Do you believe in God?

[Joel]

because scientists aren't currently blowing each other up over differing interpretations of the same data. Nor did they typically torture and execute each other throughout history due to bitter hatred of opposing theorists. Harsh words may be exchanged upon occasion but no one has walked into a crowded particle physics symposium wearing a dynamite vest so they can take out as many of those infidel quantum theorists as possible.

On the other hand, religious people have been killing each other over who has the better invisible friend since the dawn of recorded history, and most likely before that too.



Has what? There is still bitter division between the varying flavors of christianity. I'll grant that you lot are no longer burning each other at the stake much, but i've heard - with my own ears - a differing flavor of christian tell my wife's catholic parents that they are idol worshipers and should stop praying to false gods before it is too late.



This simply demonstrates precisely how little you understand about what science really is, and really doesn't illustrate any similarity at all between scientific understanding and religious opinion.

(I think this illustrates Duke's point clearly, even if it's just a sitcom)







However, to add my beliefs to the thread, I believe Jesus existed, but he was just a man, not the son of God. And I believe all of his miracles were metaphoric, eg. Water into Wine = Convincing the guests that water was as good as wine since the hosts of the wedding obviously tried hard to throw a good party. I think Jesus' teachings were good, (you know, love yourself, love others), but he was NOT the son of God.

 

[Famine]

Absolutely false.

It's interesting that you say this, but then prove Duke's point absolutely correct:

Concerning mainstream Christianity what is there to "improve" on? The core values remain consistant...Jesus Christ was the Son of God, died for us, rose again.

"he said, she said" ? "personal opinion" ? Come on Duke, seriously. The amount of information on the subject boggles the mind. Libraries fill the globe on the subject.

Science is improving and refining itself all the time - every hour we have a better understanding of the universe than the previous hour. Every "refinement" in religion leads to schism - even if you assume you've picked the "right" umbrella to shelter under in the first place.

 

[Duke]

Absolutely false. Concerning mainstream Christianity what is there to "improve" on? The core values remain consistant...Jesus Christ was the Son of God, died for us, rose again.

Then why are there so many different flavors of Christianity, many of which are mutually exclusive, and some of which harbor bitter animosity against each other?

If Christianity can't be improved upon, why did English Christians fight a bloody civil war over religion? Why did they burn each other at the stake? More recently, why did Irish Catholics and Protestants - both Christian sects - spend much of the 20th century shooting and blowing each other up?

Looks like there's room for improvement there. And that's just within Christianity.

"he said, she said" ? "personal opinion" ? Come on Duke, seriously. The amount of information on the subject boggles the mind. Libraries fill the globe on the subject.

...yet without a single shred of physical evidence to back them up. I do not deny that there is a huge quantity of verbage on the subject.

There's just not an ounce of DATA. Therefore it's all 100% conjecture.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Then why are there so many different flavors of Christianity, many of which are mutually exclusive, and some of which harbor bitter animosity against each other?

If Christianity can't be improved upon, why did English Christians fight a bloody civil war over religion? Why did they burn each other at the stake? More recently, why did Irish Catholics and Protestants - both Christian sects - spend much of the 20th century shooting and blowing each other up?]

Good question. Could it be the result of Denominationalism?

Looks like there's room for improvement there. And that's just within Christianity.

I guess there's always room for improvement.

...yet without a single shred of physical evidence to back them up. I do not deny that there is a huge quantity of verbage on the subject.

You keep missing this one. Its not of the physical realm.

There's just not an ounce of DATA. Therefore it's all 100% conjecture.

Its amazing how you call one "Data" and the other "Verbage" when in fact there both the same thing.
Due to your preconceived, prejudiced determination you view it as such.

 

[Famine]

Good question. Could it be the result of Denominationalism?

Which is a result of people thinking they know best how to read and interpret the Bible.

You keep missing this one. Its not of the physical realm.

It's not that we keep "missing" it. It's that it's irrelevant. Anyone could make up anything and say there's no physical evidence because it's "not of the physical realm". Without physical evidence it isn't verifiable - and all things which are unverifiable have equal weight. None.

Its amazing how you call one "Data" and the other "Verbage" when in fact there both the same thing.
Due to your preconceived, prejudiced determination you view it as such.

Verbage: "The universe and everything in it was created yesterday by a pandimensional female frog-being. Any memories you have prior to yesterday are the memories She wishes you to have."

Data: None


They aren't the same thing.

 

[Duke]

You keep missing this one. Its not of the physical realm.

That's because you keep missing the point that if it is not repeatably demonstrable it is not provable. There is absolutely no PROOF that any supernatural beings exist.

Its amazing how you call one "Data" and the other "Verbage" when in fact there both the same thing.
Due to your preconceived, prejudiced determination you view it as such.

They are not the same thing at all so it is not amazing in any way that I use the words correctly. It just means that I have a grasp of the difference between the two.

By your standards, The Lord Of The Rings is proof that there is (or at least was) an actual physical location called Middle Earth that was populated by real hobbits, dragons, elves, and other creatures. After all, LOTR is a long, detailed account of a history that many many people fervently believe in.

So therefore by your standards of proof, it should be equally as true as the literal word of the Bible.

[edit] NOTE: I understand that obviously you personally do not believe LOTR to equal the Bible in veracity. My point is that your "data" criteria can be applied equally to any myth of any type with equal validity.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Which is a result of people thinking they know best how to read and interpret the Bible.

True. Just like the Scientific community.

It's not that we keep "missing" it. It's that it's irrelevant. Anyone could make up anything and say there's no physical evidence because it's "not of the physical realm". Without physical evidence it isn't verifiable - and all things which are unverifiable have equal weight. None.

The same thing can and is done in the physical.
You don't discount all of the verbage because of that.

Verbage: "The universe and everything in it was created yesterday by a pandimensional female frog-being. Any memories you have prior to yesterday are the memories She wishes you to have."

Data: None

They aren't the same thing.

Actually there is no Data to verifiably establish to the contrary.
So how is it different?

 

[Famine]

True. Just like the Scientific community.

Not at all. The basis of all science is the phrase "I do not know".

Science isn't conducted based on the knowledge of the people doing it - in fact it's independant of that. Whereas all religious denominations are based on someone knowing that they know how to read and interpret a holy book. Why a holy book, purporting to be the undiluted word of a deity, needs interpretation (or annotation) escapes me. Probably something to do with the messy translations.

The same thing can and is done in the physical.
You don't discount all of the verbage because of that.

Err... whu?

Actually there is no Data to verifiably establish to the contrary.
So how is it different?

Indeed. There is no data of any variety. Just a written, self-referential contention. And indeed it isn't any different from your brand of theism - it has no physical proof to confirm it - and has just as much weight as it. None at all.

 

[Danoff]

You keep missing this one. Its not of the physical realm.

You keep saying this, but this statement has very little meaning to me. When I read this here is what I translate it to:

I can use feelings as evidence.

There are a myriad of reasons why you can't use feelings as evidence - we've gone over them several times.

 

[Duke]

Actually there is no Data to verifiably establish to the contrary.
So how is it different?

We've already established that it is a logical impossibility to prove something doesn't exist. Which means that if you accept lack of proof of non-existence as equal to proof of existence then there is a literally infinite number of things you are compelled to believe in.

We've been around this ring about 5 times with you alone, let alone others, so there's really no point in leading a merry chase around it again, is there?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

That's because you keep missing the point that if it is not repeatably demonstrable it is not provable. There is absolutely no PROOF that any supernatural beings exist.

As I have pointed out numerous times now, that is based on your totally unobjective, prebiased reasoning.

They are not the same thing at all so it is not amazing in any way that I use the words correctly. It just means that I have a grasp of the difference between the two.

No, it just means you think you do. In the same way some Scientist believe in Global Warming.

By your standards, The Lord Of The Rings is proof that there is (or at least was) an actual physical location called Middle Earth that was populated by real hobbits, dragons, elves, and other creatures. After all, LOTR is a long, detailed account of a history that many many people fervently believe in.

How many people can you find that will testify it is real and they have experienced it? Also it doesn't claim to be true, thats why its classified as fiction. It obviously doesn't meet my standard.

So therefore by your standards of proof, it should be equally as true as the literal word of the Bible.

Not hardly. But objectively speaking it could possibly be considered.

[edit] NOTE: I understand that obviously you personally do not believe LOTR to equal the Bible in veracity. My point is that your "data" criteria can be applied equally to any myth of any type with equal validity.

So can and is scientific data. Like everything else it all comes down to motive, credibility, and other fallibilities of man.

My point is just as Scientific research is conducted and relayed by verbage, along with theories and conclusions, so is Religion and or Spiritual research.
Its also up to the reader to draw there own conclusions as to whether its Data or not, and how much credibility to assign, if any.

 

[orimarc]

As I have pointed out numerous times now, that is based on your totally unobjective, prebiased reasoning.

I thought thinking that "there's no proof of this" was based on research and...wait for it...lack of proof.

 

[Danoff]

How many people can you find that will testify it is real and they have experienced it? Also it doesn't claim to be true, thats why its classified as fiction. It obviously doesn't meet my standard.

That's it? That's the difference between your entire belief system about reality and a book written for entertainment? That other people agree with you? And that one book claims to be truth while the other doesn't?

Wow..... just.... wow.

If Duke had picked a different fictional example - like scientology - your only basis for your belief would be that yours has more people believing in it. But then he could have picked a religion that has more members than yours, in which case you have nothing.

 

[Famine]

So can and is scientific data. Like everything else it all comes down to motive, credibility, and other fallibilities of man.

My point is just as Scientific research is conducted and relayed by verbage, along with theories and conclusions, so is Religion and or Spiritual research.
Its also up to the reader to draw there own conclusions as to whether its Data or not, and how much credibility to assign, if any.

Nope.

Scientific research is conducted by peer review and remote repeatability. Scientist A does the experiment under valid scientific conditions. He then writes a paper about it which includes every single thing he did, including times and conditions. Scientist B reads the paper and attempts to repeat the experiment's results using an identical method, including times and conditions. If he can then it is data, if he cannot then it isn't (yet).

Opinions, motives, credibility and fallibility don't enter into it. The researcher has no bearing on the research - he's merely a catalyst.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You keep saying this, but this statement has very little meaning to me. When I read this here is what I translate it to:



There are a myriad of reasons why you can't use feelings as evidence - we've gone over them several times.

I know we have. But because you don't have it, comprehend it, or understand it, your only explanation is "its feelings".

I'm going to state this again for the umpteenth time.

It is not feelings!

That's it? That's the difference between your entire belief system about reality and a book written for entertainment? That other people agree with you? And that one book claims to be truth while the other doesn't?

Whoa. Not agree with me, but rather have similarity and commonality of the experience. Thats two different things. A comparing of notes as with any area of endeavor.

Nope.

Scientific research is conducted by peer review and remote repeatability. Scientist A does the experiment under valid scientific conditions. He then writes a paper about it which includes every single thing he did, including times and conditions. Scientist B reads the paper and attempts to repeat the experiment's results using an identical method, including times and conditions. If he can then it is data, if he cannot then it isn't (yet).

Opinions, motives, credibility and fallibility don't enter into it. The researcher has no bearing on the research - he's merely a catalyst.

Unless GOD is conducting the research, every aspect is subject to "all of the above".

 

[Pako]

How does science test and document human behavior? Is the study of human behavior even a science, the same science that is used to study bacteria, disease, solar flares, etc.?

Jesus talks of a renewed spirit, being born again, "out with the old and in with the new" with anyone who believes in Him and lives their life according to His example. This has been "tested" and time and time again, Jesus' promise is fulfilled.

Seems like proof to me but it isn't without condition, and that condition is faith and the willingness to let God work in your life.

Just to be clear, faith isn't the result of the test, but rather a complete life overhaul and change in character and behavior as a result of that faith.

 

[Duke]

So can and is scientific data. Like everything else it all comes down to motive, credibility, and other fallibilities of man.

My point is just as Scientific research is conducted and relayed by verbage, along with theories and conclusions, so is Religion and or Spiritual research.
Its also up to the reader to draw there own conclusions as to whether its Data or not, and how much credibility to assign, if any.

Except that scientific data has more than verbage to back it up. Water boils at 100dC (212 dF) at sea level - if you write that in a book, anyone else can check it for accuracy. Objects don't fall up. Alcohol dissolves in water. These are facts that can be tested independently by anyone who reads the scientific paper stating that they happen.

But I read the Bible and tested God to see if he would appear and he did not. The results were not independently repeatable.

Just to be clear, faith isn't the result of the test, but rather a complete life overhaul and change in character and behavior as a result of that faith.

Except that correlation is not causation. There is no data to prove that it was God/Jesus/etc. affecting those changes in you or anyone else. It could just as easily have been a mere psychological point that your ego needed to give up enough control to let your personality repair itself from whatever issue was causing problems. It's equally possible that you just needed a touchstone for your mind to build upon and, growing up in the midwestern US, Christianity was readily available to you as a source.

Neither of which offer actual proof that it was a miraculous intervention in your (or anybody's) life.

 

[Pako]

Except that scientific data has more than verbage to back it up. Water boils at 100dC (212 dF) at sea level - if you write that in a book, anyone else can check it for accuracy. Objects don't fall up. Alcohol dissolves in water. These are facts that can be tested independently by anyone who reads the scientific paper stating that they happen.

But I read the Bible and tested God to see if he would appear and he did not. The results were not independently repeatable.

Just curious how you tested God.

 

[Danoff]

It is not feelings!

I think we may use the term "feelings" differently. How do you experience the "spiritual realm" if it is not through your "feelings"?

Whoa. Not agree with me, but rather have similarity and commonality of the experience. Thats two different things. A comparing of notes as with any area of endeavor.

Isn't that what I said?

How does science test and document human behavior? Is the study of human behavior even a science, the same science that is used to study bacteria, disease, solar flares, etc.?

Can you study humans using scientific principles? Yes. Using the same scientific principles that you might use to guide your study of solar flares? Yes. Using the same "science" that you use to study solar flares? No. That would be a different scientific discipline.

Jesus talks of a renewed spirit, being born again, "out with the old and in with the new" with anyone who believes in Him and lives their life according to His example. This has been "tested" and time and time again, Jesus' promise is fulfilled.

At the very most you have a temporal correlation and nothing else. You seem to think you're done with the proof, but you've got a lot further to go.

 

[Famine]

Unless GOD is conducting the research, every aspect is subject to "all of the above".

Bwaha. Bwahahahaha. Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

Ohhhh... mercy.

 

[Pako]

At the very most you have a temporal correlation and nothing else. You seem to think you're done with the proof, but you've got a lot further to go.

I'm trying to help those that haven't had that experience to understand why someone who has can have the faith and belief that they do.

 

[Joey D]

How does science test and document human behavior? Is the study of human behavior even a science, the same science that is used to study bacteria, disease, solar flares, etc.?

Yes the study of human behavior is a science, we do it in anthropology, sociology and psychology. Some will argue they are "weak" science disciplines but really what is more important than understanding one's own species?

 

[Duke]

Just curious how you tested God.

I invited him to infuse my spirit and demonstrate his existence. The proverbial "give me a sign, O Lord". I prayed that He would guide me and help me through a time of personal trouble. Nothing happened and the situation continued to deteriorate until I realized that I needed to make any required changes for myself if I expected anything to be different.

I suppose you can always say "you were doing it wrong" but it sure seemed like I followed the published procedure, and I was not able to repeat the results.

 

[Touring Mars]

fallibilities of man

This is a common and unjustified criticism leveled at science all the time, but the folks who use this concept to attack the value of science rarely turn the same concept upon their own religious beliefs. So let me ask you this - if man is so fallible, what makes any man's understanding of 'God's word' so perfect? If you accept that man is fallible, prone to error, and doomed to never understand certain things, then you should also accept that man cannot fully understand religious texts either, and therefore no religious text could ever be considered 'gospel truth', since the veracity of that truth is tainted by man's own fallibility in understanding it.

Whereas scientific realities are independently true regardless of how well they are understood by anyone, religious texts are regarded by believers to be absolutely true, even when they are inconsistent with other texts (hence different religions) or even inconsistent with themselves (hence different sects within religions). Man may indeed be fallible, but as such, no man can claim to perfectly understand the word of God. On the other hand, the scientific method provides an independent tool, based on the principles of logic and testing, that allows fallible men to stand corrected...

 

[Danoff]

Pako, you're one of my more favorite religious people to talk to about religion. You do it with an unusual clarity, and I appreciate that. Please keep that in mind when you read the response below.

I'm trying to help those that haven't had that experience to understand why someone who has can have the faith and belief that they do.

No you're not.

You're trying to show that faith and science are based on the same reasoning. Don't try to make this some kind of squishy subjective discussion about what constitutes "enough" for people to draw conclusions. You're clouding the discussion here with shades of gray that are totally unnecessary.

Science is fundamentally based on reason - something that exists outside of perception and interpretation. Faith is based on emotion - which is almost the polar opposite. Faith is passionate, science is dispassionate. Faith is subjective, science is objective. Faith is by definition irrational. Science is entirely based on rationality.

You must be willing to concede that the acceptance of scientific theory and faith in religious dogma are built upon distinct, nearly opposite bases. And both science and religion purposefully reject the "reasoning" that the other relies upon.

 

[Pako]

I invited him to infuse my spirit and demonstrate his existence. The proverbial "give me a sign, O Lord". I prayed that He would guide me and help me through a time of personal trouble. Nothing happened and the situation continued to deteriorate until I realized that I needed to make any required changes for myself if I expected anything to be different.

I suppose you can always say "you were doing it wrong" but it sure seemed like I followed the published procedure, and I was not able to repeat the results.

Sorry to hear that. I won't begin to guess the situation or where you were at spiritually. I really don't know how to respond to your post other than I have a glimpse into why you believe (or lack there of) what you do. I know for myself, I have been in situations of dire desperation....asking God to "fix" what ever situation I was in. Although things didn't go the way I thought they should be fixed, I have hindsight now that I can clearly see I am much better off the way things are now than if they went the way I wanted them to.

@Danoff,

I appreciate that, and thanks for the compliment to soften your response.

If I backup a few posts to when I asked if the study of human behavior was a science, I asked this because human behavior can be very unpredictable. If you cut me I will bleed. Medical science tells me this. How I react to this, however, can be any number of responses...., I may cry and run away, I may squash your head like a water melon, I may grit my teeth and calmly ask why you did that. Yet through all the unpredictability of human behavior, the people that I have had personal conversations with that have lived their life in faith and in obedience to God has resulted in a better, fulfilling life for them. I suppose we can all measure success differently, but the most humble of these people are the happiest and most generous people I have met. So what I am trying to show is the consistency of God's promise when you live by faith and in obedience to him. I know it's a life long experiment and not something you can grow in a culture jar, or calculate on a graph, but just as I am sure a apple will fall to the ground if I drop it, I am just as sure God will make good on his promise.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Except that scientific data has more than verbage to back it up. Water boils at 100dC (212 dF) at sea level - if you write that in a book, anyone else can check it for accuracy. Objects don't fall up. Alcohol dissolves in water. These are facts that can be tested independently by anyone who reads the scientific paper stating that they happen.

But I read the Bible and tested God to see if he would appear and he did not. The results were not independently repeatable.

Well there you have it. You didn't follow his directions on how to conduct the experiment, no wonder you didn't get the repeatable result. He didn't say anything about appearing to you. He said I will send you a comforter, helper, and teacher, who will guide you into all truth. That is the independently repeatable result of which I speak.

Neither of which offer actual proof that it was a miraculous intervention in your (or anybody's) life.

That is precisely, what we are claiming as living walking proof, along with countless millions of others from around the Globe.

I think we may use the term "feelings" differently. How do you experience the "spiritual realm" if it is not through your "feelings"?

Through the dimension of the "Holy Spirit".

Isn't that what I said?

No, I don't think looking for someone to agree with you and comparing notes is exactly the same thing.

Bwaha. Bwahahahaha. Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

Ohhhh... mercy.

You rip me up Famine, you really do.

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff,

I appreciate that, and thanks for the compliment to soften your response.

If I backup a few posts to when I asked if the study of human behavior was a science, I asked this because human behavior can be very unpredictable. If you cut me I will bleed. Medical science tells me this. How I react to this, however, can be any number of responses...., I may cry and run away, I may squash your head like a water melon, I may grit my teeth and calmly ask why you did that. Yet through all the unpredictability of human behavior, the people that I have had personal conversations with that have lived their life in faith and in obedience to God has resulted in a better, fulfilling life for them. I suppose we can all measure success differently, but the most humble of these people are the happiest and most generous people I have met. So what I am trying to show is the consistency of God's promise when you live by faith and in obedience to him. I know it's a life long experiment and not something you can grow in a culture jar, or calculate on a graph, but just as I am sure a apple will fall to the ground if I drop it, I am just as sure God will make good on his promise.

There have been religions that have a 100% suicide rate too. Does consistency of response really mean anything?

Through the dimension of the "Holy Spirit".

That's not helpful to me. I interpret this as a continued attempt to extract information from emotion.

 

[Pako]

There have been religions that have a 100% suicide rate too. Does consistency of response really mean anything?

That's true, but a consistency in God's promise means everything.

 

[Danoff]

That's true, but a consistency in God's promise means everything.

So someone promised you that if you act a certain way you'll feel a certain way - and the fact that this seems to be true is proof to you of the other things that person has claimed?

What if I told you that the flying spaghetti monster favors people who are humble, kind, generous, etc. etc. - all the stuff Jesus would have you do. And that when you act in this way, the flying spaghetti monster will fill your heart with joy.

Would that be enough to convince you that the flying spaghetti monster was real? Or that you would live in an afterlife filled with strippers and beer volcanoes (this is part of pastafarianism of course)? Or that you should bomb an Italian restaurant that serves spaghetti?

The fact that you feel good about doing good things doesn't even come close to establishing that God exists - let alone that you should go bomb an abortion clinic on behalf of that God. Even if someone accurately predicted your feelings.

Edit:

Just to make the point again. If the prophet for the FSM predicted that you'd feel angry when someone else steals your money, and that is the exact emotional response you have when someone steals your money - do you now trust everything that prophet says?