God and Science

[jem]

Quote from vhehn:

Beliefs should be a search for truth and understanding, not denying reality so you can have faith in a compendium of books written by unknown authors over hundreds and hundreds of years complied much later by other fallible men, as 100% literally correct. That is a faith that is truly blind
The very concept of faith is an insult to human intelligence. If you take something on faith, you are in effect saying, "I don't need evidence, facts, or logic. Evidence is worthless, facts are for ninnies, logic is nonsense. I'll believe whatever I want even if reality overwhelmingly shows that it's just not true."

After a certain age or stage of reflection, faith is not blind. Many people who believe in God do find their faith challenged at other times faith is affirmed. You add up a coincidences and you say hey perhaps this life is not so random. I suspect you are seeing faith in God in far to binary terms.

In non Christian terms I can explain it this way. There are times you are tapped into the source and you just know it is real. In short it would be nice to be able to align yourself with the source as much as you can be. That takes amazing faith. (far more than I exhibit most days) When you have it and sense it you know it. Then look to see if God has revealed himself to us.

It is with that search the bible and some of the prophecy within it takes on a life. I am not prepared to try and prove the veracity of God's promises within the bible to you. But, I suspect I should be able to.

 

[cashcow]

It never ceases to amaze me with the nonsense that religious people come up with. The classical 'in the zone' 'feeling at one' sensation that you talk about is a human facet and is not due to religion.
If for example you were to practise self-hypnosis you would achieve the same feeling - in fact I would go as far as to say that with practise you can achieve much more striking results.
Unfortunately people are naive and attribute certain sensations to God, religion, the supernatural etc. without even investigating if there is another rational explanation.
When I perform self-hypnosis I have practised to an extent where I can conjure up a scene in my mind, of my choice, and it is very difficult for me to distinuish between true reality. I can see, touch, sense, talk and interact with a scene completely inside my head.
The first time this happened it seemed so real that it took me a while to realise that I was still in a trance - actually someone in my imaginary scene reminded me that I was!
Most people could never contemplate that the human brain is capable of delivering such an experience, and hence attribute a supernatural cause. "It must have been a revelation from God", etc.
People believe so strongly that what they felt was 'so real', what else could it be. I can assure these people that I have much more vivid experiences, much greater sensations than they have at the moment, simply by knowing how to use my brain. As soon as you realise that it is you creating these feelings - and that you control them - you have the power to pratice and refine them.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from jem:

After a certain age or stage of reflection, faith is not blind. Many people who believe in God do find their faith challenged at other times faith is affirmed. You add up a coincidences and you say hey perhaps this life is not so random. I suspect you are seeing faith in God in far to binary terms.

In non Christian terms I can explain it this way. There are times you are tapped into the source and you just know it is real. In short it would be nice to be able to align yourself with the source as much as you can be. That takes amazing faith. (far more than I exhibit most days) When you have it and sense it you know it. Then look to see if God has revealed himself to us.

It is with that search the bible and some of the prophecy within it takes on a life. I am not prepared to try and prove the veracity of God's promises within the bible to you. But, I suspect I should be able to.

If “faith” is a prerequisite in a belief in order to see the truth of the belief, being if there were evidence there would be no need for “faith” in any particular belief.
All supernatural beliefs require “faith” in its truth, being there is no evidence proving any particular belief.
So it must be the “faith” itself that dictates what is true.
Therefore every one of the worlds religions are true, being they all rely on the “faith” of the believer to see its truth. -Unknown

 

[jem]

Quote from cashcow:

It never ceases to amaze me with the nonsense that religious people come up with. The classical 'in the zone' 'feeling at one' sensation that you talk about is a human facet and is not due to religion.
If for example you were to practise self-hypnosis you would achieve the same feeling - in fact I would go as far as to say that with practise you can achieve much more striking results.
Unfortunately people are naive and attribute certain sensations to God, religion, the supernatural etc. without even investigating if there is another rational explanation.
When I perform self-hypnosis I have practised to an extent where I can conjure up a scene in my mind, of my choice, and it is very difficult for me to distinuish between true reality. I can see, touch, sense, talk and interact with a scene completely inside my head.
The first time this happened it seemed so real that it took me a while to realise that I was still in a trance - actually someone in my imaginary scene reminded me that I was!
Most people could never contemplate that the human brain is capable of delivering such an experience, and hence attribute a supernatural cause. "It must have been a revelation from God", etc.
People believe so strongly that what they felt was 'so real', what else could it be. I can assure these people that I have much more vivid experiences, much greater sensations than they have at the moment, simply by knowing how to use my brain. As soon as you realise that it is you creating these feelings - and that you control them - you have the power to pratice and refine them.

The zone is not what I am talking about. I was a zone junky and after playing a low level of professional tennis, I took up surfing (more zone than any other activity I know. ) and then I daytraded full time for about 7 years. (reasonable amount of zone at times). I also became pretty good at meditation. I can still drop into a very relaxed state very quickly. I can tune out my wife with the best of them. Just ask. (joke)

The zone is not what I am talking about. It almost the opposite. The zone is almost a transcendent, in the moment experience. I am not talking about focused in the moment experience.

 

[jem]

Quote from vhehn:

If “faith” is a prerequisite in a belief in order to see the truth of the belief, being if there were evidence there would be no need for “faith” in any particular belief.
All supernatural beliefs require “faith” in its truth, being there is no evidence proving any particular belief.
So it must be the “faith” itself that dictates what is true.
Therefore every one of the worlds religions are true, being they all rely on the “faith” of the believer to see its truth. -Unknown

more binary thinking. But I like binary arguments too - so will give you some binary thinking I am comfortable with.

faith may put you in tune but truth is objective.

Like I said I have not the time not the background to show you the truth right now. But, I realize I should and I will.

I am going to start a blog where I keep track of the best discussions and their counters.

I disagree with your statement about evidence. I have given you evidence from nobel prize winners which has stated that if we only have one universe this universe looks designed.
Being that there is no evidence of any other universes - how can you argue with the fact there is evidence of a Creator. You might not find evidence persuasive - but there is evidence for those who look.

Also, if I find prophecy which has been fulfilled you could call it luck -- if you start to find very specific prophecy and you start seeing fulfilled frequently - in my opinon you start to have evidence.

I am not sure I will find enough prophecy but I will look.

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from jem:

more binary thinking. But I like binary arguments too - so will give you some binary thinking I am comfortable with.

faith may put you in tune but truth is objective.

Like I said I have not the time not the background to show you the truth right now. But, I realize I should and I will.

I am going to start a blog where I keep track of the best discussions and their counters.

I disagree with your statement about evidence. I have given you evidence from nobel prize winners which has stated that if we only have one universe this universe looks designed.
Being that there is no evidence of any other universes - how can you argue with the fact there is evidence of a Creator. You might not find evidence persuasive - but there is evidence for those who look.

Also, if I find prophecy which has been fulfilled you could call it luck -- if you start to find very specific prophecy and you start seeing fulfilled frequently - in my opinon you start to have evidence.

I am not sure I will find enough prophecy but I will look.

As I pointed out before, there is nothing evidential about the anthropic principle. I wonder if this counter-argument will make it into your blog.

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from kut2k2:

The history of science is full of fallible human beings. That is why science is not dependent on any one person or any particular group of persons. Amateur astronomers can make discoveries right along with professional astronomers.

Science is a consensus, not a dictatorship.

And what you utterly fail to realize is that science is a work in progress. It is never "finished".....

=======================
Good points.
And Algore doesnt even define ''consensus '' on global warming, ANYwhere near the way Mr Webster, the dictionary king does define ''consensus''.Algore is a serial liar.

And his [Algore]comment upon learning that the US supreme court ruled against his presidental election attempt ''God works in mysterious ways'' Actually nothing mysterious about it at all-neither God nor the supreme court/many Americans , wanted Algore elected president. LOL

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from murray t turtle:

=======================
Good points.
And Algore doesnt even define ''consensus '' on global warming, ANYwhere near the way Mr Webster, the dictionary king does define ''consensus''.Algore is a serial liar.

And his [Algore]comment upon learning that the US supreme court ruled against his presidental election attempt ''God works in mysterious ways'' Actually nothing mysterious about it at all-neither God nor the supreme court/many Americans , wanted Algore elected president. LOL

A clear majority of American voters in 2000 wanted Al Gore elected President. LOL

And spare me the speech on the Electoral College. Maybe someday that abomination will go the way of the state-legislator-elected Senate.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from jem:


faith may put you in tune but truth is objective.

Like I said I have not the time not the background to show you the truth right now. But, I realize I should and I will.

I am going to start a blog where I keep track of the best discussions and their counters.

i spent some time searching for the truth today and i ran across this song by a christian group that really helped me better understand the value of faith. i have to apologize for being so slow to understand. even though i dont like blind faith myself i can see where is is useful at times. feel free to use this song on your blog. i am sure it will help unbelievers come to a better understanding of religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0Bp-YTWvjw&feature=sub

 

[jem]

Quote from kut2k2:

As I pointed out before, there is nothing evidential about the anthropic principle. I wonder if this counter-argument will make it into your blog.

you made an argument before that either

1. there could be other carbon universes.

In which case you would be conceding this universe - the only one we have evidence of looks designed.

Or

2. that you are not willing to concede how incredibly lucky we are that this universe is so finely tuned because there could have been other universes which had not carbon based life forms.

Again - you have to realize what stretch of an argument you are making simply to deny that this universe appears designed. (and your argument is dismissed by some top physicists as a stretch.)

Finally you could be arguing that there are almost infinite other landscapes or universes. Therefore the appearance of design in this one does not really mean anything because we are lucky enough to be in the one which sustains life.

I acknowledged you were aware of the counters to the AP argument. I hope you don't think that you argument is conclusive (or even very persuasive. )

If you do - I can show you top physicists who do not agree.