What would it take you to be convinced God existed?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Well I can think of one useful thing right off hand. It might give science and religion a chance to agree with each other for once, and maybe they could do something useful together, like clean up the environment -- i.e., by means of a grass roots organization or something.

If you're interested and would like to read more, please check out my Center of Existence thread.

Ummm...and I guess we should declare that pi=3, because it makes the math easier? Why should science work with religion? Religion is fairy tales that play on people's phychology, while science is a rational way of looking at the world. Apples and oranges.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...and I guess we should declare that pi=3, because it makes the math easier? Why should science work with religion? Religion is fairy tales that play on people's phychology, while science is a rational way of looking at the world. Apples and oranges.

Because science is of the mind and religion is of the heart, and if maybe we could put "our hearts" where only our mind is right now, then hey, we might actually get something done. Otherwise? ... not until hell freezes over.

Or perhaps another way of putting this would be to look at the difference between men and women -- essentially a patriarchal view (science) versus a matriarchal view (religion). And here, where men tend to be more rational and scientifically minded (patriarchal), women tend to be more emotional and religiously based (matriarchal). Now has anybody ever heard the expression, "Men are slobs and women are innately clean?" Hmm ... Maybe it's time we allowed women (Mother Church/Mother Earth) the opportunity to "clean house" so to speak?

Need I say more?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Need I say more?

Yes, please. Tell me what exactly do you want from the church and from the science to do, and in what way the church can help the science (or the reverse)?

PS: in my heart there's no religion, only my wife

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
Yes, please. Tell me what exactly do you want from the church and from the science to do, and in what way the church can help the science (or the reverse)?

Yes, please follow this link to the previous thread, The Center of Existence.

PS: in my heart there's no religion, only my wife

Yep, that's close enough!

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Not necessarily, because the thing you don't understand is that I'm not trying to refute the theory of evolution and replace it with the theory of God, but only augment the two. In which case evidence from either side would still be acceptable. Hence it would only be a matter of finding the "missing links."

If you'd read what I'm saying, it has to do with 'good' evidence. I never assumed you were trying to replace any theory, other than (and this isn't a theory, only a default position) that all things arose from natural processes (vs a supreme being). If the evidence for the god theory isn't good, then the default position is kept.

And yet what does Occam's razor got to do with the world being flat? Which is precisely the point. Because this was the easiest thing for people to understand at that time. Are you not setting yourself up for the potential of repeating the same "classical mistake?" Indeed!

Occam's razor is not meant to give you the correct answer, it's not about correct, it's about the most reasonable choice 'at that point in time/or with the current evidence'. Occam's razor would have chosen the Earth being flat, because it was the most logical position given the evidence at the time. I thought you understood this.
In science we cannot know the answers we have are correct, only that we are making the most reasonable determination, at the time, with the current evidence.

Except that we all know that a bullet is typically fired from a gun or, how about if it was thrown into a nearby campfire or something?

No, you are making assumptions based on ordinary experience. We do not 'know' the bullet came from any ordinary source. We do not 'know' it didn't appear with the momentum and trajectory needed to kill our hypothetical person. These are the same assumptions some of your detractors are making, with respect to the 'god' issue. Something non-supernatural, i.e. within ordinary experience.

But you do agree that it is the most reasonable position, that it came from a gun.

p.s. a pistol or rifle cartridge (bullet) thrown into a campfire, will project the slug at high velocity (like out of a gun) - the casing explodes, with the bullet being projected at an extremely low velocity. Only the pieces of casing are projected at high velocity.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zero
There are obviously no 'theories of God'...and for you to suggest it shows your intentional lack of understanding of a rather simple word like 'theory'.

Zero, I believe he understands this. The discussion has been to explain why it couldn't be a theory - or more accurately, why the evidence he has is insufficient to even warrant a hypothesis, much less a theory.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Because science is of the mind and religion is of the heart, and if maybe we could put "our hearts" where only our mind is right now, then hey, we might actually get something done. Otherwise? ... not until hell freezes over.

Why don't we keep our hearts where out hearts should be and out minds where their supposed to be. They're functions are different. Applying them to a different one may give us unpleasant results.

The same as trying to get science to do the function of religion.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
If you'd read what I'm saying, it has to do with 'good' evidence. I never assumed you were trying to replace any theory, other than (and this isn't a theory, only a default position) that all things arose from natural processes (vs a supreme being). If the evidence for the god theory isn't good, then the default position is kept.

And the question is, by whom? Don't you think that's just the least bit reckless, especially when there's such a vast majority that claim otherwise? If it was anything other than the notion of God, then I would probably say no big deal. Or, am I wrong in saying you just claimed that the default position suggests God doesn't exit?

Occam's razor is not meant to give you the correct answer, it's not about correct, it's about the most reasonable choice 'at that point in time/or with the current evidence'. Occam's razor would have chosen the Earth being flat, because it was the most logical position given the evidence at the time. I thought you understood this.
In science we cannot know the answers we have are correct, only that we are making the most reasonable determination, at the time, with the current evidence.

So in that respect Occam's razor doesn't necessarily mean anything, least of all with respect to God. Hmm ... I wonder what Christopher Columbus would have had to say about such a thing? Of course I think we already know the answer to that.

And just because water rolls down hill (path of least resistance), doesn't mean we can't construct terraces or build a resevoir by which to contain it. Otherwise nothing is "developed," and we're just maintaining the "status quo."

Originally posted by radagast
Why don't we keep our hearts where out hearts should be and out minds where their supposed to be. They're functions are different. Applying them to a different one may give us unpleasant results.

The same as trying to get science to do the function of religion.

But can't we at least recognize that they're both functions of the "same body?" Which can't function -- let alone be whole -- without either one? And what are you suggesting that men should be kept separate from women? ... In which case I would agree, at least for a time.

 

[Royce]

Mind if I step in and ask a few questions?
What constitutes "Good Evidence"? Does the thinking and experience of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people for 10,000 years or so not count as evidence? Is it just the speculations of a select few for a few hundred years all that can count as evidence and only because it is "science"?

Is the default position any more rational that the God position? After all, while the God postion may contain a lot of extra baggage such as where did God come from, does not the default position contain the same baggage? Where did we, the earth, the universe come from? How much time and effort has been spent; how many books have been written to attempt explain just that?

We can not separate the mind and the heart, the objective from the subjective, reason from emotion. As much as we would like to try to it is impossible. We are not built that way. We ask and explore and think because we care. It is not pure reason. If we were not involved, did not care, did not need to know we would still been in the trees eating fruit or in the meadows eating grass.

 

[Zero]

You folks seem confused again...the brain does the THINKING, the heart PUMPS BLOOD.


I hope that clears things up?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
inpossibility.
The argument is however that the eternal infinite material world itself (which is the highest or most broad form of being, since there is nothing outside or beyond it) can not exist in consciouss or subjective form.
To be consciousness, means to be consciousness of something. but by definition there is not something beyond or outside the eternal infinite material world itself.

I find this post to be based on nothing more than semantics and a load of assumptions, some of which have no more a scientific basis than God.

Of course you cannot be conscious of yourself if you are all that exists because the concept of "yourself" is meaningless. That's what I meant when I said semantics above. But there is no basis for saying that you cannot be conscious of whatever it is that exists. You just can't call it "yourself". And to make any claims that one cannot be conscious of anything unless it is distinct from oneself would be making the assumption that things are somehow objectively distinct to begin with! Does sciences say this? I don't think so. If you think about it, distinction is all in the mind.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by radagast
If you'd read what I'm saying, it has to do with 'good' evidence. I never assumed you were trying to replace any theory, other than (and this isn't a theory, only a default position) that all things arose from natural processes (vs a supreme being). If the evidence for the god theory isn't good, then the default position is kept.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the question is, by whom? Don't you think that's just the least bit reckless, especially when there's such a vast majority that claim otherwise? If it was anything other than the notion of God, then I would probably say no big deal. Or, am I wrong in saying you just claimed that the default position suggests God doesn't exit?

Appeal to the popular - an argument flaw. Just because the majority believe something doesn't make it true.

If you mean the judgement of good evidence, this has to pass the reasonable person test. Given a good understanding of the type of evidence, all reasonable people should be able to agree that the evidence is good at supporting the argument given for it, and not much more supportive (or more reasonable) of a contradictory argument.

This has not been, in any form or fashion, been presented for your case.

So in that respect Occam's razor doesn't necessarily mean anything, least of all with respect to God. Hmm ... I wonder what Christopher Columbus would have had to say about such a thing? Of course I think we already know the answer to that.

Certainly it does, have you not been listening? Think about it, I could alway come up with any competeing conjecture, to an existing theory, which fits the evidence, but expands the number of requirements and reasons, unboundedly. So instead of heat traveling from hot objects to cool objects because of radiative dissapation and molecular collision, I could say that trillions of microscopic, invisible fairies carried the heat from hot to cold.

Occam's razor holds because the converse is absurd. It's not a simple concept, but if you try and think it through honestly, it becomes apparent.


First, Columbus, as most intellectuals of the day, knew the world had to be round - the evidence supported it. It was the common people that didn't believe it. Columbus was in extreme error in the computation of the worlds size, and was only saved by the fact that the america's were here, otherwise he'd have died of thirst and hunger.

Just because something is more reasonable to believe, doesn't imply it's true. Nor, does it imply we don't look elsewhere to ensure what we accept is true, is. Each time we get new evidence, the whole needs to be re-evaluated by Occam.

And just because water rolls down hill (path of least resistance), doesn't mean we can't construct terraces or build a resevoir by which to contain it. Otherwise nothing is "developed," and we're just maintaining the "status quo."

This is as good an example of an non-sequituir as I've seen.

But can't we at least recognize that they're both functions of the "same body?" Which can't function -- let alone be whole -- without either one? And what are you suggesting that men should be kept separate from women? ... In which case I would agree, at least for a time.

No problem with them functioning in the 'same house'. They function that way in my 'house' just fine, as well as a number of theist I know and respect.

What you have asked, though, is that the 'mind' (science) start pumping blood for the heart ('religion'). That has been, is, and will remain the argument in this thread, with you.

The premise that they cannot be alone is a strongly contestable statement. Many people in the forum operate without any religious support/practice/faith.

Men and Women - Aren't we really stretching the analogy way, way past the breaking point here?

I'm beginning to think that any and all debates with you, as cordial as you've been, are fruitless. You seem to ignore/avoid/misinterpret every strong point I've made, ignore the argument flaws detected, dismiss one of the more basic principles of reason, not to mention that our differences seem completely irreconcilable. At the present rate, I will cease any debate with you on any point - no insult intended - simply because they are doomed to a deadlock.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Royce
Mind if I step in and ask a few questions?
What constitutes "Good Evidence"? Does the thinking and experience of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people for 10,000 years or so not count as evidence? Is it just the speculations of a select few for a few hundred years all that can count as evidence and only because it is "science"?

Good evidence = see previous post. Good evidence has to be extremely hard to contest (as evidence of a given point or position). Most of the christians I know would have a hard time using the evidence mentioned here as 'scientific' evidence.

Evidence is irrelevant of popularity - hence the reason for the Argumentum ad populum argument flaw. Many millions of small children believe that the universe consists of the inside of their house...

Is the default position any more rational that the God position? After all, while the God postion may contain a lot of extra baggage such as where did God come from, does not the default position contain the same baggage? Where did we, the earth, the universe come from? How much time and effort has been spent; how many books have been written to attempt explain just that?

The problem with the god baggage, vs the physical causes baggage is that we have demonstrated that physical cause and effect happens, no such thing has been demonstrated about god, not even his existence.

Don't get me wrong, have faith in any diety you wish. But to try and apply science to that problem would only pervert science into something which it was not.

Trying to use science to prove god is as absurd as using the bible to construct a Boeing 747. Hammers and screwdrivers - they do different things, when they are misused, the results are rarely pretty.

Assuming you're a believing christian, the last time people tried to prove heaven/god existed, it ended badly. (Babylon)

We can not separate the mind and the heart, the objective from the subjective, reason from emotion. As much as we would like to try to it is impossible. We are not built that way. We ask and explore and think because we care. It is not pure reason. If we were not involved, did not care, did not need to know we would still been in the trees eating fruit or in the meadows eating grass.

The point of subject/objective concerns the lack of referents. Since there are no referents to completely subjective experience, comparing them is difficult, examining if they are the same is virtually impossible. See lemon/lime test, previous post - explain your solution.

 

[Royce]

Glenn, I do agree with you that God or his existence can not be proven by scientific evidence. God, religion, spiritualism and/or theism is not and can not be addressed by science at all. Nor can or should the opposite be true. However, Science is not the only tool that we have have to gain knowledge.

It is indeed apples and oranges but when we are looking exclusively at the apples with the proper applescope it does not mean that oranges do not exist. The see the organges we have to use an orange scope. I do not mean to be frivalous or make light of the topic but the point is valid IMO.

We all agree that sdcience cannot be used to prove God exists or created the universe. Okay, why do we then continue to refer to scientific methods and evidence when discussing God etc?

By the same token science can not be used to prove that God does not exist or that God did not create the universe. So why do you and others try? Please understand that I am not necessary speaking of you personally but on non-theist and anti-theist. We speak or write of God and creation and far to often a response has been that science have PROVED the BB and evolution etc. We, theist, are then compelled to address scientific issues in theist terms which as you correctly point out is comparing apples and oranges.

That response seems to work for you in discounting all that we may say but when we point this out then we are evading the issue. It is not, my friend, always a two way street.

 

[radagast]

Royce,
With respect to the last post. We are in complete and utter agreement. Say, isn't that listed as one of the signs of the apocolypse?

In this thread Iacchus has been arguing that science should investigate the existence of god, almost all my posts on this thread since, have been directed at explaining why science cannot be used to do that.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Appeal to the popular - an argument flaw. Just because the majority believe something doesn't make it true.

Except you're the one who said that the whole thing was outside of science's domain, and that there was no way science could grapple with it one way or the other. And yet here you are now suggesting that science -- i.e., via Occam's razor -- takes (and perhaps relys upon) the position that God doesn't exist. So which is it going to be? Sounds like a great way to back up the "staus quo" to me.

If you mean the judgement of good evidence, this has to pass the reasonable person test. Given a good understanding of the type of evidence, all reasonable people should be able to agree that the evidence is good at supporting the argument given for it, and not much more supportive (or more reasonable) of a contradictory argument.

And how do we establish who is reasonable? Someone who is in accord with those who proclaim what reasonable should be? That's definitely one way!

This has not been, in any form or fashion, been presented for your case.

Once again to whom? I think Royce's (first) reply above was one of the most reasonable replies I've heard so far. Hmm ... must be because we have a similar viewpoint and respect each others views. But then again that would imply bias now wouldn't? And yet it obviously doesn't agree with your sense of what "reasonable" is now does it?

Certainly it does, have you not been listening? Think about it, I could alway come up with any competeing conjecture, to an existing theory, which fits the evidence, but expands the number of requirements and reasons, unboundedly. So instead of heat traveling from hot objects to cool objects because of radiative dissapation and molecular collision, I could say that trillions of microscopic, invisible fairies carried the heat from hot to cold.

But then again, what if like Christopher Columbus, we "knew" better?

Occam's razor holds because the converse is absurd. It's not a simple concept, but if you try and think it through honestly, it becomes apparent.

Absurd? ... Says who?

First, Columbus, as most intellectuals of the day, knew the world had to be round - the evidence supported it. It was the common people that didn't believe it. Columbus was in extreme error in the computation of the worlds size, and was only saved by the fact that the america's were here, otherwise he'd have died of thirst and hunger.

It's within the interest of the powers that be, to maintain the "status quo."

Just because something is more reasonable to believe, doesn't imply it's true. Nor, does it imply we don't look elsewhere to ensure what we accept is true, is. Each time we get new evidence, the whole needs to be re-evaluated by Occam.

Or, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to reevaluate some of the old evidence as well? Especially in light of our abilities to be more comprehensive in our testing.

This is as good an example of an non-sequituir as I've seen.

All I can say is I do my best.

No problem with them functioning in the 'same house'. They function that way in my 'house' just fine, as well as a number of theist I know and respect.

You can't have thinking without feelings, and vice versa. Indeed the two augment each other.

What you have asked, though, is that the 'mind' (science) start pumping blood for the heart ('religion'). That has been, is, and will remain the argument in this thread, with you.

No, all I've asked is that we attempt to view the whole thing in an "integrated sense."

The premise that they cannot be alone is a strongly contestable statement. Many people in the forum operate without any religious support/practice/faith.

And yet, to the degree that we deny the other "significant side" to ourselves, we become neurotic.

Men and Women - Aren't we really stretching the analogy way, way past the breaking point here?

Actually, when you get right down to it, this is a male versus female thing. So tell me, why is it so hard for men to express their emotions? Or, why is that women can't stand it when men get too over-analytical?

I'm beginning to think that any and all debates with you, as cordial as you've been, are fruitless. You seem to ignore/avoid/misinterpret every strong point I've made, ignore the argument flaws detected, dismiss one of the more basic principles of reason, not to mention that our differences seem completely irreconcilable. At the present rate, I will cease any debate with you on any point - no insult intended - simply because they are doomed to a deadlock.

Has anybody ever accused you of being a knit-pick?

 

[radagast]

Iacchuss,
I've answered all these before, just in a different form. There is only a few different ways to say the same thing. If you noticed, Royce misunderstood the intent of what was said - he, as do I, and virtually everyone with a strong scientific background understand that science is ill-equipped to delve into the metaphysical.

I have, time after time, tried to show why the evidence you are presenting wouldn't qualify as evidence of what you want it to show. I cannot know, given my present knowledge, if you just have such a primative grasp of science, or you are just locked into the tunnel vision of proving what you believe to be true, but your view of science is one bordering on 'people with opinions' and nothing more. Since that is apparently what you believe, no manner of argumentation is going to convince you that you are incorrect on the point of using science to investigate the existence (or lack thereof) of god.

Debating further you is pointless. I will do my best to avoid any debates with you, on any subject, in the future. Though I am pretty good at controlling sudden impulses, it's possible I'll respond to something in the future. With luck, this will be held to a minimum.

Has anybody ever accused you of being a knit-pick?

More times than I can count. If I've got one weakness, it's a penchant for accuracy.

p.s. Occams razor though used by science, is an tool of reasoning, not specific to science. It would apply to fictitious, abstract arguments as easily as debates concerning the concrete and the real.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Iacchuss,
I've answered all these before, just in a different form. There is only a few different ways to say the same thing. If you noticed, Royce misunderstood the intent of what was said - he, as do I, and virtually everyone with a strong scientific background understand that science is ill-equipped to delve into the metaphysical.

But what does metaphysical mean, if not the precursor to that which is physical?

Well actually I thought I understood what Mr. Boyce was saying initially, but then again maybe you and he are in cahoots?

I have, time after time, tried to show why the evidence you are presenting wouldn't qualify as evidence of what you want it to show. I cannot know, given my present knowledge, if you just have such a primative grasp of science, or you are just locked into the tunnel vision of proving what you believe to be true, but your view of science is one bordering on 'people with opinions' and nothing more. Since that is apparently what you believe, no manner of argumentation is going to convince you that you are incorrect on the point of using science to investigate the existence (or lack thereof) of god.

Yes, when you get right down to it, science is only a matter of opinion. Consider the theory of evolution for example. It's still yet to be proven by the way.

Given this, why is it that we don't "seem" to have the ability to prove whether something is true one way or the other? We only "seem" to have the ability to measure whether one thing is more "plausible" than another. This would be "my opinion" of course.

Debating further you is pointless. I will do my best to avoid any debates with you, on any subject, in the future. Though I am pretty good at controlling sudden impulses, it's possible I'll respond to something in the future. With luck, this will be held to a minimum.

Hmm ... Now where have I heard this before? Was it something Mr. Royce brought up, or something Mr. Boyce brought up?

More times than I can count. If I've got one weakness, it's a penchant for accuracy.

And I suppose people have told you how "annoying" that can be as well?

p.s. Occams razor though used by science, but is an tool of reasoning, not specific to science. It would apply to fictitious, abstract arguments as easily as debates concerning the concrete and the real.

And yet it cannot ultimately be used for determining "the truth." Which you see, is what I'm trying to get at here.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by radagast Good evidence = see previous post. Good evidence has to be extremely hard to contest (as evidence of a given point or position). Most of the christians I know would have a hard time using the evidence mentioned here as 'scientific' evidence. . . . The problem with the god baggage, vs the physical causes baggage is that we have demonstrated that physical cause and effect happens, no such thing has been demonstrated about god, not even his existence.

Radagast, I hope you don’t mind that I’ve chosen your post to argue my points on this subject. Also, to fellow posters familiar with my stance, here it comes again!

Radagast, you assume science is the end-all of discovery. Your posts reveal that the standard by which you judge proof and evidence is empiricism. But empircism, by definition, is dependent on sense data. Are you certain the senses are the only avenue for acquiring information?

And yes, empiricism/science has demonstrated physical cause and effect happens. What does that prove? It proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that science reveals physical cause and effect. It also proves it reveals nothing more. Now, let’s be utterly, objectively, coldly logical . . . if science shows only physical cause and effect, should we conclude reality is only physical cause and effect? Or can we only objectively, coldly-logically conclude science is limited in what it reveals?

Originally posted by radagast Trying to use science to prove god is as absurd as using the bible to construct a Boeing 747. Hammers and screwdrivers - they do different things, when they are misused, the results are rarely pretty. Assuming you're a believing christian, the last time people tried to prove heaven/god existed, it ended badly. (Babylon)

Agreed

Originally posted by radagast The point of subject/objective concerns the lack of referents. Since there are no referents to completely subjective experience, comparing them is difficult, examining if they are the same is virtually impossible. See lemon/lime test, previous post - explain your solution.

Experience . . . that has for nearly two centuries been the standard of verifying claims. Experience and know -- I believe that with every inch of my being.

But what is the full range of experience? If you are a scientism devotee, you say sense experience. The problem with that bring us to my second big complaint with empircally-oriented perspectives.

Virtually unknown to all the science fantatics is the huge area of human potential out of which “enlightenment” has risen. The materialists are geniuses on everything physical, but ask them to explain the 3000 year history of the enlightenment phenomenon and all you get is a big . . . “huh?” And will they investigate and understand before spouting radical materialist philosophy? Well, I have yet to see it.

So here we all are, philosophizing without a crucial piece of human potential included in the discussion . . . and for no other reason than people are already determined to believe what they want to believe, and perfectly willing to ignore or disregard relevant additional information to do so.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Radagast, I hope you don’t mind that I’ve chosen your post to argue my points on this subject. Also, to fellow posters familiar with my stance, here it comes again!

Radagast, you assume science is the end-all of discovery. Your posts reveal that the standard by which you judge proof and evidence is empiricism. But empircism, by definition, is dependent on sense data. Are you certain the senses are the only avenue for acquiring information?

Les,
I realize you cannot read all the posts on the site, so I understand that you may have gotten a skewed view, especially from this thread.

1) I'm a Zen Buddhist, actually one working towards the priesthood, so to say that science is the end all and be all of discovery is hardly my view.

2) If you are basing your judgement on this thread, please listen to how it started and exactly what I'm argueing. Over half a dozen times, in this thread alone, I've stated that science is not the only avenue to knowledge. This thread - specifically with respect to Iacchuss, was to say that Science was absolutely NOT the method that made sense to try and determine if god existed. So far, only Iacchuss has argued the other side of that coin. Given his knowledge of science is so limited, I've had to withdraw from debating with him.

3) The arguments I've made concerning science are fairly common knowledge to most in science and certainly to anyone with that's studied the philosophy of science. It is one also held by a number of scientists who hold strong religious views, and is orthogonal to the idea of materialism.

4) I keep a clear idea, or division, for myself concerning my criteria for objective truth and facts, and for subjective truth and facts. Objective truth and facts require a more rigorous set of criteria, for me, than for most others. But that's just me.

And yes, empiricism/science has demonstrated physical cause and effect happens. What does that prove? It proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that science reveals physical cause and effect. It also proves it reveals nothing more. Now, let’s be utterly, objectively, coldly logical . . . if science shows only physical cause and effect, should we conclude reality is only physical cause and effect? Or can we only objectively, coldly-logically conclude science is limited in what it reveals?

Obviously science is limited in what it reveals. But I've stated this, in other terms, several times in this thread alone. The above paragraph is something I would agree with.

Experience . . . that has for nearly two centuries been the standard of verifying claims. Experience and know -- I believe that with every inch of my being.

I spent three years in a fundamentalist church, experienced what many call 'being saved'. That this matches your experience, neither of us can say. The whole idea behind saying that science cannot investigate the existence/non-existence of god circles around this one point - the inability to objectively judge another's subjective experience. I'm getting off my point, please excuse me. In my further religious quests I realized the experience I had had, came in different guises, depending on the religion in question, but was the same experience, interpreted in different ways. I much prefer the Buddhist interpretation of that experience.

I can know Muslims who accept what they believe, from the experiences they've had, to the core of their being. I can find Christians that believe the same about their beliefs. My office is about one third Hindu. A large number are devout and highly spiritual and would say the same about their beliefs. Though the idea of faith and belief is quite different in Buddhism, needless to say I can find number of Buddhists with a similar depth of conviction about their experiences.
Perhaps you can see a pattern in where I'm going with this...

<argument verging on ad-hominem deleted>

If you wish to judge me, please read more than one or two of my posts.

 

[Adam]

What would it take? Brainwashing.

Seriously, so many other things are far more likely. If someone popped up and demonstrated remarkable powers, the far more likely option is a technologically-advanced alien or such. Even more likely is hallucination. I can't think of anything that would do it, really, short of brainwashing.

 

[Iacchus32]

And yet the idea of God has been conveyed throughout the millennia, and quite possibly "meant" to be understood.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet the idea of God has been conveyed throughout the millennia, and quite possibly "meant" to be understood.

Rot and piffle. The idea of gods has been around for millennia. The word "god" refers not to a single being but to a class or type of being. It's like people, dogs, fish, et cetera. "Baal" is to "god" as "Adam" is to "person". However, the christian churches came up with a rather clever policy of referring to their own god, named "Yahweh" or some such, as simply "God", changing the meaning of the word to imply that there is only one such being.

As for human belief in the supernatural in general, what has persisted for millennia is not any particular belief in one thing, but ignorance. For the majority of our history we have been ignorant of why lightning occurs, for example, and thus made up silly fairy tales of spirits and gods and such to explain it.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Virtually unknown to all the science fantatics is the huge area of human potential out of which “enlightenment” has risen. The materialists are geniuses on everything physical, but ask them to explain the 3000 year history of the enlightenment phenomenon and all you get is a big . . . “huh?” And will they investigate and understand before spouting radical materialist philosophy? Well, I have yet to see it.

So here we all are, philosophizing without a crucial piece of human potential included in the discussion . . . and for no other reason than people are already determined to believe what they want to believe, and perfectly willing to ignore or disregard relevant additional information to do so.

And yes, what radagast fails to realize is that this is a philosophy forum, and is somewhat open ended in terms of what you can discuss. Neither does he wish to realize that it's these very same people who I am addressing in these posts. So rather than focus on me -- if, he wants to start a campaign, I would suggest he begin focusing on them as well. Or, maybe there's a particular reason why he wishes to single me out?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Adam
Rot and piffle. The idea of gods has been around for millennia. The word "god" refers not to a single being but to a class or type of being. It's like people, dogs, fish, et cetera. "Baal" is to "god" as "Adam" is to "person". However, the christian churches came up with a rather clever policy of referring to their own god, named "Yahweh" or some such, as simply "God", changing the meaning of the word to imply that there is only one such being.

There are just as many Gods as there are people on this planet. And yet, only one sun in the sky? -- which, for all intents and purposes represents God. Think about it, this is where the idea of monotheism came from, the early Egyptians, and is no doubt (I could be mistaken here) tied to their sun-god "Ra."

As for human belief in the supernatural in general, what has persisted for millennia is not any particular belief in one thing, but ignorance. For the majority of our history we have been ignorant of why lightning occurs, for example, and thus made up silly fairy tales of spirits and gods and such to explain it.

Ignorance? And yet the last thing you would want to do is get struck by lightning now wouldn't it? That would be pure ignorance indeed. Whereas if you were close to the "root of the matter," such as the ancients no doubt were, you might come about with a different perspective.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
There are just as many Gods as there are people on this planet. And yet, only one sun in the sky? -- which, for all intents and purposes represents God. Think about it, this is where the idea of monotheism came from, the early Egyptians, and is no doubt (I could be mistaken here) tied to their sun-god "Ra."

The oldest known religious icon is about 25,000 years old, European, a small ivory carving of a pregnant-looking female. That may have been part of a pantheon or may have been from a monotheistic culture; it's uncertain.

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Ignorance? And yet the last thing you would want to do is get struck by lightning now wouldn't it? That would be pure ignorance indeed. Whereas if you were close to the "root of the matter," such as the ancients no doubt were, you might come about with a different perspective.

It would be unlucky to be struck by lightning, but such an event would have nothing at all to do with knowledge or igorance. Someone who knows what lightning is may be struck. Again, ages ago belief that such things were caused by beings was based on ignorance.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yes, what radagast fails to realize is that this is a philosophy forum, and is somewhat open ended in terms of what you can discuss. Neither does he wish to realize that it's these very same people who I am addressing in these posts. So rather than focus on me -- if, he wants to start a campaign, I would suggest he begin focusing on them as well. Or, maybe there's a particular reason why he wishes to single me out?

Ummm...we prefer our philosophy to be coherent? And you have been dipping into the shrooms again, haven't you?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Adam
It would be unlucky to be struck by lightning, but such an event would have nothing at all to do with knowledge or igorance. Someone who knows what lightning is may be struck. Again, ages ago belief that such things were caused by beings was based on ignorance.

And yet I'm not going to stand out in the middle of a field during the middle of a thunder storm and wait for it to happen. That "would" be dumb. Also, the lives of the gods were "synchronized" through such events, as storms, wars, faminines and what not. So if in fact there were a "godly connection" to be made, this is how it would mostly likely come about. While something similar is suggested by what I posted in the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=54055 ...

Originally posted by Iaccus32
And yet as I understand, the angels in heaven, as intermediaries between heaven and earth, are already endowed with this capacity ... as "mini gods" so to speak.

As a matter-of-fact, if understood correctly, it would begin to explain the nature gods and godessess in general, like throughout ancient Greece and what not. Whereby the gods or godesses we choose -- or, do they choose us? -- depends upon the "afiliations" we establish in ourselves.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...we prefer our philosophy to be coherent? And you have been dipping into the shrooms again, haven't you?

You're right, it's important to have a sense of humor about it now isn't it?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
You're right, it's important to have a sense of humor about it now isn't it?

What the heck, it breaks the monotony, if nothing else!

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by radagast
Les,
I realize you cannot read all the posts on the site, so I understand that you may have gotten a skewed view, especially from this thread. . . .

If you wish to judge me, please read more than one or two of my posts.

Glenn, my sincere apologies . . . I actually read more of other people's posts, and focused more on the one of yours I quoted because it was addressing empirical issues. After going back and carefully reading your posts, I see I was careless in chosing your last post to represent the materialist position.

That last paragraph of mine definitely was NOT directed at you, but rather was a frustration I have accumulated from debating with materialists here (I think had over 500 posts at the old site, and most of them were long posts too). Yet I would add I don't believe what I said was an ad hominem argument because it is an accurate description of what has gone on.

Just to be clear, I think science is awesome, and does a wonderful job revealing the nature of the physical world. I also do not think science will ever prove or disprove whether or not there is a God, or soul or anything spiritual. They are two distinct realms, each with its own avenues for knowing.

 

[radagast]

Hi Les,
I wasn't offended by your post. I've made the same type of error, I guess we all have.

Our views on science seem to be quite similar.

I shouldn't have used the ad-hominem phrase. I took your general statements personally. I guess I was getting a little frustrated and fatigued at Iacchus's 'debating' tactics. I consider ceasing all debate with a person, my action of last resort. As such, I go to some extremes to give them the benefit of the doubt. I guess I took much too long to pull that plug. I shouldn't have taken it out on you. My apologies.

 

[Royce]

Les, my friend, I am surprised to read that even you are losing patients with the objective materialist's arguements. You the epitome of logical reasoning. I am crushed. My idol has feet of clay. Mr Spock is somewhere sadly shaking his head! Oh well, it proves that you too are only human. I had thought that it was only me with my shortcomings who was losing patients.

radagast, Glenn, is a friend of open mind and logical reasoning too.
I find it amusing that we three, as well as others, all setting on or on opposite sides of the fence, feel the same frustration.

There must be some way that we can keep from mixing up science and meta-physics while we discuss both and yet find a common ground for both. I know you and I as well as M.Gaspar and Iacchus32 as well as other do not see any real conflict between science and religion or better meta-physics. The conflict come from mixing apples and organge and both 'sides' including myself are guilty of that.

My point, other than chatting with friends, to continue the metaphor, is that, while yes, it is apples and oranges, both are fruit. Even if we keep them in separate baskets they both reside in the same fruit stand along with still other friuits. This universe, as well as we humans, is truly a fruit salad containg and ample supply of nuts also just to make it even better.

 

[Zero]

The problem as I see it is that the 'fruit' off religion is at best illusion, and at worst it is poison.

 

[Iacchus32]

Rational Thought

In order to believe, it has to be plausible. And it doesn't make a bit of difference whether it's science, religion or whatever. And if I can't bring any plausibility to my case, then I have no business stating anything on this forum.

By the way, how can you possibly get anybody to believe in anything, without speaking about it first?

And yet if you can't speak about it, because science can't/won't conceive of it, then there's not much point in thinking about it now is there? What? An idea is not considered rational unless science says it is rational? Hmm ... this seems to be the problem right here. And indeed this is how it feels!

Therefore if I can't think about it, using the exact same process science uses to conduct its analysis -- "through rational thought" -- then what's the point in attempting to know anything?

Seems like a great way to discourage people from practicing religion, especially when the only way you can truly understand it, is by thinking about it "rationally."

Of course science seems to have its own idea about religious thinking, that it is anything but rational and yet, what if it were possible? Hmm ... we might even be able to present a case now wouldn't we?