Do you believe in God?

[Danoff]

Suddenly you have much faith in modern science to monitor your father's entire brain from one end to the other and detect any and all activity. Where is this faith in science when it comes to the fossil record?

 

[Famine]

I disagree.

If you could feel nothing, then nothingness is the most likely state of affairs.

But if you could feel something, then nothing would NOT be the most likely state of affairs.

The question isn't "can you feel nothing" vs. "can you feel something", rather "can you feel nothing" vs. "can you feel nothing".

 

[Dotini]

Sam's father said he felt something. So have thousands of others.

It's all very well to sit in your armchair and tell Shackleton he didn't go to the South Pole, tell Columbus he didn't make it to America, or tell Armstrong that he never walked on the Moon. After all, none of these events are likely, and you are entitled not only to your own opinion but to vigorously defend your world view (and home turf) whose policy states that these things are unlikely therefore they can't and don't happen. Great that is, until your opinions are confronted by the actual experience of those who are a step ahead of you.

Instead of blowing hard in your echo chamber, why not get up to speed and survey the actual literature in the field? Start with Evidence of the Afterlife, by Jeffrey Long, MD., a NY Times bestseller available at every library and bookstore. Read it in 3 hours.

Yours,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

To whom are you speaking and, more importantly, about what?

 

[Duke]

It's all very well to sit in your armchair and tell Shackleton he didn't go to the South Pole, tell Columbus he didn't make it to America, or tell Armstrong that he never walked on the Moon.

Shackleton, Columbus, and Armstrong didn't die and then come back. Nor did Sam's friend's father. Again, in case you missed it the first time:

Near death does not equal death. (!= means "does not equal")

I'm not talking "clinically dead" or "technically dead for X minutes", because those (as witnessed by the fact that the person stayed alive) NDEs are not the same as death. I'm talking "dead and starting to decompose" dead. Talk to someone in that state and tell me what they say about life after death.

 

[niky]

Taking the evidence for NDEs at face value is like entering a dream as testimony in a court of law.

What they DO suggest is that there is a common physiological mechanism active when a person is near death, or at the brink of it. But they don't show what happens after death.

To find out... you'll have to freeze somebody to absolute death (as in no metabolic activity... below zero temperatures) and then revive them a few days later.

Suddenly you have much faith in modern science to monitor your father's entire brain from one end to the other and detect any and all activity. Where is this faith in science when it comes to the fossil record?

Herein lies the entire problem for NDEs. They're purportedly from periods in time when there is no brain activity. But that's brain activity that's strong enough to set off sensors that don't really have the resolution to record really low level brain activity.

 

[Smallhorses]

Isn't it well documented in the scientific literature that dreams even appearing to last many hours actually take place in a shortish period of about 8 - 12 minutes of REM sleep?

In this case, it's easily possibly that Sam48's friend's father passed through a period very like REM sleep on his way to the zero activity state? In that case, even if he was there for only a few seconds, it's enough time for his semi-concious mind to conjour the images he remembers, even if he did proceed into an inactive "vegatative" state for a few minutes afterwards. When he was revived, (no thanks to god in this instance, but the wonders of modern medicine) he was able to recall the dream he had on his way through.

There is no proof, and no way he can offer proof, as to "when" during his 8 minute experience the memory he retains of the incident took place, and if indeed it actually occurred within those 8 minutes. My feeling is that they'll have recorded brainwave activity prior to the 8 minute "deadspot" that'd account for the images he's chosen to interpret as an NDE.

 

[GTP_V8SuperCars]

I believe in God.

 

[Danoff]

Why?

 

[Dotini]

I believe in God.

Why?

Having accepted God, does it also follow that one must attend an organized religion with all its dogma and rules? Or is it possible to acknowledge a supreme intelligence in the universe, call it good at that, and go about your business and life in your own way?

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Danoff]

Having accepted God, does it also follow that one must attend an organized religion with all its dogma and rules? Or is it possible to hold a belief in a supreme intelligence in the universe, call it good at that, and go about your business and life in your own way?

I can't see why you'd be required to subscribe to organized religion simply because you believe in a supreme being... actually I'm quite confused as to why you quoted me on this post.

 

[Dotini]

It's important to establish the "why".

 

[Duke]

It's important to establish the "why".

Not fundamentally. If he gets into what flavor of god he believes in, then it becomes a contributing factor. But the primary jump from insisting on "natural" to buying "supernatural" is hugely more important than which particular brand of supernatural an individual prefers.

To me, and I'll wager to Danoff as well.

 

[Touring Mars]

Instead of blowing hard in your echo chamber, why not get up to speed and survey the actual literature in the field? Start with Evidence of the Afterlife, by Jeffrey Long, MD., a NY Times bestseller available at every library and bookstore. Read it in 3 hours.

There is literature and there is literature. Just a cursory glance at the introduction to this book (courtesy of the good people at Amazon.com) has me decidely unimpressed. Of the so-called "proofs" cited in the introduction, I'm struggling to see how any of them constitute proof of an afterlife, let alone convincingly so. The last one in particular is a good example - that people's lives are changed by such an experience is cited as a proof of the existence of an afterlife.... I can't even begin to comprehend how that conclusion can be drawn. Also, there is the somewhat absurd line of reasoning that, while any one proof may not be 100% convincing in itself, any combination of two or more lines of evidence is going to be much more convincing, such that if one line of evidence is merely "90% convincing" (whatever that means!), then two such lines of evidence is "by mathematical calculation" going to be 99% convincing. Frankly, I cannot believe he actually says this in the introduction.

 

[Dotini]

...the primary jump from insisting on "natural" to buying "supernatural" is hugely more important.

This keen observation is also key to my understanding of the question of God, which to this very hour absorbs the passionate activities, energies and monies of billions of folks all over the world, itself puzzle enough. At various times in the discussion I have sought to synthesize the question by conceptualizing God as natural, and not supernatural. I will sternly deny that God is a being or an entity. Such nomenclature is purely anthropomorphic and tends to the politicization and abuses of religion with which we are all too familiar. In my brief remarks to Danoff, I referred to this deity concept as the "supreme intelligence" of the universe, while Dan preferred "supreme being". I see a distinction which allows the interpretation of God as the overall organizing intelligence of the manifold forces and matter found in the universe. Nothing is chaotic, anomalous or does not belong. There are no angels or demons or cosmic problems. It's all a unity and works rather well according to physical laws and principles we are still trying to learn. It's merely our limited human capacities which so far forbid us from understanding the totality of this natural world. Some ascribe the unknown to the willful mystery of God. I don't. Intelligence now is not restricted to human or animal. It also extends to machines and computers. Why not to the entirety of nature? To understand the universe is the goal of science. That is why I support and study the forensic sciences and not religion which has prematurely fixed the answers.

To review: I do not know if there is or isn't a God. It's a good question and I'm happy to study it. I have a short fuse with those who mind is made up on the basis of little other than their own desires and would spend their time and mine proselytizing here or anywhere else. I personally detest all organized religion but allow they have played undeniable roles in our history and culture, for better or worse. I have personally enjoyed the "benefit of clergy", but very little else having to do with organized religion.

@TM: Don't stop reading now! Medicine may be as much commercialism as it is forensic science. But even a dull tool will plow more ground than bare knuckles.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[Danoff]

There are a multitude of problem here, not the least of which is a solid understanding of evidence and logical conclusion.

There are a number of ways that people in this thread (and outside this thread) come to the conclusion that God exists. I'll list some of them:

1) Belief in an existence after biological death
2) Biological and physical complexity of the universe
3) Perceived direct emotional "connection" with God
4) Perceived divine intervention in one's life as a result of some unlikely event.
5) Lack of absolutely complete scientific knowledge
6) Indoctrination
7) Sheer desire for the comfort of order, justice, afterlife, reward, etc.
8) A perceived lack of reason for morality
9) Circular biblical reasoning

The problem is that there isn't a single thing in this list that is sufficient to cause you to believe in a supreme being.

1) Afterlife isn't any more proof of God than life itself.
2) The complexity arises from natural processes that are well understood.
3) Even if a connection with something is made, there is no way to know whether it is God, the devil, or something else.
4) Unlikeliness is not proof of intervention.
5) Lack of one explanation does not prove or necessitate another one
6) Meaningless
7) Wanting something does not make it so.
8) Morality is a result of a combination of natural selection (instinct) and reason
9) Circular reasoning is logically invalid. It's a trick.

I'll leave you with this (because it's a good song).

 

[CTznOfTime]

👍

Thanks for making that list and clearly laying out the general points of Pro/Cons...




GOD only exists in Faith... no where else...
and that's probably the only comforting truth for everyone on both side.
Just as long as you/we dont pull Him out of that realm and put Him everywhere,
then I am ok.... .... And yet! That's still a little tricky, because the teaching and the reaching-out of a religion is fundamental in its survival... so it is bound to at least go out of bound "once in a while"...

From the religious people's perspective, they have no other choice but to say that GOD is the "Truth", in order to convert and "hire" more people on the bandwagon. No other reason will be convincing enough to keep the religion going. "GOD is the Truth" is a bit short of a proof...

What i just wrote might be a little be self-evident and logical... but we still have to point it out and lay it out there for the so-to-speak enlightened to consider and realize, or counter-argue if possible.

 

[Dotini]

2) The complexity arises from natural processes that are well understood.

Nice work on the list(s), Dan. But didn't you mean to say that "complexity arises from processes that are not well understood"?

If natural processes were already well understood, we should rush to shut down NASA and all federal funding of science research at universities, observatories, laboratories and private institutions, given the terrible debts and spiralling economy out there.

Yours,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

Given that we understand the underlying principles behind the processes that lead to biological and cosmological complexity, no.

If you don't, it seems like magic. If you do, it seems like a lot of very complicated, interconnected - but inevitable - mechanisms.

 

[Danoff]

^ What he said. There is always more to learn - but we know a lot about the origins and development of life, planets, stars, etc.

 

[Famine]

Indeed.

The interactions of the four fundamental forces (gravitation, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces) with matter mean that stars and planets are inevitable results of our universe. That doesn't mean we should shut down NASA and all space research, nor that we know everything there is to know about it all - just that the physics of our universe + the stuff in our universe -> structure via processes that we know.

Maybe when we can build our own stars and planets we'll be a bit closer to being the all-knowing gurus Dotini seems to think we seem to think we are.

 

[Azuremen]

Nice work on the list(s), Dan. But didn't you mean to say that "complexity arises from processes that are not well understood"?

Even well understood processes can be highly complex. In fact, I'd say most processes become more complex as understanding increases. For example, a basic understanding of a combustion engine: "fuel is combusted, which generates force, which pushes a piston, and turns the crank."

The reality is it is a much more involved and complicated process to execute smoothly, as considerations for materials, compression, valves, angles that the rods are at, crank speeds, output systems, timing, fuel:air ratios, burn rates, etc make the actual system very complicated, and thus complex.

And that book you've suggested we all read, "Evidence" of the Afterlife, looks to have a great deal of bias in the reviews from the Amazon page, for example:

If someone asked for proof that life after death exists, refer them to this book. Dr. Long and Paul Perry have gone way beyond faith and into science, providing us with well-documented proof of what we have known absolutely for 35 years - there is life after death.

Well, they already knew what they were proving. Dang. Science right there.

I'm a person of Science, and I'm not terribly concerned with the afterlife. Would it be nice? Possibly. Can it be proved given any current science and technology? No. As many have stated, a Near Death Experience does not equal Death. As has been pointed out, REM cycles last a few minutes but can result in dreams that feel they have lasted days.

 

[mani_23]

Regarding the original question, I believe whether you believe in god (anything to the name of god) or you bilive in a higher power, Its a limited lifestyle. Why should you believe in a higher power? You are the greatest being to yourself. You can do whatever you desire. When Religion comes into play (Which I realize, isn't part of the original question), you are forced to abide to rules that may not make a difference in your morality. Im from Iran, and I understand how religion has truly destroyed my country. Its sad to still see my uncles and aunts here (In canada) ordering no bacon on their burgers, or, my old grandmother visiting once every 8 years, and she still wears her scarf around her head.

The fact is, None of these components can prove you to be a bad soul.

Worshiping a religion or God seems rather wasteful to me. A Man is limited to his capability by always knowing there is a higher power above him, that maybe, he can't become the highest power one day.

 

[Dotini]

The interactions of the four fundamental forces (gravitation, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces) with matter mean that stars and planets are inevitable results of our universe. That doesn't mean we should shut down NASA and all space research, nor that we know everything there is to know about it all - just that the physics of our universe + the stuff in our universe -> structure via processes that we know.

Maybe when we can build our own stars and planets we'll be a bit closer to being the all-knowing gurus Dotini seems to think we seem to think we are.

Dotini doesn't think you are all-knowing gurus, just well-meaning enthusiasts like himself. As an active racer, Dotini also likes to hang his bushy tail out a little farther, too.

He will politely disagree about your "well-known" processes, too. For instance, no one has ever explained gravity. So how can you be so sure it has anything to do with the formation of stars? Look at a spiral galaxy, any spiral galaxy. It will be seen that the outermost arms rotate with the same angular velocity as the center. The motion of galaxies therefore has virtually nothing to do with gravity. Your "electromagnetic" forces, 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity, rule the cosmos. It may turn out that gravity is an artifact of the electrostatic force.

Poor William of Occam will be spinning in his grave over current, tepidly accepted theories of dark matter and dark energy. These are not observed, are currently accepted as unobservable, let alone being well-understood. ROFL.

If you could bring yourself to letting go of the "expanding universe" theory, you would not need to invoke such incommensurable notions as dark matter, dark energy or even black holes, yet another unobserved and unobservable mathematical construct.

Plasma physicists and EE's readily demonstrate in the lab all the processes (readily scalable) necessary to create galaxies, stars and planets. These are your true gurus.

Our stumbling blocks to guru-ness are redshift and CBR. We can discuss these when you are ready. I have forwarded to TM two books necessary to begin the conversation.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[Touring Mars]

I think it would be best to keep the discussions about cosmology in a more relevant thread, because scientific controversies notwithstanding, it really doesn't shed any light (redshifted or otherwise) on the question of whether or not God exists, or very much else about God for that matter (baryonic or otherwise).

 

[Danoff]

Dotini doesn't think you are all-knowing gurus, just well-meaning enthusiasts like himself. As an active racer, Dotini also likes to hang his bushy tail out a little farther, too.

He will politely disagree about your "well-known" processes, too. For instance, no one has ever explained gravity. So how can you be so sure it has anything to do with the formation of stars? Look at a spiral galaxy, any spiral galaxy. It will be seen that the outermost arms rotate with the same angular velocity as the center. The motion of galaxies therefore has virtually nothing to do with gravity. Your "electromagnetic" forces, 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity, rule the cosmos. It may turn out that gravity is an artifact of the electrostatic force.

Poor William of Occam will be spinning in his grave over current, tepidly accepted theories of dark matter and dark energy. These are not observed, are currently accepted as unobservable, let alone being well-understood. ROFL.

If you could bring yourself to letting go of the "expanding universe" theory, you would not need to invoke such incommensurable notions as dark matter, dark energy or even black holes, yet another unobserved and unobservable mathematical construct.

Plasma physicists and EE's readily demonstrate in the lab all the processes (readily scalable) necessary to create galaxies, stars and planets. These are your true gurus.

Our stumbling blocks to guru-ness are redshift and CBR. We can discuss these when you are ready. I have forwarded to TM two books necessary to begin the conversation.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

I think you're confusing "well understood" with "completely understood". I'm happy to admit that there is much left to discover in astrophysics - but that doesn't preclude us from having a great deal of understanding of the formation of our universe and (yes) the processes involved in that formation. We can observe them happening at various stages today.

Likewise, living organisms are often considered to be too complex to have arisen by natural processes. In many respects, I think people find it easier to believe that planetary, solar system, and galactic formation is natural than they do that life comes from and develops along natural processes. Yet both of these are the case. We have observed, documented, and in many cases seen repeated the processes by which these complex and ordered results come from natural, logical processes. None of that means we need to shut down NASA or stop thinking about dark matter etc. etc.

 

[Famine]

Dotini doesn't think you are all-knowing gurus

I didn't say that you did.

He will politely disagree about your "well-known" processes, too. For instance, no one has ever explained gravity. So how can you be so sure it has anything to do with the formation of stars?

Please do not confuse gravity with gravitation.

Your "electromagnetic" forces, 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity, rule the cosmos.

No. The interaction may be stronger, but acts on different particles in different ways.

Our stumbling blocks to guru-ness are redshift and CBR.

Yes, I saw your missive about redshift earlier. I laughed.

I think you're confusing "well understood" with "completely understood".

And this.

 

[Ardius]

Regarding the original question, I believe whether you believe in god (anything to the name of god) or you bilive in a higher power, Its a limited lifestyle. Why should you believe in a higher power? You are the greatest being to yourself. You can do whatever you desire. When Religion comes into play (Which I realize, isn't part of the original question), you are forced to abide to rules that may not make a difference in your morality. Im from Iran, and I understand how religion has truly destroyed my country. Its sad to still see my uncles and aunts here (In canada) ordering no bacon on their burgers, or, my old grandmother visiting once every 8 years, and she still wears her scarf around her head.

The fact is, None of these components can prove you to be a bad soul.

Worshiping a religion or God seems rather wasteful to me. A Man is limited to his capability by always knowing there is a higher power above him, that maybe, he can't become the highest power one day.

The flip side is that religion teaches basic life principles to live a happier life. I look upon the Bible, the Koran, and so on as essentially "how to live your life" guidelines which help people to be better.
There are some rather dated and rediculous guidelines of course and many of the stories should not be taken literally. But at the heart of it, its simply guiding people to be better for themselves and for society.

The bad part of religion is people missing this important key and taking things all too far.

I agree with you though, on the whole religion is not really needed but perhaps it just makes it easier for everyone to have a belief like that to help them see through the "life guidelines" set out in these books.
Also, it helps in the current topic on the afterlife for some people to accept things they don't really understand. For many people, its rather depressing to think your life means nothing and when it ends nothing glorious happens. So it helps them to think of an afterlife and to think that small good deeds will help them in relation to god. Is it better they believe their life ultimately means nothing and humanity as a whole is insignificant to the bigger picture?

Personally I don't really know what I think about the afterlife and death. I want it to be true but I see no evidence or proof of it being so. For the better of my own being, I think I just leave it at that - a hope but nothing more. Thinking about it too much is too maddening.
My views are largely agnostic. I don't believe in god but I'm open to the possibility. I have a passive belief in luck, karma, fate and so on. I don't feel the need to follow a religion and on the whole I detest how some organisations abuse it.

 

[Dotini]

I'm willing to shift the cosmology controversy conversation to a more appropriate thread, and I'm unwilling to give up on Famine. I'd like TM to forward the books to Famine, if he would be good enough to read them.

Thanks,
Dotini

 

[hambone8611]

The flip side is that religion teaches basic life principles to live a happier life. I look upon the Bible, the Koran, and so on as essentially "how to live your life" guidelines which help people to be better.
There are some rather dated and rediculous guidelines of course and many of the stories should not be taken literally. But at the heart of it, its simply guiding people to be better for themselves and for society.

The bad part of religion is people missing this important key and taking things all too far.

I agree with you though, on the whole religion is not really needed but perhaps it just makes it easier for everyone to have a belief like that to help them see through the "life guidelines" set out in these books.
Also, it helps in the current topic on the afterlife for some people to accept things they don't really understand. For many people, its rather depressing to think your life means nothing and when it ends nothing glorious happens. So it helps them to think of an afterlife and to think that small good deeds will help them in relation to god. Is it better they believe their life ultimately means nothing and humanity as a whole is insignificant to the bigger picture?

Personally I don't really know what I think about the afterlife and death. I want it to be true but I see no evidence or proof of it being so. For the better of my own being, I think I just leave it at that - a hope but nothing more. Thinking about it too much is too maddening.
My views are largely agnostic. I don't believe in god but I'm open to the possibility. I have a passive belief in luck, karma, fate and so on. I don't feel the need to follow a religion and on the whole I detest how some organisations abuse it.

Agreed completely I also find it ironic that the only group of people more arrogant about their opinions than the bible thumping crowd is the atheists