Do you believe in God?

[mustang fanatic]

Which scientific field claims that random objects appear?

Random objects can't appear. That would basically be magic, which we all know doesn't exist.

 

[dylansan]

Random objects can't appear. That would basically be magic, which we all know doesn't exist.

So why do random objects have to appear for life to exist without god?

Nobody said life just appeared instantaneously out of nowhere.

 

[Scaff]

Random objects can't appear. That would basically be magic, which we all know doesn't exist.

Which is why no scientific fields make such a claim, religions however do.

 

[Denur]

I'm not sure this answers your question, but here goes.
First because it is structured that way, and second because its unconditional, or available to anyone.
Third because it preserves autonomy, and value.
Fourth, because its relationally based.

Maybe it answers my question, but because I don't understand your answer, I'm not certain.

The following conversation triggered my question:

...God's existence is yet to be established

Of course, the whole argument here is that it shouldn't need to be "established", since proof denies faith. I believe that might have been mentioned before.

As far as physically established, thats true, and it is purposely structured that way.

Me: How do you know that?

My question thus was how you know it is purposely structured that way. Your first answer is just a repetition and the second, third and fourth: what on earth are you even talking about? How does this all relate to the argument that "God's existence shouldn't need to be established". I'm at a complete loss here.

So, a few more questions:
First: What is structured? Who did it ("purposely" would require a form of intelligence)?
Second: Why is conditional important? Why is it "or" available to anyone and not "and" and what is "it" anyway?
Third: What autonomy and why should it be preserved?
Fourth: Relation with what? Are we still talking about "it"?

And, again, how do you know all this? Did you come up with this yourself or do you share these thoughts with other people and why do you present it as fact?

 

[Imari]

About the closest you can get to random objects appearing in current science that I'm aware of is virtual particles.

The short, short story is that pairs of particles and anti-particles pop into existence and then annihilate (and a few other weird situations where they're useful to explain how interactions proceed). The not quite so short story is that enough energy has to exist to create the particles by e=mc2, so it's not really particles from nowhere as long as you recognise that matter is simply energy in another form.

It is kind of close though, in that it's matter appearing where there was no matter before. Read up if you're a science nerd, it's interesting stuff.

 

[Dotini]

Very recent video of random object popping into existence. It made new "believers" in Pennsylvania . Where it comes from and where it goes, nobody knows. Perhaps its a Djinn trying to trick people into error? Perhaps its an angel of god on a mission of conversion, or the manifestation of the Cosmic Mind of God itself? Perhaps more likely, its an electrical plasma powered by currents in the atmosphere or earth.

 

[SalmanBH]

The way they reported that story made me cringe more than I ever have in my life.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

What then is the difference between the physical and the spiritual? How do you know what fits into which category?

The only source of which I know that distinguishes the differences is the Bible, and particularly the new testament.

What?.

It is only offered, recieved and experienced individually.
So it is possible that even though you are examining in a scientific capacity, you could still come to that realization individually.
But therein lies the problem with approaching it scientifically.
In that capacity you are supposed to remain "apart from, and impartial".
However, something "individually in common", cannot be shared from the outside.

Spirituality is very psychological.

In what way?

Can you remind me how you know about this "realm of the spiritual", located in a different dimension?

It is the very foundation of Christianity.

 

[DonZonda]

People believe in God but can't prove there's a god and this is vital, they don't worship him they worship idols and hold self-righteous dispositions. The believes are formed on contradicting books written by mankind in the past.
If God is real why is this world in this condition? I feel humanity has had enough of this lie. No God ever showed up again.
They praise a spirit that allows people to suffer and die and people kill for their own strange believes even kill people of the same religion a god would stop that right? See current middle east events claiming it's god's will to do so.
And no matter how much people pray and look up to the sky nobody rescues them magicially from anything things remain corrupt.

So there is might a universal force or something, where things originated from because somewhere things have to come from. But no God up in the sky who watches us related to manmade religons.

Well thats my View on things.

 

[Imari]

The only source of which I know that distinguishes the differences is the Bible, and particularly the new testament.

Ah.

Well, fair answer. You take the information in that book as correct. You know that a lot of us don't and the reasons why are reasonably well explained at various places in this thread.

If the only difference between the physical and spiritual is what the Bible defines as spiritual, then you're going to have a pretty hard time with the more practically minded people. Because either there's some actual difference that you're not seeing because you're taking the Bible's word for it, or there's no difference and you're not seeing that because you're taking the Bible's word for it.

Accepting information from an authority without question is rarely a good way to become more learned. Being able to simply say "these things are spiritual, and these things are not" is no use if you cannot say what the label "spiritual" actually means.

I could separate all the people in the world into two groups, those who are tringulent and those who are not. Unless I tell you what is special about tringulent people, simply knowing that a certain person is tringulent does you absolutely no good at all.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Maybe it answers my question, but because I don't understand your answer, I'm not certain.

The following conversation triggered my question:

My question thus was how you know it is purposely structured that way. Your first answer is just a repetition and the second, third and fourth: what on earth are you even talking about? How does this all relate to the argument that "God's existence shouldn't need to be established". I'm at a complete loss here.

Wow, here we go.

First, my perspective is that God most assuredly exists. Its a reality, not a possibilty.
He has to be established in some form, otherwise, there wouldn't be a way to relate to him.
"God's existence shouldn't need to be established".
That is the true reality, in the physical sense.
At least for now.
However, he is established spiritually, since that is his form.
He also claims to have written a book, called the Bible.
Therein are more details of all this.

So, a few more questions:
First: What is structured? Who did it ("purposely" would require a form of intelligence)?
Second: Why is conditional important? Why is it "or" available to anyone and not "and" and what is "it" anyway?
Third: What autonomy and why should it be preserved?
Fourth: Relation with what? Are we still talking about "it"?

And, again, how do you know all this? Did you come up with this yourself or do you share these thoughts with other people and why do you present it as fact?

"It"is the established way to know of his existence.
These things are spiritually discerned or revealed by the Holy Spirit.
Among many Christian circles, these things are known and discussed.
I present it as fact, because thats what I know it as.
Of course, as I said in my reply to Danoff, something "individually in common" cannot be shared or related to outside of that, so naturally, it will not be looked upon or considered such, by those outside of that unique disposition.

 

[Denur]

First, my perspective is that God most assuredly exists. Its a reality, not a possibilty.
He has to be established in some form, otherwise, there wouldn't be a way to relate to him.
"God's existence shouldn't need to be established".
That is the true reality, in the physical sense.
At least for now.
However, he is established spiritually, since that is his form.
He also claims to have written a book, called the Bible.
Therein are more details of all this.




"It"is the established way to know of his existence.
These things are spiritually discerned or revealed by the Holy Spirit.
Among many Christian circles, these things are known and discussed.

Thank you for this answer, I do appreciate its clarity. It is interesting how you approach that high-lighted text, but from what you said before it makes perfect sense now why you see it that way.

I present it as fact, because thats what I know it as.

I was afraid that that would be the reason. May I suggest to not present your positions as fact, regardless? Just start your arguments with: "it is my firm believe that.....", and we can avoid a lot of of-topic discussions and replies like [citation needed].

 

[Danoff]

It is only offered, recieved and experienced individually.
So it is possible that even though you are examining in a scientific capacity, you could still come to that realization individually.
But therein lies the problem with approaching it scientifically.
In that capacity you are supposed to remain "apart from, and impartial".
However, something "individually in common", cannot be shared from the outside.

Illness is experienced individually, and yet is experienced in a similar way from one individual to the next. Psychology is the same.

In what way?

In that your psyche is intimately intertwined with, and wholly contains, your "spirituality".

 

[Aphelion]

Very recent video of random object popping into existence. It made new "believers" in Pennsylvania . Where it comes from and where it goes, nobody knows. Perhaps its a Djinn trying to trick people into error? Perhaps its an angel of god on a mission of conversion, or the manifestation of the Cosmic Mind of God itself? Perhaps more likely, its an electrical plasma powered by currents in the atmosphere or earth.

its funny that if they were aliens, here we all are making a fun poke at it, whilst they could be planning our demise

EDIT: by the way im joking.

 

[Carbonox]

Random objects can't appear. That would basically be magic, which we all know doesn't exist.

None of us can know whether or not magic exists.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Ah.

Well, fair answer. You take the information in that book as correct. You know that a lot of us don't and the reasons why are reasonably well explained at various places in this thread.

Yes, from my experience in this thread, it would be hard to miss that.

If the only difference between the physical and spiritual is what the Bible defines as spiritual, then you're going to have a pretty hard time with the more practically minded people. Because either there's some actual difference that you're not seeing because you're taking the Bible's word for it, or there's no difference and you're not seeing that because you're taking the Bible's word for it.

Or, from my examination, and experience thus far, I find it to be absolutely true in every respect.
Obviously, as noted above, from a purely carnal perspective, it is not necessarily viewed that way.

Accepting information from an authority without question is rarely a good way to become more learned. Being able to simply say "these things are spiritual, and these things are not" is no use if you cannot say what the label "spiritual" actually means.

You are assuming, I am accepting it without question.
At this point yes, but that was not always the case.
Again, I know of no other resource that authoritatively defines and details the spiritual other than the Bible.
Otherwise it is defined as, other than the physical.

I could separate all the people in the world into two groups, those who are tringulent and those who are not. Unless I tell you what is special about tringulent people, simply knowing that a certain person is tringulent does you absolutely no good at all.

As far as what is special, a part of becoming a Christian, is recieving the Holy Spirit.
This is the unique, and exclusive factor, of Christianity.
Literally, the enablement of the born again process.
From that point on you have an additional dimension of the spiritual.

Thank you for this answer, I do appreciate its clarity. It is interesting how you approach that high-lighted text, but from what you said before it makes perfect sense now why you see it that way.

Your welcome.

I was afraid that that would be the reason. May I suggest to not present your positions as fact, regardless? Just start your arguments with: "it is my firm believe that.....", and we can avoid a lot of of-topic discussions and replies like [citation needed].

Yes my perspective does stir quite a contentious brew at times.
It is practically impossible to present a reality, as a belief.
It would be like trying to relate to someone who has never played Gran Turismo, and saying you believe you played it, when no, you played it and you are playing it.
It doesn't make any difference whether they agree with you or not.
That doesn't change the reality of it.
God's spirit resides in me. Thats a reality.
I can't buffer it, niether do I think I should.
Besides I understand the skepticism, the comfort zone of logic, rationale, and scientific method.
Thats just not the be all, end all answer to everything.
There's more out there.

 

[Imari]

As far as what is special, a part of becoming a Christian, is recieving the Holy Spirit.
This is the unique, and exclusive factor, of Christianity.
Literally, the enablement of the born again process.
From that point on you have an additional dimension of the spiritual.

This is where you start to lose me.

I asked before how you could tell if something is spiritual or physical. You said that only the Bible defines what is spiritual.

Now you're telling me that if one becomes a Christian, then that makes one spiritual as well.

I think this is something that you haven't really given considerable thought to. I think that you're using emotion and what you've been told by others to judge whether something is spiritual, not any rational or objective judgement.

If this is not true, please go ahead and explain to me what spirituality is, or what makes something that is spiritual different from something that is not spiritual. The closest you've come is "it's not physical", which is not really that helpful.

Defining something as not something else only works if those are the only two possibilities. For example, I can't explain to you what red is by saying "it's not blue". That's just not helpful.

And in a similar fashion, I suspect what I would think when I use the word "physical" is not what you mean when you say it. If you want to define spirituality relative to physicality, you'll want to be clear about what you actually mean by "physical", which is why it would be much easier to just talk about spirituality directly. For example, "It's the animating force behind humanity that gives them free will and consciousness", or "It's something that has been in direct contact with the divine power and has retained communication with that power". These are completely made up on my part and likely nothing like what you believe, but I use them as an example of how one can describe such things.

Of course, these statements raise more questions of their own, but that's how discussions work.

I think if you want to be able to have a reasonable discussion with other people about spirituality, both parties need to know what is meant by the word. Other people will be happy to accept whatever you want to define spirituality as for the purposes of discussion, but you have to be able to actually explain to them what it is, or at least how to recognise it.

If the best you can do is "it is what I say it is", then no reasonable discussion can be had with you.

 

[Scaff]

Yes my perspective does stir quite a contentious brew at times.
It is practically impossible to present a reality, as a belief.
It would be like trying to relate to someone who has never played Gran Turismo, and saying you believe you played it, when no, you played it and you are playing it.
It doesn't make any difference whether they agree with you or not.
That doesn't change the reality of it.
God's spirit resides in me. Thats a reality.
I can't buffer it, niether do I think I should.

Thank you for putting that across in a manner than is far clearer than you have managed in the past.

I would however have to raise concern in regard to the example you have used of playing Gran Turismo, you see while I understand where you are coming from it doesn't work as an analogy. GT is falsifiable, it is a directly share-able with others and can be captured and displayed in a falsifiable form. None of these factors can be said to be true for the 'spirit' you describe, rather part of the core you seem to be describing requires it to be impossible for these factors to be true for it.

Now the following is not intended to be a dig or insulting, so please do not take it in that manner. From the description and explanation you have given it strikes me that a closer analogy would be that of conditions such as schizophrenic disorders, manic depression and psychosis, and the auditory hallucinations that can come with them.

I don't doubt for a second that this is a reality for you, but I have to be honest when I say that I hold serious reservations in terms of dismissing any and all causes for it out of hand (i.e. those outside of the 'divine').

Besides I understand the skepticism, the comfort zone of logic, rationale, and scientific method.
Thats just not the be all, end all answer to everything.
There's more out there.

Once again I see your point and thank you for more clearly laying it out, I however disagree at all levels with it. There is more out there, that doesn't mean that science (knowledge) can't answer it.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Illness is experienced individually, and yet is experienced in a similar way from one individual to the next. Psychology is the same.

Yes, but you have to experience the illness to relate, or have something in common.
Likewise is the spiritual.

In that your psyche is intimately intertwined with, and wholly contains, your "spirituality".

No, not at all.
While they are connected, they are two separate entities.

 

[MatskiMonk]

There is no reason that the scientific method cannot be applied to non-physical aspects of reality. In fact psychology fits that description nicely.

Our consciousness, thoughts and memories are simply chemicals and flows of electrons.. essentially just particles, I'd say spirituality is part of our consciousness, and therefore could still be classed as physical. Psychology seems to deal with managing the output (a bit like saying ... it's bright in here, "that must be a 100W bulb, we can change that", rather than being able to say "that bulb is supplied by 240V at 0.416A, we can control this")

 

[Dotini]

Our consciousness, thoughts and memories are simply chemicals and flows of electrons.. essentially just particles,

This is a lie, and not even a pretty or even useful one.👎

 

[MatskiMonk]

This is a lie, and not even a pretty or even useful one.👎

Care to elaborate?

 

[TenEightyOne]

This is a lie, and not even a pretty or even useful one.👎

How so?

 

[Dotini]

How so?

Care to elaborate?

I very much do care to elaborate. However, I must depart momentarily for a scheduled fishing trip. I'll return Saturday night or Sunday. In the meantime, I suggest a careful review of the apposite literature on this complex and fascinating subject.

 

[MatskiMonk]

@Dotini Enjoy the fishing 👍

 

[TenEightyOne]

@Dotini Enjoy the fishing 👍

He'll have no problems, he just drops a grenade into the fishpond and then comes back 8 hours later to reap the carnage

Travel safely @Dotini

 

[Danoff]

Yes, but you have to experience the illness to relate, or have something in common.
Likewise is the spiritual.

However, you do not have to have illness to study it, to understand it, or even to empathize.

No, not at all.
While they are connected, they are two separate entities.

They are differentiable, but I wouldn't call them separate. Where do you think your spirituality occurs if not your psyche?

 

[huskeR32]

First, my perspective is that God most assuredly exists. Its a reality, not a possibilty.
He has to be established in some form, otherwise, there wouldn't be a way to relate to him.

First, my perspective is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster most assuredly exists. It's a reality, not a possibility.
His Noodly Appendage has to be established in some form, otherwise, there wouldn't be a way to relate to him.

--------------

Resist your urge to dismiss me out of hand for a moment, and really think about this.

The FSM is an almost perfect embodiment of my religious views. His Noodlyness represents a lot of the ideals that I try and live much of my life by. In my opinion, if a person were to adopt the views of Pastafarianism, their life would improve.

If I ever meet another Pastafarian, I immediately feel a kinship with that person. I feel like I can relate to that person, and that we likely view life in a largely similar way. The mindset that would draw one to the FSM tends to coincide with interests and principles similar to mine, so as a community, Pastafarianism offers a lot of comfort.

Now, replace "FSM/His Noodly Appendage" with "God/Jesus," and "Pastafarianism" with "Christianity," and what's the difference? Nothing, right?

And while I was clearly being a little facetious with this, I do indeed feel that I can largely relate to what the FSM represents. That doesn't make it a reality. It doesn't necessitate that it actually "be established in some form." Ideas don't need to be personified or embodied in a real being in order to have power, or to effect people, or to make them feel like they belong to something.

 

[Exorcet]

Yes, it seems to be, but is it really so? Some of the greatest physicists, men who were aware of Occam's Razor and parsimonious explanation, ultimately came to this view. Me, I know nothing. But if its a lie, its an attractive one.

It's not so much about Occam's Razor as it is about evidence. If there's no reason to invoke the idea that God is the universe, why would you? Or looking at it another way, once you invoked the idea, what question have you solved, or what knowledge have you gained?

Wat. I already said people can't.

Yes, so I wasn't asking about "people". From your posts you seem to have a problem with things coming from nowhere, but no problem with us coming from nowhere, which is what the creator argument can boil down to very quickly.

Random objects can't appear. That would basically be magic, which we all know doesn't exist.

This changes instantly the moment there's evidence for "magic". Quantum Mechanics is probably the closest thing to magic humans have ever seen, and it's real. You can only come to the truth by following the facts. You say someone put us here, but I see nothing to support that idea.

 

[mustang fanatic]

Yes, so I wasn't asking about "people". From your posts you seem to have a problem with things coming from nowhere, but no problem with us coming from nowhere, which is what the creator argument can boil down to very quickly.

I specifically said that things can't come from nowhere, so we can't come from nowhere. We don't just appear here. There's no possible way. Hell, if that was the case, I could make all the money I need appear right in front of my face.