godef

To be clear, the thread is whether or not you believe in God. So I presume you meant that I'm never going to disprove that there is a God. However, it's not up to me to disprove a God. It is up to believers to prove that God even exists before they can try to influence our society based on that belief. And I say this has not been done. Not even close.

__________________
See you at Super Bowl XLIV!

363839

My original response(s) were to address some of the contentions posted of why God didn't exist. I wasn't trying to influence a society into a particular ideology.
I didn't think this was a debate of why people should follow Jesus or Allah or Buddha or even the Pastafarians.
Perhaps the thread title should read "Do you believe there is A god?"
I just would prefer people to keep an open mind. This universe is pretty complex and I doubt very much anyone has all the answers regarding it's origins.
Even Stephen Hawkings.

Rossmci90

Since when did i need a religion to know to treat my body right? It may be a bit of a suprise to you but a 2,000 year old book doesn't give the greatest advice on how to live a healthy life.

By the way, just you know in future there is an edit button and a multi quote button.

__________________

363839

This is about whether you believe in a god. Not a religion.
You took it as an opportunity to bash a religion.
Obviously I showed bias in my response to your post.
You're right. The Bible is not a health book.
But to your point, what specifically are you referring to
in the bible that would take a person to an unhealthy lifestyle?
Or are you just assuming that it can't give sound advice to a healthy life because it's so old?

godef

You were comparing a believe in a god to the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory may turn out to be wrong, but at least it was derived at scientifically. In contrast, there is nothing scientific about whether God exists, it is only faith. So what I guess what I was saying was, the analogy to the Big Bang Theory is not valid. I do have an open mind, but I do have to see at least a little bit of critical evidence before I ever believe there is a god.

__________________
See you at Super Bowl XLIV!

363839

That's fair enough, Godef.
Science, in it's own contradiction,
states that nothing should exist.
But the cosmos does exist. So do we.
I would think that alone should get science
a little motivated to research the possibility of
intelligent design(God). But not through religious ideology, of course.

godef

(a) That's not what science says; you are misinformed.
(b) Intelligent design IS religious ideology. You cannot seperate the two.

__________________
See you at Super Bowl XLIV!

PatsFanInVa

Godef's right, re: ID.

There's this hard thing to let go of: the idea that religion must make its mark in history to really have value. The most hard-core militant atheist will point to this notion and think he has pinpointed a problem with religion that calls for religion's eradication. PS, I do not say that we have such expressions here, but they have existed.

The problem is that whatever is precious about a religion cannot be put in a position of positing facts about the physical world that are not facts at all, but guesses either derived from or baldly stated in ancient scriptures.

They are very likely to be wrong about said facts. We cannot read these bits of scripture as descriptions of what literally is; they are, rather, clues to what "was" in the minds of the writers at the time of the writing.

For those who study scripture, what is there to look for? The moral and ethical teachings, through the stories and the characters, during the time of each story (the trappings of the times-- including much more unpalateable things than bad physics-- be damned.)

Whatever one thinks of scripture, we've learned one thing if we've learned anything: in the modern world, we must learn internally from scripture, if at all. We have no choice but to say that the lessons are subjective ones, and that when someone crosses over into dictating purported objective fact based on his own belief in an often wrong source -- to wit, scripture -- he is far too often wrong.

A scientific view of the world is, without question, the only way to collect what objective fact is available.

The facts of the subjective -- in itself, an inexplicable development (subjective reality, that is,) -- are another matter. There is a richness there, available to all of us. One may make that richness go away by describing subjective reality as the heat given off by the wires, or one may simply measure outcomes and say all that matters is our actions, not our silly inner ruminations. This is only the case insofar as we need outcomes to measure. But truly, I can create a robot which produces the outcomes, given sufficiently advanced technology. There is still no subjective reality within that robot.

There are those who would posit a truth that can be subjectively indulged, which simply does not have objective representation. Of course they can discuss said subjective truths with the like-minded, but they cannot in seriousness get those subjective truths to trump objective reality, if they attempt to order the objective world with said subjective truths.

This is why the religious are constantly attempting to fight against scientific fact, whereas the mystics of any faith are nowhere to be found in said battlegrounds.

They know truth simply is; one does not fight to make it so. That's stories, and histories, and politics, not truth.

As to ID, and its predecessor, creationism, vs. science: We find out what we can about the physical universe. That is the only science. You can't start with the answer and work backwards. When the task is objective understanding, you have to (literally) assume nothing.

PFnV

OldEngland

And I very much respect your opinion and enjoy your posts.

Just out of interest, have you ever listened to or read the testimonies of people who have had their lives changed by God? Nicky Cruz, Jackie Pullinger, Francis Collins, Lee Strobel or especially Saint Peter or Paul in Acts for example…

Is that evidence?

Yet these testimonies I've listed above are such a tiny part of a huge amount of evidence that exists at the personal level of individuals that currently is not (or cannot) be measured objectively at this time.

By the way you write, I guess you are very aware subjective evidence can be valid scientifically when put in the proper construct (which unfortunately it isn’t being at the moment).

Or failing that have you actually ever verbally asked God to show He exists to you personally? Just to see if anything happens? That of course is the best evidence you will ever receive.

godef

No, I can't say I've read these particular testimonies, but I'm sure most of us have come across other such examples. But, can you prove that none of what these people you talk about could not have happened without putting God into the equation? Does taking God out of the equation totally dissolve the testimony? Including St Peter or Paul in your list is troubling, given that they are a part of the mythology. So no, this is not even reasonable evidence, and what is needed is absolute evidence.

But tell me, what comes first? The faith or the testimonies? How much of these experiences are driven either by fevered faith or a near total feeling of helplessness? You admit yourself that at least some of this cannot be measured objectively; I would debate that none of this has yet to be be measured objectively.

Of course it can, this is part of what science is all about. My question is, why is this not being done? You would think at least some of the scientists out there who are also persons of faith (and we know there are many) who could be doing this work to further their faith? I think it actually is taking place but the proofs have been between scant and nil. How fortunate that you think it isn't being done at the moment such that you can persist to believe it can be.

And what if I tell you I just tried this now and nothing happened? Would you think I was lying? Would you think I was being honest but wasn't ferverent enough doing it? Do I need to wait for a clearheaded moment to receive a subtle response, ie an epiphany? You really put yourself and your faith out on a limb by suggesting I ask God himself if he exists; it's seemingly do or die for the faithful, all riding on the results. Or is it? Because the faihful have always covered their tracks in the ways I describe above in this paragraph. It always ends with someone of faith telling me that God works in mysterious ways. This is frankly nonsense. God exists and it's up to me to verify it?

I became an atheist as a teenager, raised Catholic before that. Those were nearly 18 long years in which the evidence could have presented itself to me in some form. Why should one need to go out of his way and ask an entity to prove itself to me?

When I was a young adult, I once had a long distance girlfriend and found myself constantly tied up on the phone for hours talking about inane things (adimittedly they probably seemed inane because I wasn't absolutely crazy about this girl). I woke up early one morning to the ringing telephone and the phone cord was wrapped around me and the bed several times; I could not move. It was realistic, I thought I was wide awake until I logically thought it through and realized the absurdity of the situation, then I woke up for real. Relieved.

Was this just one of those waking dreams? Was this a sign from God? What did it mean? I need to dump the girl, or shame on me for not being more dedicated to her? The point being, the relationship was something that was on my mind constantly, for good or for bad, and it was obviously a trigger for the dream though she wasn't involved in it. What I'm suggesting is that such a method (my asking God whether he exists) is filled with too much ambiguity.

If I believed as a practicing Catholic, God apparently never felt a need to present himself to me. But now I don't believe and you suggest I need to go ask him to present himself? Essentially, this is what I did, I asked God if he existed, and nothing happened. Do you understand the absurdity of this?

When you boil it all down, it's apparent to me that there is no scientific proof, only "subjective proof," whatever that means. I think "subjective proof" is nothing more than another expression for "faith."

__________________
See you at Super Bowl XLIV!