Why does God allow...

[DemZad]

Quote from Free Thinker:

yes i have. you will find it on this list:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

First, I accept evolution as valid. However, I have a different take on the law than the one explained by talkorigins. In fact, I cite the law as proof that there is an existence after "death".

At our basic level we are energy..on that I am sure we can agree. In fact, everything, at its basic level, is energy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It simply changes form within an isolated system (i.e.: our universe).

Now, let's apply that to the idea of consciousness. Can you tell me the part of the brain that houses our consciousness?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Free Thinker:

without the religious texts where does the concept of a god come from today? certainly not from any evidence?

The evidence for billions who believe in (some kind of) God is feelings.

 

[DemZad]

Quote from Ricter:

The evidence for billions who believe in (some kind of) God is feelings.

And of course the problem with that (for atheists) is feelings cannot be proven...which is why I try to use science.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from Ricter:

The evidence for billions who believe in (some kind of) God is feelings.

and feelings are nothing more than emotions. emotions are what scientists most want to eliminate when they are doing evidence based testing on something like drug studies.
throuhout history feelings/emotions have proven wrong countless times.


I think I do understand god. I actually think a good working definition of "atheist" is "one who understands what a god is". It is like magic; once you understand how the trick is done it is no longer magic. Understanding destroys faith. (Mark Richardson)

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from DAS Trader:

And of course the problem with that (for atheists) is feelings cannot be proven...which is why I try to use science.

What should I trust . . . the scientific method which allows 1000 independent scientists to come to the same conclusion . . . or a 1000 independent theists who each hold a separate picture of supposedly the same single deity, and all without a shred of evidence or research to repeat independently? Whatever we do know about the universe is all due to science -

 

[Ricter]

Quote from DAS Trader:

And of course the problem with that (for atheists) is feelings cannot be proven.

Well, we can't prove that the "blue" you perceive is the same blue that I perceive, but as long as we both agree on a specific instance of blue than we can be sure we're "calibrated", ie., we don't need to know of our brain processes are identical. So, if I have feelings, and you have feelings, than we can agree that feelings are real. Now, to prove that a specific symbolic representation of your feeling, or my feeling, is true, we have to define what can be true. Western man tends to default to the practical definition of "evidence", the five-senses default that all (except the handicapped) have, and that's fine, but it's not the only way. Should there be a six sense, perhaps only now in its nascent stage, how will those with but five be able to understand? This is the Flatland problem.

 

[DemZad]

Quote from Free Thinker:

and feelings are nothing more than emotions. emotions are what scientists most want to eliminate when they are doing evidence based testing on something like drug studies.
throuhout history feelings/emotions have proven wrong countless times.

They have also been right countless times. Not everyone's "feelings" are developed to the same level. Also, how do you explain extra sensory perception?

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from DAS Trader:

Also, how do you explain extra sensory perception?

bs

"There is no reason to examine the question of whether there's a god or not until there's a reason to postulate one." - dloubet

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Free Thinker:

and feelings are nothing more than

"Nothing more than", you understand where you get that attitude, right? It comes from your feeling that you already know what can be true, ie. you've made up your mind in advance.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from Ricter:

Well, we can't prove that the "blue" you perceive is the same blue that I perceive, but as long as we both agree on a specific instance of blue than we can be sure we're "calibrated", ie., we don't need to know of our brain processes are identical. So, if I have feelings, and you have feelings, than we can agree that feelings are real. Now, to prove that a specific symbolic representation of your feeling, or my feeling, is true, we have to define what can be true. Western man tends to default to the practical definition of "evidence", the five-senses default that all (except the handicapped) have, and that's fine, but it's not the only way. Should there be a six sense, perhaps only now in its nascent stage, how will those with but five be able to understand? This is the Flatland problem.

substitute "feelings" for faith.


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