Lest we forget

[TomOfSweden]

I'd say you hit the nail on the head with repeatability. But when you're studying the supernatural, what you're looking for is the lack of repeatability. There must be some proof that the laws of nature is at some point inconsistent. Which is admittedly hard, and we've quite a bit to go before having consistent theories that cover everything. The best we have is to judge which explanation is the most reasonable, (and that doesn't mean just picking whatever sounds good. It requires masses amount of proof).

God or anything supernatural isn't needed any longer to make a consistent model in the world. We've seen life spring up in vacuum from nothing but a couple of aminoacids and start reproducing in a laboratory spontaneusly. Introducing the concept of god into modern science today is standing it on it's head, making the models infinitely more complex. It just sounds easy..ie somebody just fixed it so we don't have to worry. But if god makes something from nothing, displacing matter each time it medles in the world, the effects would rapidly become catastrophic for us. Or maybe god thinks of that

There's not a lot in psychology that is considered science. The biology and neuroscience parts of psychology is very much proper science. But not the study of behaviour. Yes, they aply the scientific method, but their results are not repeatable in a way science accepts, which invalidates it as a scientific subject.

Trying to prove god by counting how many people have seen god just isn't valid evidence. Not acording to science. To reiterate. Because of the nature of the human brain, we cannot trust our own senses. We have to use external measurement devices. The human brain interprets all data instantly. Everything is filtered and nothing we see can be considered as raw data. Ie if we believe in god we can see god, if we don't we won't. This much psychology can tell us.

"Perhaps that is the real definition of faith, is one prepared to step from the circle of disbelief into the circle of belief."

I agree. But to quote Martin Luther. "The authority of Scripture is greater than the comprehension of the whole of man's reason." ie just don't think. Faith is based on and needs blind unreasoning.

I still admire you for your courage. You are very intelligent and give me a good match. I too have promissed myself never to post in this thread or any relgion thread many times. I just get sucked into it. Where's my Master when I need one. It's just that I feel strongly about this subject. We've got religious propaganda blasting us continously from every direction. Even in atheist Sweden the assault of brainwashing propaganda is massive. I just feel we've got to fight it or it'll take over and take us out of the enlightened age. Each time I see polititians telling scientists what they can and can't study I always feel uneasy. The only measure should be whether people suffer from teh science. Right? Not if god likes it or not?

[cariad]

I'd say you hit the nail on the head with repeatability. But when you're studying the supernatural, what you're looking for is the lack of repeatability. There must be some proof that the laws of nature is at some point inconsistent. Which is admittedly hard, and we've quite a bit to go before having consistent theories that cover everything. The best we have is to judge which explanation is the most reasonable, (and that doesn't mean just picking whatever sounds good. It requires masses amount of proof).

I would disagree that one is looking for lack of repeatability, rather one is looking for repeatable or at least frequent inconsistencies or illogicalities in the physical world which cannot reasonably addressed by physical sciences, and I do not exclude the fact that more answers will be found as scientific knowledge progresses. I hope someone will take me for a very cold shower if I ever suggest that everything we do not currently understand has to have a supernatural explanation.

God or anything supernatural isn't needed any longer to make a consistent model in the world. We've seen life spring up in vacuum from nothing but a couple of aminoacids and start reproducing in a laboratory spontaneusly. Introducing the concept of god into modern science today is standing it on it's head, making the models infinitely more complex. It just sounds easy..ie somebody just fixed it so we don't have to worry. But if god makes something from nothing, displacing matter each time it medles in the world, the effects would rapidly become catastrophic for us. Or maybe god thinks of that

Your example begs the question of how do you generate the first amino acids. That in itself does not prove the existence of a creator God, but it is a question to which I am yet to hear a plausible alternative answer. I do not see modern science and God as being in conflict, to take the relatively simple example of gravity which I cited before. That is fully predictable by simple equations without a supernatural constant or variable to complicate it. I would challenge anyone who plays the supernatural card as an easy explanation to an unsolved problem. I would also argue that there are times it is the only reasonable answer – that is unless as a primary condition you have discounted it as being unacceptable. I am always very sceptical of healings, the placebo effect works in all areas of life, however when you have a pair of scans, one showing a long term lesion and then a few weeks later, after request for supernatural intervention, another showing no lesion, one has to look beyond known science for an explanation.

Grins – well I would say that thankfully God is a pretty clued up guy, and yes, I think He would have thought of the issues regarding meddling.

There's not a lot in psychology that is considered science. The biology and neuroscience parts of psychology is very much proper science. But not the study of behaviour. Yes, they aply the scientific method, but their results are not repeatable in a way science accepts, which invalidates it as a scientific subject.

I could not agree more, very little of psychology is a science. That does not mean that it is invalid though, just that it has to be considered in a different light.

Trying to prove god by counting how many people have seen god just isn't valid evidence. Not acording to science. To reiterate. Because of the nature of the human brain, we cannot trust our own senses. We have to use external measurement devices. The human brain interprets all data instantly. Everything is filtered and nothing we see can be considered as raw data. Ie if we believe in god we can see god, if we don't we won't. This much psychology can tell us.

Is science the only acceptable proof of anything? I fully agree it is the easiest, but unless we wish to limit our thinking and appreciation of the world we have to go beyond its tempting simplicity.

"Perhaps that is the real definition of faith, is one prepared to step from the circle of disbelief into the circle of belief."

I agree. But to quote Martin Luther. "The authority of Scripture is greater than the comprehension of the whole of man's reason." ie just don't think. Faith is based on and needs blind unreasoning.

The authority of scripture, of God, of the church and secular bodies is something I have been giving a lot of thought to recently. It is a debate in its own right, but I would utterly refute your suggestion that the quote you gives means just don’t think. I don’t know the dynamics of your relationship with your slave, other than you are clearly delighted with her. I am quite sure that she has accepted your authority in at least many areas of her life, I am equally sure that you do would not wish her to stop thinking, to squash her personality or just blindly accept you.

I was brought up to accept the Christian faith because it was right, no questions asked. If you don’t understand that just shows that you are not old enough or not clever enough to understand. Now be a good girl and get your Sunday dress on. Hardly surprisingly, I rebelled against that, there is nothing blind or unreasoning about my belief. Furthermore, when I have interchange with people who have blindly accepted, I will gently challenge them to consider it. Not because I wish to change to their mind, but because I think it is important that something as important as a faith which influences the way you lead your life is carefully considered.

I still admire you for your courage. You are very intelligent and give me a good match. I too have promissed myself never to post in this thread or any relgion thread many times. I just get sucked into it. Where's my Master when I need one. It's just that I feel strongly about this subject. We've got religious propaganda blasting us continously from every direction. Even in atheist Sweden the assault of brainwashing propaganda is massive. I just feel we've got to fight it or it'll take over and take us out of the enlightened age. Each time I see polititians telling scientists what they can and can't study I always feel uneasy. The only measure should be whether people suffer from teh science. Right? Not if god likes it or not?

Nothing like a little flattery – but it cost more than that to buy me . But we could have a great dinner party for two, which would last well into the next day…

I am fortunate I live in part of the world/country where I do not have religious propaganda continuously thrust at me. In my view propaganda is wrong, even if what it is promoting is right. It encourages a blind acceptance and yes even possibly a brain washing. Further more, the God whom I believe in gave us freewill. If one accepts his existence and power then who better to brain wash us, yet he chose not to. If God thinks it is wrong to brain wash people into believing in him then it must be wrong for people to do so. (hmmm, that is rather a nice complete argument if you think it through.)

Should politicians tell scientists what they should and should not study? I would like to say that an ethical monitoring body, with a perfect crystal ball, (not politicians) should do so. Not all scientific discovery has been used for the good of mankind. But reality is that any such bar is only likely to delay the work, so I would propose that rather than barring scientific study and education we put even greater resources into ethical education which will hopefully ensure that discoveries are used wisely.

I don’t think the frontiers of science should be stopped because they might throw doubt on the supernatural. I have no wish to live with my head in the sand. I am confident enough in my faith to think that it will not be shaken by any discovery. If however it is, then I will have to reconsider my position in light of all the new evidence.

You say that you fear being taken out of the enlightened age. I went through to stage of embracing science as the beautiful explanation for our world, and just eagerly awaiting more discoveries to give more explanations. To me that was the dark age of my reasoning. My enlightenment came when I start to see how the physical and supernatural worlds co-exist, and I cannot see why God should not be pleased with each discovery which we make, regardless of which bit of the world it belongs to.

cariad

[TomOfSweden]

Dammit, you didn't go for the simple baits You're good.

You say god is an intelligent being involved with the humans. Why christianity. Why not Budhism, Pantheism, Hinduism, Satanism or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? They can't all be right. The concept of god is diametrically different for all of them. If your vision of god is correct, they must be wrong. Why and how? How did your deduction work?

There's other problems regarding the christian god. If he's imnipotent, why would he care about us? It's not like we care about ants. What's in it for god? What does it care? And if god hasn't got the same chemical value system, (in the brain) as humans, how can god relate to us? How can god understand what we value and what we want? If it does because it built our brains, then we hardly have free will do we? Not to mention the big question if we really have free will, which is pretty far from obvious.

I'd hardly think the scientific method is the easiest method of evaluating data. That degree was a bastard to complete. But it's pretty much all we've got today. The Greeks introduced a couple of new ones, but Imhoteps, (the one we use today) is still the best some 4500 years later. Is there any other method used today for judging any complex system? Besides just using common sense. I'm mean, it's not like Christianity is a system of finding truth. It's just one hypothesis. And to judge it we need to use a method. Is there a better one than science?

You're quite right about me valueing my lovely, sharp, outspoken and wonderful slaves brain. I wouldn't have it any other way. It was undoubtedly her intelligence I fell in love with. She's good. I wish I had her brain.

So does a combination of flattery and dinner work on you?

[cariad]

If we are debating the nature of God, does that mean that we have agreed that he/she/it/they exist?

...and dinner and flattery, that comes close to playing dirty.

cariad

[TomOfSweden]

If we are debating the nature of God, does that mean that we have agreed that he/she/it/they exist?

...and dinner and flattery, that comes close to playing dirty.

cariad

Yeah I know. I play to win. I'm ruthless. You didn't answer how you know the other religions are wrong?

[cariad]

I can see little point in debating the merits of different religions if we have not reached an agreement on the existence of the supernatural. You are not going to side track me that easily.

cariad

[TomOfSweden]

I can see little point in debating the merits of different religions if we have not reached an agreement on the existence of the supernatural. You are not going to side track me that easily.

cariad

It's not side tracking, it's proving my point. If we assume the supernatural exists, we have still no reason what so ever for being christian in particular.

If the supernatural exists what makes you think you have any idea what god wants? What makes you think god gives a rats ass about anybody. God might just as well have created the world to cater for the mice, and it only speaks to them? The devil might have created man to make life hard for them in laboratories. It's equally plausible. The nation of Islam might be right, ie the white man is the spawn of Satan. Or the Christian Donatists, who claim that the Bible is the work of Satan, Or the Greek pantheon, Or the Norse Sagas . That's my point. What if god just is a prankster and thinks it's fun stiring up trouble, like the god Loki? It's a more credible god then the christian one.

All religions are false, because they make claims they have no backing to make. Just proving the supernatural exists is very important if you're religious but it makes no case for any particular religion. What if this supernatural diety acts completely random? What if there is a god but no system of it's actions at all?

If you just settle for presenting some vague psychological evidence that their may exist something supernatural but fail to make a case for the nature of this supernatural force, then you are just weaseling out of it. Since we don't know what is "genuine" acts of god and which aren't it's impossible to work out from gods actions the nature of god. A statistician would have a field day with christian claims.

Here's a little thought. Propaganda that convey messages we share are rarely labeled as propaganda. We all like having our views confirmed. I just saw the film Pans Labyrinth. It was a nice little fairy tale. A beautiful and gruesome story. That film was blatant christian propaganda. It really hammered in the Bible and the story of christ. Some things where even confusing if you didn't understand christian concepts. Since it's for kids, I assume the point is that kids should ask their parents about them. Christian propaganda is absolutely everywhere.

[cariad]

Smiles - still not convinced it is not a side track, since to me it is actually a subsequent debate.

Once one has decided that there is a supernatural element, unless one just wishes to sit feeling smug and do nothing about it, it is logical to try to understand it better. And I fully agree, the mere existence of the supernatural does not evidence one creative force, let alone a God as is understood by Christians, and most certainly does not support that faith nor any other.

I use the term faith as opposed to religion, because to me they are two different things. Faith is focused on the supernatural and my relationship with it, religion is about manmade interface between myself and the supernatural.

In an attempt to understand it is foolish not to look at what established faiths offer as understandings. I have looked at some, but most certainly not all, and have listened sympathetically to adherents of those faiths. In each case I considered the logic and completeness of the faith, and tested it against my experience. I do not believe that this is the place to post why I believe other faiths which I have looked at to be wrong. That statement in itself will have upset some people, and I hasten to stress that it is just a statement of my own personal belief.

I do however think it is acceptable to say that I think Christianity is right, (and TDS, if as mod of this forum, you wish to edit this post, please do not hesitate to do so). My personal journey to faith included initially rejecting all established churches since the religion and tradition masked what I have come to accept as the truth.

Tom, I know you reject the bible, and apart from giving some either inaccurate or misleading statements regarding its date, depending on how you interpret what you say, you give no evidence for it being wrong. Having stepped away from established churches I looked at the explanation of the supernatural as explained in that series of texts. I looked at it in the same way that I looked at other faiths, with a completely open mind. The difference is that it made logical sense to me, and matched with my experience.

Eventually, and that is after a degree of challenging of myself and the texts, decided that for me, the Christian faith was the truth and decided to embrace it. I remain analytic in my study of it, but can only say, that for me, the more I discover, the more it makes total sense.

-----

I have not seen the film to which you referred, so cannot make an observation on whether it is propaganda or not. To me, propaganda is something which encourages someone into a blind acceptance of something as fact. That I believe to be wrong. I do not accept that it is wrong to use literature, whether on paper or on the screen, as a means of encouraging thought. As a teenage I was inspired by the Isaac Asimov books, they triggered my imagination and encouraged my interest in some sciences, but I would not say that was propaganda, just positive use of a media. Without having seen the film you mentioned I would not like to say whether I believed it was doing more than offering Christianity as a possible explanation.

cariad

[TomOfSweden]

Smiles - still not convinced it is not a side track, since to me it is actually a subsequent debate.

I do think it's part of the same issue. As far as I'm concearned, what we are discussing is whether believing in the supernatural is smart or stupid. As I see it there's two distinct parts of the issue.

1) Is there such a thing as the supernatural?
2) If there is, how does it work?

More issues can be introduced like, if there is one or more conciousnesness governing the supernatural is it intelligent? And if it is, how intelligent? With that I mean, knowing everything doesn't help if you can't draw the correct conclusions.

Once one has decided that there is a supernatural element, unless one just wishes to sit feeling smug and do nothing about it, it is logical to try to understand it better. And I fully agree, the mere existence of the supernatural does not evidence one creative force, let alone a God as is understood by Christians, and most certainly does not support that faith nor any other.

Yes, but how can you? Does god control everything, or just a little? What laws govern the supernatural? It's only possible to reason about the nature of the supernatural if you beforehand define the premises, (just as all christian scholars have to do). But if you can't, (which is the reality in which we live) then you can never ever make any claim on the nature of god what so ever. It just gets silly. Any conclusion will be an argument from ignorance. Mathematically there is one chance among the infinite that the the christian theory of the universe is correct. If you in spite of this make any claim what so ever about the nature of the universe, then you are ignoring the premises. You would then be pretending to have a plausible explanation when you have no such thing. There are a number of interesting theories backed by pretty numbers on the nature of the universe. Christianity hasn't even got that.

I use the term faith as opposed to religion, because to me they are two different things. Faith is focused on the supernatural and my relationship with it, religion is about manmade interface between myself and the supernatural.

I'm only interested in discussing faith in the supernatural. I've got no problems with religion. I think, I and the rest of humanity need plenty of guidance in life. I have no problems with religions giving guidance. But for me personaly, if the whole religion hinges on a premis that is impossible to back up then I would stay far away from it.

In an attempt to understand it is foolish not to look at what established faiths offer as understandings.

Considering the history of mankind I beg to differ. The more people believe something and the longer they have believed it the greater chance people accept it as truth no matter what, (I've seen and read plenty of research on this and I'm sure I can dig it up again if nobody here belives me). This means that we should be even more critical toward any philosophical system that is old, like christianity for example

I have looked at some, but most certainly not all, and have listened sympathetically to adherents of those faiths. In each case I considered the logic and completeness of the faith, and tested it against my experience. I do not believe that this is the place to post why I believe other faiths which I have looked at to be wrong. That statement in itself will have upset some people, and I hasten to stress that it is just a statement of my own personal belief.

I do however think it is acceptable to say that I think Christianity is right, (and TDS, if as mod of this forum, you wish to edit this post, please do not hesitate to do so). My personal journey to faith included initially rejecting all established churches since the religion and tradition masked what I have come to accept as the truth.

Again, you can't use logic and reason about the nature of god, because you don't have any material to work with. If there is a god you or anybody else will never know what god wants. That is cold hard fact. Considering the vastness of the infinite, chances are pretty good that all religions are wrong. That's cold, hard statistical facts.

Tom, I know you reject the bible, and apart from giving some either inaccurate or misleading statements regarding its date, depending on how you interpret what you say, you give no evidence for it being wrong. Having stepped away from established churches I looked at the explanation of the supernatural as explained in that series of texts. I looked at it in the same way that I looked at other faiths, with a completely open mind. The difference is that it made logical sense to me, and matched with my experience.

Eventually, and that is after a degree of challenging of myself and the texts, decided that for me, the Christian faith was the truth and decided to embrace it. I remain analytic in my study of it, but can only say, that for me, the more I discover, the more it makes total sense.

I've admitedly mostly used wikipedia. It's all the data I have access to here. The books I've read on it have all been lent and returned from and to the library. As far as I know I haven't written anything inaccurate. I might have been off by a half a century or so, or been wrong on proportions. And we are talking history here, which means that all facts are at best pretty ify, no matter what camp you're in. But I haven't written anything I can't back up with some sort of source. And compared to most other texts in the world, we actually do know quite a lot about how the bible came to be. We do after all have the meticulate records of the Vatican to access. There's no shortage of research that's been done in the field.

I have not seen the film to which you referred, so cannot make an observation on whether it is propaganda or not. To me, propaganda is something which encourages someone into a blind acceptance of something as fact. That I believe to be wrong. I do not accept that it is wrong to use literature, whether on paper or on the screen, as a means of encouraging thought. As a teenage I was inspired by the Isaac Asimov books, they triggered my imagination and encouraged my interest in some sciences, but I would not say that was propaganda, just positive use of a media. Without having seen the film you mentioned I would not like to say whether I believed it was doing more than offering Christianity as a possible explanation.

Propaganda is just about spreading information very agressively. Like a political campaign for instance. I have no problems with propaganda as such. Christianity makes quite a number of unsubstantiated claims, and I think it's bad hammering in guesswork as truth.

[himind]

I prefer Hinduism. "There are so many paths to the top of the hill,but the view is always the same".For me the true test of any religion is the ease with which it embraces other religions.Whenver one starts presuming the truth is its divine right, I fail to find it of interest,although I don't decry it unless lives are at sake.

[cariad]

Tom, I will post a reply to you in a moment. With my mod's hat on, and, not as part of that reply can I ask you not to state that something is a lie. As you have said we are dealing with sensitive subjects here, and whilst you may believe that the Bible is wrong, and this forum encourages people to give their opinion, I think it is approaching a breach of the rules of this site to go further.

Thanks,

cariad

[TomOfSweden]

No matter what I have the greatest respect for you Cariad. And when I've been bad you tell me off in the nicest possible way. You are sharp and you deserve more respect than I just gave you. Sorry about that.

[cariad]

Smiles - and I have the greatest respect for you too Tom, and thank you for the modifications you made, I can put my mods hat away now, try not to be distracted by your flattery, and attempt to finish my reply to you.

Hugs

cariad

[cariad]

I have to admit that most of this reply has been penned by ColinClout. I was chatting to him when your post appeared, and copied it over to him. Since he has already typed out what he thinks, and I agree with him and certainly cannot express it any more eloquently, I will post his replies. (He does not visit the site anymore.) The last section is straight from me, since he had to leave to attend to other matters, I am sure you will note the change in style - he uses bigger words and more complex syntax.

-----

I do think it's part of the same issue. As far as I'm concerned, what we are discussing is whether believing in the supernatural is smart or stupid. As I see it there's two distinct parts of the issue.

1) Is there such a thing as the supernatural?
2) If there is, how does it work?

More issues can be introduced like, if there is one or more consciousnesses governing the supernatural is it intelligent? And if it is, how intelligent? With that I mean, knowing everything doesn't help if you can't draw the correct conclusions.

1) A serious question over the idea of a purely naturalistic multiverse is that of determinism. If there is nothing except nature (nothing supernatural) then we seem to be left with a mechanistic multiverse, where all effects proceed from natural causes. This means that the event of someone having the thought 'There is nothing supernatural' is itself only an effect of natural causes. As such, it has no definite truth value.

2) there is nothing irrational in stating that reason cannot answer everything. Once a supernatural being such as the Christian God has been hypothesised, it is rational to admit that He cannot be fully comprehended or explained.

Yes, but how can you? Does god control everything, or just a little? What laws govern the supernatural? It's only possible to reason about the nature of the supernatural if you beforehand define the premises, (just as all christian scholars have to do). But if you can't, (which is the reality in which we live) then you can never ever make any claim on the nature of god what so ever. It just gets silly. Any conclusion will be an argument from ignorance. Mathematically there is one chance among the infinite that the the christian theory of the universe is correct. If you in spite of this make any claim what so ever about the nature of the universe, then you are lying. You would then be pretending to have a plausible explanation when you have no such thing. There are a number of interesting theories backed by pretty numbers on the nature of the universe. Christianity hasn't even got that.

You say 'Mathematically there is one chance among the infinite that the the christian theory of the universe is correct. If you in spite of this make any claim what so ever about the nature of the universe, then you are lying.' This is misleading. In the first place, one chance among the infinite is a vanishingly small chance, but it is not the same as no chance at all. If an extremely unlikely chance had not taken place, then the necessary circumstances for human evolution could not have taken place, yet to argue after the event that since it is so unlikely it has not happened is nonsensical.

Secondly, to make a statement on the basis of limited knowledge, is not lying. In fact, as you yourself argue, there is no other basis on which we can make any statement. Christians say that they believe, on the basis of all the available evidence, that existence has certain attributes, and choose to live on the basis. Non-Christians do the same, making a different interpretation of the evidence.

I'm only interested in discussing faith in the supernatural. I've got no problems with religion. I think, I and the rest of humanity need plenty of guidance in life. I have no problems with religions giving guidance. But for me personaly, if the whole religion hinges of a premis that is a lie then I would stay far away from it.

You have introduced (at least) two value judgements there: 1) humans need 'guidance' (towards what? away from what? for what purpose?) 2) our actions should be predicated on the truth, not on lies. The most important question here, then, is: where do these values come from? Why should we adhere to them?

Considering the history of mankind I beg to differ. The more people believe something and the longer they have believed it the greater chance people accept it as truth no matter what, (I've seen and read plenty of research on this and I'm sure I can dig it up again if nobody here belives me). This means that we should be even more critical toward any philosophical system that is old, like christianity for example

Of course we should be critical - but that holds good for all thought systems. And it is impossible to be intelligently critical without an understanding of what it is we are criticising. And to take an example: if you have known from a very young age that your mother's name was Helen, would that knowledge hold less weight for you than someone telling you today that she was called Derek? the age of a belief is not strictly relevant - more important is the evidence in support of it. One might even argue on the contrary that the fact that for centuries thousands of people have found something credible, whereas a newer theory is as yet untested, counts in favour of older beliefs, but that is not an absolute argument.

Again, you can't use logic and reason about the nature of god, because you don't have any material to work with. If there is a god you or anybody else will never know what god wants. That is cold hard fact. Considering the vastness of the infinite, chances are pretty good that all religions are wrong. That's cold, hard statistical facts.

I agree with you - the exercise of human reason and imagination could never have come to an accurate conclusion about God. That is precisely why Christianity has never argued that it could.

As human beings we can speculate on the nature of the universe, and we can produce any number of theories that will more or less 'save appearances' (i.e. account for all known phenomena). God is the only one in a position of perfect knowledge (which, to respond to one of your earlier points, means he does not need to infer anything, and therefore can't infer wrongly) who can make a totally accurate statement about the nature of things.

Christians state that God has made such a statement, has revealed what we could not have discovered for ourselves, and what we could not have been sure of otherwise.

Yet once that revelation has been made, it can be tested against our knowledge from other sources, judged on its own evidential merits, and we can see what credibility it has. Are the texts reliable, does the world picture they present match our own experience, and so on. On this basis, like any thinking person, we can then decide whether or not we think this is the most likely picture of how things are.

I've admitedly mostly used wikipedia. ... end

The bible most certainly has a set of answers. Other faiths have other sets of answers, sometimes complimentary, sometimes opposing, but they are still a set of answers. Now clearly they cannot all be right, but it is possible that one has the complete truth, it is possible that all have parts of that truth, it is possible that some or all are completely wrong.

I think it is part of our individual development to decide for ourselves which, if any, we embrace, using all the tools we have at our disposal to make the best decision possible. Himind has gone down a similiar route and found a different answer. Other people have posted their different conclusions.

Although I have made a personal decision to believe what the bible says, I completely agree with you that it is wrong to hammer it as the truth. I will willingly share with anyone who invites me to do so, what it says; I will tell them why I believe it is right; but I will always leave them with the challenge to decide for themselves.

Colin Clout & cariad

[TomOfSweden]

[COLOR="Navy"]

1) A serious question over the idea of a purely naturalistic multiverse is that of determinism. If there is nothing except nature (nothing supernatural) then we seem to be left with a mechanistic multiverse, where all effects proceed from natural causes. This means that the event of someone having the thought 'There is nothing supernatural' is itself only an effect of natural causes. As such, it has no definite truth value.

2) there is nothing irrational in stating that reason cannot answer everything. Once a supernatural being such as the Christian God has been hypothesised, it is rational to admit that He cannot be fully comprehended or explained.

I've never claimed there's no supernatural force. I think that after studying the evidence it's the most likely conclusion. But that's not what this discussion is about. Not personal opinion but proof. The supernatural has no evidence what so ever suporting it, so it makes a weak case. All we have is blank spots on the map. We, (the humans) used to asume that the blank spots was covered by the supernatural because we had no other explanation. Today we do, and little by little the supernatural explanations are losing ground.

We can only use reason if we have premises to work from. If the material we are drawing conclusions from is infinate, then we can't say anything.

Let's create two possible hypothetical universes. One allows for the supernatural and the other doesn't. The non-supernatural is complex but has it's limitations and we can make plausible theories, while the supernatural one is infinate since the supernatural has no limits. This isn't a case against the supernatural, but if we believe in the supernatural then we can't say anything about it. That's where reason fails us.

[COLOR="Navy"]
You say 'Mathematically there is one chance among the infinite that the the christian theory of the universe is correct. If you in spite of this make any claim what so ever about the nature of the universe, then you are lying.' This is misleading. In the first place, one chance among the infinite is a vanishingly small chance, but it is not the same as no chance at all. If an extremely unlikely chance had not taken place, then the necessary circumstances for human evolution could not have taken place, yet to argue after the event that since it is so unlikely it has not happened is nonsensical.

Sorry, you missunderstood. What I meant was that if something is extremly unlikely, then it's stupid to have faith in it being true. It's a bit like buying a lottery ticket, taking multi-million dollar loans on the assumtion that the ticket will be the jackpot. This I think we all recognise as stupidity. Yet the chance of the christian theory of god being correct is less but it's still taken seriously by so many.

We have no idea whether or not human evolution is unlikely or not. I belong to the camp who believes that given the right circumstances life springs up easily. And aplying this to statistics, means that the universe is teeming with life. But this is off-course assumptions, because if we aply statistics again, we'll quickly realise that we're drawing assumptions from one single specimin, (earth) which we all know is bad science.

[COLOR="Navy"]
Secondly, to make a statement on the basis of limited knowledge, is not lying. In fact, as you yourself argue, there is no other basis on which we can make any statement. Christians say that they believe, on the basis of all the available evidence, that existence has certain attributes, and choose to live on the basis. Non-Christians do the same, making a different interpretation of the evidence.

This is where christian logic fails. You're still stuck on trying to prove whether the supernatural can be true or not. That's only step one. Christianity isn't about having faith in any supernatural force. It's about atributing it a whole host of attributes that we have no reason what so ever to give it. That's not making a different interpretation, that's just deluding yourself. Interpretation is about actually looking at the data, not just making stuff up.

I'll respect a "maybe christian". Somebody who would like the christian belief system to be true, but doesn't really know. Somebody who thinks the Bible is a great ethical system and who thinks the church is a great place to meet other nice people. It would be great if we went to heaven, but probably we won't. Going any further than this is deluding yourself or drawing erroneous conclusions.

[COLOR="Navy"]
You have introduced (at least) two value judgements there: 1) humans need 'guidance' (towards what? away from what? for what purpose?) 2) our actions should be predicated on the truth, not on lies. The most important question here, then, is: where do these values come from? Why should we adhere to them?

Yes. I think guidance is nice. I think I was pretty clear that that part was a value judgement from my side. I won't claim it as irrefutable truth.

Next one. Truth is needed for comunication. If we don't strive toward truth then we cannot comunicate. Even such a thing as drawing conclusions. correctness is a synonym to truth. If we don't strive toward truth we cannot make conclusions that make any sense at all. It is a value judgement as far as I'd like us to strive toward truth because I enjoy being able to reason. If I wouldn't strive toward truth all my actions would be random.

[COLOR="Navy"]
I agree with you - the exercise of human reason and imagination could never have come to an accurate conclusion about God. That is precisely why Christianity has never argued that it could.

That's just pretty words. Saying that christians don't claim to understand everything about god isn't the same thing as christians don't claim anything about god. Once you make any claims as to what god wants, ie the commandments you've invalidated that claim. Christians attribute a lot to god. Just the thing about going to heaven. That's a very definate claim of the nature of god and the supernatural.

[COLOR="Navy"]
As human beings we can speculate on the nature of the universe, and we can produce any number of theories that will more or less 'save appearances' (i.e. account for all known phenomena). God is the only one in a position of perfect knowledge (which, to respond to one of your earlier points, means he does not need to infer anything, and therefore can't infer wrongly) who can make a totally accurate statement about the nature of things.

Christians state that God has made such a statement, has revealed what we could not have discovered for ourselves, and what we could not have been sure of otherwise.

Yet once that revelation has been made, it can be tested against our knowledge from other sources, judged on its own evidential merits, and we can see what credibility it has. Are the texts reliable, does the world picture they present match our own experience, and so on. On this basis, like any thinking person, we can then decide whether or not we think this is the most likely picture of how things are.

Or it was all just make belief from the get go and then you've got what? The whole belief system hinges on nobody fibbing along the way. That's quite a number of assumtions. I'm not arguing on what's more likely or trying to talk you into anything. The non-supernatural theories have numbers. Things to measure. Things you and me,(with the proper training) can check for ourselves. It doesn't hinge on some dude in a beard 2000 years ago wasn't having a psychotic episode. If you're saying that it makes no difference to you then I'd say you where gullible.

The bible most certainly has a set of answers. Other faiths have other sets of answers, sometimes complimentary, sometimes opposing, but they are still a set of answers. Now clearly they cannot all be right, but it is possible that one has the complete truth, it is possible that all have parts of that truth, it is possible that some or all are completely wrong.

I think it is part of our individual development to decide for ourselves which, if any, we embrace, using all the tools we have at our disposal to make the best decision possible. Himind has gone down a similiar route and found a different answer. Other people have posted their different conclusions.

Although I have made a personal decision to believe what the bible says, I completely agree with you that it is wrong to hammer it as the truth. I will willingly share with anyone who invites me to do so, what it says; I will tell them why I believe it is right; but I will always leave them with the challenge to decide for themselves.
Colin Clout & cariad

That's what I don't like about the religious. It's if religion is about some personal journey. It just isn't. It's about the pursuit of truth. Working it out and comparing theories. Not buying into one theory when it has the same evidence as another. It's not the same thing as taking a personal journey and "finding yourself". That's psychology or something else. The supernatural claims in the world are completly seperate from the religions they come with.

I'm sure the religions of the world are great for humanity. They seem to fill some very important social function for people. Because they can aparently make people ignore the problems of the supernatural claims. I've got a friend who's the member of the world pantheist movement. He is adamantly atheist but needs some spiritual guidance and likes being with others who share his views. It's a religion and a church. They've just eliminated making any crazy claims they can't back up. I have no problems with that church.

[cariad]

Let's create two possible hypothetical universes. One allows for the supernatural and the other doesn't. The non-supernatural is complex but has it's limitations and we can make plausible theories, while the supernatural one is infinate since the supernatural has no limits. This isn't a case against the supernatural, but if we believe in the supernatural then we can't say anything about it. That's where reason fails us.

That sounds good to me. Although I am not sure where it takes us, since ruling out the option of saying there is not a supernatural element to our world merely because it would be make our world too complex to understand, if clearly not sound.

As someone who has embraced a particular faith I do have the canon of sacred texts and a body of experience, published and unpublished to help make sense of the world. And I know I am stepping into the circular argument territory there, so will back off. Smiles.

We have no idea whether or not human evolution is unlikely or not. I belong to the camp who believes that given the right circumstances life springs up easily.

And given the same evidence I have decided to join the other camp.

Actually the story of creation was a mile stone in my accepting the Bible as a God inspired text. I know you quote dates for the when the Bible was written, but I believe that those are for when it was assembled. The first 5 books of the bible in particular are significantly older than the dates you quote. As a child I was taught the story of creation, never really challenged it, but never really accepted it either. It struck me one day, just how amazing it was that someone with little scientific knowledge beyond how to use the stars as a compass and sighs of nature to find water could so accurately predict the process of evolution as science has now shown us. Unlike some people, I cannot accept that creation took 7 days, but I understand that the term used in the original Hebrew not only means day, but also a period of time. That makes the first few chapters of the bible not only plausible, but also in line with scientific discoveries. (With apologies to all creationists.)

This is where christian logic fails. You're still stuck on trying to prove whether the supernatural can be true or not. That's only step one. Christianity isn't about having faith in any supernatural force. It's about atributing it a whole host of attributes that we have no reason what so ever to give it. That's not making a different interpretation, that's just deluding yourself. Interpretation is about actually looking at the data, not just making stuff up.

The core of Christianity is about having a relationship with God, everything else leads to or flows from that. Is this relationship delusional - perhaps - although to me, there is much more pointing in the direction that it is real, than pointing in the other direction. Why do I attribute certain attributes to God; a combination of what the Bible says, the experience of other trusted, level headed Christians, and my own critical experience.

I'll respect a "maybe christian". Somebody who would like the christian belief system to be true, but doesn't really know. Somebody who thinks the Bible is a great ethical system and who thinks the church is a great place to meet other nice people. It would be great if we went to heaven, but probably we won't. Going any further than this is deluding yourself or drawing erroneous conclusions.

It is a great ethical system, and the church can be a great place to meet nice people, but come to that so are many other places. My closest friends are Christians, but there are also people at my church whom I do not naturally warm to, and beyond the church walls there are oodles and oodles of wonderful people who are not Christians.

I have addressed the delusional aspect of it above, and as for erroneous conclusions, I can only say that mine seem logical to me.

That's just pretty words. Saying that christians don't claim to understand everything about god isn't the same thing as christians don't claim anything about god. Once you make any claims as to what god wants, ie the commandments you've invalidated that claim. Christians attribute a lot to god. Just the thing about going to heaven. That's a very definate claim of the nature of god and the supernatural.

Having read what CC wrote, I think the point he was making is that, from a Christian perspective, we do not make claims as to what God wants, e.g. the commandments, we let Him do that Himself.

Or it was all just make belief from the get go and then you've got what? The whole belief system hinges on nobody fibbing along the way. That's quite a number of assumtions. I'm not arguing on what's more likely or trying to talk you into anything. The non-supernatural theories have numbers. Things to measure. Things you and me,(with the proper training) can check for ourselves. It doesn't hinge on some dude in a beard 2000 years ago wasn't having a psychotic episode. If you're saying that it makes no difference to you then I'd say you where gullible.

I have asked myself these questions, and can only say that non-supernatural theories leave too many gaping holes which do not appear to be in the pattern of science to be able to fill. That leaves me with finding a supernatural answer, and of the systems I have looked at, the one which seems to best stand up to any test I choose to throw at it is Christianity.

That's what I don't like about the religious. It's if religion is about some personal journey. It just isn't. It's about the pursuit of truth. Working it out and comparing theories. Not buying into one theory when it has the same evidence as another. It's not the same thing as taking a personal journey and "finding yourself". That's psychology or something else. The supernatural claims in the world are completly seperate from the religions they come with.

Perhaps I am tired, but you have lost me in this paragraph, and I can't grasp the point you are making. After carefully consideration I have decided to have faith in one particular set of explanations. I could have avoided, on principle, going for any given set and played lucky dip taking bits from all faiths. That would certainly have been a fascinating study, but would not necessarily have lead me any closer to finding out the truths. Instead I choose to learn more about God by devoting such time to exploring the faith which I have decided to embrace.

I'm sure the religions of the world are great for humanity. They seem to fill some very important social function for people. Because they can aparently make people ignore the problems of the supernatural claims. I've got a friend who's the member of the world pantheist movement. He is adamantly atheist but needs some spiritual guidance and likes being with others who share his views. It's a religion and a church. They've just eliminated making any crazy claims they can't back up. I have no problems with that church.

I have briefly looked at that site, and superficially, to me, there are many unanswered questions, but that is only on the basis of about 10 minutes, but I am not tempted to explore further.

I don't think religions are good for humanity, I believe that we all have a need to find out answers for ourselves regarding the existence or otherwise of the supernatural, and if it does exist, the nature of it. From what I have seen however, religions cause conflict, because it is only a matter of time before the people involved in the organisation of religions become ambitious and work to find arguments from within their faith to justify extension to their power.

cariad

[TomOfSweden]

That sounds good to me. Although I am not sure where it takes us, since ruling out the option of saying there is not a supernatural element to our world merely because it would be make our world too complex to understand, if clearly not sound.

My point is that it's impossible to work out the nature of god even if it did exist. Maybe my line of reasoning was a bit hard to follow. It has a tendancy to get a bit fuzzy when I'm discussing purely abstract issues.

As someone who has embraced a particular faith I do have the canon of sacred texts and a body of experience, published and unpublished to help make sense of the world. And I know I am stepping into the circular argument territory there, so will back off. Smiles.

So you believe in god because you want god to exist? If true, at least it's honest. But not really a case for gods existance, is it? I might as well say that I'm am atheist because I don't want god to exist. A bit silly isn't it? Hardly anything to base a religion on.

And given the same evidence I have decided to join the other camp.

But you'd hardly bet on it being right, would you? Since you admit that the proof is full of holes?

Actually the story of creation was a mile stone in my accepting the Bible as a God inspired text. I know you quote dates for the when the Bible was written, but I believe that those are for when it was assembled. The first 5 books of the bible in particular are significantly older than the dates you quote. As a child I was taught the story of creation, never really challenged it, but never really accepted it either. It struck me one day, just how amazing it was that someone with little scientific knowledge beyond how to use the stars as a compass and sighs of nature to find water could so accurately predict the process of evolution as science has now shown us. Unlike some people, I cannot accept that creation took 7 days, but I understand that the term used in the original Hebrew not only means day, but also a period of time. That makes the first few chapters of the bible not only plausible, but also in line with scientific discoveries. (With apologies to all creationists.)

I'm really fascinated about how the bible came to be, but I think it's a bit of a side-track. We have no idea if it's the word of god or not. It's just an assumption christians make. If we don't even manage to come up with a likely model for how supernaturality works then the Bible isn't very relevant is it? If the supernatural didn't control the hands of the people writing it, then it isn't the word of god, right? If we have different interpretations of it, then well....we can't really draw any conclusions and....I think it's best to create a new thread about just that.

The core of Christianity is about having a relationship with God, everything else leads to or flows from that. Is this relationship delusional - perhaps - although to me, there is much more pointing in the direction that it is real, than pointing in the other direction. Why do I attribute certain attributes to God; a combination of what the Bible says, the experience of other trusted, level headed Christians, and my own critical experience.

That's fine, but you have no idea if it is in fact god you're adressing or just thin air, do you? Considering the nature of human perception, even if you personally have seen god, doesn't prove a thing.

I have addressed the delusional aspect of it above, and as for erroneous conclusions, I can only say that mine seem logical to me.

Again, this is just down to you believing in god because you want god to exist. It's not really a case for god.

Having read what CC wrote, I think the point he was making is that, from a Christian perspective, we do not make claims as to what God wants, e.g. the commandments, we let Him do that Himself.

ok, but how do you know what is the "voice" of god and what just is wishfull thinking/hallucination/delusion?

I have asked myself these questions, and can only say that non-supernatural theories leave too many gaping holes which do not appear to be in the pattern of science to be able to fill. That leaves me with finding a supernatural answer, and of the systems I have looked at, the one which seems to best stand up to any test I choose to throw at it is Christianity.

That's a contradiction. Just saying "god thought of it" is just avoiding the issue. A supernatural model of the universe is a lot more complex than a non-supernatural, because you have so much more variables. The plain fact is that the supernatural model has more holes in it than the non-supernatural. Just because on a very superficial level it looks simpler doesn't mean the maths of it are any simpler.

Again, just because you or I don't understand the maths of a theory, doesn't mean nobody does.

Perhaps I am tired, but you have lost me in this paragraph, and I can't grasp the point you are making. After carefully consideration I have decided to have faith in one particular set of explanations. I could have avoided, on principle, going for any given set and played lucky dip taking bits from all faiths. That would certainly have been a fascinating study, but would not necessarily have lead me any closer to finding out the truths. Instead I choose to learn more about God by devoting such time to exploring the faith which I have decided to embrace.

But you're only talking about your personal journey. It's as if it's an emotional standpoint. A bit like going with what ever feels the best for you. The supernatural elements of religion is a scientific theory. A model. As with all scientific theories we can have leanings toward one or the other model. But if the theory is too flimsy, like all the supernatural theories of the world. Then having a firm faith in it is stupid. There's a number of serious scientific theories on the mechanics of the universe works, (no, christianity isn't one of them) and no scientist would say, this is what I believe the rest of you are all wrong. They might sound like that's what they're saying, but it's not what they mean.

Believing in a scientific theory as a scientist is diametrically different than believing in a scientific theory as a religious follower. It has to do with comparing theories and doing the maths. If you don't have a degree in quantum mechanics it's a bit arrogant to pick your own version and just go for it, just like all religious people have to do. I think popular science is fun. I do my best in following the research but I don't have the proper education in the subject to formulate my own complete theory on the mechanics of the universe works or even evaluate what christianity says about it. That would be arrogance to the extreme. If religious people on top of this have the bad taste to vote for laws based on religious ethics, then I feel like grabbing for my gun. Hobby philosophers pissing those who have done their homeworkd and actually know better, (most often scientists) in the face. Yes, I think we should leave the big decision to the proper scientists, of the simple reason that they understand things that we don't.

The religious comunity disregard serious science and treat all these big questions like a big joke. If they didn't they'd learn the maths. They might look all sinceare when they're pondering the bible, but it requires that you selectivly ignore critical problems of the model and only vote with your heart.

That's what I mean with it not being a personal journey. Growing as a person, and developing your morals and finding yourself is a personal journey, but has very little to do with basic religious theories on the universe and the supernatural.

I have briefly looked at that site, and superficially, to me, there are many unanswered questions, but that is only on the basis of about 10 minutes, but I am not tempted to explore further.

It's one of the ancient Greek religions. linky

Pantheism is simply put the idea that everything is god. Our natural universe is god. So they believe in god, but they don't belive in the supernatural. They believe that it's up to humans to figure out what god wants all by themselves. Because we define what god is and should be. They use the study of ethics to build moral codes for the religion. Their religious masses are based on providing a service for the good of the comunity, and let the comunity decide on what they want.

I really don't get what the point of it is, but good luck to them.

I don't think religions are good for humanity, I believe that we all have a need to find out answers for ourselves regarding the existence or otherwise of the supernatural, and if it does exist, the nature of it. From what I have seen however, religions cause conflict, because it is only a matter of time before the people involved in the organisation of religions become ambitious and work to find arguments from within their faith to justify extension to their power.

I think religions are good for humanity simply based on the fact that they exist. They aparently fill a need. Practices that humanity doesn't need has a tendancy to disapear. That's the beauty of evolution. It may very well be that with the good bits we get some bad bits, but over the whole, it's aparent that it does a lot of good. Again, simply based on the fact that religions exist. Why? I have no idea. If anything in this thread, it should be aparent that I'm the wrong person to ask.

[cariad]

My point is that it's impossible to work out the nature of god even if it did exist. Maybe my line of reasoning was a bit hard to follow. It has a tendancy to get a bit fuzzy when I'm discussing purely abstract issues.

I took that point, and agree with it. At the best we can work out where we need a supernatural filling. However the fact that we are unable to work out the nature of God does not mean that he does not exist.

So you believe in god because you want god to exist? If true, at least it's honest. But not really a case for gods existance, is it? I might as well say that I'm am atheist because I don't want god to exist. A bit silly isn't it? Hardly anything to base a religion on.

Not quite:
1. I believed in a God because to me it is the answer which makes sense.
2. I wanted to know more about God, so looked at how the various (but admittedly not all) faiths explained God.
3. I found one which made logical sense and fitted my experience of supernatural.
4. I studied the sacred texts of that faith to discover more what they revealed of God's nature.
5. I brought that information into real life and considered it and tested it.
6. I discovered more about God.
7. I found that the more I read and considered, the more spiritually aware I became, developing an appreciation of the tri-fold nature of humans - physical, emotional and intellectual, and spiritual - and how these interact.
8. I returned to step 4.

But you'd hardly bet on it being right, would you? Since you admit that the proof is full of holes?

Although there are many theories, some well grounded, and some less so; to my knowledge there is no complete proof on either side.

I'm really fascinated about how the bible came to be, but I think it's a bit of a side-track. We have no idea if it's the word of god or not. It's just an assumption christians make. If we don't even manage to come up with a likely model for how supernaturality works then the Bible isn't very relevant is it? If the supernatural didn't control the hands of the people writing it, then it isn't the word of god, right? If we have different interpretations of it, then well....we can't really draw any conclusions and....I think it's best to create a new thread about just that.

Smiles - after you...

That's fine, but you have no idea if it is in fact god you're adressing or just thin air, do you? Considering the nature of human perception, even if you personally have seen god, doesn't prove a thing.

I do not think not being able to see something is serious proof of it not existing. If you are referring to talking to God - I have seen too many things change as a result of doing so for it to be purely placebo, imagination or chance.

ok, but how do you know what is the "voice" of god and what just is wishfull thinking/hallucination/delusion?

That is a discussion in itself, and is one I have had many times. I have heard God, as in I would be amazed if someone who had been in the room at the time would not have heard him, twice. Once was over something I knew I should I do, but kept finding excuses about. The other time I was driving, and unbeknown to me a small child was about to come round the corner directly into my path. By following the instructions of that voice, in the moment before I could know there was a potential problem, that small boy was not seriously injured, or killed.

Other times, I 'hear' a voice in my head, which I have learned to recognise. I cannot give you any evidence that it is not wishful thinking or delusional, except that it has a nasty habit of always being right, of often making a decision on the basis of information I don't have, and is always in line with what the Bible teaches.

The other way I 'hear' from God, is not direct communication at all, but by learning what sort of thing He likes, my conscience will prick if I am stepping outside of those boundaries - that is no more supernatural than your slave knowing what you do and do not like, because she has made a study of you.

That's a contradiction. Just saying "god thought of it" is just avoiding the issue. A supernatural model of the universe is a lot more complex than a non-supernatural, because you have so much more variables. The plain fact is that the supernatural model has more holes in it than the non-supernatural. Just because on a very superficial level it looks simpler doesn't mean the maths of it are any simpler.

Again, just because you or I don't understand the maths of a theory, doesn't mean nobody does.

I think we have been round this one before. I fully agree that a model of the universe which includes the supernatural is bound to more complex, because there is an additional dimension. That in itself does not indicate whether it is right or wrong.

To me, the supernatural model has less holes in - but I fully admit that is because I temporarily suspended disbelief to view it with an accepting mind, (ref my much earlier comment about choosing which circle to stand in).

Because you and I don't fully understand any theory, of either 'side', does not prove it one way of the other.

But you're only talking about your personal journey. It's as if it's an emotional standpoint. A bit like going with what ever feels the best for you. The supernatural elements of religion is a scientific theory. A model. As with all scientific theories we can have leanings toward one or the other model. But if the theory is too flimsy, like all the supernatural theories of the world. Then having a firm faith in it is stupid. There's a number of serious scientific theories on the mechanics of the universe works, (no, christianity isn't one of them) and no scientist would say, this is what I believe the rest of you are all wrong. They might sound like that's what they're saying, but it's not what they mean.

Why do you say that the supernatural elements of religion are a scientific theory? I would say (if I have to find a discipline for it) that it is closest to a psychological theory - in that, to me, it is a study of a force with personality. In all the years of physics which I studied, personality was never a factor - with the possible exception of the sadistic temperament of one of my physics masters.

Believing in a scientific theory as a scientist is diametrically different than believing in a scientific theory as a religious follower. It has to do with comparing theories and doing the maths. If you don't have a degree in quantum mechanics it's a bit arrogant to pick your own version and just go for it, just like all religious people have to do. I think popular science is fun. I do my best in following the research but I don't have the proper education in the subject to formulate my own complete theory on the mechanics of the universe works or even evaluate what christianity says about it. That would be arrogance to the extreme.

Well, my quantum mechanics does not progress past a foundation unit I did at university, which was a shame, I loved that unit and found a real beauty in it, in the same way that I loved the unit I did on astrology, so I don't have the knowledge either to follow latest papers. That does not mean however that I reject the science. I agree popular science is fun, but I do get frustrated when initially theories are expounded, and after a few trips round the press they return as facts.

If religious people on top of this have the bad taste to vote for laws based on religious ethics, then I feel like grabbing for my gun. Hobby philosophers pissing those who have done their homeworkd and actually know better, (most often scientists) in the face. Yes, I think we should leave the big decision to the proper scientists, of the simple reason that they understand things that we don't.

Do I understand that you are suggesting leaving governing our countries to a group of scientists? *shudders at the thought* I live with someone who has a PhD in a physical science, and most of the people he works with have the same. Many of them work in ground breaking research, so they are still actively exploring their small area of science. I also regularly attend dinner parties with some of these people - and yes, I am very grateful for the work they do, and without doubt our world is a better place for it - but the thought of them governing the country. Please, no.

The religious comunity disregard serious science and treat all these big questions like a big joke. If they didn't they'd learn the maths. They might look all sinceare when they're pondering the bible, but it requires that you selectivly ignore critical problems of the model and only vote with your heart.

I disagree that the religious community disregards science. I am sure there are a few small groups which do, but I am sure I can find you a corresponding group of nutty scientists - so please don't discredit a whole community because one small subgroup is wacky. I personally refuse to ignore critical problems of the model which I have embraced. That does not mean that I have all the answers, but then, nobody, of any discipline does.

I think you are right when you said I voted with my heart when I decided to step into the circle of belief. After that I have been very analytical and critical.

I think religions are good for humanity simply based on the fact that they exist. They aparently fill a need. Practices that humanity doesn't need has a tendancy to disapear. That's the beauty of evolution. It may very well be that with the good bits we get some bad bits, but over the whole, it's aparent that it does a lot of good. Again, simply based on the fact that religions exist. Why? I have no idea. If anything in this thread, it should be aparent that I'm the wrong person to ask.

I think faith is good for humanity, and we are also social beings. I think they are two needs which we have. I don't think we have a need for religion.

I do know one thing that this thread has shown me Tom; you are great guy to get me thinking about some of the basics which I have accepted for too long - so I sincerely thank you for the challenge. We may not agree, but I have a great respect both for what you say, and how you say it.

cariad

[cariad]

Apologising for the delay in replying to you - I am going to be offline for a few days - perhaps someone else wishes to pick this up in the meantime...

cariad

[cariad]

Not quite, sorry. We can't even work out whether we need a supernatural fillling. First we need to have any working modell at all. That's still pretty far off. If we'll ever get one.

Perhaps we should try discussing the equally serious topic of chocolate then. This was why a number of posts back I suggested that moving onto a discussion of supernatural theories was premature, without first agreeing on a need for one.

The supernatural theories are only on the table of all the other theories. They're not any more complete or offer any more a comprehensible picture of reality. You might say, "this one makes sense to me because of [this] and [the other], this is what I believe is true". That's fine and something we all need to do. But having faith in it, and banking on a thing like, you'll go to heaven after you die, is drawing a much too strong conclusion. At best it could be something you wish might be true.

You have slightly lost me here – yes I do believe that I will go to heaven when I die, and I suppose you could say I bank on it, but it does not effect how I live now, or the rest of my belief.

Praying to god to help you with some disease IS deluded. That if anything is wasting energy, and we should all be well aware of it. Even saying stuff like, "I have nothing to lose by preying to god so I might as well do it" is still deluded. If you open up the possibility of a supernatural entity listening, the chances that god is evil and punishing anybody making a request is just as great. They're unsuported by the same amount of non-evidence.

I have known too many people to have long term healings as a result of prayer not to do so. I would fully agree that some healings are psychological, but enough are very real for it to approach delusion. I would go as far as to say that there is a lot to be lost by not doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cariad<U_E>
Not quite:
1. I believed in a God because to me it is the answer which makes sense.
2. I wanted to know more about God, so looked at how the various (but admittedly not all) faiths explained God.
3. I found one which made logical sense and fitted my experience of supernatural.
4. I studied the sacred texts of that faith to discover more what they revealed of God's nature.
5. I brought that information into real life and considered it and tested it.
6. I discovered more about God.
7. I found that the more I read and considered, the more spiritually aware I became, developing an appreciation of the tri-fold nature of humans - physical, emotional and intellectual, and spiritual - and how these interact.
8. I returned to step 4.
the nature of God does not mean that he does not exist. [/quote]

I'm going to go right ahead and attack step one.

I would have been disappointed in you if you had not – grins

How did it "make sense". When we're discussing a thing like whether heaven exists, I don't think it's too much to ask qustions like how? Where is it? What is it? What do people do there? Is there even people there? Will I be me or transformed into something different? Will my thought be retained? What is the soul? Can it be measured? How is it transported? What medium does it use?
None of these are answered in the Bible. I'm not saying the claims in the Bible isn't true. It might very well be. But just settling for, "sounds good to me" or "nobody can prove it isn't true", shouldn't satisfy anyone in these modern times, with sofisticated measuring devices. Strictly speaking, you have no reason to believe anything in the bible is true, so being a little bit more explanation might not be all that amiss. Granted that the Bible is old, but if it's true they should have had all that information back then, right?

The existence or otherwise of heaven, and what happens after death, did not form part of my decision to belief. I know that often evangelists preach the believe or you will go to hell theme, but I made my decision without either the threat of hell or the promise of heaven. I based it solely on the desire to have a relationship with God. There are many things which the Bible does not cover – far more than it does if you are after details, although there are a significant number of broad principles. I only have the broadest idea of how my car works, and I have only read a few pages of the manual. I know enough about it to trust it to do what it is supposed to. In the same way, although some of the questions which you have raised I would be interested to know the answer to, I am not going to let not knowing effect the things which I do.
The supernatural is not the only thing which cannot be proved, the much quoted example is emotions. These are felt, they are demonstrated and expressed, but as for ‘proof’ it is only circumstantial, yet I would be surprised it you were to deny them. Even the natural which world I know is far broader than anything which can be proved by a scientific rule or set of equations.

I've also got issues with your experiences of the supernatural. We discussed this earlier. The problems are:

1) Human perception is fallible. We can't trust our senses. We tend to see what we want to see.
2) Science has never ever been able to register anything that breaks the rules of nature as we know them.

1. That does not mean that what we see is wrong.
2. Why try and measure everything by science? And to take what you mentioned above, physical healings. There science has been able to measure, and have been unable to provide an explanation.

Your next problem you've yet to solve is that the satanists could be right and the christians wrong. Even if your experiences with god are correct, you have no idea if "your" god is the christian version of it. That's just an assumption you've made. A pretty big assumption. For all you know, it could be little alien jr, in a saucer in orbit, stealing dadies mind-control laser for a laugh. Aren't you just being effected/swayed by the religious beliefs of people around you? People tend to stick to a faith most people have in their vicinity. That in itself is a argument against any of the supernatural being true. Just based on the fact that there are so many different ones.

I know I'm a bit silly now, but how did you test it?

Well, I asked God and a little alien to a meeting and only God showed up, so he sort of got it by default.
Not quiet sure what you asking here. How did I test what?

Again, I've got no quarel with christian ethics. Only it's supernatural claims, and I've got no wish in discussing the ethical parts of it. I can well imaging that studying the Bible gives you spiritual awareness, but that's no case for you going to heaven, is it?

No it is not.

I think my work is done here. So you admit that you problably wont go to heaven once you die? Is that what you're saying?

Sorry – your work is not done. Just because something has not been proved does not make it not so, it merely makes it unproven. And for the record I have every expectation of going to heaven when I die – and I have heard they have great calorie free chocolate cake there.

The sheer number of christians alone means that their religious experiences should be taken with masses of pinches of salt.

Not sure I take your point there – because a significant number of believe something is so, you are saying that it is less likely to be so? Looks confused.

I'm willing to bet most christian miracles are witnessed in south America. Just a wild guess based on the fact that it's the most devout christian area in the world.

That could well be the case, however the only miracles I would quote or rely on are those where I have personally seen the evidence and know the people involved. I have seen too many well meaning people claim miracles when there are more likely explanations.

It just doesn't prove a thing. If you can't work it into a credible model then you've got nothing.

If you have a model into which you cannot slot all the evidence, the model ceases to be credible. It is a weak defence to claim that the evidence must be wrong since it does not fit the model.

We know for a fact that their are things in the Bible that can not be taken litterarily, right? So how do you know which parts should be? For all we know, it could all be metaphores for the highly regular and un-supernatural.

An interesting discussion – but another one.

But it's interesting that you call god "he". It's the second time in this thread you've given god human qualities.

Because that is the limit of my language. The God I know is not a machine or just a force therefore cannot be called ‘it’. There is personality there, and many of the attributes which we attach to humans, therefore God has to be he/she. Why do I choose to call God he – well it is easier than using he/she all the time, and a short answer as to why I opt for he because it is convention to do so. Again – that could be a discussion in its own right, but I believe that God encompasses both male and female attributes.

That's exactly my point. The difference is that I'm well aware that we might go to heaven, but we probably wont. Only based on logic. As you have told me before, you do in fact believe strongly in heaven. This to me makes no sense. Not if you agree that the non-supernatural model makes just as good a case for it as the supernatural.

Same evidence, different conclusion, I guess because we put different weight on different elements. To me the supernatural model is more sound than the non-supernatural one. Complexity does not make something wrong, unless the complexity is being used to disguise a flaw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cariad<U_E>
Why do you say that the supernatural elements of religion are a scientific theory? I would say (if I have to find a discipline for it) that it is closest to a psychological theory - in that, to me, it is a study of a force with personality. In all the years of physics which I studied, personality was never a factor - with the possible exception of the sadistic temperament of one of my physics masters.

Because they are. They make scientific claims. They make claims that, if true, would invalidate the non-supernatural theories. Priests pretend like it's only about taking a stand on the ethical issues. That is only one part of christianity. The part, if you will, within the realm of psychology.

I am not aware of Christianity making any claims which invalidate non-supernatural theories, it merely makes claims as to an explanation of the gaps in those theories.

We haven't proven yet if there is such a thing as the supernatural. Let's wait with attributing it things like personality until we've settled that one.

Happy to go along with that one!

You seem to have a good grasp of how science works. That's great. You are also aparently great at breaking down this problem into bits, and attacking each one. As I see it, your main hole is linked directly to your own experiences with the supernatural. Since those are easy to explain with the non-supernatural, it's beyond me how you can subscribe to the supernatural claims of christianity. You seem a little bit too smart.

Whilst I will lap up the compliments I cannot agree that a reasonable balance suggests that my experiences with the supernatural can be explained by the non-supernatural.
I really think we have to go back to what you said at the very start of this discussion about circular arguments. I am convinced we are probably both as guilty as each other of it, and I am honestly not sure how possible it is to step out the circle which we are in because of our beliefs and see things from the other circle. Which is, as I said then, where the step of faith comes into play. That tiny bit of faith which gives a person the confidence to step out of the circle of non-belief into the circle of belief, of accepting that there could possibly be supernatural explanations. At that point everything falls into place, but without doing that, I am not sure it is possible to see it. I am sure the reverse also applies.

Priests don't study quantum mechanics in school, so they shouldn't tell people god exists. They are most probably the right people to interpret the Bible and teach us about it's ethical merits, but they do not have the education or qualifications to argue for gods existance. Which is why they don't off-course. They all say stupid stuff like, "it's up to us all to decide for ourselves". That's just avoiding the issue.

Why do you need to have studied quantum mechanics to be able to know if God exists? By suggesting that he can only be proven by that particular discipline you are not taking a very narrow view.

Granted that I was a bit harsh here. But as I've said earlier in this thread. The only thing the christian supernatural theories have going for them is personal experiences not reproducable in a laboratory. Science is great at measuring which stimuli our brains react from. If no scientist has ever been able to measure a message from god, then well...chances are pretty good nobody ever has recieved a message from god. This must be the one most studied field in history, so you can't blame it on nobody trying. The plain fact is that all of the evidence christian supernatural theories has are all highly circumstantial. Maybe O.J. was in fact guilty? Who knows? But are you willing to bet on it? I mean really? If you are then I do think you take this issue very lightly.

Regarding OJ, I could not be bothered to follow the trial, so I cannot give an opinion on it. I have read that science has shown brains functioning differently when people pray, but I would not offer that as evidence, since it could also be to do with a psychological state. I have also read of studies being done in hospitals of blind tests were some people where prayed for by a community of believers and others were not, and the apparently the evidence is fairly conclusive. However without knowing the full background to such tests I am not prepared to rely on them in argument, which is why I can only fall back on my own experiences and those of people I know and trust.

cariad

[TomOfSweden]

[COLOR="Navy"]
Perhaps we should try discussing the equally serious topic of chocolate then. This was why a number of posts back I suggested that moving onto a discussion of supernatural theories was premature, without first agreeing on a need for one.

I agree, but you in spite of this continue to believe in the supernatural which off-course means it needs to be adressed if we want to reach a conclusion.

[COLOR="Navy"]
You have slightly lost me here – yes I do believe that I will go to heaven when I die, and I suppose you could say I bank on it, but it does not effect how I live now, or the rest of my belief.

I took it as an example since I thought most christians believe that non-repentant sinners didn't get in. But still, reaching heaven still does have an impact, since it'll effect your level of fear of death. If the 9/11 terrorists wouldn't have believed that they'd go to heaven, I'm certain their actions would have been different.

[COLOR="Navy"]
I have known too many people to have long term healings as a result of prayer not to do so. I would fully agree that some healings are psychological, but enough are very real for it to approach delusion. I would go as far as to say that there is a lot to be lost by not doing so.

You've got a causality issue. In logic it's known as Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because B takes place after A, doesn't mean that A causes B.

There's been so much research into this that it's silly. Maybe your friends is the special case, but I saw research where they evaluated sick pilgrims at Lourdes. If I remember correctly, from about three million a year who visit the shrine there are 50 000 reported miraculous healings which correlated exactly to the same number for the population in general. None of these healings are stuff that science can't explain. No regrown limbs or anything the medical proffesion would label as impossible.

Science can tell us that there is no link between praying and healing from diseases. I'm not trying to be cheeky or anything but this was too easy to shoot down.

And then off-course you still have to link the healing to christianity. Good luck.

[COLOR="Navy"]

The existence or otherwise of heaven, and what happens after death, did not form part of my decision to belief. I know that often evangelists preach the believe or you will go to hell theme, but I made my decision without either the threat of hell or the promise of heaven. I based it solely on the desire to have a relationship with God. There are many things which the Bible does not cover – far more than it does if you are after details, although there are a significant number of broad principles. I only have the broadest idea of how my car works, and I have only read a few pages of the manual. I know enough about it to trust it to do what it is supposed to. In the same way, although some of the questions which you have raised I would be interested to know the answer to, I am not going to let not knowing effect the things which I do.
The supernatural is not the only thing which cannot be proved, the much quoted example is emotions. These are felt, they are demonstrated and expressed, but as for ‘proof’ it is only circumstantial, yet I would be surprised it you were to deny them. Even the natural which world I know is far broader than anything which can be proved by a scientific rule or set of equations.

But now you're back into making this some emotional stand point.

Chosing which authority figures to trust is important, since we cannot understand everything. A very valid and important thing to do. You've chosen to make the authors of the Bible trusted authority figures in your life. But wouldn't it be nice to have the figures of authority in our lives actually have to prove they've got the goods. If the engine runs you know the mechanic did his job. How do you check the priest did his? What do you measure? Or do you just go on faith and vague feelings? Treat your priest the same way as you would a car salesman. There's no reason to have any more respect for the priest. They're both salesmen.

It's nice that you have a relationship with god. There's many names for the super-ego. You don't need anything supernatural for that.

[COLOR="Navy"]
1. That does not mean that what we see is wrong.
2. Why try and measure everything by science? And to take what you mentioned above, physical healings. There science has been able to measure, and have been unable to provide an explanation.

No, but if I'm the only one who saw/heard it then maybe I should find something to back it up with. Especially if I'm claiming something as whacky as talking to god.

We need to measure it somehow. Science is a good measuring system. Again, science is only a method to judge the truth, not a model by which we compare against. Science doesn't have the truth, but it may allow us to find it. The alternative to science is to not be systematic and just go on vague feelings. Common sense is the most common non-scientific method of judging the truth. You tell me which method is the most likely to come up with the best result?

Just because science can't measure it, doesn't mean science is wrong. Shouldn't that rather lead us to suspect that there's probably nothing to measure? We really don't have any other way to reason. We can make wild theories and dream a little, but from that to having faith is a pretty big plunge into the dark.

[COLOR="Navy"]
Well, I asked God and a little alien to a meeting and only God showed up, so he sort of got it by default.
Not quiet sure what you asking here. How did I test what?

You don't know that. It's only assumptions. In spite of the large amounts of religious people in the world, nobody ever has been able to produce any tangible evidence that they've spoken to god. If you make this claim, you'll need hard proof of it, or it is bullshit. I'm not calling you a liar. I'm calling you, "person who draws faulty conclusions". No, it's not a case of "either you have faith in it or you don't". The brain can only recieve messages in a few limited number of ways. We can measure it. God has yet to show up in any experiments.

[COLOR="Navy"]

Sorry – your work is not done. Just because something has not been proved does not make it not so, it merely makes it unproven. And for the record I have every expectation of going to heaven when I die – and I have heard they have great calorie free chocolate cake there.

sigh. Not this again. Look. The christian supernatural model doesn't have any more proof suporting it than the muslim, budhist, satanist, raelian, aum shin ri quo or heavens gate. No more. It doesn't make more sense or is any way more logical. They are equally as plausible. They are also equally as plausible as the infinate number of religions that nobody has thaught up yet. If I would make up a religion now on the spot, that version of the after-life would be equally plausible. This is pretty much what I've spent all this time exemplifying.

If your only demand on a theory is that nobody can invalidate it then you are gullible. I've got this great car here that is in tip top condition. I know it works because I've never driven it. Would you like to buy it?

[COLOR="Navy"]
Not sure I take your point there – because a significant number of believe something is so, you are saying that it is less likely to be so? Looks confused.

I'm only talking about belief in the supernatural modells of the universe. Ok, I'll let you do the work. Why do you think that Americans tend to be christians, Arabs muslim and Asians budhists?

People are off-course effected by the opinions of people around them. This is why, the more people believe in something that cannot be proven, the smaller chance it is being anything to the claim.

[COLOR="Navy"]
That could well be the case, however the only miracles I would quote or rely on are those where I have personally seen the evidence and know the people involved. I have seen too many well meaning people claim miracles when there are more likely explanations.

To quote my slave on this subject the other day, "Even if the pope himself would shoot lightning bolts from his fingers and pull rabits out his ass still would not prove a single word in the Bible is any less bullshit. It's not a case for anything".

There's no correlation between miracles being performed and any religion. None. Not even if the voices in your head tell you it is.

To reitterate. Proving the supernatural is true is only step one. You've got the same causality problem. You cannot link the miracles to any particular supernatural force, intelligent or not.

We've yet to find a link between suposed miracles and anything. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. A miracle has yet to be a likely explanation for anything. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it was a divine intervention.

[COLOR="Navy"]
If you have a model into which you cannot slot all the evidence, the model ceases to be credible. It is a weak defence to claim that the evidence must be wrong since it does not fit the model.

It's the other way around. If there's any evidence that doesn't fit, the model by necesity must be wrong. Since the supernatural models have no evidence, niether for nor against and the models will stick around for all eternity. But I have a sneaking suspicion that they'll never be any more credible.

[COLOR="Navy"]
Same evidence, different conclusion, I guess because we put different weight on different elements. To me the supernatural model is more sound than the non-supernatural one. Complexity does not make something wrong, unless the complexity is being used to disguise a flaw.

No, we use different evidence. You also draw faulty conclusions from it. You have somehow managed to link your personal experience that you claim are proof of the supernatural, to christianity.

You assume the miracles performed and the voices you've heard in your head come from a supernatural force as the one you have identified in the Bible. This in logic is Affirming the consequent.

[COLOR="Navy"]
I am not aware of Christianity making any claims which invalidate non-supernatural theories, it merely makes claims as to an explanation of the gaps in those theories.

The non-supernatural models we have are based on the universal laws being constant. If they are not, (as in the supernatural) then we cannot draw conclusions. If the supernatural would exist then we would not be able to draw conclusions since the laws would keep changing. All scientific models for the universe today are built on the assumption that god doesn't exist.

Then there's always level two. If god would exist, what laws govern the supernatural. Saying that he's god so he could do what ever he wants is pure assumption. You cannot say anything about what god is or isn't capable of.

[COLOR="Navy"]

Whilst I will lap up the compliments I cannot agree that a reasonable balance suggests that my experiences with the supernatural can be explained by the non-supernatural.
I really think we have to go back to what you said at the very start of this discussion about circular arguments. I am convinced we are probably both as guilty as each other of it, and I am honestly not sure how possible it is to step out the circle which we are in because of our beliefs and see things from the other circle. Which is, as I said then, where the step of faith comes into play. That tiny bit of faith which gives a person the confidence to step out of the circle of non-belief into the circle of belief, of accepting that there could possibly be supernatural explanations. At that point everything falls into place, but without doing that, I am not sure it is possible to see it. I am sure the reverse also applies.

So basically. When we take a step into a realm where we don't aply logic systematically and where there's been no conclusive scientific find ever...then it makes sense? You're making it far too easy for yourself. No, I'm not guilty of circular argument. I'm too careful.

I'm open to the possibily of the supernatural. When any evidence shows up I'll be the first convert. And not necesarily to any existing religion.

[COLOR="Navy"]

Why do you need to have studied quantum mechanics to be able to know if God exists? By suggesting that he can only be proven by that particular discipline you are not taking a very narrow view.

ok, that's just me. I trust people who've studied subjects that are scientific. I might trust un-scientifically schooled people on other subjects rather than explaining to me complex mathematics. If all a person has to say is that it's a matter of faith, then it's a dead give away that the guy hasn't a clue.