What If There Is a God?

[Lestat]

It's funny, because I consider myself one of the more open-minded non-blievers on this forum, and you blow me away hands down! -lol

I'm willing to give a lot of leeway when it comes to having faith in something. I don't automatically call someone's faith foolish or silly. But I do strongly suggest that they realize why such faithh might not make logical sense to other people.

NotReady might not be trying to assert that science is on his side with his request to show that God isn't necessary for an apple to fall from a tree, but he seems to insinuate that such a question is making a logical point of some kind and should give one pause. Nothing could be further from the truth, since I can substitue just about any other paranormal entity in place of God, and ask to be shown that IT is not necessary. In other words, no ground is gained.

So I guess I don't see how Luckyme's pigs are a vacuous comparison. Why should that be any less compelling than the belief that God is necessary for apples to fall? I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems as though you are saying that any claim which can't be falsified through logic, no matter how absurd, should be given equal footing with conjectures that are made through observable evidence and reality. I just don't see it that way.

Again, "I have no reason to think that pigs fly when we are not watching them" and "I have no reason to think that God is necessary for an apple to fall", are both proper responses to such assertions. I see nothing wrong with labeling such propositions as absurd, while still maintaining they are remotely possible.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no such belief in flying pigs. Nobody believes that.

[/ QUOTE ]

you have proof of that? I'm impressed.
It's more like exotic food choices - there's a good somebody somewhere thinks it's a delicacy.

I have a meeting with some native tribe leaders coming up, I know they have some interesting beliefs of what animals are capable of. Wild ones are able to do some amazing feats in their belief system. Where does that leave us with some of the things he'll tell me.

Sure, I can put him on the same grounding as NR, but what the heck do I do when some of his claims are 180 degrees to NR's claims. The chiefs, mine and NR's are all equal? So, why would anyone attach to any specific religion, we could flip a coin and choose our religion from among equals.

Theists, especially many on here, like to claim 'reasons' for choosing their religions and reasons that could/may convince an open-minded person. you take that all away from them with this equal-footing thing. Now NR has no more reason for his faith than chief Flying Wolf.

You could attach your proof of no flying pig beliefs to your explanation to NR that it's just as reasonable that the dead chiefs soul is in the whale as that jesus walked on water. ( surprisingly, I agree with that:-)

luckyme

[Lestat]

PBT,

I don't think anyone's crusading to abolish religion (in this thread). I've been pursuaded that religion has its merits and to abolish religion would be worse than having it.

The goal of most atheists is simply to promote logical thinking. Critical thinking. Or thinking for one's self. And to not be afraid of questioning that which doesn't make sense to you.

There are some people who have put a lot of thought into epistomology-type questions. But so many others have just assumed that what they were brought up to believe in, must be true without ever questioning it or thinking for themselves.

My goal is to get people to stand up and think for themselves. Having done that, if they still want to believe that there's merit to beliefs in gods, astrology, or other superstitions, well, at least they thought about it. Who am I to tell them what their inner selves are saying? At least that's the way I look at it.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that proclaiming there is no God is equal to proclaiming your religion represents the one true God. Neither positions are likely to analyze the foundations of their beliefs or consider changing them based on new understandings. It is only, I have seen the light and truth I now know. It is the fact that people claim a perfect understanding of God (or lack of) that prevent us from knowing God.

The problem with God and religion is semantics. The understanding of nature, the universe and spirituality seems purposely obfuscated by those with other agendas (e.g. the Catholic Church).

You either believe in what I believe, or nothing at all. You can't be a Muslim, Jew and a Christian despite the fact they all believe in the same God. Aren't they all essentially denominations of one great religion?

Most seem to give up and say, "I believe in God, I'm spiritual but not religious". Yet there's no spiritual development to rival that of a major religion. It's more a surrender to a minimalist faith with logic and reason resigning you to the belief that God is obscure.

However, approximately half the world (~3.5 billion) believe in the God of Abraham. They merely disagree over the details. Muslims and Jews fight over the righteous descendant of Abraham like Shiites and Sunnis fight over the righteous descendant of Mohammad.

They all agree Jesus was a prophet.

Yet Christian Evangels say Jesus is God, worship him! Not Jesus is balanced with God, be like him. They say faith is greater than reason and questioning faith is denying God. However, the truth is -- only the truth will be discovered by knowledge and reason even if it's in the Gospels.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this was a pretty interesting post that got overlooked. I would say that maybe you are trying to understand life and the world around you rather than understanding God. But maybe that's just wordplay. The Baha'i Faith came up before and it seems like you have similar ideas.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

The only way these claims would cross over into science would be if they were used to impose on science some new laws of nature which science should include in its investigations. Science can say these things were virtually impossible under scientific laws of nature. Science can't say anything about what might happen if those laws don't apply. And there is no rigorous way science can talk about even the liklihood for disruptons in the scientific laws of nature. Science Assumes scientific laws of nature apply continuously in the past, present, and future.Science can only report on the reliability of the assumption for the data set science has available to it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the point you made in your post, but I think you are glossing over something important. The scientist will say that you have no sound reason for believing that this assumption is false. The only evidence pointing to the falsehood of this assumption is in a book written by humans. I think most atheists and secular thinkers are confused as to why theists put so much faith into these stories based on their spiritual experiences.

Even if part of the Bible explains their experiences exactly, does that necessarily mean that the rest of the Bible is truth as well?

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You could say that I have a belief that is based purely on science, you could say that in order to believe something I need to have scientifical proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can "Believe" that in order to believe something you need to have scientific proof. But you don't have scientific proof for that "Belief". You are contradicting yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never claimed that I have proof for that belief. I see that you could've misunderstood if you really want to see it that way but I blame me for not being fluent in English for that.

I'm glad that you see that not everybody means with the word 'likely' to claim any mathematical authority. In my case you were being oversensitive.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
It's funny, because I consider myself one of the more open-minded non-blievers on this forum, and you blow me away hands down! -lol


[/ QUOTE ]

And I'm just getting started.

[ QUOTE ]
NotReady might not be trying to assert that science is on his side with his request to show that God isn't necessary for an apple to fall from a tree, but he seems to insinuate that such a question is making a logical point of some kind and should give one pause.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point. He's not talking about science being on or not on his side. The point is he's not making a scientific assertion. It's a point of Faith not science or logic. And by "Faith" I mean something you don't yet understand. It's not something that allows you to believe the unbelievable. It's something else. It's more like an attitude that you adopt. NotReady's Attitude is that there is something on which existence depends. He calls it God. It's an attitude adopted toward the ultimate question, "why not nothing?".

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no such belief in flying pigs. Nobody believes that.

you have proof of that? I'm impressed.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. But I didn't think you'd be so contentious as to disagree with me. I suppose you can prove me wrong by producing the person.

Why are we back to Flying Pigs again? I thought we'd covered this ground. I also responded to your Yeti, alien abduction, and out of body examples.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
PBT,

I don't think anyone's crusading to abolish religion (in this thread). I've been pursuaded that religion has its merits and to abolish religion would be worse than having it.

The goal of most atheists is simply to promote logical thinking. Critical thinking. Or thinking for one's self. And to not be afraid of questioning that which doesn't make sense to you.

There are some people who have put a lot of thought into epistomology-type questions. But so many others have just assumed that what they were brought up to believe in, must be true without ever questioning it or thinking for themselves.

My goal is to get people to stand up and think for themselves. Having done that, if they still want to believe that there's merit to beliefs in gods, astrology, or other superstitions, well, at least they thought about it. Who am I to tell them what their inner selves are saying? At least that's the way I look at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we are pretty much in agreement then. I too would like to see people look more closely at things from all sides. I think Religions should step back from their archaic perspectives. If they do they might find what they have left is richer, more real, and something that might actually be accessable to the modern secular human being.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The only way these claims would cross over into science would be if they were used to impose on science some new laws of nature which science should include in its investigations. Science can say these things were virtually impossible under scientific laws of nature. Science can't say anything about what might happen if those laws don't apply. And there is no rigorous way science can talk about even the liklihood for disruptons in the scientific laws of nature. Science Assumes scientific laws of nature apply continuously in the past, present, and future.Science can only report on the reliability of the assumption for the data set science has available to it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the point you made in your post, but I think you are glossing over something important. The scientist will say that you have no sound reason for believing that this assumption is false.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a fine point here, but I think science would say they have no evidence that contradicts the assumption.


[ QUOTE ]
The only evidence pointing to the falsehood of this assumption is in a book written by humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, this is not scientific evidence. It was not observed under scientifically controlled conditions. Now, people can take a look at the Writings using the best methods of objective modern scholarship. Cultural, historical, archealogical, textual, literary, etc. They can offer their best evaluation of the Writings. Under the assumption that supernatural events don't occur their explanations for the writings are going to satisfy most people. And they will probably sway some believers in the supernatural.

But how do you persuade those who won't give up their belief in these supernatural events. I don't think you will do it by telling them they are the only thing that gives their Religion credibility. Especially when they have a deep sense of something real at the core of their religion. My view is that you need to take that deep sense seriously and persuade them the supernatural events are unnecessary for it.


[ QUOTE ]
I think most atheists and secular thinkers are confused as to why theists put so much faith into these stories based on their spiritual experiences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Why do they? I don't think the atheists will ever understand until they take seriously the possibility that there is a legitimate deeper core to the religous experience. Something so vital to believers that they are willing to be a little foolish with things they perceive as protecting it. Show them a better way to protect that core and they will give up the foolish things.


PairTheBoard