Religion: Just a Form of Brain Washing?

[quote]pat wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Good post pat. I totally agree. There is a large degree of faith required in science and science really has no valid reason to discount the existence of God. The standard rationale is that it cannot be measured, so that is why God doesn’t exist. However, science cannot measure a lot of things (as you mentioned) that it believes exist.

In fact, the existence of god is irrelevant for science. It can have no meaning in a scientific context. The existence of god can’t even play a role in the history of ideas. Since it is an idea, it’s accuracy is only of secondary interest.
Because god is totally irrelevant, you can’t draw any conclusions of gods existence from science. Science as a source can’t tell you anything because it doesn’t understand the question.

Perhaps, but science can be useful in verifying or invalidating arguments used for the existence of God. For instance, the discovery and empirical testing of simultaneous causation was a very important discovery for the cosmological argument for the existence of God, freewill vs. determinism, causation itself, etc. Quantum mechanics was very important to many philosophical questions. It didn’t solve the problems per se, but it moved them ahead, people no longer dwell on that particular sticking point in the various arguments that use such points.

Philosophy and science are very much tied together, since all science initially came from philosophy. Science is much more rigid in its scope, but the means by which it asks questions are basically philosophical questions. [/quote]

Science works on cause and effect does it not? the theory of how something might work would surely come from that line of thinking. If science came from philosophy where did philosophy originate?

Was the first striking of flint together and lighting a fire a scientific breakthrough?

[quote]pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:

Very good point…but, the difference is that we know and accept that science will change…not so for religion.

Religious belief changes all the time…History bears that out…

How so?

Huguenots, Puritans, all gone. Protestant reformation. Vatican I and II. Islam from a religion to a murderous cult, etc.

Religion may be a means to develop a relationship with God, but the way that relationship manifests itself is sometimes good and sometimes bad. After all humans run the churches and humans are very fallible.[/quote]

fair comment. I guess the crusades is a time when religion was changed by the people. But was it only changed in context. was the understanding of the bible just explained in a different way to suit the leaders?

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Good post pat. I totally agree. There is a large degree of faith required in science and science really has no valid reason to discount the existence of God. The standard rationale is that it cannot be measured, so that is why God doesn’t exist. However, science cannot measure a lot of things (as you mentioned) that it believes exist.

In fact, the existence of god is irrelevant for science. It can have no meaning in a scientific context. The existence of god can’t even play a role in the history of ideas. Since it is an idea, it’s accuracy is only of secondary interest.
Because god is totally irrelevant, you can’t draw any conclusions of gods existence from science. Science as a source can’t tell you anything because it doesn’t understand the question.[/quote]

Exactly right. The idea of God does not fit into the scientific model so they have no way of addressing the question. But again, that doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. All that means is that if God visited us directly science would be the last to know about it!

I don’t think you realize that I’m an engineer and I know A LOT about science. Science does give why’s. Science advances by figuring out the why’s. A good biologist can tell you not just how an organism evolved, but why it evolved that way. I can tell you why iron is brittle and steel is ductile. Science doesn’t have all the why’s figured out yet, but we might one day.

Asking what gives matter mass is like asking what gives you height. It is word games at best. Matter exists (minor assumption here), mass is one of its characteristics.

Solid just means an object has a rigid molecular structure. I think you’re confusing the vernacular definition of solid with the scientific definition.

I’m not saying god absolutely 100% does not exist. I can’t prove the negative. I’m saying there is NO evidence at all for any god to exist. If you’ve got any I’m listening. If you don’t, and you choose to believe anyway, for no reason, please see my previous comment about sky fairies.

[quote]

As to whose God is it? You can’t own God.[/quote]

I wasn’t saying anything about owning god. Most people who argue for the existence of god do so believing that if they can prove god exists, it would be a boon for their particular religion. The point I was making is that, even if you can prove god exists, you’ve still got a long way to go to prove he is the god you believe in. As I quoted in a previous post: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” -Stephen Roberts

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

Lorisco wrote:

True. We have no comparison. And comparing random occurrence within and ordered system would not be a reasonable comparison. However, it doesn’t preclude the theory that order requires external action to achieve. And until that can be disproved it is valid.

No. That’s absolutely wrong. A theory is invalid until there is sufficient evidence for it to be deemed useful. At that point, it gets used until we have better information. Saying everything is true until proven otherwise is absolutely horrible reasoning.

The notion that order is descended from some more ordered being is a non-starter in and of itself. Where did the more ordered being get all of its order?

Lastly, the notions of order and chaos are entirely man-made. They are labels we apply to segments of the reality we experience. They aren’t proof of anything at all.

Dude, you haven’t been paying attention. EVERYTHING is man made. Science is mad made, religion is man made. There is nothing we can validate that is not man made because it all can only be validated in terms of the human experience. So unless you can test or validate outside the human experience, which you can’t, you point is irrelevant.

[/quote]

Well now you’re arguing my point for me. If everything is man-made, then nothing is god-made… wait, that’s ridiculous too. I didn’t create any planets today. Did you?

No, nobody can test or validate things that are outside of our experience. Since you seem to quick to place god outside our experience, I have to wonder what possible reason you have for believing in one. If you can’t tell the difference between a universe with a god and a universe without one, why believe in one?

I believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Skeletor have kidnapped Baby Jesus and tied him to the rail road track. Only Superman can save him now.

Now lets apply your logic to this situation. All of that happened outside of your experience, so you can’t disprove it. Since you can’t disprove it, it must be true.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

Exactly right. The idea of God does not fit into the scientific model so they have no way of addressing the question. But again, that doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. All that means is that if God visited us directly science would be the last to know about it!

[/quote]

If god did exist, and he did pay us a visit, the Christians would say Jesus came back, while the Muslims would be saying it was clearly Allah, ect ect.

Scientists might be the only group that wouldn’t pretend to already have all the answers.

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Nothing has ever been proven!

So are you basing this statement for or against religious belief of a “God”?

Neither. What is being said here is this: religion is not unique in proceeding upon unprovable axioms. You do so as a person. Science does so on a daily basis. And yet, for some reason it seems to drive you nuts that “RELIGION” does as well. Why?

I think you’re really reaching comparing the things science takes for granted and the things religion takes for granted. Science is based on empirical observation and repeatability. While it’s true no scientist can guarantee the laws of physics will still be true tomorrow, I don’t know of anyone that will step in front of a bus just in case they changed. Religion assumes that the things written in a 2000 year old book that contradicts itself (there are 2 creations stories that directly contradict each other in Genesis) are the key to higher knowledge, instead of the just strange things written in a very old book.

Religion is a means by which to communicate with God, not an “Old Book”. Science, as empirical as it is, is still fallible. Just see this sight. Read scientific articles from 1999 and now and see how much has changed, all of which was based empirically. So in science, you still end up taking things on faith. Like the experiment was conducted correctly with the proper controls, the experimenter knew what he was doing, etc. If you weren’t there and know it was conducted correctly you are acting on faith that it was.

If you want to define religion as a way to communicate with god then you’d better have some really good proof that A) There is a god, and B) that’s he’s listening. Otherwise, you’re just playing make believe about sky fairies.

The fact that science continually revises itself is not a weakness, it is a strength. Besides, you’re completely missing the point. It’s a small leap of faith to say someone with a PhD conducted an experiment the way his research indicates. And it’s easy to go back if his results turn out to be incorrect. It is a huge huge huge (can’t stress this enough) leap of faith to assume there is a god. It’s an even larger leap to assume that he is your god, not the muslim god, or the flying spaghetti monster. Furthermore, there is no good reason to take those leaps.

Well at least you agree the science as well as belief in God, is a leap of faith at least in varying degrees. I don’t think you realize the degree of assumption taken in science. Science essentially measures things. It doesn’t give why.
For instance, what gives matter, mass? Why, if any given object is mostly space, is it solid? That’s a plain scientific question, but very elusive.

Just because God’s existence isn’t obvious, doesn’t mean “it’s” is not there. Just because it’s not spelled out for you doesn’t discount it’s existence. Some times you have search to find the truth.

As to whose God is it? You can’t own God.

Good post pat. I totally agree. There is a large degree of faith required in science and science really has no valid reason to discount the existence of God. The standard rationale is that it cannot be measured, so that is why God doesn’t exist. However, science cannot measure a lot of things (as you mentioned) that it believes exist.

Again well said…but has science ever been used to try to prove the existence or non existence of god?[/quote]

I sure some kook has tried to prove scientifically that God exists, but to my knowledge nobody serious has ever tried that. and shouldn’t.

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
pat wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Good post pat. I totally agree. There is a large degree of faith required in science and science really has no valid reason to discount the existence of God. The standard rationale is that it cannot be measured, so that is why God doesn’t exist. However, science cannot measure a lot of things (as you mentioned) that it believes exist.

In fact, the existence of god is irrelevant for science. It can have no meaning in a scientific context. The existence of god can’t even play a role in the history of ideas. Since it is an idea, it’s accuracy is only of secondary interest.

Because god is totally irrelevant, you can’t draw any conclusions of gods existence from science. Science as a source can’t tell you anything because it doesn’t understand the question.

Perhaps, but science can be useful in verifying or invalidating arguments used for the existence of God. For instance, the discovery and empirical testing of simultaneous causation was a very important discovery for the cosmological argument for the existence of God, freewill vs. determinism, causation itself, etc. Quantum mechanics was very important to many philosophical questions.

It didn’t solve the problems per se, but it moved them ahead, people no longer dwell on that particular sticking point in the various arguments that use such points.

Philosophy and science are very much tied together, since all science initially came from philosophy. Science is much more rigid in its scope, but the means by which it asks questions are basically philosophical questions.

Science works on cause and effect does it not? the theory of how something might work would surely come from that line of thinking. If science came from philosophy where did philosophy originate?

Was the first striking of flint together and lighting a fire a scientific breakthrough?[/quote]

Well, the cavemen tested a hypothesis and repeated the experiment over and over again. So yes, it was. Actually a pretty important break through.

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:

Very good point…but, the difference is that we know and accept that science will change…not so for religion.

Religious belief changes all the time…History bears that out…

How so?

Huguenots, Puritans, all gone. Protestant reformation. Vatican I and II. Islam from a religion to a murderous cult, etc.

Religion may be a means to develop a relationship with God, but the way that relationship manifests itself is sometimes good and sometimes bad. After all humans run the churches and humans are very fallible.

fair comment. I guess the crusades is a time when religion was changed by the people. But was it only changed in context. was the understanding of the bible just explained in a different way to suit the leaders?[/quote]

I believe it was mined for scriptures to justify themselves. You can see this with the way muslims will use the Koran to justify there violent behavior.

In either event, the motivation was to use religion as a tool to manipulate the masses. Using religion to serve themselves rather than to serve God.

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

mbm693 wrote:

If you want to define religion as a way to communicate with god then you’d better have some really good proof that A) There is a god, and B) that’s he’s listening. Otherwise, you’re just playing make believe about sky fairies.

The fact that science continually revises itself is not a weakness, it is a strength. Besides, you’re completely missing the point. It’s a small leap of faith to say someone with a PhD conducted an experiment the way his research indicates. And it’s easy to go back if his results turn out to be incorrect. It is a huge huge huge (can’t stress this enough) leap of faith to assume there is a god. It’s an even larger leap to assume that he is your god, not the muslim god, or the flying spaghetti monster. Furthermore, there is no good reason to take those leaps.

pat wrote:

Well at least you agree the science as well as belief in God, is a leap of faith at least in varying degrees. I don’t think you realize the degree of assumption taken in science. Science essentially measures things. It doesn’t give why.
For instance, what gives matter, mass? Why, if any given object is mostly space, is it solid? That’s a plain scientific question, but very elusive.

I don’t think you realize that I’m an engineer and I know A LOT about science. Science does give why’s. Science advances by figuring out the why’s. A good biologist can tell you not just how an organism evolved, but why it evolved that way. I can tell you why iron is brittle and steel is ductile. Science doesn’t have all the why’s figured out yet, but we might one day.
[/quote]

I don’t care if you are an engineer or not. I am not having a scientific knowledge pissing contest. Science is limited in scope and hence will never have all the answers. It is limited to the stuff of science. You can discuss the metallurgic properties of a particular steel, but you cannot tell me ultimately where it came from, or why it exists. You can tell me how and why an organism evolved a particular way, but you cannot tell me how or why it is alive or what ‘living’ actually is.

Word games? Since most of the matter in the universe does not have the property of mass and some of it does, I fail to see how that is not a completely legitimate question. It actually is and somebody spent 6 billion dollars on a giant 17 mile collider to study that very question.

I have submitted arguments for the existence of God here and backed them up. I am not going to rehash it again, if your interested you can flip through what I have already discussed in this thread.
I cannot prove it conclusively, but I believe the arguments are strong enough for the affirmative.

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

Lorisco wrote:

True. We have no comparison. And comparing random occurrence within and ordered system would not be a reasonable comparison. However, it doesn’t preclude the theory that order requires external action to achieve. And until that can be disproved it is valid.

No. That’s absolutely wrong. A theory is invalid until there is sufficient evidence for it to be deemed useful. At that point, it gets used until we have better information. Saying everything is true until proven otherwise is absolutely horrible reasoning.

The notion that order is descended from some more ordered being is a non-starter in and of itself. Where did the more ordered being get all of its order?

Lastly, the notions of order and chaos are entirely man-made. They are labels we apply to segments of the reality we experience. They aren’t proof of anything at all.

Dude, you haven’t been paying attention. EVERYTHING is man made. Science is mad made, religion is man made. There is nothing we can validate that is not man made because it all can only be validated in terms of the human experience. So unless you can test or validate outside the human experience, which you can’t, you point is irrelevant.

Well now you’re arguing my point for me. If everything is man-made, then nothing is god-made… wait, that’s ridiculous too. I didn’t create any planets today. Did you?

No, nobody can test or validate things that are outside of our experience. Since you seem to quick to place god outside our experience, I have to wonder what possible reason you have for believing in one. If you can’t tell the difference between a universe with a god and a universe without one, why believe in one?

I believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Skeletor have kidnapped Baby Jesus and tied him to the rail road track. Only Superman can save him now.

Now lets apply your logic to this situation. All of that happened outside of your experience, so you can’t disprove it. Since you can’t disprove it, it must be true.[/quote]

You have misinterpreted my statements. God is outside of our understanding, but not our experience. We can only understand God in terms of our own experience or the human experience, and that understanding may or may not be accurate. But since we cannot validate anything outside the human experience anyway, it doesn’t matter.

And as for the valid until prove false idea, that is not my personal view, that is just how modern science works. I never stated I agreed with it, and in fact, I believe it is a very closed minded system to be sure.

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

Exactly right. The idea of God does not fit into the scientific model so they have no way of addressing the question. But again, that doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. All that means is that if God visited us directly science would be the last to know about it!

If god did exist, and he did pay us a visit, the Christians would say Jesus came back, while the Muslims would be saying it was clearly Allah, ect ect.

Scientists might be the only group that wouldn’t pretend to already have all the answers.
[/quote]

No, it would take science years to come to the realization that their previous assumptions were wrong and revise them. Just like it took science some time to realize the world was not flat. Science does not give up it’s longstanding beliefs very easily just like religion.

You and others seem to think that religion is just a bunch of biased humans but science is a bunch of moral unbiased humans. And that is not the case. I know from personal experience that there is a lot of bias and manipulation in science, just as much as religion.

[quote]pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:

Very good point…but, the difference is that we know and accept that science will change…not so for religion.

Religious belief changes all the time…History bears that out…

How so?

Huguenots, Puritans, all gone. Protestant reformation. Vatican I and II. Islam from a religion to a murderous cult, etc.

Religion may be a means to develop a relationship with God, but the way that relationship manifests itself is sometimes good and sometimes bad. After all humans run the churches and humans are very fallible.

fair comment. I guess the crusades is a time when religion was changed by the people. But was it only changed in context. was the understanding of the bible just explained in a different way to suit the leaders?

I believe it was mined for scriptures to justify themselves. You can see this with the way muslims will use the Koran to justify there violent behavior.

In either event, the motivation was to use religion as a tool to manipulate the masses. Using religion to serve themselves rather than to serve God. [/quote]

My point exactly…

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

Exactly right. The idea of God does not fit into the scientific model so they have no way of addressing the question. But again, that doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. All that means is that if God visited us directly science would be the last to know about it!

If god did exist, and he did pay us a visit, the Christians would say Jesus came back, while the Muslims would be saying it was clearly Allah, ect ect.

Scientists might be the only group that wouldn’t pretend to already have all the answers.

No, it would take science years to come to the realization that their previous assumptions were wrong and revise them. Just like it took science some time to realize the world was not flat. Science does not give up it’s longstanding beliefs very easily just like religion.

You and others seem to think that religion is just a bunch of biased humans but science is a bunch of moral unbiased humans. And that is not the case. I know from personal experience that there is a lot of bias and manipulation in science, just as much as religion.

[/quote]

Lorisco…Your first paragraph i agree with. But i see science changing, how ever long it may take to admit to itself that it was wrong. The power of the dollar is a big influence in science and probably slows the process of change.

What i dont see is the change in religious belief. I see change in attitudes towards, and use of religion, but the fundamental philosophies and the use of the philosophies don’t change.

Would you agree?

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

Exactly right. The idea of God does not fit into the scientific model so they have no way of addressing the question. But again, that doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. All that means is that if God visited us directly science would be the last to know about it!

If god did exist, and he did pay us a visit, the Christians would say Jesus came back, while the Muslims would be saying it was clearly Allah, ect ect.

Scientists might be the only group that wouldn’t pretend to already have all the answers.

No, it would take science years to come to the realization that their previous assumptions were wrong and revise them. Just like it took science some time to realize the world was not flat. Science does not give up it’s longstanding beliefs very easily just like religion.

You and others seem to think that religion is just a bunch of biased humans but science is a bunch of moral unbiased humans. And that is not the case. I know from personal experience that there is a lot of bias and manipulation in science, just as much as religion.

Lorisco…Your first paragraph i agree with. But i see science changing, how ever long it may take to admit to itself that it was wrong. The power of the dollar is a big influence in science and probably slows the process of change.

What i dont see is the change in religious belief. I see change in attitudes towards, and use of religion, but the fundamental philosophies and the use of the philosophies don’t change.

Would you agree?[/quote]

I understand what you are saying, but actually see it as the same thing.

Science has certain assumptions that are called hypotheses that theories are built on. And science does frequently revise theories, but rarely, if ever, revises their basic assumptions or hypotheses. And the reason is that they don’t have any measurable data, or means to measure their assumptions. Which I see as the same thing for religion.

For example; Science has the assumption that all life evolved. So they have theories of how this occurred that they continue to revise as they find better ways to measure. But they have never revised the assumption that life evolved. And they haven’t done this because there is no way to test that.

Religion also has basic beliefs in God and all the doctrine (theories) that are built on that assumption (hypotheses). They also cannot validate, in a repeatable way, that God exists. So they to do not change that fundamental assumption. Like science, but to a lesser extent, religion does revise its doctrine, the Catholic church is a great example of this as the Pope does change the core doctrinal beliefs of the church at times.

So I see science and religion at the core have a fundamental assumption that cannot be proved / disproved that they never revise.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

Exactly right. The idea of God does not fit into the scientific model so they have no way of addressing the question. But again, that doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. All that means is that if God visited us directly science would be the last to know about it!

If god did exist, and he did pay us a visit, the Christians would say Jesus came back, while the Muslims would be saying it was clearly Allah, ect ect.

Scientists might be the only group that wouldn’t pretend to already have all the answers.

No, it would take science years to come to the realization that their previous assumptions were wrong and revise them. Just like it took science some time to realize the world was not flat. Science does not give up it’s longstanding beliefs very easily just like religion.

You and others seem to think that religion is just a bunch of biased humans but science is a bunch of moral unbiased humans. And that is not the case. I know from personal experience that there is a lot of bias and manipulation in science, just as much as religion.

Lorisco…Your first paragraph i agree with. But i see science changing, how ever long it may take to admit to itself that it was wrong. The power of the dollar is a big influence in science and probably slows the process of change.

What i dont see is the change in religious belief. I see change in attitudes towards, and use of religion, but the fundamental philosophies and the use of the philosophies don’t change.

Would you agree?

I understand what you are saying, but actually see it as the same thing.

Science has certain assumptions that are called hypotheses that theories are built on. And science does frequently revise theories, but rarely, if ever, revises their basic assumptions or hypotheses. And the reason is that they don’t have any measurable data, or means to measure their assumptions. Which I see as the same thing for religion.

For example; Science has the assumption that all life evolved. So they have theories of how this occurred that they continue to revise as they find better ways to measure. But they have never revised the assumption that life evolved. And they haven’t done this because there is no way to test that.

Religion also has basic beliefs in God and all the doctrine (theories) that are built on that assumption (hypotheses). They also cannot validate, in a repeatable way, that God exists. So they to do not change that fundamental assumption. Like science, but to a lesser extent, religion does revise its doctrine, the Catholic church is a great example of this as the Pope does change the core doctrinal beliefs of the church at times.

So I see science and religion at the core have a fundamental assumption that cannot be proved / disproved that they never revise.

[/quote]

Well said and i agree with that statement. That is a good example

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

Exactly right. The idea of God does not fit into the scientific model so they have no way of addressing the question. But again, that doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. All that means is that if God visited us directly science would be the last to know about it!

If god did exist, and he did pay us a visit, the Christians would say Jesus came back, while the Muslims would be saying it was clearly Allah, ect ect.

Scientists might be the only group that wouldn’t pretend to already have all the answers.

No, it would take science years to come to the realization that their previous assumptions were wrong and revise them. Just like it took science some time to realize the world was not flat. Science does not give up it’s longstanding beliefs very easily just like religion.

You and others seem to think that religion is just a bunch of biased humans but science is a bunch of moral unbiased humans. And that is not the case. I know from personal experience that there is a lot of bias and manipulation in science, just as much as religion.

Lorisco…Your first paragraph i agree with. But i see science changing, how ever long it may take to admit to itself that it was wrong. The power of the dollar is a big influence in science and probably slows the process of change.

What i dont see is the change in religious belief. I see change in attitudes towards, and use of religion, but the fundamental philosophies and the use of the philosophies don’t change.

Would you agree?

I understand what you are saying, but actually see it as the same thing.

Science has certain assumptions that are called hypotheses that theories are built on. And science does frequently revise theories, but rarely, if ever, revises their basic assumptions or hypotheses. And the reason is that they don’t have any measurable data, or means to measure their assumptions. Which I see as the same thing for religion.

For example; Science has the assumption that all life evolved. So they have theories of how this occurred that they continue to revise as they find better ways to measure. But they have never revised the assumption that life evolved. And they haven’t done this because there is no way to test that.

Religion also has basic beliefs in God and all the doctrine (theories) that are built on that assumption (hypotheses). They also cannot validate, in a repeatable way, that God exists. So they to do not change that fundamental assumption. Like science, but to a lesser extent, religion does revise its doctrine, the Catholic church is a great example of this as the Pope does change the core doctrinal beliefs of the church at times.

So I see science and religion at the core have a fundamental assumption that cannot be proved / disproved that they never revise.

[/quote]

Good post! Well said.

Though we cannot complete the chain of premises that leads to the existance of God, there is enough reasonable deduction that the existance of God is at worst plausible, and at best probable, but neither certain. Now whether or not we understand God is a whole new issue. Everybody is sure they have it right, but in the end everybody could be wrong.
The best supported stance is agnosticism. You can neither deny nor support the existance of God.

Religion cant tell you why something exists either. Religion cant tell you what ‘living’ is either. “god did it” isn’t an answer to these questions either. The difference is that science might someday have an answer where-as religion never will.

OK, it’s a legitimate question that a bunch of scientists are about to answer. I’d say this one is pretty firmly in the realm of science now. If this keeps up, you’re going to have to come up with some new questions that are outside the “limited” realm of science.

First, I wasn’t asking for arguments for the existence of god, I was saying there is no evidence. If you’ve got any, I’m still listening.

Second, you presented the teleological argument for the existence of god. That argument is awful. It actually works a lot better if you substitute the words “Big Bang” for “God”. Then at least you don’t have to theorize an all powerful, omnipotent, creator that exists outside of our universe.

At the end of the day, you’ve either got a universe that happens to exist, or a god that’s capable of creating a universe who happens to exist. There is lots of evidence that the universe exists, but absolutely none for god.

I understand from reading your previous posts that you think the burden of proving god’s non-existence is on non-theists. If that’s the case, then prove to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn’t god. Prove to me that there isnt an 11th dimension where everything is red. Prove that unicorns don’t exist. Prove that I’m not god. I’m being sarcastic, but I hope you get my point. If you look at the world that way, then anything you, or anyone else can imagine is true until proven otherwise. The reason I’m not scared of monsters under my bed anymore is because there is no evidence for them. The fact that I can’t prove they aren’t there just isn’t persuasive when applied to monsters under the bed, and it should not be persuasive when applied to god.

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
You haven’t come out and explained why you believe in the teachings that you have had. Why it is so deeply important in your life. These are the questions i was asking at the beginning. That is what i am looking to understand.
Instead of trying to pick holes in another’s thought process explain your own so i can understand why you think like you do.
[/quote]

Okay, but most of what I have to say to you is not going to be of much use to you. Words & logical argument & hearsay & exhortations only take one so far. As has already been said about a million times, there is no proof for God - and, it’s highly likely there never will be. Then again, as has been said a million times, this is a meaningless criticism, since you yourself believe in many things you cannot prove.

Now, please, PerfectCircle, what I am about to say to is not meant to be pejorative, but it’s the best example I can use, so please bear with me: explaining one’s religious experience to someone else is a little like trying to describe a color to someone who is blind. I can try to tell you what “purple” looks like; I can try to tell you how “purple” makes me feel; or how “purple” pervades virtually everything I see and do; or how “purple” has inspired by far and away the best minds in history, scientists included. But to a blind person, the color “purple” simply would have no resonance.

And I understand why it has no resonance, because for many years, in high school and college, I was the most virulent “atheist” I’ve ever known. (I am not saying you are - but I was.) Everywhere I went I said to my professors, to my clergy, to my parents, to my friends, to everyone who would listen to me: “God? God? Where’s the proof for God? WHERE? WHAT? THERE IS NO GOD! GOD IS A DELUSION IN YOUR MIND, A FABRICATION, Etc.” I railed against God and religion and the people who practiced it. Religion, I thought, was against sex, against thought and intellect, against freedom, against love, against progress.

In many ways this posture was what defined me intellectually. But it was wrong - so wrong that I can barely say those things without laughing now.

One might say I had a visceral anger and suspicion of religion, that I even felt downright righteous in denouncing it, as if I were working for the forces of good against the dragon of ignorance and superstition. Some reading this thread might recognize this in their selves.

However, what I was really doing was acting fanatically towards something I really didn’t understand. In other words, I was acting precisely like the very religious fanatics I thought I was fighting against; and I was embodying the very qualities I pretended to dislike in religion.

So how did I come to a different viewpoint? Again, there is no way to explain this. There have been so many forking paths. Let me try to provide one of those paths to you:

I had a near drowning experience off the coast of Guatemala, and spent more than 3 hours drifting without the sight of land anywhere around me. During that time I went through more emotions, and more “time,” than I can possibly explain or describe. It was as if I lived through centuries.

However, during that time I became aware of something - in the universe and in myself - so indestructible, something within that I knew could not be destroyed, like a candle that no wind, no matter how fierce, could extinguish. I KNEW this like I had never known anything before in my life. And that knowing is still echoing within me to this very moment as I tap here on the keyboard.

And yet, I cannot prove it to you; I cannot show it to you; and yet it’s all around me. Indeed, it’s more “REAL” to me than the iron I take upon my shoulders when I squat.

Since then, I’ve had many such moments. I won’t bore you with them unless you ask. They still come to me, even recently. Usually they have to do with death, or coming near death. Or being in an extraordinarily difficult, usually life-threatening, situation. But, increasingly, less so. Increasingly, I find those certainties everywhere I look and think and feel and touch.

And one way or another, they will come to you. I can’t say how. I can’t say when. But they will. Mark my words they will. You might choose to ignore them. You might turn your back. That’s your choice. But come to you they will.

Now, I’ve known an awful lot of people, both religious and secular, from heads of state to garbage collectors, from the desperate poor in developing countries to investment bankers and hedge fund managers in London/New York/Boston, from cardinals and professors to journalists. I come from an enormous family and - given my career - have a truly massive network.

And what I have gleaned from these people of diverse background - what “religious” people are like, what religion is, combined with my own personal experience - does not comport at all with the observations against religion on this thread. To tell the truth, from my perspective, what has been said against religion in this thread reads as rather silly and small-minded.

And that is why - for readers and for you - I have been trying the best I can to provide an alternative viewpoint. To my way of thinking, that alternative viewpoint is rarely, if ever, afforded to people, at least here in the US. Either they face ridicule about God from “atheists” or skeptics or secularists, or they are faced with fundamentalist wackos and whatnot.

Moreover, it seems to me that the charge of brainwashing goes both ways. Surely there are and always have been brainwashed “religious” folk. But the irony falls thick and fast on those who repeat the mantra that “only what has been shown to be scientifically true can possibly be real” - and on those who fume against something they have little experience or knowledge of. They too are evidencing brainwashing.

But, you see, this is a brainwashing so pervasive & so insidious that it just seems like common sense. And so that is why it seems that “religion” needs justification and explanation and “proof” but secularists do not.

What you might consider about this “common sense,” however, is that it is merely a couple hundred years old. We have 100,000 years of religious history behind us.

You might wonder (as I do) at the arrogance of asserting that all those great people - all those great artists, philosophers, thinkers, writers, playwrights, sculptors, painters, musicians, composers, poets - were deluded by, and inspired by, and dedicated their lives to something that we in our narrow little laboratories cannot prove to be true.

How parochial we broad-minded moderns are, aren’t we?

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

Lorisco wrote:

True. We have no comparison. And comparing random occurrence within and ordered system would not be a reasonable comparison. However, it doesn’t preclude the theory that order requires external action to achieve. And until that can be disproved it is valid.

No. That’s absolutely wrong. A theory is invalid until there is sufficient evidence for it to be deemed useful. At that point, it gets used until we have better information. Saying everything is true until proven otherwise is absolutely horrible reasoning.

The notion that order is descended from some more ordered being is a non-starter in and of itself. Where did the more ordered being get all of its order?

Lastly, the notions of order and chaos are entirely man-made. They are labels we apply to segments of the reality we experience. They aren’t proof of anything at all.

Dude, you haven’t been paying attention. EVERYTHING is man made. Science is mad made, religion is man made. There is nothing we can validate that is not man made because it all can only be validated in terms of the human experience. So unless you can test or validate outside the human experience, which you can’t, you point is irrelevant.

Well now you’re arguing my point for me. If everything is man-made, then nothing is god-made… wait, that’s ridiculous too. I didn’t create any planets today. Did you?

No, nobody can test or validate things that are outside of our experience. Since you seem to quick to place god outside our experience, I have to wonder what possible reason you have for believing in one. If you can’t tell the difference between a universe with a god and a universe without one, why believe in one?

I believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Skeletor have kidnapped Baby Jesus and tied him to the rail road track. Only Superman can save him now.

Now lets apply your logic to this situation. All of that happened outside of your experience, so you can’t disprove it. Since you can’t disprove it, it must be true.

You have misinterpreted my statements. God is outside of our understanding, but not our experience. We can only understand God in terms of our own experience or the human experience, and that understanding may or may not be accurate. But since we cannot validate anything outside the human experience anyway, it doesn’t matter.

And as for the valid until prove false idea, that is not my personal view, that is just how modern science works. I never stated I agreed with it, and in fact, I believe it is a very closed minded system to be sure.

[/quote]

You did say “However, it doesn’t preclude the theory that order requires external action to achieve. And until that can be disproved it is valid.” Seriously, it’s at the top of this post. So clearly you subscribe to the idea at least when it is convenient for you.

Science absolutely does not operate on this premise because it is ridiculous and nonsensical.

Human understanding grows every day. If you are going to place god within our experience, then on what basis are you arbitrarily deciding that god will forever be outside our understanding? Also, if you’re going to place god within our experience, I’d like to know where he is. I have never experienced god and I don’t know anyone who has. Give me some evidence that there is a god out there.