The Power of Prayer?

[JeffreyWKramer]

And who determines what "sense" is? You? Dr. Spock? My aunt Matilda?

How about we start with those things for which there is observable, material evidence of some sort. The religious have still failed to point out a bit of that, interestingly... not even a shred.

Sure, people differ in how they perceive these things to some extent, based on experience, culture/learning and personality, but when you take out clearly psychotic folk, we are all verifiably seeing pretty much the same thing. Interestingly, this isn't even close to true in the case of religion. People believe in all sorts of religions which don't even correspond to each other - hell, this is often true of people proclaiming the same faith. This provides yet another sign that what the religious are "seeing" isn't really there, or that at very least they are seeing something vastly different than they think they are seeing.

You crossed that line when you went from "we have no proof for God(s), therefore I don't believe in them" to "There ARE no God(s), and anyone who believes in them is indulging in fairy tales and fantasy."

The former is a valid, legitimate viewpoint. The latter is bigotry, plain and simple.

No, not at all. It may be a conclusion in which you disbelieve, but it is a completely logical conclusion, supported by the available evidence. Rather than call it "bigotry", offer some disproof. Not just rhetoric, but actual proof.

Again, if a person makes a claim but can present not a shred of objective, verifiable evidence to support said claim, there is no reason anyone should believe said claim, and when all available evidence either contradicts the claim or supports another conclusion, the logical conclusion is that the claim is false.

[JeffreyWKramer]

There are things in this world we can't explain. Even those with tons of College Degrees can't explain some things or why something happens like it does.


Sure, you're right. However, that doesn't mean those things are not explainable by science, not part of the natural order with everything else we know. It just means we haven't figured them out them yet. Since everything we know for sure ends up to fit within the realm of science and naturalism, there is no reason to assume the stuff we haven't yet explained won't also fit there, and Occam's razor actually suggests that yes, since everything else has fit under that category, it is most logical to assume the rest will as well.

[west3man]

Again, if a person makes a claim but can present not a shred of objective, verifiable evidence to support said claim, there is no reason anyone should believe said claim, and when all available evidence either contradicts the claim or supports another conclusion, the logical conclusion is that the claim is false.
Goalposts on wheels.

NO ONE in this thread is trying to get you to believe in God. No one is objecting to the fact that you don't. Quite a few people are objecting to the fact that, in your own words, you're relentlessly attacking religion (and, by extension, the religious)... and not just *a* religion, but *all* religions.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Gods, fundamentally, are a mixture of collective fiction (which embodies social truth) and a series of roles and stories which one may inhabit.
Exactly. They're just as real as unicorns, or Superman, or Frodo. Which is what I've been saying all along.

Whether your materialism cares for the idea or not, the voodoun practitioner who has been possessed by the spirit of Erzulie knows that Erzulie is real. Erzulie is real in precisely the moment that the worshiper is possessed.


No, the vodoun practitioner believes he's been possessed. That doesn't make it so. People believe lots of things that aren't true. iwarrior, for example, believed all sorts of unusual things. His belief didn't make them so.

Something is indeed happening when people feel a sense of religious visitation or possession or whatever. There's no evidence, however, that what is happening is what they think is happening, and given that the brain of a person in prayer or states of religiousity exhibits the same brain wave states as people in some other, completely non-spiritual altered states of consciousness (hypnosis, dissociation, etc.), the logical conclusion is that what they are experiencing is an explicable, physiological/neurological phenomena, not a supernatural event.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Goalposts on wheels.

NO ONE in this thread is trying to get you to believe in God. No one is objecting to the fact that you don't. Quite a few people are objecting to the fact that, in your own words, you're relentlessly attacking religion (and, by extension, the religious)... and not just *a* religion, but *all* religions.


There is equal evidence for the supernatural aspects - the stuff people are asked to take on faith - of all religions. Islam, Wicca, Hinduism, etc. are just as much nonsense in this regard as is Christianity.

So, yeah, I attack the irrational in all religion.

As to attacking the religious, I don't think the religious are necessarily stupid (though, as with all groups of people, many are). Many smart people are religious. Paul's probably smarter than me, and he's religious. Lots of people here are at least as smart as me, if not smarter - Jim MacQuarrie and Richard leap to mind - and they're religious, too. But, smart people can be wrong. Einstein was wrong, for example, about quantum physics. Einstein was about as smart as you can get, yet he was fundamentally wrong about something pretty major - in part because that "something" contradicted his personal world view, so he couldn't accept it.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that people are wrong when they are wrong, and I think the evidence is pretty strongly on my side - as it was for the quantum theorists - that I'm right about religion, and the religious are wrong.

[west3man]

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that people are wrong when they are wrong, and I think the evidence is pretty strongly on my side - as it was for the quantum theorists - that I'm right about religion, and the religious are wrong.
And again, this thread is not full of people objecting to your belief that others beliefs are wrong. It's not full of people objecting to your choice to voice that opinion (or to present it as fact, for that matter). There are, however, quite a few people objecting to your "relentless" "attack."

Often it's not the message so much as the delivery. It should be obvious that's the case here, as many of the people who've voice objections are atheists and agnostics.

Whether you're doing it on-purpose or not, you're continuously shifting the goal-posts while preaching about the value of logic, evidence, and rational thought.

Maybe you don't value those things as much as you think.

[Solaris]

How about we start with those things for which there is observable, material evidence of some sort. The religious have still failed to point out a bit of that, interestingly... not even a shred.

Sure, people differ in how they perceive these things to some extent, based on experience, culture/learning and personality, but when you take out clearly psychotic folk, we are all verifiably seeing pretty much the same thing. Interestingly, this isn't even close to true in the case of religion. People believe in all sorts of religions which don't even correspond to each other - hell, this is often true of people proclaiming the same faith. This provides yet another sign that what the religious are "seeing" isn't really there, or that at very least they are seeing something vastly different than they think they are seeing.



No, not at all. It may be a conclusion in which you disbelieve, but it is a completely logical conclusion, supported by the available evidence. Rather than call it "bigotry", offer some disproof. Not just rhetoric, but actual proof.

Again, if a person makes a claim but can present not a shred of objective, verifiable evidence to support said claim, there is no reason anyone should believe said claim, and when all available evidence either contradicts the claim or supports another conclusion, the logical conclusion is that the claim is false.


Wikipedia:

Louis Pasteur demonstrated that the fermentation process is caused by the growth of microorganisms, and that the growth of microorganisms in nutrient broths is not due to spontaneous generation.

He exposed boiled broths to air in vessels that contained a filter to prevent all particles from passing through to the growth medium, and even in vessels with no filter at all, with air being admitted via a long tortuous tube that would not allow dust particles to pass. Nothing grew in the broths; therefore, the living organisms that grew in such broths came from outside, as spores on dust, rather than spontaneously generated within the broth. Thus, Pasteur dealt the death blow to the theory of spontaneous generation and supported germ theory.

While Pasteur did not develop germ theory (Girolamo Fracastoro, Agostino Bassi, Friedrich Henle and others had suggested it earlier), he conducted experiments that clearly indicated its correctness and managed to convince most of Europe it was true.

***

When Einstein was five, his father showed him a pocket compass, and Einstein realized that something in "empty" space acted upon the needle; he would later describe the experience as one of the most revelatory of his life.

....

In November 1915, Einstein presented a series of lectures before the Prussian Academy of Sciences in which he described his theory of gravity, known as general relativity. The final lecture ended with his introduction of an equation that replaced Newton's law of gravity, the Field Equation.10 This theory considered all observers to be equivalent, not only those moving at a uniform speed. In general relativity, gravity is no longer a force (as it is in Newton's law of gravity) but is a consequence of the curvature of space-time.

In 1919, predictions made using the theory were confirmed by Arthur Eddington's measurements (during a solar eclipse), of how much the light emanating from a star was bent by the Sun's gravity when it passed close to the Sun, an effect called gravitational lensing. The observations were carried out on May 29, 1919, at two locations, one in Sobral, Ceará, Brazil, and another in the island of Principe, in the west coast of Africa. On November 7, The Times reported the confirmation, cementing Einstein's fame.

Many scientists were still unconvinced for various reasons ranging from disagreement with Einstein's interpretation of the experiments, to not being able to tolerate the absence of an absolute frame of reference. In Einstein's view, many of them simply could not understand the mathematics involved[citation needed]. Einstein's public fame which followed the 1919 article created resentment among these scientists some of which lasted well into the 1930s.



Nearly every major scientific advance was postulated in some form well before methods were developed to accurately quantify, measure, and/or demonstrably repeat results that *proved* the theory was true. Thus, using "proven science" as a yardstick has a very major inherent flaw, in discussing possibilities: often, there are aspects of our physical universe which someone may postulate, yet at the time of their theorizing, we have no method of translating that theory into observable, repeatable fact, simply because we do not have the instruments or the understanding to detect and to measure what is being theorized. "Proven science" only encompasses what we already *know*---and even *that* is subject to change, as new theories and subsequent evidence comes to light.

I am sure that someone out there leveled accusations of "fairy tales!" at Pasteur's predecessors, and even at Pasteur himself... Lister likewise. Ditto for Einstein. And yet it's these people, who were able to think *outside the box*, who led the way to new discoveries... not the ones who insisted "if it doesn't proveably exist, then it doesn't exist, period."

And yes, religions have been in existence for thousands of years... but our level of science has not. As little as three hundred years ago, mankind had not flown, nor known of radio waves, nor harnessed electricity, nor split the atom. You cannot judge "centuries of no scientific proof" on the basis of the time religion has existed, because our science has only taken a huge jump upwards in the last hundred years or so... and even now, every day, we see new marvels that even two years ago were science fiction, such as the scientists who teleported electrons (formerly the domain of Star Trek). We have grown up in this time of astronomically fast advancement, and in some ways we take such advances for granted, even with a blase attitude. We *expect* advances to come regularly down the pike... and when they don't in some areas, it's all to easy to dismiss the whole subject as "ridiculous" and "unprovable"... when in the grand scheme of human history, our time of advancement is just a blip on the scale. It took many years for Pasteur's, Lister's, and Einstein's work to be widely and commonly accepted, even after they offered proof. Considering the fact that proving the existence of God is on a much bigger scale than that, and considering how few scientists would even attempt it (because they fear being made a laughingstock)... is it any wonder that no one has of yet found any way of quantitatively proving it? Yet this lack of proof is only a lack of proof; it is NOT a proof that God does NOT exist. And I defy you to FIND scientific evidence that God does NOT exist---hard, measurable evidence.

There. You now have some objective, verifiable evidence that subjective theory and theoretical reasoning ARE of use, and should not be dismissed simply on the basis of "No CURRENT proof." If these scientific researchers had your apparent mindset, they would never have been open to the idea that "there were more things under Heaven and Earth than were dreamed of in current philosophy and science, as they knew it."

In other words, Yes, you're right: no one has OF YET proved the existence of God or anything else like that, via scientific method. But a LACK of such proof does NOT constitute proof that it DOES NOT EXIST... it merely means that there is currently no proof. We never know what tomorrow will bring. In two hundred years, someone may have found the proof that you desire... but it wouldn't be you, because you aren't just closed to the possibility of its existence, you are also willing to deride anyone's belief in the possibility as a "fairy tale", something of a "psychological pablum for the masses."

[Hoss]

But, smart people can be wrong.

Goodness, is that ever truth.

[b]
There's nothing wrong with pointing out that people are wrong when they are wrong, and I think the evidence is pretty strongly on my side - as it was for the quantum theorists - that I'm right about religion, and the religious are wrong.

Wrong or not proven true therefore not scientifc theory? 2+2=3 is wrong. It has been proven incorrect. Show me where the belief that there is a spiritual being that is behind all of creation has been proven wrong? And please, don't shift the burden of proof back onto me. I've said repeatedly that my belief is based on faith and not empirical evidence. When you said people of faith are wrong, you jumped from saying that a belief in God is unprovable to saying that it has been proven that there is no God.

Prove it.

[Typo Lad]

Einstein was about as smart as you can get, yet he was fundamentally wrong about something pretty major - in part because that "something" contradicted his personal world view, so he couldn't accept it.

So you're basically he was like you?

[Hoss]

Wikipedia:

In other words, Yes, you're right: no one has OF YET proved the existence of God or anything else like that, via scientific method. But a LACK of such proof does NOT constitute proof that it DOES NOT EXIST... it merely means that there is currently no proof. We never know what tomorrow will bring. In two hundred years, someone may have found the proof that you desire... but it wouldn't be you, because you aren't just closed to the possibility of its existence, you are also willing to deride anyone's belief in the possibility as a "fairy tale", something of a "psychological pablum for the masses."

Jeffrey,
Don't even bother responding to my post because Solaris just smoked me by making it in a much more informed manner.

Goodness, I'm talking 2+1=4 and she busted out with Einstein.

[Solaris]

Jeffrey,
Don't even bother responding to my post because Solaris just smoked me by making it in a much more informed manner.

Goodness, I'm talking 2+1=4 and she busted out with Einstein.


Ah, but you said it much more *succinctly* than I did! :D

And in fairness, Hawking and others have since poked some holes in Einstein, just as Einstein himself did with Newton.. but that's the nature of many advances: they go from the springboard of what is "known and accepted" into "what might be." :D

[Motormouse]

There is equal evidence for the supernatural aspects - the stuff people are asked to take on faith - of all religions. Islam, Wicca, Hinduism, etc. are just as much nonsense in this regard as is Christianity.

So, yeah, I attack the irrational in all religion.

As to attacking the religious, I don't think the religious are necessarily stupid (though, as with all groups of people, many are). Many smart people are religious. Paul's probably smarter than me, and he's religious. Lots of people here are at least as smart as me, if not smarter - Jim MacQuarrie and Richard leap to mind - and they're religious, too. But, smart people can be wrong. Einstein was wrong, for example, about quantum physics. Einstein was about as smart as you can get, yet he was fundamentally wrong about something pretty major - in part because that "something" contradicted his personal world view, so he couldn't accept it.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that people are wrong when they are wrong, and I think the evidence is pretty strongly on my side - as it was for the quantum theorists - that I'm right about religion, and the religious are wrong.

Dude, you have bigger balls than i have. For the most part i agree with what you have said, but this forum is one place that i would be hesitant to post those thoughts going on past experiences at the hands of the believers

[Solaris]

Sure, you're right. However, that doesn't mean those things are not explainable by science, not part of the natural order with everything else we know. It just means we haven't figured them out them yet. Since everything we know for sure ends up to fit within the realm of science and naturalism, there is no reason to assume the stuff we haven't yet explained won't also fit there, and Occam's razor actually suggests that yes, since everything else has fit under that category, it is most logical to assume the rest will as well.


"As is has been, and is, and always shall be."

Boy, that's quite a box. "I assume anything containing sucrose will taste sweet, because sucrose always tastes sweet..." That works until someone hands you a bitter drink with only a touch of sugar, or a piece of bitter chocolate.

Congratulations: you've moved your argument from (as yet unsubstantiated) "proof" that God does not exist, to a lazy assumption that "if it's always been this way, it WILL ALWAYS BE THIS WAY." Jeffrey, I really think you ought to take a look at how whatever it is that you've suffered at the hands of "organized religions" in general has involved your emotions in your logic processes. I'm serious, because judging by everything I've seen you say in this thread, you have a serious GRUDGE against the very idea of religion... and it's interfering with your objectivity and ability to discern between logic and your own belief.

[Solaris]

Dude, you have bigger balls than i have. For the most part i agree with what you have said, but this forum is one place that i would be hesitant to post those thoughts going on past experiences at the hands of the believers


Trust me: Jeffrey's not the only person on here who's suffered some form of persecution from someone of a fanatical religious bent. Plenty of the people who are arguing against him are Pagan, agnostic, or atheist.

NO ONE HAS AN ISSUE WITH JEFFREY BEING AN ATHEIST. It's all about how he's universally asserting that it's a proven fact that there IS no God, and deriding other people's religious beliefs (whatever they are) as "fairy tales."

Basically, "I'm right, and the rest of you are deluded fools, no matter how intelligent you are in other matters." Sorry, that doesn't float with me as being in any way respectful OR reasonable OR tolerant of other people's beliefs. Especially when you take into account that he has no more proof that there ISN'T a God or Gods, than someone who believes in them DOES. Neither side has scientific proof, yet he's insisting that the lack of proof constitutes PROOF that it doesn't exist. That's just plain bass-ackwards logic, and nothing that any reputable scientist would endorse, on any subject. They might say "it's highly unlikely," they might say "it's unproven that it exists"... but none of them would say "lack of proof PROVES non-existence." That's not logical.

[west3man]

Dude, you have bigger balls than i have.I feel you. I've long admired Kramer's big, shiny, bouncing, brass balls.

For the most part i agree with what you have said, but this forum is one place that i would be hesitant to post those thoughts going on past experiences at the hands of the believersI agree with a good portion of the content of JWK's message, too. It's the delivery with which I take issue.

That doesn't mean that someone who believes that a particular religion or religions, in general, are internally or externally inconsistent should never voice this opinion. It also doesn't mean they shouldn't ever do so in the presence of the religious. I just think there are appropriate times and places for such things, as opposed to every time and every place. Even at those times and in those places, the more acerbic delivery is often the less valuable.

Considering my track-record, it should be obvious that I believe there's value in confronting inaccuracies and exploring topics to uncomfortable depths. I think there's value in choosing one's battles, though, and even greater value in how one goes about fighting them.

[Roquefort Raider]

Nearly every major scientific advance was postulated in some form well before methods were developed to accurately quantify, measure, and/or demonstrably repeat results that *proved* the theory was true. Thus, using "proven science" as a yardstick has a very major inherent flaw, in discussing possibilities: often, there are aspects of our physical universe which someone may postulate, yet at the time of their theorizing, we have no method of translating that theory into observable, repeatable fact, simply because we do not have the instruments or the understanding to detect and to measure what is being theorized.

That is of course true, but when such speculations are indulged in it is usually in order to explain something that is observed.

For example, a gifted physicist with far more mathematical skills that I could ever hope to have could come up with a model in which superstrings loop out in an 11-dimension universe to explain why gravity is a very weak force that acts at infinite distances. We could tell him that no one has any mean to observe such a superstring, nor dimensions other than our familiar ones, and that his imagination has come up with a mathematical unicorn. That would be a rational argument, but we would still have to consider that (a) the model he proposes has some explanatory merit, (b) that it is internally consistent and does not clash with what we observe, and (c) that although we can not "prove" or "disprove" it yet (the quotation marks are there because you don't prove things in science), there may be ways to test it in some way... either now of in the future.

In the case of the power of prayer and the existence of gods, we could be facing the same situation except for one aspect. Gravity is something we can observe and measure, and is therefore in need of some explanation. Is that the case with gods? If there were unexplained "godly" manifestations, we should definitely try to understand them and be ready to accept new concepts to describe our reality. If, for example, the above test had shown that praying the christian God did cause a 25% increase in the recovery of cardiac patients, we would have to admit the fact that something unexplained is occuring and in need of an explanation, even one requiring a paradigm shift in our conception of how the universe works.

That isn't the case, though. I have yet to see even one situation which would force me to consider the existence of supernatural entities. Because of that, I hold that the existence of lack thereof of gods is not something that science can help people with; it belongs to another domain of existence. As Paul so eloquently put it:


"Gods aren't real" belongs to a different language game than "Gods do not have material, empirical, or quantifiable existence".

Yes, gods do exist... the same way, say, the "human spirit" exists. Gods do have an effect on people's lives, if only some believe in them. Whether they exist as distinct, independent entities does not seem to be something amenable to any measurement; that's why all science can say about them is "nothing suggests that gods are needed to explain anything we see in the universe".

[Winslow]

Yes, gods do exist... the same way, say, the "human spirit" exists. Gods do have an effect on people's lives, if only some believe in them. Whether they exist as distinct, independent entities does not seem to be something amenable to any measurement; that's why all science can say about them is "nothing suggests that gods are needed to explain anything we see in the universe".

I don't neccessarily see this as inconsistent with my Christian belief.

The only qualifier I have is your sentence: "Gods do have an effect on people's lives, if only some believe in them." - which suggests a human construct.

One can believe in science and one can believe in God. Pitting science against religion is a false dichotomy.

[Typo Lad]

All this talk about proof and G-d brougth the following to mind:



The Babel fish is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from it's own carrier but from those around it. It absords all unconcious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of it's carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them.

The pratical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The arguement goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguements, you don't. QED.'

'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

And if you don't know where that's from, frankly I've no use for you.

[JeffreyWKramer]

There. You now have some objective, verifiable evidence that subjective theory and theoretical reasoning ARE of use, and should not be dismissed simply on the basis of "No CURRENT proof." If these scientific researchers had your apparent mindset, they would never have been open to the idea that "there were more things under Heaven and Earth than were dreamed of in current philosophy and science, as they knew it."

Chris, surely you realize that the qualitative differences between the ideas of Pasteur and Einstein and the various myths of angels and gods and other supernatural beings are such as to make the comparison essentially worthless?

If not, consider this important point - though people didn't immediately accept Einstein's ideas, or those of Pasteur, or those of Lavosier or various other revolutionaries, there is a real important difference between those ideas, and those of religion. In all cases, those folk had the facts, such as they were, on their side, even before the ideas were accepted.

Beyond that, please note that in these various cases, the revolutionaries were proven right in fairly short order. There was initial resistance, but fairly quickly, the facts were marshalled to prove them right. In contrast, none of the religions have been able to offer a shred of evidence even though they've had hundreds - or, in many cases, thousands - of years to do so. While that theoretically doesn't absolutely and conclusively prove them to be based on nothing but BS, I'd say it makes a pretty darn persuasive argument that this is the case.

[JeffreyWKramer]

So you're basically he was like you?

No, because Einstein was proven wrong, the quantum theorists right on the basis of evidence.

Still waiting for some of that evidence for God, angels, etc.

[Typo Lad]

No, because Einstein was proven wrong, the quantum theorists right on the basis of evidence.

Still waiting for some of that evidence for God, angels, etc.

I'm still waiting for evidence against, honestly. Lack of proof is not disproof. Nor is everything quantifiable by current understanding. Simply because all scientific evidence showed the Earth to be flat does not mean it actually was. It mearly means that we had not evolved the tools and understanding yet.

The simple fact Jeffrey, is that we are each entitled to our worldview.

Your worldview, sadly, seems to be that I am not entitled to mine.

In many ways you remind me of a Crusader quote my father is fond of:

"If you do not believe that you are redeemed by my savior's blood, then I shall drown you in yours."

Except where a Crusader did horrible, aweful things in the name of their god, your ferver comes from what seems to be a deepseated need for there to not be a G-d. If I may be so rude, it's actually a bit amusing. You're a Religious Athiest, basically.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Congratulations: you've moved your argument from (as yet unsubstantiated) "proof" that God does not exist, to a lazy assumption that "if it's always been this way, it WILL ALWAYS BE THIS WAY."


Although is is theoretically possible things won't always be that way, I sure see no reason to assume it will be fundamentally different... and absolutely nothing pointing to the conclusion that religion is the right path. Reason and science have held up quite well overall, and unlike anything else, have provided us with real answers and real progress. Rationality is the "winning horse" in this race, but unlike a horse, it doesn't appear to be running out of steam or going out to pasture any time soon.

[Typo Lad]

JWK, you're being many things. Rational is not one of them.

[JeffreyWKramer]

That is of course true, but when such speculations are indulged in it is usually in order to explain something that is observed.

BING BING! As usual, Ben managed to make the point I was going for, but much more succinctly.

[Typo Lad]

BING BING! As usual, Ben managed to make the point I was going for, but much more succinctly.

And without being rude, condescending, agressive, overly confrontational, defensive, arogant, and pissy.

Startling, really.

[Wesley Dodds]

your ferver comes from what seems to be a deepseated need for there to not be a G-d

Why, it so happens that I too have a deepseated need for there to not be a God. I think it's because my relationship with my father was so painful that I find the idea of an omnipotent, all-controlling father figure terrifying.

But, then again, Freud was full of shit.

[west3man]

(the quotation marks are there because you don't prove things in science)
As you acknowledge in your post, a good portion of science is firmly rooted in mathematics. Proofs are common in mathematics.

I'm surprised by the idea that one does not prove things in science.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'm still waiting for evidence against, honestly. Lack of proof is not disproof. Nor is everything quantifiable by current understanding. Simply because all scientific evidence showed the Earth to be flat does not mean it actually was. It mearly means that we had not evolved the tools and understanding yet.

No scientific evidence ever suggested the earth was flat. Science proved otherwise long before most modern religions even existed. Unfortunately, most people were ignorant of that knowledge.

You're right that lack of proof is not conclusive disproof, but when evidence of something is completely lacking, that is a pretty good argument that maybe there's nothing there.

Again, the evidence for the existence of God and angels and all that jazz is exactly of the quality of the evidence for the existence of fairies and elves. Nobody has ever proven that fairies don't exist, but there is no proof they do exist. There is also no proof for the existence of any other supernatural entities, including gods. As such, there is no particular reason why rational people should entertain belief in gods and angels and other supernatural entities, any more than they should entertain belief in elves and fairies. If you're going to believe in God or Vishnu, you might as well believe in fairies and elves.

The simple fact Jeffrey, is that we are each entitled to our worldview.

Your worldview, sadly, seems to be that I am not entitled to mine.

You're entitled to it. Nothing I do or say takes away your right to think what you will. I think it would be better if you - and everyone - took a more sensible worldview, but your worldview is ultimately up to you, not me.

I'm just making some points which hopefully help shift some worldviews.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'm surprised by the idea that one does not prove things in science.

Science is based on facts. There's always the underlying assumption that new facts may come to light, and that new information may modify or supplant old ideas.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I don't neccessarily see this as inconsistent with my Christian belief.

If there's nothing suggesting God is needed to explain what we see in the universe, then why believe in Him at all?

[JeffreyWKramer]

And btw, Paul, just as it took you awhile to get around to presenting your arguments, it's gonna take me a bit to get around to addressing them in full.

[west3man]

Science is based on facts. There's always the underlying assumption that new facts may come to light, and that new information may modify or supplant old ideas.
I'm not sure how to relate that response to my point.

Much of science is based on mathematics.
Mathematics is based on proofs.
Therefore, much of science is based on proofs.

This contradicts the statement that "you don't prove things in science."

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'm not sure how to relate that response to my point.

Much of science is based on mathematics.
Mathematics is based on proofs.
Therefore, much of science is based on proofs.

This contradicts the statement that "you don't prove things in science."


I'll let someone more math-capable than me tackle this one, but it essentially comes down to the word "proof" and derivatives thereof having similarly, yet importantly different, meanings when used in math and in the vernacular.

[west3man]

If there's nothing suggesting God is needed to explain what we see in the universe, then why believe in Him at all?
That falsely suggests that belief in God has no value unless it results in explaining the universe.

[Wesley Dodds]

Science is based on facts. There's always the underlying assumption that new facts may come to light, and that new information may modify or supplant old ideas.

But at the same time scientists aren't going to go "Hey, guys? The gravity thing -- we were wrong. Objects actually fall up." Science is cumulative. Instead we get "things still fall down, but gravity is the warping of space-time".

[Typo Lad]

JWK,

Your most recent resposne to me was one that is acceptible to me. Why? Because you finally put the hammer away.

That's been my main issue here, the "need" to hammer.

[Hoss]

[QUOTE=JeffreyWKramer] Reason and science have held up quite well overall, and unlike anything else, have provided us with real answers and real progress.

Which is why any argument against scientic theory or progress that is based on a person's reading of a religious text is worthless. Goodness, you'll never catch me or many other Christians or Jews arguing that Genesis trumps evolution. Heck, I can reconcile the two to myself fairly easily with out discrediting either or treating the Bible as anything but the perfect Word of God.

[Wesley Dodds]

That falsely suggests that belief in God has no value unless it results in explaining the universe.

No. If God exists it explains the universe. The existence of God is the denoument of the creation murder mystery -- "Yaweh did it in the cosmos with the periodic table."

But f the universe makes perfect sense without God, God is redundant. It's like having an invisible, intangible cadillac in your garage. What's the point?

Of course, "God exists" is a pretty unsatisfying explanation for existence.

[Typo Lad]

Oh yeah Hoss. I don't get the whole "You can have Genisis or Genetics, not both!" line of thinking.

For one thing, the Torah says G-d did x, y, or Z... it never says how.

Peronally, I always liked the thought that G-d created the world "old". Never got why, but it appeals to the romantic in me.

[Typo Lad]

No. If God exists it explains the universe. The existence of God is the denoument of the creation murder mystery -- "Yaweh did it in the cosmos with the periodic table."

But f the universe makes perfect sense without God, God is redundant. It's like having an invisible, intangible cadillac in your garage. What's the point?

Of course, "God exists" is a pretty unsatisfying explanation for existence.

I don't get it. G-d would answer a few questions, like what kicked the big bang off, but it still leaves a few more interesting questions like "when?" "why?" and "where shall we eat lunch?".

[Hoss]

If there's nothing suggesting God is needed to explain what we see in the universe, then why believe in Him at all?


Tell me Jeff, why does the Universe exist? Why isn't there simply nothingness?

[JeffreyWKramer]

I should also note, in response to Morts, Solaris, Paul and others who assume my arguments arise from me having experienced some severe persecution from the religious... well, that hasn't happened. I've occasionally been attacked by the religious for my beliefs, but nothing that really arises beyond the level of annoyance. In one occasion I lost a job over disagreements with an employer over religion (of course they pretended it was something else), but the things I'm saying here, I've known for a long, long time, well before that incident.

I've been thinking about this stuff literally for decades - I started on this road back when I was eight, though I didn't know it then - and the only part of this which is really new is that it's only been in the past few years that I realized how harmless religious belief was on a cultural level, in that it imposes an irrational mindset that tends to persist even if someone manages to discard or escape the religion itself. Before then, I was more of the "it's folly but it's harmless folly, so why bother challenging it?" school of thought, more or less what Valmore said several pages ago. But I no longer consider this culturally-imposed thought disorder to be a harmless thing. The harm is subtle, but it is there.

That said, certainly I have witnessed a lot of other people being persecuted by the religious. All too often, as in those cases, the harm done isn't subtle at all.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Tell me Jeff, why does the Universe exist? Why isn't there simply nothingness?


Do you mean "why" in terms of meaning? If so, I doubt there is any meaning.

Or do you mean "why" in terms of "by what processes?" In that case, my answer is, "I don't know yet, nor does anyone, to the best of my knowledge, but there's no reason to assume it has anything to do with the actions of divine entities."

[JeffreyWKramer]

JWK,

Your most recent resposne to me was one that is acceptible to me. Why? Because you finally put the hammer away.

That's been my main issue here, the "need" to hammer.

I still think the hammer is needed. Some people only listen if there's a hammer.

[west3man]

No.Yes. You're not demonstrating flaws in logic.

I've got quite a few issues with the points in your last couple of posts (especially the loose, unspecific terminology), but I'll try to focus on this one:If God exists it explains the universe.The existence of God explains little more than the existence of your parents explains you.

"Because there was Him, there is me."

[JeffreyWKramer]

No. If God exists it explains the universe. The existence of God is the denoument of the creation murder mystery -- "Yaweh did it in the cosmos with the periodic table."

But f the universe makes perfect sense without God, God is redundant. It's like having an invisible, intangible cadillac in your garage. What's the point?



Another "Bing bing" moment. As opposed to "bling bling", which is an expression I hate.

[Hoss]

That said, certainly I have witnessed a lot of other people being persecuted by the religious. All too often, as in those cases, the harm done isn't subtle at all.


And we all know 6 million Jews were slaughtered by an atheist. Please quit acting as if there is some moral high ground or superiority to atheism.

[sixstringguild]

I'm not necessarily surprised by these findings. God is not some "force" that moves at our beck and call. He doesn't like to be tested like some kind of lapdog. He knew these prayers were a part of some experiment and maybe turned a deaf ear to them?

[Hoss]

Or do you mean "why" in terms of "by what processes?" In that case, my answer is, "I don't know yet, nor does anyone, to the best of my knowledge, but there's no reason to assume it has anything to do with the actions of divine entities."

Really, I look at a watch and 100% know there is a watchmaker. The universe is the greatest watch of all yet you think there is no reason to believe there is a watchmaker.

[Roquefort Raider]

I don't neccessarily see this as inconsistent with my Christian belief.


I am genuinely glad about that, because I do not like giving offense to people who have beliefs that differ from mine.


The only qualifier I have is your sentence: "Gods do have an effect on people's lives, if only some believe in them." - which suggests a human construct.

I does, but it is not an obligatory clause. Gods would affect our lives whether they be human constructs or not, and so this point does not inform us as to whether they have an independent existence.

One can believe in science and one can believe in God. Pitting science against religion is a false dichotomy.

We definitely agree on that. Science is not a belief system, it is a method to understand our universe. Religion (the human construct) can be analyzed by scientific means, whether the root of religion be divine or purely human. Sociology, psychology, even physiology, can all be used to study religion as a phenomenon. But of course, since most religion refer to concepts that are above natural laws, the concepts themselves are not amenable to study and are indeed beyond the scope of science. What can not be measured can not be submitted to scientific scrutiny.

I am a firm atheist, but used to be a staunch catholic. Neither status was in any way affected by my scientific training: science and religion never clashed in my world view. Which is why have excellent scientists who are firm believers.

[Winslow]

If there's nothing suggesting God is needed to explain what we see in the universe, then why believe in Him at all?

I may or may not get back to you on this one. Don't take my lack of response as offense.

It's an interesting and perceptive question that gets to the heart of my ontological beliefs.

And I don't think "I know it in my knower" :D will work for the conversation.

[Hoss]

I still think the hammer is needed. Some people only listen if there's a hammer.

Strike - I'm being a jerk to Jeff even though he has adopted a much more civil and respectful manner. Sorry.

[west3man]

This is a different branch of discussion, but one that interests me.Really, I look at a watch and 100% know there is a watchmaker. The universe is the greatest watch of all yet you think there is no reason to believe there is a watchmaker.The "watchmaker" theory falls short of the glory, as it's just another iteration of the chicken/egg question.

If the complexity of the universe strongly suggests the existence of an equally or more complex creator, then that same complexity in the creator suggests another creator. And so on, and so on...

And if one should somehow decide that one of those complex entities requires no creator, then one has disproved the initial premise that the universe's complexity requires a creator.

[Wesley Dodds]

Much of science is based on mathematics.
Mathematics is based on proofs.
Therefore, much of science is based on proofs.

This contradicts the statement that "you don't prove things in science."

Your logic's flawed:

Aristotle is a man
All men are mortal
--> Aristotle is mortal

Much of science is based on maths
*Maths is based on proofs
--> much of science is based on proofs

"Based on math" doesn't mean "math".

But to answer your question:

Scientists don't construct proofs, that's just something people who work in maths do. They can do it because they start out with a number of basic assumptions and work from there. They can prove using maths that if you accept the basic assumptions you have to accept their conclusions.

When maths is used in science, it's used as a tool. Proofs have nothing to do with the use of maths in science.

[Roquefort Raider]

As you acknowledge in your post, a good portion of science is firmly rooted in mathematics. Proofs are common in mathematics.

I'm surprised by the idea that one does not prove things in science.

And yet there we are.

Science comes up with theories, which are conceptual models trying to explain different phenomena. The difference between a scientific and theory and a hypothesis is that the theory is backed by all the available data.

To call a correct theory a proof is however too final, because science acknowledges that future data could possibly undo it. Science may not accept wild new concepts fast enough for the tastes of some (particularly the alternative medecine crowd or the parapsychologists) but it is hardly as dogmatic as it is sometimes presented. It just asks for actual data before accepting challenges to accepted theories.

[Typo Lad]

And we all know 6 million Jews were slaughtered by an atheist. Please quit acting as if there is some moral high ground or superiority to atheism.

I'm not sure he was. I think the argument seems to be "Since religious people can be just as evil as non-religious people, then what's the bloody point?"

[Typo Lad]

Really, I look at a watch and 100% know there is a watchmaker. The universe is the greatest watch of all yet you think there is no reason to believe there is a watchmaker.

Yet, is there a reason to?

I mean, I personally think there is, but if you are of the mindview that things in nature "just happen" then it's not much of a stretch to believe that everything "just happened".

[gary bolt]

Tell me Jeff, why does the Universe exist? Why isn't there simply nothingness?

Is that why you believe in god? The mystery of the origins of life doesn't imply that a deity was involved for me. It's okay to not know.

By the way, Jeffrey, I'm loving this elves and fairies discussion.

[Wesley Dodds]

I don't get it. G-d would answer a few questions, like what kicked the big bang off, but it still leaves a few more interesting questions like "when?" "why?" and "where shall we eat lunch?".

If you believe in a specific God (or Gods) it explains a lot.

Say you believe in the Greek Gods. You hear thunder and think "That Zeus, he's got quite a temper." The seasons change and you think "Good thing Persephone is let out of Hades six months of the year".

The catch is that beliefs about God are constructed in response to our perceptions of the world. People think the earth is flat so the sun stops in the sky for Joshua. Most religious beliefs about God are tailor-made to explain the world -- but they don't do it 1/1000th as well as science.

Or the story of Adam and Even in Eden. Like any myth it answers basic questions. Why do women go through pain to give birth? Why are we ashamed of our nakedness? Why are snakes always trying to bite us?

[Lubichev]

Where are the unicorns?

[Spackling Compound]

This is a different branch of discussion, but one that interests me.The "watchmaker" theory falls short of the glory, as it's just another iteration of the chicken/egg question.

If the complexity of the universe strongly suggests the existence of an equally or more complex creator, then that same complexity in the creator suggests another creator. And so on, and so on...

And if one should somehow decide that one of those complex entities requires no creator, then one has disproved the initial premise that the universe's complexity requires a creator.
The first creator is God in that train of thought..the uncreated creator.

But I don't follow the watchmaker theory as much because who's to say that this is "ordered"? It is ordered in the way we perceive of order but then again, there's a lot of disorder too.

Order, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

[Wesley Dodds]

The universe is the greatest watch of all yet you think there is no reason to believe there is a watchmaker.

A good reason for not accepting this argument is that it's incoherent:

The universe manifests design.
Therefore there's a designer.

[Roquefort Raider]

Where are the unicorns?

Utnapishtim ate them on his raft when food ran low.

[Winslow]

Where are the unicorns?

Since you're Russian and not Irish, I'll excuse your ignorance.

Noah asked them to get on the ark, and they decided they wanted to play instead.

http://www.thebards.net/music/lyrics/The_Unicorn_Song.shtml

[Typo Lad]

Where are the unicorns?

In Africa. Modern man knows it as the rhinoceros.

Again, King James Translations suck.

[Typo Lad]

The catch is that beliefs about God are constructed in response to our perceptions of the world.

Aren't our beliefs about everything based upon our perceptions of the world?

People think the earth is flat so the sun stops in the sky for Joshua.

Actually, that term is an ancient euphamism for a period where time seems to stretch forever. It's a perception thing which fools have tried to make out to be a miracle. Or so I was taught.

Most religious beliefs about God are tailor-made to explain the world -- but they don't do it 1/1000th as well as science.

Rabbi Noson Slifkin, a Zoologist, has a wonderful book on things like this you might enjoy. The science of the Torah, as it were. Where he points out that there are things in the Torah that very much seem 'dumbed down' until you realize it was made for the perceptions of the reader.

Or the story of Adam and Even in Eden. Like any myth it answers basic questions. Why do women go through pain to give birth? Why are we ashamed of our nakedness? Why are snakes always trying to bite us?

Would it frighten you to know that many Jews consider the entire thing to be alagorical?

[Guapo Méndez]

You want us to stop believing because you have a mad-on for religion?
You ridicule our faith -equaling it to fairy tales and elves- and expect us to thank you for it?

We believe. You don't.
We understand our faiths. You don't.
I respect your faithlessness. You don't respect my faith.


I'm just making some points which hopefully help shift some worldviews.

Sorry, but unles your goal was strengthening my resolve, you're failing miserably.

[Typo Lad]

By the way, I'm not sure I buy into the watchmaker arguement because it raises the question of "where did the watchmaker come from, then?"

My personal epiphany was when I realized that the Torah says that the only non-ruminant with cloven hooves is a pig and that in all this time, not a single other non-ruminant with cloven hooves has been found. That's pretty odd if it was written by some guy.

[Wesley Dodds]

More on maths for west3man:

Maths isn't unified. There are many different branches of maths but nobody has worked out how to fit them together without creating all these contradictions. Godel even proved that this task was impossible (but, of course, if maths is incomplete, "proof" is impossible).

Because of this it's entirely possible that maths is just a useful fiction -- it's not "true" knowledge, it's a kind of human knowledge. It's something philosophers argue about -- it's similar to light, in the sense that it doesn't fit neatly into either category.

[Joe Rice]

God, like anyone else, can speak both through metaphor and fact. If you study, you can tell the difference.

[gary bolt]

And yet there we are.

Science comes up with theories, which are conceptual models trying to explain different phenomena. The difference between a scientific and theory and a hypothesis is that the theory is backed by all the available data.

To call a correct theory a proof is however too final, because science acknowledges that future data could possibly undo it. Science may not accept wild new concepts fast enough for the tastes of some (particularly the alternative medecine crowd or the parapsychologists) but it is hardly as dogmatic as it is sometimes presented. It just asks for actual data before accepting challenges to accepted theories.

The use of the word "theory" by scientists is one of the angles that creationists have used when attempting to argue against Darwinism. "Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

[Typo Lad]

The use of the word "theory" by scientists is one of the angles that creationists have used when attempting to argue against Darwinism. "Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

Right, and Gravity is just a theory too. Scientific theory is something else entirely.

I personally consider ID such a foolish attempt to limit G-d. What, you're saying G-d had to do it your way? Who syas G-d didn't use evolution? Why are your knickers in a twist about this, godboy?

[Dreadstar]

I've beeen following this pretty closely, but determined not to intervene in any way shape or form. I find interesting points on both sides pertaining to the original forgotten question, and even more interesting points to the spirited diversion.

However, I thought of one salient point that I just felt it necessary to chime in on.

Over the past couple of years, due to our administration's repeated use of religion as a rallying point for their policy, I've heard this said over and over again, ad nauseum. To paraphrase, if the religious right or the people in power continue to use religion and "Christian" tenets to beat the common man over the head with morality and moral legislation, it is up ot the true Christians who see this as an imposition to SHOUT those people DOWN. "Police your own" is the refrain I hear. If you don't voice objection they'll assume it to be acquiescence. Remaining silent gives silent approval to the loudest of voices.

So, I thought about it, and I decided that if I believed that to be true, then how could I *NOT* speak up against the extremist preaching of one sharing my basic credo? The answer is: I can't.

So, for the fine religious folk tuning in, you have the word of an atheist that not ALL of us want to beat you over the head with the hammer of "logic." In fact, we're quite fine with the fact that the vast majority of you find a better life through a faith we can never understand. And while you may be the butt of the ocassional "myth" barb, we'd not deign to persecute you for your beliefs, much as our forefathers delineated some centuries ago.

Go in peace, and be unmolested by the extremists of my general belief, and I in turn will turn a deaf ear to the extremists of your beliefs.

[west3man]

Your logic's flawed:

Aristotle is a man
All men are mortal
--> Aristotle is mortal

Much of science is based on maths
*Maths is based on proofs
--> much of science is based on proofs

"Based on math" doesn't mean "math".Thanks. Maybe there was a flaw in my expression, then.

Much of science IS math.

But to answer your question:

Scientists don't construct proofs, that's just something people who work in maths do. They can do it because they start out with a number of basic assumptions and work from there. They can prove using maths that if you accept the basic assumptions you have to accept their conclusions.

When maths is used in science, it's used as a tool. Proofs have nothing to do with the use of maths in science.I believe at least a couple of things you've said here are inaccurate.

Working on science often means working with mathematical proofs.
Substantiating a claim with mathematics and balancing an equation is "proof."
As a result, I believe that "Proofs have nothing to do with the use of maths in science," is an inaccurate statement.

The difference between a scientific and theory and a hypothesis is that the theory is backed by all the available data.Your post seems to rest on this point, but I don't understand what you mean in this sentence.

To call a correct theory a proof is however too final, because science acknowledges that future data could possibly undo it.Okay, but I'm not calling a theory a proof.


I'm gonna wrap up my end of this divergent branch of discussion (which I find very interesting, btw), with the following:

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

"In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true."

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

" 4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion]."



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

"An unverified hypothesis may gain considerable currency among specialists due to its elegance or some intuitive sense of its validity, or anticipation of its verification, though it is not formally accepted until convincing experimental proof is presented; see the example of general relativity."


The first source supports my position. The second supports yours. The third seems to support mine.
I know there are plenty of other sources and that the above may not convince anyone or change his or her mind. I simply presented the first three results I found and hope that, from the reader's point-of-view, they substantiate my position somewhat.

And if they don't, that's fine, too. Thanks for the discussion. I'm gonna try not to respond to any potential rebuttals (which you have every right to offer, of course) to avoid perpetuating this (enjoyable) derailment any further. *crosses fingers*

[west3man]

I've beeen following this pretty closely, but determined not to intervene in any way shape or form. I find interesting points on both sides pertaining to the original forgotten question, and even more interesting points to the spirited diversion.

However, I thought of one salient point that I just felt it necessary to chime in on.

Over the past couple of years, due to our administration's repeated use of religion as a rallying point for their policy, I've heard this said over and over again, ad nauseum. To paraphrase, if the religious right or the people in power continue to use religion and "Christian" tenets to beat the common man over the head with morality and moral legislation, it is up ot the true Christians who see this as an imposition to SHOUT those people DOWN. "Police your own" is the refrain I hear. If you don't voice objection they'll assume it to be acquiescence. Remaining silent gives silent approval to the loudest of voices.

So, I thought about it, and I decided that if I believed that to be true, then how could I *NOT* speak up against the extremist preaching of one sharing my basic credo? The answer is: I can't.

So, for the fine religious folk tuning in, you have the word of an atheist that not ALL of us want to beat you over the head with the hammer of "logic." In fact, we're quite fine with the fact that the vast majority of you find a better life through a faith we can never understand. And while you may be the butt of the ocassional "myth" barb, we'd not deign to persecute you for your beliefs, much as our forefathers delineated some centuries ago.

Go in peace, and be unmolested by the extremists of my general belief, and I in turn will turn a deaf ear to the extremists of your beliefs.Impressive post.

[Wesley Dodds]

Aren't our beliefs about everything based upon our perceptions of the world?

Nope, because of logic. Logic enables us to access reality.

Without deductive logic, we really are prisoners of our perceptions. This is why the sceintific method is so important: it uses controls (randomisation, replication, control groups, etc.) to combine deductive logic with science. Without the scientific method science can only procede through the inferior (from the point of view of establishing truth) process of induction.

The point I'm trying make is that we interpret the world in terms of the way we understand the world. Someone who believes in the Greek Gods hears thunder and thinks it's because of Zeus. Or, in Seven Soldiers: The Shining Knight thinks the Sheeda are evil faeries. The Guardian thinks they're alien invaders. Zatanna probably thinks they're a magical menace.

This is also what you're saying about how the Torah is "dumbed down"?

Would it frighten you to know that many Jews consider the entire thing to be alagorical?

No, not really, but most of my Christian friends accept it as literal truth. My probelm as an atheist isn't with people who believe it's allegory/myth as much with people who believe revelation trumps science.

[west3man]

By the way, I'm not sure I buy into the watchmaker arguement because it raises the question of "where did the watchmaker come from, then?"Despite being mildly wounded, I usually try really hard to avoid saying, "but that's what *I* said," even amidst applause for he-who-said-it-later (and maybe better).

I won't resist this time, both so that I can allow myself a prideful response and so that those who may not have understood it (for whatever reasons, regardless of fault) will know what the intended message was.

*Ahem* "but that's what *I* said, (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=2931834&postcount=303)" *Ahem*

Thanks. I feel a little better, now. :D

[Typo Lad]

Despite being mildly wounded, I usually try really hard to avoid saying, "but that's what *I* said," even amidst applause for he-who-said-it-later (and maybe better).

I won't resist this time, both so that I can allow myself a prideful response and so that those who may not have understood it (for whatever reasons, regardless of fault) will know what the intended message was.

*Ahem* "but that's what *I* said, (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=2931834&postcount=303)" *Ahem*

Thanks. I feel a little better, now. :D

I said it better.

Neener neener.

[Wesley Dodds]

Much of science IS math.

Well, no. Maths is used in science, but it doesn't have to be. You can do Science with no math at all. Maths and science aren't equivalent.

Working on science often means working with mathematical proofs.
Substantiating a claim with mathematics and balancing an equation is "proof."
As a result, I believe that "Proofs have nothing to do with the use of maths in science," is an inaccurate statement.

Don't worry, it's not. Scientists don't use or construct proofs, they just use maths. A proof is where a mathematician uses maths to show that a rule is correct. Scientists don't care, they just use the rule. As I said, proofs have nothing to do with the use of maths in science.

"It's true and we've proved it, it's a fact" -- when scientists say things like that, they just mean it's an extremely well-supported hypothesis. Science isn't in the business of proving things, it's in the business of disproving things.

[Hoss]

Is that why you believe in god? The mystery of the origins of life doesn't imply that a deity was involved for me. It's okay to not know.
.

No. I believe in God becaue I had a very intimate, very personal experience when I asked Jesus to come into my heart. An experience that was much deeper and very different than any experience I ever had with meditation or even with therapy. I know that experience can somewhat be explained by non-believers as being a purely physical and mental response. And it could be. Maybe that is the way God designed us. Either way, every fiber of my being tells me that there is a God and that Jesus is my savior.

And yes, it is okay to not know. It is a misconception to think that a believer doesn't have to say "I don't know" a million times a day. Actually, I would wager it is much harder for a believer to look at the pain and suffering that there is in the world because we believe that there is a God and that this part of his design. The non-believer gets to think that this just a bunch of meat and chemicals banging together and that there is no meaning behind it all.

[gary bolt]

No. I believe in God becaue I had a very intimate, very personal experience when I asked Jesus to come into my heart. An experience that was much deeper and very different than any experience I ever had with meditation or even with therapy. I know that experience can somewhat be explained by non-believers as being a purely physical and mental response. And it could be. Maybe that is the way God designed us. Either way, every fiber of my being tells me that there is a God and that Jesus is my savior.

And yes, it is okay to not know. It is a misconception to think that a believer doesn't have to say "I don't know" a million times a day. Actually, I would wager it is much harder for a believer to look at the pain and suffering that there is in the world because we believe that there is a God and that this part of his design. The non-believer gets to think that this just a bunch of meat and chemicals banging together and that there is no meaning behind it all.

Ya, god does sometimes look like a cruel bastard when looked at from my perspective.

[i_mmmchocolate]

I'm not religous, borderline agnostic-atheist. When my mom was diagnosed with breast cancer, she found lots of comfort in prayer.

I didn't and still don't understand it, but if it made her feel better who am I to downplay it or ridicule her about it?

[Dreadstar]

I'm not religous, borderline agnostic-atheist. When my mom was diagnosed with breast cancer, she found lots of comfort in prayer.

I didn't and still don't understand it, but if it made her feel better who am I to downplay it or ridicule her about it?

Yet another vote from the "I don't get it" corner saying that it's OK if you do.

[Motormouse]

One question that i'd like to ask the christian beievers, why do you worship the son more than the father?

[Winslow]

One question that i'd like to ask the christian beievers, why do you worship the son more than the father?

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but why do you think that?

That is, why do you think Christians worship the Son more than the Father?

(Your question has a presupposition)

[Ed Cunard]

Yet another vote from the "I don't get it" corner saying that it's OK if you do.

I said it too. I think. But, in any case, that's where I am.

[Michael P]

One question that i'd like to ask the christian beievers, why do you worship the son more than the father?
Who says they do? Because I'm once again seeing a discrepancy between someone else's impression of Christianity and how it was actually practiced when I was a card-carrying member.

[Dreadstar]

I said it too. I think. But, in any case, that's where I am.

And thus let the multiple voices of equanimity be a counterbalance to the extremist harrangue.

[Guapo Méndez]

One question that i'd like to ask the christian beievers, why do you worship the son more than the father?


Seeing that the 3 are 1, worshipping one would worship them all.

[Paul McEnery]

God, like anyone else, can speak both through metaphor and fact. If you study, you can tell the difference.
And that, right there, is a key point to Pascal's wager.

When you use the interpretive formula "What is God saying here?" when you approach the universe, you experience different things from someone saying "what is a quantifiable fact here?".

They aren't simply different levels of interpretation, or even different modes of experience, they're different approaches to meaning.

At the mode level, it's an argument between the sixth and seventh chakras (or between rational division and intuitive unity, between the ego and the unconscious, between the forebrain and the backbrain).

At the interpretive level, it's between reductivist logic and personalized relationship.

At the level of meaning, it's about constructing either an impartial observer self or a narrative participant self.

When you use Joe's framework, you enter into intuition to personalize the situation -- to treat it as someone who is telling you something to which you must attend -- and then work that information into your narrative framework, which will then compel you to act.

The thing that I think Jeffrey is missing -- at this level of the argument -- is that this is true of everyone, whether or not you choose to engage at all of these levels. Everyone has a fictitious personal narrative they use to absorb information to create possibilities for action. In that sense, everyone is religious, whether or not they choose to incorporate a God-figure into the equation.

For that matter, you can say "the universe says..." or "the Tao says..." or "the fairies say..." or "the CIA through the metal in my fillings says..."; each of them provides the personal element, though of course with vastly different results. The measure of one's mythological framework -- and everyone has one -- is whether it produces good results. And even then, there's still the question "good for whom?"

At the intuitive level, I think what Jeffrey's missing is the experience of the experience. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is quite good on this sort of thing when he asks the question "what is God asking of us here?". And by good, you can tell there's a different quality to his words and to his thought because he's asking that question.

Basically, you come to a still point in yourself that isn't so egoistic, the place that we've regrettably called "the soul" (regrettably, because in the Western tradition, giving something a name means that we consider it to have objective existence, when in this case we're actually talking about a mode of being, even though it does feel like a definite "thing").

[Hoss]

One question that i'd like to ask the christian beievers, why do you worship the son more than the father?


The trinity is one of those unexplainable and unknowable things. How can the trinity be 1 and 3 at the same time? I don't know.

My reading of of the Bible tells me that God wants me to have a personal relationship with Jesus, the Son of Man. In a way, you can look at it as the different roles we all play. I am a professional but also a father and a husband. God is the same. Jesus is God's intimate, personal and pastorial relationship with humanity.

Now, there is a difference between the roles we play and 3 distinctive entities being one. But I think the principle still applies when we are examining the focus of Christianinty on Christ.

[Paul McEnery]

Oh, and while I'm thinking about it, fairies and elves do too exist.

I mean, you have to do DMT/Key 23 before you can see the elves, but... :D

As for fairies...

Not everyone is sensitive to this sort of thing, and for that matter, I'm sure different people have different cultural prepwork for what they'll be sensitive to, so not everyone will get the same experience, but there are certainly places which are... haunted, let's say.

The genius loci, the spirit of a place, can be approached a lot of different ways, but one of them is to put a name or a face to it, like the little guys in Princess Monanoke. This is a nigh-on universal way of looking at nature, whether it's the sidhe of the Celts, the little guys of the Japanese, the earth spirits of the Vodun proto-faith, or the spirit of the vine of the Amazonians.

What you yourself actually see will depend on your cultural outlook, and on the strength of your visual imagination. If you're William Blake, you'll get to see The Ghost of a Flea. If you're me... well, you'll get to see bupkis, because I suck at seeing. What I'll perceive is the literary quality of the spirits, their emotional content.

Now this level of perception isn't at all quantifiable. I mean, maybe you could wire me up to find out which bits of my brain are firing, and that might be useful information, but it wouldn't tell me anything about the nature of my experience, nor of how the the external place, or setting, and my internal preparation, or set, interact to create the narrative, emotional, intuitive, and at-this-point existence of the fairy folk.

[Dreadstar]

You know, Paul... Sometimes I think you're genius, and sometimes I think you're as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.

But I never fail to find you interesting.

My only question is this: Does this level of double-speak get you laid?

[Hoss]

And that, right there, is a key point to Pascal's wager.

When you use the interpretive formula "What is God saying here?" when you approach the universe, you experience different things from someone saying "what is a quantifiable fact here?".



I believe that God always spoke to mankind in terms mankind could understand. His revelations were always about who we should be and how we should act. Not about giving us a heads up on science.

So I see no discrepancy between life arising from the primoridal soup and, "Then the LORD God formed a man [c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Or...

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Sounds like a very primitive way of explaining the state of matter and energy before and immediately after the big bang to me. Especially when we realize the biases we bring to language and the limitations of translating ancient thoughts and texts into modern English.

[Typo Lad]

as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.

I am never, ever letting you make me a turkey.

[Dreadstar]

I am never, ever letting you make me a turkey.

That would be redundant.

[Hoss]

That would be redundant.

Well done. Applauds

[Wesley Dodds]

You know, Paul... Sometimes I think you're genius, and sometimes I think you're as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.

I'm gonna start doing Paul McEnery cliffnotes:

- faeries and elves exist -- if you take drugs! Hello, little machine people who make reality work.

- Not everyone is able to see the elves. Maybe if you take drugs and expect to see elves?

- I've noticed that when you take drugs in different places, you see different kinds of elves. You can tell them apart by their hats.

- If you're insane you'll see really cool things when you take drugs. Maybe even lizard people!

- Hallucinations aren't quanitifable. Take that positivism!

[Typo Lad]

That would be redundant.

I walked right into that one, didn't I?

[Dreadstar]

I walked right into that one, didn't I?


Yep, here's your quarter.

[Paul McEnery]

- If you're insane you'll see really cool things when you take drugs. Maybe even lizard people!


Giant talking centipedes having cannibalistic sex with the tulip people, too!

[Solaris]

Chris, surely you realize that the qualitative differences between the ideas of Pasteur and Einstein and the various myths of angels and gods and other supernatural beings are such as to make the comparison essentially worthless?

If not, consider this important point - though people didn't immediately accept Einstein's ideas, or those of Pasteur, or those of Lavosier or various other revolutionaries, there is a real important difference between those ideas, and those of religion. In all cases, those folk had the facts, such as they were, on their side, even before the ideas were accepted.

Beyond that, please note that in these various cases, the revolutionaries were proven right in fairly short order. There was initial resistance, but fairly quickly, the facts were marshalled to prove them right. In contrast, none of the religions have been able to offer a shred of evidence even though they've had hundreds - or, in many cases, thousands - of years to do so. While that theoretically doesn't absolutely and conclusively prove them to be based on nothing but BS, I'd say it makes a pretty darn persuasive argument that this is the case.


You want scientific proof of the existence of God from religions? That's not their bailwick, nor their expertise. You're asking the wrong group. Ask the scientists... if you can find any who are even *attempting* to research it. Most wouldn't bother, and the few who would are mostly of a mind that we aren't far enough along yet even to establish a tie between "soul" and "physical body," or even to prove the *existence* of a soul. I tend to agree that establishing a method that in some way scientifically measures/detects "soul" is the first step, because within ourselves would be the most logical place to start, in looking for a measurable point where the spiritual touches/ties in with the physical. But even *that* has, to this point, proved difficult to do, beyond some occasional hints or possibilities that haven't panned out as anything near a full explanation and/or as something repeatable. That doesn't mean it's Impossible to do... just that we've not been able to do it yet, with the methods and instruments we currently have.

and, again,

Yes, religions have been in existence for thousands of years... but our level of science has not. As little as three hundred years ago, mankind had not flown, nor known of radio waves, nor harnessed electricity, nor split the atom. You cannot judge "centuries of no scientific proof" on the basis of the time religion has existed, because our science has only taken a huge jump upwards in the last hundred years or so... and even now, every day, we see new marvels that even two years ago were science fiction, such as the scientists who teleported electrons (formerly the domain of Star Trek). We have grown up in this time of astronomically fast advancement, and in some ways we take such advances for granted, even with a blase attitude. We *expect* advances to come regularly down the pike... and when they don't in some areas, it's all to easy to dismiss the whole subject as "ridiculous" and "unprovable"... when in the grand scheme of human history, our time of advancement is just a blip on the scale. It took many years for Pasteur's, Lister's, and Einstein's work to be widely and commonly accepted, even after they offered proof. Considering the fact that proving the existence of God is on a much bigger scale than that, and considering how few scientists would even attempt it (because they fear being made a laughingstock)... is it any wonder that no one has of yet found any way of quantitatively proving it? Yet this lack of proof is only a lack of proof; it is NOT a proof that God does NOT exist. And I defy you to FIND scientific evidence that God does NOT exist---hard, measurable evidence.

Saying "after all these thousands of years, why hasn't religion proved the existence of God by now" is like saying "why didn't cave men build rocket ships?" First, for most of those thousands of years (really, up until the past 100 years or so) we didn't even have a way to detect, measure, or use many forms of "invisible energy" that we now use on a daily basis, such as microwaves, radio waves, x-rays, etc. We've barely begun to crawl, very recently---and proving the existence of God, or even of the soul, is like ballet dancing, compared to the crawl we're currently at. Secondly, looking to theologians to provide scientific proof of God is like asking a plumber to do heart surgery: not their specialty or field of expertise.

As to the "scientific discoveries" comparison, I *do* think it's valid, in that in order for those scientists to make their discoveries, they had to keep an open mind, and be willing to "think outside the box of current thought."

As to Ben's comment that said discoveries nearly always rest on the scientist observing something that is currently unexplained [paraphrasing]... while that's true, often said observations only occured after we developed the proper equipement to *make* said observation. In other words, if you can't see an effect with your naked eyes (not to mention, you have to be someone who *notices* an effect, and registers what you see as something different, unusual, etc.), you have to have some sort of tool to detect it.

Going with the "naked eye" proposition, if you were in an earlier century, you might well have noticed a correlation between cleanliness in wounds and treatement, and whether or not a wound went septic. At that point, you'd wonder *why* this makes a difference, and you might even postulate the existence of germs... but until someone invents the microscope, you can't prove your hypothesis of their existence.

Likewise, a current scientist may observe, through a telescope, an unusual interaction between two very distant stars that no current theory explains. He or she might hypothesize some heretofor unknown form of energy that is causing the effect, and might even produce mathematical formulae to explain it... but until someone invents the proper kind of instrumentation that can *detect* said energy, it remains merely a hypothesis, rather than a working theory or even fact. The hypothesis might be accurate, might be partially correct, or completely wrong; we won't know until we have a method of gathering more data... but that doesn't mean that, because we HAVE no data on it, that said energy *doesn't* exist; it just means we have no way to prove OR disprove it, based on current technology and knowledge. And if the scientist in question never had a telescope to use in the first place, it's highly unlikely that he/she would have even *seen* this phenomena.

Likewise, science currently has no real data on either the existence of, or non-existence of, a God or Gods... but that doesn't rule out that there *are* observable effect phenomena out there, perhaps on a grand, interstellar scale, or perhaps on a tiny quantum scale, that we simply don't have the tools to even *see* yet, to make the observation about in the first place.

Someone with cataracts at birth is blind. If you have the methodology to remove the cataracts and supply glasses etc. to correct their vision, you are supplying them with a tool (eyes) to observe effects that otherwise they would simply miss, because they didn't *have* the tool before.

In many ways, insisting that God(s) don't exist because no one has observed a repeating/repeatable effect that only a God could account for, is like that person blind from birth via cataracts insisting that color can't exist, because they can't perceive it. If the proper procedure is developed to provide the tool they need, they *can* see colors... but the procedure has to exist to provide the "seeing tool."

We obviously don't have the proper "seeing tools" to observe whatever effects *might* be out there that would provide a scientific basis for theory on God's demonstrable existence. That doesn't mean God exists, or God doesn't exist---it simply means that IF God exists, we don't have the means to prove it yet.

[Michael P]

Or, as George Carlin put it, "Evolution is slow. Smallpox is fast."

[Solaris]

You know, Paul... Sometimes I think you're genius, and sometimes I think you're as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.

But I never fail to find you interesting.

My only question is this: Does this level of double-speak get you laid?


*falls over laughing*

I certainly hope it does... he deserves it. :D

[Solaris]

That would be redundant.

Oooo, damn, you're in rare form today! GOOD one!

[Solaris]

Or, as George Carlin put it, "Evolution is slow. Smallpox is fast."


Does that mean that in, oh, a hundred million years or so, we'll be able to sit down with God in physical form at a pub and say, "A rabbi, a priest, and a wiccan walk into a bar..." ?

:D

[Dreadstar]

Oooo, damn, you're in rare form today!
I blame the codeine.

[Dreadstar]

Does that mean that in, oh, a hundred million years or so, we'll be able to sit down with God in physical form at a pub and say, "A rabbi, a priest, and a wiccan walk into a bar..." ?

:D

Yeah, but he's already heard it.

[Solaris]

I blame the codeine.


I want some---I'm all worn out from getting ready for our vacation. We're taking off with Finn to FL for a few days, while Troy has a conference there. I didn't sleep at all last night, doing prep work. *sigh* I always leave too much till the last minute, but hey, it's a system. :D

[Fenris]

Is there any conceivable empirical phenomenon which would demand God as an explanation?

Suppose that giant fiery writing appeared in the sky tonight, warning all sinners to repent and referencing a Bible verse. Very dramatic, and obviously not a natural phenomenon. Is that proof of God's existence?

No.

It could have been a hoax, done by some genius special-effects crew. It could have been done by space aliens. It could be a freak optical illusion, in which actual writing somewhere on the ground is somehow reflected against the clouds.

The question I'm broadly working at is: if no conceivable test could prove the existence of God, even if He did exist, does that not establish the question as being outside of science's province?

[Typo Lad]

The question I'm broadly working at is: if no conceivable test could prove the existence of God, even if He did exist, does that not establish the question as being outside of science's province?

So basically, cna man clone a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?

[Fenris]

So basically, cna man clone a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?

He's not heavy, he's my boulder.

[Winslow]

The question I'm broadly working at is: if no conceivable test could prove the existence of God, even if He did exist, does that not establish the question as being outside of science's province?

You're breaking the rules a little.

For the materialist, there is no reality or existence outside of science.

Religion: God exists
Materialist: Prove it
Religion: I can't
Materialist: Then he doesn't exist
Religion: His existence transcends nature and creation, therefore he cannot be observed.
Materialist: I cry foul. You can't say something exists, and then say it defy's reality.
Religion: Can to
Materialist Can not
Religion: Can to

and on and on it goes . . .

[Hoss]

The question I'm broadly working at is: if no conceivable test could prove the existence of God, even if He did exist, does that not establish the question as being outside of science's province?

How can you be so smart yet so stupid about politics? :)

[Solaris]

He's not heavy, he's my boulder.


Thread derailment---did you see your birthday thread? We did you one. *hugs*

[west3man]

The fact that no conceivable test could prove the thing does not make the thing, by definition, outside the realm of science.

That's gonna be a tough one to explain, but let's say the universe is infinite. We live IN it, so we know it exists (which eliminates a nasty little obstacle in the Where's God? scenario). Now, let's prove that the universe is infinite.

. . .

If no conceivable machine could prove this, does that mean it is not so or that the universe is outside the realm of science? I don't think so.


Zat make a drop of sense?

[Winslow]

The fact that no conceivable test could prove the thing does not make the thing, by definition, outside the realm of science.

That's gonna be a tough one to explain, but let's say the universe is infinite. We live IN it, so we know it exists (which eliminates a nasty little obstacle in the Where's God? scenario). Now, let's prove that the universe is infinite.

. . .

If no conceivable machine could prove this, does that mean it is not so or that the universe is outside the realm of science? I don't think so.


Zat make a drop of sense?

My cosmology and Physics are rusty.

But I thought the Big Bang Theory already determined that the univerrse is finite.

[Solaris]

Is there any conceivable empirical phenomenon which would demand God as an explanation?

Suppose that giant fiery writing appeared in the sky tonight, warning all sinners to repent and referencing a Bible verse. Very dramatic, and obviously not a natural phenomenon. Is that proof of God's existence?

No.

It could have been a hoax, done by some genius special-effects crew. It could have been done by space aliens. It could be a freak optical illusion, in which actual writing somewhere on the ground is somehow reflected against the clouds.

The question I'm broadly working at is: if no conceivable test could prove the existence of God, even if He did exist, does that not establish the question as being outside of science's province?


And the flip side of that is, what if God *did* do that? What if God visited in physical form, talked with people, did "miracles" to prove he/she/it is God?

Some people would accept it immediately. Some would require a bit more "proof," some more proof than that, and so on, until you get up to the point of the ones who, no matter if God stopped the earth's rotation, cause all the world's rivers to run backwards, and recited the Ten Commandments while standing on his/her/its head, would *still* not accept that he/she/it was God, even if every scientist on the planet stood up and said "there's no way this could naturally occur, and no way anyone could create this effect via science or special effects."

Between the groupies and the die-hard skeptics... if I was God, I might want to avoid that scenario. ;) :D

[Dreadstar]

My cosmology and Physics are rusty.

But I thought the Big Bang Theory already determined that the univerrse is finite.

Actually it's more that if you subscribe to the Big Bang theory and an expanding universe, then it must be, by definition, finite.

[Fenris]

You're breaking the rules a little.

But just a little! (Is the ref paying attention?)


For the materialist, there is no reality or existence outside of science.

Religion: God exists
Materialist: Prove it
Religion: I can't
Materialist: Then he doesn't exist
Religion: His existence transcends nature and creation, therefore he cannot be observed.
Materialist: I cry foul. You can't say something exists, and then say it defy's reality.
Religion: Can to
Materialist Can not
Religion: Can to

and on and on it goes . . .

Hee!
I think there must be boundaries to science. I don't know what they are- save for extreme cases of the infinite sort- but it's interesting to try and feel around the edges.

[Fenris]

How can you be so smart yet so stupid about politics? :)

Aw, thank you! I think. Wait a minute!

[Doug Strange]

The server at work was down yesterday, so I never got a chance to respond to the last post directed to me:

Please explain to me, then, by what process of the natural world miracles and supernatural events - you know, the sorts of concepts religion is based around - can occur.

But now I don't need to respond:

Is there any conceivable empirical phenomenon which would demand God as an explanation?

Suppose that giant fiery writing appeared in the sky tonight, warning all sinners to repent and referencing a Bible verse. Very dramatic, and obviously not a natural phenomenon. Is that proof of God's existence?

No.

It could have been a hoax, done by some genius special-effects crew. It could have been done by space aliens. It could be a freak optical illusion, in which actual writing somewhere on the ground is somehow reflected against the clouds.

The question I'm broadly working at is: if no conceivable test could prove the existence of God, even if He did exist, does that not establish the question as being outside of science's province?Of course it would.

This should (theoretically, anyway) satisfy Jeffrey's argument, but it isn't really consistent with my own point of view. I don't like to rule out possibilities for no reason. It's not only bad science, it's also just dull, soulcrushing work. You'll never catch me saying we won't find a way to test for God. It's Solaris' caveman/rocketship example.

Someday...

God, like anyone else, can speak both through metaphor and fact. If you study, you can tell the difference....someday, if we work at it.

[Fenris]

Thread derailment---did you see your birthday thread? We did you one. *hugs*

Yes, thank you! And your art is beautiful! *Preens*

I wish I had artistic talent. And a million dollars. And some cake.

Come to think of it, the cake would do me well enough.

[Paul McEnery]

The question I'm broadly working at is: if no conceivable test could prove the existence of God, even if He did exist, does that not establish the question as being outside of science's province?
Wrong question.

One of the problems with God conversations is that there are so many elements to the gestalt that we wind up talking past each other.

One aspect of the God-gestalt is cosmology, and that does throw up testable hyptotheses. We can run tests on the universe to see which idea of the universe stands. This is one reason why we know the old theistic model of the universe is wrong.

That, however, does not speak to the notion of God as Atman or Ain Soph or The One (which I take to be similar to Jesus's God the Father). That's a threefold experience:
1) one's own "soul" in a blissfully ecstatic state of abandon
2) the great big over/undersoul
3) the sense that they are the same thing.

This experience of Atman no doubt leads people to attribute absolute unity to everything in the world of maya, but that doesn't really make sense. Within maya, things are very differentiated, and it's well to articulate "the divine" as thoroughly as possible.

Ultimately, this is something most primitive tribes have done. The Skyfather is remote from this plane of existence, which we must populate with little gods of thunder and trickery.

To put it another way: the emotions and thoughts that occur when in a theophanic state can be gestalt-characterized, named, and put to work (or, if they're inimical, restrained). Giving the violent father and castrating mother the names Marduk and Tiamat (or anti-dad and anti-mum, when I'm in that sort of a mood) has, for me, allowed me to spot those gestalts when they're working through other people or through groups, and more usefully resist them in myself.

This is, of course, exactly what a writer does when he creates a character who embodies certain values. We can all recognize an Anna Karenina or Madame Bovary type when we see them now, thanks to Tolstoy and Flaubert's characterization. Exactly the same is true with the articulation of the spiritual realm.

[Solaris]

Yes, thank you! And your art is beautiful! *Preens*

I wish I had artistic talent. And a million dollars. And some cake.

Come to think of it, the cake would do me well enough.

Glad you liked it... and the cake. (Chocolate's your favorite, right?) :D

Can't help w/da million dollars, bud, but if you can find a way to translate a million wishes for a happy birthday into dollars, well, there you go. ;) (And if you do, pass it on to me---I could use it. Hee.)

As to my opinion on religion and God (getting back on track here), I think it's up to each individual person to figure out what they think and believe for themselves... because as Pascal might say, "If there IS a God... each of us carries a responsibility to figure out how to deal with him/her/it, and in practical terms, it's to our own benefit to do so." :D I've always been rather fond of his theory---it's rather like "Voltaire Meets Religion". Hee.

[JeffreyWKramer]

And we all know 6 million Jews were slaughtered by an atheist. Please quit acting as if there is some moral high ground or superiority to atheism.


I never said that. All I said was yes, I've witnessed some pretty severe persecution of folks by religious folks.

Please quit taking statements out of context.

[Fenris]

The fact that no conceivable test could prove the thing does not make the thing, by definition, outside the realm of science.

That's gonna be a tough one to explain, but let's say the universe is infinite. We live IN it, so we know it exists (which eliminates a nasty little obstacle in the Where's God? scenario). Now, let's prove that the universe is infinite.

. . .

If no conceivable machine could prove this, does that mean it is not so or that the universe is outside the realm of science? I don't think so.

It certainly doesn't prove the hypothesis false. (Or true, either, naturally.)

And, certainly, parts of the universe can still be evaluated scientifically. But if the question of the universe's size can't be tested, then I can't see how we could place it within the realm of science. If we're not going to test it, what science are we going to do with it?


Zat make a drop of sense?

Ya, ya, many drops! They are dripping like an annoying leaky faucet all over my preconceptions.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Really, I look at a watch and 100% know there is a watchmaker. The universe is the greatest watch of all yet you think there is no reason to believe there is a watchmaker.

The universe isn't a watch. That isn't even a good analogy. Things don't fit neatly together. Sometimes they don't work well at all - things like sickle-cell anemia, already mentioned in this thread, are a great example. The amazing thing is that they work at all, but if such a Rube Goldberg design was the work of a watchmaker, I'd expect the maker was insane, drunk and half-asleep at the time.

[Paul McEnery]

The universe isn't a watch. That isn't even a good analogy. Things don't fit neatly together. Sometimes they don't work we