Do you believe in God?

[Exorcet]

It's also not automatically saying no to everything that comes your way.

Pure science is a lot of facts, then there's a lot of theoretical science based off of those facts. You need to be careful not to mistake the two for the same thing.

For example someone on here earlier claiming that suffering exists because of natural selection is not a fact. That's an opinion formed off of the basis of a scientific theory and then branded as a fact.

This is not a new thread. You're not the first to make pro god arguments. Your posts aren't being discounted immediately, they just contradict how the world works.

That pain (I believe it was pain specifically that was mentioned, but it doesn't make much difference) developed as a result of evolution is not an opinion. It's the best explanation we have the existence of pain.

Why don't you tell that to the guy above me then who said "It is literally the collection of all known facts".

Famine's post was more precise than mine, but the message is the same. If you can know something it's part of science. That would include knowing if god exists. Unfortunately we're fallible so we have to add an asterisk to everything we think we know because we can make mistakes. What we should not do is think that our knowledge is complete and perfect.

And as you pointed out the scientific method is constantly ever evolving and changing, what's considered fact today may be considered laughable 100 years from now. It's just quite funny how all you guys seem to put most of your faith into it and feel the need to so rigourously defend it every time someone puts it into question.

That's why the scientific method doesn't require faith. It's evidence based. So of course what is accepted as fact will change with evidence. Because we know we can make mistakes. This is why faith is laughable. It ignores the reality that humans are imperfect and that answers are not always obvious.

Because the scientific method is ever evolving and changing perhaps?

So of course the Romans who resisted conversion to Christianity were correct for having faith right? They were pagans first, so the correct thing for them to do would be to hold on to their beliefs no matter what right?

 

[Scaff]

I call it a "so called Temple" because what kind of Temple promotes practices that are in opposition with the ways of God, I guess the reaction of Jesus shows he may have shared a similar view.

Wasn't Jesus known to have said that "The kingdom of Heaven is within you".

Or as Corinthians 6:19 lays it out - Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

I think if you look deep enough into the texts there's a common spiritual theme that points to the idea that the true dwelling place of God's spirit is within yourself or rather your own soul/spirit. There's a reason why Jesus advocated true prayer as by going into your room, shutting the door and talking to your Father in the 'secret place' and listening to the voice of God within your own spirit.

Then you've hypocriticaly done what you accuse others of, in the story Jesus had no issues with the temple, he had issue with the people in the temple. The texts quite clear and unambiguous in that regard.

 

[Meythia]

Because the scientific method is ever evolving and changing perhaps?

The scientific method is to take a theorie and throw every possible explanation against it in an attempt to invalidate it.
It doesnt change or evolve.
What does change are out possibilities and attempts to invalidate a theory and by that evolve that theory into an even stronger version of what it has been before.

I could tell a child:
"the earth is round", the child would answer "I dont see that, so it cant be true".
Then I pick a camera and a basketball

 

[TexRex]

Sure don't.

Traveling pastor, wife face new child rape charges; victims urged to come forward

Detectives are urging anyone who believes they could be a victim to come forward.

www.wsmv.com

Still no.

Youth Pastor Gets 19 Years in Prison for Sexually Abusing Two Boys

When the man realized the youth pastor who had sexually victimized him as a child was going to adopt two young boys, he stepped forward.

www.northwestgeorgianews.com

Christians ought to stop raping children.

Can't imagine why I would.

Texas megachurch pastor Robert Morris resigns after "inappropriate sexual behavior" with 12-year-old

Robert Morris allegedly had a sexual relationship with a 12-year-old girl between 1982 and 1987.

www.cbsnews.com

[again, to the titular question] lolno

Palmetto church in shock after pastor arrested on child porn charges (WFLA, NBC)

Yeah, no...not everybody is tempted. I am begging Christians to stop normalizing and thus dismissing child sexual predation.

Tangentially, "child pornography" is a problematic description because pornography implies consensual acts and the documentation and subsequent distribution thereof. There's nothing wrong with pornography. At all. In the absence of consent to acts, documentation, distribution, or any combination of these things, they constitute abuse. "Child pornography" is child sexual abuse material because the consent of children to these things is not recognized by law.

Well, maybe...

lol

Fat chance.

Canadian megachurch halts services after insurers pull sex abuse coverage

The abuse crisis at The Meeting House church is so bad, they literally cannot meet anymore out of fear of what may happen

www.friendlyatheist.com

 

[UKMikey]

Lawyers for megachurch pastor blame 12-year-old for ‘initiating’ sexual contact

Morris resigned in June after admitting to the incident which allegedly occurred on Christmas Day 1982

www.independent.co.uk

[EDIT]

https://www.wbrc.com/2024/07/10/one...g-multiple-sex-crime-charges-involving-child/

 

[HenrySwanson]

Had an interesting conversation today.

If you don't believe in solipsism, is your belief that everything is "real" grounded in faith?

 

[Danoff]

Had an interesting conversation today.

If you don't believe in solipsism, is your belief that everything is "real" grounded in faith?

It's not "belief" so much as it is understanding what is supported by evidence and taking action on that basis.

 

[HenrySwanson]

It's not "belief" so much as it is understanding what is supported by evidence and taking action on that basis.

But the initial step is having to believe that evidence. From then on we can find and understand evidence and apply the scientific method.

 

[Danoff]

But the initial step is having to believe that evidence. From then on we can find and understand evidence and apply the scientific method.

It's not that complicated. You accept the evidence as evidence on the same basis that you accept that the evidence supports a conclusion. The evidence is evidence of itself, not proof.

For example. Suppose you are questioning whether you're using a computer. You hear key clicks, feel a mouse, see a screen, it responds to input, these are all evidence that the computer exists and that you are using it. Is there any possible explanation for this evidence that would be consistent with you NOT using a computer? Yes there are several. But you don't have other evidence to support those explanations, and you do have evidence to support the straightforward explanation that you're using it. Do you need to believe that you feel a mouse? Believe that you hear a key click? No. There is evidence that you hear a key click (your auditory responses), and there is evidence that you feel a mouse (your tactile responses). Are these the only explanations for what you hear and feel and see? No, there are other explanations for those things, but you don't have other evidence to support those explanations.

So what other evidence am I talking about and why does one explanation need it and the other doesn't. Mostly because some of the explanations for your experiences are convoluted, and the others are not. For example, one explanation for you hearing key clicks is that you're actually trapped in the matrix and a race of machines is simulating key clicks in a virtual reality for the purpose of harvesting your body heat, because these super smart machines can't think of another way to get heat or another species to get it from. Obviously this explanation is QUITE convoluted, and there are much simpler explanations. In order to inject all of those unnecessary (and absurd) steps into your explanation, you should have supporting evidence for each of the steps you're injecting. The rule of thumb is you go with the simplest explanation that fits the facts, not the most outlandish. The more steps, the more evidence needed to support those steps.

 

[Famine]

believe that evidence

Ah, I think I see the issue.

 

[HenrySwanson]

It's not that complicated. You accept the evidence as evidence on the same basis that you accept that the evidence supports a conclusion. The evidence is evidence of itself, not proof.

For example. Suppose you are questioning whether you're using a computer. You hear key clicks, feel a mouse, see a screen, it responds to input, these are all evidence that the computer exists and that you are using it. Is there any possible explanation for this evidence that would be consistent with you NOT using a computer? Yes there are several. But you don't have other evidence to support those explanations, and you do have evidence to support the straightforward explanation that you're using it. Do you need to believe that you feel a mouse? Believe that you hear a key click? No. There is evidence that you hear a key click (your auditory responses), and there is evidence that you feel a mouse (your tactile responses). Are these the only explanations for what you hear and feel and see? No, there are other explanations for those things, but you don't have other evidence to support those explanations.

So what other evidence am I talking about and why does one explanation need it and the other doesn't. Mostly because some of the explanations for your experiences are convoluted, and the others are not. For example, one explanation for you hearing key clicks is that you're actually trapped in the matrix and a race of machines is simulating key clicks in a virtual reality for the purpose of harvesting your body heat, because these super smart machines can't think of another way to get heat or another species to get it from. Obviously this explanation is QUITE convoluted, and there are much simpler explanations. In order to inject all of those unnecessary (and absurd) steps into your explanation, you should have supporting evidence for each of the steps you're injecting. The rule of thumb is you go with the simplest explanation that fits the facts, not the most outlandish. The more steps, the more evidence needed to support those steps.

Then that means all that can be definitively proven is that I exist.

Occam's razor can't disprove solipsism but is useful once I choose to accept anything other than that fact.

 

[Duke]

But the initial step is having to believe that evidence. From then on we can find and understand evidence and apply the scientific method.

Yeah, no, that isn't how it works.

If you decide that physical sensory input doesn't mean anything without a leap of faith, then existence immediately descends in one step directly to irreducible chaos. There is literally no way to differentiate among infinite combinations of factors that lead you to fell what you feel.

It could be the Matrix, could be we are all sharing the Dream Of The Big Blue Turtle, could be literally anything else. An infinite number of possibilities are all equally supported and disproved.

On the other hand based on roughly 21,500 consecutive physical observations I have personally made to date, I can predict with fairly strong confidence that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning. There have been zero observations that contradict that evidence to date. No "faith" in those observations is required.

 

[HenrySwanson]

It could be the Matrix, could be we are all sharing the Dream Of The Big Blue Turtle, could be literally anything else. An infinite number of possibilities are all equally supported and disproved.

Exactly.

Drawing conclusions by following the most plausible evidence is still just another one of those infinite possibilities, albeit the most likely one.

The only definite statement something/someone can say is that they are here.

 

[Duke]

Except that it is not just the “most plausible” one. It is the only one that is supported by physical, repeatable evidence.

 

[HenrySwanson]

And how "real" is that evidence?

 

[Imari]

And how "real" is that evidence?

1. What is "real"?
2. Does it matter?

 

[HenrySwanson]

1. What is "real"?
2. Does it matter?

As real as my existence.

If it matters is a good question.

How do you put value on a life if you can't be sure anything else is as real as yourself?

 

[Danoff]

As real as my existence.

If it matters is a good question.

How do you put value on a life if you can't be sure anything else is as real as yourself?

The search for knowledge includes two forms of obtaining knowledge. Inductive and Deductive. For deductive you can be as sure about the conclusion as you are about the premises and the steps. For inductive you cannot be sure about the conclusion. Your question at its core is why should you rely on inductive reasoning at all.

The answer is that it is a tool, albeit a flawed one. And given that deductive reasoning cannot get you everywhere you want to be, you're left with either relying on your flawed tool to navigate reality or to curl up and die when confronted by uncertainty.

Uncertainty is a fundamental aspect of life, not just in terms of knowledge of the present or the past, but also in knowledge of the future. Uncertainty is so fundamental to the universe, the entire universe appears to be built upon a principle of uncertainty (quantum mechanics). In order to function at all, you must function without certainty. It is a law of reality. Your only alternative is to not function.

But is that really an alternative? The choice to not function is still a choice within uncertainty. And it is a choice whose outcome you cannot know, by definition. So it is no more valid a choice than any other. So why would you choose an action which all of the evidence (however flawed) that you have points to a poor outcome in terms of personal happiness and well being?

A particle has a wave function of possibilities for where it will go and what it will do. You could say "we cannot know where it will go or what it will do" and you'd be right. But you could also look at what the evidence suggests and understand that there is a likelihood that is not evenly distributed, and you can base your actions on that evidence, even if it is not certain.

 

[Duke]

How do you put value on a life if you can't be sure anything else is as real as yourself?

I have zero evidence that contradicts the sensory input I have experienced showing that the physical world exists exactly as it appears to.

So what reason would I have to assume that anything else is not as real as I am?

As I said above, making that assumption is a direct, single-step descent into chaos. There is no reason to make that assumption or make that step. If there was any evidence that contradicts the appearance of natural "reality", I would question that reality, because rationality and the scientific method would compel me to.

But there isn't.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I have zero evidence that contradicts the sensory input I have experienced showing that the physical world exists exactly as it appears to.

So what reason would I have to assume that anything else is not as real as I am?

From an article explaining why it appears different:

Remember, the dress is actually blue and black, though most people saw it as white and gold, at least at first. My research showed that if you assumed the dress was in a shadow, you were much more likely to see it as white and gold.

Says who?

People who have no underlying pathologies and aren't under the influence of anything when they see the dress in person, right?

What if 2 people who had taken a psychedelic and saw the dress in person saw something other than that but agreed with what they were experiencing? We dismiss it as the influence of the drug....but what if it's just opening up the mind. We see the dress as different because it's an image taken by a camera, but imagine there's another level beyond that. Imagine that the eye is just another camera that we can deconstruct.

Your only alternative is to not function.

Which is an awful existence.

 

[Duke]

View attachment 1380403

I personally never saw that dress as anything other than blue / black, but my opinion doesn't matter one bit. It doesn't matter how many people thought it was how many colors in that picture.

The fact remains that the actual dress was whatever colors it actually was, independent of interpretation of that specific image. If it was important, it would easy enough to look at a picture taken from a different angle in better light light and confirm that, in fact, it was color A background with color B trim. If necessary, you could put a spectrometer on the actual dress and determine the wavelength of reflected light to define exactly what hue it was.

Not sure where you're going with the whole psychotropic drug thing, either. Of course if you berk with the instruments you're going to berk up the results. If you put a red filter over the spectrometer lens it's going to tell you the dress is purple, not blue.

 

[Exorcet]

What if 2 people who had taken a psychedelic and saw the dress in person saw something other than that but agreed with what they were experiencing? We dismiss it as the influence of the drug....but what if it's just opening up the mind. We see the dress as different because it's an image taken by a camera, but imagine there's another level beyond that. Imagine that the eye is just another camera that we can deconstruct.

Nothing is being dismissed as there are tons of studies on the effect of drugs. If you really wanted to investigate if something novel was going on, then you'd test that case specifically and incorporate the findings into your understanding of reality.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Nothing is being dismissed as there are tons of studies on the effect of drugs. If you really wanted to investigate if something novel was going on, then you'd test that case specifically and incorporate the findings into your understanding of reality.

Brilliant idea. And with that, I'm off to channel my inner Dotini and start listening to Hallucinations by Oliver Sacks.

EDIT:

I bought the Kindle version to accompany it.

Many cultures regard hallucination, like dreams, as a special, privileged state of consciousness—one that is actively sought through spiritual practices, meditation, drugs, or solitude. But in modern Western culture, hallucinations are more often considered to portend madness or something dire happening to the brain—even though the vast majority of hallucinations have no such dark implications.

 

[TexRex]

I'm still curious why Christians rape children. I know their texts don't explicitly prohibit it but they have to know it's wrong, right? Is it something about the Christian mind? Is it the emphasis on purity, with children presumably being most pure?

 

[HenrySwanson]

I'm still curious why Christians rape children. I know their texts don't explicitly prohibit it but they have to know it's wrong, right? Is it something about the Christian mind? Is it the emphasis on purity, with children presumably being most pure?

Well, that is easy.

They are bad men - the common denominator.

See what's happening in India at the moment.

 

[TexRex]

Well, that is easy.

They are bad men - the common denominator.

See what's happening in India at the moment.

Whoa, not all Christians are men.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Whoa, not all Christians are men.

True, there are rare examples of female rapists.

 

[TexRex]

Why doesn't Christianity weed out the bad? Even as child rape isn't condemned, other things which are supposed to be bad are condemned. As far as what Christianity deems bad, does child rape just not figure? That's just wild to me. The penalty for approaching Mount Sinai prior to Jesus' little TED Talk was death, but child rape isn't there at all. Priorities.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Why doesn't Christianity weed out the bad? Even as child rape isn't condemned, other things which are supposed to be bad are condemned. As far as what Christianity deems bad, does child rape just not figure? That's just wild to me. The penalty for approaching Mount Sinai prior to Jesus' little TED Talk was death, but child rape isn't there at all. Priorities.

I don't know, I get more life lessons from the TV show Lucifer than the Bible.

Has an answer been provided by church-goers?

 

[TexRex]

I don't know, I get more life lessons from the TV show Lucifer than the Bible.

What? You get that if you don't have anything substantive to contribute you can simply not reply, right? Pretend somone asked you a question that you can't answer without compromising your pathetic arguments.

Has an answer been provided by church-goers?

Not a single one wth a rational foundation. Ever. They're kind of known for that.