How scientists really feel about God

Perhaps your conception of God/god is not the same as what other people envisioned. Generally people refer to God/god as a all powerful non-material entity that kick-start the universe. This is generally the tenet of a theistic belief system in organized religion. Any belief system is neither provable nor unprovable. This idea is inferred from a leap of logic that the universe must be created by an omnipotent entity which posses infinite powers and knowledge. The universe, which is mainly made up of matter and energy can not appear out of nothingness. Matter and energy must be created because the matter and energy can not create itself. It need a creator and the creator is generally referred to as God/god. We appear to posses the ability to experience consciousness within oneself as oppose to that of a rock. This allow us to experience reality and the awareness of our surrounding. All this reality is apparent directly by the synchronized firing of neuronal activities within our brain. If you really think about it conscious reality is very fleeting. It ceases to exist when the individual brain stops to function and revert back to non-existence. But then we do from time to time wonder what is the purpose of being?

Dan, kinda harsh even if true. Seems that many are being misled though. And what a shame because its being done in the guise of love. Hopefully more rooms such as this will open where intellectual discourse can occur. Cool room.

I couldn't have said this better, Dan.

It's comical the intellectual game people play on themselves. Creating their owns rules and playing only by those rules while the world is happening outside their own understanding. No cowards for this challenge... go somewhere where no one else is around and tell God "I need something to show me that you're real". Then wait for days, months if you need to, just see what will happen to you, if you are brave enough. Most people are to afraid of God to face Him with confidence.

The term God is almost always used to refer to a self-aware entity of wisdom and intelligence. But as far as we've seen, any amount of intelligence is an incredibly complex and rare phenomenon. If we're trying to discover the source behind all of existence, we shouldn't expect it to be more complex than what we're trying to explain.

Where it came from is a great question. But to postulate a source more complex than the result is only exasperating the problem.

If you still insist on claiming that the universe was caused by a god, please clearly explain what you mean by that term.

a previous collapsing of the same universe some say

i completely agree. It is possible to believe in God. I may be young, but i believe with all my heart. My thoughts while i sit in class hearing about the big bang theory and evolution and which one is true are as follows: maybe the big bang theory is correct, but scientists have yet to tell us where that comes from. What i mean is that every time they answer one question, they have to think of the annoying little child who says, "But why did that happen/where did it come from?" Until scientists can answer every single question behind the big bang theory (which in my opinion is impossible), they cannot say that there is no God or superior being. I guess evolution could be true, but when we discussed it in church, one woman asked that if evolution were true, why aren't things around us still evolving and changing before our very eyes? I do believe in evolution to an extent, but there is no doubt in my mind that there is a God...and if this big bang theory is true, then it is basically a way of explaining Genesis. If you don't believe me, look it up.

To my understanding, the article describes scientists' beliefs about God and science--not religion and science. It seems to me that God and science can coexist. That yes there is a God, but God is not found in the scientific realm. Science involves the scientific method: theory, evidence, and replication of results. Only replicated results are accepted as true in science. God is about faith and belief and evidence that may not be replicated. God answers questions about relationships among self, friends, family, and nature that science will never be able to answer. I firmly believe in God, although not religion. Luckily, I've learned to read very well and need no intermediary to tell me what my relationship to God is. Plus, I'm turned off my the cafeteria style of religion that seems to be practiced by most people, and I don't believe that faith alone is a guarantee of heaven. The only way that I really know what I beleive and what my fellow human truly believe is through action.

@ 911- you say you are young so I will be gentle :). After typing up what you had to say can you not see the gap in your thinking? -for starters, belief does not equate to reality. This isn't like the movie Elf where all santa clause needs to exist is for people to believe in him. -as for the "answering every little question" comment, Do you think that when debating the existence of god there is an answer for every possible question regarding its existence. There are a myriad of examples to point out where there are holes in scientific theories, but what youre missing is that these theories are based upon evidence that builds towards some sort of logical conclusion. There is no such evidence for the existence of god in any incarnation. -the evolution claim by your churchgoing friend is mistaken as well. There is a theory of evolution because of the numerous accepted and tested examples of the process both in the fossil record and in present day experimentation. - my advice for you would be to reach out and truly try to understand the nature of science and scientific theory instead of merely seeking means to reaffirm your own beliefs that are already mistaken.

-@ bgaines- god only answers those questions for some people, in any event it isn't god thats answering questions about life and relationships etc... but who ever authored several works of fiction several centuries ago, it is their interpretation of religious teachings at the time, colored by their own bias and cultural indoctrination. In any event science does provide answers for these types of relationships in the various fields of psychology (social, cognitive, developmental to be more specific)

God started the pendulum in motion! In my humble opinion he is the big banger. He not being limited to our closed inertial coordinate system and infinite in Power had the capacity to jump start the entopic (positive) motion through the either wind etc... ad on infinitum.

And where did god come from? It's no stranger to believe that a big bang just happened than to think that a thinking being "just happened out of nowhere and nothing".

Not equivalent problems.

The laws of the universe as we understand them do not allow matter and/or energy to just appear (not counting virtual particles). There is no known mechanism within the laws of this universe to account for the mass and energy of the universe nor to account for the low entropy of the early universe.

God, existing before and outside the universe, is not subject to the laws of the universe. We cannot know what laws exist outside our universe and therefore cannot compare that reality with the reality we are bound up in.

Put another way! People keep placing limits on Gods Power. Just because the Universe has Laws that cannot be broken, the assumption is that God also is restricted by limits. IMHO It just ain't so! God Spoke! From nothing was now everthing - just like that! This is serious POWER! In the begining was God - nothing before God. Just God, the alpha and omega. It's just to incomprehensable to believe without proof. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Those that accept the God concept need no proof of God. Those that do not will not accept any proof even if it could be done.

still thats no reason just to assume that there was some kind of god with a hand in creating it/set things in motion etc...
-by the way I (and I'm sure most if not all other skeptics) would happily accept the existence of god if any type of real evidence were offered as opposed to just conjecture or speculation. and anyways what kind of argument is that... "god exists because he does"

Well you've answered yourself right there:

There is no known mechanism within the laws of this universe to account for the mass and energy of the universe nor to account for the low entropy of the early universe.

Just because I didn't know the answer to a question on a calculus quiz doesn't mean that "GOD" would have sufficed as a correct answer.

I don't doubt there is a God, but nor do I doubt evolutionary theory. I believe that, whatever the case, God is the cause of it but we do decide our own destinies and fates and that God has nothing to do with Phsycology. We are in sole control of our lives.

God has to be something more alive than our definition of life comprehends. Intelligent? In what respect? God has to be timeless, outside the realm of cause and effect, which are just artifacts of our limited perception. And by its very nature, God can't be something that can be studied by science, as it relies on repeatable results; but if God is sovereign, then we can't simply push a button and expect a certain effect out of God. (Of course, these are just my views.)

But yeah, science is a way of studying the universe, not something to base your life on. If you do, you'll probably not be that good in bed! ;-)

And atheists can experience the same wonder of God simply by feeling a deep connection to and appreciation for the overwhelming and humility beauty and sorrow of the universe. Our days our numbered, but better dead than alive! (Ecclesiastes)

Of course, these are just my views.

Those views are shared by many wise people.

LOL i mean better alive than dead, oh time for sleep.

@MM

Your mom is wise. No, I mean it!

Msnbc.com would like to know what Newsviners think about this story. Can somebody truly believe in both religion and science? What are your personal beliefs and why? Is it challenging to befriend or get involved with someone who doesn't share your views on religion and science?

Absolutely. In fundamental terms, science is the how of existence and religion is the why of existence. It really is not any more difficult than that. In college level philosophy of religion classes one of the first exercises is to prove that something exists. Using language constructs this is impossible to prove even that you or I exist. However, we do. To me as a scientist, when I look at nature, and look farther in, and farther in, all the way down to the level of the quantum froth, there is energy and there is matter. In our universe the laws of thermodynamics state that all things tend toward their lower energy state, and yet the universe and life both fly in the face of that fundamental well proven precept.

From the indescribable energies of the moment of the big bang to the incredible smell of a flower, there is complexity, that while the how of it is searchable by science, the why never can.

Why did the big bang happen? Where did all of that energy come from. Even if you believe in the scientific precept of the oscillating universe where the big bang happens, it expands, eventually contracts into the big crunch and starts all over again was there not a first spark? Even if there was not, where did the immense energy that the universe represents come from? Has it been here for trillions and trillions of years in this ultimately pointless exercise, exploding and crunching through time?

We know through the theory of relativity of the relative nature of time and that our billions of years may be someone's fleeting second. Even with this understanding of nature that Einstein (relativity) and Plank (Quantum Mechanics) there is no explanation that science has for existence and reality. It is an expansion of the college exercise to be able to prove your own existence. Even though we ultimately cannot prove our existence, we know we are here, and in that knowing the possibility of a ultimate creator cannot be disproven. In Quantum Mechanics if you cannot prove the negative, it must happen. Just as we can not, from our vantage point in time and space, prove the existence of a creator, neither can we disprove it.

There is an incredible quote in the Christian bible that goes "God spoke, and nothing became everything". Whether that act was one that put everything in place in an instant x number of thousands of years ago, or whether like a computer simulation where you write all the equations, input all the variable, and let the program universe version x.x go and wait for a few billion years for the results to come to the point where you input a few new equations named human being version x.x is immaterial and misses the point. We are here, and in all likelyhood there is that great ultimate programmer is watching the progress of the experiment and even the hairs of our head are numbered.

:)

Nice, Space Guy!

Space guy,

In fundamental terms, science is the how of existence and religion is the why of existence.

I discern a problem in your analysis from the get-go. First, it is really hard (regardless of how you do it) to separate out science and religion as different sides of the same coin. But the way you're doing it definitely does not work for me. The words "how" and "why" are nebulous and can even mean the same thing! Let's look at the possibilities.

How generally means "by what mechanism" something occurs.

Why has two distinct and very opposed meanings. Depending on which meaning you take, the question "why did X happen" has two different answers. If you take this to mean "what set of events led to X happening" then you would look to a causal explanation. If you take this to mean "what was the purpose of X happening" then you're looking towards a teleological explanation.

Now that we have those terms separated and less cloudy, we can look at your statement.

... science is the how of existence...

With this part, I think I can agree.

... and religion is the why of existence.

I would definitely have to disagree, and by now you should be able to figure out why. Religion is only one half of the "why" of existence... that is, it describes existence in terms of teleology... "we are here for the purpose of god's pleasure" etc., etc. It doesn't talk about causal relationships.

The other half of "why" is answered by science... the sense of "why" that corresponds with the definition of "how".

Now, you might as, why is this important? It's important because the teleological question of why is not compatible with the causal why. This is because causal relationships are explained from the past, while teleological ones are explained from the future.

So a causal relationship would look like "grass grows because of these properties of grass seeds that are determined by these properties of grass cells which are caused by these properties of grass DNA which are caused by these properties of how organisms evolve".

A teleological statement would be something like "grass grows so that humans can have sufficient oxygen and survive".

The two "explanations" are fundamentally opposed and therefore are not related to existence in the simplistic model you have posited.

Sorry...

The concept of some "Ultimate Mover" who kick-started the Universe is neither necessary nor particularly compelling. It requires a certain amount of mental gymnastics and question begging to hold the view that there "must be" a "God", and it stems, ultimately, from the inability of human beings to attain perfect knowledge about anything, including our own internal states. In fact, the "proof" of God tends to lie specifically in the appeal to ignorance-- as space guy notes, "there is no explanation that science has for existence and reality." Why is there something, instead of nothing? But positing a God who got it all started merely moves the question by one remove, and results in asking where this God came from. Naturally, some will posit that God exists "outside time and space" and therefore needs no explanation, yet that's completely unsatisfactory as an answer. First, what's meant by "outside time and space"? Second, if the origin of God lies "outside time and space" and thus needs no answer, why can't we simply conclude that the origin of the Universe was uncaused in the same manner? There was no "before the Big Bang" that we'll ever have access to, and given that both "time" and "space" "started" with that event, further speculation about a "Prime Mover" who got the whole ball rolling is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Further, beyond merely speculating as to the existence of such a Prime Mover, human beings are tempted, time and again, to assign it qualities which belong to human beings. This Prime Mover "watches" us, is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent. Yet the holding of these positions with respect to some sort of personal God are entirely unwarranted. Omnipotence and omnibenevolence are mutually exclusive (the problem of "evil", as it were). Omniscience precludes personality. The claimed characteristics of God lie beyond our ability to imagine the consequences of those characteristics, at the general level at which conversation of God occurs. As a result, when such facts are pointed out, there is some general hand-waving as to the mysteriousness of God and God's inherent "incomprehensibility" to mere mortals. And yet, again, this is nothing more than an appeal to ignorance.

God is usually treated as some sort of "intelligent agent," and yet the meaning of "intelligence" in that respect is always undefined. We cannot even begin to explain the underpinnings of intelligence adequately at our level of existence, and yet we claim to be able to ascertain a "Godly intelligence" "lying outside time and space" which simultaneously contains the mutually exclusive characteristics of "omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence." It becomes apparent that when we speak of God we speak of something which exists as a hope within us, yet nothing more.

Further, it is often stated that while science may answer the "how" of things, religion answers the "why" of them. This is simply untrue. In the history (and prehistory) of mankind there have been hundreds if not thousands of mutually exclusive religions giving mutually exclusive answers to the same "why" questions. Every religion answers many of those "why" questions. Every answer is different. Therefore no answer can be considered correct. The end state is exactly the same as if we assume that religion answers no "why" questions. Additionally, we can show in a number of cases, including (for example) Christianity, that the religion is largely the product of human minds and human purposes.

The answers to "why" questions, then, regardless of one's religion, is shown to stem from the human mind, rather than some supernatural authorship of various religious tests.

In the face of all those appeals to ignorance, and of the sheer inability to rationally define our terms when speaking of God, to claim that "in all likelihood" there IS a God is simultaneously titanic hubris and abject foolishness.

It is tantamount to saying that, because I cannot know that I have the winning lottery number, therefore I do. Stripped of metaphysical vagueness, it becomes apparent that the most that can be said is that we have no clue as to whether there is a God.

Finally, many will claim that "the tenets of religious faith cannot be proved false." That's a highly dependent assertion. It depends on the nature of the tenets of the religious faith, and on the nature of what's accepted as "proof." If one insists that "proof" consists of having absolute knowledge, then the assertion is correct, although it also means that nothing anywhere, ever, can be proved false. If one allows that claims about observable nature can be proved one way or the other through reference to evidence, than very obviously many tenets of religious faith can be proved false-- in every respect in which those tenets make truth claims about the Universe which can be tested.

Many call the impetus to test these claims disrespectful of religion, and yet the attempt to protect religious claims from the inquisitiveness of the human mind seems rooted more in the fear of having a pleasant daydream stripped from one, than from any disrespect. No one thinks that inquiring as to mundane "truths" is disrespectful of those who hold them. Attempting to ascertain whether the world was created 6000 years ago, for instance is nor more "disrespectful" of religion than showing that the world is not flat is "disrespectful" to flat-earthers.

Can one "believe in" both science and religion? Obviously. Human beings are endlessly capable of holding a variety of standards of "proof" as requirements for their beliefs. Many (most?) are simply accepted uncritically. But it only ever becomes a problem when one person insists that another not merely tolerate an unconsidered belief, but accept it personally as well-founded.

Bravo.

Yes. Bravo iarnuocon! You've expanded on my comments above so eloquently!

Great comment, Iarnuocon. Just one thing, tho:

Every answer is different. Therefore no answer can be considered correct.

That does not follow. You can have many experiences of a complex object, seemingly disconnected from the rest, yet they are still one. Ex. blind men and elephant. Also there can be more than one correct interpretation of events, even in everyday life, unless, of course, one believes that only oneself is ever right. See Hans-Georg Gadamer's Truth and Method. GB Madison's Understanding. There is a very large body of thought and discussion that differs with your opinion on this. I believe that this is why both science and religion can be right, in their own spheres. Neither is absolute.

First, it is really hard (regardless of how you do it) to separate out science and religion as different sides of the same coin.

More power to you. I am not debating the subject, merely stating my opinion. I could care less if anyone agrees.

That is the difference here. You are seeking to persuade or answer me when I am not asking for an answer or seeking to enter into a debate on the subject.

I wish everyone well whatever they think.

Ex. blind men and elephant.

I love that example, gladbutterfly. If reality is infinite in scope and complexity, then many different aspects of it can be described without coming close to exhausting potential descriptions.

This is simply untrue. In the history (and prehistory) of mankind there have been hundreds if not thousands of mutually exclusive religions giving mutually exclusive answers to the same "why" questions. Every religion answers many of those "why" questions. Every answer is different. Therefore no answer can be considered correct.

Not at all true. Many religious conceptions are compatible, complementary, or in agreement, though they vary in terminology and mythology. To what degree they are compatible is a function of the broadness of one's vision.

To take your reasoning and apply it to science: there exist many different models of global climate, does that mean that none of them "can be considered correct"? Well, yes, since none of them take every single factor into consideration, but, no, in that each of these models is in some way *useful*.

To what degree they are compatible is a function of the broadness of one's vision.

And a function of how selective one wishes to be in cherry-picking from belief systems.

To take your reasoning and apply it to science: there exist many different models of global climate, does that mean that none of them "can be considered correct"? Well, yes, since none of them take every single factor into consideration, but, no, in that each of these models is in some way *useful*.

No model presumes to be Truth.

Many, many religious beliefs presume such a thing.

False analogy. Try again.

Many, many religious beliefs presume such a thing.

Religious beliefs don't presume anything. Religious believers presume.

Try again.

Many, many religious beliefs/tenets presume declare such a thing.

Apologies for the mistake.

If God is infinite an ineffable, then no work of finite scope can ever claim to fully represent Him/Her. At best, they can hope to describe but a few of His/Her qualities.

At best, they can hope to describe but a few of His/Her qualities.

And declare them as exclusive Truth, apparently.

And declare them as exclusive Truth, apparently.

Some might dare to, but the wise (theists/atheists) laugh at their folly.

Bravo Iarnuocon - I love to read/listen to those who can cut through the rhetoric. The beginnings of ALL religions are dubious at best. I agree they are mans attempt to explain the unexplainable. Religion has always employed a god of the gaps. Whenever there is something that cant be explained, "god did it". With science making inroads into the unexplained more and more each day their god is regulated to fewer and fewer gaps of ignorance. We can only hope for the day when no gaps remain.

With science making inroads into the unexplained more and more each day their god is regulated to fewer and fewer gaps of ignorance. We can only hope for the day when no gaps remain.

Why must God be relegated to the gaps? Just because we are learning more and more about God's infinite wonders doesn't make God any less infinitely wonderful.

One might be playing symantics here. For if you are refering to god as nature than I will not argue. There are some religious types who have even been able to reconcile themselves with evolution; they do this by stating that god put the process in motion. Not withstanding their abdigation of their heretofor unwavering belief in the Adam/Eve scenario. In that respect you can claim god in all matters, whether it true or not.

More from another article about the correlation between intelligence and atheism.

exactly, neither logic nor reason enters into faith. As a matter of fact you must suspend rational thought because it would run counter to the dogma. They are mutually exclusive.

I guess to start I believe the Bible (yes, some would call that fanatical:o) and I believe science and faith can co-exist depending on your definition of science. If you equate science to evolution (which by the way it is not--nothing in evolution can be proven, anymore than any faith in God can be proven) than no, that is hard to have both, but if you define science as "a process of thought and action designed to discover new information" then yes they can coexist.

As to your comment "The Bible is so full of scientific holes" I would challenge you to find one example specifically and then go to drdino.com and read some of there articles. If they don't have the subject you're questioning, ask!! Mr. Hovin or one of his associates would be more than happy to reply.

Marsha, I had these exact same questions...until I actually read the Bible. I'm not going to sound off on everything you mentioned, but since you specifically asked for the Bible to mention a round earth, please see:

Isaiah 40:22..."It is He who sits above the circle of the earth..."

and about gravity:

Job 26:7..."He hangs the earth on nothing..."

and again about the earth's roundness,

Job 26:10..."He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters, at the boundary of light and darkness."

Marsha, I encourage you and anybody else reading, before you slam the Lord and His word, at least read it. There are countless more examples like the above, which, if they can make a believer out of me, they can make a believer out of anybody!!

If you equate science to evolution (which by the way it is not--nothing in evolution can be proven, anymore than any faith in God can be proven)

You're partially right - science is not evolution and nothing in evolution can be proven.

Where you go way off is "anymore than faith in God can be proven".

Science hasn't, doesn't, and won't prove anything. Science studies and develops theories and tests those theories until a theory can be falsified. Evolution has been studied for years and not been falsified. It is about as close to "proven" as science will get. It is hardly "anymore than faith". Saying so is the same as saying that "belief" in gravity is faith (gravity is a scientific theory - just like evolution - not proven).

andy- the problem is when people use the word "prove"- try going with the word evidence. There are mountains of evidence supporting the existence of evolution collected over a hundred years. As for god... aside from a few books I haven't been made privy to a whole lot.

If you equate science to evolution (which by the way it is not--nothing in evolution can be proven, anymore than any faith in God can be proven) than no, that is hard to have both, but if you define science as "a process of thought and action designed to discover new information" then yes they can coexist.

It depends on which version of God you believe in. Many knowledgeable people are able to reconcile their Christianity and evolutionary theory.

P.S. - The Law of Gravity cannot be proven, yet like evolution, physics is also part of science.

Nothing in evolution can be proven-true. Just as Kevin said, scienctific theories are just that, and they are there to be fortified or amended, or completely uprooted. Classical mechanics isn't wrong, it just doesn't work for certain things, like relativistic speeds or stuff of the sort. But there is no reason to throw it out, that would be ignorant. Just learn how to apply certain fields of science to certain situations. And as for evolution, there is a great deal of evidence supporting it- not a magical "we came from a blob, and a monkey, and a fish" or whatever these people arguing against evolution keep saying about their 'interpretation'- which bothers me..If you're going to argue about evolution, KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT. A COHERENT THEORY! Do NOT just spit out some half-baked hardly-a-phrase crap, some hear-say that some radical christian or whatever said as a snide remark to fly in the face of science. If you want to be taken seriously, on either side, do some damn research. Make a complete point and point out what your problem is. So back to the point. Ever heard of the Galapagos islands? Darwin's finches...prime, I guess you could call example, of SPECIATION. Which is part of the theory of evolution. Look you people, don't be afraid of a book entitled "On the Origin of Species." No one will know, you won't go to hell for reading it. You may (will) learn something. If you want to debate, come prepared. 'Don't bring Zima to a party, step it up a notch...'

If you're going to argue about evolution, KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT. A COHERENT THEORY! Do NOT just spit out some half-baked hardly-a-phrase crap, some hear-say that some radical christian or whatever said as a snide remark to fly in the face of science

I hear ya.

It really is quite frustrating when ignorance presumes to trump knowledge.

'Don't bring Zima to a party, step it up a notch...'

Hehe, unless you're Matthew McConaughey.

Do NOT just spit out some half-baked hardly-a-phrase crap

You just eliminated about half of this discussion.

Sadly.

Bravo Marsha, if I might take your comment about the Mormon religion one step further. You are aware that the founder John Smith was a convicted felon. Do some research on him and you would be amazed... It boggles the mind at how easily large masses of people can be manipulated.

if you had taken the time to read the bible you would find that is does speak of the earth as round isaiah 40:22 "there is one who is dwelling above the circle of the earth". 200yrs before christ and long before science confirmed it. the bible also says the earth hangs on nothing in the book of job, and speaks of the water cycle in the book of eccl.long before science . how did these writers know this? the were inspired by god.

This is just Pascal's wager all over again: faith doesn't cost anything, and, hey, it might pay off. Really what this is saying is that, if there isn't a god, I just don't see any point in going on. Why bother? This was Camus' question in the Myth of Sisyphus. Real adulthood starts when you say, OK, there isn't any god, so how can I create meaning out of my life and the lives of others? This isn't easy, but is it a lot more fulfilling than believing that meaning comes the writings of primitive nomads.

Bravo and if I might add this. All this religious stuff requires you to give all and ask for nothing, no proof. Ask the religious types to offer you 1 provable miraculous event. 1 event. to this day NEVER have I had 1 example given. They can NOT give you 1 example!

All this religious stuff requires you to give all and ask for nothing, no proof. Ask the religious types to offer you 1 provable miraculous event. 1 event. to this day NEVER have I had 1 example given. They can NOT give you 1 example!

Every day, I see countless miracles.

Nothing phenomenal is provable. Things are only provable in the mathematical sense. Any good scientist will point this out to you. When it comes to the phenomenal world, the best science can hope for is to disprove something.

That is weak,"everday i see miracles" weak. Simply explaining a provable scientific event as a miracle will not due. Face it Religion has not, will not give you anything provable. Nothing but words, words uttered by men. They are correct when they say it is "blind faith" because thats what it is blind faith. They will never be able to give you anything more.

Faith=wishful thinking, and if it were that those of you who beleive were content to govern your lives and leave the rest of us alone then it would be all and good. But we know this is not the case you feel it your duty to convince us of your beleifs and as such cause undue conflict into our lives. The abortion debate a prime example. What if a woman does not beleive as you do in that regard. Why do you feel it your right to impose on her body your beliefs?

Simply explaining a provable scientific event as a miracle will not due.

The fact is, while science *may* be able to explain so many things, there are still so many things it cannot (yet) explain. Regardless of how far science progresses, we will never be able to observe every occurrence of every phenomenon. At best, our data is infinitesimal when compared to the body of all possible data.

Another point I'm making is: just because science may have an explanation for a particular phenomenon, that doesn't make it any less miraculous.

What if a woman does not beleive as you do in that regard. Why do you feel it your right to impose on her body your beliefs?

I happen to be pro-choice, but I'll play along. Why does society feel it has a right to impose upon me a prohibition against suicide or the ingestion of certain psychopharmaceuticals?

Mighty - I will agree that science is only beginning to to understand a small bit of the universe. With that being said, we have gained an understanding which in many cases eliminates the unknown. The gap in knowledge is removed and in its place understanding sits. God of the gaps, if you will has been regulated to one less gap.

As for the abortion/suicide debate Im not sure if it is exactly the same thing but:
In one case an individual wants to end his/her life- which, if the desire is strong enough will happen. I believe the arguments occurs when the issue of "State Sanctioned" suicide is discussed. Thats were it gets problematic.In the case of abortion, also a dicey one you have the issue of viability. I believe most are against late term, moreover when it is possible for the embryo to survive outside of the womb. Now the time period of viability is becoming sooner and sooner so that will have to be addressed. For now though I think all can agree anything in the first trimester is another issue. Im sure no one has any valid argument that a zygote can either survive outside or feel pain. It is in these earlier stages that the religious proponents use the "God formed" argument.

What if that person such as myself does not believe what you believe what gives them the right to force their beliefs on others?

God of the gaps, if you will has been regulated to one less gap.

But the God I worship isn't the "God of the gaps". I try to worship the God of the All-in-All in His aspect as the All-Attractive.

What if that person such as myself does not believe what you believe what gives them the right to force their beliefs on others?

I'm sure there are a lot of pot-smokers out there asking the same question. I don't have an answer for that. In fact, I'm not all that interested in rights and their derivation (from the philosophical perspective, that is; politically, it's a *crucial* topic). Practically-speaking, in this "plane of exploitation", might makes right.

If you believe in both you are taking the best of two world.

And this is bad because....?

I don't know if I would term it 'bad' to believe in both—it can probably lead to less depression, higher endorphin levels, etc.—but I think we can call it illogical. I don't think the two vantage points are compatible.

The problem is that there is a certain vocal minority that feels as though the bible can and should be a science textbook

I do not know if The Holy Bible can in any way qualify as a Science Textbook. However; I do believe it should be a serious contender as additional text for "History."

absolutely not... a book, who many religious scholars readily admit, is riddled with historical inaccuracies should hold no place as an historical text. Maybe a collection of stories involving some type of skewered morality and an inspiration for many works of art/literature etc... some of which are worthwhile and some worthless.

I think we can safely place it as literature and an object of literary criticism/new historicism. Anything further (any greater weight) would be ill-advised.

Exactly, and what gives one religion supposed superiority over another. And for those who will purport that a religion is judged superior becuase of it "fruits" you would surely have to exempt Chrisitanity because we all know the great "sins" committed in its name.

And for those who will purport that a religion is judged superior becuase of it "fruits" you would surely have to exempt Chrisitanity because we all know the great "sins" committed in its name.

Surely you can appreciate the difference between actions carried out under the guidance of certain principles and actions carried out in the *name* of certain principles, but which run counter to the principles which they are purported to uphold, can you not?

I can appreciate that many have used religion for all sorts of purposes both good and bad.

I can appreciate that many have used religion for all sorts of purposes both good and bad.

And no doubt you can appreciate that there are religious hypocrites just as there are atheistic hypocrites.

I see religion as evil period.
1. It gives people false hopes.
2. It was/is used by the state to manipulate and control the masses.
3. It is used to foster hate more than any other device know to man.
4. It places undue burdens/guilt on people.
5. It has been used to justify the supposed "divine right" of the power elite.
6. Most anything done for the good of individuals by religious organizations could also be done by secular ones.

That is just a few but I could go on.

All good and valid points. Of course many of them can be applied to science as well.

Also, it bears pointing out that religion and spirituality are not the same thing.

Totally a 'just so story' [ad hoc fallacy].

Totally a 'just so story' [ad hoc fallacy].

As opposed to say....Genesis?

Some folk sought the logical principles behind natural phenomena rather than quaking in fear or bowing in adulation. They were, and are, the free thinkers that have allowed civilizations to flourish. These people have evolved beyond those childish beliefs. They are called "scientists"...

So, now we must quake in fear and bow in adulation to the *scientists*, the new high priests!!!

:P

Give me a break! Despite all we know and think we know, we still don't know shizz.

"It seems purely logical to give the attributes of organization and creation to a higher intelligence."

On the other hand there are plenty of people who feel that making the jump to assuming there is a designer/creator/higher intelligence after observing organization is purely illogical.

perhaps science is the myth created by man to allow him to elevate himself beyond his station
with no God there are no rules to bind us to morality then we ourselves become our own gods..................shame on us :-)

So if you stopped reading your bible/going to church you would immediately engage in socially amoral or destructive behavior?

P.S. -isn't it more arrogant to think that an imaginary being as powerful as this god character has to be in order to be all-knowing/ all-seeing/ all-creating came up with us and no one else, not the other way around. Your understanding of science is mistaken, people pursue science to better understand their surroundings and search for some type of "truth", not elevate themselves beyond their station (whatever that is supposed to mean)

So if you stopped reading your bible/going to church you would immediately engage in socially amoral or destructive behavior?

Perhaps E Agee would. However, atheists are disproportionately rare in US prisons.

Let him mull over that one for a bit.

arrogant for who? you say its arrogant to believe in Gods omnipotence why?all Im saying is its arrogant to believe we have the capability to think at the level of God we cant its that simple and not amount of talking about how great science is will change that Im not saying science is not a good thing but I believe that we should use it as a tool to as you say to help us better understand our world and or place in it not to replace faith and God so we dont have anyone to answer to, also who knows if its only us he created Ive never found anything in my Bible that even addresses that issue so maybe there are hundreds of planets that have life on them I dont have proof either way on that so I cant say but I do believe God could do that if he chose to and as to truth what if my belief is the truth if it is would you be prepared to admit it? the burden of proof is not on me and my kind. the tenants of science have always been to challenge the status quo with proof but for some reason on this issue people argue with only theories and conjecture no proof! Atheism cant be proven because its wrong and untill someone can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt there is no God then it will remain wrong thats is using sciences own methodology! bottom line the truth is the truth whether you believe it or not

Such comments are just as prejudiced as those of religious zealots who believe every word of the Bible is literally the word of God.

For the religious zealots: the Bible (or texts of other religions) is not God, religion is not God, your articles of faith are not God. God is all around you and in you. What kind of relationship can you have through a book? Find and read what Jesus actually said about developing a relationship with God, then explore God! Science is simply the observation of what is, the asking of the question, "what if", and the testing of patterns to answer that question. When the Bible is read in the context of the authors' time and as whole chapters, many of the articles of "faith" simply do not exist. Many of them were "created" by men more than 300 years after Jesus and his disciples had died and could no longer protect their true interpretations. It is fact that interpretations have evolved over the years. Going to Bible study and reading it through a religious filter is not enough to truely understand God (but that is what religion tells us to do). For example, where did Jesus say that every book and word in the Old and New Testament is the unerring word of God? That was invented by religious zealots hundreds of years after Jesus and his followers were long gone. This single article of faith has caused a lot of death and destruction in the world. What entity would have an interest in promoting that?

For the science zealots: Remember that though they seem logical and mainstream now, Darwin's theories of evolution were not accepted by the scientific community until years after his death! The original greek "scientists" often said that science began in the mind and that with enough concentration any experiment could be performed there as well prior to making it physical. Great science does and always will involve creativity, but some lessor minds believe that only repeatable observation with instruments is "real" science. Those persons are often limited by their own "faith" in past science. What reasonable observations would you expect if a consciousness that existed in multiple dimensions (all of them) created the universe and all of its contents from a singularity? What if the very fabric of the universe (a God partical?) IS the intelligence and essence of God? How would science test and observe such a theory? It IS possible, if you are forward looking. Once you get going, you won't be able to stop! It is facinating!

That's because Atheist suddenly find God once they get into prison Jack.

I have been a science tec nearly all of my working life, and I believe in God because He revealed Himself to me. My belief is based on many experiences which ocured precisely as the Bible says they will (see John 14:21-23). Scientific method demands reproducibility, and I have questioned many fellow Christians, who are following the Lord closely, and they have had the same experiences.

not to replace faith and God so we dont have anyone to answer to

It's sad that you need a grand cosmic bogeyman to keep you in line. Many people get along fine answering to their consciences and our laws.

the burden of proof is not on me and my kind. the tenants of science have always been to challenge the status quo with proof but for some reason on this issue people argue with only theories and conjecture no proof!

Except that religion isn't a scientific status quo. It's as much of a status quo as any majority political opinion.

The burden of proof is on the "kind" making the positive claim. You are making the positive claim of the existence of God. saying that the burden of proof is not on you is like saying that if I believed in flying unicorns, it's up to you to prove they don't exist.

Atheism cant be proven because its wrong

Feel free to think of way to prove God. Otherwise, atheism is no worse than your personal fantasies.

bottom line the truth is the truth whether you believe it or not

And for now, there is no physical evidence for God.

Remember that though they seem logical and mainstream now, Darwin's theories of evolution were not accepted by the scientific community until years after his death!

Your point? Science changes with the evidence. The more revolutionary the claim, the more evidence is required.

The original greek "scientists" often said that science began in the mind and that with enough concentration any experiment could be performed there as well prior to making it physical.

And the greek "scientists" thought the heavenly bodies only moved in straight lines. Yep, simply looking into the distance, contemplating a question led them to a whole lotta truths, eh?

Great science does and always will involve creativity, but some lessor minds believe that only repeatable observation with instruments is "real" science.

Hahaha, I'm sorry if "lesser minds" require verification for credible science, instead of simply following anyone who makes s--- up. Making s--- up isn't great science. That's religion.

How would science test and observe such a theory? It IS possible, if you are forward looking.

Look forward for me, then. How would one go about actually testing that "theory"? Better yet, calling it a "theory" means it must be theoretically disprovable. Think of a way to do that, and your semantics just might be valid.

That's because Atheist suddenly find God once they get into prison Jack.

Feel free to support such bulls--- with... anything.

Scientific method demands reproducibility, and I have questioned many fellow Christians, who are following the Lord closely, and they have had the same experiences.

Can you elaborate on what these experiences were?

Oops, double post.

Hell yeah, I'm slaughtering 300 cows on my alter to Apollo this weekend. (need to make sure chauncey billups's hamstring doesn't explode in the next round)

Its fairly debatable that god did not create DNA, and there is little if any proof of he/she or any other being creating the "laws of science" or nature. All your doing is question begging.

After all, was it not God who created the Laws of Science, nature, DNA?

Um... no?

So, the Big Bang is Chaos, and then God made Order out of it.

If we don't need god as an explanation of this "order from chaos" why inject him into the conversation? Occam's razor, people...

Again, you are employing a god of the gaps. Just because we have not yet figured out the why, does not give us license to automatically assign a god to it. Remember, we used to think that "god" caused earthquakes.

Remember, we used to think that "god" caused earthquakes.

God causes everything, regardless of how much we think we understand things. Regardless of how many dominoes lie between the phenomenon we are examining and the prime cause, God remains the prime cause.

Come on, is this another example of what is giving rise to the new view that no matter the assertion scientifically it is caused by god. How convienient, now evolution is thought to be of god. He started the whole process. Now im a waiting on how you are going to square what has been siad about the earth being 6 thousand years old. I await the day when even this premise is adjusted to the scientific view of billions of years.

Now im a waiting on how you are going to square what has been siad about the earth being 6 thousand years old. I await the day when even this premise is adjusted to the scientific view of billions of years.

Why do people assume that any person of faith must be a fundamentalist Christian?

There are plenty of Christians who don't buy the fundamentalist calculations for the age of the earth.

I happen to not even be a practicing Christian. In the Hindu cosmology, the Earth *is* billions of years old. It's taken science quite a bit of time to catch up with where Hindu cosmology was several thousand years ago.

Here's the Wikipedia article about Yugas:

The Hindu texts[citation needed]say the four yugas equal 4,320,000 years, or a mahayuga. 1,000 mahayugas or 4.32 billion years equal one kalpa.

Hindu cosmology describes various "minor" and "major" dissolutions which may wipe out all life on the planet or in certain regions (which jibes with scientific descriptions of great upheavals causing the extinction of the dinosaurs, for instance). The universe itself is said to exist for about 100 years of Brahma:

According to Brahma Purana and Hindu cosmology, Brahmā is the creator but not necessarily regarded as God in Hinduism.He is mostly regarded as a creation of God / Brahman. The lifespan of Brahmā is 100 Brahmā years or 311 trillion,40 billion human years. At the end of his lifespan, there is a gap of 100 Brahmā years after which another Brahmā or creator begins anew and the process is repeated forever. For this reason, Brahmā might be considered only as a creator who is the executor of the order from the Supreme being - The Brahman.

It's tempting to make a condescending remark about how you might want to broaden your view of the world to include more than the art of "science" which is, after all, still in its infancy.

I will broaden my knowledge to include only that which is provable or at the very least based upon data and reason. I can not, will not, simply believe something because some person supposedly speaking to a higher entity tells me to. Too much opportunity for biased interpretation. Sorry

So, then, have you derived every equation in physics? Have you reproduced every scientific experiment? If not, then you are taking it on faith that the science you cherish *is* in fact provable and based upon (valid) data and reason and not falsification, hand-waving, or honest error.

The ability to replicate is the difference. Have I personally run the experiments? No. Could I, with the idea of of testing the assumption for veracity? Yes. Cant do that with religious experiences or conjecture.

Cant do that with religious experiences

Why not? Gautama Buddha, for instance, attained enlightenment after a particular quest and particular practices (sitting under a tree in the forest without eating or drinking). Shouldn't you at least *try* to replicate his results before dismissing them out of hand?

I like your viewpoint.

It reconciles and separates science and religion quite nicely.

Please, people, do not be such an authority-based culture.

If it weren't for the "authority" of the laws that science has enlightened upon us, you and I would not be interacting on our "magical boxes of mysticism."

Any profession, and anyone, is a scientist if his/her thought-process follows the rigorous tests of the scientific method. So unlike the various "flavors" of religion, 30 degrees Celsius in "Christian" America is the exact same temperature as 30 degrees Celsius in the "Islamic" Middle East. It doesn't take "belief" to explain, to test, and to replicate.

If I say I "believe" in the Flying Spaghetti Monster - will you ridicule me? Can you prove the FSM does not exist? No, you cannot. But that doesn't make my "belief" correct, either. Saying that "science cannot prove" what caused the big bang does not make your "belief" in a creator the winner by default.

Society incarcerates people in mental institutions because they say they "believe" they have an invisible friend. Churches exist only because people continue to say they "believe" in an invisible creator. What does that say about society? Or the ignorant mob?

Science has given our stubbornly-ignorant species the capability, through the science of cloning, to create life when there was none. By definition, that makes humans "godly."

Use your brief time on Earth to discover it, not to presume you already know all about it.

Your mind is a parachute - it works best when opened.

Perhaps those who are not able to discuss their views without belittling the views of others are insecure in their "faith" be it religious or scientific.

So forgive me - as the bible commands you, sheep.

When you say we should use our "God-given" brains, you're belittling & insulting everyone who is still waiting for you to show proof of your "knowledge" that our brains are "God-given?" You keep reciting these incantations to the point that you take them as reality.

Omit your childhood religious inculcation and explain to me where else you would have heard "God-given?" I've never heard any scientist in any science class I ever took in college say to me, we should think more with our "God-given" brains.

So forgive me - as the bible commands you, sheep.

Hahaha. The only Christian text I think is valuable is the Gospel of Thomas, is not in the traditonal bible. However I think the Bhagavad Gita, The Tao Te Ching, and certain of the buddhist texts, are far more valuable, anyhow.

I don't deny the value of science, but you deny the value of the entire corpus of religious and philosophical texts that have been written, dating back thousands of years.

Your mind is a parachute - it works best when opened.

Now, here's a man with an open mind. You can feel the breeze from here.

Hugh - Why do you assume there has to be a "winner"? There are only theories that can be supported and theories that can not yet be supported, and even then it is not conclusive.

In case you haven't noticed, I am not on either side of this argument. Christians believe in "God-given" and therefore that is an effective term for communicating with them. Scientists believe in objectivity and therefore that is likewise an effective term to use with them.

Those of you who are zealots on either side are not following your own guidelines.

Christians believe in the teachings of Christ (by definition) and yet often spout dogma that is only supported by their own religious texts when taken out of context or the author's original purpose.

Scientists believe in objectivity and the scientific method when they feel like it and yet often want to belittle reasonable "what if" arguments with which they emotionally disagree without any evidence either way.

No one on either side will be able to convince anyone on the other side to abandon their emotional convictions and have an open mind. I actually expect that of the religious zealots, but I am extremely disappointed in the so-called scientists with closed minds.

Hugh - Why do you assume there has to be a "winner"?

Ask the religious. Religions have been forcing a pissing contest amongst themselves and against science for millennia.

Scientists believe in objectivity and the scientific method when they feel like it and yet often want to belittle reasonable "what if" arguments with which they emotionally disagree without any evidence either way.

Belittle "what ifs"? Sorry, but I have absolutely no respect for people who make entirely unsubstantiable (or even patently falsified) "what ifs" out to be truths. I see no reason to grant them any in the foreseeable future.

As long as you keep them "what ifs", and understand the emptiness of asserting such things as anything but logically mandatory bare possibilities, I'm fine with any belief, including beliefs that rainbow unicorns farted the universe into existence.

but I am extremely disappointed in the so-called scientists with closed minds.

There is a bare possibility that all of "reality" is a farce, and we're actually sentient green marshmallows stuck in a Matrix-esque false reality.

Open-mindedness is not about giving undue credence to a belief simply because someone believes it.

No one on either side will be able to convince anyone on the other side to abandon their emotional convictions and have an open mind. I actually expect that of the religious zealots, but I am extremely disappointed in the so-called scientists with closed minds.

Disappointed, maybe, but you're not surprised, though, are you?

Open-mindedness is not about giving undue credence to a belief simply because someone believes it.

Neither is it giving undue credence to a perception just because somebody perceives it.

Neither is it giving undue credence to a perception just because somebody perceives it.

Science already knows that, but you should remind the major religions. They seem to be have lost sight of it, if they ever saw it in the first place.

Science already knows that, but you should remind the major religions. They seem to be have lost sight of it, if they ever saw it in the first place.

Not many religions (if any) proceed under the false pretenses of objectivity.

Not many religions (if any) proceed under the false pretenses of objectivity.

I'd love to see how you're going to show us that Christianity declares itself subjective, and thus wholly fallible.

I'd love to see how you're going to show us that Christianity declares itself subjective, and thus wholly fallible.

Some Christians seem to adhere to the heresy that the Bible trumps God's will, but most reasonable Christians recognize that God's will is absolute. God is not bound by any objective standards.

If you can't count on God to keep His Word, who can you count on?

God is not bound by any objective standards.

Meaning... "any standards except this one"... which happens to claim an objective understanding of God?

Ie, "I know this about God absolutely", ie, "I have objective knowledge of God".

If you can't count on God to keep His Word, who can you count on?

Why be hung up on God keeping His word? God knows what's best for us. Trusting *that* is sufficient.

Meaning... "any standards except this one"... which happens to claim an objective understanding of God?

Ie, "I know this about God absolutely", ie, "I have objective knowledge of God".

Like to play word/thought games, eh? As with life, God is rich with paradoxes.

I have no knowledge of anything, but I've heard these things from sources which I trust.

Like to play word/thought games, eh? As with life, God is rich with paradoxes.

I have no knowledge of anything, but I've heard these things from sources which I trust.

Several random but related and directed comments:

1. Word games...? Or am I just demonstrating that religions do by their very nature claim objectivity? In other words... I think this 'game' explains what you don't seem to understand about iarnuocon's and Jack's argument.

2. If you have no knowledge of anything, presumably no one has any knowledge of anything (how could they?)... meaning that these sources you trust are just as unreliable as you are.

3. For someone as powerful and as much of a "catch-all" answer as "God" is, he should not necessitate paradoxes.

4. But yes... I'm a fan of Derrida.

Re-read the subthread in its entirety and you'll see why the word games explain what you need to understand.

MightyMait:
I forgot to mention: don't take my response(s) as hostile... I respect your position more than most others, primarily because I don't see you as militant or thinking religion is sufficiently objective to be inserted into law. I respect people who have come to religious conclusions based on personal experiences. I just don't like being told that I should also believe the same.

Or am I just demonstrating that religions do by their very nature claim objectivity?

Some (or even *all*) religions may claim objectivity, but I don't see it that way. I see religious fundamentalists as claiming to possess absolute truth. More humble theists see scripture and spiritual teachings as indicators towards truth.

My Guru's Guru, Srila Sridhar Maharaja touches (in his own humbly authoritative manner) on these topics in his "Subjective Evolution of Consciousness".

From the opening words of the Preface:

Evolution is generally thought of as something objective.
But objective evolution is a misperception of reality. Evolution
is actually based on consciousness, which is subjective.
Subjective evolution, however, seems to be objective evolution
to the ignorant.
In ignorance we think of ourselves as subjects, although
in reality the Lord is the subject and we are His objects.
We think of ourselves as proprietors although we are His
property.

and, from page 18:

Through a form of mystic "hypnotism,'' the
supersubject controls the subject to see a particular thing,
and he is bound to see that. One may think that as we see
a stone, the stone compels us to see it as stone, but it is just
the opposite: we are compelled to see it as stone being
under the influence of the supersubject who displays everything
as He likes. When He commands, "See stone," then
we shall see stone. Full control over whatever we see rests
in His hands. No power to control what we see rests in the
objective world. The objective world is fully controlled by
the subjective.

Sincere theists of all traditions, advise us that it is by surrender to the Infinite that transcendental truth can be revealed to us. Such truths cannot be revealed by our own logic, reason, or speculation.

2. If you have no knowledge of anything, presumably no one has any knowledge of anything (how could they?)... meaning that these sources you trust are just as unreliable as you are.

Once again, as humans, we are all fallible and subject to illusion. However, presuming the existence of God in the commonly accepted sense (possessing the "three O's"), God must be able to reveal things of substance to us.

While my sources may be as unreliable as I am, by observing their character and the potency of their words and example, I trust them to be more reliable than I am.

3. For someone as powerful and as much of a "catch-all" answer as "God" is, he should not necessitate paradoxes.

But, even *without* God, there are so many paradoxes, why should God be confined to reason and internal consistency? As the Absolute and the All-in-All, God contains *all* paradoxes.

4. But yes... I'm a fan of Derrida.

I'm sorry to say I haven't made it that far in my studies of the Western tradition.

Re-read the subthread in its entirety and you'll see why the word games explain what you need to understand.

I wish I had the time or inclination. They're talking about layoffs here at work (rare for government), so I'm trying to curtail my Newsvine exploits (but I suffer from guilt when I spend more than my "break-times" here during the work-day, regardless of that). I'd need the Cliff's Notes.

I forgot to mention: don't take my response(s) as hostile... I respect your position more than most others, primarily because I don't see you as militant or thinking religion is sufficiently objective to be inserted into law. I respect people who have come to religious conclusions based on personal experiences. I just don't like being told that I should also believe the same.

Thanks for stating that explicitly. I accepted your friend request (making you at least the second person, through whom Jack is a "friend-of-a-friend" to me), and certainly reciprocate your respect.

I try not to fall victim to dogmatism. While I try not to be a slave to my rational mind, seeing my (presumed) soul as a more faithful instrument of inquiry, I can't help but entertain the doubts that everything that I believe (or claim to believe) may be false, and the material universe is all that exists.

It's the *attractiveness* of the theistic conceptions expressed by my teachers and the stirrings of my own soul that compel me to suspend my disbelief and accept them.

They base their assertions on observable data and facts and NOT upon mere conjecture thats the difference.

They base their assertions on observable data and facts and NOT upon mere conjecture thats the difference.

No assertions are based solely on observable data. There are always assumptions (stated or unstated) that must be granted to be valid in order for the assertions to be valid.

One such assumption is that the data itself is data and not error or misperception.

That might be true however, there is the ability to examine others results for objective analysis. And again assertions are based upon observations done by objective measures as opposed to conjecture from individuals who supposedly have been told this and in no way can be replicated.

That might be true however, there is the ability to examine others results for objective analysis. And again assertions are based upon observations done by objective measures as opposed to conjecture from individuals who supposedly have been told this and in no way can be replicated.

There are no objective measures. Can you list a single objective measure for me? Just one?

How do you know that the results of spiritual inquiries cannot be duplicated? Have you tried following in the footsteps of the great saints in an effort to reproduce their results, or do you arrogantly dismiss them without more than a cursory examination?

The saints aren't simply "told" transcendental truths, they *experience* them.

As far as I have heard, read or seen these manifestations are almost always personal in nature. And since you are asking for one example of something how about this. Give me one example of a provable miracle, just one.

And please dont use the nature argument.

Give me one example of a provable miracle, just one.

Each sun rise.

Now, how about citing just one truly objective measure?

There you go again, I asked that you not use nature. The sun will rise regardless whether or not a god exists. I suspect as usual there is NO proof. It seems miracles are a thing of the past. How convenient.

There you go again, I asked that you not use nature.

Why should nature be excluded? Isn't *everything* part of nature.

Usain Bolt's world record in the 100M, 200M, and 4x100M relay was another miracle.

The brain is a miracle. After studying it for many years, we still don't come close to fully understanding it.

Also, you've stated a number of times that there are fewer gaps in our knowledge than there were previously. I'm going to call you on that now, because it's patently false. For every question that science answers, it raises 20 new questions. If anything, the more we learn, the more we know how little we truly know. This is a good thing, or there would be nothing for Ph.D. candidates to do.

Nature occurs without the help of a god. Evolution occurs without a god. Furthermore, if you now want to employ the new tactic of "intelligent design" that falls on its face as well. Nature has proven that design has occurred through chance alone. No intelligence needed for evolution only chance, involving countless years of replication. A so called intelligent designer would not have had so much waste as is necessary to evolution. Waste, although a necessary ingredient to evolution would not be considered intelligent. A god on the other hand would/should simply zap the new species into being. Explain how an Omniscient, omnipotent being would allow waste when it runs counter to the definition of omniscience. He would already know the final outcome and simply make it be.

Nature occurs without the help of a god. Evolution occurs without a god.

Prove it.

Nature has proven that design has occurred through chance alone.

Saying that nature is proving thins is called anthropomorphism.

Explain how an Omniscient, omnipotent being would allow waste when it runs counter to the definition of omniscience.

If a being is omnipotent, what would such a being care about waste? There's plenty more where this all came from.

He would already know the final outcome and simply make it be.

As finite beings, any speculation we might make about the motivations and actions of an infinite being are as laughable (actually, more laughable) as an ant's conjecture about what your motivations might be.

Science can't even account for half (or so) of the mass currently expected to exist in the universe, let alone the origin of everything.

because it would take all day to address every inconsistency and inaccuracy and misinformed assumption I'll just go with one...evolution was never intended to explain the origin of life or the universe. It is one of the mechanisms by which heritable traits are passed down from one generation to the next. NOT an explanation who/what/how the big bang occurred.

because it would take all day to address every inconsistency and inaccuracy and misinformed assumption, ... I'll take another one...

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, each of which starts with an account of creation, and many pieces of the account being the same.

Almost every religion/myth known to man has had a creation story and almost all have similarities - some more than others. You can find strong similarities of the Christian creation stories in a number of religions pre-dating Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

and in other areas that science challenges the creation account in Genesis, there isn't enough factual evidence or verification of methods used to conclude the account to be inaccurate.

The worldwide Flood is considered by the archaeological and geological communities to be, ahem, bullcrap.

I don't believe that order can come from disorder, or that monkeys sitting behind Microsoft Word for billions or even trillions of years, banging on keys, could ever type out Hamlet, let alone a paragraph from Hamlet.

Why not?

Evolution didn't make sense to me, because I have too much pride to think that I evolved from some puddle of goo by way of a chimp.

Pride is one of the seven. Just sayin'.

many pieces of the account being the same. Christianity is the only option that I have found that even comes close to making sense.

So... they're very similar when you're using them for the "it has to be right because lots of people believe it", but the other two are crazy bulls--- when it comes to picking Christianity? Nice.

Furthermore, even if evolution were true, someone had to make the goo, or the cosmic chicken, or the cosmic egg, or the big bang.

And what made that someone?

For those of you that don't believe in God, I offer something for you to consider. What if you're wrong? What if the belief you are carrying about what happens to you when you die turns out to be so far from the truth, yet you have no chance to do anything about it?

And you believe in one of thousands of versions of a creator being. If your version is wrong, you're similarly doomed, more so than atheists if the real creator has a "don't worship false deities" clause in his edicts.

You throw out a lot of beliefs, treating them (beyond the initial two words) as fact. From what you've said here, your beliefs are based on simply your beliefs, which seems rather naively self-referential.

thats all well and good but i offer this why not live by that universal tenant which all religions seem to agree on. Love your fellow man. If people followed this the rest would take care of itself. Ochams razor.

thats all well and good but i offer this why not live by that universal tenant which all religions seem to agree on. Love your fellow man.

Because, at least historically-speaking, folks haven't even been able to agree upon just who is a "man" and who is not. Whenever morality is based-upon such relative considerations, there will be potential for distortion and abuse.

OK lets try and concentrate on those of our species. Is that clear enough?

OK lets try and concentrate on those of our species. Is that clear enough?

Why? Why should we make such arbitrary distinctions? After all "species" is a fairly arbitrary distinction (though the ability to interbreed is a fairly objective criterion). Even so, why should we distinguish between species when it comes to our morality?

Why do pet cats and dogs get special treatment when compared to livestock animals? Does it make any rational sense?

Hi,
Very nicely said but quaint. Im am glad you are so sure about your beliefs but some of us need proof. Its nice that you have a personal relationship I will not discount what you believe you have personally felt. My point is that it is personal to you and those of your similar beliefs and should remain that way. I only have a problem when your type believe that because of your "supposed" relationship with god you have some inside knowledge that gives you incite on how others should live their lives. even if they dont believe as you do. This gives them the false impression that they should affect laws which impacts others lives i.e. the abortion debate.

With spiritual experience, there is no doubt that it's personal and subjective. The danger when it comes to science is that it pretends to be objective when, in fact, it is not.

My own spiritual experiences are meager enough. Certainly, they are nothing in comparison with what I've heard described by spiritual teachers whom I trust. However, my own experiences are sufficient to indicate to me that my spiritual efforts are well-placed and that I ought to continue along this path.

My spiritual teachers aren't trying to pass laws (like carbon cap and trade, for instance) to force anybody to do anything. Rather, they are humbly begging us blind folk to leave our caves of darkness and step out into the light of day.

I would submit that it is those of your like which still reside in caves of fear and superstitious idolatry. And your leaders are ALWAYS trying to force your belief's through laws onto others. Again, the most relevant issue the abortion debate.

I would submit that it is those of your like which still reside in caves of fear and superstitious idolatry. And your leaders are ALWAYS trying to force your belief's through laws onto others

Actually, my teachers tell us that we have nothing to fear whatsoever. Whatever we fear is illusion and misidentification.

What do you know about my leaders?

If you have any sincere desire to learn more about the path I'm trying to follow, here is a good place to start. There are a number of freely available publications here.

I graduated with a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from an Ivy League university, by the way, and I work as a computer programmer/analyst for county government. While I'm not a scientist, I've studied a fair bit of science. I feel I'm somewhat competent to point out some of science's failings and weaknesses. What are your qualifications for criticizing religion/spirituality? To what degree have you seriously examined spiritual principles?

My personal qualifications for my criticisms are my countless encounters with the purveyors of your illogical dogma. My qualification is that I have half a brain and will not simply "drink the kool-aid" of another human being telling me he has an audience with a supreme being and I should do what this person says. How presumptuous you people are.

How presumptuous you people are.

I'm presumptuous, am I? *You're* the one presuming to tell me that I believe the Earth to be 6,000 years old.

You're drinking the kool-aid of the materialists. Feel free to limit yourself to faulty logic. Why should reality be logical?

God had already said imagining something is as powerful as actually doing it

Imagine if pilot certifiers actually woke up to this grand fact of the universe?

No more flight hours needed for that airline license.

Just because Scientist uncover some of the working of God world doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

I agree. But, when certain versions of God contain statements completely contradictory to all known scientific evidence, I'd take credence in the science and evidence.

You went overboard on me. But training on a simulator and then going home and imagining you are using the simulator to hon your skills in your mind would be greatly beneficial before you actually flew the plane..

One time when I was a young man I was asked to show a person God. You can't. The religion runs off of faith. You can no more see God then you can see pain. If I dropped a hammer on your foot and asked you if it hurt you would probably tell me it does. If I didn't want to believe you I could look at my foot and say no it doesn't. If I had no faith in your word you could not convince me that your foot hurt no matter how much you tried. All I got to say to your comments is if you do not believe in God you better be right. I do believe in God. I don't have to worry about being wrong. When we die then we will know if there is a God or not. You only have a choice when you are alive not after you are dead. You said that the bible has been written by man. Then if the bible was written by man why is it the only book ever written that has no grammar errors. Some say the bible counterdics itself. I am not talking about that. That is only a persons opionion. I am talking about spelling, grammer, puntuation marks and ext. If you don't believe me find an old bible and check it out. The bible also talks about things that is taking place today that was wrote many years ago. I know some say there are many books of the bible that are hidden. Does it not make you wonder why other things are being found and discovered why not even one other book of the bible has not been found. I will tell you why because there are no other books of the bible. The bible has all the books of the bible. It was a person that started that rummor. That is all it is just a rummor. Just because someone said it does not make it true. It does not matter if you believe me or not what matters is if you are right in the end. I don't know about you but I don't want to bet eternity on that one. I don't have to worry if I am wrong. I have my bases covered. I don't have to hope I am right. It is not a mistake you can correct by saying opps I guess I was wrong.

You can no more see God then you can see pain.

Some can't help *but* to see God. Everywhere they look they see God.

I don't know about you but I don't want to bet eternity on that one. I don't have to worry if I am wrong. I have my bases covered. I don't have to hope I am right. It is not a mistake you can correct by saying opps I guess I was wrong.

If you really want to cover all your bases, you ought to try believing in *every* scripture out there, not just the Bible. Many faiths don't subscribe to the eternal damnation fear tactic.

I do believe in God. I don't have to worry about being wrong.

Well, I hope you're believing in the right god! ("opps I guess I was wrong")

Then if the bible was written by man why is it the only book ever written that has no grammar errors

Now that's funny. I never heard that one before. So it must be true, it must be the word of God 'cause HE used a period everywhere there should be one.

The bible also talks about things that is taking place today that was wrote many years ago

Like?

I know some say there are many books of the bible that are hidden. Does it not make you wonder why other things are being found and discovered why not even one other book of the bible has not been found

There are "other books", other scriptures that were either excluded or removed from the bible. They aren't hidden waiting to be found, they are known just not taught.

I will tell you why because there are no other books of the bible. The bible has all the books of the bible

and which version of the bible would you be referring to?

Then if the bible was written by man why is it the only book ever written that has no grammar errors

Breaking news: Iliad's English translation grammatically perfect, revealed to be Lost Word of God.

Grammar?

Bravo.

Put another way... "The just shall live by Faith." :-)

we cannot ever scientifically prove his existence as that would negate our exercising our free will to believe or not believe in God.

Plenty of people believe in that which is contradictory to the scientifically proven.