Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html

That literally adds nothing to any part of what I said (though confirms that your claim that your Bible is "identical" to the non-existent Bible of 200AD to be bollocks), but is also bollocks itself.

Have you already forgotten this? The claim that "the Bible" (which version?) is 99.5% identical to even the Vulgate with only "discrepancies in spelling and word order" is patently bollocks when you look at the same verse in four different versions of the Bible and find at best in 13 words only the words "and" and "not" in common. And a completely different number of words.

 

[sammy neuman]

No, it wasn't. "Because I said so" is not a valid answer...
To SCJ, God is because God is, and to question it is somehow foolish.

Nope, it was a refusal to engage in self-analysis.

But SCJ did not answer the question. It's like being asked "Why is the sky blue?" and answering with "because the sky is blue" or "Why do apples fall from trees?"

I disagree. He answered the question exactly.
The question:

"why does the scientific method apply only to some aspects of reality"

The answer:

...because the spiritual reality I know, was not and is not garnered through Science...it's not within Science's jurisdiction.
You can't find it there.
You can't learn about it there.

If that's not an exact answer, what is? It was an answer, but from a different viewpoint. If only one viewpoint is accepted as valid, there's not going to be much discussion, is there?

The next question should be: 'Why is it not within reach of the scientific method?' That question was not asked (this time anyway), but it was answered also:

It's purposely designed exclusively to be an individual decision, not a matter of scientific discovery.

Is that not the essence of faith? Much of what SCJ said made my brain hurt, but there were times when he answered quite clearly.

 

[Imari]

If that's not an exact answer, what is?

An exact answer would be one that isn't circular.

SCJ was asked why the scientific method doesn't apply to God. His response: because it doesn't apply to God.

I am no more informed after this answer than I was before it. A real answer would attempt to give some reasoning or validation as to why.

If I say that you can't use a spanner to undo a screw, and little Jimmy asks why, it's not an answer if I tell him that spanners don't undo screws. It's practical advice, in a way, but little Jimmy doesn't understand any more afterwards than he did before.

A real answer would be to explain how a spanner can't grip a screw in the right way that you need in order to be able to undo it. A screw needs to be undone with a screwdriver, and a spanner isn't the right shape. If I wanted to be really detailed I could go into how the forces are applied and so on, but most people would probably get it just from the above.

From that, Jimmy could learn that actually the shape of the tools are important. He can probably extend that to figure out what things you can and can't use a spanner, or a screwdriver on.

It's a lot harder with science and religion, because the scientific method is designed to be as generic a tool as possible. It should adapt to learning about absolutely anything. Religion or God, on the other hand, is not easily described. It's not like a screw, where it's easy to say that you need something wide and flat to put in the slot. It's difficult to describe exactly how one learns about religion, and this is where most people (including SCJ) fall down. They can't describe it, so they don't. They attempt to handwave their way through it, because that's what they found acceptable.

That's not good enough.

If you want to make statements like science cannot be used on religion or God, then you need to be able to explain why in very specific terms. "Because I said so" is not good enough.

If only one viewpoint is accepted as valid, there's not going to be much discussion, is there?

But if your viewpoint is unintelligible to others, you're doing an awful job of explaining it, and there's not going to be much discussion either.

If you deliberately format your answer so that it's circular reasoning, you probably shouldn't be surprised when people throw it out as gibberish.

The next question should be: 'Why is it not within reach of the scientific method?'

Well, most of us would consider that to be implied by the first question, but if you really want to separate it out...

Is that not the essence of faith?

So the simple answer is that it's not reality, everyone makes up their own mind? You can't use science because there's nothing there to use science on, it's only what you choose to believe?

Given most of the rest of what SCJ said, I doubt that's his (or your) answer. Christians believe that God is an objective reality. He does not simply exist in the imagination of believers, or he couldn't have created an entire universe.

The truth is that it's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too sort of thing. Christians want to believe that God has had, and continues to have a real effect on the world as we know it, but also want God to be ineffable and undetectable.

You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. Either God interacts with the universe that humans inhabit (in the form of creation, miracles, communication with his believers, and so on) in which case he's detectable. Or he doesn't, and we shouldn't care whether or not he exists at all because He has as much impact on humanity as Russell's Teapot.

 

[DCP]

1. 1979-1980 Shmita Year - U.S. and global recession.
   1986-1987 Shmita Year - 33% U.S. Stock market value wiped out.
   1993-1994 Shmita Year - Bond market crash.
   2000-2001 Shmita Year - 37% U.S. stock market value wiped out. 9/11 and Global recession.
   2007-2008 Shmita Year - 50% U.S. Stock market value wiped out. Global recession.
   2014-2015 Shmita Year - Same pattern
   
   I just have a strong belief that there is much more to come though during this year. Also considering the Jubilee.
   
   It's just incredible how Genesis 1:14 says, " I will put them (sun and moon), for signals and appointed times.
   Amazing how these biblical tetrads fall exactly on Gods feast days.
   What is most incredible is that the Messiah said that when you see ALL these things come to pass (at once), this generation will not pass.
   Lets consider that the next biblical tetrad occurs in 500 years. We are surely the generation.
   
   Blood moons, eclipse, wars, rumors, quakes, financial crisis, persecution of jews and christians, peace treaty, lawlessness, apostacy etc. All spoken of 2000 years ago.
   
   Jesus said "Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe"
   
   "May" believe. Each and every mans free will to himself. Paul says" The people are without excuse"
   
   Ponder this, according to the bible, 6000 years have passed since creation, and it's been 6 days for the Lord, since one day with the Lord, is a 1000 on earth. The 7000th year is the millenial reign of Christ. The 7th Day God rested...
   

 

[niky]

OPEC Oil embargo, 1973... one of the worst times to be a US citizen. Non-Shmita year.

And the Iranian revolution that helped trigger the recession started in 1977 and came full bloom in 1978.

1979-1980 Shmita Year - U.S. and global recession.

1986-1987 Shmita Year - 33% U.S. Stock market value wiped out.

Gulf war... 1990... non-Shmita year... oil supply disruption and start of recession.

1991, Japanese asset bubble crash... leading to 20+ year recession in the Far East.

1993-1994 Shmita Year - Bond market crash.

Meh.

1996 - Asian Financial Crisis. The biggest before 2007. Non-Shmita year.

2000-2001 Shmita Year - 37% U.S. stock market value wiped out. 9/11 and Global recession.

Correction, a recession for the parts of the world that weren't already in recession due to the 1996 crash.

2002 - Iraq war. Hyperinflation of oil prices. Non-Shmita year.

2007-2008 Shmita Year - 50% U.S. Stock market value wiped out. Global recession.

Still in recession. Non-Shmita year.

2014-2015 Shmita Year - Same pattern.

Really? Where?

Your Shmita batting average is above 50%... great if we're playing baseball. If we're playing basketball, considering how the economy dribbles so... not so much.

Given how many crashes we've had over the past few decades, you can pick any interval and have a 60+% chance of having a recession within those dates.

 

[Famine]

Shmita

Into Judaism now?

I note that your post in no way addresses any of the prior conversation, as if you're sweeping it under the rug so you can pretend it never happened so you don't have to be wrong...

Ponder this, according to the bible, 6000 years have passed since creation

[Citation needed]

 

[JKgo]

according to the bible, 6000 years have passed since creation, give or take a few billion

... Fixed that for you.

 

[Imari]

I reckon that if you tried hard enough you could find a major negative international event for every single year for at least the past hundred. Probably wouldn't even have to try that hard.

Which would make any prophesying based on occurrences of generic "bad" international events on a yearly timescale about as useful as the horoscope in the local daily rag. I could say that something bad is going to happen every third year and that this is proof of my own divinity, and be totally safe in assuming that will continue to be true.

It's called confirmation bias, and it's a big problem for humans. We do it a lot.

 

[homeforsummer]

Yoga is not part of Islam.

I dunno. As a child he was banned from watching people do yoga. In tight yoga pants, there's a high risk of camel toe. Camels can be found in the Middle East. Many people in the Middle East are Muslim. I'd say that's quite a strong connection between Islam and yoga.

 

[Azuremen]

I'll consider reading about those when I get free time.

Do so. The worst that can happen is you learn about others, allowing you to better understand their beliefs and views. To me, understanding people sounds very Christ-like, versus dismissing the beliefs of others' simply out of ignorance.

The "shielding" your parents are doing is extremely dangerous in current world, as it leaves you ignorant to world affairs and the feelings of others. Yoga, by the way, has two distinct aspects, a physical and a spiritual, and we focus on the physical in the West, so "paganism" wouldn't really be a concern. Getting a healthy workout would have been the only real side-effect.

 

[sammy neuman]

An exact answer would be one that isn't circular.

SCJ was asked why the scientific method doesn't apply to God. His response: because it doesn't apply to God.

I am no more informed after this answer than I was before it. A real answer would attempt to give some reasoning or validation as to why.

@SCJ said: "... it's not within science's jurisdiction...(because) It's purposely designed to be an individual decision, not a matter of scientific discovery."

Looks like a standard fundamental doctrinal response, doesn't in itself appear circular, appears to have a supporting statement explaining the original answer, and if you are not aware of it; the designer is God, not SCJ, it cannot be disproved. I understand it perfectly.

If I say that you can't use a spanner to undo a screw, and little Jimmy asks why, it's not an answer if I tell him that spanners don't undo screws. It's practical advice, in a way, but little Jimmy doesn't understand any more afterwards than he did before.

A real answer would be to explain how a spanner can't grip a screw in the right way that you need in order to be able to undo it. A screw needs to be undone with a screwdriver, and a spanner isn't the right shape. If I wanted to be really detailed I could go into how the forces are applied and so on, but most people would probably get it just from the above.

From that, Jimmy could learn that actually the shape of the tools are important. He can probably extend that to figure out what things you can and can't use a spanner, or a screwdriver on.

It's a lot harder with science and religion, because the scientific method is designed to be as generic a tool as possible. It should adapt to learning about absolutely anything. Religion or God, on the other hand, is not easily described. It's not like a screw, where it's easy to say that you need something wide and flat to put in the slot. It's difficult to describe exactly how one learns about religion, and this is where most people (including SCJ) fall down. They can't describe it, so they don't. They attempt to handwave their way through it, because that's what they found acceptable.

That's not good enough.

If you want to make statements like science cannot be used on religion or God, then you need to be able to explain why in very specific terms. "Because I said so" is not good enough.

Which is why when someone says, "First you have to prove God exists", my usual reply is "No. I don"t.

But if your viewpoint is unintelligible to others, you're doing an awful job of explaining it, and there's not going to be much discussion either.

If you deliberately format your answer so that it's circular reasoning, you probably shouldn't be surprised when people throw it out as gibberish.

Presumably after they read what it says and determine that it does employ circular reasoning. And note that I am talking about this particular answer, not the underlying doctrine.

Well, most of us would consider that to be implied by the first question, but if you really want to separate it out...

As did I, but I separated it because SCJ separated it in the original post

So the simple answer is that it's not reality, everyone makes up their own mind? You can't use science because there's nothing there to use science on, it's only what you choose to believe?

Given most of the rest of what SCJ said, I doubt that's his (or your) answer. Christians believe that God is an objective reality. He does not simply exist in the imagination of believers, or he couldn't have created an entire universe.

If I understand you correctly, yes we do. But I believe that God is not required to meet your (or my) expectations or requirements for anything.

The truth is that it's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too sort of thing. Christians want to believe that God has had, and continues to have a real effect on the world as we know it, but also want God to be ineffable and undetectable.

"Want to" is your opinion from your viewpoint. Christians do believe, not 'want to'.
At this time, I want to make sure you are aware that Christianity is not monolithic, but a spectrum of belief ranging from fuzzy to very hard-line fundamental. SCJ appears to be an example of very hard-line full-Gospel fundamentalist (you can never really know on-line).

You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. Either God interacts with the universe that humans inhabit (in the form of creation, miracles, communication with his believers, and so on) in which case he's detectable. Or he doesn't, and we shouldn't care whether or not he exists at all because He has as much impact on humanity as Russell's Teapot.

Which is to say, God has to behave the way you think he should. That is your viewpoint. Needless to say; I disagree.

 

[Imari]

@SCJ said: "... it's not within science's jurisdiction...(because) It's purposely designed to be an individual decision, not a matter of scientific discovery."

Looks like a standard fundamental doctrinal response, doesn't in itself appear circular, appears to have a supporting statement explaining the original answer, and if you are not aware of it; the designer is God, not SCJ, it cannot be disproved. I understand it perfectly.

Can we agree that "it's not within science's jurisdiction, because it's not a matter of scientific discovery" is circular?

If so, then the only part of that quote that isn't circular is "it's purposely designed to be an individual decision". Which tells me nothing.

Everything in my life is an individual decision. At the end of the day we all make our own decisions. As far as I'm concerned, that phrase tells me "it's purposely designed to be like every other decision you've ever made", including ones that I've used the scientific method on. Basically, it tells me nothing additional, it's empty words that restate something that is fundamental to everyone's decision making process already.

Hence me not understanding at all why that is justification or reasoning for the scientific method not being applicable.

Which is why when someone says, "First you have to prove God exists", my usual reply is "No. I don"t.

Good job I didn't say that then. You're already working from the assumption that God exists when you make the statement that you can't use science to learn about Him, which is fine. You might find it a lot easier to justify that statement if you could prove that God existed some other way but not with the scientific method, but I don't insist on it.

You can justify yourself however you choose, but I reserve the right to refuse to accept the ones that are illogical.

Presumably after they read what it says and determine that it does employ circular reasoning. And note that I am talking about this particular answer, not the underlying doctrine.

I read it and determined that it was two parts circular reasoning, one part misdirection as I explained above.

If I understand you correctly, yes we do. But I believe that God is not required to meet your (or my) expectations or requirements for anything.

And I haven't required him to. I don't get what you're trying to say.

"Want to" is your opinion from your viewpoint.

Of course it is, I'm not a Christian and I don't pretend to be.

Christians do believe, not 'want to'. At this time, I want to make sure you are aware that Christianity is not monolithic, but a spectrum of belief ranging from fuzzy to very hard-line fundamental. SCJ appears to be an example of very hard-line full-Gospel fundamentalist (you can never really know on-line).

Read back through the thread, you'll find many examples of me pointing out the same thing. Trust me, I'm aware.

But there are commonalities between Christians, and belief in God is one of them. There's no hard and fast definition of a Christian than I'm aware of, but I suspect that most people would agree that if you don't believe in God, you're not a Christian. And if you don't believe that God has the properties that the Bible asserts him to have then you're probably not a Christian either.

Which is to say, God has to behave the way you think he should. That is your viewpoint. Needless to say; I disagree.

Nope.

That's not what I said, and not what I meant.

Logic is the one thing that I've found to be more or less foolproof, if used correctly.

If I say that everything falls into two groups, the detectable and the undetectable, and God is part of everything, then logically God must be one or the other. As I said previously.

If you disagree with this then you can attempt to disprove the statements, or the axioms, or prove that in fact logic is inapplicable or can give false answers. Please go ahead, you must have some reason for why you disagree. Share it with us.

I've tried to make my position as clear as possible, if you disagree then tell me why I'm wrong. I'd rather be wrong than live in ignorance. Considering that it's my job to be wrong as much as possible as fast as possible, this would probably be the least of my wrongs today.

 

[Danoff]

@SCJ said: "... it's not within science's jurisdiction...(because) It's purposely designed to be an individual decision, not a matter of scientific discovery."

Looks like a standard fundamental doctrinal response, doesn't in itself appear circular

Usually standard fundamental doctrinal responses are circular. In this case, it's not within science's jurisdiction because it's not within science's jurisdiction isn't just circular, it's not even a big circle.

It's also not even an on-topic circular argument. What property of this type of knowledge makes it different is the question. The question is not "how did it get these properties", which would be at least on topic to the "god designed it that way" type of response above. The questions is what about it is different. Talking about the intent behind its creation is non-responsive to that question. It would be like asking "what is different between men and women" and the answer being "they're purposely designed differently". It's circular "they're different because they're different", and it's off-point "they're different because they're intended to be". What we really want to know is that men enjoy watching movies where people get shot, and women like watching movies where people talk and cry. That would be a difference, and responsive.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's called confirmation bias, and it's a big problem for humans. We do it a lot.

On that very note I found an interesting test this morning. I'm pleased to say that I solved "the rule" and passed (my HS autism probably helped)... but 78% of people fail.

Take the test.

 

[Spurgy 777]

On that very note I found an interesting test this morning. I'm pleased to say that I solved "the rule" and passed (my HS autism probably helped)... but 78% of people fail.

Take the test.

I guessed it first go....




Not because I'd already seen this or anything

 

[TenEightyOne]

I guessed it first go....

Not because I'd already seen this or anything

Spoiler tags?

 

[GBO Possum]

Something to Think About:

You do not reason a man out of something he was not reasoned into.

--Jonathan Swift

Source:- www.nobeliefs.com

 

[Danoff]

Something to Think About:

You do not reason a man out of something he was not reasoned into.

--Jonathan Swift

Source:- www.nobeliefs.com

Theramin Trees would disagree. One of his youtube videos (posted in this thread recently) was focused entirely on how he reasoned his way out of religious belief that he was not reasoned into. In fact, I think the only way out of religion is reason.

 

[GBO Possum]

Theramin Trees would disagree. One of his youtube videos (posted in this thread recently) was focused entirely on how he reasoned his way out of religious belief that he was not reasoned into. In fact, I think the only way out of religion is reason.

I completely agree. I have achieved the same relief via reasoning alone. Although it was hard to break down the stuff that was put in there during my childhood.

I posted it as an interesting potential discussion point. I'm glad you stepped in.

 

[Imari]

Theramin Trees would disagree. One of his youtube videos (posted in this thread recently) was focused entirely on how he reasoned his way out of religious belief that he was not reasoned into. In fact, I think the only way out of religion is reason.

You can reason your own way out of something that you didn't reason your way into.

But you cannot reason someone else out of something that they didn't reason their way into. I mean, somewhere someone has probably managed it, but you really shouldn't expect it. Take the last twenty or so pages of this thread as an example, reasoned arguments simply do not work as counterpoint to something that is non-rational. I can't think of anything that works as counterpoint to something that is non-rational.

It's the same principle as "you can't teach someone who doesn't want to be taught". If someone has decided to believe in something for no good reason, then good reasons aren't going to shift them. It's a bit of the true Scotsman thing coming back again, the only people that can be convinced by reasoned arguments are those who want to be.

 

[Danoff]

You can reason your own way out of something that you didn't reason your way into.

But you cannot reason someone else out of something that they didn't reason their way into. I mean, somewhere someone has probably managed it, but you really shouldn't expect it. Take the last twenty or so pages of this thread as an example, reasoned arguments simply do not work as counterpoint to something that is non-rational. I can't think of anything that works as counterpoint to something that is non-rational.

It's the same principle as "you can't teach someone who doesn't want to be taught". If someone has decided to believe in something for no good reason, then good reasons aren't going to shift them. It's a bit of the true Scotsman thing coming back again, the only people that can be convinced by reasoned arguments are those who want to be.

Again, Theramin Trees would disagree. His videos are precisely aimed at exposing religious people to reason as applied to religion. Furthermore, his own introspective exploration of reason that caused him to get out of religion was the result of someone else posing a question rooted in reason. The only way out of religion is reason, and the only way to trigger someone to question their own illogical positions is to make them think about it. One of the best ways to make people think is to have a conversation.

I agree with what you're saying to a certain extent. I've made the very same argument you do when it comes to my fear of flying. It's an irrational position that everyone tries to reason me out of. And I always respond by saying, "Yea, I know, it's not rational. That doesn't change it". This is different from religion though. It's an emotional response that I understand but can't control. Religious people are applying their own brand of reason to help incorrectly understand emotional responses.

 

[Imari]

Again, Theramin Trees would disagree. His videos are precisely aimed at exposing religious people to reason as applied to religion. Furthermore, his own introspective exploration of reason that caused him to get out of religion was the result of someone else posing a question rooted in reason. The only way out of religion is reason, and the only way to trigger someone to question their own illogical positions is to make them think about it. One of the best ways to make people think is to have a conversation.

I agree. You can interest someone in an alternative to religion. But you can't give a religious person a reasoned argument and expect them to accept it. They will just ignore it and carry on being religious.

There's a reason I compared it to the true Scotsman fallacy. Anyone who is truly religious is not religious because of rational reasons, and so rational reasons will not sway them. Anyone who will respond to rational reasons was either born into the faith (and therefore possibly hasn't actually had the opportunity to rationally think through what has been done to them) or has doubts that they're looking to satisfy in ways that their religion cannot (ie. they're looking for more).

I agree with what you're saying to a certain extent. I've made the very same argument you do when it comes to my fear of flying. It's an irrational position that everyone tries to reason me out of. And I always respond by saying, "Yea, I know, it's not rational. That doesn't change it". This is different from religion though. It's an emotional response that I understand but can't control. Religious people are applying their own brand of reason to help incorrectly understand emotional responses.

Describing what religious people do to justify their beliefs as "reason" is stretching it. I suppose it's reasoning in a way, given that you accept certain things as axioms, although religious axioms generally stray a lot further from first principles than most non-religious people are comfortable with.

People like SCJ and DCP would have you believe that they know they've felt the touch of God, and anything that you could say contrary to that is just more proof of God. You cannot reason with that. You cannot reason with someone whose only reply is "nope".

You can only reason with people who want to be reasoned with, and who are willing to respond to reason. Given that accepting a religion is pretty much by definition an irrational act of faith, it can probably be taken for granted that any religious person is willing to abandon reason under at least some circumstances. You may be able to reason with some religious people, but some will use their already demonstrated ability to ignore reason and rationality and fall back on the "nope, you're wrong" position.

I don't argue that reason can be used to reach religious people, there are obviously examples where it has worked. I question how religious those people were when they were exposed to reason. I suspect that they'd dug themselves most of the way out already, and were just looking for something that they could use to justify to themselves taking that final step.

A deeply religious person does not suddenly say "you know what, you're right! God is a crock". A religious person who is having doubts might. How religious is someone who is already seeing flaws in their religion? Is he really a Scotsman, or is he only a Scotsman because he doesn't know how to be anything else yet?

 

[Danoff]

Anyone who is truly religious is not religious because of rational reasons, and so rational reasons will not sway them. Anyone who will respond to rational reasons was either born into the faith (and therefore possibly hasn't actually had the opportunity to rationally think through what has been done to them) or has doubts that they're looking to satisfy in ways that their religion cannot (ie. they're looking for more).

I think all religious people fall into the latter category. I'm sure most of them would disagree, but the human mind, as amazing as it is at twisting reality, has needs that religion can't offer. In fact religion exists because the human mind needs answers in the first place. Religion is what gets shoved in there in hopes of solving the problem, but deep down, religious people know that it's not an answer. All of them.

If what you want to know is how the universe got here, and you invent a god who created it, you know, fundamentally, that that's not an answer. "Where did God come from" is the next logical question, and regardless of how they try to twist their way out of it, they all know they haven't actually satisfied the question their mind has been craving an answer to. The best they've done is postponed that question until they die.

Religious people will tell you until they're blue in the face that they don't need proof and that faith demands a lack of proof. But the moment one of them thinks they have actual tangible proof of a miracle, they climb all over each other to shout it to the world. Some of them even thought that the Higgs Boson was proof of God because some people referred to it as the God particle. They immediately started claiming that science had proven God existed. All it takes is some tree in south America to have a knot on it that looks kinda like a face and some sap that's slightly red colored and people will pilgrimage from around the world. They all want proof, as much as they deny it.

So every religious person is susceptible to reason. Some of them can't handle the emotional burden of leaving behind their irrational beliefs ("my dead kid isn't in heaven?"), but somewhere in there their mind knows it's a house of cards.

 

[Imari]

I think all religious people fall into the latter category. I'm sure most of them would disagree, but the human mind, as amazing as it is at twisting reality, has needs that religion can't offer. In fact religion exists because the human mind needs answers in the first place. Religion is what gets shoved in there in hopes of solving the problem, but deep down, religious people know that it's not an answer. All of them.

Which sort of gets you to the point where you have religious people that will pretend that it's an absolute answer, and we've seen some of them, and ones that won't.

So every religious person is susceptible to reason. Some of them can't handle the emotional burden of leaving behind their irrational beliefs ("my dead kid isn't in heaven?"), but somewhere in there their mind knows it's a house of cards.

Meh. It's not that religious people don't use reason, they obviously will when it suits their purpose.

But to convince someone that something that they believe is wrong using reason requires that they still adhere to reason when it doesn't suit their purpose. Some religious people may do. I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that a lot don't, and that you can't rely on them doing so when talking to them.

The "so who created God?" thing that you mentioned is one that pretty much every child hits straight away, and that religious people can talk themselves into believing their way around that means that you cannot rely on them accepting your reasoning.

The only way that you might be able to reason a religious person out is to demonstrate that their own system of rationale is internally inconsistent, although even that isn't guaranteed. We see people like SCJ and DCP who simply refuse to acknowledge any inconsistencies with "because God, you just don't understand his master plan".

I'm sticking with you cannot rely on reason to convince someone whose ultimate answer is "God did it and we can never know otherwise". There is no reasoning that defeats that. Hence why you don't see this thread full of converted theists: people can present them with intelligent, well-reasoned and logical arguments backed up with reproduceable observations and the reply can be "my book says otherwise, no thanks".

Reasoning is what we've got, and it's all we've got short of threats of violence, but there's no reason for it to work unless the recipient is willing to accept it.

 

[sammy neuman]

Can we agree that "it's not within science's jurisdiction, because it's not a matter of scientific discovery" is circular?

If so, then the only part of that quote that isn't circular is "it's purposely designed to be an individual decision". Which tells me nothing.

Everything in my life is an individual decision. At the end of the day we all make our own decisions. As far as I'm concerned, that phrase tells me "it's purposely designed to be like every other decision you've ever made", including ones that I've used the scientific method on. Basically, it tells me nothing additional, it's empty words that restate something that is fundamental to everyone's decision making process already.

Hence me not understanding at all why that is justification or reasoning for the scientific method not being applicable.



Good job I didn't say that then. You're already working from the assumption that God exists when you make the statement that you can't use science to learn about Him, which is fine. You might find it a lot easier to justify that statement if you could prove that God existed some other way but not with the scientific method, but I don't insist on it.

You can justify yourself however you choose, but I reserve the right to refuse to accept the ones that are illogical.



I read it and determined that it was two parts circular reasoning, one part misdirection as I explained above.



And I haven't required him to. I don't get what you're trying to say.



Of course it is, I'm not a Christian and I don't pretend to be.



Read back through the thread, you'll find many examples of me pointing out the same thing. Trust me, I'm aware.

But there are commonalities between Christians, and belief in God is one of them. There's no hard and fast definition of a Christian than I'm aware of, but I suspect that most people would agree that if you don't believe in God, you're not a Christian. And if you don't believe that God has the properties that the Bible asserts him to have then you're probably not a Christian either.



Nope.

That's not what I said, and not what I meant.

Logic is the one thing that I've found to be more or less foolproof, if used correctly.

If I say that everything falls into two groups, the detectable and the undetectable, and God is part of everything, then logically God must be one or the other. As I said previously.

If you disagree with this then you can attempt to disprove the statements, or the axioms, or prove that in fact logic is inapplicable or can give false answers. Please go ahead, you must have some reason for why you disagree. Share it with us.
I've tried to make my position as clear as possible, if you disagree then tell me why I'm wrong. I'd rather be wrong than live in ignorance. Considering that it's my job to be wrong as much as possible as fast as possible, this would probably be the least of my wrongs today.

This is way out of hand. I have no desire to sound like SCJ or DCP and I'm already way to close. This started out as a nitpick: check your Oxford dictionary, it's an answer, whether anyone likes it or not. I do not disagree with the rest of your post. Interestingly, my job requires me to be as right as possible as quickly as possible because lives and property are at risk.

Usually standard fundamental doctrinal responses are circular. In this case, it's not within science's jurisdiction because it's not within science's jurisdiction isn't just circular, it's not even a big circle.

It's also not even an on-topic circular argument. What property of this type of knowledge makes it different is the question. The question is not "how did it get these properties", which would be at least on topic to the "god designed it that way" type of response above. The questions is what about it is different. Talking about the intent behind its creation is non-responsive to that question. It would be like asking "what is different between men and women" and the answer being "they're purposely designed differently". It's circular "they're different because they're different", and it's off-point "they're different because they're intended to be". What we really want to know is that men enjoy watching movies where people get shot, and women like watching movies where people talk and cry. That would be a difference, and responsive.

Pointless to continue, logic says it's time to stop.

Thank you gentlemen, it's been enlightening.

 

[Imari]

This is way out of hand. I have no desire to sound like SCJ or DCP and I'm already way to close. This started out as a nitpick: check your Oxford dictionary, it's an answer, whether anyone likes it or not.

Meh. By your definition if someone asked me the time I could reply "potato salad" and that would be an answer. In some very literal ways I suppose it is, but I doubt that most people would feel that they'd received an answer.

It just doesn't seem like a very useful definition, especially when we're on a discussion forum attempting to have a conversation. I find it much more useful to call an answer something that actually addresses the question, instead of any event that is initiated in response to the question regardless of it's relevance.

That way we can actually call people out for trying to pull a fast one with non-responsive answers that seem at first glance to be useful. You know, like politicians do all the time. We have better conversations that way, because it allows us to get to the meat of the problem instead of dancing around talking about how science isn't any good because science is no good.

I do not disagree with the rest of your post. Interestingly, my job requires me to be as right as possible as quickly as possible because lives and property are at risk.

Then you see how the mode of thinking which you practise every day, which sounds like it's probably quite important if lives and property are at risk, may not be entirely suited to the problems that you're attempting to address in this thread?

When you have one chance to be right, you make the best call that you can and carry it out to the best of your ability. Because that's the right thing to do, and anything else would be being a horrible human being.

When you have as many chances as you like with no repercussions, you attempt to be as wrong as you can. Because you learn more.

Interesting that you feel that you understand what SCJ meant, and yet you can't explain it any better than he could. I wouldn't worry about it too much though, while many people appear to share that opinion with you and SCJ, I'm yet to see anyone actually explain it coherently.

 

[LeMansAid]

Meh. By your definition if someone asked me the time I could reply "potato salad" and that would be an answer.

Though there is beer o' clock.

 

[Imari]

Though there is beer o' clock.

It's true. But it's always beer o'clock in Australia.

 

[Benny44]

@Imari I consider myself a very rational person, and a person who 100% believes in God. I haven't read this whole thread, actually I've read very little of it. A lot of people say they are religious then tell you 'you just have to have faith'. But any kind of blind faith does not fit in with the definition of faith at all. True faith is backed up by facts - always. People also hide behind religion saying vague things about God, saying he is a mystery and then saying he is their friend. Those things don't make any sense, and really confuse people on what the Bible says about God.

 

[homeforsummer]

True faith is backed up by facts - always.

Then you presumably have proof for the existence of God?