techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,695
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
30 Nov 2013, 10:14 am
Invoking 'sky sadist' as a cover-all definition is a bit strawman.
Really all anyone can do is live life, watch, and learn. Usually if people don't get too complaisant with their assumptions these days they can get to the bottom of things and that's after hearing the most intelligent arguments on both sides rather than stopping with the demagogues and pop claptrap.
30 Nov 2013, 4:29 pm
jagatai wrote:
michaudw wrote:
michaelhart22 wrote:
Who actually belives that crap? really though. some magical being in the sky you pray to for good things to happen to other people. like a genie or some sh--. seriosuly if you beilive in god then you must beilive in santa to.
I don't know of anybody who believes God is some "magical being in the sky." Christians believe He is everywhere present. Christians also believe that He created everything and holds everything together. And a magical genie who just grants good things to us when we ask is certainly not the God of the Bible. Christians realize that their lives should not be about themselves and what God can do for them. Instead, our lives should be about glorifying God and playing our part in His kingdom.
I believe the point michaelhart22 is making is that in order to believe in the Christian god, you have to accept the idea that a non-corporeal sentient being exists outside the physical structure of the universe and has the ability to construct a universe, control its variables and maintain a direct relationship with every human in existence. You also have to believe that each human has a "soul" that can exist outside the mind and that this soul eventually exists in a non-corporeal form in an eternal afterlife.
While perhaps there are more "polite" ways of asking the question, the question still remains. As there is NO evidence to support the claims of a god or an afterlife or the concept of sin (original or unoriginal) it seems entirely reasonable to point this out and to ask for a reasonable explanation of why a person might believe in a god. Those of us who wish to understand reality are looking for answers that make sense and lead us closer to a real understanding of how the universe works. Religions always start with an answer and demand that the facts be modified to fit. But if the truth is important to you, you don't get to modify the facts. You can't pick and choose which facts you want to believe. All you can do is get the facts and follow where they lead.
You can characterize Christian belief in a more poetic form, that god is the universe and that humans are simply meant to glorify his existence, but it doesn't change the fact that this more poetic description of god does nothing to provide any sort of reasonable explanation.
NO evidence is quite the absolute claim, you must be all-knowing. I think a more reasonable statement is, "From what I've seen, I'm not convinced there is a God." From my perspective, I see an orderly universe, beauty in nature, and our own consciousness as good reasons to believe in God, among many other things. I also find it very interesting that we all have this sense of right and wrong and none of us are able to keep it perfectly (i doubt there is anybody that has never lied.) And i think your description of religion is a bit too much of a generalization. Many great scientists and philosophers who helped us understand the world better were deeply religious and did not see religion as an obstacle to progress in increasing our understanding. They saw progress in science as having a better understanding of God's "book of nature," or general revelation. Unfortunately, some religious movements (like the creation science movement) has given the rest of us a bad rap by demanding the facts fit their interpretation and being very loud about it. But i think it's unfair to characterize all religions like that.
Religious people are interested in truth just like non-religious people are. We just believe that science isn't the only source of it, and our experience have shown us that there is good reason to believe God is real.
30 Nov 2013, 5:34 pm
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKNd_S3iXfs[/youtube]
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
30 Nov 2013, 6:44 pm
michaudw wrote:
NO evidence is quite the absolute claim, you must be all-knowing. I think a more reasonable statement is, "From what I've seen, I'm not convinced there is a God." From my perspective, I see an orderly universe, beauty in nature, and our own consciousness as good reasons to believe in God, among many other things. I also find it very interesting that we all have this sense of right and wrong and none of us are able to keep it perfectly (i doubt there is anybody that has never lied.) And i think your description of religion is a bit too much of a generalization. Many great scientists and philosophers who helped us understand the world better were deeply religious and did not see religion as an obstacle to progress in increasing our understanding. They saw progress in science as having a better understanding of God's "book of nature," or general revelation. Unfortunately, some religious movements (like the creation science movement) has given the rest of us a bad rap by demanding the facts fit their interpretation and being very loud about it. But i think it's unfair to characterize all religions like that.
Religious people are interested in truth just like non-religious people are. We just believe that science isn't the only source of it, and our experience have shown us that there is good reason to believe God is real.
Religious people are interested in truth just like non-religious people are. We just believe that science isn't the only source of it, and our experience have shown us that there is good reason to believe God is real.
As I said, NO evidence. Beauty in nature, consciousness and a structured orderliness may be evidence of something, but you cannot infer a conscious creator, much less a god, from that evidence. We would not exist if there were not some sort of order and structure to the universe. This order seems to be simply part of the universe. It could have been created by a god, but there is no reason to assume it was. Consciousness makes sense from an evolutionary process. Obviously it is not necessary for life, but it can be useful to some animals who are better able to survive and pass on genes because they can interact with the environment in more complex ways. And what we see as beauty might be more easily explained by the fact that we are hard wired to see what we are familiar with as beautiful and thus be more inclined to pass on our genes. The fact that we find nature beautiful may be just a side benefit.
While these points do not make any claim that a god does or does not exist, it seems to me only reasonable to withhold any claims that a god exists until sufficient evidence is found to provide a way to even begin to test that hypothesis. Plenty of scientists have been religious. That means nothing. The good scientists know not to allow their ideologies to dictate their conclusions.
Unfortunately human perception is rather flakey and only good in certain limited situations. We CANNOT rely on what we feel is the truth. We have to devise methods of determining what is objective truth and that is exactly what science does. Believing there is a god because "there are other ways of knowing the truth" is a ridiculous proposition because how do you separate out the very common human mis perceptions from what is actual reality? The only way to know anything is through scientific inquiry. Everything else is just guessing.
_________________
Never let the weeds get higher than the garden,
Always keep a sapphire in your mind.
(Tom Waits "Get Behind the Mule")
30 Nov 2013, 9:12 pm
michaelhart22 wrote:
Who actually belives that crap? really though. some magical being in the sky you pray to for good things to happen to other people. like a genie or some sh--. seriosuly if you beilive in god then you must beilive in santa to.
I do believe in Rudolf and the Island of Misfit Toys but Santa. No.
30 Nov 2013, 9:41 pm
jagatai wrote:
michaudw wrote:
NO evidence is quite the absolute claim, you must be all-knowing. I think a more reasonable statement is, "From what I've seen, I'm not convinced there is a God." From my perspective, I see an orderly universe, beauty in nature, and our own consciousness as good reasons to believe in God, among many other things. I also find it very interesting that we all have this sense of right and wrong and none of us are able to keep it perfectly (i doubt there is anybody that has never lied.) And i think your description of religion is a bit too much of a generalization. Many great scientists and philosophers who helped us understand the world better were deeply religious and did not see religion as an obstacle to progress in increasing our understanding. They saw progress in science as having a better understanding of God's "book of nature," or general revelation. Unfortunately, some religious movements (like the creation science movement) has given the rest of us a bad rap by demanding the facts fit their interpretation and being very loud about it. But i think it's unfair to characterize all religions like that.
Religious people are interested in truth just like non-religious people are. We just believe that science isn't the only source of it, and our experience have shown us that there is good reason to believe God is real.
Religious people are interested in truth just like non-religious people are. We just believe that science isn't the only source of it, and our experience have shown us that there is good reason to believe God is real.
As I said, NO evidence. Beauty in nature, consciousness and a structured orderliness may be evidence of something, but you cannot infer a conscious creator, much less a god, from that evidence. We would not exist if there were not some sort of order and structure to the universe. This order seems to be simply part of the universe. It could have been created by a god, but there is no reason to assume it was. Consciousness makes sense from an evolutionary process. Obviously it is not necessary for life, but it can be useful to some animals who are better able to survive and pass on genes because they can interact with the environment in more complex ways. And what we see as beauty might be more easily explained by the fact that we are hard wired to see what we are familiar with as beautiful and thus be more inclined to pass on our genes. The fact that we find nature beautiful may be just a side benefit.
While these points do not make any claim that a god does or does not exist, it seems to me only reasonable to withhold any claims that a god exists until sufficient evidence is found to provide a way to even begin to test that hypothesis. Plenty of scientists have been religious. That means nothing. The good scientists know not to allow their ideologies to dictate their conclusions.
Unfortunately human perception is rather flakey and only good in certain limited situations. We CANNOT rely on what we feel is the truth. We have to devise methods of determining what is objective truth and that is exactly what science does. Believing there is a god because "there are other ways of knowing the truth" is a ridiculous proposition because how do you separate out the very common human mis perceptions from what is actual reality? The only way to know anything is through scientific inquiry. Everything else is just guessing.
Even science operates based on things we assume. There's no way we can prove the reliability of our senses, or that the natural laws will always stay how they are. Science can't even prove or disprove your claim that we can only know things through scientific inquiry. That's a philosophical claim.And if we only rely on science for truth, then we'll never be able to say we know anything beyond the limits of science. Science can't tell us what is right or wrong, nor can it tell us if there is or isn't a God, it is limited to the natural world. So if we only rely on science, we'll never know if there is a God. I believe science is a great method of inquiry for finding out about how the universe works, but that's all it can do. We also need history, philosophy, and theology to think about what it all means (if it all means anything, which it may not, but science will never be able to tell us.) And your claim of absolutely NO evidence is still very absolute even if you don't see what I said as evidence for God.
01 Dec 2013, 6:04 pm
michaudw wrote:
Even science operates based on things we assume. There's no way we can prove the reliability of our senses, or that the natural laws will always stay how they are. Science can't even prove or disprove your claim that we can only know things through scientific inquiry. That's a philosophical claim.And if we only rely on science for truth, then we'll never be able to say we know anything beyond the limits of science. Science can't tell us what is right or wrong, nor can it tell us if there is or isn't a God, it is limited to the natural world. So if we only rely on science, we'll never know if there is a God. I believe science is a great method of inquiry for finding out about how the universe works, but that's all it can do. We also need history, philosophy, and theology to think about what it all means (if it all means anything, which it may not, but science will never be able to tell us.) And your claim of absolutely NO evidence is still very absolute even if you don't see what I said as evidence for God.
Science is the best tool we have to understand the world. It may not be perfect, but no process provides a better way of understanding the world. If a person makes a claim that there is a god, it is reasonable to ask "how do you know" and "how can I study the evidence so I too can know of this god." Claiming that this god cannot be known by any conventional technique, but "there are other ways of knowing" comes across much like a con man saying "trust me."
Despite the popular conception of science, it is actually not about proving things. The process of science is one of falsifying hypotheses to cull out incorrect assumptions. Concepts that resist falsification, while not considered "proved" are generally regarded as more likely to be true (pending falsification by some later experiment). It would be nice to be able to say that something is absolutely true, but that just isn't how reality works.
Science is not a discipline separate from history or philosophy etc. it is, instead, a process by which we can arrive at useful answers. It can be applied to history or philosophy and even the arts. I suspect the reason why science doesn't seem to work well in religion is whenever it is applied to a religious concept, the religious concept is falsified. Those who believe in a god are left with nothing but the argument that "there are limits to what can be explored by science" as if there were a place in the universe where asking intelligent questions suddenly stopped working.
Yes, I'll admit I'm being a bit annoying when I claim that there is NO evidence for a god. I'm not a person generally given to making absolutist claims because I can find any number of reasons why I am probably wrong about something. But you would think if anyone had any kind of reasonable evidence, they'd have announced it by now. What usually passes for evidence of a god are things that can be explained far more directly by a materialist world view. As of yet, I have never heard of any evidence that seemed even remotely worth exploring.
If there is evidence, let's examine it. Let's use our intelligence to ask the best questions we can. Let's use the best tools available to understand what information we have. But side stepping the problem by saying "science doesn't work for that kind of question" seems more like running away from an answer you don't want to hear.
_________________
Never let the weeds get higher than the garden,
Always keep a sapphire in your mind.
(Tom Waits "Get Behind the Mule")
02 Dec 2013, 10:46 pm
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDENmSJIlMI[/youtube]
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
03 Dec 2013, 10:21 pm
jagatai wrote:
michaudw wrote:
Even science operates based on things we assume. There's no way we can prove the reliability of our senses, or that the natural laws will always stay how they are. Science can't even prove or disprove your claim that we can only know things through scientific inquiry. That's a philosophical claim.And if we only rely on science for truth, then we'll never be able to say we know anything beyond the limits of science. Science can't tell us what is right or wrong, nor can it tell us if there is or isn't a God, it is limited to the natural world. So if we only rely on science, we'll never know if there is a God. I believe science is a great method of inquiry for finding out about how the universe works, but that's all it can do. We also need history, philosophy, and theology to think about what it all means (if it all means anything, which it may not, but science will never be able to tell us.) And your claim of absolutely NO evidence is still very absolute even if you don't see what I said as evidence for God.
Science is the best tool we have to understand the world. It may not be perfect, but no process provides a better way of understanding the world. If a person makes a claim that there is a god, it is reasonable to ask "how do you know" and "how can I study the evidence so I too can know of this god." Claiming that this god cannot be known by any conventional technique, but "there are other ways of knowing" comes across much like a con man saying "trust me."
Despite the popular conception of science, it is actually not about proving things. The process of science is one of falsifying hypotheses to cull out incorrect assumptions. Concepts that resist falsification, while not considered "proved" are generally regarded as more likely to be true (pending falsification by some later experiment). It would be nice to be able to say that something is absolutely true, but that just isn't how reality works.
Science is not a discipline separate from history or philosophy etc. it is, instead, a process by which we can arrive at useful answers. It can be applied to history or philosophy and even the arts. I suspect the reason why science doesn't seem to work well in religion is whenever it is applied to a religious concept, the religious concept is falsified. Those who believe in a god are left with nothing but the argument that "there are limits to what can be explored by science" as if there were a place in the universe where asking intelligent questions suddenly stopped working.
Yes, I'll admit I'm being a bit annoying when I claim that there is NO evidence for a god. I'm not a person generally given to making absolutist claims because I can find any number of reasons why I am probably wrong about something. But you would think if anyone had any kind of reasonable evidence, they'd have announced it by now. What usually passes for evidence of a god are things that can be explained far more directly by a materialist world view. As of yet, I have never heard of any evidence that seemed even remotely worth exploring.
If there is evidence, let's examine it. Let's use our intelligence to ask the best questions we can. Let's use the best tools available to understand what information we have. But side stepping the problem by saying "science doesn't work for that kind of question" seems more like running away from an answer you don't want to hear.
Science works when it comes to the natural world and how it works. However, it can't tell us what's right or wrong (it can tell us which course of action would be the best for the environment, but it can't tell us that we ought to do what's best for the environment), it can't tell us whether there is any objective meaning to the universe, and whether God exists or not can't really be explored by science (if it can, than scientists would want intelligent design to be discussed in science class.) In order for science to work, it has to follow the rules of "methodological naturalism," which simply means that the scientific method limits itself to studying natural causes. If it didnt, anything could be considered science. People would be able to say that the Earth isn't old, but God made it look old. There's no way to prove that wrong with the scientific method, and because of that it's a dead end. Science has to limit itself to natural causes or else there would be a ton of dead ends and science would pretty much be a meaningless way to search for truth. I do think someone can look at discoveries made by science and come to the conclusion that a Creator of some kind exists, but it would be a philosophical conclusion, not a scientific one, because science wouldnt be able to prove them wrong with the scientific method. This is how many scientists who are also religious think.
Point is, if you try and subject God to the scientific method, you're ultimately not going to get anywhere. While science can disprove certain religious claims (like the medieval claim that the earth is in the centre of the universe) it can't ultimately disprove God. Ultimately my point in posting here wasn't to prove the existence of God. I'll admit I'm not really prepared for a full fledged debate on the existence of God. The reason why I posted here in the first place was to express my opinion that belief in God isnt as simple as many atheists think.
