Do you believe in God?

[TJC_69]

Are you really that thin-skinned?

Is this a GTP forum, or Dr. Phil and Opra Winfrey?

Because you won't, can't or refuse to acknowledge the dimension of the Spiritual, don't get mad at me.

I'm just trying to tell you, it absolutely does exist.
It's not discovered, learned about, or accessed through, science.
Something for which I have no say so about, and therefore cannot be held accountable for.
Likewise it is undoubtedly, a science unto itself.

It's a forum alright , however i'm having suspicious doubts that you're living on the same planet as the rest of us . Not an insult by the way , just merely an observation .

The same 'dimensional of the spiritual' that there's absolutely no evidence for you mean ? Of course I used to believe in fairytales ... However I was young at the time , and remember... that if God exists , then so do pixies and the tooth fairy 👍

As they are make believe spiritual entities also lets not forget .

Everyone has a right to believe what they choose , unfortunately for you Sir it would seem that your parents and your local community did an excellent job of brain washing you into absolute belief of the supernatural when you were young and impressionable .

Even to the extent that undeniable logic , of which has been explained to you countless times , doesn't register in your mind as it goes against a dusty fictional book from ye olden times .

You can tell everyone of logical reasoning it exists until you're blue in the face if you wish . Your weak arguments of reasoning have done you no favours in convincing anyone of anything .

I thought you were passionately against the idea of science ?

SuperCobraJet
You can continue in your charade, of living entirely in the single dimension of the remote science lab bubble, but you are only fooling yourself.

And here you are comparing thousand year old witchcraft to the sum entirety of mans logical acheivements ?

SuperCobraJet
Likewise it is undoubtedly, a science unto itself.

How amusing 👍

 

[Exorcet]

About this,

And your subsequent arguments about the Earth taken as a stationary point ...

Well said XoravaX. I'm not saying that the Earth is at the centre of the Universe, but considering basic Physics problem-solving practices of selecting an object to be the origin of the co-ordinate system, anything can be selected to be the centre of the Universe.

No, you're just setting the origin of your coordinate system. You can place that on Earth or the Sun, neither becomes the center of the universe.

I think spirituality can be discovered through science but for that

Yes of course, if it exists.

people should be open-minded

Definition of science.

Now my view is that all the people who have experienced spirituality in history cannot be said to be motivated simply by the hunger for power or explaining away natural phenomena lazily. There is a grain of truth to what they are saying but it is either buried in allegory or it is just not possible to verify their claims using present methods. Nevermind the fact that religion has been used for power and the automatic anti-religion stance some people developed has transmuted into an anti-god or anti-spirituality stance. The ancients admittedly did not have the same principles of 'scientific method' we do now, so they haven't documented the details of the conditions surrounding their 'spiritual experiences' with the same care scientists do now but to entirely ignore thousands of years of observations (however imperfectly written down) is IMO excessive and smacks of the intolerance of the clergy of yore.

You're assuming what they saw was what they thought they saw, when it probably wasn't. Open minding isn't taking ancient spiritual accounts as evidence for the spiritual right away. Open minded it looking at the accounts and then trying to figure out what was going on.

As a matter of fact, you are confronted 24/7 with that very "choice" scenario.

And what happens when loading the spiritual one gets you no where? I guess you could say that I used it for a decade or two, but all it ever did was show itself to be defective. Baptism, Communion, Conformation, through all of that I was "sure" God was real, etc, but in reality it was just conditioning from my environment. Or brainwashing if you like. It took a long time to break out, but it was certainly worth it, and not just for me. With a clear head I can work to better myself and other people. Having your decision influenced by illogical non sense won't help you with that.

And thats why it is called a "theory", and not a "scientific fact".

So, you don't understand. Theories are better than facts. It's been said all over this page, it's been said many pages before, but you just don't seem to care.

I know exactly what it says and means.
I'm not confusing anything.

The exact opposite.

It also explains why about 60% or more of the worlds population, have historically and presently, participate in some form of religious practice and/or observance.
Science, sure as hell didn't encourage them to do it.

And that's the problem. They went about with their beliefs without ever trying to properly verify them.

So now, suppose you tell me, what is your explanation for this unprecedented number of people, since the beginning of time pursuing spiritual enlightenment, if it's not personal faith and some results from using it.

Firstly, no not since the beginning of time. There is no evidence supporting religion as being an innate part of humanity.

Now, as for why people believe, it's because people long ago tried to explain there world, and they did a very poor job. They probably came up with an answer that and then went with it. Or in other words, faith. This is how you can end up with a world where 60% of people are divided over unproveable and unimportant ideas. I guess it's thankful that a 40% plurality exists, at least according to your numbers, that uses reason and is far larger than any other group.

 

[dylansan]

What SCJ doesn't know is that there is also a dimension of unicorns, but it too is unreachable through science, only through faith.

It absolutely does exist. If you don't acknowledge the existence of this dimension, bad things will happen to you.

Now, most people don't know about the unicorn dimension because, well, the unicorns don't want to let just everyone into rainbow land, but they've given me permission to spread the word because they don't have enough people to party with.




I'm not trying to make fun of you or your beliefs SCJ. I'm really trying to make a comparison here. You probably don't believe what I just told you, but I want you to think about why. What reason should someone believe Christianity that is also a reason not to believe in unicornism?Whatever method you use to prove Christianity true, in order for it to be reliable, it has to also avoid proving things true that aren't true.

So does your method hold up? If you apply the same requirements to Unicornism that you apply to Christianity, would you believe both of them?

 

[f1reb1rd]

I have this teacher that hates references to religion. A kid said bless you after another kid sneezed and they both got detentions

Edit: any religion

 

[Kingland093]

And that's the problem. They went about with their beliefs without ever trying to properly verify them.

You can't verify God's existence by scientific means because God can't be proven to exist by scientific means. He's proven to exist by natural human reasoning, and personal faith.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Mmmhmm.

 

[gamerdog6482]

You can't verify God's existence by scientific means because God can't be proven to exist by scientific means. He's proven to exist by natural human reasoning, and personal faith.

Human reasoning and personal faith can't prove anything.

 

[Kingland093]

Because you can't prove God's existence scientifically, you have to rely on personal faith and human reasoning to prove his existence for yourself

 

[Exorcet]

Because you can't prove God's existence scientifically

And why is that?

you have to rely on personal faith and human reasoning to prove his existence for yourself

This is a contradiction. Faith doesn't allow for reasoning.

 

[Kingland093]

@Exorcet

That's a good question. I don't really know right now but I'll try to get an answer to you sometime

For your second point, would you mind explaining that a bit more please?

 

[niky]

Faith is defined as belief in the absence of proof. In other words, reasoning is not required.

 

[JediRage]

No, you're just setting the origin of your coordinate system. You can place that on Earth or the Sun, neither becomes the center of the universe.

Yep, that's what I'm saying. No one knows what the true centre of the Universe is at the moment, but you could place the origin at the Earth's core (or the Sun's, or on an asteroid between Jupiter and Mars) and explain all relative motions.

You're assuming what they saw was what they thought they saw, when it probably wasn't. Open minding isn't taking ancient spiritual accounts as evidence for the spiritual right away. Open minded it looking at the accounts and then trying to figure out what was going on.

Exactly, and the natural phenomena have mostly been explained by scientific findings.

But what about when they talk about a connection to a higher being? How do you detect the feelings of love? of devotion? How do you measure them? Neither of these two things (which are just examples, I'm sure there are more) can be 'quantified' by scientific methods (at the moment) and I'm not sure they ever can unless the pool of scientific method is expanded.

 

[niky]

You can actually measure brain activity in relation to "love" and "devotion".

With more advanced mapping methods and higher scan resolutions, it would even be possible to show a clear picture of what "love" looks like.

Subjective feelings have very concrete physical roots.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Yep, that's what I'm saying. No one knows what the true centre of the Universe is at the moment, but you could place the origin at the Earth's core (or the Sun's, or on an asteroid between Jupiter and Mars) and explain all relative motions.

Exactly, and the natural phenomena have mostly been explained by scientific findings.

But what about when they talk about a connection to a higher being? How do you detect the feelings of love? of devotion? How do you measure them? Neither of these two things (which are just examples, I'm sure there are more) can be 'quantified' by scientific methods (at the moment) and I'm not sure they ever can unless the pool of scientific method is expanded.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-04/fyi-where-center-universe

Everything that is psychological is biological and can and will be 'quantified.'

I love religious "reasoning;" always entertaining.

 

[Scaff]

But what about when they talk about a connection to a higher being? How do you detect the feelings of love? of devotion? How do you measure them? Neither of these two things (which are just examples, I'm sure there are more) can be 'quantified' by scientific methods (at the moment) and I'm not sure they ever can unless the pool of scientific method is expanded.

And yet they do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion#The_neurocircuitry_of_emotion


And have done for quite some time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Expression_of_the_Emotions_in_Man_and_Animals

Much of which is now being validated:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.2003.1000.issue-1/issuetoc

 

[Exorcet]

@Exorcet

That's a good question. I don't really know right now but I'll try to get an answer to you sometime

For your second point, would you mind explaining that a bit more please?

niky pretty much explained it.

But what about when they talk about a connection to a higher being? How do you detect the feelings of love? of devotion? How do you measure them? Neither of these two things (which are just examples, I'm sure there are more) can be 'quantified' by scientific methods (at the moment) and I'm not sure they ever can unless the pool of scientific method is expanded.

Most like the connection to a higher being is them experiencing something they couldn't explain. Back then it was acceptable to make up an answer. Today it is not. Science can admit when it doesn't know something, and that alone makes it a lot more reliable than faith.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

As a non-spiritual person, I don't think I am. I've no choice between "spiritual" or "carnal" if I don't believe in the spiritual, surely?

If you do not have the Holy spirit, you do not have a choice.

There is only the CMOS.

That is what I was attempting to explain to Famine.

Really? You went there? Again?

Yea, really.

It is what the term means. You can't separate the Latin word from the English word. You can't pretend that there's "science knowledge" and "non-science knowledge" any more than you can pretend that there's "electrical electricity" and "non-electrical electricity". There are no kinds of knowledge that are not "science" because the word "science" means "knowledge".

Oh my, you out did yourself on this one.
And what always accompanies electrical energy?
Magnetic energy.
They are inseperable, but yet distinctly different.

And both are "science", because the word means "knowledge".

If that is the case, and you are a science(knowledge) man, you need to include some spiritual pursuits in with your science portfolio,
so you can know about the the other parts of science.

Theories are above facts. They explain facts. They include facts. Facts are nothing without theories above them.

They are one explantion of facts, among possibly many others.

They include facts to support the theory, which, here's the biggie,
may or may not be accurate, may or may not be true, may or may not be relevant, may or may not prove out, etc., etc., etc.

Wrong.
Facts stand independantly, on there own, and are almost unchangeable, or not easily moved.
Theories are much more frail and subject to changeability.

There is no demarcation of "science" and "knowledge". They are one and the same because that's what the word "science" means.

I said, it is a science unto itself.
Thats, because it is knowledge.

Incidentally, my daughter believes in no gods at this point and has never had sex. Presumably she knows nothing at all, by this benchmark?

Sex has nothing to do with it.
I'm talking about other aspects of knowing.

At any rate, this is my question to you now?

How do you go about unknowing your daughter or anything else for that matter.

If anything is truly impossible, it is that.

So I cannot, unknow the SMOS or HSMOS is more accurate.
Or the CMOS.

My reference to Dr. Hugh Ross is a perfect example of the reality of this.
Since he knows both sides of the knowledge equation, he must attempt to reconcile the two.
For better or worse, he believes there is no other option, since he cannot unknow either side.

Not knowing any better? Or not testing whether faith/prayer really is responsible for making the 'results' actually happen? Wrongly attributing improbable events as miracles?

Orrrrrrrr..............
There is somethiing to it.

 

[Famine]

Try quoting the right people. hfs didn't say most of the things you just attributed to him.

If you do not have the Holy spirit, you do not have a choice.

There is only the CMOS.

That is what I was attempting to explain to Famine.

I never asked, so that's unlikely.

Oh my, you out did yourself on this one.
And what always accompanies electrical energy?
Magnetic energy.
They are inseperable, but yet distinctly different.

This has no relevance to what I said. I didn't refer to energy at any point.

If that is the case, and you are a science(knowledge) man, you need to include some spiritual pursuits in with your science portfolio,
so you can know about the the other parts of science.

Anyone who calls themselves a scientist is open to all knowledge.

They are one explantion of facts, among possibly many others.

They include facts to support the theory, which, here's the biggie,
may or may not be accurate, may or may not be true, may or may not be relevant, may or may not prove out, etc., etc., etc.

Wrong.
Facts stand independantly, on there own, and are almost unchangeable, or not easily moved.
Theories are much more frail and subject to changeability.

Theories are in fact more robust than individual facts, given that they both explain the facts and predict future ones.

I said, it is a science unto itself.
Thats, because it is knowledge.

You didn't say it to me though, so I have no idea why you're addressing this to me.

Sex has nothing to do with it.

"Carnal knowledge" is sex.

I'm not sure what's fleshy or passionate about the central business district of Calgary or the up quark to characterise this kind of knowledge as "carnal", but then the meanings of words seems to be a long-standing issue with you.

At any rate, this is my question to you now?

Is it?

I think the point you can start asking questions is the point you stop avoiding them from other people.

How do you go about unknowing your daughter or anything else for that matter.

If anything is truly impossible, it is that.

It's also drivel.

 

[BobK]

.... about 60% or more of the worlds population, have historically and presently, participate in some form of religious practice and/or observance.
Science, sure as hell didn't encourage them to do it.
So now, suppose you tell me, what is your explanation for this unprecedented number of people, since the beginning of time pursuing spiritual enlightenment, if it's not personal faith and some results from using it.

Oh, that's an easy one. People are afraid to die. Most religions have some concept of an afterlife. Furthermore they say they are the gatekeepers to this afterlife, or at least the good part of it.

There is also the fact that historically if one wasn't a member of the predominant faith then one faced ostracism at the very least, sometimes even death. In fact "death to the unbelievers" is a phrase one can still hear occasionally today.

Whether you agree with it or not, there are absolutely two types of knowledge, carnal and spiritual.

You do realize that "to have carnal knowledge of" means "to have sex with" don't you? I have never ever seen the phrase "carnal knowledge" used in any context whatsoever other than sexual.

So perhaps you could elucidate us, and perhaps even explain what you mean by "carnal knowledge" and perhaps why your definition is different from the rest of the world's.

 

[photonrider]

AFAIK - there is no center of the Universe. It is expanding from itself ; much as spots of ink on a sheet of rubber that is stretched from all sides.

In related news today:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4930642...steins-god-letter-does-its-sale/#.UHQrpxWACzk

 

[JediRage]

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-04/fyi-where-center-universe

Not only are you agreeing with me, you've gone further and allowed people to place the centre of the Universe on the Earth. Not that it matters to me, just saying.

I love religious "reasoning;" always entertaining.

I love "smugness;" always antagonistic.

Most like the connection to a higher being is them experiencing something they couldn't explain. Back then it was acceptable to make up an answer. Today it is not. Science can admit when it doesn't know something, and that alone makes it a lot more reliable than faith.

Saying one is devoted to someone or something is not making up anything. Just as you wouldn't call loving your spouse or family a 'make-up'. You may detect your love for your family, but you wouldn't be able to detect someone else's love for your family because they don't know your family. But how to explain the devotion that so many people feel for a being they believe to be higher than them? Doesn't matter that they call it by so many different names.

But all the complementary way-of-life rules that have been developed by man to go along with devotion to the entity has tarnished the concept of god. Some of it well intentioned, and a lot of it designed with a view to control the population.

Well, I already said all the natural phenomena has been explained by science, most of it anyway. Young siblings can sometimes think that their older sibling is all powerful and can do anything. When you believe in something so passionately, you tend to attribute everything to it. Now we know better, good for us.

 

[Bobalob]

SuperCobraJet I think you forget many of us HAVE had religion in our lives, followed the rules and felt, heard or experienced, nothing.

I for one have been baptized and followed Christianity for the first 13 years of my life, because thats my family's religion.
Later as I studied in school and grew up better explainations for the world around me became available and without any conscious decision Christianitys explaination became redundant.

There was never a battle between science and Christianity in my life, it was just, obvious.

I must thank my family however, they have given me the opportunity to choose for myself, and we remain mixed beliefs today.

I feel bad for familys which force their religion on their children, but I do not resent these people, they are only doing what they believe to be best for their family.

I am also very grateful to have been introduced to Christianity, It has many good messages and people, I just dont accept it as the explaination of all that there is. I am however open to the possibility of an afterlife, but also to the possibility there isn't, after all if there is "nothing" after death, what the hell will I know about it when i die?

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Not only are you agreeing with me, you've gone further and allowed people to place the centre of the Universe on the Earth. Not that it matters to me, just saying.

Did I say I was disagreeing with you....

I love "smugness;" always antagonistic.

Yes, well excuse me; please continue spouting off your pulpit rhetoric as if it were fact.

 

[homeforsummer]

If you do not have the Holy spirit, you do not have a choice.

And is that a failing of me as a person? As I've stated before, I'm not completely closed to the idea of deism, there's just absolutely no aspect of it that resonates with me on any level whatsoever.

Yea, really.

Then you really have no point partaking in this conversation any further. Repeatedly misunderstanding the differences between fact and theory (despite them being incredibly defined terms and despite those terms being explained to you surely a dozen times now) is purely an issue of your own stupidity. No other person in this thread, devout Christians included, has tripped over those terms as often as you have done.

Try quoting the right people. hfs didn't say most of the things you just attributed to him.

Given his issues with simple scientific terms I'm surprised he's able to turn his computer on some days, let alone successfully quote people on an internet forum.

 

[JediRage]

Yes, well excuse me; please continue spouting off your pulpit rhetoric as if it were fact.

Excused.

Move along.

 

[niky]

But how to explain the devotion that so many people feel for a being they believe to be higher than them? Doesn't matter that they call it by so many different names.

Would you like the ultra-condensed version or a full lecture on psychology and anthropology?

 

[JediRage]

I don't mind the full lecture.

 

[niky]

There are some courses you can enroll in...

Humanity is wired to think in patterns. To connect separate events into cause and effect chains. To see human faces where there are none, which is why we tend to see Jesus in grilled toast or water stains. To extend empathy out to other humans and non-humans via anthropomorphization.

It is by humanizing and personalizing the Universe that we deal with it. We refuse to acknowledge a blind, unreasoning Universe simply because that is not the way we think. To many a human, everything is personal. That driver did not cut you off because he didn't see you. He was trying to kill you. Your boyfriend didn't notice your new hair because he doesn't love you. Mom and Dad won't buy you that new X-Box because they are abusive, evil little people.

And we extend this kind of reasoning to the Universe. That earthquake was nature's way of trying to kill you. Karma/Fate/God was responsible for the sunny skies on your birthday trip to the beach. Sun, Sky, Water... all there, just for you.

Early man (and many still-existing primitive tribes) assigned spiritual significance to the inanimate. Worshipping rocks, the weather, sun, wind, rain. In some cases, this doesn't come out as worship, but simply viewing these natural phenomenon as "people" of another sort.

Even if you don't do it, you probably know someone who humanizes their car. Gives it a name, treats it like a person or a pet. That's little different from the farmer who talks to his plants, or the tribesman who apologizes to the animal he just killed in order not to offend its spirit.

In a grander sense, Religion humanizes the Universe. Making it easier to deal with and understand. Never mind that the understanding may be flawed, that's the way we roll.

Granted, I will admit to this same irrational, instinctual belief that there may be something beyond us out ere, but I'm perfectly happy to admit to this irrationality. Unlike some people (not mentioning names) who cannot accept the fact that there is no logical evidence for such, and blindly rationalize their beliefs away.

 

[JediRage]

Fair points, but if someone draws strength and hope from a being they claim to be higher than them, is it really such a bad thing? Of course if they are drawing strength to harm others then it is absolutely bad.

But if this strength and hope is helping them to lead their life in peace, I say more power to them. Like another poster said a few pages back, hope and belief are two good human values that help us through hard times. If someone is down with fever for example, they should take medicine rather than just praying to get better but what about times when there is nothing they can do about a situation? I mean one must make use of possible solutions to problems when available, but when all else fails, is it really bad to believe that someone is looking out for them?

Superstitions are bad too and one must be extremely wary of them, I think, as that is another by-product of religious beliefs.

 

[homeforsummer]

That earthquake was nature's way of trying to kill you.

Earthquakes are God's way of dealing with gay people, everyone knows that. Or is that AIDS? I forget.

Seriously though, great post. I'd not actually thought of the "humanizing" element before but it makes perfect sense when put like that. I suppose to an even greater degree, it's all about me*. Me me me me me. "Why does [insert situation] always happen to me?"; "Why me God?"'; "God loves everyone, that's why he made me unique" etc. It's humanizing on a very personal, individual, selfish basis.


*Not me me, "me" as in "the individual"