Is there a god?

[Woodruff]

Here is why I state that I am not a monist, per your own definition:
"monism holds that the spiritual world is actually physical, or that there is no spiritual world. so the supernatural can be studied like any other physical object. therefore, it falls under the definition of science, which deals with knowledge gained from the physical world"

Therefore, I don't believe that the supernatural can be studied like any other physical object because it's NOT a physical object. It cannot possibly fall under the definition of science, because there is no possible way to gain knowledge about the supernatural from the physical world. That's WHY IT'S THE SUPERNATURAL.

the "can be studied" part applies to the spiritual world being "actually physical". if there is no spiritual world, then of course it can't be studied.

Thus, my point.

Which would be another reason why I'm not a monist. I don't believe that religion deals with questions in the physical world. I believe that religion deals with questions of conscience, mostly. I suppose if you consider "controlling the masses" to be a valid question that religion deals with, that applies to the physical world...I might agree with that, because it is the primary reason why religion has developed as it has.

the primary reason religion developed is to "control the masses"? not as an answer to physical phenomena like lightning/stars/etc.? that's a very dismal outlook lol

Read what I said again, paying particular attention to the last five words in the quote. It IS a dismal outlook, I won't necessarily disagree with that...but it's one that has a high degree of evidence available for it.

[Woodruff]

the primary reason religion developed is to "control the masses"? not as an answer to physical phenomena like lightning/stars/etc.? that's a very dismal outlook lol

I'd like to know how religion tries to explain light and stars.

I believe he's referring to early primitive religions where, for instance, your ancestors became stars to help guide you.

[everywhere116]

the primary reason religion developed is to "control the masses"? not as an answer to physical phenomena like lightning/stars/etc.? that's a very dismal outlook lol

I'd like to know how religion tries to explain light and stars.

I believe he's referring to early primitive religions where, for instance, your ancestors became stars to help guide you.

Which is, of course, ridiculous.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

the primary reason religion developed is to "control the masses"? not as an answer to physical phenomena like lightning/stars/etc.? that's a very dismal outlook lol

I'd like to know how religion tries to explain light and stars.

I believe he's referring to early primitive religions where, for instance, your ancestors became stars to help guide you.

Which is, of course, ridiculous.

NO IT'S NOT, MY GRANDPA IS GONNA SUPERNOVA ALL OVER YOUR ASS.

-TG

[Haggis_McMutton]

Let me see if I got this straight.
If I get high out of my mind and spend the night playing skyrim eating cheetos and talking about the existence of an energy which unites us all, by your definition, I'm actually partaking in "scientific study of physical nature", and should probably write a conference paper about my conclusions in the morning.

depends, does this "energy" exist physically? if so, you are making a scientific statement, although one that probably has no basis in reality and is induced by cheetolucinations (as i have come to call them, being an experienced cheetos consumer)

So, what I'm getting from this, is that you're using an extremely wide definition of science. Basically: any attempt to understand the world = science.
That's really not a common definition of science but hell, even according to that definition, religion may have started out as a proto-science, but it certainly is no longer even that.
Unless you can tell me what your local church is doing this week in its attempt to better understand the world.

Science is more than guessing. Science is more than sitting on your ass and daydreaming seeking knowledge.

When religion will make testable and falsifiable hypotheses then we can talk.

I guess, at most, you could say religions are failed attempts at science, remnants from our infancy as a species.

not completely failed and to reject all religion outright is to make a scientific conclusion without evidence.

Depends what you mean by "completely failed", either way, it's time to move on from belief in the divinity of thousand year old books.

As for rejection, it's the burden of the religions to make their case.

Edit: Also:

OT should have more philosophy threads, now that i think about it. we get caught up in politics and other stupid shit and forget what really matters.

Hell yes.

How about a pledge. We make a new philosophy thread for every US political thread made from now on.

[Viceroy63]

No.

Yes!

[Viceroy63]

I vote yes; There is a God.

But the better question is can the existence of God be proven using the physical scientific method. Once again the answer is Yes!

The problem how ever is spiritual in nature. A hostile mind towards God will not accept any evidence provided them no matter how logical it's conclusion. And the natural mind of man is at enmity with God.

[Aradhus]

Random chance? Come on now. God exists, and he's a horny perv. God bless 'im.

[Haggis_McMutton]

But the better question is can the existence of God be proven using the physical scientific method. Once again the answer is Yes!

Please elaborate.

[Viceroy63]

Random chance? Come on now. God exists, and he's a horny perv. God bless 'im.

Yeah! God does good workmanship on his creation.

[everywhere116]

But the better question is can the existence of God be proven using the physical scientific method. Once again the answer is Yes!

Please elaborate.

One of the first things they tell you in science classes is that science can explain absolutely nothing about the supernatural, so I'm interested in your explanation as well.

[Woodruff]

I vote yes; There is a God.

But the better question is can the existence of God be proven using the physical scientific method. Once again the answer is Yes!

Proven? I'd have to absolutely say "no"...if it were provable, it would have been done by now. Is there some evidence of the possibility? Sure. But proof? That's simply not there.

[Viceroy63]

But the better question is can the existence of God be proven using the physical scientific method. Once again the answer is Yes!

Please elaborate.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/atheists-riddle-2/

Well, the above link will explain it better then I could, but simply putting it like this...

Any design demands a designer. Any laws demand a law provider or a law giver and our own DNA Codes demand an intelligent creator writer of those very DNA codes in our genes.

If Atheist's are correct in their assumption that The Universe began with a meaningless big bang and that quite by accident Galaxies, Star and Planets formed and then by accident life began on some of those planets; Than any mindless act should be producing intelligent life all the time. At least most of the times if not at the very least once upon a time in man's history.

Why the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs should have lead to a proliferation of new life forms. If that were the case. The Chernobyl nuclear accident should have produce some new and strange life form by now if that were the case. Perhaps just cooking vegetable soup should have shown us a new created being in the soup, just before we ate it because if the Atheist are correct then life happens just like shit happens. It just happens all the time.

But that is not what we see in this universe. Meaningless explosions and events do not produce life forms or even intelligence or we would have at least seen Artificial Intelligence by now. Just the opposite is produced by Meaningless events or accidental events, they only cause death and decay to increase at a much more rapid accelerated rate. No one lives near Chernobyl or Hiroshima or Nagasaki today. Those are all dead zones. That's because only intelligent acts can create intelligence and only life can create life. Big bangs alone do not create life and a Universe.

The evidence to the existence of God is all around us. For those who will open their eyes and see. But hostility, or disagreement with God is what blinds people to the truth and the reason why people will not see or understand the evidence all around us. People have eyes and yet they do not see. Because they simply don't want to see the truth all around them. The evidence of the existence of God.

"Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they [are] a rebellious house." - Ezekiel 12:2

[BigBallinStalin]

[everywhere116]

Sisko's a beast.

[john9blue]

So, what I'm getting from this, is that you're using an extremely wide definition of science. Basically: any attempt to understand the world = science.
That's really not a common definition of science but hell, even according to that definition, religion may have started out as a proto-science, but it certainly is no longer even that.
Unless you can tell me what your local church is doing this week in its attempt to better understand the world.

churches exist today largely for social and cultural purposes. actual religious knowledge mostly comes from personal contemplation or study of religious texts and thought.

Depends what you mean by "completely failed", either way, it's time to move on from belief in the divinity of thousand year old books.

As for rejection, it's the burden of the religions to make their case.

you realize that there exist religions which don't require that belief in old books, right? one of the worst ways to disprove god is by criticizing books written by humans.

[john9blue]

Proven? I'd have to absolutely say "no"...if it were provable, it would have been done by now.

Everything that can be invented has been invented.

[Haggis_McMutton]

So, what I'm getting from this, is that you're using an extremely wide definition of science. Basically: any attempt to understand the world = science.
That's really not a common definition of science but hell, even according to that definition, religion may have started out as a proto-science, but it certainly is no longer even that.
Unless you can tell me what your local church is doing this week in its attempt to better understand the world.

churches exist today largely for social and cultural purposes. actual religious knowledge mostly comes from personal contemplation or study of religious texts and thought.

Awesome, now we're getting somewhere.
So organized religion does not fall within science, just personal reflection?

Depends what you mean by "completely failed", either way, it's time to move on from belief in the divinity of thousand year old books.

As for rejection, it's the burden of the religions to make their case.

you realize that there exist religions which don't require that belief in old books, right? one of the worst ways to disprove god is by criticizing books written by humans.

Doubly awesome. So we can agree that Judaism, Christianity and so on are just remnants from our infancy that we should now shed ourselves off?


If you agree with the above 2 points, then your position is consistent with the "any attempt to understand the world = science" definition.
I still don't agree with that definition, but we're getting closer to consensus anyway.

For me, science has to have some root in "objective" reality. (or at least our best approximation to what we perceive as objective reality). Therefore the requirement for testable hypotheses. If I cannot repeat and verify whatever you experienced while meditating how can that be science?
How do you differentiate your subjective "understanding" from that serial killers who "understood" that his neighbours dog was Satan and was ordering him to kill people?

[Haggis_McMutton]

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/atheists-riddle-2/

Well, the above link will explain it better then I could, but simply putting it like this...

Any design demands a designer. Any laws demand a law provider or a law giver and our own DNA Codes demand an intelligent creator writer of those very DNA codes in our genes.

If Atheist's are correct in their assumption that The Universe began with a meaningless big bang and that quite by accident Galaxies, Star and Planets formed and then by accident life began on some of those planets; Than any mindless act should be producing intelligent life all the time. At least most of the times if not at the very least once upon a time in man's history.

Why the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs should have lead to a proliferation of new life forms. If that were the case. The Chernobyl nuclear accident should have produce some new and strange life form by now if that were the case. Perhaps just cooking vegetable soup should have shown us a new created being in the soup, just before we ate it because if the Atheist are correct then life happens just like shit happens. It just happens all the time.

But that is not what we see in this universe. Meaningless explosions and events do not produce life forms or even intelligence or we would have at least seen Artificial Intelligence by now. Just the opposite is produced by Meaningless events or accidental events, they only cause death and decay to increase at a much more rapid accelerated rate. No one lives near Chernobyl or Hiroshima or Nagasaki today. Those are all dead zones. That's because only intelligent acts can create intelligence and only life can create life. Big bangs alone do not create life and a Universe.

The evidence to the existence of God is all around us. For those who will open their eyes and see. But hostility, or disagreement with God is what blinds people to the truth and the reason why people will not see or understand the evidence all around us. People have eyes and yet they do not see. Because they simply don't want to see the truth all around them. The evidence of the existence of God.

"Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they [are] a rebellious house." - Ezekiel 12:2

[Lootifer]

If Atheist's are correct in their assumption that The Universe began with a meaningless big bang and that quite by accident Galaxies, Star and Planets formed and then by accident life began on some of those planets; Than any mindless act should be producing intelligent life all the time. At least most of the times if not at the very least once upon a time in man's history.

I wont bother with the rest of your diatribe but this bit is easy to refute.

Length of time for primordial soup to form into a living organism via nature: millions of years

Length of time for vegetable soup to form into a living organism via nature according to Viceroy: tens of years

So since you don't see the latter happening this immediatly discounts the former from being able to happen? Sorry logic doesnt work like that (nor does probability theory).

[chang50]

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/atheists-riddle-2/

Well, the above link will explain it better then I could, but simply putting it like this...

Any design demands a designer. Any laws demand a law provider or a law giver and our own DNA Codes demand an intelligent creator writer of those very DNA codes in our genes.

If Atheist's are correct in their assumption that The Universe began with a meaningless big bang and that quite by accident Galaxies, Star and Planets formed and then by accident life began on some of those planets; Than any mindless act should be producing intelligent life all the time. At least most of the times if not at the very least once upon a time in man's history.

Why the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs should have lead to a proliferation of new life forms. If that were the case. The Chernobyl nuclear accident should have produce some new and strange life form by now if that were the case. Perhaps just cooking vegetable soup should have shown us a new created being in the soup, just before we ate it because if the Atheist are correct then life happens just like shit happens. It just happens all the time.

But that is not what we see in this universe. Meaningless explosions and events do not produce life forms or even intelligence or we would have at least seen Artificial Intelligence by now. Just the opposite is produced by Meaningless events or accidental events, they only cause death and decay to increase at a much more rapid accelerated rate. No one lives near Chernobyl or Hiroshima or Nagasaki today. Those are all dead zones. That's because only intelligent acts can create intelligence and only life can create life. Big bangs alone do not create life and a Universe.

The evidence to the existence of God is all around us. For those who will open their eyes and see. But hostility, or disagreement with God is what blinds people to the truth and the reason why people will not see or understand the evidence all around us. People have eyes and yet they do not see. Because they simply don't want to see the truth all around them. The evidence of the existence of God.

"Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they [are] a rebellious house." - Ezekiel 12:2

Isn't the problem that we have evolved as pattern seeking beings,this confers great advantage at our micro level of day to day survival,and we transfer this to the cosmic level and see design where probably none exists?At the very least if there is design it is extremely shoddy,hardly the handiwork of am omnipotent deity.

[natty dread]

But the better question is can the existence of God be proven using the physical scientific method. Once again the answer is Yes!

Please elaborate.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/atheists-riddle-2/

Well, the above link will explain it better then I could, but simply putting it like this...

Any design demands a designer. Any laws demand a law provider or a law giver and our own DNA Codes demand an intelligent creator writer of those very DNA codes in our genes.

If Atheist's are correct in their assumption that The Universe began with a meaningless big bang and that quite by accident Galaxies, Star and Planets formed and then by accident life began on some of those planets; Than any mindless act should be producing intelligent life all the time. At least most of the times if not at the very least once upon a time in man's history.

Why the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs should have lead to a proliferation of new life forms. If that were the case. The Chernobyl nuclear accident should have produce some new and strange life form by now if that were the case. Perhaps just cooking vegetable soup should have shown us a new created being in the soup, just before we ate it because if the Atheist are correct then life happens just like shit happens. It just happens all the time.

But that is not what we see in this universe. Meaningless explosions and events do not produce life forms or even intelligence or we would have at least seen Artificial Intelligence by now. Just the opposite is produced by Meaningless events or accidental events, they only cause death and decay to increase at a much more rapid accelerated rate. No one lives near Chernobyl or Hiroshima or Nagasaki today. Those are all dead zones. That's because only intelligent acts can create intelligence and only life can create life. Big bangs alone do not create life and a Universe.

The evidence to the existence of God is all around us. For those who will open their eyes and see. But hostility, or disagreement with God is what blinds people to the truth and the reason why people will not see or understand the evidence all around us. People have eyes and yet they do not see. Because they simply don't want to see the truth all around them. The evidence of the existence of God.

"Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they [are] a rebellious house." - Ezekiel 12:2

[PLAYER57832]

the primary reason religion developed is to "control the masses"? not as an answer to physical phenomena like lightning/stars/etc.? that's a very dismal outlook lol

I'd like to know how religion tries to explain light and stars.

They are balls of mass experiencing nuclear and other reactions, thus resulting in a giant ball of light.

The limits those saying "science and not religion" try to place on science are no more real than the limits religious places on science.

That is, religion is firm about morals, some other details (there is a God.. or some other type of power, depending on the belief system). Science identifies specific facts based on various mostly, but not entirely, tangible proofs. (ice melts, fossils exist, etc.) BUT... neither is entirely limited to that. Religious belief relies on some proof, including tangible proof and science depends very heavily upon open minds willing to explore even that which seems utterly insane initially. Science relies on faith/belief as much as proof to fully expand and grow.

Beyond that, religion can try to claim science wrong. Occasionally they actually prove valid (thinking of things like some tribes referring to a "spirit" in a particular substance that actually winds up providing a real science cure.. but there are likely other examples). Science absolutely has proven many religious beliefs false. However, therein lies the arrogance. Many want to sasy that because science has proven so much of ancient religious belief false, therefore it will prove ALL religious belief false. Except.. they ignore the fact that science itself has proven most of "ancient" science false. From alchemy to much of modern science, the number of missteps far outweighs the number of valid conclusions.

[Symmetry]

the primary reason religion developed is to "control the masses"? not as an answer to physical phenomena like lightning/stars/etc.? that's a very dismal outlook lol

I'd like to know how religion tries to explain light and stars.

They are balls of mass experiencing nuclear and other reactions, thus resulting in a giant ball of light.

The limits those saying "science and not religion" try to place on science are no more real than the limits religious places on science.

That is, religion is firm about morals, some other details (there is a God.. or some other type of power, depending on the belief system). Science identifies specific facts based on various mostly, but not entirely, tangible proofs. (ice melts, fossils exist, etc.) BUT... neither is entirely limited to that. Religious belief relies on some proof, including tangible proof and science depends very heavily upon open minds willing to explore even that which seems utterly insane initially. Science relies on faith/belief as much as proof to fully expand and grow.

Beyond that, religion can try to claim science wrong. Occasionally they actually prove valid (thinking of things like some tribes referring to a "spirit" in a particular substance that actually winds up providing a real science cure.. but there are likely other examples). Science absolutely has proven many religious beliefs false. However, therein lies the arrogance. Many want to sasy that because science has proven so much of ancient religious belief false, therefore it will prove ALL religious belief false. Except.. they ignore the fact that science itself has proven most of "ancient" science false. From alchemy to much of modern science, the number of missteps far outweighs the number of valid conclusions.

Not sure about that. Most religions are about ethics rather than morals. Indeed, in Abrahamic faiths, morality is considered original sin- the knowledge of good and evil as opposed to obedience to rules. Religion is indeed firm about about morals, at least with regards to Christianity- they are part of the deepest most original sin. Knowledge of good and evil.

Humanity fell from ethics into morality.

[PLAYER57832]

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/atheists-riddle-2/

Well, the above link will explain it better then I could, but simply putting it like this...

Any design demands a designer. Any laws demand a law provider or a law giver and our own DNA Codes demand an intelligent creator writer of those very DNA codes in our genes.

Why? How do you come to the conclusion that this is necessary, (outside of the words of the Bible, of course)

If Atheist's are correct in their assumption that The Universe began with a meaningless big bang and that quite by accident Galaxies, Star and Planets formed and then by accident life began on some of those planets; Than any mindless act should be producing intelligent life all the time. At least most of the times if not at the very least once upon a time in man's history.

This is not necessarily what "atheists believe" nor is it something that folks who accept religious belief necessarily deny. In fact, it is a theory that is likely to be true, but not yet proven by any stretch of the imagination.

At any rate, whether you start with "nothing .. then 'Big Bang'," OR "Got did it" you still have to account for "how God". We, as humans have a very hard time conceiving of a time "before" everything. The best scientists AND religious thinkers have come up with to date seems to be the possibility that time is not actually linear, that is there really was no "before" in some sense, but it is somehow always here or circular. But, again, that is all theory... and in that case, perhaps not even really theory, more just "a smidgeon of an idea" that is discussed.

Why the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs should have lead to a proliferation of new life forms. If that were the case. The Chernobyl nuclear accident should have produce some new and strange life form by now if that were the case. Perhaps just cooking vegetable soup should have shown us a new created being in the soup, just before we ate it because if the Atheist are correct then life happens just like shit happens. It just happens all the time.

Why on Earth?
Why would that create new life? It is a different process than the one put forward for origin of life. Such a huge nuclear explosion destroyed, it did not create. That's like claiming that life began inside the sun. No life that we know of did.

On the other hand, both explosions did, absolutely modify life and ecosystems in various ways. There is the direct impact of radiation on life (mutations, etc.), but it also cleared out the area. I don't know enough about Soviet ecology to know for sure, but I would guess that some species of limited range were obliterated. Others will eventually come to take their place. This is likely already happening on the edges.

But that is not what we see in this universe. Meaningless explosions and events do not produce life forms or even intelligence or we would have at least seen Artificial Intelligence by now.

How do you reach those conclusions? They are certainly not based on either the Bible OR science!

Just the opposite is produced by Meaningless events or accidental events, they only cause death and decay to increase at a much more rapid accelerated rate. No one lives near Chernobyl or Hiroshima or Nagasaki today. Those are all dead zones. That's because only intelligent acts can create intelligence and only life can create life. Big bangs alone do not create life and a Universe.

I see, so a cow does not give birth to a calf that looks different from itself without human intervention and gene manipulation? Because that IS what you are claiming

The evidence to the existence of God is all around us. For those who will open their eyes and see.

Of course it is. But, it is not firm proof that will necessarily sway an unbeliever. God did not design the world to be a clear book, written for any to understand. Even the Bible is not truly that clear. If it were there would not be so many denominations and disagreements over meaning and belief.

But hostility, or disagreement with God is what blinds people to the truth and the reason why people will not see or understand the evidence all around us. People have eyes and yet they do not see. Because they simply don't want to see the truth all around them. The evidence of the existence of God.

"Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they [are] a rebellious house." - Ezekiel 12:2

Scientists who are Christian see both very well.