people don't interpret the Genesis story literally anyways.

Evolution and God are 100% compatible.

I fail to see whats compatible between Mankind slowly evolving from primitive species of chimpanzees and God waving his finger and creating Adam and Eve out of nothing. Not just for Mankind, but any other Evolution. If God created all animals on the Earth then how come the whale wasn't around when it started? Because it evolved from a previous lifeform and not from the mind of a God who, despite the fact being all-powerful, never shows any evidence of his existence. And religious people, don't give me the "God does not interfere in Man" crap. He intereferred A LOT back in the day where conviently there was no recording equipment or any other way of tracking it instead of writing it down.

What keeps you from having faith? [...] Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it?

It's shockingly simple -- I'm not rationally persuaded that a God or gods exist.

It's not that science conflicts with religion, but that reality does not appear to support a theistic interpretation of reality. Even if science didn't conflict with a particular religion, that would not in itself support the conclusion that such a religion is true in its entirety.

Evolution and God are 100% compatible. Besides, most people don't interpret the Genesis story literally anyways. people who say evolution are 100% compatible do so because they've no proof of god and want to justify their beliefs. The Roman Catholic church realizes they have no proof for God and is now accepting evolution as fact(but it was gods idea:rolleyes: ). They realize they can't fight it and win so they take credit for it.

people who say evolution are 100% compatible do so because they've no proof of god and want to justify their beliefs. The Roman Catholic church realizes they have no proof for God and is now accepting evolution as fact(but it was gods idea:rolleyes: ). They realize they can't fight it and win so they take credit for it.

And there's something wrong with that?

There's nothing that says a religious institution can't interpret scientific ideas in the context of their beliefs, especially when their interpretation leaves the actual science up to the scientists. As far as I know, evolution isn't an ideology that somehow dictates your belief system; if it were, I would reject it as pseudoscientific trash and it would have no place in a science classroom. Anyone who says evolution disproves God has no idea what they are talking about whatsoever and are a disgrace to the scientific community.

I fail to see whats compatible between Mankind slowly evolving from primitive species of chimpanzees and God waving his finger and creating Adam and Eve out of nothing. Not just for Mankind, but any other Evolution. If God created all animals on the Earth then how come the whale wasn't around when it started? Because it evolved from a previous lifeform and not from the mind of a God who, despite the fact being all-powerful, never shows any evidence of his existence. And religious people, don't give me the "God does not interfere in Man" crap. He intereferred A LOT back in the day where conviently there was no recording equipment or any other way of tracking it instead of writing it down.

If you interpret Genesis metaphorically, you have no problem.

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.
Because I'm rational. In the absence of wholly persuasive evidence, I can't hold any belief.

Even if the relevant depiction of God were consistent with observed reality (and most are not), I would still need persuasive evidence of God's existence to be able to move at all from my default position of uncertainty.

I don't believe in God because I fear him, I believe in God because I want to. Thus, that assertion is wrong.

And my ancestors weren't prey animals, they were photosynthetic algae.
Didn't say you fear god, I said you fear being preyed upon and eaten and so turned to the supernatural to save you. And actually yes, yes they were. Now photsynthetic algea may have been way back on the chain, but between now and then, when the few instincts you have left were developing, our ancestors were indeed prey animals.

And it served us well for various social reasons, as we grew sentient, to be able to overcome the fear of being eaten. And so we developed a spot in our brains that registers when we think of the supernatural. Registers pleasure and safety that is. And as a resulet, we humans have found ways of stimulating that spot in much the same ways drug addicts stimulate pleasure centers artificially by ingesting various chemicals. People who like to stimulate the "God spot" enjoy religion, and the various things it demands we do. But they are still being delusional. Me, I don't tend to feel the need to be unafraid. I have been afraid, say, when artillery was dropping on my position. BUt turning to god was never an option> I just always decided to deal with it instead of doing the mental version of heroin.

people who say evolution are 100% compatible do so because they've no proof of god and want to justify their beliefs. The Roman Catholic church realizes they have no proof for God and is now accepting evolution as fact(but it was gods idea:rolleyes: ). They realize they can't fight it and win so they take credit for it.

News flash! The Roman Catholic church has supported evolution since it's inception with Pope Pius. Just because they think evolution is okay doesn't mean that they don't have proof for God. This shit is really starting to pissing me off. Can you morons explain to me why the hell you think God and evolution cannot co-exist? Is there some unseen law that says God can't use evolution? For all you fucktards know, God could have just been the force behind the big bang and then disappeared.

One thing I do know for certain is that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Science will tell you that in a heartbeat. Science was not created to disprove God. It was created to find the truth whatever that truth may be. If you stupid ass fundamentalists wanna keep turning this into a religious war, then go right ahead. You are the ones who are going to look like the jackasses.

...
Science was not created to disprove God. It was created to find the truth whatever that truth may be. ...

Mac World is right you know

Science was not created to disprove God

After all no one needs anything to disprove God, there being no reason
to consider one exists in the first place.

But it sure helped sway people away from believing in God as a byproduct.
The people who fail to grasp science tend to see it as the enemy for that
very reason.

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

Because it is illogical to think "How did we get here" and have someone walk up to you and say
"The world was created in seven days out of mud by a giant omniscient guy in the sky."
It just doesn't... work.

Okay then you have solid proff that God does not exist?
The same proof that square circles do not exist.

They're not the same. I can clearly demonstrate that the Easter Bunny does not exist, while God can't be shown to not exist in the same way.
It is shown in the same way we show married bachelors do not exist.


But logic has its shortcomings.
Such as?


Your morality is at some point based upon fundamental axioms that have no knowable logical justification.
Other than that they are apodictic.

Such as?

1) Some people have a maddening tendency to ignore it.

2) It can't solve a religious koan (God both personal and transcendant, the sound of one hand clapping, etc.)

1) Some people have a maddening tendency to ignore it.
That's a failing of them, not logic.


2) It can't solve a religious koan (God both personal and transcendant, the sound of one hand clapping, etc.)
Whatever makes you say that it cannot?

If you interpret Genesis metaphorically, you have no problem.

But if religion is just based on a metaphor, then why bother?

But if religion is just based on a metaphor, then why bother?

You are assuming he meant what he said literally.

Whatever makes you say that it cannot?

Religion is by definition unfalsifiable. It is beyond the realm of logic and reasoning.

You are assuming he meant what he said literally.

LOL ty! you make me laugh! :p

Religion is by definition unfalsifiable. It is beyond the realm of logic and reasoning.

Religion is beyond all reason

Religion is by definition unfalsifiable.
Not when certain claims are made, such as god creating the universe or being outside of it. Then we can analyze the claims and determine the fallacious nature of said claims, thus rendering the initial claim void.

Not when certain claims are made, such as god creating the universe or being outside of it. Then we can analyze the claims and determine the fallacious nature of said claims, thus rendering the initial claim void.

Even then, there are many ways that religious people can duck around that using the unfalsability as a shield. I'm not defending them, but I'm just saying that they don't play in the same ball field as you and I do.

But if religion is just based on a metaphor, then why bother?

Metaphors are tools. They are often used to simplify the matter to the understanding of the receiver, by equating something he can understand with something that he can not. Surely you know this?

And I post the following because I rather like it:

The Blind Man and the Elephant
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant~(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation~Might satisfy his mind.
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side, ~ At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant ~ Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho! what have we here?
So very round and smooth and sharp? ~ To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant ~ Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands, ~ Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant ~ Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like ~ Is mighty plain," quoth her;
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant ~ Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most; ~ Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant ~ Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail ~ That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant ~ Is very like a rope!

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion ~ Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right ~ And all were in the wrong!

Moral

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

-John Godfrey Saxe

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

Kinda surprised Straughn didn't drop in with one of his .. er, anecdotes or perspectives.

I'm an agnostic for a lot of different reasons, but the issue of not believing in YOUR (your being anyone else's litany of vindictive and emotionally stunted directives) "god" is a fairly obvious and basic principle - the popular gods, for the most part, were propegated by weakminded, churlish sycophants who had no real interest in spiritual enlightment, wisdom, or engagement of the more fabulous characteristics of the interactive "uni"verse. There's no reason to stoop to their level, and to do so would be a betrayal of all that really matters about these issues anyway.

actually, it has been proven that the belief is god is a purely volutary one. my idol, darren brown has proven that he is able to convert people to christianity by a touch of his hand. its very freaky to watch. he can also de-convert people. so i regard people who are very religous to have a mental problem.

I get your point and agree. Exept it is not voluntary, its forced upon you. You can through over the concept, only to reconize a new one, that obviusly fits your demands better.
So as fare as I understand, you are not a worshipper of anyone els but reverent D. Brown - He is your (god!) opject of Faith!
And as such, the sourse of your mentel case, I guess!?

I get your point and agree. Exept it is not voluntary, its forced upon you. You can through over the concept, only to reconize a new one, that obviusly fits your demands better.
So as fare as I understand, you are not a worshipper of anyone els but reverent D. Brown - He is your (god!) opject of Faith!
And as such, the sourse of your mentel case, I guess!?

sorry ment to say, unvoluntary.

I fail to see whats compatible between Mankind slowly evolving from primitive species of chimpanzees and God waving his finger and creating Adam and Eve out of nothing. Not just for Mankind, but any other Evolution. If God created all animals on the Earth then how come the whale wasn't around when it started? Because it evolved from a previous lifeform and not from the mind of a God who, despite the fact being all-powerful, never shows any evidence of his existence. And religious people, don't give me the "God does not interfere in Man" crap. He intereferred A LOT back in the day where conviently there was no recording equipment or any other way of tracking it instead of writing it down.

And yet again we see refutation of God based soley on the Christian concept of God?

The theory of evolution is compatible with a belife in God.

Why do you think religion is always about faith? It is not always. Many people follow religious teachings for moral, cultural, social or reasons of tradition. Don't be surprised if many of the people in your church are there to maintain their identity rather than their beliefs. This is especially true in the modern age. Identity and tradition are very important to many people.

Not when certain claims are made, such as god creating the universe or being outside of it. Then we can analyze the claims and determine the fallacious nature of said claims, thus rendering the initial claim void.

And how do you analise the supernatural?

And how do you analise the supernatural?
Religions sometimes make material claims. For instance, the claim that the Earth is 6000 years old. We can test such claims empirically.

However, religions also can invoke the magical mumbojumbo of the Goddidit Principle, which allows them to say anything they want without having to do any work or contribute anything meaningful whatsoever. At that point, I find it is best to just pat them gently on the head and direct them to the nearest swing set so they can go play while the grown-ups talk.

Anyway, it's because I've looked and haven't found any real evidence for god. Without some real evidence I can't believe in something.

Such is why it's called "faith" and not "fact."

Let's suppose, for a moment, that you were provided with irrefutable proof that God existed - though, I believe that it is impossible to prove God, but putting that aside for the moment. What would be your reaction?

Would you then believe or continue not to believe - and, why?

Put yourself in my position for a moment. Imagine you live someplace where everyone believes in dragons. Nobody can show you a dragon alive or dead. There isn't any real hard evidence. Do you go along and believe in dragons anyway? I can't.

Yes, if that is my faith. My faith would also dictate that it is not possible to prove the existance of dragons.

But if religion is just based on a metaphor, then why bother?
To learn something about yourself.

Religions sometimes make material claims. For instance, the claim that the Earth is 6000 years old. We can test such claims empirically.

However, religions also can invoke the magical mumbojumbo of the Goddidit Principle, which allows them to say anything they want without having to do any work or contribute anything meaningful whatsoever. At that point, I find it is best to just pat them gently on the head and direct them to the nearest swing set so they can go play while the grown-ups talk.

i agree with bottle.

Metaphors are tools. They are often used to simplify the matter to the understanding of the receiver, by equating something he can understand with something that he can not.
Just so.

And I post the following because I rather like it:
Cool; but you should probably point out the metaphor so that people who don't know them can identify it. (elephant = religion)

Metaphors are tools. They are often used to simplify the matter to the understanding of the receiver, by equating something he can understand with something that he can not. Surely you know this?

I certainly agree that metaphors can be extremely useful tools. However, more often than not, religious belief seems to be about embracing the idea that the metaphor is literally true.

Many of the stories in the Bible are elegant fables with important morals, and the metaphors that are used to deliver these messages are charming, clever, or exciting. This is good! It's a good idea to make important lessons also entertaining, so people will want to listen to you as you teach them.

The problem starts when you tell people that they have to believe in the literal reality of the story in order to embrace its underlying meaning. Not only does this require an infantilization of the listener, but it also undermines the actual meaning and morality that you are trying to teach.

The important thing to remember is that nobody dismisses the importance of myth. Not even the unbelievers. One might even argue that myths are best appreciated by those who do not believe in their literal truth.

In the fable of the Sour Grapes, the Fox is unable to reach a cluster of tasty grapes hanging just out of his reach, and so concludes to himself, "They must be sour." An unbeliever can appreciate the lesson in this tale without needing to believe in talking foxes. Similarly, the myth of Santa Claus can still contain meaningful lessons about good behavior and generosity, even if there is no jolly fat man distributing gifts through exhaust vents in private domiciles. To use a more current and "grown up" example, the values of charity, compassion, and love can still be communicated by Biblical stories even if there is no ressurected carpenter who champions these virtues from his Father's golden throne in the sky.

In contrast, the believer needs to know that Apollo is driving his fiery chariot across the sky, or else the believer cannot fully experience the merit of the Sun. The believer must know that a realm of torture and retribution awaits him if he misbehaves, or he cannot conceptualize the consequences of misdeeds. The believer needs certainty that Jesus was the literal Son of God, or the lessons and philosophy of the Bible lose their weight and meaning for him.

The believer is in trouble because he thinks the power of the myth rests with its factual reality. This amounts to accepting the lesson of "sour grapes" because a real, live, talking fox voiced his bitterness about some unattainable fruit. It is better to ponder the parable as a parable, so the lesson may be absorbed without submitting one's reason to the talking foxes of the world. This is particularly important considering that a great many talking foxes will have prodigiously wrongheaded notions.

Religions sometimes make material claims. For instance, the claim that the Earth is 6000 years old. We can test such claims empirically.

However, religions also can invoke the magical mumbojumbo of the Goddidit Principle, which allows them to say anything they want without having to do any work or contribute anything meaningful whatsoever. At that point, I find it is best to just pat them gently on the head and direct them to the nearest swing set so they can go play while the grown-ups talk.
Okay, but the age of the earth is not claimed to be a supernatural thing, not like its creation is. It is (if I recall) simply determined by counting back through the stated chronology in the Bible.

Okay, but the age of the earth is not claimed to be a supernatural thing, not like its creation is. It is (if I recall) simply determined by counting back through the stated chronology in the Bible.
Right. Religions make non-supernatural claims all the time, in addition to their supernatural claims. Science doesn't give a fig about the supernatural, but claims about the natural realm can be addressed and tested.

Okay, but the age of the earth is not claimed to be a supernatural thing, not like its creation is. It is (if I recall) simply determined by counting back through the stated chronology in the Bible.

carbon dating is enough proof for me to know evolution is right.

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

What keeps people from faith is that they are blinded and deaf to the Truth. Faith is not something that one earns. It is a gift from God. We are dead in our sin and therefore can make not action toward God to believe or do good works without the Holy Spirit. Jesus explained this when his disciples asked him why he spoke in parables in the Gospel of Matthew.

10The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"

11He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'[a] 16But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

This doesn't mean that those who don't believe won't ever believe. It just means that you cannot believe without the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. Faith is a gift of grace, not a man-made work. This is what the Word of God teaches. :)

I certainly agree that metaphors can be extremely useful tools. However, more often than not, religious belief seems to be about embracing the idea that the metaphor is literally true. ...

An excellent post, I agree wholeheartedly.

Right. Religions make non-supernatural claims all the time, in addition to their supernatural claims. Science doesn't give a fig about the supernatural, but claims about the natural realm can be addressed and tested.

There are things that science cannot prove, or consistently demonstrate (not that science is "wrong" per se, but it isn't all knowing, nor is it always a suitable tool for determining the truth).

One only need examine the two-slit experiment in detail, to see that there are things that science indicates are phenomena that truly exist that cannot be explained by proof.

There are things that science cannot prove, or consistently demonstrate (not that science is "wrong" per se, but it isn't all knowing, nor is it always a suitable tool for determining the truth).

Of course, and nobody claims that science is all-powerful or all-knowing.

Science is limited by the human beings who practice it, and by the technologies we have available to us. It is also limited to the realm of the natural, and cannot test subjective matters like morality.


One only need examine the two-slit experiment in detail, to see that there are things that science indicates are phenomena that truly exist that cannot be explained by proof.
You're missing a key word. "Yet."

There are tons and tons of things we can't explain...yet. Some of them may never be explained, while others may be explained tomorrow.

Some things can never be explained by science because they exist outside the realm of science. However, most of the topics that are held up by Creationists as supposed "proof" of science's failures are actually just areas where science hasn't YET provided a complete explaination.

I find that goofy, and pretty juvenile, quite frankly. If you think science hasn't filled in all the answers on some topic, then try getting off your butt and helping the process along! That's what I've done. I feel there are tons of unanswered questions in a field that fascinates me (neuroscience), so I've spent most of my life learning and training and participating in the ongoing research that adds to our understanding with each passing day. I don't just sit around bitching that other people haven't yet handed me the answers to the universe on a silver platter.

You're missing a key word. "Yet."


Physicists are already convinced that they are never going to explain the source of interference in the two-slit experiment, because they believe that the source of interference is coming from an unobservable, unmeasureable "other" universe existing simultaneously that overlaps our own.

They believe that while they will always have a hypothesis, they will never be able to prove it - verify it - as a theory.

Godel already showed that you can't prove everything. So "yet" doesn't even enter into the picture.

Physicists are already convinced that they are never going to explain the source of interference in the two-slit experiment, because they believe that the source of interference is coming from an unobservable, unmeasureable "other" universe existing simultaneously that overlaps our own.

They believe that while they will always have a hypothesis, they will never be able to prove it - verify it - as a theory.

Godel already showed that you can't prove everything. So "yet" doesn't even enter into the picture.

Of course, as long as they are free to hypothesize that there's an unobservable, unmeasureable "other" universe, they might as well write, "the flying spaghetti monster interferes with the photons..."

Physicists are already convinced that they are never going to explain the source of interference in the two-slit experiment, because they believe that the source of interference is coming from an unobservable, unmeasureable "other" universe existing simultaneously that overlaps our own.

They believe that while they will always have a hypothesis, they will never be able to prove it - verify it - as a theory.

Godel already showed that you can't prove everything. So "yet" doesn't even enter into the picture.
I already addressed this above.

Of course, as long as they are free to hypothesize that there's an unobservable, unmeasureable "other" universe, they might as well write, "the flying spaghetti monster interferes with the photons..."
Out of curiosity, why do you reply to your own posts?

Out of curiosity, why do you reply to your own posts?

I hate the edit button.

If I ever didn't have faith it's because I never had a reason to have faith. I saw reason to reject churches and religions, because they were run by fallable humans who claimed they were infallable.

I have a pseudo-faith now. It's theoretical faith. I think there's most likely something there, but I'm not sure what it is, what form it's in, how many of it there are, what it wants, or why it even exists, and I don't claim to know any of this because I can't possibly know.

There are things that science cannot prove, or consistently demonstrate (not that science is "wrong" per se, but it isn't all knowing, nor is it always a suitable tool for determining the truth).
The truth of what?

We do not determine what truth is through science or any other means. We only determine whether it is present in things.

Of course, as long as they are free to hypothesize that there's an unobservable, unmeasureable "other" universe, they might as well write, "the flying spaghetti monster interferes with the photons..."

Of course, not all scientists agree with the 'other universe' argument, either...

The truth of what?

We do not determine what truth is through science or any other means. We only determine whether it is present in things.

Heh sooo would you say that there is no truth to be found in science then?

Heh sooo would you say that there is no truth to be found in science then?

I would.

Science doesn't deal in 'truth', only responses to observation.

I would.

Science doesn't deal in 'truth', only responses to observation.


Soooo if I say that there is no such thing as gravity, you would counter?

Heh sooo would you say that there is no truth to be found in science then?
Just the opposite; science is a thing. Determinations are made by "finding".

I would.

Science doesn't deal in 'truth', only responses to observation.
Just so.

Look: *gets out her shovel to dig the hole a bit deeper* There is truth, and there are things, some of which are "true" (have "truth" in them); the rest are "false" (have "falsehood" in them). We do not determine (find) what truth is, simply whether it is present in things. Science can do the latter as well as any other method, because science examines things, those things that are within its mandate. It does not examine the truth itself, that is not within its mandate; that is a subject of philosophy. Hence we have to ask, "the truth of what?"

As bottle said, the "yet" is important.

Look: *gets out her shovel to dig the hole a bit deeper* There is truth, and there are things, some of which are "true" (have "truth" in them); the rest are "false" (have "falsehood" in them). We do not determine (find) what truth is, simply whether it is present in things. Science can do the latter as well as any other method, because science examines things, those things that are within its mandate. It does not examine the truth itself, that is not within its mandate; that is a subject of philosophy. Hence we have to ask, "the truth of what?"

As bottle said, the "yet" is important.



Ahhh put that way then yeah i agree.

Soooo if I say that there is no such thing as gravity, you would counter?

What do you mean by 'gravity'?

What we call 'gravity' is the seeming force of attraction between these different objects - like the attraction that holds me on this planet. But - anything beyond that has to be largely theory.

Do I believe there is an effect we call 'gravity'? Yes - I see a lot of evidence for it.

But, what is it? I could offer an explanation that might sound scientific, but it could just be that the world sucks.

Is there such a 'thing' as 'gravity'? It really depends on what you think the question means.

What do you mean by 'gravity'?

What we call 'gravity' is the seeming force of attraction between these different objects - like the attraction that holds me on this planet. But - anything beyond that has to be largely theory.

Do I believe there is an effect we call 'gravity'? Yes - I see a lot of evidence for it.

But, what is it? I could offer an explanation that might sound scientific, but it could just be that the world sucks.

Is there such a 'thing' as 'gravity'? It really depends on what you think the question means.

Heh exactly what the question says. Is there such a thing as gravity?

Ahhh put that way then yeah i agree.

Actually, I don't even completely agree with it, but I can't seem to find good words, today.

Truth isn't really a property, any more than existence is. But it makes for an adequate image.

Actually, I don't even completely agree with it, but I can't seem to find good words, today.

Truth isn't really a property, any more than existence is. But it makes for an adequate image.


Hheh I'd glady talk the nature of truth with you, but I guess in a new thread huh, and not now coz it's past 6:00 and I should be getting home.

Heh exactly what the question says. Is there such a thing as gravity?

That question is not specific enough to have any meaning.

What do you mean by 'thing'? A measurable entity? Something we are sure exists? Something particulate?

What do you mean by 'gravity'? An effect that we are fairly sure of? A hard and fast law that we can prove? A textbook descirption that cannot be altered?


There is an effect that we call gravity, but we really can't be too sure what it is or why. And, science would be loathe to claim it was some unalterable 'truth'.

I would.

Science doesn't deal in 'truth', only responses to observation.

*claps then slaps self*

What do you mean by 'gravity'?

What we call 'gravity' is the seeming force of attraction between these different objects - like the attraction that holds me on this planet. But - anything beyond that has to be largely theory.

Do I believe there is an effect we call 'gravity'? Yes - I see a lot of evidence for it.

But, what is it? I could offer an explanation that might sound scientific, but it could just be that the world sucks.

Is there such a 'thing' as 'gravity'? It really depends on what you think the question means.

Still Rockin'. :)

That question is not specific enough to have any meaning.

What do you mean by 'thing'? A measurable entity? Something we are sure exists? Something particulate?

What do you mean by 'gravity'? An effect that we are fairly sure of? A hard and fast law that we can prove? A textbook descirption that cannot be altered?


There is an effect that we call gravity, but we really can't be too sure what it is or why. And, science would be loathe to claim it was some unalterable 'truth'.


Thank you Mister Persig. That will be quite enough.

That question is not specific enough to have any meaning.

What do you mean by 'thing'? A measurable entity? Something we are sure exists? Something particulate?

What do you mean by 'gravity'? An effect that we are fairly sure of? A hard and fast law that we can prove? A textbook descirption that cannot be altered?


There is an effect that we call gravity, but we really can't be too sure what it is or why. And, science would be loathe to claim it was some unalterable 'truth'.

Heh hah the question is not specific enough? No the question is straight forward, more likely you see my intent and are attempting to wiggle out of it.

Let me put it this way if I asked instead is there such a thing as oxygen what would you reply I wonder? or is there such a thing as evil?


The question means exactly what it reads as, you are trying to over complecate things.;)

because god is a bastard

because god is a bastard


Hold now I'n confussed, you don't belive in God becuase....God is a bastard??
Huh?


Ohhh Ohhh I get it now!

TROLL everybody come look at the troll! Geez thats a hairy on and no mistake:eek:

Hold now I'n confussed, you don't belive in God becuase....God is a bastard??
Huh?


Ohhh Ohhh I get it now!

TROLL everybody come look at the troll! Geez thats a hairy on and no mistake:eek:

jeez...

(besides the question was about faith, and I am not about to have faith in a bastard)

jeez...

(besides the question was about faith, and I am not about to have faith in a bastard)

Heh and still you cannot see what is funny about that remark?

Look: *gets out her shovel to dig the hole a bit deeper* There is truth, and there are things, some of which are "true" (have "truth" in them); the rest are "false" (have "falsehood" in them). We do not determine (find) what truth is, simply whether it is present in things. Science can do the latter as well as any other method, because science examines things, those things that are within its mandate. It does not examine the truth itself, that is not within its mandate; that is a subject of philosophy. Hence we have to ask, "the truth of what?"

As bottle said, the "yet" is important.
Well put.

I can't speak for all scientists, of course, but I view science as a method and a tool, not as a religion or dogma. I don't "believe in" science, I use science to investigate aspects of the world around me. Science is a way to evaluate certain qualities of my reality. It has its limitations, of course, but that does not make it any less valuable to me as a tool. I don't see it as a mark against science that it cannot tell me the nature of Good and Evil, any more than I would see a hammer as defective because it fails to vacuum my carpets.

Well put.

I can't speak for all scientists, of course, but I view science as a method and a tool, not as a religion or dogma. I don't "believe in" science, I use science to investigate aspects of the world around me. Science is a way to evaluate certain qualities of my reality. It has its limitations, of course, but that does not make it any less valuable to me as a tool. I don't see it as a mark against science that it cannot tell me the nature of Good and Evil, any more than I would see a hammer as defective because it fails to vacuum my carpets.

The problem with science, as talked about by two different people (including one of my favorites, Dr. Feynman).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science

Heh and still you cannot see what is funny about that remark?

funny? no, but i'm in a more surly mood than usual.

funny? no, but i'm in a more surly mood than usual.

How can you call something that you belive is not real a bastard?

Now that's funny! Come now laugh you surly sod!

Hold now I'n confussed, you don't belive in God becuase....God is a bastard??
Huh?

Maybe the problem is with different meanings of "believe in"?

For instance, I've heard parents tell their kids, "You can do it! I believe in you!"

I don't think they're saying, "You can do it! I have faith that you really do exist!" Saying that they "believe in" their kid means something different.

So, one could say that they don't "believe in" God in that way, because He's a bastard. You could "believe in" God in the sense that He exists, but you don't "believe in" God in terms of having faith in the reliability, honesty, or benevolence of God.

Maybe the problem is with different meanings of "believe in"?

For instance, I've heard parents tell their kids, "You can do it! I believe in you!"

I don't think they're saying, "You can do it! I have faith that you really do exist!" Saying that they "believe in" their kid means something different.

So, one could say that they don't "believe in" God in that way, because He's a bastard. You could "believe in" God in the sense that He exists, but you don't "believe in" God in terms of having faith in the reliability, honesty, or benevolence of God.

You do make a very good point, again, heh but as is my way I was joking, havin' a laff, going for the giggle, takin' the Mick, and only playin'

You do make a very good point, again, heh but as is my way I was joking, havin' a laff, going for the giggle, takin' the Mick, and only playin'
D'oh.

I swear, I'm not really a humorless person, I'm just clueless enough to miss the point on a regular basis. :D

Heh hah the question is not specific enough? No the question is straight forward, more likely you see my intent and are attempting to wiggle out of it.

Let me put it this way if I asked instead is there such a thing as oxygen what would you reply I wonder? or is there such a thing as evil?


The question means exactly what it reads as, you are trying to over complecate things.;)

No, I'm making no attempts to wiggle.

Science should never be taken as 'finished' - we should never state anything as 'true' - because we are always limited by our own reason, and our own perceptions.

Science should be viewed as a toolbox through which to examine what we experience - nothing more.

Example: a hundred years agom science 'thought' atoms were a kind of solid, discrete thing... but our ability to perceive the data more completely has changed what we see, even though the thing itself (the atom) is just the same enigmatic design we would have looked at then.

We can debate 'forces' like 'gravity', but we should always bear in mind that anything we say about gravity is based only on our data so far.


Similarly - we talk about Oxygen, and we mean one specific arrangement of sub-atomic particles into 'atomic' particles, and the molecular ones. But, we hav been wrong before. Maybe there are other ways to arrange sub-atomic particles that would exactly mirror all the 'attributes' of an Oxygen molecule, but wouldn't 'look like' an Oxygen molecule. The atom, the molecule, the sub-atomic entities... all should be considered as very well substantiated 'ideas' about the nature of things. They should never be considered 'true' in some 'beyond reproach' way.