Does science assume that nothing supernatural is happening?

[Prodigy54321]

I'm getting very consfused by the posts commenting that science doesn't find the evidence for god because they go off the assumption that he doesn't exist..so I'm going to tell you what I think..and you tell me if I'm wrong...

from what I know of science..this is simply not true...

science frequently deals with supernatural explainations..

if science went under the assumption that nothing happens that is outside our current understanding of nature, we would not have the understanding of nature that we have today..

the major advancements of science are essentially made from finding things which have no currect natural explaination..and finding out how they actually happen, thus rewriting their understanding of nature.

by now you're probably noticing that I don't seem to be talking about gods when I say "supernatural"..but I am...

there is no distinguishing between supernatural explainations...there is nothing to go off of...

god's existence causing something or a new particle causing something are both considered as supernatural theories...

but people arguing this point that I talked about want their god to be special in this consideration...just as with all theories as to a supernatural cause, it must be subject to evaluation, experimentation, observation of some kind...

but the god theory won't subject itself to this...

and it is not that it COULDN'T be subjected to this...there is no reason that I can see for why this particular supernatural explaination could not be evaluated just as any other...

but it is protected by people saying that it cannot be evaluated..because if this were not true, then we could easily see that this god theory is simply not true...

there is no disproving, no evaluating, and this is fine..there is no arguing with this...

but no reasonable person can expect science to consider this god theory under these self-protective circumstances

EDIT: by "science"..I often mean.."the scientific community" obviously

[benjdm]

I think wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural) sums it up best:

[ QUOTE ]
The supernatural (Latin: super- "exceeding" + nature) refers to forces and phenomena which are not observed in nature, and therefore beyond verifiable measurement. If a phenomenon can be demonstrated, it can no longer be considered supernatural. Because phenomena must be subject verifiable measurement and peer review to contribute to scientific theories, science cannot approach the supernatural.

[/ QUOTE ]

God is exempt from scientific scrutiny only as long as he doesn't intervene in the universe.

[almostbusto]

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

EDIT: guess i am a little late. lol

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I think wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural) sums it up best:

[ QUOTE ]
The supernatural (Latin: super- "exceeding" + nature) refers to forces and phenomena which are not observed in nature, and therefore beyond verifiable measurement. If a phenomenon can be demonstrated, it can no longer be considered supernatural. Because phenomena must be subject verifiable measurement and peer review to contribute to scientific theories, science cannot approach the supernatural.

[/ QUOTE ]

God is exempt from scientific scrutiny only as long as he doesn't intervene in the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

isn't there an infinte number of (truly) supernatural explanations(none in reality) for any event then?..why would we consider these?

Why in the world do people still claim that god intervenes, yet still say that it is not subject to scientific scrutiny?

also, is it safe to say that...if god exists, he would not be considered as "supernatural"?..just as with any other previously supernatural things which was explained in some way?

[John21]

I don't think it's so much a question of ignoring the supernatural, as much as it is removing 'arbitrary' influences.

Science limits itself to what is provable and falsifiable, so any independantly operating force would be outside its sphere of inquiry.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
isn't there an infinte number of (truly) supernatural explanations(none in reality) for any event then?..why would we consider these?

[/ QUOTE ]
We made very little progress in understanding reality until we did stop considering these.

[ QUOTE ]
Why in the world do people still claim that god intervenes, yet still say that it is not subject to scientific scrutiny?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people can't define what they mean by supernatural.

[ QUOTE ]
also, is it safe to say that...if god exists, he would not be considered as "supernatural"?..just as with any other previously supernatural things which was explained in some way?

[/ QUOTE ]

If God existed but did not interact with the natural observable universe then he would have an out. If God exists and does interact with the natural observable universe, then he would not be supernatural, and his existence would be scientifically verifiable.


Edited for grammar and ending.

[bunny]

I think there are two points here - I agree with you that people who claim God has an impact on the world but it cant be measured are not making sense (or using words in a particular strange way). However, if they claim that God doesnt interfere with the laws he has set up then it's true that he would be "invisible" to the scientific method.

The only possibility for a testable claim then would be that God set the whole thing in motion. This seems scientifically untestable in that we cant repeat the experiment or make observations of what it was like before the universe (ie outside of it). This seems to me to be a valid point - religion asserts the existence of a creator for the universe and the laws which govern it. Science cannot test that assertion so makes no comment about it.

It seems to me to be the key difference between the two - science is constrained in what it can talk about but we can be very confident in its results. Religion can claim anything, but we have very limited ways of determining the accuracy of those claims.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me to be the key difference between the two - science is constrained in what it can talk about but we can be very confident in its results. Religion can claim anything, but we have very limited ways of determining the accuracy of those claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems about the only thing that science wouldn't be able to explore would be those things that consist of non-interference with the universe. It's hard to tell those from the non-existant so I don't think science feels constrained :-)

Of religious claims not testable by science, what are the ways we can test their accuracy?

luckyme

[arahant]

I don't know what the original 'posts' are to which you are referring, but if they were sort of a 'pro-god' attack on science, there is another way to look at the claim. 'Science' is a human endeavor not exempt from cultural forces, so the statement could simply be meant to imply that scientists essentially reject god, and therefore will do whatever they can to find alternative explanations for phenomena.

I can certainly envision a universe where god exists, but a deluded group of 'scientists' posits all sorts of theories to explain his miracles. In fact, it would be kind of the reverse of our universe /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If God exists and does interact with the natural observable universe, then he would not be supernatural, and his existence would be scientifically verifiable


[/ QUOTE ]

Which instrument would you use to measure God empirically?

[FortunaMaximus]

A slide rule?

Seriously, a quantum processing engine.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that people who claim God has an impact on the world but it cant be measured are not making sense


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

science is constrained in what it can talk about but we can be very confident in its results


[/ QUOTE ]

These two statements don't seem contradictory to you? I don't mean that if God causes an earthquake the quake can't be measured but that God's involvement or not can't be determined by empirical means.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Seriously, a quantum processing engine.


[/ QUOTE ]


If that is real scientific equipment, how would God register?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Seriously, a quantum processing engine.


[/ QUOTE ]


If that is real scientific equipment, how would God register?

[/ QUOTE ]

Horribly, I'd imagine.

Well. a steady-state emergent effect would show up, I think. You know, particles are merely data points with uncertain position or moumentum. The mapping keeping them within a reference set that was finite would be evidence of an entity, and singularities would be turbulent masses of data. You'd be able to locate particles and see the paths they take from one end of the Universe to the other. That'd require a self-enclosed, self-aware coordinate set.

As long as you know how the basics of quantum computing works, you should be able to get there with the rest.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me to be the key difference between the two - science is constrained in what it can talk about but we can be very confident in its results. Religion can claim anything, but we have very limited ways of determining the accuracy of those claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems about the only thing that science wouldn't be able to explore would be those things that consist of non-interference with the universe. It's hard to tell those from the non-existant so I don't think science feels constrained :-)

Of religious claims not testable by science, what are the ways we can test their accuracy?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, you and I have been here before (and parted company disagreeing I think) but I would say logical inconsistency is a reason to discard a belief, even if you havent scientifically tested it.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that people who claim God has an impact on the world but it cant be measured are not making sense


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

science is constrained in what it can talk about but we can be very confident in its results


[/ QUOTE ]

These two statements don't seem contradictory to you? I don't mean that if God causes an earthquake the quake can't be measured but that God's involvement or not can't be determined by empirical means.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that God's involvement or not cant be determined by empirical means - this is essentially what I meant by the second.

The first statement was intended to apply to people who say things like "Praying for healing really works, but you cant test it scientifically." I would question what they mean by "works" since they clearly dont mean "increases your likelihood of getting better" - as that is a testable claim.

I didnt mean the first statement to apply to someone who claimed God was the cause for the universe and its laws - that makes sense, but is untestable for other reasons.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, you and I have been here before (and parted company disagreeing I think) but I would say logical inconsistency is a reason to discard a belief, even if you havent scientifically tested it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you convince me that religious beliefs must be logically consistant? If you did, it's worn off and I need to be re-sprinkled. :-)

luckyme

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, you and I have been here before (and parted company disagreeing I think) but I would say logical inconsistency is a reason to discard a belief, even if you havent scientifically tested it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you convince me that religious beliefs must be logically consistant? If you did, it's worn off and I need to be re-sprinkled. :-)

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont recall ever convincing you of anything. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

The end result was a suspicion on your part (if I am representing you correctly) that, when faced with an irreconcilable contradiction in the properties of god I would whip out a previously-unmentioned property and magic away the problem (a la the "god is outside of time")

EDIT: I dont know if it is necessary to state, but I regard our beliefs being consistent as a necessary condition for rationality and correctness.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The end result was a suspicion on your part (if I am representing you correctly) that, when faced with an irreconcilable contradiction in the properties of god I would whip out a previously-unmentioned property and magic away the problem (a la the "god is outside of time")

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope it didn't sound so dismissive. I'd say the part that leaves me glassy-eyed is that once we grant the 'outside time' part, which seems fair enough to do, how could we possibly know what is logical from that condition. I can't quite nail it down, but it seems as if that is set as a premise pretty well guarantees we're in alogical territory at best.

luckyme

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You know, particles are merely data points with uncertain position or moumentum.


[/ QUOTE ]

You think God is made of particles?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You know, particles are merely data points with uncertain position or moumentum.


[/ QUOTE ]


You think God is made of particles?

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't say that. Keep crunching.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Didn't say that. Keep crunching.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, fresh out of crunch.

[FortunaMaximus]

<shrugs> Nothing I can do about that then. 'night.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The end result was a suspicion on your part (if I am representing you correctly) that, when faced with an irreconcilable contradiction in the properties of god I would whip out a previously-unmentioned property and magic away the problem (a la the "god is outside of time")

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope it didn't sound so dismissive. I'd say the part that leaves me glassy-eyed is that once we grant the 'outside time' part, which seems fair enough to do, how could we possibly know what is logical from that condition. I can't quite nail it down, but it seems as if that is set as a premise pretty well guarantees we're in alogical territory at best.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Certainly not dismissive - that's purely my recounting. It was challenging and thought provoking (which I'm sure we both agree are good things) even though I ended up not being convinced. For what it's worth the outside time thing doesnt seem problematical logically to me as long as you believe, as I do, that the laws of logic apply "beyond" our universe.

I'd have a hard time convincing a skeptic of that claim though.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
These two statements don't seem contradictory to you? I don't mean that if God causes an earthquake the quake can't be measured but that God's involvement or not can't be determined by empirical means.

[/ QUOTE ]

If God's involvement can't be determined by empirical means, then either he's not directly affecting the physical world (doing so would create measurable effects), or he's being "tricky" (either he's carefully affecting the physical world only when nobody happens to be watching, or he's covering his tracks, etc).

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If God's involvement can't be determined by empirical means, then either he's not directly affecting the physical world (doing so would create measurable effects)


[/ QUOTE ]

The effects are measurable, that God is involved isn't.

[ QUOTE ]

or he's being "tricky"


[/ QUOTE ]

How is it being tricky to tell you what He's doing? If you choose not to believe Him you're tricking yourself.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
The effects are measurable, that God is involved isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "God-related" measurable effects would represent a statistical anomaly. Not necessarily an indication that God is involved per se, but why aren't we finding these statistical anomalies? God must be covering his tracks, plain and simple.

[ QUOTE ]
How is it being tricky to tell you what He's doing? If you choose not to believe Him you're tricking yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

He hasn't told me what he's doing. Or a lot of other people. And he certainly hasn't made any kind of universal proclamation. If God only tells an elite inner circle what he's doing, but refuses to tell anyone else, how does that not qualify as being tricky?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The "God-related" measurable effects would represent a statistical anomaly.


[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know this?

[ QUOTE ]

And he certainly hasn't made any kind of universal proclamation.


[/ QUOTE ]

But He has. Both in His word and in nature. Read Romans 1.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You know, particles are merely data points with uncertain position or moumentum.


[/ QUOTE ]


You think God is made of particles?

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't say that. Keep crunching.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry about the brevity last night, I was just about ready for bed.

Anyway, no, I don't hold that God is made of particles, but that he is the total sum of all elements, both baryonic and non-baryonic. What this engine would do is map out the Universe and detect if there's an underlying force. I don't know. I get the sense that dark matter is going to be pretty infodense, and that a case can be made for life within such. It, after all, is the undetectable 90%.

Anyway, I have little doubt about the structure of angelic choirs, however, the existence of a supereme entity cannot be discerned from the underlying structure with the information we have today.

[CityFan]

I don't know if this has already been said but:

Surely the reason science cannot TEST the existence of God is that those who claim he exists have not provided us with any quantifiable predicitions. Relativity predicts gravitational lenses: verified. God predicts... what?

Science does not generally ASSUME anything, but is concerned with keeping things as simple as possible. If the existence of a god is not necessary to explain what we see, and cannot be tested experimentally, then scientists are not going to include a god in their model of the world.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Sorry about the brevity last night, I was just about ready for bed.


[/ QUOTE ]

No problem, I was much too tired to try to figure out what you were saying./images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]

he is the total sum of all elements


[/ QUOTE ]

If He created the universe then there's no reason to think He's composed of any elements. The theological term is that God is simple, not made up of parts. Also, He is spririt, not material.

If God is what the Bible says He is and if science is the empirical study of the material world then it's obvious science could never detect God or measure Him, and therefore science can only be agnostic - it doesn't know and can't know, by definition.

[FortunaMaximus]

Well, yeah. Although I'm inclined to think it's a She instead. Well, I feminize God, while acknowledging that the entity is polymorphous generally. Wombs to tombs to wombs, ya know?

The solution set should be unknowable. Otherwise, there's little chance of large-scale randomness. I've never really felt that this Universe is the only thing in existence, and would be willing to bet the manifold is vastly larger than that.

Considering 21st century science hasn't even defined the Grand Unified Theory, I guess I'm waiting for science to catch up. Aren't intelligent theists too, eh? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I'm forever agnostic, if only for these two things: There's far too much pain on this world to warrant an omnibenevolent God. So that's a margin of error I'm not amused with. And, well, there are days when I despair for an Universe without a God to keep an eye on things.

I don't doubt the possibility of the existence, only the intents of her plan. And I do assign a very high probability to the existence, probably higher than most people that claim to be Christians.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Aren't intelligent theists too, eh?


[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt science has even scratched the surface of what's out there. I think Newton had the same attitude, that what he knew about the universe didn't amount to a teaspoon of knowledge compared to the reality.

[ QUOTE ]

There's far too much pain on this world to warrant an omnibenevolent God


[/ QUOTE ]

This is perhaps the toughest subject for Christians - we weep for the suffering of mankind just as much as others. Probably more theological ink has been spilt over this topic than any other. It's the strongest criticism brought by non-believers. There's no easy answer but if God isn't the answer, what is? The only possibility for all the pain to mean something is if God exists. Otherwise it's literally all for nothing.

[FortunaMaximus]

If a being was capable of bringing individuals of a species onto a immortal platform, i.e. Heaven/Purgatory/Hell, the concept of a realistic, existing God suddenly makes a lot more sense. Because you can essentially leave them to their own devices and judge and reassign them after they've run their century's trial.

Mickey called him the ultimate sadist. I'm not so sure he's wrong, just lazy in his reasoning.

How would you value good without evil, for instance? I get so damn angry at times when I realize the crimes of misogyny and the historical role of domination and exploitation that males have held over females.

And if I didn't instinctively realize there was a bigger structure in place that rendered most of my intents for justice irrelevant, yeah, I'd have very few moral qualms in balancing the books.

There's such a terrible price to pay for insight sometimes, but hey, I'm stuck with it, right? At least I'm psychologically able and intellectually capable of dealing with it.

It is beauty more so than sadness that brings the strongest emotions to me. So I don't know. In my book, God's accountable. I understand why, but I don't understand the extremism. There's absolutely no reason those ranges of evil and good should be as huge as they are.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I get so damn angry at times when I realize the crimes of misogyny and the historical role of domination and exploitation that males have held over females.


[/ QUOTE ]

You might be interested in what the Bible has to say on that subject:

Galatians 3:
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 5:
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her

28So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;

33Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself

Colossians 3:
19Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.

1 Peter 3:
7You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

Scripture demands similar attitudes towards children. Both of these positions were radically different from the prevailing opinions and practices of the time.

[ QUOTE ]

In my book, God's accountable.


[/ QUOTE ]

In God's Book, man is accountable.

[FortunaMaximus]

Well, God certainly set the rules of engagement quite clearly in the book. So it's up to man to follow that standard, then.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So it's up to man to follow that standard, then.


[/ QUOTE ]

It was, but he blew it at the outset. That left it up to God to fix it.

[FortunaMaximus]

Looks like it's not improved a great deal since then. What's next, a benevolent global dictatorship? That should be the next transition. With all those nukes being spread around, that's going to be a hell of a thing to implement.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The "God-related" measurable effects would represent a statistical anomaly.


[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because if God creates effects outside of what would be expected based on our observations, then those effects will be noticeable based on the fact that they deviated from the predicted results. If God creates effects that contradict any expected observations, then those effects will represent a deviation from predicted results by definition.

And for a concrete example. If God answers some Christian prayers and grants spontaneous healing to those Christians, then the rate at which Christians spontaneously heal must be greater than the rate at which atheists heal. This is true unless God is "covering his tracks" by healing atheists in equal proportion - in which case God's spontaneous healing can't be said to correlate with prayer in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And he certainly hasn't made any kind of universal proclamation.


[/ QUOTE ]

But He has. Both in His word and in nature. Read Romans 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because it's possible to decode random static as a message from God, doesn't mean it is. If a divine being were to send everyone a message, I'd expect that the message would:

1. Reach the intended recipients, that is, every human being on earth, not just those with exposure to certain documents.
2. Be clear. It certainly wouldn't be so garbled as to be interpreted differently by almost everyone who hears it.
3. Be distinguishable from all the other messages that are supposedly from divine beings.
4. Be timeless - a divine being would have no need to speak of things that apply in isolation to a particular culture.
5. Be coherent and remarkable. The power and meaning of such a message would exist on the surface as in great poetry - it wouldn't have to be "deciphered" by self-proclaimed "experts."
6. Be consistent and accurate. A divinity would hardly contradict himself, nor would he make ambiguous statements that, taken at face value, are blatantly false.
7. Be direct and to the point. There would be no need to be obscure and convoluted.

Of course, none of these would apply if said divinity were being tricky.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So it's up to man to follow that standard, then.


[/ QUOTE ]

It was, but he blew it at the outset. That left it up to God to fix it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when God created man, he created defective goods. And he's really bad at delegation. And very good at self-sabotage, sending the serpent and all.

Either that or he actually designed for man to "fail." That doesn't make his "tsk tsk tsk" very credible...

[brashbrother]

1. Reach the intended recipients, that is, every human being on earth, not just those with exposure to certain documents.

God is available to all who would earnestly seek Him.

2. Be clear. It certainly wouldn't be so garbled as to be interpreted differently by almost everyone who hears it.

God is Love. He created the world. He sent His son to die for our sins. Truly believe this, and you will be saved.

3. Be distinguishable from all the other messages that are supposedly from divine beings.

He showed his mastery over death.

4. Be timeless - a divine being would have no need to speak of things that apply in isolation to a particular culture.

Hard to test, except to say it has lasted thus far, no reason to think it won't continue.

5. Be coherent and remarkable. The power and meaning of such a message would exist on the surface as in great poetry - it wouldn't have to be "deciphered" by self-proclaimed "experts."

see #2

6. Be consistent and accurate. A divinity would hardly contradict himself, nor would he make ambiguous statements that, taken at face value, are blatantly false.

Examples?

7. Be direct and to the point. There would be no need to be obscure and convoluted.

see #2


I honestly feel that I have answered your "requirements" for a God you can believe in, but those answers are likely to be sufficient for me because of my faith. If you do not truly seek an answer to "why" we are here, rather than get bogged down with "how" we are here, then you are not likely to find God. Some atheists over time have set out to prove God did not exist, and convinced themselves the opposite was true, but those are rare cases.

Humans are inherently adrift, needing direction. But the acquisition of knowledge or money or power or other "stuff" tends to create a sense of self-reliance. As in, if I can't understand it, or some smart person can't understand it, or some smarter future person won't ever be able to understand it, then it simply cannot be.

In order for Man to seek God, he must first acknowledge that Man is Fallible, and that he can never share God's understanding of the universe.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Because if God creates effects outside of what would be expected based on our observations, then those effects will be noticeable based on the fact that they deviated from the predicted results.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was talking about "natural" phenomena like quakes.

[ QUOTE ]

1. Reach the intended recipients, that is, every human being on earth, not just those with exposure to certain documents.


[/ QUOTE ]

Read Romans 1.

[ QUOTE ]

2. Be clear. It certainly wouldn't be so garbled as to be interpreted differently by almost everyone who hears it.


[/ QUOTE ]

The signal is clear. The receiver is defective.

[ QUOTE ]

3. Be distinguishable from all the other messages that are supposedly from divine beings.


[/ QUOTE ]

I know you're kidding on this one.

[ QUOTE ]

4. Be timeless - a divine being would have no need to speak of things that apply in isolation to a particular culture.


[/ QUOTE ]

There were things in the Old Testament specific to Israel. They were His people, chosen for a specific task. He certainly has the right to delineate that task. Otherwise, "Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever".

[ QUOTE ]

5. Be coherent and remarkable. The power and meaning of such a message would exist on the surface as in great poetry - it wouldn't have to be "deciphered" by self-proclaimed "experts."


[/ QUOTE ]

See 2 above.

[ QUOTE ]

6. Be consistent and accurate. A divinity would hardly contradict himself, nor would he make ambiguous statements that, taken at face value, are blatantly false.


[/ QUOTE ]

Part of this is the same as 5 and 2. As to contradiction, there are none in the Bible. Before you start listing all the ones you copy from some website, I have a personal rule on Bible error and contradiction. You have to google the alleged error and explain to me why the explanation from a Christian web site is inadequate. I do this to save time because I refuse to deal with the same 1000 Bible "errors" every two days. Pick one and we'll debate it under the above rules.

[ QUOTE ]

7. Be direct and to the point. There would be no need to be obscure and convoluted.


[/ QUOTE ]

Same as 2 and 5.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So when God created man, he created defective goods.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible says God made man upright. Adam tried to blame God for his sin. God answered him by pronouncing judgment.

How would you design a creature with free will guaranteed not to fall?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Looks like it's not improved a great deal since then.


[/ QUOTE ]

By fix it I meant provide for the guilt of sin. Jesus did so with the atonement.

As to the global dictatorship, I'm not an expert on eschatology but I believe sometime in the future there will be one, only I don't think it will be benevolent - though after that there will be a change of dictator, and that will be benevolent.

[madnak]

You haven't answered anything, you've just stated irrelevant platitudes. I'd go into them, but it would be way too tangential. I'm busy talking to the Catholic, I don't want to get bogged down in "if God is available to all then why has nobody ever heard of him except where Christianity has spread?" or "claims of mastery over death are a dime a dozen - they hardly distinguish one religion from another."

But since I've already started, response to #2 says nothing about the clarity, accuracy, or relevance of the Bible - it works just fine if you don't include the Bible, but you do. Many other religions have lasted longer than Christianity, and most Christians simply discard most of the Bible because it talks about things from other cultures, most of the examples are extremely Greek or Hebrew in content, and even most of the rules are seen as silly by most modern believers in the Bible ("things were different back then"). It's about as "timeless" as the A-Team. Finally, I'm not going into the range of Biblical contradictions. Statements that the world is flat are pretty good direct indicators. Unfortunately, each individual contradiction is enough to start a whole new thread. It's worth noting that only txag has maintained his position as a strict literalist.

As for the rest, I'm dealing with that in other threads and I really won't clutter this one with it.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I get so damn angry at times when I realize the crimes of misogyny and the historical role of domination and exploitation that males have held over females.


[/ QUOTE ]

You might be interested in what the Bible has to say on that subject:

Galatians 3:
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 5:
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her

28So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;

33Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself

Colossians 3:
19Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.

1 Peter 3:
7You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

Scripture demands similar attitudes towards children. Both of these positions were radically different from the prevailing opinions and practices of the time.

[ QUOTE ]

In my book, God's accountable.


[/ QUOTE ]

In God's Book, man is accountable.

[/ QUOTE ]

that would be great if that was all that the bible says on that subject..unfortunately it isn't, and the mojority of what it says about women is isn't quite so good...

do you really argue with this?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
The effects are measurable, that God is involved isn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

replace the word "God" with anything and it is just as reasonable

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I was talking about "natural" phenomena like quakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you ascribe no purpose to such events, then of course God might create them. If, however, you suggest that God "uses" those events to "punish the infidels" or some such thing, the frequency of earthquakes should be much lower in Christian areas and much higher in atheist areas.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Reach the intended recipients, that is, every human being on earth, not just those with exposure to certain documents.


[/ QUOTE ]

Read Romans 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just did. It doesn't exactly make logical points, and you ought to know it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2. Be clear. It certainly wouldn't be so garbled as to be interpreted differently by almost everyone who hears it.


[/ QUOTE ]

The signal is clear. The receiver is defective.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a difference between not hearing and not listening. Anyhow, if God knows the receiver is defective, why doesn't he communicate the message in a way that he knows will be clearly received? I can think of a few ways God could offer communications to make me a Christian by the end of the day, or could express principles that would result in my adopting the Christian faith independently in a few years.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3. Be distinguishable from all the other messages that are supposedly from divine beings.


[/ QUOTE ]

I know you're kidding on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've been over this in many threads, and always with the same results - there's nothing inherently unique about Christianity. At most, it's just a unique recombination of elements. But there are no unique elements, outside of superficialities like the name "Yehoshua."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

4. Be timeless - a divine being would have no need to speak of things that apply in isolation to a particular culture.


[/ QUOTE ]

There were things in the Old Testament specific to Israel. They were His people, chosen for a specific task. He certainly has the right to delineate that task. Otherwise, "Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever".

[/ QUOTE ]

And others specific to Rome. And no way to tell which is which, and what is applicable today. (Other than that elite Catholic cabal and their self-proclaimed authority)

One would think that if the message has become obsolete, God could at minimum make a new message. If God saw fit to give the Isrealites and the Romans culture-specific messages, why does the modern world not need them?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5. Be coherent and remarkable. The power and meaning of such a message would exist on the surface as in great poetry - it wouldn't have to be "deciphered" by self-proclaimed "experts."


[/ QUOTE ]

See 2 above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Likewise. If God speaks French to an Englishman, and the Englishman doesn't understand, whose fault is that? Especially given that God knows English very well?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

6. Be consistent and accurate. A divinity would hardly contradict himself, nor would he make ambiguous statements that, taken at face value, are blatantly false.


[/ QUOTE ]

Part of this is the same as 5 and 2. As to contradiction, there are none in the Bible. Before you start listing all the ones you copy from some website, I have a personal rule on Bible error and contradiction. You have to google the alleged error and explain to me why the explanation from a Christian web site is inadequate. I do this to save time because I refuse to deal with the same 1000 Bible "errors" every two days. Pick one and we'll debate it under the above rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the explanations involve selective and usually nonliteral interpretations. If you allow for direct literal interpretation only, I'd be happy to take you up on that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
7. Be direct and to the point. There would be no need to be obscure and convoluted.


[/ QUOTE ]

Same as 2 and 5.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't even apply here. For example, you yourself have admitted that the Bible is polluted with all kinds of things that were specific to the Israelites - of course the Bible won't be clear to someone in the modern day. Also, when the student fails to understand the teacher, that is usually a fault of the teacher and not the student.

[txag007]

Why did Jesus speak in parables?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible says God made man upright. Adam tried to blame God for his sin. God answered him by pronouncing judgment.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Adam sinned, he wasn't very upright. If he then tried to blame God for his sin, he really wasn't upright. The only neat thing about this is that it entails God really was responsible for the sin.

[ QUOTE ]
How would you design a creature with free will guaranteed not to fall?

[/ QUOTE ]

So far nobody on this forum or elsewhere has even managed to describe free will in any coherent way other than that of Hume and his compatibilism. If we accept compatibilism, as I do, then this question is meaningless. But you don't, and you refuse to define free will.

Mind if I predict the future? If I describe a way to design a creature guaranteed not to "fall," or even just highly unlikely to "fall," then you will claim it's not consistent with free will. You'll claim such regardless of the method I describe. And since you refuse to delineate free will, I can do nothing. If you will clearly and logically define the restrictions of free will, then I can approach the problem clearly and logically. Otherwise you're just setting a rhetorical trap for me.

Though I can tell you some things I wouldn't do. I wouldn't create man with a temptation to sin. I also wouldn't create a "serpent" and let him in the garden to exploit that temptation.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no easy answer but if God isn't the answer, what is? The only possibility for all the pain to mean something is if God exists. Otherwise it's literally all for nothing.


[/ QUOTE ]

you cannot just assume that there must be a reason ....we're arguing about whether or not that very position is true

christianity posits that there must be a reason...other possibilities do not.

you cannot just say that IF christianity is true, there is a reason for the pain/etc...then say..if christianity is not true, what is the reason for the pain/etc?..

do you see why your argument is fallacious?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

unfortunately it isn't, and the mojority of what it says about women is isn't quite so good...

do you really argue with this?


[/ QUOTE ]

You would have to be specific. The Old Testament's rules for Israel, if that is what you're referring to, were given for that nation and were not intended to apply to all people for all time. They were laws which took into account the current circumstances. The quotes I gave show that God doesn't consider women to be spiritually inferior to men, but God does affirm there are significant differences in life circumstances, that He has assigned different roles for each.

[madnak]

Most prophets, "magicians," cult leaders, fortune tellers, and other similar figures speak in riddles. Most of them claim to be presenting truths beyond verbal understanding, or some such thing. However, most are actually trying to hoodwink others or themselves.

Which category do Jesus and the early Christians fall into? Well, I think you know what I think about that, but you want me to ignore the trend and believe that Jesus is an exception and even though he sounds like all these charlatans, he wasn't one of them.

Really "charlatan" is harsh - Jesus sounds to me like some of the people I met on a schizophrenic ward once. Or that one bipolar guy who kept believing he was an angel from another world. Nice, smart, normal on the surface, and completely [censored] deluded once he got going.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Reach the intended recipients, that is, every human being on earth, not just those with exposure to certain documents.

God is available to all who would earnestly seek Him.

2. Be clear. It certainly wouldn't be so garbled as to be interpreted differently by almost everyone who hears it.

God is Love. He created the world. He sent His son to die for our sins. Truly believe this, and you will be saved.

3. Be distinguishable from all the other messages that are supposedly from divine beings.

He showed his mastery over death.

4. Be timeless - a divine being would have no need to speak of things that apply in isolation to a particular culture.

Hard to test, except to say it has lasted thus far, no reason to think it won't continue.

5. Be coherent and remarkable. The power and meaning of such a message would exist on the surface as in great poetry - it wouldn't have to be "deciphered" by self-proclaimed "experts."

see #2

6. Be consistent and accurate. A divinity would hardly contradict himself, nor would he make ambiguous statements that, taken at face value, are blatantly false.

Examples?

7. Be direct and to the point. There would be no need to be obscure and convoluted.

see #2


I honestly feel that I have answered your "requirements" for a God you can believe in, but those answers are likely to be sufficient for me because of my faith. If you do not truly seek an answer to "why" we are here, rather than get bogged down with "how" we are here, then you are not likely to find God. Some atheists over time have set out to prove God did not exist, and convinced themselves the opposite was true, but those are rare cases.

Humans are inherently adrift, needing direction. But the acquisition of knowledge or money or power or other "stuff" tends to create a sense of self-reliance. As in, if I can't understand it, or some smart person can't understand it, or some smarter future person won't ever be able to understand it, then it simply cannot be.

In order for Man to seek God, he must first acknowledge that Man is Fallible, and that he can never share God's understanding of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

you've convinced me /images/graemlins/tongue.gif there is no evidence for any of this..but you say it is true..how could it not be /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

honestly..you can all you want things like

[ QUOTE ]
God is available to all who would earnestly seek Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

and

[ QUOTE ]
God is Love. He created the world. He sent His son to die for our sins. Truly believe this, and you will be saved.

[/ QUOTE ]

but it offers no credability..just because you say that god is available to all who earnestly seek him doesn't make it true..and there is evidence to the contrary even if he does exist..

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If, however, you suggest that God "uses" those events to "punish the infidels" or some such thing, the frequency of earthquakes should be much lower in Christian areas and much higher in atheist areas.


[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly quakes have done much more damage in non-Christian countries. But I don't look at a natural disaster and say God is punishing them because they are worse than us. Death, pain and suffering exist because man is a sinner. The so-called "Christian" nations have received more and are therefore subject to a greater standard. As we continue to fail that standard we may someday experience a greater disaster. God dispenses according to His wisdom, not our preconceived notions.

[ QUOTE ]

It doesn't exactly make logical points, and you ought to know it.


[/ QUOTE ]

It makes the revealed point relevant to this discussion.

[ QUOTE ]

why doesn't he communicate the message in a way that he knows will be clearly received?


[/ QUOTE ]

It is clearly received by millions, by His grace.

[ QUOTE ]

I can think of a few ways God could offer communications to make me a Christian by the end of the day


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps He will before the end.

[ QUOTE ]

there's nothing inherently unique about Christianity.


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one other non-Bible based religion that believes in an Absolute, Personal Creator that communicates with His creation.

[ QUOTE ]

And others specific to Rome.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which?

[ QUOTE ]

If God speaks French to an Englishman, and the Englishman doesn't understand, whose fault is that?


[/ QUOTE ]

The Engishman should get a translator. Wait a minute, the Bible has been traslated into English.

[ QUOTE ]

If you allow for direct literal interpretation only, I'd be happy to take you up on that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't agree to a debate that tells me I have to use the opponent's rules of interpretation. Very few texts of any kind would survive that kind of rule. I bet some science textbooks occasionally say things like "The sun rose".

[ QUOTE ]

For example, you yourself have admitted that the Bible is polluted with all kinds of things that were specific to the Israelites


[/ QUOTE ]

I probably don't want to debate you at all if you're prone to sophomoric debate techniques like that.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

do you see why your argument is fallacious?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really intend it as an argument, but an explanation. The fact that if God doesn't exist the universe is meaningless doesn't prove that God exists because as far as finite human reason is concerned, the universe may be meaningless. It's more an attempt to clarify. If you reject God, this is what's left. Most people don't understand the logical consequences of a non-Christian worldview.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

unfortunately it isn't, and the mojority of what it says about women is isn't quite so good...

do you really argue with this?


[/ QUOTE ]

You would have to be specific. The Old Testament's rules for Israel, if that is what you're referring to, were given for that nation and were not intended to apply to all people for all time. They were laws which took into account the current circumstances. The quotes I gave show that God doesn't consider women to be spiritually inferior to men, but God does affirm there are significant differences in life circumstances, that He has assigned different roles for each.

[/ QUOTE ]

first off..this is a common way to get out of having to consider things in the old testament that might not seem right today...

why subject women to those types of things at all? completely unnecessary for an omnipotent, omniscient, supposedly omnibenevolent god.

some years down the road, I predict that it will even be commonly accepted that being gay is just fine in the eyes of the christian god...we can twist the bible any way we want to...and this women business is just one example..

but I'll play along...

[ QUOTE ]
2 Peter 3:1: Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

[/ QUOTE ]

your 1 Peter 3:7 says.."live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker" implies that women are the weaker sex..which is actually fine with me since it is in many ways true, ..other translations (maybe more accurate) of "as with someone weaker"...say something to the effect of "because the woman is weaker"... again this is fine with me, but I just want to point it out..since it is pretty demeaning to some..

[ QUOTE ]
1 Timothy 2:9: In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
1 Timothy 2:11: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
1 Timothy 2:13: For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15: Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know exactly what these mean..perhaps you could explain it to me...but it seems that it's saying that it sin is all women's fault..which I guess might be true in that Eve sinned first, but to punish all women (specifically) for that..seems cruel.

[ QUOTE ]
1 Timothy 5:5: Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
6: But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.


[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't seem to be wrong for men though..

[ QUOTE ]
Matthew 5:32: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Matthew 25:1: Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

[/ QUOTE ]

not necessarily demeaning, but umm..ok?

[ QUOTE ]
Luke 2:23: (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Ephesians 5:22: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23: For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24: Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing

[/ QUOTE ]

why you chose to ignore to obvious subordination of women just 3 verses before the one you quoted from Ephesians 5, I do not know..

[ QUOTE ]
1 Corintians 11:3: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

[/ QUOTE ]

rest assured that this is only a small sample..even not from the "exceptions" you wanted.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

do you see why your argument is fallacious?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really intend it as an argument, but an explanation. The fact that if God doesn't exist the universe is meaningless doesn't prove that God exists because as far as finite human reason is concerned, the universe may be meaningless. It's more an attempt to clarify. If you reject God, this is what's left. Most people don't understand the logical consequences of a non-Christian worldview.

[/ QUOTE ]

umm, whether a nonchristian worldview, or a christian worldview, nothing has changed...all of this suffering still exists...and in both, we have no logical reason for it..but with a christian worldview there is supposedly a reason for it..

say all you want that there IS a reason for it, we just don't know what it is yet, but until you come up with that good reason, this should not be considered as one of your "logical consequences of a non-Christian worldview."

because until then, you have no greater "reason" for it than we do...the only difference is, we don't posit that there is one.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly quakes have done much more damage in non-Christian countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that true, proportionally? If so, then it could indeed be God's will. But since we've already identified physical mechanisms like plate tectonics in this case, either God is being tricky or he's manifesting his will through the physical mechanisms. Either way there's no reason to consider the quakes miracles.

[ QUOTE ]
It makes the revealed point relevant to this discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it doesn't refute my logic, and that's what you were using it for in this context.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
why doesn't he communicate the message in a way that he knows will be clearly received?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is clearly received by millions, by His grace.

[/ QUOTE ]

But not by everyone. This is the claim you're making, remember. Also if God can "fix" certain "receivers," and is omnipotent, then God must be capable of fixing all receivers simultaneously. In fact, given his omnipotence, he doesn't need a transmitter-receiver mechanism in the first place. That billions of people aren't receiving his message is a major indictment, no matter how you flip around it. Well, either that or God is being tricky and for some reason only giving his message to certain people...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can think of a few ways God could offer communications to make me a Christian by the end of the day


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps He will before the end.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if he doesn't, will you acknowledge my point then? You're witty, but I'm not going to accept glibness as an excuse to dodge my arguments.

[ QUOTE ]
there's nothing inherently unique about Christianity.


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one other non-Bible based religion that believes in an Absolute, Personal Creator that communicates with His creation.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's some major twist. Not only do you conveniently write out other "Bible-based" religions as if they aren't relevant (the "splitting" of Bible-based religions is actually very relevant to my point), but you also use a rather extensive combination of elements as your indication that Christianity is unique. Not that I already granted the specific recombination of elements in Christianity may be unique - only that the individual elements (an Absolute, a Creator, personal gods, divine communication, etc) have all appeared many times before.

Still, in spite of your flailing, Zoroastrianism hits you square between the eyes. You ought to do more reading.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And others specific to Rome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which?

[/ QUOTE ]

In terms of rules, references, speech, values, or relationships? The NT is littered with them.

Oh yes, of course, you can always claim there are modern analogues. And I'll give you that much - it's not like the OT where it's impossible to fit the NT messages into a modern context. That's probably because our culture is much more similar to that of Rome than that of Isreal. Nevertheless, when Jesus says "render unto Caesar" he's not being poetic.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If God speaks French to an Englishman, and the Englishman doesn't understand, whose fault is that?


[/ QUOTE ]

The Engishman should get a translator. Wait a minute, the Bible has been traslated into English.

[/ QUOTE ]

More glibness. You didn't answer me question, but you did change its context. You know as well as I do that I wasn't talking about linguistic barriers, this was in direct reference to your "damaged receiver" comment. And I guess answering the question of how it's our fault that God uses communications that few people can understand is just too above you?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you allow for direct literal interpretation only, I'd be happy to take you up on that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't agree to a debate that tells me I have to use the opponent's rules of interpretation. Very few texts of any kind would survive that kind of rule. I bet some science textbooks occasionally say things like "The sun rose".

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait - so you tell me I have to use your rules of interpretation. Then I say that's just fine, so long as you use a couple rules of mine (that are directly relevant to the point being discusses). And then you say I'm being tricky for giving you rules? What are you trying to get away with, here?

And I originally said that the Bible can't be interpreted directly at face value. And you disagreed with me, and gave me these rules according to which I might respond to your disagreement. And I said that's fine, but since I'm trying to establish only that the Bible can't be interpreted directly and at face value, we should proceed according to those assumptions. And now I'm being unfair?

Finally, very few texts of any kind are without error. I don't think any science textbook in existence is without some direct factual error. You're claiming that your book is better than those other books. That it's the divine message of God himself. Moreover, since it's the clarity of the Bible we're discussing, rather than its perfection, this is relevant no matter what. If the Bible does include errors, then it's lacking in clarity.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

For example, you yourself have admitted that the Bible is polluted with all kinds of things that were specific to the Israelites


[/ QUOTE ]

I probably don't want to debate you at all if you're prone to sophomoric debate techniques like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, "polluted" is a bit strong. But you're the one being disingenuous to focus on it. So we'll try a different angle:

Did you or did you not say that some passages from the Old Testament were only meant to apply to the Israelites, and not to modern people? Specifically, did you or did you not say that "the Old Testament's rules for Israel...were given for that nation and were not intended to apply to all people for all time?"

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Either way there's no reason to consider the quakes miracles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I agree with his point, but I'm pretty sure he is saying that the miracle is the absence of quakes in Christian countries. In other words, he reasons that God intervened to halt the physical mechanisms.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Really "charlatan" is harsh - Jesus sounds to me like some of the people I met on a schizophrenic ward once. Or that one bipolar guy who kept believing he was an angel from another world. Nice, smart, normal on the surface, and completely [censored] deluded once he got going.

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of this is because you are retrojecting modern sensibilities onto the ancient world, and also, because you read the Bible like a fundamentalist. You do realize that many secular scholars believe that the Son of God claims were a later interpolation? I don't necessarily agree with their conclusions, but I would expect you to.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

this is a common way to get out of having to consider things in the old testament that might not seem right today..


[/ QUOTE ]

It's clear from the context that many of the Old Testament laws were meant for Israel only. It's not a way to get out of anything, it's just plainly true.

[ QUOTE ]

I predict that it will even be commonly accepted that being gay is just fine in the eyes of the christian god.


[/ QUOTE ]

Homosexuality is sinful. So is adultery. Christians tend to treat gayness as more evil than adultery. The Bible makes no such distinction. For that matter, lusting for a woman is the same as adultery as to it's sinfulness. So someone who has ever lusted (Jimmy comes to mind) is as guilty of sin as any homosexual. The church is often imperfect in it's application of Scripture. You may be right that the organized church will cease considering homosexuality as a sin. They will be wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

2 Peter 3:1: Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;


[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably the most controversial. That pesky word "subjection". It sounds harsh to the modern ear. But read it in context. Husbands were to love their wives as themselves. There is neither male nor female in Christ. And in this verse the attitude of the wife was for the purpose of winning the husband to obedience, not because the wife was inferior. We all have crosses to bear, no doubt many husbands are significant crosses.

[ QUOTE ]

is pretty demeaning to some..


[/ QUOTE ]

It shouldn't be. There are clearly ways that females are weaker than males. No hint is given that this makes a qualitative difference. But it was considered so by most ancient cultures.

[ QUOTE ]

1 Timothy 2:9: In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;


[/ QUOTE ]

The New Testament advises circumspection and discretion for all Christians. We are to lead a quiet life, so far as it depends on us. This is given as an example of how that works for women.

[ QUOTE ]

1 Timothy 2:11: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.


[/ QUOTE ]


Like it or not, God made man the head of the family and appointed men as head of the visible church. Not very popular, but your argument is with Him. It's an administrative decision, not based on quality, but function. It has nothing to do with moral or intellectual qualities. All I can say is sometimes God just lays down the law.

[ QUOTE ]

1 Timothy 2:13: For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15: Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is much more critical of Adam than Eve. Who has the greater guilt, the one who was deceived or the one who knew better but did it anyway?

[ QUOTE ]

6: But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.

doesn't seem to be wrong for men though..


[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to look very far to find God's opinion of adulterers and fornicators.

[ QUOTE ]

Matthew 5:32: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.


[/ QUOTE ]

This gets back to the Old Testament and the method given to Moses for divorce. Only fornication and desertion were grounds for divorce.

[ QUOTE ]

Matthew 25:1: Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.


[/ QUOTE ]

This was a parable. The church is often called the bride of Christ, our union with him compared to marriage, and in the Old Testament Israel was called adulterous when it went after idols. I don't see anything demeaning here. On the contrary, that the church would be called a bride seems to be supportive of the feminine.




[ QUOTE ]

Ephesians 5:22: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23: For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24: Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing



why you chose to ignore to obvious subordination of women just 3 verses before the one you quoted from Ephesians 5, I do not know..


[/ QUOTE ]


This is similar to what I said before. I know modernity considers this demeaning. But taken in conjunction with God's commands to men it's clear that He was not giving men the right to abuse in any way. It goes like this:

Men: Love your wives as Christ loved the church. Christ died for the church. That puts a heavy burden on you. Also, you have the final say in decisions concerning the family.

Women: Do what your husband says as the church obeys Christ.

Both have a role or function. Niether is superior to the other. Many of both sexes will either not like or abuse that role.

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
1 Corintians 11:3: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.


[/ QUOTE ]

Same as above.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

say all you want that there IS a reason for it, we just don't know what it is yet,


[/ QUOTE ]

That there is a reason is surely different than that there is no reason.

But we do know the reason in part. Death came in because man sinned. In part at least, suffering shows us that sin is not trivial, that God considers it important. And His death on the cross shows that He won't and can't just say "forget it". A price had to be paid. I can't give you a specific reason why a young child gets run over and killed but I can tell you that the fact anyone dies is because of sin and there is a specific reason for that particular tragedy, that nothing happens apart from God's will. That's significantly different from saying it happened for no reason.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Not that I agree with his point, but I'm pretty sure he is saying that the miracle is the absence of quakes in Christian countries. In other words, he reasons that God intervened to halt the physical mechanisms.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if he did that, then there would be a statistical anomaly, which is what I've been saying all along. The fact is that we're seeing earthquakes exactly where we expect to see them based on physical factors.

There are really very few consistent anomalies. I'm sure they're out there, and worth noting, but they're so small and rare and obscure that they aren't even worth our attention. In fact, these statistical anomalies only happen about as often as we'd statistically expect them to happen...

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Part of this is because you are retrojecting modern sensibilities onto the ancient world, and also, because you read the Bible like a fundamentalist. You do realize that many secular scholars believe that the Son of God claims were a later interpolation? I don't necessarily agree with their conclusions, but I would expect you to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that if Jesus existed he was mentally unstable. I've actually known unstable people living under messianic delusions. It's rather common. And so it seems to me the most likely cause of Jesus's actions.

I don't by any means buy into the fallacy that "Jesus was either divine or totally crazy." But the hypothesis that he was mentally ill is very consistent with what we know of him, and I find it appealing enough to accept it. Keep in mind, I don't think Jesus was a "bad guy" in any sense of the term. The idea that psychotic people are violent and antisocial, or even that they aren't deserving of respect or admiration, is silly. It's probably based on the fact that most violent antisocial people are psychotic - but most psychotic people aren't violent and antisocial.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Looks like it's not improved a great deal since then.


[/ QUOTE ]

By fix it I meant provide for the guilt of sin. Jesus did so with the atonement.

As to the global dictatorship, I'm not an expert on eschatology but I believe sometime in the future there will be one, only I don't think it will be benevolent - though after that there will be a change of dictator, and that will be benevolent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor I. I however, am a student of history and of applying solutions to probable futures.

The Sullan invasion of Rome and subsequent dictatorship led to, eventually, the idea that motivated Caesar's invasion across the Rubicon, and his subsequent dictatorship of Rome.

Where the two examples differed was Caesar's trend towards clemency and strict benevolence rather than dispassionate, cruel dictatorship. I see he was mentioned a few replies ago in a "Render unto" statement. Interesting.

Had his reign not been cut short by his Forum enemies, Octavlan wouldn't have been thrown into the role he was at an early age. Still, he did well, but when you realize Caesar was Pontifex Maximus long before his consulships and military conquests of Gaul and Britannia, it becomes clear that he had stumbled upon the correct implementation of such a dictatorship.

He, first and foremost, had the love of his soldiers, and their respect as no commander before and since in the Roman Empire had ever been able to evoke. This had a lot to do with his upbringing under his mother, Aurelia, who suffered no airs despite her partician nobility, and chose to maintain a household in one of the Head Count neighborhoods in common Rome.

In that, the parallels of Jesus and Caesar can be seen, in that their fathers eschewed a traditional wealthy upbringing for early lessons in humility and understanding of the people. Both were betrayed at the end, also.

I wonder what would have happened if the Julian ascendancy hadn't been interrupted by the untimely death of Caesar, as he was a well and hale man, would have accomplished under his reign, as Jesus of Nazareth would have been born in Caesar's waning years.

Alas. I think you're accurate though, in that it wouldn't be initially benevolent, but the reasoning might be. Certainly it wouldn't be accomplished by the current American hold on giobal affairs.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't by any means buy into the fallacy that "Jesus was either divine or totally crazy." But the hypothesis that he was mentally ill is very consistent with what we know of him, and I find it appealing enough to accept it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, but you are evaluating historical evidence in the same way that creationists evaluate scientific evidence.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
This gets back to the Old Testament and the method given to Moses for divorce. Only fornication and desertion were grounds for divorce.

[/ QUOTE ]

women are not allowed to divorce on the same grounds..

[ QUOTE ]
You don't have to look very far to find God's opinion of adulterers and fornicators.

[/ QUOTE ]

god's opinion of adulterers and fornicators is not the same with men and women...

you can argue all you want that it IS the same, but the actions against it and the punishments, which are different for men and women, don't matter...but they do, I don't see how god's will can be separated from his prescribed actions or punishments.

as for the rest..it doesn't matter how you spin it by talking about how men are supposed to love their wives and such...there is no equality here if women are to be subjected to their husbands, but not the reverse...

[ QUOTE ]
Like it or not, God made man the head of the family and appointed men as head of the visible church. Not very popular, but your argument is with Him. It's an administrative decision, not based on quality, but function. It has nothing to do with moral or intellectual qualities. All I can say is sometimes God just lays down the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you believe that men should still make all the decisions and that women should still obey their husband's every demand?...

I'm fine with the fact that the bible says that that is the way it is supposed to work, but to say that the bible does advocate women being subourdinates to their male counterparts is just silly....

but luckily, we don't always follow what the bible says

I'll also point to the story of Lot...and the simply fact that polygamy is acceptable..but only one way...

I also want to note that the opinion that women and men are equal (or should be equal with respect to decisions, and right, etc) is not a universal one...the fact that the bible does not support this equality, yet much of the world does support it, points out that many people don't agree with god's opinion on what is and is not moral.

[madnak]

No, I'm coming to my conclusion based on the evidence; I'm not interpreting the evidence based on my conclusion.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I'm coming to my conclusion based on the evidence; I'm not interpreting the evidence based on my conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said yourself that part of the reason you are convinced of your "Jesus was mentally ill" thesis is because you find it "appealing." Maybe you meant this in a different way than I took it, but it's of no consequence. The idea is untenable given the evidence. Furthermore, your psychiatric bona fides are suspect, and psychohistory is generally, and rightly, viewed by professional historians as pseudohistory.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

say all you want that there IS a reason for it, we just don't know what it is yet,


[/ QUOTE ]

That there is a reason is surely different than that there is no reason.

But we do know the reason in part. Death came in because man sinned. In part at least, suffering shows us that sin is not trivial, that God considers it important. And His death on the cross shows that He won't and can't just say "forget it". A price had to be paid. I can't give you a specific reason why a young child gets run over and killed but I can tell you that the fact anyone dies is because of sin and there is a specific reason for that particular tragedy, that nothing happens apart from God's will. That's significantly different from saying it happened for no reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
That there is a reason is surely different than that there is no reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe according to you it is different, but to me, it isn't..

as with any "reason" that I have yet heard of (like the one you just talked about) it does no consitute a "reason" any more than there is a reason in a world without this god...

I have yet to be shown a "reason" that is any better than essentiall "because that't the way he made it"..which is no more that the "reason" in the absence of this god.."because that's the way it is"

your "reason" for the sufferring simply comes down to "because that's the way he made it....I see not greater "reason" in it..just as I see no greater "meaning" in this world with god.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Either way there's no reason to consider the quakes miracles.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say they were miracles. I believe God is "involved" in some way in all His creation. The quake doesn't happen apart from His will but that doesn't mean He's specifically punishing that country for specific sins.

[ QUOTE ]

But it doesn't refute my logic


[/ QUOTE ]

It refutes your point - God reveals Himself to all.

[ QUOTE ]

But not by everyone. etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the fault isn't God's. Man doesn't get His message because he refuses to listen, because he's in rebellion against God.

[ QUOTE ]

And if he doesn't, will you acknowledge my point then?


[/ QUOTE ]

You already have what you need to become a Christian. If not, you will before you die.

[ QUOTE ]

Not only do you conveniently write out other "Bible-based" religions


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't spell out all the detail of what I belive in every line of every post, obviously. I don't defend any "religion". I don't defend the generic name "Christian" per se, though I use the word for convenience. But the word has so many meanings it almost has no meaning. So I'll be more specific. What I defend is the Word of God contained in the Bible. The Bible speaks of God as Absolute, Creator, Person and many other things. I know of no other writing that does so. I was being brief before but to be complete I would have to include what the Bible says about God's creation, specifically man, man's sin, Christ, the atonement, justification, sanctification, the church and eschatology. The Bible is unique on these things from all other religious writings. If some other writing agrees with the Bible it was probably taken from the Bible. If not, then that particular writing is correct.

[ QUOTE ]

Jesus says "render unto Caesar" he's not being poetic.


[/ QUOTE ]

He was telling them to obey man's law. That is repeated in other places in the New Testament. He would hardly say to obey the American Congress.

[ QUOTE ]

You know as well as I do that I wasn't talking about linguistic barriers,


[/ QUOTE ]

You were talking about clarity. So was I.

[ QUOTE ]

And I guess answering the question of how it's our fault that God uses communications that few people can understand is just too above you?


[/ QUOTE ]

What is it that God communicates in the Bible that you don't understand? The central message is that man is sinful, Christ died for those sins, and the forgiveness secured by His atonement is available to anyone who will accept it. If you don't receive this message it isn't from lack of clarity.

[ QUOTE ]

Wait - so you tell me I have to use your rules of interpretation.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say that. I said I don't have to be limited to yours.

[ QUOTE ]

the Bible can't be interpreted directly and at face value, we should proceed according to those assumptions.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you mean by that. The Bible says Christ is the Lamb of God. Under your rules for that to be true He would have to have four legs and go baa.

[ QUOTE ]

If the Bible does include errors, then it's lacking in clarity.


[/ QUOTE ]

We should agree what we mean by error, and for that matter what we mean by the Bible. If Zondervan prints a Bible that has a typo are you going to claim Bible error?

[ QUOTE ]

did you or did you not say that "the Old Testament's rules for Israel...were given for that nation and were not intended to apply to all people for all time?"


[/ QUOTE ]

Many of the Mosaic rules were meant to be applied by Israel only. Israel was a true theocracy, the only one that has existed or will exist until Christ's return. All of the Mosaic rules were based on principles that are eternal. Israel was to punish certain sins in certain ways. The chruch was never given the authority to punish sins on earth. But the sins are still sins.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
You said yourself that part of the reason you are convinced of your "Jesus was mentally ill" thesis is because you find it "appealing." Maybe you meant this in a different way than I took it, but it's of no consequence.

[/ QUOTE ]

You yourself have acknowledged the relevance of parsimony. It's how we're forced to make decisions, ultimately. That's no indication of distortion or bias, or at any rate, it's a level of distortion and bias that applies to everyone.

[ QUOTE ]
The idea is untenable given the evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not. In fact, it's 100% consistent with the evidence. There's not one Biblical action Jesus takes that isn't consistent with such an interpretation.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, your psychiatric bona fides are suspect,

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? I've also read various books and articles, if you consider them less suspect.

[ QUOTE ]
and psychohistory is generally, and rightly, viewed by professional historians as pseudohistory.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't psychohistory, and I wouldn't present it as such. If it were, that would hardly support your claims, but it isn't. Txag asked me to evaluate the psychology of Jesus based on the Bible - I did so. In terms of historical speculation, well, I'll grant you that. In reality we can't even be certain Jesus actually existed. I'm only assuming that if he did exist, he resembles the character portrayed in the Bible.

So, I'll revise my position. I'm not basing my view on historical evidence, but on the presentation of the character "Jesus" in the Bible. And I'm not centering my conclusion on a historical personage of "Jesus," but on the character described in the Bible.

And I'm taking the viewpoint into consideration - the narrotor is a disciple of Jesus, and his words are to be interpreted in just such a way. That is, I read the Bible as I might read the account of a cult leader written by one of his cultists. Thus, descriptions of water-to-wine lack any inherent credibility.

The point is that Jesus, based on his actions and words, reminds me more of Don Quixote than of Siddhartha Gautama.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

women are not allowed to divorce on the same grounds..


[/ QUOTE ]


I'm not sure but at least I don't think any mention is made in the Old Testament about women obtaining a divorce. In the New Testament both are allowed divorce for adultery and desertion. Old Testament divorce was allowed because of their weakness. The OT says God "hates" divorce. It was a concession.

[ QUOTE ]

.there is no equality here if women are to be subjected to their husbands, but not the reverse...


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean total equality in all things. I meant and thought I said that God doesn't consider males any more important than females. But He has designed humanity in such a way that roles are assigned. That's supposed to be a good thing.

[ QUOTE ]

so you believe that men should still make all the decisions and that women should still obey their husband's every demand?...


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that on balance men should have the final say where there is disagreement after much consultation and prayer concerning decisions of major consequence to the family. As a practical matter, someone's will has to prevail. I also believe this is only going to work in Christian families that are committed to living a Christian life - I'm not proposing it as a rule of law for anyone. And even then women have a responsibility to God first and should not do anything that would violate God's law or their conscience.

[ QUOTE ]

I'll also point to the story of Lot...and the simply fact that polygamy is acceptable


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure God never authorizes polygamy.

[ QUOTE ]

points out that many people don't agree with god's opinion on what is and is not moral.


[/ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not, that doesn't shock me to learn.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Reach the intended recipients, that is, every human being on earth, not just those with exposure to certain documents.

God is available to all who would earnestly seek Him.

2. Be clear. It certainly wouldn't be so garbled as to be interpreted differently by almost everyone who hears it.

God is Love. He created the world. He sent His son to die for our sins. Truly believe this, and you will be saved.

3. Be distinguishable from all the other messages that are supposedly from divine beings.

He showed his mastery over death.

4. Be timeless - a divine being would have no need to speak of things that apply in isolation to a particular culture.

Hard to test, except to say it has lasted thus far, no reason to think it won't continue.

5. Be coherent and remarkable. The power and meaning of such a message would exist on the surface as in great poetry - it wouldn't have to be "deciphered" by self-proclaimed "experts."

see #2

6. Be consistent and accurate. A divinity would hardly contradict himself, nor would he make ambiguous statements that, taken at face value, are blatantly false.

Examples?

7. Be direct and to the point. There would be no need to be obscure and convoluted.

see #2


I honestly feel that I have answered your "requirements" for a God you can believe in, but those answers are likely to be sufficient for me because of my faith. If you do not truly seek an answer to "why" we are here, rather than get bogged down with "how" we are here, then you are not likely to find God. Some atheists over time have set out to prove God did not exist, and convinced themselves the opposite was true, but those are rare cases.

Humans are inherently adrift, needing direction. But the acquisition of knowledge or money or power or other "stuff" tends to create a sense of self-reliance. As in, if I can't understand it, or some smart person can't understand it, or some smarter future person won't ever be able to understand it, then it simply cannot be.

In order for Man to seek God, he must first acknowledge that Man is Fallible, and that he can never share God's understanding of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are the kinds of posts that shows why its fruitless to try to have a rational discussion with certain holy-roller types. (note- as opposed to someone like Bunny who attempts to balance his faith with reason)

The responses above are all meaningless beliefs that one could replace the Christian God with pretty much anything and it would hold as much weight.

For instance:
[ QUOTE ]
God is Love. He created the world. He sent His son to die for our sins. Truly believe this, and you will be saved.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is completely meaningless in a rational discussion. There is no proof for it. Replace Jesus with the Easter Bunny and it is no more or less valid.

I find it more interesting that a believer doesn't realize how meaningless this is to anyone but themselves.

Pretty much every answer he listed is entirely faith based. You are to accept it 'just because.' He knows its true simply because he was told its true and he wants to believe.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

maybe according to you it is different, but to me, it isn't..


[/ QUOTE ]


If that's so it would seem we've reached a dead end.

Just as an adieu I want to point out I've had several discussions of this nature concerning the meaning of the universe, etc. They all end with a statement something like "Well, why does the universe have to have a meaning?". I can never get past that.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that on balance men should have the final say where there is disagreement after much consultation and prayer concerning decisions of major consequence to the family. As a practical matter, someone's will has to prevail. I also believe this is only going to work in Christian families that are committed to living a Christian life - I'm not proposing it as a rule of law for anyone. And even then women have a responsibility to God first and should not do anything that would violate God's law or their conscience.


[/ QUOTE ]

that's very easy to agree with if you are a man...since you are not getting to raw deal.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

maybe according to you it is different, but to me, it isn't..


[/ QUOTE ]


If that's so it would seem we've reached a dead end.

Just as an adieu I want to point out I've had several discussions of this nature concerning the meaning of the universe, etc. They all end with a statement something like "Well, why does the universe have to have a meaning?". I can never get past that.

[/ QUOTE ]

mine usually ends with coming to the conclusion that a meaning or reason in light of god is no more of a meaning or reason without him...and thus the point is moot

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

that's very easy to agree with if you are a man...since you are not getting to raw deal.


[/ QUOTE ]

Until when the decision goes wrong and you've got no one to blame. And if you have a sense of responsibility it isn't even that easy in the first place.

If the Bible was really biased if favor of men why would it blame Adam for our difficulty since Eve was the first to sin? And why would man have such a heavy responsibility towards the wife?

I really think it's just that when you have two people someone has to break the tie. God says it should be the man. That doesn't mean he can't take his wife's advice. Probably he should more than he actually does.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

mine usually ends with coming to the conclusion that a meaning or reason in light of god is no more of a meaning or reason without him.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's pretty much the same thing. Like I said, I'm stuck at this point.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Reach the intended recipients, that is, every human being on earth, not just those with exposure to certain documents.

God is available to all who would earnestly seek Him.

2. Be clear. It certainly wouldn't be so garbled as to be interpreted differently by almost everyone who hears it.

God is Love. He created the world. He sent His son to die for our sins. Truly believe this, and you will be saved.

3. Be distinguishable from all the other messages that are supposedly from divine beings.

He showed his mastery over death.

4. Be timeless - a divine being would have no need to speak of things that apply in isolation to a particular culture.

Hard to test, except to say it has lasted thus far, no reason to think it won't continue.

5. Be coherent and remarkable. The power and meaning of such a message would exist on the surface as in great poetry - it wouldn't have to be "deciphered" by self-proclaimed "experts."

see #2

6. Be consistent and accurate. A divinity would hardly contradict himself, nor would he make ambiguous statements that, taken at face value, are blatantly false.

Examples?

7. Be direct and to the point. There would be no need to be obscure and convoluted.

see #2


I honestly feel that I have answered your "requirements" for a God you can believe in, but those answers are likely to be sufficient for me because of my faith. If you do not truly seek an answer to "why" we are here, rather than get bogged down with "how" we are here, then you are not likely to find God. Some atheists over time have set out to prove God did not exist, and convinced themselves the opposite was true, but those are rare cases.

Humans are inherently adrift, needing direction. But the acquisition of knowledge or money or power or other "stuff" tends to create a sense of self-reliance. As in, if I can't understand it, or some smart person can't understand it, or some smarter future person won't ever be able to understand it, then it simply cannot be.

In order for Man to seek God, he must first acknowledge that Man is Fallible, and that he can never share God's understanding of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are the kinds of posts that shows why its fruitless to try to have a rational discussion with certain holy-roller types. (note- as opposed to someone like Bunny who attempts to balance his faith with reason)

The responses above are all meaningless beliefs that one could replace the Christian God with pretty much anything and it would hold as much weight.

For instance:
[ QUOTE ]
God is Love. He created the world. He sent His son to die for our sins. Truly believe this, and you will be saved.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is completely meaningless in a rational discussion. There is no proof for it. Replace Jesus with the Easter Bunny and it is no more or less valid.

I find it more interesting that a believer doesn't realize how meaningless this is to anyone but themselves.

Pretty much every answer he listed is entirely faith based. You are to accept it 'just because.' He knows its true simply because he was told its true and he wants to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. In my case, I have seen these arguments time and again, and I have realized that there is no logical progression for me to explain to you that God is real, at least not one that you will accept. The reason is because you demand empirical evidence. As the Bible explains, we equate God to love, and it fits with my worldview because there is no empirical evidence to explain love either. Yet, I know it exists.

My point is that a person must choose to look for God from a sense that he needs a Savior...otherwise He is not discernible from the Easter Bunny, as you so aptly put. If you are looking to prove that God exists from a human, logical line of thinking, your search will be fruitless.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Reach the intended recipients, that is, every human being on earth, not just those with exposure to certain documents.

God is available to all who would earnestly seek Him.

2. Be clear. It certainly wouldn't be so garbled as to be interpreted differently by almost everyone who hears it.

God is Love. He created the world. He sent His son to die for our sins. Truly believe this, and you will be saved.

3. Be distinguishable from all the other messages that are supposedly from divine beings.

He showed his mastery over death.

4. Be timeless - a divine being would have no need to speak of things that apply in isolation to a particular culture.

Hard to test, except to say it has lasted thus far, no reason to think it won't continue.

5. Be coherent and remarkable. The power and meaning of such a message would exist on the surface as in great poetry - it wouldn't have to be "deciphered" by self-proclaimed "experts."

see #2

6. Be consistent and accurate. A divinity would hardly contradict himself, nor would he make ambiguous statements that, taken at face value, are blatantly false.

Examples?

7. Be direct and to the point. There would be no need to be obscure and convoluted.

see #2


I honestly feel that I have answered your "requirements" for a God you can believe in, but those answers are likely to be sufficient for me because of my faith. If you do not truly seek an answer to "why" we are here, rather than get bogged down with "how" we are here, then you are not likely to find God. Some atheists over time have set out to prove God did not exist, and convinced themselves the opposite was true, but those are rare cases.

Humans are inherently adrift, needing direction. But the acquisition of knowledge or money or power or other "stuff" tends to create a sense of self-reliance. As in, if I can't understand it, or some smart person can't understand it, or some smarter future person won't ever be able to understand it, then it simply cannot be.

In order for Man to seek God, he must first acknowledge that Man is Fallible, and that he can never share God's understanding of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are the kinds of posts that shows why its fruitless to try to have a rational discussion with certain holy-roller types. (note- as opposed to someone like Bunny who attempts to balance his faith with reason)

The responses above are all meaningless beliefs that one could replace the Christian God with pretty much anything and it would hold as much weight.

For instance:
[ QUOTE ]
God is Love. He created the world. He sent His son to die for our sins. Truly believe this, and you will be saved.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is completely meaningless in a rational discussion. There is no proof for it. Replace Jesus with the Easter Bunny and it is no more or less valid.

I find it more interesting that a believer doesn't realize how meaningless this is to anyone but themselves.

Pretty much every answer he listed is entirely faith based. You are to accept it 'just because.' He knows its true simply because he was told its true and he wants to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. In my case, I have seen these arguments time and again, and I have realized that there is no logical progression for me to explain to you that God is real, at least not one that you will accept. The reason is because you demand empirical evidence. As the Bible explains, we equate God to love, and it fits with my worldview because there is no empirical evidence to explain love either. Yet, I know it exists.

My point is that a person must choose to look for God from a sense that he needs a Savior...otherwise He is not discernible from the Easter Bunny, as you so aptly put. If you are looking to prove that God exists from a human, logical line of thinking, your search will be fruitless.

[/ QUOTE ]

god is undetectable...

you invent undetectable means to detect and undetectable being

you have not solved the problem..

sure we can't prove that either of these do not exist, but you'll have to forgive us for considering someone who does think they exist to be irrational on many levels

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]


god is undetectable...

you invent undetectable means to detect and undetectable being

you have not solved the problem..

sure we can't prove that either of these do not exist, but you'll have to forgive us for considering someone who does think they exist to be irrational on many levels

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't invented anything; skeptics have invented parameters to define something that can't be defined within those parameters at all; then they are satisfied that since something doesn't exist within those parameters, it must not exist at all. Forgive me for thinking that to be rather irrational on many levels.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
This is completely meaningless in a rational discussion. There is no proof for it. Replace Jesus with the Easter Bunny and it is no more or less valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think the Easter Bunny's existence is more likely than Jesus's?

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
you invent undetectable means to detect and undetectable being

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say that he invented undetectable means. Please explain.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


god is undetectable...

you invent undetectable means to detect and undetectable being

you have not solved the problem..

sure we can't prove that either of these do not exist, but you'll have to forgive us for considering someone who does think they exist to be irrational on many levels

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't invented anything; skeptics have invented parameters to define something that can't be defined within those parameters at all; then they are satisfied that since something doesn't exist within those parameters, it must not exist at all. Forgive me for thinking that to be rather irrational on many levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

but you accept the same parameters for all things except god..you make an exception for him...

so it is not the parameters that you disagree with, it is that you want to make a single exception to support your cause...

you would consider the given parameters to be acceptable to all other things..and would consider anything not within those parameters to be an irrational belief..but not for your own cause...

I could postulate my own exception to those parameters and say the exact same thing that you do with relation to your god...and it would be just as valid..with just as much evidence to back mine up as your..even though I have just made one up out of thin air.

if you do not accept these parameters in circumstances not pertaining to your god, then you are denying observation as a whole for evaluating evidence...

scientific evalutation is not just one way of evaluating evidence..it is THE way...science IS observation and analysis...

unless we humans have super powers (which must also be undetectable), this ability of observation and analysis is all we have

by accepting that these parameters accurately bring us to correct conclusions, you accept that this is the best way of observation..

your outside parameters have never been proven to be reliable..even withing the realm of these parameters themselves..whereas our parameters have

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you invent undetectable means to detect and undetectable being

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say that he invented undetectable means. Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought he was referring to my analogy of God = Love, since love is obviously not scientifically detectable; I guess it would beg the question as to whether he believes in love, or better yet, whether he thinks I invented it. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you invent undetectable means to detect and undetectable being

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say that he invented undetectable means. Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

when people say things like "you can't be brought to the truth(god) by your brain, you must be brought by your "soul" or "heart" or whatever....

it doesn't solve the problem because the "soul" and "heart" are just as undetectable as this supposed "truth"..

just as there is no evidence to suggest that this god exists, there is none to suggest that the sould exists..

so what can bring you to the conclusion that the soul exists?...

since our brains can't..you must invent another undetectable mechanism to detect this...and so on..at no point does is solve the original problem...

in the post above I try to explain that any number of these systems of detection can be pulled from thin air and have just as much cradability as the one that you postulate to detect god..

I acknowledge that there is an assumption here that we must detect things through scientific means..which would be fallacious if we didn't believe that these scientific means are either reliable, or the only means of observation that we have..

we all accept these scientific means to be reliable (for all things exept those which we must postulate another detection system for..

and since all other postulated detection systems are equally credible under consideration of these scientific means..as I tried to show earlier..

we MUST go off of the assumtion that we must detect things through these scientific means only.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]


scientific evalutation is not just one way of evaluating evidence..it is THE way...science IS observation and analysis...


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not forget, though, that science is invented by Man. "According to man's observation, this theory and this law and this equation all work." Fine.

You cannot, however, apply this to Man's design. You can't use man's thinking and man's reasoning to ascertain WHY man came into existence.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you invent undetectable means to detect and undetectable being

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say that he invented undetectable means. Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought he was referring to my analogy of God = Love, since love is obviously not scientifically detectable; I guess it would beg the question as to whether he believes in love, or better yet, whether he thinks I invented it. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
we MUST go off of the assumtion that we must detect things through these scientific means only.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Emotions and heart and soul and love and hate are all part of us, inarguably. These are not detectable scientifically, so do they exist?

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
when people say things like "you can't be brought to the truth(god) by your brain, you must be brought by your "soul" or "heart" or whatever....

[/ QUOTE ]

They're ineloquent, but I bet you can infer that they are not saying that the "soul" is the mechanism for their belief. They are saying that they respond viscerally or emotionally to God, or as you might more cynically put it, to the idea of a God.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's not forget, though, that science is invented by Man. "According to man's observation, this theory and this law and this equation all work." Fine.


[/ QUOTE ]

I try to explain in the post above that it MUST come down to this anyway...not becuase it is impossible that others exists, but that these other possibilities must all be equally considered..if one is reliable...are are equally reliable from what we can know...but since we consider scientific means to be reliable in all other situations other than ones which are undetectable to science..and thus supposedly require another undetectable mechanism, we can only come to conclusions based on these scientific means...

that means not considering any of these infinte number of postulations of detecting mechanisms..including the one that we can supposedly come to god through.

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot, however, apply this to Man's design. You can't use man's thinking and man's reasoning to ascertain WHY man came into existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're absolutely right, you can't find an answer to a question that has no answer...

you might say..it only has no answer if god isn't real..therefore you make an a priori assumption that god does not exist..

but I contend that even IF god does exist, it still has no answer..in any more sense that it could have an answer if there is not god

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]

but I contend that even IF god does exist, it still has no answer..in any more sense that it could have an answer if there is not god

[/ QUOTE ]

Odd. So if God exists, you are saying what exactly? That the WHY of Man's existence might still be in doubt? How is that?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we MUST go off of the assumtion that we must detect things through these scientific means only.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Emotions and heart and soul and love and hate are all part of us, inarguably. These are not detectable scientifically, so do they exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) love and hate are both emotions...
2) emotions are not the same as the "soul" or "heart"...

[ QUOTE ]
Emotions and heart and soul and love and hate are all part of us, inarguably.

[/ QUOTE ]

appartently "inarguably" doens't meant he same thing to you and me..because the existence of the heart and soul is not exactly a known fact

[ QUOTE ]
These are not detectable scientifically, so do they exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

emotions are detectable scientifically..and yes, we would say that they do exist..

the "soul" and "heart" are not detectable scientifically...

and as I said before...I will not say that they do not exist..but just as with all things which are undetectable scientifically, they are simply one or a few of an infinite number of possible things that are undetectable scientifically..so to consider those more than others is irrational.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

but I contend that even IF god does exist, it still has no answer..in any more sense that it could have an answer if there is not god

[/ QUOTE ]

Odd. So if God exists, you are saying what exactly? That the WHY of Man's existence might still be in doubt? How is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes..in any meaningful sense...

there is no more "why" for us in a world with god than there is for us in a world without him...

I addressed this in a post about the "meaning of life IF god exists"

[ QUOTE ]
How is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

to go into any detail..you will have to give me your specific idea of "why" we exist.

I can't tell you how something isn't a reason why..if you don't give me the "why"

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
because the existence of the heart and soul is not exactly a known fact

[/ QUOTE ]

9 out of 10 cardiologists disagree.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
because the existence of the heart and soul is not exactly a known fact

[/ QUOTE ]

9 out of 10 cardiologists disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

you know that's not what I meant...and I'm surprised that it's only 90% /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
You think the Easter Bunny's existence is more likely than Jesus's?

[/ QUOTE ]

Realistically, they're probably about the same. ie-- two fictitious mythical figures are both likely to not exist.

(that is of course not saying that there couldn't have been a historical Jesus which has little to no bearing on the supernatural magic Jesus we're discussing)

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You think the Easter Bunny's existence is more likely than Jesus's?

[/ QUOTE ]

Realistically, they're probably about the same. ie-- two fictitious mythical figures are both likely to not exist.

(that is of course not saying that there couldn't have been a historical Jesus which has little to no bearing on the supernatural magic Jesus we're discussing)

[/ QUOTE ]

fun poll /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]


emotions are detectable scientifically..and yes, we would say that they do exist..


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you referring to PET scans of the brain when someone is angry or happy? Or just outward expressions of emotions, like smiles and tears? Or something else all together?

Regardless of your belief, the scientific method includes reproducibilty and measurability as requirements, so how can you say love and hate are empirically quantifiable?

[FortunaMaximus]

Overturning mortal entropy > Being invisible and hiding eggs.

[kurto]

The easter bunny was never invisible. (Unless I'm so old I've forgotten all the mythic details)

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
The easter bunny was never invisible. (Unless I'm so old I've forgotten all the mythic details)

[/ QUOTE ]

I assumed he was, since nobody's ever seen him hide the eggs. Which has me thinking of Playboy bunnies. Oh, well.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
(that is of course not saying that there couldn't have been a historical Jesus which has little to no bearing on the supernatural magic Jesus we're discussing)

[/ QUOTE ]

I love how you say that there could have been an historical Jesus as if his nonexistence is the standard position.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


emotions are detectable scientifically..and yes, we would say that they do exist..


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you referring to PET scans of the brain when someone is angry or happy? Or just outward expressions of emotions, like smiles and tears? Or something else all together?

Regardless of your belief, the scientific method includes reproducibilty and measurability as requirements, so how can you say love and hate are empirically quantifiable?

[/ QUOTE ]

you're pretty much asking me to explain decades of scientific analysis of emotions..if you are interested, there are plenty of books and other resources on the subject.

emotions are usually attributed to visceral functions the brain (of the nervous system)..from what I know

and yes brain scans are a part of this (although not the whole part)...what is ACTUALLY happening to the body when we experience what we call "hate" for instance...is detectable...and it is that affect on the body that is what "hate" is..

how can you not see that emotions are detectable and the soul is not?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
As the Bible explains, we equate God to love, and it fits with my worldview because there is no empirical evidence to explain love either. Yet, I know it exists.


[/ QUOTE ]

Much of love is explainable. There is evidence for love.

There is zero evidence for God.

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that a person must choose to look for God from a sense that he needs a Savior...otherwise He is not discernible from the Easter Bunny, as you so aptly put. If you are looking to prove that God exists from a human, logical line of thinking, your search will be fruitless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think you inadvertantly showed the flaw of many theists... looking for something because you feel you need something is illogical. Though it shows why people invent and stick to religion. You NEED a religion so you choose to believe in something where there's no proof it exists. It fulfills a need for you so you choose to believe. That's fine if it makes you feel better but to try to articulate that this makes it real is ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are looking to prove that God exists from a human, logical line of thinking, your search will be fruitless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously. If you hold 'God' up to any rational reasonable standards you will never find him. But if you just close your eyes and decide that its true because you 'need a savior' it can be real to you. As can Santa, the Easter Bunny, Anubis and Loki.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(that is of course not saying that there couldn't have been a historical Jesus which has little to no bearing on the supernatural magic Jesus we're discussing)

[/ QUOTE ]

I love how you say that there could have been an historical Jesus as if his nonexistence is the standard position.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd read that again...he was clarifying his position..since the way he worded it made it kind of seem like he was denying the existence of the historical Jesus, not just the magical one.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
how can you not see that emotions are detectable and the soul is not?

[/ QUOTE ]

See my original post about fruitlessness of debating this kind of theist.

You guys are going way off tangent where the gist of his argument is we have emotions which someone means its just as reasonable that God exists...

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(that is of course not saying that there couldn't have been a historical Jesus which has little to no bearing on the supernatural magic Jesus we're discussing)

[/ QUOTE ]

I love how you say that there could have been an historical Jesus as if his nonexistence is the standard position.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not implying any standard position. I'm left it open as I've seen debate on the matter.

My point is that regardless of whether or not there was a historical Jesus, it has little bearing on whether or not the 'Christian Supernatural Jesus' is real or not.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how can you not see that emotions are detectable and the soul is not?

[/ QUOTE ]

See my original post about fruitlessness of debating this kind of theist.

You guys are going way off tangent where the gist of his argument is we have emotions which someone means its just as reasonable that God exists...

[/ QUOTE ]

Emotions are detectable, you, however, cannot quantify them. "There you go, +40 love points"... And I don't think you can quantify God. You can give him a theortical range, but that's just about all you can do.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(that is of course not saying that there couldn't have been a historical Jesus which has little to no bearing on the supernatural magic Jesus we're discussing)

[/ QUOTE ]

I love how you say that there could have been an historical Jesus as if his nonexistence is the standard position.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd read that again...he was clarifying his position..since the way he worded it made it kind of seem like he was denying the existence of the historical Jesus, not just the magical one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how can you not see that emotions are detectable and the soul is not?

[/ QUOTE ]

See my original post about fruitlessness of debating this kind of theist.

You guys are going way off tangent where the gist of his argument is we have emotions which someone means its just as reasonable that God exists...

[/ QUOTE ]

Emotions are detectable, you, however, cannot quantify them. "There you go, +40 love points"... And I don't think you can quantify God. You can give him a theortical range, but that's just about all you can do.

[/ QUOTE ]

my position does not depend one bit on whether or not it is quantifiable..only whether or not it exists

both the soul and emotions are not quantifiable, but one has been shown to exist, the other has not

[FortunaMaximus]

Not to your particular knowledge, I suppose.

And I can't argue differently without someone dropping by to ask if he could have what I'm taking. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Impasse, then.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how can you not see that emotions are detectable and the soul is not?

[/ QUOTE ]

See my original post about fruitlessness of debating this kind of theist.

You guys are going way off tangent where the gist of his argument is we have emotions which someone means its just as reasonable that God exists...

[/ QUOTE ]

Emotions are detectable, you, however, cannot quantify them. "There you go, +40 love points"... And I don't think you can quantify God. You can give him a theortical range, but that's just about all you can do.

[/ QUOTE ]

my position does not depend one bit on whether or not it is quantifiable..only whether or not it exists

both the soul and emotions are not quantifiable, but one has been shown to exist, the other has not

[/ QUOTE ]

I still want to know how something can be "proven" to exist if you cannot subject it to COMPLETE scrutiny via scientific method. Your premise is that God cannot be subjected to scientific method, so therefore any discussion regarding Him is irrational. According to Science, to be proven, a theory or idea must be falsifiable and reproducible, not just measured. So where and how are Love and Hate falsifiable and reproducible?

All I am saying is this: love, soul, hate, and God are all unprovable, but are nevertheless very real to the observer.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
All I am saying is this: love, soul, hate, and God are all unprovable, but are nevertheless very real to the observer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Love and hate are measureable and proveable.

The God and Soul are not.

Love and Hate are descriptions of behaviour and emotion. The emotive aspects are measureable physiological phenomenon in the human body.

There is no evidence or anything that can detect a God or Soul or anything of the sort.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how can you not see that emotions are detectable and the soul is not?

[/ QUOTE ]

See my original post about fruitlessness of debating this kind of theist.

You guys are going way off tangent where the gist of his argument is we have emotions which someone means its just as reasonable that God exists...

[/ QUOTE ]

Emotions are detectable, you, however, cannot quantify them. "There you go, +40 love points"... And I don't think you can quantify God. You can give him a theortical range, but that's just about all you can do.

[/ QUOTE ]

my position does not depend one bit on whether or not it is quantifiable..only whether or not it exists

both the soul and emotions are not quantifiable, but one has been shown to exist, the other has not

[/ QUOTE ]

I still want to know how something can be "proven" to exist if you cannot subject it to COMPLETE scrutiny via scientific method. Your premise is that God cannot be subjected to scientific method, so therefore any discussion regarding Him is irrational. According to Science, to be proven, a theory or idea must be falsifiable and reproducible, not just measured. So where and how are Love and Hate falsifiable and reproducible?

All I am saying is this: love, soul, hate, and God are all unprovable, but are nevertheless very real to the observer.

[/ QUOTE ]

emotions are reproducible..you can recreate what happens in the brain when we experience, what we call hate and love

and they are falsifiable..if someone experiences "hate" when something completely different happens in the brain, then that would certainly be an interesting thing and would contradict our current understanding of emotions...

[ QUOTE ]
All I am saying is this: love, soul, hate, and God are all unprovable, but are nevertheless very real to the observer.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you can't see that emotions are observable through science, but the soul and god are not (or have not been observed), then there is no arguing with you.

we don't believe that emotions exist just because someone says that they do..we have evidence that they do..

that is not true of the soul or of god

and I have never observed the soul or god..

you could argue that you have, but I'll have to see some evidence, otherwise, my belief that you have would be irrational

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All I am saying is this: love, soul, hate, and God are all unprovable, but are nevertheless very real to the observer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Love and hate are measureable and proveable.

The God and Soul are not.

Love and Hate are descriptions of behaviour and emotion. The emotive aspects are measureable physiological phenomenon in the human body.

There is no evidence or anything that can detect a God or Soul or anything of the sort.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think he meant the subjective experience of loving and hating - we all have experience of that but cant prove that anyone else is having the same experience and arent just lumps of meat responding to stimuli "in the dark".

Objectively, I dont think you can demonstrate what it is like to feel an emotion, I dont think you can even demonstrate that it is like anything (other than just saying Duh! Feel something and see for yourself). A change in brain states is evidence for an entity responding to something and we can identify a whole host of physical behaviours with that change of state, perhaps - nonetheless, a complete description of what the entity will do doesnt seem to have captured everything, specifically what it felt like. It seems an open question as to whether science will eventually close the gap and explain why the internal experience of those states arise as they do.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]

I think he meant the subjective experience of loving and hating - we all have experience of that but cant prove that anyone else is having the same experience and arent just lumps of meat responding to stimuli "in the dark".

Objectively, I dont think you can demonstrate what it is like to feel an emotion, I dont think you can even demonstrate that it is like anything (other than just saying Duh! Feel something and see for yourself). A change in brain states is evidence for an entity responding to something and we can identify a whole host of physical behaviours with that change of state, perhaps - nonetheless, a complete description of what the entity will do doesnt seem to have captured everything, specifically what it felt like. It seems an open question as to whether science will eventually close the gap and explain why the internal experience of those states arise as they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary I believe we have a fairly deep understanding of emotions. Not only can we identify specific ranges of sensations most normal people feel, we can study what triggers specific emotional responses in individuals and predict such behaviour, we can reprogram/condition these responses, we can even cause the feelings by stimulating certain areas of the brain.

Quite a bit is understood about emotions.

There is infinitely more proof and understanding of emotion and the 'experience' of feeling emotions then we do for the concept of 'the soul' and for any 'God.'

I find all theists description of their knowledge of God consistantly poor... from Txag's 'feeling in your heart' to people who 'marvel at the beauty of creation' to people who have had prayers answered and attribute God to completely normal phenomenon.

It would still appear that he somehow is equating his misunderstanding/naivete about 'emotion' as some sort of weak/irrational proof that God is real simply because he believes it to be true.

[tame_deuces]

You can quantify emotions as the strength of brain activity in the amygdala region of the brain.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
You can quantify emotions as the strength of brain activity in the amygdala region of the brain.

[/ QUOTE ]

And a case could probably be made for the soul as the sum of all brain activity.

Alas.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can quantify emotions as the strength of brain activity in the amygdala region of the brain.

[/ QUOTE ]

And a case could probably be made for the soul as the sum of all brain activity.

Alas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seeing as brain activity is the most complex and wonderful thing we know of in the known universe, I don't agree with the alas. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If God exists and does interact with the natural observable universe, then he would not be supernatural, and his existence would be scientifically verifiable


[/ QUOTE ]

Which instrument would you use to measure God empirically?

[/ QUOTE ]
One that measured the part of the natural universe he was interacting with.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If God exists and does interact with the natural observable universe, then he would not be supernatural, and his existence would be scientifically verifiable


[/ QUOTE ]

Which instrument would you use to measure God empirically?

[/ QUOTE ]
One that measured the part of the natural universe he was interacting with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hope he aims for the bowl then.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can quantify emotions as the strength of brain activity in the amygdala region of the brain.

[/ QUOTE ]

And a case could probably be made for the soul as the sum of all brain activity.

Alas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seeing as brain activity is the most complex and wonderful thing we know of in the known universe, I don't agree with the alas. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad. Because even on a very fundamental quantum level, if it turns out that consciousness is a singluar unique quantum effect... The matter it occupies does become redundant. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm getting very consfused by the posts commenting that science doesn't find the evidence for god because they go off the assumption that he doesn't exist..so I'm going to tell you what I think..and you tell me if I'm wrong...

from what I know of science..this is simply not true...

science frequently deals with supernatural explainations..

if science went under the assumption that nothing happens that is outside our current understanding of nature, we would not have the understanding of nature that we have today..

the major advancements of science are essentially made from finding things which have no currect natural explaination..and finding out how they actually happen, thus rewriting their understanding of nature.

by now you're probably noticing that I don't seem to be talking about gods when I say "supernatural"..but I am...

there is no distinguishing between supernatural explainations...there is nothing to go off of...

god's existence causing something or a new particle causing something are both considered as supernatural theories...

but people arguing this point that I talked about want their god to be special in this consideration...just as with all theories as to a supernatural cause, it must be subject to evaluation, experimentation, observation of some kind...

but the god theory won't subject itself to this...

and it is not that it COULDN'T be subjected to this...there is no reason that I can see for why this particular supernatural explaination could not be evaluated just as any other...

but it is protected by people saying that it cannot be evaluated..because if this were not true, then we could easily see that this god theory is simply not true...

there is no disproving, no evaluating, and this is fine..there is no arguing with this...

but no reasonable person can expect science to consider this god theory under these self-protective circumstances

EDIT: by "science"..I often mean.."the scientific community" obviously

[/ QUOTE ]

u r pretty dam smart

[CityFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm getting very consfused by the posts commenting that science doesn't find the evidence for god because they go off the assumption that he doesn't exist..so I'm going to tell you what I think..and you tell me if I'm wrong...

from what I know of science..this is simply not true...

science frequently deals with supernatural explainations..

if science went under the assumption that nothing happens that is outside our current understanding of nature, we would not have the understanding of nature that we have today..

the major advancements of science are essentially made from finding things which have no currect natural explaination..and finding out how they actually happen, thus rewriting their understanding of nature.

by now you're probably noticing that I don't seem to be talking about gods when I say "supernatural"..but I am...

there is no distinguishing between supernatural explainations...there is nothing to go off of...

god's existence causing something or a new particle causing something are both considered as supernatural theories...

but people arguing this point that I talked about want their god to be special in this consideration...just as with all theories as to a supernatural cause, it must be subject to evaluation, experimentation, observation of some kind...

but the god theory won't subject itself to this...

and it is not that it COULDN'T be subjected to this...there is no reason that I can see for why this particular supernatural explaination could not be evaluated just as any other...

but it is protected by people saying that it cannot be evaluated..because if this were not true, then we could easily see that this god theory is simply not true...

there is no disproving, no evaluating, and this is fine..there is no arguing with this...

but no reasonable person can expect science to consider this god theory under these self-protective circumstances

EDIT: by "science"..I often mean.."the scientific community" obviously

[/ QUOTE ]

u r pretty dam smart

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a shame he can't write in sentences.

[FortunaMaximus]

He doesn't need to, City. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm getting very consfused by the posts commenting that science doesn't find the evidence for god because they go off the assumption that he doesn't exist..so I'm going to tell you what I think..and you tell me if I'm wrong...

from what I know of science..this is simply not true...

science frequently deals with supernatural explainations..

if science went under the assumption that nothing happens that is outside our current understanding of nature, we would not have the understanding of nature that we have today..

the major advancements of science are essentially made from finding things which have no currect natural explaination..and finding out how they actually happen, thus rewriting their understanding of nature.

by now you're probably noticing that I don't seem to be talking about gods when I say "supernatural"..but I am...

there is no distinguishing between supernatural explainations...there is nothing to go off of...

god's existence causing something or a new particle causing something are both considered as supernatural theories...

but people arguing this point that I talked about want their god to be special in this consideration...just as with all theories as to a supernatural cause, it must be subject to evaluation, experimentation, observation of some kind...

but the god theory won't subject itself to this...

and it is not that it COULDN'T be subjected to this...there is no reason that I can see for why this particular supernatural explaination could not be evaluated just as any other...

but it is protected by people saying that it cannot be evaluated..because if this were not true, then we could easily see that this god theory is simply not true...

there is no disproving, no evaluating, and this is fine..there is no arguing with this...

but no reasonable person can expect science to consider this god theory under these self-protective circumstances

EDIT: by "science"..I often mean.."the scientific community" obviously

[/ QUOTE ]

u r pretty dam smart

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a shame he can't write in sentences.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol /images/graemlins/blush.gif expressing smoothe, coherent thoughts is not my forte

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
because the existence of the heart and soul is not exactly a known fact

[/ QUOTE ]

9 out of 10 cardiologists disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would hate to go to that tenth guy. I imagine people in his office hear a lot of, "there is this strange thumping noise coming from your chest, I am very concerned about that."

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think he meant the subjective experience of loving and hating - we all have experience of that but cant prove that anyone else is having the same experience and arent just lumps of meat responding to stimuli "in the dark".

Objectively, I dont think you can demonstrate what it is like to feel an emotion, I dont think you can even demonstrate that it is like anything (other than just saying Duh! Feel something and see for yourself). A change in brain states is evidence for an entity responding to something and we can identify a whole host of physical behaviours with that change of state, perhaps - nonetheless, a complete description of what the entity will do doesnt seem to have captured everything, specifically what it felt like. It seems an open question as to whether science will eventually close the gap and explain why the internal experience of those states arise as they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary I believe we have a fairly deep understanding of emotions. Not only can we identify specific ranges of sensations most normal people feel, we can study what triggers specific emotional responses in individuals and predict such behaviour, we can reprogram/condition these responses, we can even cause the feelings by stimulating certain areas of the brain.

Quite a bit is understood about emotions.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's true that we know a lot about emotions, that wasnt what I meant. What we have is some kind of understanding of the external features of emotion - how people will behave, which parts of the brain are active when such-and-such is felt, etc. We dont have any clue as to why a human emotion feels like something, whereas a clockwork toy (presumably) doesnt. Surely objectively they are two mechanisms, reacting to physical laws in predictable ways and with observable outcomes. Yet most of us believe that the toy is just a machine with no internal experiences whereas humans have this "inner experience" not captured by a physical description. You may study a purportedly intelligent subject and conclude that it enjoys a particular stimuli because it's pleasure centre gets active, it acts in ways to increase its exposure to the stimuli, it reports that it likes it, etc etc... Ultimately though, there is no way to access its internal state - the "what it feels like to be happy".

I tried to avoid the word qualia, since I dont think the word explains very much, but if you have read cognitive science - that is what I am referring to. We dont have any objective evidence for qualia, though we accept that they exist.

[ QUOTE ]
There is infinitely more proof and understanding of emotion and the 'experience' of feeling emotions then we do for the concept of 'the soul' and for any 'God.'

[/ QUOTE ]
I think infinitely is a bit strong - nonetheless, there is much better reason for you to accept a theist's claim that they feel emotions in a similar way to you (despite the fact that you cant verify that they are not a "meat robot" wandering round mindlessly responding to stimuli) than there is to accept their claim that they have experience of God. I think the reason for that though is the universality of the experience. Everyone reports feeling like something - even though they struggle to articulate what it is like.

Very few report experience of god (and those that do seem to disagree markedly on what it is like) - the lack of objective evidence certainly points to an alternative explanation than theism.

[ QUOTE ]
I find all theists description of their knowledge of God consistantly poor... from Txag's 'feeling in your heart' to people who 'marvel at the beauty of creation' to people who have had prayers answered and attribute God to completely normal phenomenon.

[/ QUOTE ]
These three seem different in that they are arguments for god's existence (certainly the last two anyway), rather than descriptions of the experience of knowing god. I have sympathy with a theist struggling to explain what it feels like to know god, since I realise that it is sometimes difficult to explain things even when they are blindingly obvious to you. For example, try explaining to a blind person what it is like to see blue.

I agree if what you meant by the above was that the last two are poor arguments for God. But I think that is a separate issue.

[ QUOTE ]
It would still appear that he somehow is equating his misunderstanding/naivete about 'emotion' as some sort of weak/irrational proof that God is real simply because he believes it to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's more subtle in that I agree the OP made that error, but that he also made a valid point - we have experience with a phenomenon for which there is no objective evidence (again the "what it feels like" part of emotions and thoughts, not the biological and behavioural elements). Our inability to measure this subjective element to some mental phenomenon doesnt mean we deny its existence, merely that science doesnt address it.

Having said all that - I've recently been convinced that materialism is correct and essentially that science will eventually explain this subjective aspect to mental experiences. However, it would be an error to say we have anything like an explication of that currently.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I've recently been convinced that materialism is correct and essentially that science will eventually explain this subjective aspect to mental experiences


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious if you're familiar with Lewis' Argument from Reason contained in his book Miracles?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I've recently been convinced that materialism is correct and essentially that science will eventually explain this subjective aspect to mental experiences


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious if you're familiar with Lewis' Argument from Reason contained in his book Miracles?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all - can you give me a summary?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Not at all - can you give me a summary?


[/ QUOTE ]


Check this (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/victor_reppert/reason.html)
out - it's based on Lewis' argument. The author has a book out which I'm going to read soon called C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason.

Briefly the idea is that if the universe is a closed system and everything is just matter in motion then the concept of reason can't be defended. Of course, it gets more complicated than that and there are criticisms out there which I've only briefly scanned. Like any of the theistic proofs it isn't absolute. But it does have weight in philosophical circles - Plantinga uses one form of it in one or two of his books.

No self-respecting materialist should ignore it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[siegfriedandroy]

yes, most of you presuppose that the supernatural is impossible and that God does not exist. you contradict yourself in the middle of this argument, confounding 'supernatural'. too tired to explain what i mean. yet i know im right /images/graemlins/smile.gif as for your other response in the morality thread, you said that b/c i said 'i know im right', somehow this shows that i am insecure about my assertions. this is incorrect. i simply truly know (at least as well as is possible) that what i said was correct. you were wrong to suggest otherwise.

[MidGe]

Science presuppose/assumes nothing! Theism assumes a god.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Science presuppose/assumes nothing! Theism assumes a god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science presupposes and assumes all the time - it's called a theory. I think the big difference is that if a scientist's assumption is true, it will ultimately be provable.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If God exists and does interact with the natural observable universe, then he would not be supernatural, and his existence would be scientifically verifiable


[/ QUOTE ]

Which instrument would you use to measure God empirically?

[/ QUOTE ]

What instrument would you use to measure the soul within a human body?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science presuppose/assumes nothing! Theism assumes a god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science presupposes and assumes all the time - it's called a theory. I think the big difference is that if a scientist's assumption is true, it will ultimately be provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the scientist only assumes that if his assumption is true it will ultimately be provable.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
yes, most of you presuppose that the supernatural is impossible and that God does not exist. you contradict yourself in the middle of this argument, confounding 'supernatural'. too tired to explain what i mean. yet i know im right /images/graemlins/smile.gif as for your other response in the morality thread, you said that b/c i said 'i know im right', somehow this shows that i am insecure about my assertions. this is incorrect. i simply truly know (at least as well as is possible) that what i said was correct. you were wrong to suggest otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's great..I'll just take you at your word that you are correct....

or maybe I'll just say that I know I am right..to add weight to my argument...

that's how reasonable people evaluate information..right??

the fact that you continue to state that you know you are correct makes me even more suspicious that you are actually not so sure..but anyway..it doesn't matter since that doesn't add anything to your argument.

science does NOT presuppose that god does not exist..if information were to become available that supported your god theory, science would consider it..unfortunately, such information has either not been introduced, or not held up.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science presuppose/assumes nothing! Theism assumes a god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science presupposes and assumes all the time - it's called a theory. I think the big difference is that if a scientist's assumption is true, it will ultimately be provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science doesn't assume. Science constructs useful models that explain observations. It's a way to get from point A to point B, nothing more. People have to provide the "A" in order for science to offer a "B."

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science presuppose/assumes nothing! Theism assumes a god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science presupposes and assumes all the time - it's called a theory. I think the big difference is that if a scientist's assumption is true, it will ultimately be provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science doesn't assume. Science constructs useful models that explain observations. It's a way to get from point A to point B, nothing more. People have to provide the "A" in order for science to offer a "B."

[/ QUOTE ]

But where do you seperate science from the scientist? Can't a scientist assume his theory is true?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
But where do you seperate science from the scientist? Can't a scientist assume his theory is true?

[/ QUOTE ]

"true" doesn't really come into it. "valid' is more on point.

Who cares what a scientist thinks? It's what his peers do when they tear into this proposal that reachs the only outcome that matter.
At the least, a scientist needs to think that his theory has merit ... enough to pursue, but it doesn't matter if he goes off on a tangent, it makes it into the textbooks once it's been battle tested. Then the textbooks get revised every X years ;-)

luckyme

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science presuppose/assumes nothing! Theism assumes a god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science presupposes and assumes all the time - it's called a theory. I think the big difference is that if a scientist's assumption is true, it will ultimately be provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science doesn't assume. Science constructs useful models that explain observations. It's a way to get from point A to point B, nothing more. People have to provide the "A" in order for science to offer a "B."

[/ QUOTE ]

But where do you seperate science from the scientist? Can't a scientist assume his theory is true?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you separate logic from the logician? Or the hammer from the carpenter?

Science is a tool, and it can definitely be misapplied. I agree that there's plenty of assumption going on in the scientific community, but I felt the clarification was important given how many people are starting to see science itself as some kind of suffocating "force."

[MidGe]

Angier Article (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/angier06/angier06_index.html)

Here is an extract from the article above to nwhete your appetite! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

"Scientists, however, are a far less religious lot than the American population, and, the higher you go on the cerebro-magisterium, the greater the proportion of atheists, agnostics, and assorted other paganites. According to a 1998 survey published in Nature, only 7 percent of members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences professed a belief in a "personal God." (Interestingly, a slightly higher number, 7.9 percent, claimed to believe in "personal immortality," which may say as much about the robustness of the scientific ego as about anything else.) In other words, more than 90 percent of our elite scientists are unlikely to pray for divine favoritism, no matter how badly they want to beat a competitor to publication. Yet only a flaskful of the faithless have put their nonbelief on record or publicly criticized religion, the notable and voluble exceptions being Richard Dawkins of Oxford University and Daniel Dennett of Tufts University."

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Angier Article (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/angier06/angier06_index.html)

Here is an extract from the article above to nwhete your appetite! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

"Scientists, however, are a far less religious lot than the American population, and, the higher you go on the cerebro-magisterium, the greater the proportion of atheists, agnostics, and assorted other paganites. According to a 1998 survey published in Nature, only 7 percent of members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences professed a belief in a "personal God." (Interestingly, a slightly higher number, 7.9 percent, claimed to believe in "personal immortality," which may say as much about the robustness of the scientific ego as about anything else.) In other words, more than 90 percent of our elite scientists are unlikely to pray for divine favoritism, no matter how badly they want to beat a competitor to publication. Yet only a flaskful of the faithless have put their nonbelief on record or publicly criticized religion, the notable and voluble exceptions being Richard Dawkins of Oxford University and Daniel Dennett of Tufts University."

[/ QUOTE ]

How could they think differently? A scientist's belief system is based on the premise that the phenomena of existence can be explained in an objective, verifiable and falsifiable manner. If they accepted the idea of an aspect of phenomena that was not objective or verifiable they'd be refuting the premise their entire belief system is founded on.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Angier Article (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/angier06/angier06_index.html)

Here is an extract from the article above to nwhete your appetite! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

"Scientists, however, are a far less religious lot than the American population, and, the higher you go on the cerebro-magisterium, the greater the proportion of atheists, agnostics, and assorted other paganites. According to a 1998 survey published in Nature, only 7 percent of members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences professed a belief in a "personal God." (Interestingly, a slightly higher number, 7.9 percent, claimed to believe in "personal immortality," which may say as much about the robustness of the scientific ego as about anything else.) In other words, more than 90 percent of our elite scientists are unlikely to pray for divine favoritism, no matter how badly they want to beat a competitor to publication. Yet only a flaskful of the faithless have put their nonbelief on record or publicly criticized religion, the notable and voluble exceptions being Richard Dawkins of Oxford University and Daniel Dennett of Tufts University."

[/ QUOTE ]

How could they think differently? A scientist's belief system is based on the premise that the phenomena of existence can be explained in an objective, verifiable and falsifiable manner. If they accepted the idea of an aspect of phenomena that was not objective or verifiable they'd be refuting the premise their entire belief system is founded on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many bad scientists or people who claim to be using science may do that, HOWEVER the only thing science claims is that is can collect data and draw likely conclusions, then get more data and self-correct. That's the beauty and nature of science. Science is only one thing: any field/method of study/inquiry solely utilizing the scientific method for its advancement.

Science cannot prove or disprove God because the nature of God is that God cannot be defined or observed. However there are an infinite number of things that fall in that category, only one of which is God. Therefore, we can confidently say that the likelihood of God is infinitesimal though not zero.

Gravity and evolution cannot be proved either. Science cannot prove anything. However the data to support gravity and evolution continually come in and no self-correcting changes have been made in a while, and those that have merely refine the parameters of various aspects of the theory.

If one credible piece of data came in that destroyed something like gravity or evolution, both theories would be closely reexamined and (if necessary) altered or tossed out in favor of the more probable and encompassing theory. That is why science is wonderful.

Since humans are the only scientists, every study has a natural and inherent bias, but the nature of the system is objective self-correction, and it is therefore the best system we have to find truth.

It is not a surprise that people who understand the nature of science are less likely to be religious, as science seeks out truth and religion seeks out blind faith in things which cannot be observed or proved. Religion is an abomination to truth and the very nature of how best to go about looking for it.

[John21]

For the most part, I'd agree to everything you stated, however, there are a few subtleties that I don't agree with. For example when you say "Religion is an abomination to truth and the very nature of how best to go about looking for it," you're using your conclusion to establish the truth of your premise.

I agree that religion is an abomination to the scientific method, I just question whether the scientific method is broad enough to explain absolute reality i.e. truth. Science requires abstract observation, and I'm not sure if this is possible when the observer and the observed are part of the same system.

All I'm saying is that to explain absolute reality, we may have to presuppose a premise, and the truth of that premise may not be provable by the scientific method. Stating that god created everything is such a premise. What is god? Simple - that which created everything.

I'll grant that stating a non-provable premise is an abomination to science, I'm just not willing to go as far as saying it's an abomination to truth.

FWIW: I'm just referring to how the scientific method comes into question when trying to describe/explain absolute reality. For the other 99% of it's involvement, I have no problem positioning the scientific method as judge, and the peer reviewed scientific community as jury.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

All I'm saying is that to explain absolute reality, we may have to presuppose a premise,


[/ QUOTE ]

You're moving in the right direction here. Whatever you believe philosophically if you think there is any truth you must see that humans, human reason and human sensory perception are all finite. There is always something we don't know. If that's true we can never reach absolute truth through our own efforts. We can never establish our most fundamental presupposition (premise) with objective certainty.


So we have to start somewhere in the logical, philosophical sense. Like in geometry, we must have an unprovable axiom. Everything else is built on that. But all the superstructures of our "knowledge" depend on that foundational premise.

[ QUOTE ]

I'll grant that stating a non-provable premise is an abomination to science


[/ QUOTE ]

But science has it's own non-provable premises. Hume threw the monkey wrench into the idea of absolute scientific certainty when he pointed out that the most fundamental premise of science can't be proved, i.e., that nature is uniform. All science depends on that principle, but the principle itself must be accepted on "faith".

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Since humans are the only scientists, every study has a natural and inherent bias, but the nature of the system is objective self-correction, and it is therefore the best system we have to find truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science is only an idealism, because unknown parameters are inevitably introduced by the unconscious presuppositions of the observer.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
Science is only an idealism, because unknown parameters are inevitably introduced by the unconscious presuppositions of the observer.

[/ QUOTE ]

And my point is that the nature of science is self-correcting and over time those inherent biases are thus weeded out (okay, they lessen and approach a limit of zero, though never technically reaching it). Of course even many scientists have their biases and don't want to admit when something is wrong--but I stand by the statement that the scientific method is the BEST way we have to go about seeking truth.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
For the most part, I'd agree to everything you stated, however, there are a few subtleties that I don't agree with. For example when you say "Religion is an abomination to truth and the very nature of how best to go about looking for it," you're using your conclusion to establish the truth of your premise.

I agree that religion is an abomination to the scientific method, I just question whether the scientific method is broad enough to explain absolute reality i.e. truth. Science requires abstract observation, and I'm not sure if this is possible when the observer and the observed are part of the same system.

All I'm saying is that to explain absolute reality, we may have to presuppose a premise, and the truth of that premise may not be provable by the scientific method. Stating that god created everything is such a premise. What is god? Simple - that which created everything.

I'll grant that stating a non-provable premise is an abomination to science, I'm just not willing to go as far as saying it's an abomination to truth.

FWIW: I'm just referring to how the scientific method comes into question when trying to describe/explain absolute reality. For the other 99% of it's involvement, I have no problem positioning the scientific method as judge, and the peer reviewed scientific community as jury.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, I appreciate your calm response. I tend to get very heated and confrontational which does not help my cause!

Now then, in regards to a presupposed definition, if you define God as "that which created everything," and nothing more, then I suppose God in that sense is an ideal we seek to get closer to in getting better explanations on how the world works and the origins of the universe and so on. However, I define God as a supernatural being which exists, not as an abstract ideal towards knowledge, and I define religion or faith as things which preach truth in the statement that there is a supernatural being. That part is semantics.

BUT as far as absolute reality goes, I am not saying science can describe absolute reality. NOTHING can because we just don't know. It might even be possible, in principle, for us to not be able to ever know. I don't know. All I mean to say is that science as I define it, by use of the scientific method, is the best tool we have to get closer to that ultimate truth. Science can define and get truth out of all observable things--even if it starts with human bias, the nature of the system is to self-correct and lessen that bias as soon as possible.

Science cannot get absolute truth and it cannot describe that which cannot be observed. My point however is that NOTHING can, and that to say otherwise is an abomination to the ideal of absolute truth. We by definition CANNOT know what is outside our realm (of knowledge, of observation, etc.), and my problem is that religion and faith claim to do this. That is wrong. It IS an abomination to the search for truth. Science on the other hand merely states what it can define. That being said, God and all the unobservable and unprovable things with regards to religion and faith are but one (or a few) possibilities in an INFINITE number of things we can suppose exist outside our ability to know and observe, so the probability of that existence is infinitesimal. Until we can in some way expand our knowledge and our ability to observe and then gather more data, we cannot choose one of those things and say that it is any more likely than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Thanks again for the cool reply, it makes the discussion easier and I apologize for getting so heated.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
But science has it's own non-provable premises. Hume threw the monkey wrench into the idea of absolute scientific certainty when he pointed out that the most fundamental premise of science can't be proved, i.e., that nature is uniform. All science depends on that principle, but the principle itself must be accepted on "faith".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm outside what I have really researched, but I don't think that the basic premise of science is that nature is uniform. The basic premise of science is that "if this is observable and keeps happening like that, we can draw a likely conclusion that it will behave that way again." That's just basic probability. Stuff keeps falling to the ground. If it stops doing so, we will reexamine our thoughts on gravity. And in science we seek to understand WHY stuff keeps falling, but we try to get that understanding by finding other things which act in a predictable way and account for gravity. If a part of nature was not uniform in that sense, science would examine it and say "I don't know" but it would then also say "let's try to find out".

Again, I am not saying science is perfect and describes everything, but I am saying that it is as close as we can fundamentally get to those statements.