Mor(m)ons

[comic boy]

Defending ones faith is NOT an indication of logical , forward or open thinking , the very opposite in fact.

[jonesthecurl]

Reminds me of the ghost tour we took in Cape may. "How do you know that half the people in that crowd over there aren't ghosts?" said the guide. We;ll I can't prove they aren't without interviewing them all, and if I did that the ghosts might dissappear while I was talking to someone else - it's impossible to prove that isn't so, and therefore "logical" to believe it's possible.
But excuse me if I doubt it mightily.

No one is saying you cannot doubt. THAT is the key. You are/have claimed that to believe is illogical .. yet your above statement shows that it is, in fact, not.

And, well... regarding ghosts, there actually is some evidence that something of the sort exists, though not what the "media" hypes, and probably more rare than thought.

So it is as reasonable to believe that in any crowd half the people are actually ghosts as it is to believe that there is a God?

[Army of GOD]

how, and more importantly why, is this thread still alive?

[Woodruff]

I don't think you understand. You can't prove a negative. You cannot prove that God does not exist. This will never be possible.

no, but you can gain enough evidence for an alternative theory as to render the god explanation extremely unlikely, thereby inductively "proving" that god doesn't exist.

We already have this. It doesn't seem to have worked.

No, you most definitely have not provided any such thing.

Sure we have. A large number of people are simply too wrapped up in their comfort zone to look at the situation objectively.

LOL, LOL, LOL

OK, fine... state your points, again, then.

Ironically, you yourself actually provided what (given what we know today) seems to be one of the more likely possibilities.. namely that all time is concurrent.

Of course I did. Because I try to view things objectively, which means I try to find "ways to make it work". That doesn't make those things "likely".

The difference between "unlikely" and "possible" is the difference between man walking on the moon and not. Science is very much about proving the unlikely is true.
Somehow, there is a group that thinks just because something is religious, those rules don't apply. Sad to see you among them.

You need to re-read everything I've quoted in this post. Because you've clearly missed key parts of the discussion.

So, we get back to the truly frustrating part. No one, here, is saying that you or anyone else MUST believe in God (not in this conversation, not among the posters in here that I have seen, anyway) or that people who think that way are illogical, idiots, etc. However, to claim that people who believe in God are either is just wrong.

I wouldn't say that all are illogical, and certainly not idiots. I would suggest that most aren't allowing themselves to look at the situation with a clear view, mostly because of comfort level. Granted, that's just my personal opinion, so it doesn't mean much.

And I/many religious individuals would turn that back at you.

Except that I AM open to the idea that God exists, as we've already established in this post. So you'll have to try again.

[Woodruff]

[PLAYER57832]

Reminds me of the ghost tour we took in Cape may. "How do you know that half the people in that crowd over there aren't ghosts?" said the guide. We;ll I can't prove they aren't without interviewing them all, and if I did that the ghosts might dissappear while I was talking to someone else - it's impossible to prove that isn't so, and therefore "logical" to believe it's possible.
But excuse me if I doubt it mightily.

No one is saying you cannot doubt. THAT is the key. You are/have claimed that to believe is illogical .. yet your above statement shows that it is, in fact, not.

And, well... regarding ghosts, there actually is some evidence that something of the sort exists, though not what the "media" hypes, and probably more rare than thought.

So it is as reasonable to believe that in any crowd half the people are actually ghosts as it is to believe that there is a God?

Wrong question, and part of the problem. Each can be reasonable. It so happens I myself don't particularly believe in ghosts.. at least as generally described (by shows like "ghost hunters" and such). I do believe in God. Therefore, I personally see more evidence for God than for ghosts. But... plenty of intelligent and critically thinking, scientific thinking people do believe in ghosts. Some believe in ghosts and not God.

The definition of "reasonable", as thrown out above, is more to do with your own personal evidence and experience than an objective reality, becuase none of us can truly know and see all that everyone else sees and knows/experiences. That is the fundamental problem here. Having access to vast amounts of scientific knowledge, which IS, by definition transmittable, you assume that it is the case for all types of experiences.. or should be. But those of us with faith know this is just not the case.

Beyond that, you don't even truly know everything with science.. you cannot possibly. Yet, you accept things you don't personally know about because you accept the process of science. You dismiss religion because you disdain the process. The trouble is, you disdain the process, but also make clear you don't truly understand that process, either.

Scientists are supposed to understand that lakc of proof does not mean something is impossible. Scientists are supposed to be credulous of proof that cannot be substantiated, but the world of science is full of open questions that plain cannot be answered at this time. Religion just happens to be one of those.

[GBU56]

...you're right on. Nobody can see what I'm seeing now...

[GreecePwns]

Player, did you read this whole thread by any chance?

No one is dismissing religion out of simply disdain. They are dismissing divine intervetion in the world because things that were once unexplainable (and attributed to a god) are now explainable, and the realm of unexplainable things will continue to shrink.

It is reasonable to assume there is no divine intervention in the things explained by natural law. Natural, not supernatural. Because there are so few things left to explain in the universe that were once attributed to a god intervening in the world, some assume that the rest of the "gaps" will be filled (except for creation of the universe, which we cannot know). I don't. I say wait until we explain them, but that is because I do that for everything. But I err to that side because that argument makes less and more believeable assumptions than the religious side does. Nonetheless, they are assumptions.

If we can explain everything in our universe with natural law, religion has nothing to believe in other than that god created the universe. In other words, religion becomes deism.

Is that disdain? Or a rational argument?

[PLAYER57832]

Player, did you read this whole thread by any chance?

No one is dismissing religion out of simply disdain. They are dismissing divine intervetion in the world because things that were once unexplainable (and attributed to a god) are now explainable, and the realm of unexplainable things will continue to shrink.

That is the claim, yes. However, saying that the realm of unexplainable things will continue to shrink in no way, shape or form dismisses the idea of God. UNLESS you are already biased against God, anyway.

It is reasonable to assume there is no divine intervention in the things explained by natural law.

No one disputes that reasonable people can come to that conclusion. Why do you keep insisting that the reverse is not also true? That is the real question. Again, it comes down to your personnal biases, not evidence.. because there is no real evidence.

Natural, not supernatural. Because there are so few things left to explain in the universe that were once attributed to a god intervening in the world, some assume that the rest of the "gaps" will be filled (except for creation of the universe, which we cannot know). I don't. I say wait until we explain them, but that is because I do that for everything. But I err to that side because that argument makes less and more believeable assumptions than the religious side does. Nonetheless, they are assumptions.

If we can explain everything in our universe with natural law, religion has nothing to believe in other than that god created the universe. In other words, religion becomes deism.

Is that disdain? Or a rational argument?

Your arguments don't counter religion. You start with the assumption that an explanation through science is equal to evidence that God does not exist. That is like claiming the fact that we can breed animals in test tubes, manipulate genes means there is no such thing as natural changes in species. It is to claim that understanding how a rainbow happens removes all wonder in its creation.

I get that you yourself don't believe in God. I have no specific interest in trying to dissuade you otherwise.. don't think its possible in the avenues available here in this forum. However, I have great interest in stopping this nonsense that faith is somehow the opposition to fact and science, that belief has no part in rational human thinking and that belief in God is somehow the antithesis of being an enlightened human being. I have a vested interest in that debate because when you make such statements, you directly insult me and many other faithful individuals, BUT, you also play into the utterly false dichotamy that is destroying this country right now.. namely that science is an attack on Christianity and faith. If you cannot even accept that religious individuals are intelligent, fully rations.. JUST AS rational as you, that what we believe is just as much based on evidence and logic as your beliefs, then our world is truly sunk, because you are using science to attack not just Christianity, but ALL faiths.

[GreecePwns]

Before I respond, lemme clear things up here: I didn't say I was an atheist. I haven't taken sides yet until evidence is given.

That is the claim, yes. However, saying that the realm of unexplainable things will continue to shrink in no way, shape or form dismisses the idea of God. UNLESS you are already biased against God, anyway.

Okay, if natural law can explain the creation of the universe and everything in the universe, where does god come in?

No one disputes that reasonable people can come to that conclusion. Why do you keep insisting that the reverse is not also true? That is the real question. Again, it comes down to your personnal biases, not evidence.. because there is no real evidence.

Where is my bias?

I didn't insist anything. If science can't explain it divine intervention is possible. I am echoing the claims of others when I say the trend is toward less and less being explained by divine intervention (not including the creation of the universe, which we cannot know right now). What hasn't been explained by science, divine intervention in them is possible. What has been explained by science, divine intervention is not possible.

Your arguments don't counter religion. You start with the assumption that an explanation through science is equal to evidence that God does not exist. That is like claiming the fact that we can breed animals in test tubes, manipulate genes means there is no such thing as natural changes in species. It is to claim that understanding how a rainbow happens removes all wonder in its creation.

Well, yeah. Yeah it does.

The rest I won't respond to because youy have this idea that I'm a militant atheist or something, when in fact I'm an agnostic. I'm not attacking religion, Christianity or anyhing else. I'm just seeing what's in front of me and not taking sides until one is definitively proven. Which it cannot be in the forseeable future.

What we can prove is how our universe works, and where natural law exist divine intervention definitely doesn't. Where we haven't discovered an explanation divine intervention possibly exists, though some claim that because the set of unexplainable things is shrink, they can jump to the conclusion that it will be explained by natural law. I don't, but your reaction is as if I do.

The creation of the universe is not included in the above paragraph, because we have absolutely no way of knowing these things, and I won't take a side until either side is proven.

But, I will say this: if it is proven that a god created the universe AND it is also proven that the universe does not work with divine intervention, what are we left with? Deism.

If it is proven that a god created the universe AND it is also proven that certain things cannot be explained by science, divine intervention becomes possible, but not proven (until it is proven, of course.

If it is proven thata god did NOT create the universe, natural laws did, then religion and deism are both ruled out.

I'm not biased, I'm not even taking sides like you claim I am. I am just seeing what's right in front of me. I'm not calling anyone irrational or attacking anyone. Please respond to what's being said instead of painting me as a militant atheist.

[PLAYER57832]

Before I respond, lemme clear things up here: I didn't say I was an atheist. I haven't taken sides yet until evidence is given.

Irrelevant, because your debate is essentially atheistic (countering God) in nature.

That is the claim, yes. However, saying that the realm of unexplainable things will continue to shrink in no way, shape or form dismisses the idea of God. UNLESS you are already biased against God, anyway.

Okay, if natural law can explain the creation of the universe and everything in the universe, where does god come in?[/quote]God set it all up. Beyond that (other universes, from where came God, etc) we have debated extensively in other threads and I don't want to get bogged down in the actual "God debate" right now. I am not arguing about God, I am arguing that belief in God is logical.

No one disputes that reasonable people can come to that conclusion. Why do you keep insisting that the reverse is not also true? That is the real question. Again, it comes down to your personnal biases, not evidence.. because there is no real evidence.

Where is my bias?

I didn't insist anything. If science can't explain it divine intervention is possible. I am echoing the claims of others when I say the trend is toward less and less being explained by divine intervention (not including the creation of the universe, which we cannot know right now). What hasn't been explained by science, divine intervention in them is possible. What has been explained by science, divine intervention is not possible.

Why are the two necessarily exclusionary? That is an artificial requirement set up by people already deciding God does not exist.

God does not exist becuase I can find other explanations and the only purpose for God is to provide explanations not found elsewhere. Its a child's argument or a strawman argument. (even if you do find a few theologians arguing pretty much the same.)

Your arguments don't counter religion. You start with the assumption that an explanation through science is equal to evidence that God does not exist. That is like claiming the fact that we can breed animals in test tubes, manipulate genes means there is no such thing as natural changes in species. It is to claim that understanding how a rainbow happens removes all wonder in its creation.

Well, yeah. Yeah it does.

The rest I won't respond to because youy have this idea that I'm a militant atheist or something, when in fact I'm an agnostic. I'm not attacking religion, Christianity or anyhing else. I'm just seeing what's in front of me and not taking sides until one is definitively proven. Which it cannot be in the forseeable future.

No dice. When you claim belief in God is illogical or claim that finding evidence of understandable methodology effectively disproves God, then you are very much arguing against Christianity. That you claim to be agnostic probably makes it worse, becuase apparently you still think you are being objective.. and are absolutely not.

What we can prove is how our universe works, and where natural law exist divine intervention definitely doesn't. Where we haven't discovered an explanation divine intervention possibly exists, though some claim that because the set of unexplainable things is shrink, they can jump to the conclusion that it will be explained by natural law. I don't, but your reaction is as if I do.

Your argument was that if there is proof, then no God. I say that is plainly not true. To put it simply, science, for a Christian, is largely about discovering how God did things. To an atheist, it is about discovering how God did not do things, how they "just happened". (grossly simplifying both ideas, of course) The thing is both sets look at the same facts, the only difference is belief to explain the facts.

The creation of the universe is not included in the above paragraph, because we have absolutely no way of knowing these things, and I won't take a side until either side is proven.

Irrelevant... just pushes the question off.

But, I will say this: if it is proven that a god created the universe AND it is also proven that the universe does not work with divine intervention, what are we left with? Deism.

I don't understand what you are implying here, at all. Its nothing to do with any faith I know about.

If it is proven that a god created the universe AND it is also proven that certain things cannot be explained by science, divine intervention becomes possible, but not proven (until it is proven, of course.

If it is proven thata god did NOT create the universe, natural laws did, then religion and deism are both ruled out.

YOu keep coming back to this "if we can find a scientific explanation.. then no God". Yet, that is just fundamentally false. Why do you insist it must be true?

I'm not biased, I'm not even taking sides like you claim I am. I am just seeing what's right in front of me. I'm not calling anyone irrational or attacking anyone. Please respond to what's being said instead of painting me as a militant atheist.

LOL.. everyone is biased, but your bias is rather apparent above. I don't say that to criticize you, but I do criticize what you are saying. That you don't seem to recognize that you have bias is rather disconcerting.

[GreecePwns]

Divine intervention being disproven doesn't disprove the existence of a supernatural entity. I never claimed that. You're putting words in my mouth.

Like you said, there is a chance that, if something is explained by natural law there is always the chance that "God set it up."

That proves deism/Intelligent Design is still a possibility, but it does not prove that a god actively participating in our universe is a possibility for that specific thing. The only way that would happen is if natural laws are completely defied.

Taking my argument one step further, if everything is explained by natural law, there is a chance that the unverse was "set up by God" (Intelligently Designed) but not interfered in directly in a way that defies those natural laws (deism).

I take it you did not read the discussion before beore entering this thread.

[PLAYER57832]

Divine intervention being disproven doesn't disprove the existence of a supernatural entity. I never claimed that. You're putting words in my mouth.

No one has disproven divine intervention. That is the point.

Like you said, there is a chance that, if something is explained by natural law there is always the chance that "God set it up."

This is what most modern, scientific-accepting Christians think.. in other words, most mainline Christians.

That proves deism/Intelligent Design is still a possibility, but it does not prove that a god actively participating in our universe is a possibility for that specific thing. The only way that would happen is if natural laws are completely defied.

Not really. God is possible if we are able to fully understand the process... and God is possible if there are questions.

Further, even with all of our knowledge, there are still unexplained "miracles".

But, here is the bottom line .. when you have to redefine someone else's religion to refute it.. you are not really refuting their religion. You are refuting your own ideas.

[GreecePwns]

2No one has disproven divine intervention. That is the point.

...

Not really. God is possible if we are able to fully understand the process... and God is possible if there are questions.

Further, even with all of our knowledge, there are still unexplained "miracles".

We agree for the most part here. No one has completely disproven divine intervention, but if we can explain everything in the universe with natural laws, then yes, in that situation we will have disproven divine intervention. And how is intervention "divine" if it is does nothing to defy natural law?

This is what most modern, scientific-accepting Christians think.. in other words, most mainline Christians.

But, here is the bottom line .. when you have to redefine someone else's religion to refute it.. you are not really refuting their religion. You are refuting your own ideas.

Tell me what I am redifining here:

1. Religion, at least the Abrahamic ones, believe that a God created the universe and actively participates in it, altering its fate.

2. They provide examples of this belief in the form of stories, parables, important people (Jesus as the Messiah, archangels sending the Quran to Muhammad, etc), etc.

3. From these stories, parables, important people, etc. many ideas are derived. How to live a moral life, how to worship said God, etc. These may vary based on differing interpretations on the same message, but nonetheless they all come from the same source: stories, parables, important people that are examples of a God actively participating in the universe (not just creating it, but actively participating in it and alerting its fate).

Do we agree on this?

[natty dread]

plenty of intelligent and critically thinking, scientific thinking people do believe in ghosts.

Show me one.

[comic boy]

Player
As you keep maintaining that it NOT logical to disbelieve in God , on the grounds it cannot be proven , why are you persisting in stating that belief in God IS logical , despite the fact that the same proof is again not available. Your position is one of faith not logic and by insisting otherwise you are being hugely hypocritical, not least by showing the same level of arogance that you accuse others of.

[PLAYER57832]

2No one has disproven divine intervention. That is the point.

...

Not really. God is possible if we are able to fully understand the process... and God is possible if there are questions.

Further, even with all of our knowledge, there are still unexplained "miracles".

We agree for the most part here. No one has completely disproven divine intervention, but if we can explain everything in the universe with natural laws, then yes, in that situation we will have disproven divine intervention. And how is intervention "divine" if it is does nothing to defy natural law?

You have proven no such thing... or at least not in a relevant way. See, you seem to think that proving God is not direclty manipulating the world like we were all on puppet strings means there is no intervention, that this somehow excludes God. The problem is most people of faith don't believe that IS how God operates.

As I said, you are disproving your ideas about God, not God.

This is what most modern, scientific-accepting Christians think.. in other words, most mainline Christians.

But, here is the bottom line .. when you have to redefine someone else's religion to refute it.. you are not really refuting their religion. You are refuting your own ideas.

Tell me what I am redifining here:

1. Religion, at least the Abrahamic ones, believe that a God created the universe and actively participates in it, altering its fate.[/quote]
Yes.. and no. God absolutely created at least most of the universe (even that point is debated amonst Christians.. some say there might be other universes outside of God, but its not my belief, so I will leave it at that). HOWEVER, the "actively participated" bit is the part that gets misunderstood/twisted by non Christians, in addition to being debated by Christians. I do not believe in a God like you have described above, one who acts essentially like a puppet master (or mostly like one). I believe, for example, to create species he might subtlely tweak the genes so that things move in a direction he desires. He certainly could have just plopped everything down, but did not. I can (have in fact) get into why that might be the case elsewhere, but it tends to be a long and bogged down discussion, so I will leave that part of it out for now.

Occasionally, God does intervene more directly. However, even then, most Christians would say he does so using the processes already existing within the world. He created the world the way it is for good reason, after all. Why would he have to go outside of that? Just as an example, there are possible clear scientific explanations for each of the plagues brought by Moses to Egypt. Even so, for them to have come at that particular time, etc... was a miracle.

2. They provide examples of this belief in the form of stories, parables, important people (Jesus as the Messiah, archangels sending the Quran to Muhammad, etc), etc.

3. From these stories, parables, important people, etc. many ideas are derived. How to live a moral life, how to worship said God, etc. These may vary based on differing interpretations on the same message, but nonetheless they all come from the same source: stories, parables, important people that are examples of a God actively participating in the universe (not just creating it, but actively participating in it and alerting its fate).

Sort of. I don't really agree that the sources are the same. I don't agree withthe last statement.

I would say that the Bible (I don't talk about other texts, as a rule) gives people rules to live buy, guidance where there are no set rules and examples of how God operates. Saying it gives examples of how God actively participates in the universe is only true if you take what I said above into account. As a key point, I certainly believe that Genesis is true, but I don't believe it means that God created the Earth and all the animals, etc within 6 of our 24 hour periods. Nor do I believe in any way, shape or form that Genesis excludes evolution. I believe it explains evolution in a way that was understandable to a very unscientific people without even a grasp of numbers like 1,000,000... never mind a round Earth, tectonic plates, etc, etc, etc.

[GreecePwns]

Yes.. and no. God absolutely created at least most of the universe (even that point is debated amonst Christians.. some say there might be other universes outside of God, but its not my belief, so I will leave it at that). HOWEVER, the "actively participated" bit is the part that gets misunderstood/twisted by non Christians, in addition to being debated by Christians. I do not believe in a God like you have described above, one who acts essentially like a puppet master (or mostly like one). I believe, for example, to create species he might subtlely tweak the genes so that things move in a direction he desires. He certainly could have just plopped everything down, but did not. I can (have in fact) get into why that might be the case elsewhere, but it tends to be a long and bogged down discussion, so I will leave that part of it out for now.

Occasionally, God does intervene more directly. However, even then, most Christians would say he does so using the processes already existing within the world. He created the world the way it is for good reason, after all. Why would he have to go outside of that? Just as an example, there are possible clear scientific explanations for each of the plagues brought by Moses to Egypt. Even so, for them to have come at that particular time, etc... was a miracle.

How is "subtlely tweaking genes so that things move in a direction he desires" different from "divine intervention in the universe by defying natural law"? The only difference is the degree of subtlety, in fact I never stated how obvious or subtle a God has to be to be considered divinely intervening. You completely brought that up on your own. In the end, "tweaking genes so that things move in a direction he desires" is still defying natural law in order to serve some sort of purpose for that god, no matter how subtle it is.

And again, things happening when there is little probability for them happening does not make it a "miracle" (in this case, "miracle" meaning divine intervention) if it can be explained in natural terms. Did the evolution from primordial ooze to homo sapiens happen due to divine intervention or natural selection? The answer isn't both, because natural selection describes a specific process which cannot happen if there is divine intervention to even a 1 * 10^-googolplex% degree, as I've shown above.

I would say that the Bible (I don't talk about other texts, as a rule) gives people rules to live buy, guidance where there are no set rules and examples of how God operates. Saying it gives examples of how God actively participates in the universe is only true if you take what I said above into account. As a key point, I certainly believe that Genesis is true, but I don't believe it means that God created the Earth and all the animals, etc within 6 of our 24 hour periods. Nor do I believe in any way, shape or form that Genesis excludes evolution. I believe it explains evolution in a way that was understandable to a very unscientific people without even a grasp of numbers like 1,000,000... never mind a round Earth, tectonic plates, etc, etc, etc.

So you can say that Genesis is a primitve way to explain the events that happened by people who did not have the information we have today. They could not explain natural selection, tectonic plates, plagues, etc. so they attributed them to divine intervention. Now that we know these how natural selection, tectonic plates, and plagues work, we cannot really attribute them to divine intervention because that would require them to have happen supernaturally, which we know they do not since that is the definiton of natural law.

[john9blue]

imagine there was someone in ancient egypt who believed that the earth revolved around the sun (at a time when everyone else believed that the earth was the center of the universe) because the sun was more important than the earth. which of these two categories would he fall under?

[Timminz]

imagine there was someone in ancient egypt who believed that the earth revolved around the sun (at a time when everyone else believed that the earth was the center of the universe) because the sun was more important than the earth. which of these two categories would he fall under?

That would depend on what he did after getting the idea. See the above flow charts for specifics.

[john9blue]

imagine there was someone in ancient egypt who believed that the earth revolved around the sun (at a time when everyone else believed that the earth was the center of the universe) because the sun was more important than the earth. which of these two categories would he fall under?

That would depend on what he did after getting the idea. See the above flow charts for specifics.

he measures the irregular movement of the sun and realizes that it's likely that the earth is moving around the sun, instead of the other way around.

people tell him that the earth cannot be moving, because that would generate huge wind storms, but he ignores their evidence (because he cannot disprove it) and clings onto his new idea.

[Woodruff]

imagine there was someone in ancient egypt who believed that the earth revolved around the sun (at a time when everyone else believed that the earth was the center of the universe) because the sun was more important than the earth. which of these two categories would he fall under?

It depends entirely on what he did after coming to that perception. As the graph clearly shows.

[Woodruff]

imagine there was someone in ancient egypt who believed that the earth revolved around the sun (at a time when everyone else believed that the earth was the center of the universe) because the sun was more important than the earth. which of these two categories would he fall under?

That would depend on what he did after getting the idea. See the above flow charts for specifics.

he measures the irregular movement of the sun and realizes that it's likely that the earth is moving around the sun, instead of the other way around.

people tell him that the earth cannot be moving, because that would generate huge wind storms, but he ignores their evidence (because he cannot disprove it) and clings onto his new idea.

Again, it would still depend on what he did next. If he simply stopped his research and stuck with his ideas for no further reason, then he begins to fall within the "faith" bailiwick. If he continues to research things to determine why there are no huge wind storms (or whatever reactions one might reasonably believe would happen by the Earth moving), then he remains within the "science" bailiwick. As the flowchart clearly shows, once again.

[PLAYER57832]

imagine there was someone in ancient egypt who believed that the earth revolved around the sun (at a time when everyone else believed that the earth was the center of the universe) because the sun was more important than the earth. which of these two categories would he fall under?

That would depend on what he did after getting the idea. See the above flow charts for specifics.

he measures the irregular movement of the sun and realizes that it's likely that the earth is moving around the sun, instead of the other way around.

people tell him that the earth cannot be moving, because that would generate huge wind storms, but he ignores their evidence (because he cannot disprove it) and clings onto his new idea.

Again, it would still depend on what he did next. If he simply stopped his research and stuck with his ideas for no further reason, then he begins to fall within the "faith" bailiwick. If he continues to research things to determine why there are no huge wind storms (or whatever reactions one might reasonably believe would happen by the Earth moving), then he remains within the "science" bailiwick. As the flowchart clearly shows, once again.

You are utterly missing/dismssing the real point.

You consider your beliefs to be "more valid" because they are based upon your experiences/perceptions. Those of us with faith feel our beliefs are more valid because our experiences/perceptions differ. EACH is equally valid because no one truly experiences the same as someone else. To claim that one person's experiences are somehow "less valid" or that making decisions based upon those perceptions is "less logical" or "less reasonable" is to do nothing more than disdain other people's thinking and experiences. You try to skate around that, but you are showing not open minded thinking, but biased disdain.

ALL people have bias. It is inherent to who we are and the fact that we do not all have identical experiences or even necesssarily identical perceptions (at the most basic level, a color blind individual will see different things than a non color blind individual.. you get the concept).

Science is a tool that tries to stear people around our inherent biases. As noted, ALL people have biases. Science sets the standard, then that to be considered fact or scientific evidence (which may or many not prove anything), it must not just be something that "makes sense" or is "logical", it must be something that can be shown to other people... even if the process today can be very, very complicated. To be science, it must be tested and proven in a way that other people can percieve.

The difference between religion and science is not lack of evidence or thought, it is the ability to show other people what you know/understand. It is the difference not of proof per se, but of proof you can demonstrate to other people. That is the FIRST mistake you make. You assert, others here keep asserting, very falsely, that an inability to prove something to other people means that you are "allowed" to just fall back on some default as if it were proven. In this case, you keep claiming that the fact that I (or anyone else) cannot prove or disprove God means that there is a "default" of no God that is somehow superior to the idea of God. IN fact, making any such assumption about anything is the absolute antithesis of scientific fact.

Of course, anyone is free to make assertions and to attempt to prove them.. but to claim superiority because your beliefs..a re, well, your own; to not understand that your beliefs are based solely upon your experiences (and whether they agree with beliefs of 1 or 1,000,000,000,000,000 others is utterly irrelevant) and therefore objectively no more correct (or wrong) than other people's beliefs.. that is the fundament of being closed minded. It is the very kind of impedement about which you have railed in other contexts. It is the exact type of bias science is constructed to avoid.

SECOND.. let's take logic. Logic is irrelevant of some base proof. That is, it does not ignore it, but goes beyond proof. A young child is perfectly logical to think that Santa Claus is real if he sees Santa, if presents appear on Christmas morning.. and particularly if the child further gets assurances from adults that it is so. (even if they couch things by saying stuff like "Santa is the spirit of Christmas"). An older child or adult thinking the same thing, but having all the additional knowledge is not logical to think of Santa as "real" .. at least in the sense of a person living at the north pole wearing red. (the idea of Santa as the "spirit of Christmas" or some such is a tad different).

Now, I realize you wish to claim that believing in God is, while not quite as childlike as believing in Santa, still not quite intelligent/logical. The problem is, you do this without proof. The best you can come up with is "if there were a God, then xyz ought to happen or ought to be seen... etc.". Except, you inevitably come up with things that [most] believers don't actually assert. You dismiss real and honest explanations as "excuses".... while making your own explanaitons that are truly no more logical than those made by people of faith.

The difference between your thinking and mine has little to do with logic, it is purely experience. I don't disdain your experience, but I do say you have no right to disdain mine or that of other people with faith. AND, I keep pushing this becuase it is a very, very critical issue today.

IF people keep insisting that belief in God is illogical, is not scientific, etc.... then you immediately put a wedge between the vast majority of humanity and yourself. That feels pretty good.. to be superior to the vast majority of humanity. But, its no way to communicate, to understand or even to educate.

[PLAYER57832]

To put it another way, nothing at all in your chart in any way disproves or even indicates there is no God. Teh difference is purely of experience.. experiences that are not proven by either believers or non-believers, because they are personal.

Science cannot take those things into account as proof, BUT.. that inability to take them into account is true for all sides of the question. There is no fundamental true default in science for any question not already answered.