Do you believe in God?

[Spurgy 777]

Please show me one animal changing into another completely different one. Would love to see the facts.

That's not what evolution is.

You somehow do know we initially came from an explosion.

That's not what the Big Bang is.

How I'm I suppose to take you seriously?

Try getting a better understanding of what were explaining to you.

 

[DQuaN]

Show me the facts of your beliefs, not evidence and theories.

WHAT?????

 

[Denur]

Bet your godless teachers didn't show you this one:

Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years

Signs and seasons in Hebrew mean signals and appointed times.
I'm sure you've heard about the tetrad / 4 blood moons falling on Gods appointed times. If not, look into it, if you care about your soul. If you choose to believe there is no soul, that's your free will.

Of course I'm familiar with the blood moon prophecy. You had just failed to mention this prophecy as the one you believe to be true. Although some claim that as many as 62 tetrads have happend since the first century AD and that nothing bad has happened on each occasion, they fail to see, that the other signs are also there: We had that massive earthquake not so long ago, and in September a massive asteroid will destroy the Earth. We can't see it now, because it is coming in from behind the Sun and will pass it close by, creating a massive solar eclipse as it plummets towards Earth (hence the Sun as black a sackcloth of hair).

/s

 

[Imari]

Imari doesn't know me and what I was taught in school, much like the theory he holds onto.
He is his own man, and does whatever he feels, sorry, thinks is right. Feelings should be like the soul, unproven...

Hey, if you were actually taught that we come from rocks and that monkeys turned into humans, then your teachers were morons. As in, they should never have been let out of grade school, let alone been placed in a position to educate young children.

Maybe it's true, maybe you had the world's dumbest teachers. Bad luck on that one.

Still, you should be smart enough now that you're presumably an adult to see that what your teachers taught you was dribble, and that it's not in fact the explanation that rational people hold to be true.

Don't keep trying to push an argument that nobody put forward just because you had retard teachers. It's a shame that you were taught by idiots, but you don't have to follow their example.

Please show me one animal changing into another completely different one. Would love to see the facts.

Nah, you've already been provided enough evidence in this thread AND the evolution thread and ignored it. You're looking for absolute certainty. You won't find it.

As with all these things, it's the best explanation that fits all available evidence. If you can't accept that, then that's up to you. But that's what rational people do, take the best explanation available to them at any given moment.

If you continue to look for evidence of a dog turning into a giraffe, you're not going to find it. Because you still don't understand what it is that evolution claims, and as such you continue to make outrageous accusations about things that evolution has never and will never claim happened.

I've said before that you don't understand science and evolution, and I stick by it. Educate yourself, and then maybe a productive discussion can be had.

I mean, you agree that you don't know those questions, but you somehow do know we initially came from an explosion.
How I'm I suppose to take you seriously?

Because I don't say I know that. I say that is the best explanation of the available facts that have been observed.

It's by no means settled that the Big Bang is what happened. The evidence tends to point that way, but any sensible physicist will give you half a dozen other plausible hypotheses that simply don't have as much evidence favouring them at the moment. But that could change in the future, and indeed such things have changed in the past in many fields.

What we say we "know" is the best explanation we have for all the information we've seen. What you say you "know" is what you want to believe, regardless of what information you are presented with.

Show me the facts of your beliefs...

 

[Scaff]

In grade 2, I was taught that I came from a rock, and then from a monkey / ape.
Till today, no one can tell me truly, why monkeys / apes etc are not changing into humans.
They can't show us where one kind of animal changes into another, yet the bones of animals millions of years ago, were thought to have done it. It's truly shocking how the enemy deceives.

You were banned from the Evolution vs Creation thread for the reason that you repeatedly post nonsense such as this without taking on board a single thing anyone else presented, you WILL NOT do the same thing here. Try again and you will be banned from the site as a whole.

Oh and I see I still don't have an answer to my question, are you going to pretend to have forgotten it again?

 

[JKgo]

Please show me one animal changing into another completely different one.

...Here you go. 👍

A chicken embryo with a dinosaur-like snout instead of a beak has been developed by scientists.

...Oh and

 

[KSaiyu]

Please show me one animal changing into another completely different one. Would love to see the facts.

Well that's easy depending on your definition of "animal". Strains of bacteria and viruses take only a few lifetimes to evolve. It's one of the reasons you get a different flu jab every winter.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Till today, no one can tell me truly, why monkeys / apes etc are not changing into humans.

Oh dear me, please tell me you really wrote that.

For the record, monkeys and apes have never turned into humans although evolution is indeed happening (observably) all around you. Have your children ever had headlice, for example? Ever wondered why some potions will work on your children's little head-friends and not others?

I have to agree with @Imari, your teachers sound like they were idiots.

The first basic tool needed is the same one used in everything, perception.
Then using perception, apply objective examination and evaluation.
However first you will have to cleanse your perception of any preconcieved judgements or ideas, at least with regard to this area of examination.
The biggest reason of necessity for that is the quest for determination of a different dimension cannot be bound by the borders of the physical dimension. They are wholly unapplicable.
That is precisely why Science as a tool cannot help in this examination, except perhaps as a correlation at times.
You cannot apply physical boundaries to the spiritual dimension in an effort to establish it.
Otherwise you are wasting your time.
The spiritual will never fit within the limitations of physical or carnal concepts and realities.
God does not reside in the physical, but the spiritual.
Therefore, you must be able to get your head around that and again put aside all physical concepts in this application.

Now assuming you can get that far,
The next tool that will be needed is faith.
And before you get all shaky on me, just here me out.
A different dimension requires different tools, just like different dimensional systems of a car do.
You may not be versed at using it, but to go further you will have to start.
And it's not that foreign in reality. It is just a realization of something that you cannot see, like wind or gravity.
The difference is the Holy Spirit is not universal as far as, it is only perceptable and operable among those
that have it, or have recieved it.

Just a note here: Thus far you may find throughout the process, that belief is of assistance as an additional or companion tool.
I think a little objective logic at times helps as well.
Also, keep in mind that God's method and intention here is one of personal appeal and challenge.
Or it is primarily in the relational aspects, to you personally as well as to everyone publically.

So they are the tools you will need.

So I have to accept that god exists/doesn't exist in a dimension that's somewhere unknown to us, I will never see him (or indeed perceive him I guess, I'm not trans-dimensional) although I should just know that he's there. Simply, I will believe once I believe. Sorry man, that sounds like nonsense.

 

[Danoff]

Oh dear me, please tell me you really wrote that.

For the record, monkeys and apes have never turned into humans although evolution is indeed happening (observably) all around you. Have your children ever had headlice, for example? Ever wondered why some potions will work on your children's little head-friends and not others?

Antibiotic resistant strains of random bacteria.

 

[Mike458]

Till today, no one can tell me truly, why monkeys / apes etc are not changing into humans.
They can't show us where one kind of animal changes into another, yet the bones of animals millions of years ago, were thought to have done it. It's truly shocking how the enemy deceives.

(Sorry for the smiley face spam, that's just how hard I'm laughing at this at the moment...)

This process is called speciation.

Why do we have such diverse life on this planet? It's due to the constantly changing environment, and the adaptations that species undergo to adapt to such environments. Let's go with an insane example here: Imagine in order to survive, you had to type faster on your computer than anyone else. Eventually, those that do not survive will die off. The surviving humans would then reproduce, and the cycle would repeat. Sooner or later, these humans would have changed so much that we would call them an entire new species apart from normal humans. Therefore, in other environments, organisms have adapted so much that they have deviated so much from their ancestor species and can be classified as other species. That said, trial and error does have its costs, and 99% of all life on Earth has been declared extinct.

Nature's cruel, isn't it? Unlike the way your god describes it...

 

[Exorcet]

I guess you could make it a question of science if you were to fully qualify God. Can you fully qualify God and refer to what people tend to believe in?

This has not been ignored in this thread. We've had Christians come in and tell us who God is, we've had Muslims come in and tell us who God is, we've had discussions on what facets of God are falsifiable or not. The definition of God is not a problem here and it's not necessarily something that you can boil down to one definition as it varies from person to person. I think at this point all bases have been covered. My own stance is basically that 99.999999999% of named/common gods have been proven false. There is a chance that a god exists, but that falls into the realm of non falsifiability and is moot.

His? Who? What? If you fully qualify whatever God is, then I guess you could answer this question, but why would you think you can fully qualify God and still talk about what all those believers are referring to when they say "God"?

It tends to be addressed pretty quickly in each case in the thread.

I doubt it's possible to fully qualify God, but if people want to give it a try, and put God into a scientific context, sure, why not. I doubt they'd still be referring to what "God" is generally referred to, though. But you must first fully qualify God, before you can address the question as to whether or not God exists.

Yes and we have.

I'd say trying to qualify God in scientific terms is pointless, yes. As such, in a scientific context, the question of its existence is pointless, yes.

Trying to argue God away with science is equally pointless.

Unless the question is addressed within a philosophical context, I really do not see a point to it, no.

I don't see the point to a non scientific debate. Science is not as SCJ is describing it, or possibly we're not as SCJ imagines. There are things beyond science, the non falsifiable. These things are also beyond humans, so there is no tool to study them. Science covers absolutely everything a human can know or experience.

Edit: Oh, of course there can be a point to it in a philosophical context. After all, the majority of people on this planet believe in some form of God, so this most definitely is a worthy question concerning human nature. In contrast, it would not be worthy to address the existence of Sky Fairies (not that I'm saying that always held true).

I don't get it, as human nature is surely within the realm of science.

Edit 2:

Somehow I'm in the mood, so let me expand on this a little more. Quite possibly, I was a little too general here. After all, based on my understanding, "God" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, and I simply don't see any way how you could have an understanding of God everyone would be able to agree with (unless, of course, you strip it right down to the core). But, of course, if you are only looking at one particular understanding of God, essentially ignoring the majority having a different understanding, then your task might be a whole lot easier.

In theory, if you can qualify any part of that God, and show, in scientific terms, that it doesn't exist, you will have shown that God doesn't exist.

The question is, even if you were able to show that God doesn't exist, would it make any difference?

And yes, the question is rhetoric, we know it wouldn't make any difference. The important question here really isn't whether or not God exists, but why it would not make any difference if we were to negatively answer the question in a scientific context.

Why would it not make any difference? Because irrespective of how it may look on the surface, what you've shown to not exist isn't really God.

The first half of this is almost on target. There is no need to use a definition of God that is universally accepted. There can be as much discussion as is needed on as many concepts as is needed. Allah could be real while Yahweh could be false for example. Anyone who comes in with an idea of god that differs from those two can be handled the same way. If you want to try to cover everything, than you can simply explain what actually is here that we can observe. Then you'll have a basis for comparison that any concept can be compared with.

The first basic tool needed is the same one used in everything, perception.

Used in science.

Then using perception, apply objective examination and evaluation.

Used in science.

However first you will have to cleanse your perception of any preconcieved judgements or ideas, at least with regard to this area of examination.

Used in science*

*Depends on what you mean here. Science is impartial, so there is no preconceived answer, at least when things are done right. There is however existing knowledge which is fair to use. To let go of that existing knowledge is foolish and makes any work done pointless.

The biggest reason of necessity for that is the quest for determination of a different dimension cannot be bound by the borders of the physical dimension. They are wholly unapplicable.

Then how are we supposed to do anything, when we are physical and nothing else. You are presupposing a spiritual dimension. Maybe we should put God aside and focus on this. I certainly see nothing "spiritual" in the world.

However even if we assume that there is some spiritual stuff that just hangs out somewhere else and is special, that doesn't explain why science can't touch it. Science deals with anything we can experience, so if it's possible to know about spirits (or God) science is not only usable, but the best possible tool.

That is precisely why Science as a tool cannot help in this examination, except perhaps as a correlation at times.
You cannot apply physical boundaries to the spiritual dimension in an effort to establish it.
Otherwise you are wasting your time.
The spiritual will never fit within the limitations of physical or carnal concepts and realities.
God does not reside in the physical, but the spiritual.
Therefore, you must be able to get your head around that and again put aside all physical concepts in this application.

What do you make of quantum mechanics, which is basically the closest thing to what you're describing here that has actually been shown to really exist and leaves no argument to the contrary.

People had no way of knowing that just about everything they thought they knew about the world was wrong (but only wrong enough so that it didn't really change our understanding on a day to day level) and there was, and remains, no way to directly observe interactions of quantum particles, but it's been accepted by basically everyone who deals with the subject. Science has dabbled in pretty strange stuff and it has overturned millennia of preconceived ideas. God doesn't look like a very daunting obstacle. It's exactly the kind of thing science would strive to find.

And it's not that foreign in reality. It is just a realization of something that you cannot see, like wind or gravity.
The difference is the Holy Spirit is not universal as far as, it is only perceptable and operable among those
that have it, or have recieved it.

Seeing is not important. Observation is. We can detect gravity and wind, even without technology. Nothing spiritual has ever been detected, unless it was actually something physical that someone at the time couldn't explain.

I'll also say again, as I have before in this thread, that I did receive the Holy Spirit and nothing came of it.

 

[GBO Possum]

Imari doesn't know me and what I was taught in school, much like the theory he holds onto.
He is his own man, and does whatever he feels, sorry, thinks is right. Feelings should be like the soul, unproven...

Seems we can get a fair idea of what you were taught in school based on what you post here, and what you post shows a complete lack of understanding of evolution, as is evidenced by the quote below.

Please show me one animal changing into another completely different one.

Maybe you weren't taught this stuff in school. Maybe it was in a place of worship. In which case you were conned by charlatans.

However, if you stick around here long enough and actually read and try to comprehend the evidence-based posts here, your misconceptions can be cured. However, you need an open mind as a prerequisite. That we can't help you with if your religion has successfully closed it. Understanding requires an open mind, while belief requires a closed one.

I recommend nobeliefs.com if you want to throw off the shackles of ignorance, and moronic teachings.

 

[doctorrg]

This has not been ignored in this thread. We've had Christians come in and tell us who God is, we've had Muslims come in and tell us who God is, we've had discussions on what facets of God are falsifiable or not. The definition of God is not a problem here and it's not necessarily something that you can boil down to one definition as it varies from person to person. I think at this point all bases have been covered. My own stance is basically that 99.999999999% of named/common gods have been proven false. There is a chance that a god exists, but that falls into the realm of non falsifiability and is moot.

Let me try and put the question a different way. You've addressed all these different Gods, addressed all the facets that are falsifiable, have reached the conclusion that 99.999999999% of named/common gods have been proven false, but, and here's the but, has it made any difference to people of faith? As I've said before, the question isn't whether or not God exists, the question is even if we are able to show that God doesn't exist, would it make any difference?

If it doesn't make any difference, why doesn't it make any difference? These questions need to be asked, it's not something that can just be ignored. Unless, of course, people only pretend to be scientific but really aren't.

It tends to be addressed pretty quickly in each case in the thread.

To me, it seems the question of God isn't even addressed. The scope always seems to be limited to one particular understanding, facets are disproven, nothing changes, and the cycle continues. Nothing really has changed. How can you say the question has been addressed? I'd be more inclined to say the question is being avoided. It would seem more important to some to disprove certain facets of certain descriptions than to actually address the question of God itself.

Yes and we have.

I find that to be highly arguable.

I don't see the point to a non scientific debate.

I've said philosophical debate. You do consider this to be a non-scientific debate? I didn't intend to say non-scientific, I intended to say philosophic in nature.

It's merely my way of highlighting that these supposed "scientific" arguments I've seen have been rather pointless in addressing the question of God's existence.

Science is not as SCJ is describing it, or possibly we're not as SCJ imagines. There are things beyond science, the non falsifiable. These things are also beyond humans, so there is no tool to study them. Science covers absolutely everything a human can know or experience.

You mean science wishes to address everything a human can know or experience? If so, I'd agree. If you were indeed trying to say science does cover everything a human can know or experience you'll get a rather resounding No form my end. What science covers is the part that can be put into the right terms.

I don't get it, as human nature is surely within the realm of science.

Would you then say that the discipline of Philosophy is a part of science?

The first half of this is almost on target. There is no need to use a definition of God that is universally accepted. There can be as much discussion as is needed on as many concepts as is needed. Allah could be real while Yahweh could be false for example. Anyone who comes in with an idea of god that differs from those two can be handled the same way. If you want to try to cover everything, than you can simply explain what actually is here that we can observe. Then you'll have a basis for comparison that any concept can be compared with.

And you say I've not been trying to do exactly that? Oddly enough, I am talking about my understanding of God. Allah and Yaweh, to just take the two you've just mentioned, would be nothing but descriptions of God, born from the rationalizations of people, shaped by their culture, trying to put into words what they have come to know, but at the same time are utterly unable to express with the language they know. Descriptions of God, in this sense, aren't anything but an attempt to rationalize one's experience of God.

If we can't even put God into terms of our own language, how are we going to make God a question of science?

Edit: Unless, of course, we're not going to address God directly, we're not going to even try and describe God, but instead, God merely becomes "THAT", that thing that we (or at least the majority of human beings) experience but can't quite put into words. The question of God would then have to be shifted from discussions about facets to the question of the existence of a very fundamental human experience, an experience that somehow resonates with the descriptions of God we've come across in a number of different faiths.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I could. It doesn't change though, that we need to somehow agree to a common language, a common usage of terms, otherwise we're not really talking to each other. The distinction of knowledge and belief isn't really meaningless, even if knowledge essentially is belief. What I'd really want to ask here is whether you've understood what was meant. And if you did, does it really matter?

Well for me the question is: Does it in light of reality, reflect reality, is it in harmony with reality, or non contradictory?
I have to say it absolutely is.
I've already posted concerning all of that.
Considering the ramifications I believe it does matter.

Not at all bro. I'm just shocked how our enemies (spiritual), are lead into such blindness.
When the bible tells us that this world belongs to satan, and that he is the prince of the air, you can clearly see how satan is actually controlling everything wicked in this fallen world, lies, deception, mockers, scoffers, disobedience and followers of men.

When people say they believe in the big bang, but then still argue that it's not a belief, then they say "something" (Bond/Fairy) started the big bang , yet say they are atheists...

When asked where did the energy come from, where did the laws come from, where did the space come from, and time, they completely ignore it.
When asked where does right from wrong come from, or good and evil. Where did these moral laws come from, they avoid it all the time.

What is gravity or light, and not what it does? Nothing.

I have realized that people are like everyone else, protecting their religion unknowingly, and more so, holding on to their lusts of this world, not wanting God to take it away from them. The beauty of free will.

I still came to believe that God made everything 6000 years ago. Even a mature universe, which means light always shone our way, but was stretched out, just like the bible says. Everyone else is free to believe or follow "whomever" they like.

I'll leave you with my favorite verse.
Stay blessed bro.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

👍 I was already confident that was the case, but thought I would check anyway.
Great verse, somewhat sad but true.
Always be mindful of this one:

If I [can] speak in the tongues of men and [even] of angels, but have not love (that reasoning, intentional, spiritual devotion such as is inspired by God’s love for and in us), I am only a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers (the gift of interpreting the divine will and purpose), and understand all the secret truths and mysteries and possess all knowledge, and if I have [sufficient] faith so that I can remove mountains, but have not love (God’s love in me) I am nothing (a useless nobody). Even if I dole out all that I have [to the poor in providing] food, and if I surrender my body to be burned orin order that I may glory, but have not love (God’s love in me), I gain nothing. ...

Be blessed.
Thanks and Amen.

There's a thought worth contemplating.

There are traditional methods for letting go of physical concerns and getting your head into a spiritual place. Gathering in a church, singing, chanting, and praying in time with the choir all come to mind. IMO, these are basic forms of altered states of consciousness. Secular devotees of yoga, meditation, dance and other suitable methods can achieve similar states of heightened awareness or transcendence associated with getting your head into a spiritual place. Most everybody ought to be able to see the benefit of occasional deep states of relaxation and the attainment of spiritual insights or "highs". This is tantamount to the religious experience. Occasionally someone in the near-trance state will have an epiphany which is life-altering in a very positive way. There seems to be an innate tendency in the human animal to attain altered states, contemplate the mysteries, and improve himself by doing so.

Yes those things can be beneficial.
But just to let you know, nothing beats knowing God on a real dimensional level.

So I have to accept that god exists/doesn't exist in a dimension that's somewhere unknown to us,

It is only unknown to you because you never had it, not because it doesn't exist or is unknowable.
And there is only one person I know of that dispenses it.

I will never see him (or indeed perceive him I guess, I'm not trans-dimensional)

Thats right you aren't, but you can be, thats what I'm trying to tell you.
Do you know how many radiowaves, microwaves, God knows what kinda waves are being transmitted and are all over and around you? Literally probably, millions.
Can you see any of them?
No.
Does that mean they aren't there?
No.
Its of the same principle.

although I should just know that he's there. Simply, I will believe once I believe. Sorry man, that sounds like nonsense.

When you answer your cell phone can you communicate with the person calling you?
When I was a kid, that was nonsense too.
If you didn't have a cell phone would you be dimensionally capable of communicating that way?
No you wouldn't.

Yes I agree it sounds like nonsense in some respects.
But in some other respects it makes sense.

 

[Azuremen]

I haven't posted in here for sometime, but I see the same players are still at the same game. Somewhat amazed by the patience of those involved, to be honest.

For those of you lecturing DCP about the fools his teachers are, from what I recall, he is in a developing country, South Africa I believe. In my experience it is very difficult to bridge the gulf between secularism in developed countries and the power of religion in the developing.

I will forever remember the routine confusion that arose when I was asked about my spiritual views while traveling India. It was generally assumed I was Christian, being from the United States and white, and I was often asked to what I thought of Sikh, sometimes Hindu, practices. Invariably, I'd find myself explaining how I was not Christian but not religious. However, the notion that someone could not identify with a religion was not easy to sell, partially because of how religious India and partially because of the language barrier, so I'd often bring up my respect for Buddhist teachings. I clearly remember a Sikh, upon hearing me allude to Buddhist teachings, very seriously ask me "but you believe in One God, no?" He was by no means uneducated and I respect him greatly, but it make it quite clear to me the difference that generations of education can have on a culture.

The point being that education on spiritual matters will take time, possible lifetimes, in different cultures. While the frustration of having someone blindly ignore information can result in aggression (which I seen in the tone of several posts) it most certainly doesn't aid the cause. A list of reasons, wrapped in an essay, on the Internet will hold virtually no impact to that of a single person displaying their integrity in person. And that requires time and people. One could even say missionaries of secularism are required and they, as their religious counterparts, will be meet with great resistance at times.

nothing beats knowing God on a real dimensional level

Literally probably, millions.

would you be dimensionally capable of communicating

As always, you command of language leaves me speechless...

 

[niky]

Imari doesn't know me and what I was taught in school, much like the theory he holds onto.
He is his own man, and does whatever he feels, sorry, thinks is right. Feelings should be like the soul, unproven...

Well, I'm a trained educator, and I'm reasonably familiar with the educational system of most developed countries. And I can tell you, no, you weren't taught that in second grade. We only teach basic physical sciences in the second grade, and basic biology. (i.e.: These are birds, they have beaks, they have feathers. These are fish, they have fins, they have swim bladders. This is Spot. See Spot Run. Run, Spot. Run.)

Evolution, if it's ever covered at all, is only covered in-depth in higher-level Biology, and that only comes in at the High School or Middle School level. We never had it, because I studied at a Catholic School.

Of course, if Grade 2 is the primary source of your understanding of the concepts, I can see where this subject can prove particularly vexing

 

[Imari]

I find it odd that people continue to insist that science cannot know God, for as far as I can tell no good reason at all.

People have experienced God, so God is at some level at least capable of interacting with things that are physical, namely humans. If this is a real experience, then it can be categorised, classified, and possibly quantified. It's possible that whatever is causing the interaction can be detected by some non-human instrument also. The human sensory system is just a big bunch of detectors wired up to our brains in certain ways, and many of those senses can be replicated with external machinery. For a long time the only detectors for light that we had were eyes, but we're a long way past that now.

If you can experience it, then you can use the scientific method to understand it better. No one ever learned more by standing there with their fingers in their ears saying "But it's just so mysterious, it's totally not like anything else and there's no way that you can learn about it".

If you can't experience it, then you probably can't use the scientific method to understand it better, but you probably don't care anyway since it can't affect you.

 

[doctorrg]

I find it odd that people continue to insist that science cannot know God, for as far as I can tell no good reason at all.

It depends on the way in which this is addressed. Science cannot know God in the sense that science cannot reason with an object that has a certain set of properties. God simply cannot be described in such a way. Yet...

People have experienced God, so God is at some level at least capable of interacting with things that are physical, namely humans.

That is a different angle. No doubt it is a real human experience, as such, the experience of God could be measured, even if it would be rather difficult to identify God within that experience.

If this is a real experience, then it can be categorised, classified, and possibly quantified. It's possible that whatever is causing the interaction can be detected by some non-human instrument also. The human sensory system is just a big bunch of detectors wired up to our brains in certain ways, and many of those senses can be replicated with external machinery. For a long time the only detectors for light that we had were eyes, but we're a long way past that now.

If you can experience it, then you can use the scientific method to understand it better. No one ever learned more by standing there with their fingers in their ears saying "But it's just so mysterious, it's totally not like anything else and there's no way that you can learn about it".

There is your angle. Find God within the experience of God.

If you can't experience it, then you probably can't use the scientific method to understand it better, but you probably don't care anyway since it can't affect you.

No doubt you can experience it. The question is, what would you understand better, your experience of God, or God itself.

 

[Imari]

Science cannot know God in the sense that science cannot reason with an object that has a certain set of properties.

What set of properties is that?

...even if it would be rather difficult to identify God within that experience.

Why?

Do you find it difficult to identify your face when you experience looking at it in a mirror? Why should identifying God be difficult?

No doubt you can experience it.

Well, I'm glad you're being so open minded.

If you're starting from the assumption that the experience exists before even attempting to observe it, you're doing it wrong. I might as well start my search for Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts of Traal by saying "no doubt there are Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts of Traal".

Start instead by generating a replicable experience/observation. Once you can do that, then you can say "no doubt you can experience it".

 

[doctorrg]

What set of properties is that?

I was referring to a more general notion of concept, so any set of properties that would belong to an object in question. Are you trying to misunderstand this on purpose?

Why?

Do you find it difficult to identify your face when you experience looking at it in a mirror? Why should identifying God be difficult?

I'd find it difficult to identify the face of someone else in my experience of looking at them, yes. It's a much more appropriate analogy here, no?

Edit: As I don't want this to be misunderstood, please be reminded that we're in the context of measuring one's experience. We're not talking about the experience from the perspective of the person having the experience, but from our perspective looking at the person having the experience. This should better illustrate why your analogy fails miserably.

Well, I'm glad you're being so open minded.

Well, I'm glad you're being so scientific about it.

If you're starting from the assumption that the experience exists before even attempting to observe it, you're doing it wrong. I might as well start my search for Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts of Traal by saying "no doubt there are Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts of Traal".

This makes no sense. I'm not making an assumption that the experience exists, I know because it's been well documented.

Start instead by generating a replicable experience/observation. Once you can do that, then you can say "no doubt you can experience it".

I'm not the one with the need for scientific analysis of the subject, or am I?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Used in science.


Used in science.


Used in science*

I think I did say everything?

*Depends on what you mean here. Science is impartial, so there is no preconceived answer, at least when things are done right. There is however existing knowledge which is fair to use. To let go of that existing knowledge is foolish and makes any work done pointless.

What I mean is this:
In examination from the outside or from without, lets be honest, you, me, nor anyone else has a freaking clue whether God exists or doesn't.
And let me ask you, does Science know, honestly? Like us they don't have a freaking clue either.
So what do you do? Try to use Science to help you?
What good is that gonna do? Absolutely none.
So you are on your own, and you know what?
Thats exactly the way God designed it.
It is strictly for personal or individual examination, evaluation and decision.
So you look at it, you study it, you evaluate it, compare it, and contemplate it, over and over and over and over.
And like TenEightyOne said, it seems like nonsense, and I'll go one better than that, some of it seems crazy.
But then again, some of it seems to resonate, to make sense.

That existing knowledge is completely useless.
This is not like the physical.
It is totally unique.

Then how are we supposed to do anything, when we are physical and nothing else. You are presupposing a spiritual dimension. Maybe we should put God aside and focus on this.

No I'm not presupposing anything.
Ah, but God is.

I certainly see nothing "spiritual" in the world.

Thats precisely what God says, but he also says you need to be born of the spirit.

However even if we assume that there is some spiritual stuff that just hangs out somewhere else and is special, that doesn't explain why science can't touch it. Science deals with anything we can experience, so if it's possible to know about spirits (or God) science is not only usable, but the best possible tool.

No, it is not only not the best tool, but a useless tool.
That is because it will always seek a carnal, physical explanation to an observation.
Science cannot become spiritually enlightened, only the Scientist can.

What do you make of quantum mechanics, which is basically the closest thing to what you're describing here that has actually been shown to really exist and leaves no argument to the contrary.

People had no way of knowing that just about everything they thought they knew about the world was wrong (but only wrong enough so that it didn't really change our understanding on a day to day level) and there was, and remains, no way to directly observe interactions of quantum particles, but it's been accepted by basically everyone who deals with the subject. Science has dabbled in pretty strange stuff and it has overturned millennia of preconceived ideas. God doesn't look like a very daunting obstacle. It's exactly the kind of thing science would strive to find.

I already said Science can be useful as a correlation, sometimes.
What you are speaking of is one of those correlations.
In that the concept does not contradict with that principle.

Seeing is not important. Observation is. We can detect gravity and wind, even without technology. Nothing spiritual has ever been detected, unless it was actually something physical that someone at the time couldn't explain.

Observation of confirmation can only be made within the individual, so it cannot be observed conventionally.
But like wind and gravity one can observe how it affects the individual.
And whether you have realized it yet or not, that is what is being displayed in this thread.

I'll also say again, as I have before in this thread, that I did receive the Holy Spirit and nothing came of it.

Assuming you did actually recieve it, from your posts it does not appear that it is of primary authority in your life.
Perhaps, as the Bible says you are quenching it's abilities to manifest itself to you.
You must accommodate and yield to it, or you won't even know it is there.
Remember it is personal, relational.

As always, you command of language leaves me speechless...

Please accept my condolences.
As I have said repeatedly, this is a totally unique application.
Therefore, verbalization can become strained at times.

 

[Touring Mars]

That's not what evolution is.

Some anti-evolutionists hold the erroneous view that one present-day species can magically turn into another, and lampoon this idea as bizarre and ridiculous, while they are deadly serious regarding their view that all species were miraculously created by an invisible and all-powerful supernatural entity.

That any two separate modern-day species are more or less distantly related by descent - a process as easy to understand as you can get - seems mundane, almost trivial in comparison; no magic, no miracles, just plain old sexual reproduction repeated over a very long time*... but the end product is nothing short of staggering. That mice and men share a common ancestor is a fact - an incredible fact that some people find ridiculous, amazing, hilarious and/or mind-blowing in equal measure, while others find it insulting, disturbing and completely unacceptable. But one's views on the matter will never change the simple fact that it is true.


* my favourite quote regarding geological/evolutionary timescales:

I still wonder how Creationists can swallow the concept of "eternal" without the slightest hiccup, but they somehow can't wrap their heads around the simple concept of a really really long time.

That fundamental disconnect is what prevents them from considering evolution.

 

[Imari]

I was referring to a more general notion of concept, so any set of properties that would belong to an object in question. Are you trying to misunderstand this on purpose?

No, I'm trying to ask questions that will allow me to understand your reasoning behind stating that science cannot be used to further our knowledge of God.

I'm not trying to misunderstand. I do not understand why you would say this. I would like you to explain it to me, in simple terms, why the scientific method is unable to help us learn more about God.

I'd find it difficult to identify the face of someone else in my experience of looking at them, yes. It's a much more appropriate analogy here, no?

Edit: As I don't want this to be misunderstood, please be reminded that we're in the context of measuring one's experience. We're not talking about the experience from the perspective of the person having the experience, but from our perspective looking at the person having the experience. This should better illustrate why your analogy fails miserably.

It doesn't, because you've never been in the position of having to gather subjective data.

Sometimes when performing science, there isn't a simple machine to measure what you want. You have to fall back on human perception. Human perception is notably screwy in a lot of ways, at least compared to machines, but it can be done.

Identifying a face is a fine example. If you can only use human perception (ie. no photos, video, radar, whatever), then how to you go about identifying a unique person?

By asking the right questions. Break it down, the same way a police artist would go about it. Man or woman? Hair colour and length? Ethnicity? Types of features? Each individual observer will give you a slightly different answer, but the answers should all converge around a true description of the unique person you're observing. Assuming that you're asking the right questions and getting accurate answers.

The same can be done for any human perceptible phenomenon: ask the right questions about it, log the answers and they will converge on a reasonably accurate description of that phenomenon.

Well, I'm glad you're being so scientific about it.

I am, and I'm trying to figure out why you're not trying to be.

This makes no sense. I'm not making an assumption that the experience exists, I know because it's been well documented.

But it hasn't, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Religious experiences have been well documented, but there is nothing linking those to any external being that could conceivably be considered God. And there's certainly no replicable method of generating religious experiences that could be used as a test, as far as I'm aware of.

Feel free to prove me wrong and post evidence to the contrary, that in fact religious experiences linked to an unknown source can be reliably produced by ... .

To me, the "evidence" of the religious experience is a lot like the "evidence" of psychic phenomenon. Both have been well documented, in the sense that there's a lot written about them, and both have the problem of tending to crumble under critical examination. There has been a long standing prize of a million dollars for anyone able to demonstrate psychic abilities under agreed conditions. Many people have tried, and everyone has failed.

Replicable evidence for God would be worth a lot more than replicable evidence for dowsing. It would make the scientist who produced it world famous overnight, and I imagine that many religious groups would be eager to throw money at them to further their work.

But it hasn't happened. You seem to indicate that this is because it's not possible, and I'm trying to understand why. Because from where I'm standing I don't see anything stopping anyone from verifying that God is a real phenomena at the very least.

 

[Mike458]

The problem is that @DCP is convinced that whatever you say, or show, or demonstrate, is just the devil being deceitful and trying to corrupt him. He believes that so firmly that no amount of evidence, reason or logic will ever make him look at things any differently.

It's quite sad really.

Even this paragraph is THE DEVIL'S LIES!!!! I AM EVIL!!!!

This. Just this.

Please, for the sake of our sanity @DCP ...

ACTUALLY look at all of the evidence around you. Have you ever been to a science center? Or looked at a biology textbook? You'd be surprised at how far we've come on the (proven) theory or speciation and evolution.

 

[DQuaN]

This. Just this.

Please, for the sake of our sanity @DCP ...

ACTUALLY look at all of the evidence around you. Have you ever been to a science center? Or looked at a biology textbook? You'd be surprised at how far we've come on the (proven) theory or speciation and evolution.

It's pointless. Most normal people would look at your paragraph and think about it. I'm sure what @DCP sees is...

The Devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies, the devil's lies.

He is beyond help and destined for a life of ignorance. It's bliss I suppose.

 

[doctorrg]

No, I'm trying to ask questions that will allow me to understand your reasoning behind stating that science cannot be used to further our knowledge of God.

I'm not trying to misunderstand. I do not understand why you would say this.

Because you've said this:

What set of properties is that?

After I've clearly said that you cannot describe God in such terms, i.e. an object having a particular set of properties. If I'm saying you cannot attribute properties to God, why'd you ask "what set of properties is that"? How does that question even make sense?

I would like you to explain it to me, in simple terms, why the scientific method is unable to help us learn more about God.

It's not exactly what I've said, but essentially, God is unknowable. It's not that uncommon an idea. Just google the terms "God" and "Unknowable", and you will find many articles explaining this in much more detail than I ever could within this thread.

It doesn't, because you've never been in the position of having to gather subjective data.

Sometimes when performing science, there isn't a simple machine to measure what you want. You have to fall back on human perception. Human perception is notably screwy in a lot of ways, at least compared to machines, but it can be done.

Identifying a face is a fine example. If you can only use human perception (ie. no photos, video, radar, whatever), then how to you go about identifying a unique person?

By asking the right questions. Break it down, the same way a police artist would go about it. Man or woman? Hair colour and length? Ethnicity? Types of features? Each individual observer will give you a slightly different answer, but the answers should all converge around a true description of the unique person you're observing. Assuming that you're asking the right questions and getting accurate answers.

The same can be done for any human perceptible phenomenon: ask the right questions about it, log the answers and they will converge on a reasonably accurate description of that phenomenon.

You seem to have completely missed the point as to why your analogy made no sense. In a previous post, I had clearly agreed that the experience of God could be measured. That automatically puts us in a third person perspective to the person having the experience. Just because that person may recognize his face in the mirror doesn't mean we'd recognize anything we could call a face looking at that person having said experience. Where would you see that face? All you're seeing is that person, you have no grasp on the content of his/her thoughts, all you may be able to measure is certain brain patterns. Are you telling me it is an easy task to recognize a face? What did you say again?

Why?

Do you find it difficult to identify your face when you experience looking at it in a mirror? Why should identifying God be difficult?

You're still following this?

I am, and I'm trying to figure out why you're not trying to be.

I simply see no reason to, there really isn't any more to it.

But it hasn't, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Religious experiences have been well documented, but there is nothing linking those to any external being that could conceivably be considered God.

What exactly about not being able to assign properties didn't you understand? "External being" is assigning a property. What or what not these experiences are (linked to) isn't my main concern, the experiences are. I'm glad you agree that religious experiences are well documented, these are also commonly referred to as experiences of God. Again, google is a useful tool in these matters.

And there's certainly no replicable method of generating religious experiences that could be used as a test, as far as I'm aware of.

Well, that's not an issue to me, as I don't care about reproducing these experiences for the purpose of analysis.

Feel free to prove me wrong and post evidence to the contrary, that in fact religious experiences linked to an unknown source can be reliably produced by ... .

To me, the "evidence" of the religious experience is a lot like the "evidence" of psychic phenomenon. Both have been well documented, in the sense that there's a lot written about them, and both have the problem of tending to crumble under critical examination. There has been a long standing prize of a million dollars for anyone able to demonstrate psychic abilities under agreed conditions. Many people have tried, and everyone has failed.

Replicable evidence for God would be worth a lot more than replicable evidence for dowsing. It would make the scientist who produced it world famous overnight, and I imagine that many religious groups would be eager to throw money at them to further their work.

But it hasn't happened. You seem to indicate that this is because it's not possible, and I'm trying to understand why. Because from where I'm standing I don't see anything stopping anyone from verifying that God is a real phenomena at the very least.

Because at the end of the day, all you have is the experience. The experience is the only thing that could possibly be subjected to scientific investigation. You wouldn't even be able to know (scientific meaning) what exactly it is an experience of. Personally, I don't find this to be of issue. I don't need to know in scientific terms what exactly it is that I experience, all that matters is the experience.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I don't need to know in scientific terms what exactly it is that I experience, all that matters is the experience.

And what do you experience after you've believed enough in the story?

 

[Imari]

Because you've said this:



After I've clearly said that you cannot describe God in such terms, i.e. an object having a particular set of properties. If I'm saying you cannot attribute properties to God, why'd you ask "what set of properties is that"? How does that question even make sense?

Fair enough, that's not how I'd originally read your statement. I read it as "...science cannot reason with an object that has a certain set of properties", as in there were a certain set of properties that an object could have that would mean that science couldn't reason with it.

I'm still not entirely sure how to read your meaning out of that sentence, but I understand what you meant now that you've explained it. I'll skip replying to your other points that are based on this misunderstanding.

It's not exactly what I've said, but essentially, God is unknowable. It's not that uncommon an idea. Just google the terms "God" and "Unknowable", and you will find many articles explaining this in much more detail than I ever could within this thread.

But I'm talking with you. I'm not interested in other people's opinions, I want yours.

Why is God unknowable? How have you arrived at this conclusion?

You seem to have completely missed the point as to why your analogy made no sense. In a previous post, I had clearly agreed that the experience of God could be measured.

How can you describe God as measurable yet unknowable? Surely to measure some part of an experience that was caused by God would be to know some part of Him, however small?

If I talk to a German, I can learn some small things about German people and Germany. Although I wouldn't say that I know all about Germany, or even that it would be possible from such an interaction.

I simply see no reason to, there really isn't any more to it.

Yes, and I'm trying to understand why you have decided that there's no reason to. Either you've never tried, or you have some rationale that you can share.

Or perhaps you're like SCJ and DCP and don't want to question religion, because it might not give you the answers that you're looking for.

No rational person simply refuses to learn more for no reason at all.

What exactly about not being able to assign properties didn't you understand? "External being" is assigning a property. What or what not these experiences are (linked to) isn't my main concern, the experiences are. I'm glad you agree that religious experiences are well documented, these are also commonly referred to as experiences of God.

Just because something is called an experience of God, doesn't mean it is one. People used to think spirits were responsible for all sorts of things, but upon closer examination it just turned out that the real world is actually pretty complicated.

The descriptions of the events may be accurate (which is dubious in most cases, but anyway), but there's nothing to say that the authors are making correct interpretations of those events. If they're making interpretations from single events, then they almost certainly are not making correct ones. Data is not the plural of anecdote, as the saying goes.

Because at the end of the day, all you have is the experience. The experience is the only thing that could possibly be subjected to scientific investigation. You wouldn't even be able to know (scientific meaning) what exactly it is an experience of. Personally, I don't find this to be of issue. I don't need to know in scientific terms what exactly it is that I experience, all that matters is the experience.

I see that you don't understand scientific investigation either.

Observation is everything we have. There is nothing beyond that. What you term "the experience" is exactly how every other scientific discovery in the world to date has been made. That's what we use.

We have the experience of interacting with molecules. We don't know exactly what they're made of at the smallest level, or if there is a smallest level. We can describe how they act and interact, and we can predict some interesting properties of atoms and molecules that we have not yet observed.

Somehow you seem to think that to learn something using the scientific method you have to understand it completely. There are only the most basic concepts for which this could be true even in the broadest sense, most scientific fields are littered with things that are poorly understood. That's why scientists still have jobs.

If you can have an experience, then you can start the investigation with the 5 W's and move on from there. That's science.

On the other hand, you could wave your arms and say "ooo, it's all mystical, must be God. Move on, nothing to learn here". Then you're no wiser, and you've in fact closed your mind to anything new that might enlighten you.

 

[Mike458]

It's pointless. Most normal people would look at your paragraph and think about it. I'm sure what @DCP sees is...



He is beyond help and destined for a life of ignorance. It's bliss I suppose.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

It's pointless. Most normal people would look at your paragraph and think about it. I'm sure what @DCP sees is...



He is beyond help and destined for a life of ignorance. It's bliss I suppose.

This.