Lest we forget

[TomOfSweden]

I'm not sure I agree on that. The experiment was one of quantum physics, and I learned about it in What the bleep do we know?! The premise of the movie/documentary is that we, as Observers, are in ultimate control of our reality, and that the reason we have a more fixed view of reality is that we don't believe other things are possible. I'm not sure I agree with that, either.

That film is just fiction. I don't think anybody in the team has claimed any of it is true. Like all good science fiction they take real science and change it a bit to make it more entertaining. Nothing wrong with that but you shouldn't confuse it with theories put forward by real researchers.

I supose this new "mockumentary" trend can get quite confusing for people who don't have experience from the academic world.

Ha ha! Good question. And you're right - I don't believe in the supernatural. I believe in a natural reality that has not been discovered or accepted by those who only look to the physical world. I think there are deities and spirits, just as I think there are plants and animals. That is, as I said, they are as differentiated from each other as we are, but do not exist, except in a few situations (possession being one), in the physical world, though they may affect it at times. Again, I believe this because of things I have experienced through my emotions and senses. An atheist, I assume, would not believe in deities or spirits of any kind, whether they are called natural or supernatural.

The supernatural is a force in the world that can break the laws of nature. I'm sure, (quite positive) there are aspects of the laws of nature we haven't fully understood yet. So far we agree. To take flaws in our mathematical models of nature assume that the laws are being deliberatly broken is just dumb and not any evidence at all for the supernatural. Whether you'd like to call these anomilies we haven't understood yet for spirits or dieties is of no consequence. The important thing is what you believe they can and can't do.

All it means to be an atheist is that one doesn't believe that there is a force in the world that can break the laws of nature.

I hope you don't believe that the spirits can comunicate with us because even here there's been masses and masses of research and science have come up with nothing. Assuming from this that all spirits are shy in the presence of scientists is a bit naive, wouldn't you agree? We do know how neurons send messages within the brain so we can measure any thoughts being transfered from an external source and it just doesn't happen. We just haven't figured out exactly how complex thought works mechanically or chemically.

Our brains are very fast at working out stuff from incomplete evidence and sketchy data, (often leading to false conclusions). That is the strength of our brains, that's why we are the creative machines in the world. It's easy to understand how we can feel like we are getting external signals to it, but I'm certain it has never happened. Our brains can't really distinguish between what is internal thought and what is things comming in from outside. We have use various clues to distinguish them. If we can't see the clues then it can be easy to get the feeling it's god/spirits.

Human perception was part of my degree so I can pull research out my ass to back my shit up all day.

[Amberxiao]

That film is just fiction. I don't think anybody in the team has claimed any of it is true. Like all good science fiction they take real science and change it a bit to make it more entertaining. Nothing wrong with that but you shouldn't confuse it with theories put forward by real researchers.

I saw it as an interesting "What if" question.

I supose this new "mockumentary" trend can get quite confusing for people who don't have experience from the academic world.

Indeed. Though I wish you had worded it as "the scientific academic world". I have plenty of experience with the academic world, just in humanities rather than science. You will note that I said I wasn't sure I agreed with it or not.

All it means to be an atheist is that one doesn't believe that there is a force in the world that can break the laws of nature.

Fascinating! Then, yes, I would be an atheist by your definition. As would a good number of pagans.

I hope you don't believe that the spirits can comunicate with us because even here there's been masses and masses of research and science have come up with nothing.

However, here you define "laws of nature" as something that can be proven by our scientific methods of today. I don't know what I think about spirit communication, but the one thing I believe is that IF it does exist, it's not something that can be commanded by the receiver for just anything. The spirit would likely only communicate if it had something important it wanted to say... which means that shyness would not be a reason for it not to show up under research conditions, but rather that research conditions would not be a reason for it *to* show up.

I think our understanding of the world is limited by our technology. Surely you don't think we've reached the end of discovery about the world? That science today is capable of understanding *everything*?

Without certain tools (i.e. the telescope), we would still be thinking that the Earth was in the center of the universe.

Personally, I hope that we never do learn everything, because then, there would be no point in living. Nothing new to discover. It would be terribly boring.

Assuming from this that all spirits are shy in the presence of scientists is a bit naive, wouldn't you agree? We do know how neurons send messages within the brain so we can measure any thoughts being transfered from an external source and it just doesn't happen. We just haven't figured out exactly how complex thought works mechanically or chemically.

But does this work if internal=external?

Human perception was part of my degree so I can pull research out my ass to back my shit up all day.

Cool. That must have been really fascinating! My degrees are, alas, in French and Russian, and therefore, not at all helpful in this debate. I wish I had more time to learn everything I want to learn, and this is one area that I'm definitely interested in.

[TomOfSweden]

Indeed. Though I wish you had worded it as "the scientific academic world". I have plenty of experience with the academic world, just in humanities rather than science. You will note that I said I wasn't sure I agreed with it or not.

Well actually. Nearly all the academic subjects are based on aplying the scientific method. There's only a very few subjects that are exempt. The study of aesthetics being the prime example. Language is very much a scientific subject. It doesn't need more than a glance at linguistic theories to understand that. It's pretty far from unsubstantiated opinions or vague feelings.

However, here you define "laws of nature" as something that can be proven by our scientific methods of today. I don't know what I think about spirit communication, but the one thing I believe is that IF it does exist, it's not something that can be commanded by the receiver for just anything. The spirit would likely only communicate if it had something important it wanted to say... which means that shyness would not be a reason for it not to show up under research conditions, but rather that research conditions would not be a reason for it *to* show up.

I think our understanding of the world is limited by our technology. Surely you don't think we've reached the end of discovery about the world? That science today is capable of understanding *everything*?

Without certain tools (i.e. the telescope), we would still be thinking that the Earth was in the center of the universe.

Personally, I hope that we never do learn everything, because then, there would be no point in living. Nothing new to discover. It would be terribly boring.

But does this work if internal=external?

You got me. All very good points. But as you say. These are all what if sceniaros without evidence. I'm not denying any of it. I think chances are pretty good that if we encounter an intelligence out there in space somewhere, we probably wouldn't register it as intelligence, or understand it's comunication if they tried it. It could go either way. The aliens could have allready come here and colonized earth, but without our understanding or knowledge, and they could just as well have judged human comunication as just random noise. We will never be sure.

As soon as anybody floats a theory like this I always compare it's merits to the flying spagheti monster theory. If the evidence is as unsubstatiated as it is for that one, then we might as well ignore it.

But most supernatural theories ignore the premises of how the brain works. It's just a chemical computer. There's no magic involved and there's no soul. If it is, it dies when we die. There's nothing that leaves the body when we die. This has all been searched for and measured to eterntity. I understand the philosophical premise where the external and internal are the same. But then you're in a quagmire of definitions. What is you? Is your actions the result of your decisions? If you somehow have power over your body, then we can define the external as being that which is not part of your chemical make-up in the brain. Now we're in a position where we can measure external influence. If there's no border between the internal and external then there's no you, right? If you do a line of coke, it's your brain that gets high, not the person next to you, right?

Cool. That must have been really fascinating! My degrees are, alas, in French and Russian, and therefore, not at all helpful in this debate. I wish I had more time to learn everything I want to learn, and this is one area that I'm definitely interested in.

Now I think you're underestimating yourself. Intelligence or academic prowess isn't equated to skills in maths or sciences. I'd say that the most successful academics are the most critical minds. The ones that are the last to accept any theory. The ones who would never make do with, "sounds about right". That needs a sharp mind.

[Amberxiao]

Ooh, this is just getting more and more fascinating! And thank you very much for the compliment.

As for the scientific method and academics with critical minds:

True, but when analyzing literature and language, you're dealing with a lot less tangible types of "fact", so there is almost never a "right" answer. Yes, languages work through rules, but those rules change based on context, rather than based on facts. In any case, I was replying to your statement that having human perception as a specialty meant that you had pretty instant access to research on the subject. I was lamenting my lack of such. Which, interestingly, is not really underestimating myself, since it means I'm doing alright without it .

I've never studied aesthetics, either, but that also sounds fascinating, and I think it might be related to my thoughts on this subject, since a good description of what I'd call "divine" is Beauty.

And actually, I have no problems whatsoever with the flying spaghetti monster. I think it exists as an idea. Now, what that means in regard to the tea in China, I don't know, but it does exist as an idea. Where did that idea come from? Well, obviously, we're in agreement, that it came from inside of someone's head. I believe more strongly in scientific theories than random ideas like that, and I believe more strongly in my own experiences/experiments and my own logic than things that have been done by other people. The fact that I am not a physical scientist in any way limits what sorts of experiments/experiences I have done. The fact that a number of my experiences are things that have to do with coincidence and thus, *seem* connected rather than *be provably* connected is another drawback. In other words, I will probably continue to believe what I do unless *I* prove myself wrong, and I'm not trying to do that right now. I'm not trying to prove myself right either, I'm simply acting on the knowledge and experience I have. This may prove to be wrong, but so far, it hasn't been harmful, which is the main thing. If someone thought it was harmful, I'd evaluate their reason for doing so (i.e. I have done this with Christianity, obviously) and whether it was valid. Well, as I said, if the Christian God in the sense of sending all non-believers to Hell is the Truth, I'm out of luck, because I refuse to worship a God that vastly unjust until/unless I'm given the perspective that it really is just (i.e. I die and suddenly have True Knowledge of Life and it happens to show me that it really is just -- which I highly doubt). It may be harmful in that I might be wasting my life on a delusion, but on the other hand, it's a mostly benign delusion, hurts no one else (unless they want it *evil grin*) and adds meaning and purpose, whether real or not, to my life. So, I don't have any strong motivation to poke at it and see if it stands up to all the latest scientific processes of determining reality. I also don't know, after 5 years in grad school, and looking at another 5, whether I want to enter a whole new area of study just so that I can know for sure when I really don't think that's possible.

Because in truth, you cannot say for certain that the flying spaghetti monster is false. You can say it is unlikely, but not impossible. So, there's a hierarchy in my head of most likely to least likely scenarios. I like to occasionally indulge the least likely and see what I can come up with and stretch my brain a bit. The whole, I woke up this morning and had all these "memories" implanted in my brain, and maybe I really didn't start existing until Right Now is one that I like to entertain every once in awhile.

And not only is there a hierarchy in my head, but as I said in one of my other posts, I think there are levels of reality as well. I think there is physical reality, which is what science studies, but there is also cultural reality (which the social sciences study), internal reality (things like the way an emotion feels to a certain person, or the way they perceive a particular color), metaphorical reality (the sun rises), and ... If there are all these levels of reality, why not a metaphysical reality? And where do ideas fit in this? Ideas can become cultural reality. Any idea. It doesn't have to be a religious idea: look at all the stuff we put into the different genders, and half that stuff came from logical scientist people. Of course, they in turn, were informed by their own culture, but the reason men and women are as different as they are today has a lot less (in my honest opinion) to do with physical differences (including hormones) and a lot more to do with the history of our cultures and what things over the years have been added to those basic visual differences. For example, the whole sissy-maid male sub fantasy. Why isn't there a corresponding female cross-dressing fetish? Because women are still viewed as essentially lower on the scale: animal - woman - man - God. In other words, the corresponding fantasy would probably be the pony-girl one. So women who dress/act as men may be stigmatized for acting out of what's right by some people, but it's not a humiliation. This is a reality that has been created in our society, and perhaps it's effected genes, I don't know, but it's just as real even if it's not measurable by traditional methods. This kind of reality is more easily changed than physical reality, and it isn't as obligatory: just because the idea exists in culture doesn't mean that all have to believe IN it (in the sense of believing that other possibilities are wrong). On the other hand, women do all have vaginas.

But most supernatural theories ignore the premises of how the brain works. It's just a chemical computer. There's no magic involved and there's no soul. If it is, it dies when we die. There's nothing that leaves the body when we die. This has all been searched for and measured to eterntity.

Yes. Through the methods we understand today, and of physical properties. How do we know that there isn't something coming in and out that is simply unmeasurable by our methods/equipment. For example, you can't really prove the animal - woman - man - God thing in physical testing, either. Does that mean it doesn't exist and has no effect on the world? I don't think you *can* really know. This goes back to the "why is the sky blue?" question. The typical answer is that the sky is blue because of the various elements in the atmosphere and the way our eyes are set up. But this doesn't really answer the question, because the next question is: why do those elements and the way our eyes are set up cause the sky to look blue and not orange? In the end, I don't think we've got an answer to that question yet. For one thing, we don't even know if we really are seeing the same thing. Can you describe blue without recourse to other colors? We may know the physical properties of "blue", but we don't know why it looks "blue". We can prove that the majority of people will call the same things that have those properties "blue", but what if I'm really seeing orange? You don't know.

And yes, more what if scenarios, but I'm responding to your very strong language of "no magic" "no soul" "nothing". I want to know how you know for sure that that's true. Without that, then clearly you are operating under a belief. Because you've moved away from saying that you're not going to believe something you don't have proof in to saying that you're actually going to believe it *isn't*... And I'm curious as to why.

I understand the philosophical premise where the external and internal are the same. But then you're in a quagmire of definitions. What is you? Is your actions the result of your decisions? If you somehow have power over your body, then we can define the external as being that which is not part of your chemical make-up in the brain. Now we're in a position where we can measure external influence. If there's no border between the internal and external then there's no you, right? If you do a line of coke, it's your brain that gets high, not the person next to you, right?

Ah yes, and here we get back to my paradoxes. I think we're both. But this I'm not sure I can explain. Your coke question is a good one. I've heard stories of people "stealing" highs, but obviously, I have no way of validating those stories, so we'll leave them out.

I think that we are all life. And life just *is*. At the same time, we have personalities, very different personalities, in different bodies. So, how can everything be inside? And when someone died, wouldn't that make the whole universe disappear?

So, what I think is this, and this is something I thought up *before* seeing the movie, and although you said it has no basis in science, well, I don't have basis in science really either. But what I think is that our shared view of the world creates the world. That is, to a certain extent, I live in my world and you live in your world, but when we share space, we live in our world. Part of your reality intermingles with part of my reality and we end up with a new reality. This is something that I thought was a definite weakness of the movie: it didn't say what happens when two observers are both manipulating the world. And so there are as many possible universes as there are creatures with consciousness, and which universe we are currently inhabiting at any given moment is the universe that contains the most things that most people really carry around in their heads. As people die and are born, it changes, so it's changing all the time.

Does that mean that in the Dark Ages people might have fallen off the face of a flat earth? No, I wouldn't say that. But it's unlikely that they would have actually returned home, and saying they fell off would be a metaphorical reality of what really happened. I'm not even sure they would have drowned at sea. Maybe something else will come up about our reality, some 4th dimensional thing and someday we'll be laughing at how stupid we were to think that the Earth was just a sphere. *shrugs*

What I'm saying is that life exists. Physical reality exists. As humans, we discover new things about this physical reality. But I think we also affect and change the direction it might go through our own perception and expectations. One of the problems with the scientific method in this regard is that you have to start the experiment with some sort of hypothesis that will be proven or disproven. I think the hypothesis itself changes the possible results.

Basically it goes like this: I live in the universe. I experience the universe in a certain way, differently from other people. This makes my experience of the universe unique. Which in turn shapes my view, opinion, and expectations of the universe. All of this is happening inside my head. It is all happening to *my* universe. But my universe is also your universe, and yet not your universe. I think all three universes exist simultaneously (mine, yours, ours). And mine happens to exist within me as well as without me. But it's not your universe, so it only affects you when they come into contact, and only in ways we both expect. In other words, if I were to drink a lot of alcohol in your presence while you didn't, we'd both be expecting me to get drunk and for you not to.

To be honest, I'm not sure how firmly I believe this. But I find it very interesting, and a lot more realistic than a notion that we already know all there is to know.

So, in my universe, deities exist and work with me. In yours, they don't. I think we're both right about our own universes. And as for the truly mad: are they mad because they have no sense of reality? Or because they have a clear view and it's too much to take in?

[TomOfSweden]

You obviously missed courses like "poetry for mathematitians". Even if you only breeze through linguistics as a humanist the theories they use are all taken from serious scientific research. We can use scientific theories we can't understand. A little bit like us using a mobile-phone even if we can't build one. Just because you don't understand a theory, doesn't make it irrelevant.

There's one logical hole in your post. Christianity is just a random idea somebody had a while back. It has and has never had any suport. If you take science seriously and seriously consider christianity you also must accept every other concievable religious theory. Note that this does not mean all other religions that exist today and has ever existed. It means the infinte variations that could possibly exist. Beside it being impossible it's off-course just a waste of time.

Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it right or even having a grain of truth to it. I saw some statistics that one out of four africans believe that fucking virgins can cure AIDS. Does this mean we should take the theory seriously or just assume that education is a problem on the continent?

And to reiterate an earlier post I did in this thread:

You're starting in the wrong end. Nobody ever proves that something doesn't exist. It's impossible. I hear it all the time in the religious debate and it's rediculous. This is me proving you're gay. I have no evidence you're not, so you must be gay. In logic it's called "argument from ignorance" and is a logical fallacy. Even Aristotle knew that.


Now it's getting interesting. Yes, there evidently is things beyond our understanding. A very valid point. But that's saying absolutely nothing. Litteraly. The error in supernatural religions is that they draw conclusions from this where the evidence is at best hearsay or according to science, pure fantasy. It gives no suport what so ever for god. Nothing.

If your only demand on a theory is that we can't invalidat it, then you'll quickly end up with a situation where you have an infinate number of theories with equal validity. That's the situation all thinking christians invariably end up in.

I and science need the tiniest shred of evidence before taking any jump of faith. It needs very little, but something, even the tiniest of circumstancial evidence is needed. None of all of the religions have got even that. Same goes for the soul. In a situation like that. If we still chose to believe in an imortal soul we can impossibly discriminate against any other cooky theory, (=infinate number of theories).

If I see somebody spontaneously burst out in laughter or just smile, it rubs off on me. That's no evidence for anything supernatural is it?

As for your theory on dimensions. It doesn't have to mean anything supernatural. Off-course my perception of the world is different from yours. Off-course. When we tell each other things we're talking about different universes/dimensions. I'll buy that. The big question is if there's a world outside all people. The real world if you will. Does the world vanish when we close our eyes only to reapear when we open them? Is that pan-flute peruvian band playing in each city in world the same people following you? Or is it different bands? I think there's a real world no matter if nobody has seen it, and science agrees with me.

[Amberxiao]

I don't see how if I say that everything is possible, I give the same validity to everything. I don't see why I can't have the hierarchy I have of belief and reality, that is that I see some things as more likely than others.

As for Christianity, I was raised Catholic, which means I know a lot about different religious rituals and not a lot of actual theology (since I stopped being interested in junior high, and then started being interested in non-Christian religions after that). I will say this: I think a lot of Christians are way too literal. I think religions are meant to be applied to the spiritual side of the world, not the physical side of the world: that is, any language relating to the physical world should be taken metaphorically and not literally. For example, the 7 days of Creation. A lot of Christians and atheists (and some agnostics) seem caught up on this seven day thing. Why? I don't get it. The Christians should be thinking about it in spiritual terms not physical reality and the atheists shouldn't care. Of course, the reason they care is that the Christians start making all kinds of stupid claims about the physical world. I agree that religion should not start trying to tell science what to do: for me, they operate in different areas of reality and expertise.

Now, obviously, Christianity also conflicts with my own basic belief that no religion is the only right one. Because *that* is an area that leaves for a lot less wiggle room. But Christianity does exist. So, I believe that reality does exist for someone. I just really hope it doesn't then apply to me. And more importantly, I really hope that it doesn't apply to people who've never heard of Christianity. Those are the people I really think would be unjustly harmed if it's true, and it's mainly because of them that I could never be Christian again.

Now, as for the other end: I never asked you to believe in an immortal soul. In fact, I didn't ask you why you didn't believe in one. I asked you why you believed the theory was impossible -- not just improbable. Improbable, I can deal with, but impossible?

Finally, dimensions. Yes. I don't believe in the supernatural. I believe the universe itself is sentient, i.e. everything in it, including rocks, trees, etc. That is, I think our sentience is linked to our life. So, if all the people closed their eyes, first of all, some of us would be dreaming or imagining things in our heads.... second of all, if we all disappeared, there would still be plants and animals and stars. I think their sentience is so different from ours that it's impossible to communicate with them or know how they communicate with the scientific tools of today. So, until nothing exists, something will exist. But yes, I believe it's all natural, not supernatural. And I believe nothing is something, so I think something will always exist, even if it's nothing. I don't believe things can be destroyed, only transformed.

But I'm glad you asked the question, because it's the same question as the tree falling in the forest question. I think the other trees and the dirt see the tree fall, and so yes, it falls. But if there were no trees and no dirt, then there wouldn't be a tree *to* fall.

And I'm interested in science agreeing, since I don't know how scientists can perform an experiment without having some idea of what they're expecting. That is, they may not have seen it with their physical eyes, but they've read about it or heard evidence from others who've seen it, or something. They know about it, or there wouldn't be a way of studying it. Again, as soon as someone has an idea, it exists as an idea in someone's head. And without an idea, where does the research come from? How can a scientist really test whether something exists that *no one* has thought of without someone thinking of something and thus rendering that "something" invalid?

[TomOfSweden]

I don't see how if I say that everything is possible, I give the same validity to everything. I don't see why I can't have the hierarchy I have of belief and reality, that is that I see some things as more likely than others.

Ok, sorry. That's what I'm getting at. I thaught you had a number of theories, (like the christian one) that you judged on equal merit. I guess not. I agree to some extent. It's just that in this hierarchy of plausible theories, for me I only put reasonable theories on it. Christianity just isn't...again, because it has no suporting evidence what so ever.

As for Christianity, I was raised Catholic, which means I know a lot about different religious rituals and not a lot of actual theology (since I stopped being interested in junior high, and then started being interested in non-Christian religions after that). I will say this: I think a lot of Christians are way too literal. I think religions are meant to be applied to the spiritual side of the world, not the physical side of the world: that is, any language relating to the physical world should be taken metaphorically and not literally. For example, the 7 days of Creation. A lot of Christians and atheists (and some agnostics) seem caught up on this seven day thing. Why? I don't get it. The Christians should be thinking about it in spiritual terms not physical reality and the atheists shouldn't care. Of course, the reason they care is that the Christians start making all kinds of stupid claims about the physical world. I agree that religion should not start trying to tell science what to do: for me, they operate in different areas of reality and expertise.

Now, obviously, Christianity also conflicts with my own basic belief that no religion is the only right one. Because *that* is an area that leaves for a lot less wiggle room. But Christianity does exist. So, I believe that reality does exist for someone. I just really hope it doesn't then apply to me. And more importantly, I really hope that it doesn't apply to people who've never heard of Christianity. Those are the people I really think would be unjustly harmed if it's true, and it's mainly because of them that I could never be Christian again.

Ok, so let's say the Bible is only metaphores. If we accept this then it isn't really saying anything is it? Since the whole nature of metaphores is that they are open to interpretation. And if it isn't saying anything then what? Is it even a religion? Is it anything at all. If there's no way of distinguishing fact from metaphor in the Bible then Christianity is just nothing but pretty words?

Now, as for the other end: I never asked you to believe in an immortal soul. In fact, I didn't ask you why you didn't believe in one. I asked you why you believed the theory was impossible -- not just improbable. Improbable, I can deal with, but impossible?

You don't live in constant fear from sinking through the ground each time your out for a walk. You don't look under the bed for monsters each time you go to the toilet at night. It's all for very good reasons. Both these scenarios could in the right setting be possible but they are highly improbable. See what I'm getting at? Who cares what's impossible? Anything is possible. Anything. It's impossible to function as a human being if we keep every avenue open. That's off-course why religious people just pick one religion and stick to it, completly ignoring that all other religions use exactly the same, (false) argumentation for it's validity.

Finally, dimensions. Yes. I don't believe in the supernatural. I believe the universe itself is sentient, i.e. everything in it, including rocks, trees, etc. That is, I think our sentience is linked to our life. So, if all the people closed their eyes, first of all, some of us would be dreaming or imagining things in our heads.... second of all, if we all disappeared, there would still be plants and animals and stars. I think their sentience is so different from ours that it's impossible to communicate with them or know how they communicate with the scientific tools of today. So, until nothing exists, something will exist. But yes, I believe it's all natural, not supernatural. And I believe nothing is something, so I think something will always exist, even if it's nothing.

Ahhh....now I get it. Nothing wrong with that theory. It's just that when you where talking about spirits and dieties I got worried. I asumed that when you said comunicate you meant talking. My fault. Sorry.

I don't believe things can be destroyed, only transformed.

I'm not going to argue that one since Einstein proved it a hundred years ago. Messing with that guy requires guts.

And I'm interested in science agreeing, since I don't know how scientists can perform an experiment without having some idea of what they're expecting. That is, they may not have seen it with their physical eyes, but they've read about it or heard evidence from others who've seen it, or something. They know about it, or there wouldn't be a way of studying it. Again, as soon as someone has an idea, it exists as an idea in someone's head. And without an idea, where does the research come from? How can a scientist really test whether something exists that *no one* has thought of without someone thinking of something and thus rendering that "something" invalid?

Yeah, I know I love it. Where do ideas come from? It's such a fascinating subject. I'm going with the meme theory until a better one turns up.

[himind]

Keeping away from all the physics,for I remember reading somewhere Feyman saying,"Nobody understands Quantum theory", I'd just like tp put a question forward,one I read in a sanskrit text about 2500 years old that still rings true today.

"Why is it that Brahma(God) made this world and left it so?
If being all powerful he leaves it so He is not good
And if not all powerful,He is not God"

I've found that the deeper I tried to go into the question, the murkier it became, and with no true answers that would stand the test of logic and proof, I felt it was better left to individual faith, for it was important to the psychological health of a lot of people I came across in everyday life.That's something I've stood by. The only exception I make is to beliefs and practices which harm humankind.

[TomOfSweden]

Thanks for that quote. I'd say Feynman beautifully sums up everything I've written in any thread about religion here so far. We really don't know. Having faith into any one theory or religious practice is stupid and educated people have no excuse for picking one over the other.

I strongly believe that all outspoken faith in the supernatural harm humankind. Humans are social animals. We tend to take things seriously if enough people believe something. This is why any and all faith in anything supernatural is dangerous and harmful.

Sorry if I hurt anybodies feelings, but believing that we'll go to heaven after we die, just isn't clever. If enough people believe this in spite of evidence, then uneducated people who cannot work this out for themselves might put their trust in religious leaders, (instead of people who actually are educated in how the universe works). These uneducated people can get manipulated into driving planes into skyscrapers. If going to heaven wouldn't be obvious to them, they might think one or two times before taking the chance. Only because ordinary people, people who should know better is letting this religous drivel, this poison, pervert our minds.

Too long have atheists, sat on their ass letting the world go to shit just because of some confused concept of "each to their own". When people are dying for religion at an increasing rate, then it's time to put ones foot down. Religion is bullshit. It shouldn't be so hard to understand is it? I can prove it. I have time and time again, here on this forum. Just sitting on ones ass feeling superior over the deluded religious followers, some atheists might think is fun, but it does nothing for me. I just feel frustrated over all the tragedy it's causing.

Religious education is active uneducation. On purpose confusing us and on purpose keeping us in the dark ages. I belive religion is the biggest problem we have today, and I believe we have to combat it, or it will perpetuate itself keeping potentially brilliant people ignorant. That is nothing less than a crime. A crime against all humanity.

[TomOfSweden]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6376211.stm
muahahaha.

Hmind, I hope you count the Vatican into one of those dangerous sects. They still believe in excorsism. Muahahaha.

It really doesn't add to it making up jokes about Catholics. They manage making fun of themselves for maximum impact all on their own.

Here's a challenge for you all. I promise that I can in a pedagogic way explain away and dispell any arguments for supernatural superstitions anybody still has on this Forum. If you dare. Cariad had a go, (and I still admire you for it). I failed, but I still claim circular reasoning, is so a logical fallacy.

[cariad]

Smiles - I think we were both guilty of circular reasoning Tom. And that is not a negative criticism of your arguments. As I have been following this debate, attempting to take it neither from the standpoint of there is a supernatural, and this is my proof (which is my natural position), nor from the there is not a supernatural, and I can find fault in any 'proof' you produce (which is closer to your natural place), and as well as finding it hard to write in short meaningful sentences, it is incredible hard, if not impossible to start from a neutral position.

Trying to challenge myself as I have read what you have put, I can only say that I have a lot of 'evidence' which is enough for me to be convinced that the supernatural is a very real part of the world we live in. I will admit that much of this 'evidence' is circumstantial and or based on the balance of probability, although a proportion would be hard to explain by any other means.

To me, the most difficult question is, is the evidence repeatable. In a scientific study one looks for a results which are consistent within a given set of parameters. So, although, for example, early man could not have given a scientific explanation of gravity, he could have shown that every time he let go of a stone it fell to the ground. Supernatural forces are not so predictable however. But, if one is take a psychological approach to the proof rather than a physical one, one does not expect consistent results, and we have to rely on things like balance of probability as the best proof that we can have.

Is it reasonable to apply this lower test to supernatural forces? For me, the answer is yes, because I believe that they are much closer to humans in their characteristics than to inanimate objects; so I only look for psychological level of proof.

I like things that can be measured.

with an acknowledgment that I might be quoting you out of context.

You, I suspect are not prepared to accept this lower level of evidence, and therefore find the case to be unproved.

Hence my opening statement that we are both guilty of circular arguments.

Perhaps that is the real definition of faith, is one prepared to step from the circle of disbelief into the circle of belief.

cariad

edit - oh bother I realise I have just posted into this when I had promised myself I would keep out it. Where is a nice Dom with a gag when I need one...

[TomOfSweden]

I'd say you hit the nail on the head with repeatability. But when you're studying the supernatural, what you're looking for is the lack of repeatability. There must be some proof that the laws of nature is at some point inconsistent. Which is admittedly hard, and we've quite a bit to go before having consistent theories that cover everything. The best we have is to judge which explanation is the most reasonable, (and that doesn't mean just picking whatever sounds good. It requires masses amount of proof).

God or anything supernatural isn't needed any longer to make a consistent model in the world. We've seen life spring up in vacuum from nothing but a couple of aminoacids and start reproducing in a laboratory spontaneusly. Introducing the concept of god into modern science today is standing it on it's head, making the models infinitely more complex. It just sounds easy..ie somebody just fixed it so we don't have to worry. But if god makes something from nothing, displacing matter each time it medles in the world, the effects would rapidly become catastrophic for us. Or maybe god thinks of that

There's not a lot in psychology that is considered science. The biology and neuroscience parts of psychology is very much proper science. But not the study of behaviour. Yes, they aply the scientific method, but their results are not repeatable in a way science accepts, which invalidates it as a scientific subject.

Trying to prove god by counting how many people have seen god just isn't valid evidence. Not acording to science. To reiterate. Because of the nature of the human brain, we cannot trust our own senses. We have to use external measurement devices. The human brain interprets all data instantly. Everything is filtered and nothing we see can be considered as raw data. Ie if we believe in god we can see god, if we don't we won't. This much psychology can tell us.

"Perhaps that is the real definition of faith, is one prepared to step from the circle of disbelief into the circle of belief."

I agree. But to quote Martin Luther. "The authority of Scripture is greater than the comprehension of the whole of man's reason." ie just don't think. Faith is based on and needs blind unreasoning.

I still admire you for your courage. You are very intelligent and give me a good match. I too have promissed myself never to post in this thread or any relgion thread many times. I just get sucked into it. Where's my Master when I need one. It's just that I feel strongly about this subject. We've got religious propaganda blasting us continously from every direction. Even in atheist Sweden the assault of brainwashing propaganda is massive. I just feel we've got to fight it or it'll take over and take us out of the enlightened age. Each time I see polititians telling scientists what they can and can't study I always feel uneasy. The only measure should be whether people suffer from teh science. Right? Not if god likes it or not?

[cariad]

I'd say you hit the nail on the head with repeatability. But when you're studying the supernatural, what you're looking for is the lack of repeatability. There must be some proof that the laws of nature is at some point inconsistent. Which is admittedly hard, and we've quite a bit to go before having consistent theories that cover everything. The best we have is to judge which explanation is the most reasonable, (and that doesn't mean just picking whatever sounds good. It requires masses amount of proof).

I would disagree that one is looking for lack of repeatability, rather one is looking for repeatable or at least frequent inconsistencies or illogicalities in the physical world which cannot reasonably addressed by physical sciences, and I do not exclude the fact that more answers will be found as scientific knowledge progresses. I hope someone will take me for a very cold shower if I ever suggest that everything we do not currently understand has to have a supernatural explanation.

God or anything supernatural isn't needed any longer to make a consistent model in the world. We've seen life spring up in vacuum from nothing but a couple of aminoacids and start reproducing in a laboratory spontaneusly. Introducing the concept of god into modern science today is standing it on it's head, making the models infinitely more complex. It just sounds easy..ie somebody just fixed it so we don't have to worry. But if god makes something from nothing, displacing matter each time it medles in the world, the effects would rapidly become catastrophic for us. Or maybe god thinks of that

Your example begs the question of how do you generate the first amino acids. That in itself does not prove the existence of a creator God, but it is a question to which I am yet to hear a plausible alternative answer. I do not see modern science and God as being in conflict, to take the relatively simple example of gravity which I cited before. That is fully predictable by simple equations without a supernatural constant or variable to complicate it. I would challenge anyone who plays the supernatural card as an easy explanation to an unsolved problem. I would also argue that there are times it is the only reasonable answer – that is unless as a primary condition you have discounted it as being unacceptable. I am always very sceptical of healings, the placebo effect works in all areas of life, however when you have a pair of scans, one showing a long term lesion and then a few weeks later, after request for supernatural intervention, another showing no lesion, one has to look beyond known science for an explanation.

Grins – well I would say that thankfully God is a pretty clued up guy, and yes, I think He would have thought of the issues regarding meddling.

There's not a lot in psychology that is considered science. The biology and neuroscience parts of psychology is very much proper science. But not the study of behaviour. Yes, they aply the scientific method, but their results are not repeatable in a way science accepts, which invalidates it as a scientific subject.

I could not agree more, very little of psychology is a science. That does not mean that it is invalid though, just that it has to be considered in a different light.

Trying to prove god by counting how many people have seen god just isn't valid evidence. Not acording to science. To reiterate. Because of the nature of the human brain, we cannot trust our own senses. We have to use external measurement devices. The human brain interprets all data instantly. Everything is filtered and nothing we see can be considered as raw data. Ie if we believe in god we can see god, if we don't we won't. This much psychology can tell us.

Is science the only acceptable proof of anything? I fully agree it is the easiest, but unless we wish to limit our thinking and appreciation of the world we have to go beyond its tempting simplicity.

"Perhaps that is the real definition of faith, is one prepared to step from the circle of disbelief into the circle of belief."

I agree. But to quote Martin Luther. "The authority of Scripture is greater than the comprehension of the whole of man's reason." ie just don't think. Faith is based on and needs blind unreasoning.

The authority of scripture, of God, of the church and secular bodies is something I have been giving a lot of thought to recently. It is a debate in its own right, but I would utterly refute your suggestion that the quote you gives means just don’t think. I don’t know the dynamics of your relationship with your slave, other than you are clearly delighted with her. I am quite sure that she has accepted your authority in at least many areas of her life, I am equally sure that you do would not wish her to stop thinking, to squash her personality or just blindly accept you.

I was brought up to accept the Christian faith because it was right, no questions asked. If you don’t understand that just shows that you are not old enough or not clever enough to understand. Now be a good girl and get your Sunday dress on. Hardly surprisingly, I rebelled against that, there is nothing blind or unreasoning about my belief. Furthermore, when I have interchange with people who have blindly accepted, I will gently challenge them to consider it. Not because I wish to change to their mind, but because I think it is important that something as important as a faith which influences the way you lead your life is carefully considered.

I still admire you for your courage. You are very intelligent and give me a good match. I too have promissed myself never to post in this thread or any relgion thread many times. I just get sucked into it. Where's my Master when I need one. It's just that I feel strongly about this subject. We've got religious propaganda blasting us continously from every direction. Even in atheist Sweden the assault of brainwashing propaganda is massive. I just feel we've got to fight it or it'll take over and take us out of the enlightened age. Each time I see polititians telling scientists what they can and can't study I always feel uneasy. The only measure should be whether people suffer from teh science. Right? Not if god likes it or not?

Nothing like a little flattery – but it cost more than that to buy me . But we could have a great dinner party for two, which would last well into the next day…

I am fortunate I live in part of the world/country where I do not have religious propaganda continuously thrust at me. In my view propaganda is wrong, even if what it is promoting is right. It encourages a blind acceptance and yes even possibly a brain washing. Further more, the God whom I believe in gave us freewill. If one accepts his existence and power then who better to brain wash us, yet he chose not to. If God thinks it is wrong to brain wash people into believing in him then it must be wrong for people to do so. (hmmm, that is rather a nice complete argument if you think it through.)

Should politicians tell scientists what they should and should not study? I would like to say that an ethical monitoring body, with a perfect crystal ball, (not politicians) should do so. Not all scientific discovery has been used for the good of mankind. But reality is that any such bar is only likely to delay the work, so I would propose that rather than barring scientific study and education we put even greater resources into ethical education which will hopefully ensure that discoveries are used wisely.

I don’t think the frontiers of science should be stopped because they might throw doubt on the supernatural. I have no wish to live with my head in the sand. I am confident enough in my faith to think that it will not be shaken by any discovery. If however it is, then I will have to reconsider my position in light of all the new evidence.

You say that you fear being taken out of the enlightened age. I went through to stage of embracing science as the beautiful explanation for our world, and just eagerly awaiting more discoveries to give more explanations. To me that was the dark age of my reasoning. My enlightenment came when I start to see how the physical and supernatural worlds co-exist, and I cannot see why God should not be pleased with each discovery which we make, regardless of which bit of the world it belongs to.

cariad

[TomOfSweden]

Dammit, you didn't go for the simple baits You're good.

You say god is an intelligent being involved with the humans. Why christianity. Why not Budhism, Pantheism, Hinduism, Satanism or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? They can't all be right. The concept of god is diametrically different for all of them. If your vision of god is correct, they must be wrong. Why and how? How did your deduction work?

There's other problems regarding the christian god. If he's imnipotent, why would he care about us? It's not like we care about ants. What's in it for god? What does it care? And if god hasn't got the same chemical value system, (in the brain) as humans, how can god relate to us? How can god understand what we value and what we want? If it does because it built our brains, then we hardly have free will do we? Not to mention the big question if we really have free will, which is pretty far from obvious.

I'd hardly think the scientific method is the easiest method of evaluating data. That degree was a bastard to complete. But it's pretty much all we've got today. The Greeks introduced a couple of new ones, but Imhoteps, (the one we use today) is still the best some 4500 years later. Is there any other method used today for judging any complex system? Besides just using common sense. I'm mean, it's not like Christianity is a system of finding truth. It's just one hypothesis. And to judge it we need to use a method. Is there a better one than science?

You're quite right about me valueing my lovely, sharp, outspoken and wonderful slaves brain. I wouldn't have it any other way. It was undoubtedly her intelligence I fell in love with. She's good. I wish I had her brain.

So does a combination of flattery and dinner work on you?

[cariad]

If we are debating the nature of God, does that mean that we have agreed that he/she/it/they exist?

...and dinner and flattery, that comes close to playing dirty.

cariad

[TomOfSweden]

If we are debating the nature of God, does that mean that we have agreed that he/she/it/they exist?

...and dinner and flattery, that comes close to playing dirty.

cariad

Yeah I know. I play to win. I'm ruthless. You didn't answer how you know the other religions are wrong?

[cariad]

I can see little point in debating the merits of different religions if we have not reached an agreement on the existence of the supernatural. You are not going to side track me that easily.

cariad

[TomOfSweden]

I can see little point in debating the merits of different religions if we have not reached an agreement on the existence of the supernatural. You are not going to side track me that easily.

cariad

It's not side tracking, it's proving my point. If we assume the supernatural exists, we have still no reason what so ever for being christian in particular.

If the supernatural exists what makes you think you have any idea what god wants? What makes you think god gives a rats ass about anybody. God might just as well have created the world to cater for the mice, and it only speaks to them? The devil might have created man to make life hard for them in laboratories. It's equally plausible. The nation of Islam might be right, ie the white man is the spawn of Satan. Or the Christian Donatists, who claim that the Bible is the work of Satan, Or the Greek pantheon, Or the Norse Sagas . That's my point. What if god just is a prankster and thinks it's fun stiring up trouble, like the god Loki? It's a more credible god then the christian one.

All religions are false, because they make claims they have no backing to make. Just proving the supernatural exists is very important if you're religious but it makes no case for any particular religion. What if this supernatural diety acts completely random? What if there is a god but no system of it's actions at all?

If you just settle for presenting some vague psychological evidence that their may exist something supernatural but fail to make a case for the nature of this supernatural force, then you are just weaseling out of it. Since we don't know what is "genuine" acts of god and which aren't it's impossible to work out from gods actions the nature of god. A statistician would have a field day with christian claims.

Here's a little thought. Propaganda that convey messages we share are rarely labeled as propaganda. We all like having our views confirmed. I just saw the film Pans Labyrinth. It was a nice little fairy tale. A beautiful and gruesome story. That film was blatant christian propaganda. It really hammered in the Bible and the story of christ. Some things where even confusing if you didn't understand christian concepts. Since it's for kids, I assume the point is that kids should ask their parents about them. Christian propaganda is absolutely everywhere.

[cariad]

Smiles - still not convinced it is not a side track, since to me it is actually a subsequent debate.

Once one has decided that there is a supernatural element, unless one just wishes to sit feeling smug and do nothing about it, it is logical to try to understand it better. And I fully agree, the mere existence of the supernatural does not evidence one creative force, let alone a God as is understood by Christians, and most certainly does not support that faith nor any other.

I use the term faith as opposed to religion, because to me they are two different things. Faith is focused on the supernatural and my relationship with it, religion is about manmade interface between myself and the supernatural.

In an attempt to understand it is foolish not to look at what established faiths offer as understandings. I have looked at some, but most certainly not all, and have listened sympathetically to adherents of those faiths. In each case I considered the logic and completeness of the faith, and tested it against my experience. I do not believe that this is the place to post why I believe other faiths which I have looked at to be wrong. That statement in itself will have upset some people, and I hasten to stress that it is just a statement of my own personal belief.

I do however think it is acceptable to say that I think Christianity is right, (and TDS, if as mod of this forum, you wish to edit this post, please do not hesitate to do so). My personal journey to faith included initially rejecting all established churches since the religion and tradition masked what I have come to accept as the truth.

Tom, I know you reject the bible, and apart from giving some either inaccurate or misleading statements regarding its date, depending on how you interpret what you say, you give no evidence for it being wrong. Having stepped away from established churches I looked at the explanation of the supernatural as explained in that series of texts. I looked at it in the same way that I looked at other faiths, with a completely open mind. The difference is that it made logical sense to me, and matched with my experience.

Eventually, and that is after a degree of challenging of myself and the texts, decided that for me, the Christian faith was the truth and decided to embrace it. I remain analytic in my study of it, but can only say, that for me, the more I discover, the more it makes total sense.

-----

I have not seen the film to which you referred, so cannot make an observation on whether it is propaganda or not. To me, propaganda is something which encourages someone into a blind acceptance of something as fact. That I believe to be wrong. I do not accept that it is wrong to use literature, whether on paper or on the screen, as a means of encouraging thought. As a teenage I was inspired by the Isaac Asimov books, they triggered my imagination and encouraged my interest in some sciences, but I would not say that was propaganda, just positive use of a media. Without having seen the film you mentioned I would not like to say whether I believed it was doing more than offering Christianity as a possible explanation.

cariad

[himind]

I prefer Hinduism. "There are so many paths to the top of the hill,but the view is always the same".For me the true test of any religion is the ease with which it embraces other religions.Whenver one starts presuming the truth is its divine right, I fail to find it of interest,although I don't decry it unless lives are at sake.

[TomOfSweden]

Smiles - still not convinced it is not a side track, since to me it is actually a subsequent debate.

I do think it's part of the same issue. As far as I'm concearned, what we are discussing is whether believing in the supernatural is smart or stupid. As I see it there's two distinct parts of the issue.

1) Is there such a thing as the supernatural?
2) If there is, how does it work?

More issues can be introduced like, if there is one or more conciousnesness governing the supernatural is it intelligent? And if it is, how intelligent? With that I mean, knowing everything doesn't help if you can't draw the correct conclusions.

Once one has decided that there is a supernatural element, unless one just wishes to sit feeling smug and do nothing about it, it is logical to try to understand it better. And I fully agree, the mere existence of the supernatural does not evidence one creative force, let alone a God as is understood by Christians, and most certainly does not support that faith nor any other.

Yes, but how can you? Does god control everything, or just a little? What laws govern the supernatural? It's only possible to reason about the nature of the supernatural if you beforehand define the premises, (just as all christian scholars have to do). But if you can't, (which is the reality in which we live) then you can never ever make any claim on the nature of god what so ever. It just gets silly. Any conclusion will be an argument from ignorance. Mathematically there is one chance among the infinite that the the christian theory of the universe is correct. If you in spite of this make any claim what so ever about the nature of the universe, then you are ignoring the premises. You would then be pretending to have a plausible explanation when you have no such thing. There are a number of interesting theories backed by pretty numbers on the nature of the universe. Christianity hasn't even got that.

I use the term faith as opposed to religion, because to me they are two different things. Faith is focused on the supernatural and my relationship with it, religion is about manmade interface between myself and the supernatural.

I'm only interested in discussing faith in the supernatural. I've got no problems with religion. I think, I and the rest of humanity need plenty of guidance in life. I have no problems with religions giving guidance. But for me personaly, if the whole religion hinges on a premis that is impossible to back up then I would stay far away from it.

In an attempt to understand it is foolish not to look at what established faiths offer as understandings.

Considering the history of mankind I beg to differ. The more people believe something and the longer they have believed it the greater chance people accept it as truth no matter what, (I've seen and read plenty of research on this and I'm sure I can dig it up again if nobody here belives me). This means that we should be even more critical toward any philosophical system that is old, like christianity for example

I have looked at some, but most certainly not all, and have listened sympathetically to adherents of those faiths. In each case I considered the logic and completeness of the faith, and tested it against my experience. I do not believe that this is the place to post why I believe other faiths which I have looked at to be wrong. That statement in itself will have upset some people, and I hasten to stress that it is just a statement of my own personal belief.

I do however think it is acceptable to say that I think Christianity is right, (and TDS, if as mod of this forum, you wish to edit this post, please do not hesitate to do so). My personal journey to faith included initially rejecting all established churches since the religion and tradition masked what I have come to accept as the truth.

Again, you can't use logic and reason about the nature of god, because you don't have any material to work with. If there is a god you or anybody else will never know what god wants. That is cold hard fact. Considering the vastness of the infinite, chances are pretty good that all religions are wrong. That's cold, hard statistical facts.

Tom, I know you reject the bible, and apart from giving some either inaccurate or misleading statements regarding its date, depending on how you interpret what you say, you give no evidence for it being wrong. Having stepped away from established churches I looked at the explanation of the supernatural as explained in that series of texts. I looked at it in the same way that I looked at other faiths, with a completely open mind. The difference is that it made logical sense to me, and matched with my experience.

Eventually, and that is after a degree of challenging of myself and the texts, decided that for me, the Christian faith was the truth and decided to embrace it. I remain analytic in my study of it, but can only say, that for me, the more I discover, the more it makes total sense.

I've admitedly mostly used wikipedia. It's all the data I have access to here. The books I've read on it have all been lent and returned from and to the library. As far as I know I haven't written anything inaccurate. I might have been off by a half a century or so, or been wrong on proportions. And we are talking history here, which means that all facts are at best pretty ify, no matter what camp you're in. But I haven't written anything I can't back up with some sort of source. And compared to most other texts in the world, we actually do know quite a lot about how the bible came to be. We do after all have the meticulate records of the Vatican to access. There's no shortage of research that's been done in the field.

I have not seen the film to which you referred, so cannot make an observation on whether it is propaganda or not. To me, propaganda is something which encourages someone into a blind acceptance of something as fact. That I believe to be wrong. I do not accept that it is wrong to use literature, whether on paper or on the screen, as a means of encouraging thought. As a teenage I was inspired by the Isaac Asimov books, they triggered my imagination and encouraged my interest in some sciences, but I would not say that was propaganda, just positive use of a media. Without having seen the film you mentioned I would not like to say whether I believed it was doing more than offering Christianity as a possible explanation.

Propaganda is just about spreading information very agressively. Like a political campaign for instance. I have no problems with propaganda as such. Christianity makes quite a number of unsubstantiated claims, and I think it's bad hammering in guesswork as truth.

[cariad]

Tom, I will post a reply to you in a moment. With my mod's hat on, and, not as part of that reply can I ask you not to state that something is a lie. As you have said we are dealing with sensitive subjects here, and whilst you may believe that the Bible is wrong, and this forum encourages people to give their opinion, I think it is approaching a breach of the rules of this site to go further.

Thanks,

cariad

[TomOfSweden]

No matter what I have the greatest respect for you Cariad. And when I've been bad you tell me off in the nicest possible way. You are sharp and you deserve more respect than I just gave you. Sorry about that.

[cariad]

Smiles - and I have the greatest respect for you too Tom, and thank you for the modifications you made, I can put my mods hat away now, try not to be distracted by your flattery, and attempt to finish my reply to you.

Hugs

cariad

[cariad]

I have to admit that most of this reply has been penned by ColinClout. I was chatting to him when your post appeared, and copied it over to him. Since he has already typed out what he thinks, and I agree with him and certainly cannot express it any more eloquently, I will post his replies. (He does not visit the site anymore.) The last section is straight from me, since he had to leave to attend to other matters, I am sure you will note the change in style - he uses bigger words and more complex syntax.

-----

I do think it's part of the same issue. As far as I'm concerned, what we are discussing is whether believing in the supernatural is smart or stupid. As I see it there's two distinct parts of the issue.

1) Is there such a thing as the supernatural?
2) If there is, how does it work?

More issues can be introduced like, if there is one or more consciousnesses governing the supernatural is it intelligent? And if it is, how intelligent? With that I mean, knowing everything doesn't help if you can't draw the correct conclusions.

1) A serious question over the idea of a purely naturalistic multiverse is that of determinism. If there is nothing except nature (nothing supernatural) then we seem to be left with a mechanistic multiverse, where all effects proceed from natural causes. This means that the event of someone having the thought 'There is nothing supernatural' is itself only an effect of natural causes. As such, it has no definite truth value.

2) there is nothing irrational in stating that reason cannot answer everything. Once a supernatural being such as the Christian God has been hypothesised, it is rational to admit that He cannot be fully comprehended or explained.

Yes, but how can you? Does god control everything, or just a little? What laws govern the supernatural? It's only possible to reason about the nature of the supernatural if you beforehand define the premises, (just as all christian scholars have to do). But if you can't, (which is the reality in which we live) then you can never ever make any claim on the nature of god what so ever. It just gets silly. Any conclusion will be an argument from ignorance. Mathematically there is one chance among the infinite that the the christian theory of the universe is correct. If you in spite of this make any claim what so ever about the nature of the universe, then you are lying. You would then be pretending to have a plausible explanation when you have no such thing. There are a number of interesting theories backed by pretty numbers on the nature of the universe. Christianity hasn't even got that.

You say 'Mathematically there is one chance among the infinite that the the christian theory of the universe is correct. If you in spite of this make any claim what so ever about the nature of the universe, then you are lying.' This is misleading. In the first place, one chance among the infinite is a vanishingly small chance, but it is not the same as no chance at all. If an extremely unlikely chance had not taken place, then the necessary circumstances for human evolution could not have taken place, yet to argue after the event that since it is so unlikely it has not happened is nonsensical.

Secondly, to make a statement on the basis of limited knowledge, is not lying. In fact, as you yourself argue, there is no other basis on which we can make any statement. Christians say that they believe, on the basis of all the available evidence, that existence has certain attributes, and choose to live on the basis. Non-Christians do the same, making a different interpretation of the evidence.

I'm only interested in discussing faith in the supernatural. I've got no problems with religion. I think, I and the rest of humanity need plenty of guidance in life. I have no problems with religions giving guidance. But for me personaly, if the whole religion hinges of a premis that is a lie then I would stay far away from it.

You have introduced (at least) two value judgements there: 1) humans need 'guidance' (towards what? away from what? for what purpose?) 2) our actions should be predicated on the truth, not on lies. The most important question here, then, is: where do these values come from? Why should we adhere to them?

Considering the history of mankind I beg to differ. The more people believe something and the longer they have believed it the greater chance people accept it as truth no matter what, (I've seen and read plenty of research on this and I'm sure I can dig it up again if nobody here belives me). This means that we should be even more critical toward any philosophical system that is old, like christianity for example

Of course we should be critical - but that holds good for all thought systems. And it is impossible to be intelligently critical without an understanding of what it is we are criticising. And to take an example: if you have known from a very young age that your mother's name was Helen, would that knowledge hold less weight for you than someone telling you today that she was called Derek? the age of a belief is not strictly relevant - more important is the evidence in support of it. One might even argue on the contrary that the fact that for centuries thousands of people have found something credible, whereas a newer theory is as yet untested, counts in favour of older beliefs, but that is not an absolute argument.

Again, you can't use logic and reason about the nature of god, because you don't have any material to work with. If there is a god you or anybody else will never know what god wants. That is cold hard fact. Considering the vastness of the infinite, chances are pretty good that all religions are wrong. That's cold, hard statistical facts.

I agree with you - the exercise of human reason and imagination could never have come to an accurate conclusion about God. That is precisely why Christianity has never argued that it could.

As human beings we can speculate on the nature of the universe, and we can produce any number of theories that will more or less 'save appearances' (i.e. account for all known phenomena). God is the only one in a position of perfect knowledge (which, to respond to one of your earlier points, means he does not need to infer anything, and therefore can't infer wrongly) who can make a totally accurate statement about the nature of things.

Christians state that God has made such a statement, has revealed what we could not have discovered for ourselves, and what we could not have been sure of otherwise.

Yet once that revelation has been made, it can be tested against our knowledge from other sources, judged on its own evidential merits, and we can see what credibility it has. Are the texts reliable, does the world picture they present match our own experience, and so on. On this basis, like any thinking person, we can then decide whether or not we think this is the most likely picture of how things are.

I've admitedly mostly used wikipedia. ... end

The bible most certainly has a set of answers. Other faiths have other sets of answers, sometimes complimentary, sometimes opposing, but they are still a set of answers. Now clearly they cannot all be right, but it is possible that one has the complete truth, it is possible that all have parts of that truth, it is possible that some or all are completely wrong.

I think it is part of our individual development to decide for ourselves which, if any, we embrace, using all the tools we have at our disposal to make the best decision possible. Himind has gone down a similiar route and found a different answer. Other people have posted their different conclusions.

Although I have made a personal decision to believe what the bible says, I completely agree with you that it is wrong to hammer it as the truth. I will willingly share with anyone who invites me to do so, what it says; I will tell them why I believe it is right; but I will always leave them with the challenge to decide for themselves.

Colin Clout & cariad

[TomOfSweden]

[COLOR="Navy"]

1) A serious question over the idea of a purely naturalistic multiverse is that of determinism. If there is nothing except nature (nothing supernatural) then we seem to be left with a mechanistic multiverse, where all effects proceed from natural causes. This means that the event of someone having the thought 'There is nothing supernatural' is itself only an effect of natural causes. As such, it has no definite truth value.

2) there is nothing irrational in stating that reason cannot answer everything. Once a supernatural being such as the Christian God has been hypothesised, it is rational to admit that He cannot be fully comprehended or explained.

I've never claimed there's no supernatural force. I think that after studying the evidence it's the most likely conclusion. But that's not what this discussion is about. Not personal opinion but proof. The supernatural has no evidence what so ever suporting it, so it makes a weak case. All we have is blank spots on the map. We, (the humans) used to asume that the blank spots was covered by the supernatural because we had no other explanation. Today we do, and little by little the supernatural explanations are losing ground.

We can only use reason if we have premises to work from. If the material we are drawing conclusions from is infinate, then we can't say anything.

Let's create two possible hypothetical universes. One allows for the supernatural and the other doesn't. The non-supernatural is complex but has it's limitations and we can make plausible theories, while the supernatural one is infinate since the supernatural has no limits. This isn't a case against the supernatural, but if we believe in the supernatural then we can't say anything about it. That's where reason fails us.

[COLOR="Navy"]
You say 'Mathematically there is one chance among the infinite that the the christian theory of the universe is correct. If you in spite of this make any claim what so ever about the nature of the universe, then you are lying.' This is misleading. In the first place, one chance among the infinite is a vanishingly small chance, but it is not the same as no chance at all. If an extremely unlikely chance had not taken place, then the necessary circumstances for human evolution could not have taken place, yet to argue after the event that since it is so unlikely it has not happened is nonsensical.

Sorry, you missunderstood. What I meant was that if something is extremly unlikely, then it's stupid to have faith in it being true. It's a bit like buying a lottery ticket, taking multi-million dollar loans on the assumtion that the ticket will be the jackpot. This I think we all recognise as stupidity. Yet the chance of the christian theory of god being correct is less but it's still taken seriously by so many.

We have no idea whether or not human evolution is unlikely or not. I belong to the camp who believes that given the right circumstances life springs up easily. And aplying this to statistics, means that the universe is teeming with life. But this is off-course assumptions, because if we aply statistics again, we'll quickly realise that we're drawing assumptions from one single specimin, (earth) which we all know is bad science.

[COLOR="Navy"]
Secondly, to make a statement on the basis of limited knowledge, is not lying. In fact, as you yourself argue, there is no other basis on which we can make any statement. Christians say that they believe, on the basis of all the available evidence, that existence has certain attributes, and choose to live on the basis. Non-Christians do the same, making a different interpretation of the evidence.

This is where christian logic fails. You're still stuck on trying to prove whether the supernatural can be true or not. That's only step one. Christianity isn't about having faith in any supernatural force. It's about atributing it a whole host of attributes that we have no reason what so ever to give it. That's not making a different interpretation, that's just deluding yourself. Interpretation is about actually looking at the data, not just making stuff up.

I'll respect a "maybe christian". Somebody who would like the christian belief system to be true, but doesn't really know. Somebody who thinks the Bible is a great ethical system and who thinks the church is a great place to meet other nice people. It would be great if we went to heaven, but probably we won't. Going any further than this is deluding yourself or drawing erroneous conclusions.

[COLOR="Navy"]
You have introduced (at least) two value judgements there: 1) humans need 'guidance' (towards what? away from what? for what purpose?) 2) our actions should be predicated on the truth, not on lies. The most important question here, then, is: where do these values come from? Why should we adhere to them?

Yes. I think guidance is nice. I think I was pretty clear that that part was a value judgement from my side. I won't claim it as irrefutable truth.

Next one. Truth is needed for comunication. If we don't strive toward truth then we cannot comunicate. Even such a thing as drawing conclusions. correctness is a synonym to truth. If we don't strive toward truth we cannot make conclusions that make any sense at all. It is a value judgement as far as I'd like us to strive toward truth because I enjoy being able to reason. If I wouldn't strive toward truth all my actions would be random.

[COLOR="Navy"]
I agree with you - the exercise of human reason and imagination could never have come to an accurate conclusion about God. That is precisely why Christianity has never argued that it could.

That's just pretty words. Saying that christians don't claim to understand everything about god isn't the same thing as christians don't claim anything about god. Once you make any claims as to what god wants, ie the commandments you've invalidated that claim. Christians attribute a lot to god. Just the thing about going to heaven. That's a very definate claim of the nature of god and the supernatural.

[COLOR="Navy"]
As human beings we can speculate on the nature of the universe, and we can produce any number of theories that will more or less 'save appearances' (i.e. account for all known phenomena). God is the only one in a position of perfect knowledge (which, to respond to one of your earlier points, means he does not need to infer anything, and therefore can't infer wrongly) who can make a totally accurate statement about the nature of things.

Christians state that God has made such a statement, has revealed what we could not have discovered for ourselves, and what we could not have been sure of otherwise.

Yet once that revelation has been made, it can be tested against our knowledge from other sources, judged on its own evidential merits, and we can see what credibility it has. Are the texts reliable, does the world picture they present match our own experience, and so on. On this basis, like any thinking person, we can then decide whether or not we think this is the most likely picture of how things are.

Or it was all just make belief from the get go and then you've got what? The whole belief system hinges on nobody fibbing along the way. That's quite a number of assumtions. I'm not arguing on what's more likely or trying to talk you into anything. The non-supernatural theories have numbers. Things to measure. Things you and me,(with the proper training) can check for ourselves. It doesn't hinge on some dude in a beard 2000 years ago wasn't having a psychotic episode. If you're saying that it makes no difference to you then I'd say you where gullible.

The bible most certainly has a set of answers. Other faiths have other sets of answers, sometimes complimentary, sometimes opposing, but they are still a set of answers. Now clearly they cannot all be right, but it is possible that one has the complete truth, it is possible that all have parts of that truth, it is possible that some or all are completely wrong.

I think it is part of our individual development to decide for ourselves which, if any, we embrace, using all the tools we have at our disposal to make the best decision possible. Himind has gone down a similiar route and found a different answer. Other people have posted their different conclusions.

Although I have made a personal decision to believe what the bible says, I completely agree with you that it is wrong to hammer it as the truth. I will willingly share with anyone who invites me to do so, what it says; I will tell them why I believe it is right; but I will always leave them with the challenge to decide for themselves.
Colin Clout & cariad

That's what I don't like about the religious. It's if religion is about some personal journey. It just isn't. It's about the pursuit of truth. Working it out and comparing theories. Not buying into one theory when it has the same evidence as another. It's not the same thing as taking a personal journey and "finding yourself". That's psychology or something else. The supernatural claims in the world are completly seperate from the religions they come with.

I'm sure the religions of the world are great for humanity. They seem to fill some very important social function for people. Because they can aparently make people ignore the problems of the supernatural claims. I've got a friend who's the member of the world pantheist movement. He is adamantly atheist but needs some spiritual guidance and likes being with others who share his views. It's a religion and a church. They've just eliminated making any crazy claims they can't back up. I have no problems with that church.

[cariad]

Apologising for the delay in replying to you - I am going to be offline for a few days - perhaps someone else wishes to pick this up in the meantime...

cariad

[cariad]

Let's create two possible hypothetical universes. One allows for the supernatural and the other doesn't. The non-supernatural is complex but has it's limitations and we can make plausible theories, while the supernatural one is infinate since the supernatural has no limits. This isn't a case against the supernatural, but if we believe in the supernatural then we can't say anything about it. That's where reason fails us.

That sounds good to me. Although I am not sure where it takes us, since ruling out the option of saying there is not a supernatural element to our world merely because it would be make our world too complex to understand, if clearly not sound.

As someone who has embraced a particular faith I do have the canon of sacred texts and a body of experience, published and unpublished to help make sense of the world. And I know I am stepping into the circular argument territory there, so will back off. Smiles.

We have no idea whether or not human evolution is unlikely or not. I belong to the camp who believes that given the right circumstances life springs up easily.

And given the same evidence I have decided to join the other camp.

Actually the story of creation was a mile stone in my accepting the Bible as a God inspired text. I know you quote dates for the when the Bible was written, but I believe that those are for when it was assembled. The first 5 books of the bible in particular are significantly older than the dates you quote. As a child I was taught the story of creation, never really challenged it, but never really accepted it either. It struck me one day, just how amazing it was that someone with little scientific knowledge beyond how to use the stars as a compass and sighs of nature to find water could so accurately predict the process of evolution as science has now shown us. Unlike some people, I cannot accept that creation took 7 days, but I understand that the term used in the original Hebrew not only means day, but also a period of time. That makes the first few chapters of the bible not only plausible, but also in line with scientific discoveries. (With apologies to all creationists.)

This is where christian logic fails. You're still stuck on trying to prove whether the supernatural can be true or not. That's only step one. Christianity isn't about having faith in any supernatural force. It's about atributing it a whole host of attributes that we have no reason what so ever to give it. That's not making a different interpretation, that's just deluding yourself. Interpretation is about actually looking at the data, not just making stuff up.

The core of Christianity is about having a relationship with God, everything else leads to or flows from that. Is this relationship delusional - perhaps - although to me, there is much more pointing in the direction that it is real, than pointing in the other direction. Why do I attribute certain attributes to God; a combination of what the Bible says, the experience of other trusted, level headed Christians, and my own critical experience.

I'll respect a "maybe christian". Somebody who would like the christian belief system to be true, but doesn't really know. Somebody who thinks the Bible is a great ethical system and who thinks the church is a great place to meet other nice people. It would be great if we went to heaven, but probably we won't. Going any further than this is deluding yourself or drawing erroneous conclusions.

It is a great ethical system, and the church can be a great place to meet nice people, but come to that so are many other places. My closest friends are Christians, but there are also people at my church whom I do not naturally warm to, and beyond the church walls there are oodles and oodles of wonderful people who are not Christians.

I have addressed the delusional aspect of it above, and as for erroneous conclusions, I can only say that mine seem logical to me.

That's just pretty words. Saying that christians don't claim to understand everything about god isn't the same thing as christians don't claim anything about god. Once you make any claims as to what god wants, ie the commandments you've invalidated that claim. Christians attribute a lot to god. Just the thing about going to heaven. That's a very definate claim of the nature of god and the supernatural.

Having read what CC wrote, I think the point he was making is that, from a Christian perspective, we do not make claims as to what God wants, e.g. the commandments, we let Him do that Himself.

Or it was all just make belief from the get go and then you've got what? The whole belief system hinges on nobody fibbing along the way. That's quite a number of assumtions. I'm not arguing on what's more likely or trying to talk you into anything. The non-supernatural theories have numbers. Things to measure. Things you and me,(with the proper training) can check for ourselves. It doesn't hinge on some dude in a beard 2000 years ago wasn't having a psychotic episode. If you're saying that it makes no difference to you then I'd say you where gullible.

I have asked myself these questions, and can only say that non-supernatural theories leave too many gaping holes which do not appear to be in the pattern of science to be able to fill. That leaves me with finding a supernatural answer, and of the systems I have looked at, the one which seems to best stand up to any test I choose to throw at it is Christianity.

That's what I don't like about the religious. It's if religion is about some personal journey. It just isn't. It's about the pursuit of truth. Working it out and comparing theories. Not buying into one theory when it has the same evidence as another. It's not the same thing as taking a personal journey and "finding yourself". That's psychology or something else. The supernatural claims in the world are completly seperate from the religions they come with.

Perhaps I am tired, but you have lost me in this paragraph, and I can't grasp the point you are making. After carefully consideration I have decided to have faith in one particular set of explanations. I could have avoided, on principle, going for any given set and played lucky dip taking bits from all faiths. That would certainly have been a fascinating study, but would not necessarily have lead me any closer to finding out the truths. Instead I choose to learn more about God by devoting such time to exploring the faith which I have decided to embrace.

I'm sure the religions of the world are great for humanity. They seem to fill some very important social function for people. Because they can aparently make people ignore the problems of the supernatural claims. I've got a friend who's the member of the world pantheist movement. He is adamantly atheist but needs some spiritual guidance and likes being with others who share his views. It's a religion and a church. They've just eliminated making any crazy claims they can't back up. I have no problems with that church.

I have briefly looked at that site, and superficially, to me, there are many unanswered questions, but that is only on the basis of about 10 minutes, but I am not tempted to explore further.

I don't think religions are good for humanity, I believe that we all have a need to find out answers for ourselves regarding the existence or otherwise of the supernatural, and if it does exist, the nature of it. From what I have seen however, religions cause conflict, because it is only a matter of time before the people involved in the organisation of religions become ambitious and work to find arguments from within their faith to justify extension to their power.

cariad

[TomOfSweden]

That sounds good to me. Although I am not sure where it takes us, since ruling out the option of saying there is not a supernatural element to our world merely because it would be make our world too complex to understand, if clearly not sound.

My point is that it's impossible to work out the nature of god even if it did exist. Maybe my line of reasoning was a bit hard to follow. It has a tendancy to get a bit fuzzy when I'm discussing purely abstract issues.

As someone who has embraced a particular faith I do have the canon of sacred texts and a body of experience, published and unpublished to help make sense of the world. And I know I am stepping into the circular argument territory there, so will back off. Smiles.

So you believe in god because you want god to exist? If true, at least it's honest. But not really a case for gods existance, is it? I might as well say that I'm am atheist because I don't want god to exist. A bit silly isn't it? Hardly anything to base a religion on.

And given the same evidence I have decided to join the other camp.

But you'd hardly bet on it being right, would you? Since you admit that the proof is full of holes?

Actually the story of creation was a mile stone in my accepting the Bible as a God inspired text. I know you quote dates for the when the Bible was written, but I believe that those are for when it was assembled. The first 5 books of the bible in particular are significantly older than the dates you quote. As a child I was taught the story of creation, never really challenged it, but never really accepted it either. It struck me one day, just how amazing it was that someone with little scientific knowledge beyond how to use the stars as a compass and sighs of nature to find water could so accurately predict the process of evolution as science has now shown us. Unlike some people, I cannot accept that creation took 7 days, but I understand that the term used in the original Hebrew not only means day, but also a period of time. That makes the first few chapters of the bible not only plausible, but also in line with scientific discoveries. (With apologies to all creationists.)

I'm really fascinated about how the bible came to be, but I think it's a bit of a side-track. We have no idea if it's the word of god or not. It's just an assumption christians make. If we don't even manage to come up with a likely model for how supernaturality works then the Bible isn't very relevant is it? If the supernatural didn't control the hands of the people writing it, then it isn't the word of god, right? If we have different interpretations of it, then well....we can't really draw any conclusions and....I think it's best to create a new thread about just that.

The core of Christianity is about having a relationship with God, everything else leads to or flows from that. Is this relationship delusional - perhaps - although to me, there is much more pointing in the direction that it is real, than pointing in the other direction. Why do I attribute certain attributes to God; a combination of what the Bible says, the experience of other trusted, level headed Christians, and my own critical experience.

That's fine, but you have no idea if it is in fact god you're adressing or just thin air, do you? Considering the nature of human perception, even if you personally have seen god, doesn't prove a thing.

I have addressed the delusional aspect of it above, and as for erroneous conclusions, I can only say that mine seem logical to me.

Again, this is just down to you believing in god because you want god to exist. It's not really a case for god.

Having read what CC wrote, I think the point he was making is that, from a Christian perspective, we do not make claims as to what God wants, e.g. the commandments, we let Him do that Himself.

ok, but how do you know what is the "voice" of god and what just is wishfull thinking/hallucination/delusion?

I have asked myself these questions, and can only say that non-supernatural theories leave too many gaping holes which do not appear to be in the pattern of science to be able to fill. That leaves me with finding a supernatural answer, and of the systems I have looked at, the one which seems to best stand up to any test I choose to throw at it is Christianity.

That's a contradiction. Just saying "god thought of it" is just avoiding the issue. A supernatural model of the universe is a lot more complex than a non-supernatural, because you have so much more variables. The plain fact is that the supernatural model has more holes in it than the non-supernatural. Just because on a very superficial level it looks simpler doesn't mean the maths of it are any simpler.

Again, just because you or I don't understand the maths of a theory, doesn't mean nobody does.

Perhaps I am tired, but you have lost me in this paragraph, and I can't grasp the point you are making. After carefully consideration I have decided to have faith in one particular set of explanations. I could have avoided, on principle, going for any given set and played lucky dip taking bits from all faiths. That would certainly have been a fascinating study, but would not necessarily have lead me any closer to finding out the truths. Instead I choose to learn more about God by devoting such time to exploring the faith which I have decided to embrace.

But you're only talking about your personal journey. It's as if it's an emotional standpoint. A bit like going with what ever feels the best for you. The supernatural elements of religion is a scientific theory. A model. As with all scientific theories we can have leanings toward one or the other model. But if the theory is too flimsy, like all the supernatural theories of the world. Then having a firm faith in it is stupid. There's a number of serious scientific theories on the mechanics of the universe works, (no, christianity isn't one of them) and no scientist would say, this is what I believe the rest of you are all wrong. They might sound like that's what they're saying, but it's not what they mean.

Believing in a scientific theory as a scientist is diametrically different than believing in a scientific theory as a religious follower. It has to do with comparing theories and doing the maths. If you don't have a degree in quantum mechanics it's a bit arrogant to pick your own version and just go for it, just like all religious people have to do. I think popular science is fun. I do my best in following the research but I don't have the proper education in the subject to formulate my own complete theory on the mechanics of the universe works or even evaluate what christianity says about it. That would be arrogance to the extreme. If religious people on top of this have the bad taste to vote for laws based on religious ethics, then I feel like grabbing for my gun. Hobby philosophers pissing those who have done their homeworkd and actually know better, (most often scientists) in the face. Yes, I think we should leave the big decision to the proper scientists, of the simple reason that they understand things that we don't.

The religious comunity disregard serious science and treat all these big questions like a big joke. If they didn't they'd learn the maths. They might look all sinceare when they're pondering the bible, but it requires that you selectivly ignore critical problems of the model and only vote with your heart.

That's what I mean with it not being a personal journey. Growing as a person, and developing your morals and finding yourself is a personal journey, but has very little to do with basic religious theories on the universe and the supernatural.

I have briefly looked at that site, and superficially, to me, there are many unanswered questions, but that is only on the basis of about 10 minutes, but I am not tempted to explore further.

It's one of the ancient Greek religions. linky

Pantheism is simply put the idea that everything is god. Our natural universe is god. So they believe in god, but they don't belive in the supernatural. They believe that it's up to humans to figure out what god wants all by themselves. Because we define what god is and should be. They use the study of ethics to build moral codes for the religion. Their religious masses are based on providing a service for the good of the comunity, and let the comunity decide on what they want.

I really don't get what the point of it is, but good luck to them.

I don't think religions are good for humanity, I believe that we all have a need to find out answers for ourselves regarding the existence or otherwise of the supernatural, and if it does exist, the nature of it. From what I have seen however, religions cause conflict, because it is only a matter of time before the people involved in the organisation of religions become ambitious and work to find arguments from within their faith to justify extension to their power.

I think religions are good for humanity simply based on the fact that they exist. They aparently fill a need. Practices that humanity doesn't need has a tendancy to disapear. That's the beauty of evolution. It may very well be that with the good bits we get some bad bits, but over the whole, it's aparent that it does a lot of good. Again, simply based on the fact that religions exist. Why? I have no idea. If anything in this thread, it should be aparent that I'm the wrong person to ask.

[cariad]

My point is that it's impossible to work out the nature of god even if it did exist. Maybe my line of reasoning was a bit hard to follow. It has a tendancy to get a bit fuzzy when I'm discussing purely abstract issues.

I took that point, and agree with it. At the best we can work out where we need a supernatural filling. However the fact that we are unable to work out the nature of God does not mean that he does not exist.

So you believe in god because you want god to exist? If true, at least it's honest. But not really a case for gods existance, is it? I might as well say that I'm am atheist because I don't want god to exist. A bit silly isn't it? Hardly anything to base a religion on.

Not quite:
1. I believed in a God because to me it is the answer which makes sense.
2. I wanted to know more about God, so looked at how the various (but admittedly not all) faiths explained God.
3. I found one which made logical sense and fitted my experience of supernatural.
4. I studied the sacred texts of that faith to discover more what they revealed of God's nature.
5. I brought that information into real life and considered it and tested it.
6. I discovered more about God.
7. I found that the more I read and considered, the more spiritually aware I became, developing an appreciation of the tri-fold nature of humans - physical, emotional and intellectual, and spiritual - and how these interact.
8. I returned to step 4.

But you'd hardly bet on it being right, would you? Since you admit that the proof is full of holes?

Although there are many theories, some well grounded, and some less so; to my knowledge there is no complete proof on either side.

I'm really fascinated about how the bible came to be, but I think it's a bit of a side-track. We have no idea if it's the word of god or not. It's just an assumption christians make. If we don't even manage to come up with a likely model for how supernaturality works then the Bible isn't very relevant is it? If the supernatural didn't control the hands of the people writing it, then it isn't the word of god, right? If we have different interpretations of it, then well....we can't really draw any conclusions and....I think it's best to create a new thread about just that.

Smiles - after you...

That's fine, but you have no idea if it is in fact god you're adressing or just thin air, do you? Considering the nature of human perception, even if you personally have seen god, doesn't prove a thing.

I do not think not being able to see something is serious proof of it not existing. If you are referring to talking to God - I have seen too many things change as a result of doing so for it to be purely placebo, imagination or chance.

ok, but how do you know what is the "voice" of god and what just is wishfull thinking/hallucination/delusion?

That is a discussion in itself, and is one I have had many times. I have heard God, as in I would be amazed if someone who had been in the room at the time would not have heard him, twice. Once was over something I knew I should I do, but kept finding excuses about. The other time I was driving, and unbeknown to me a small child was about to come round the corner directly into my path. By following the instructions of that voice, in the moment before I could know there was a potential problem, that small boy was not seriously injured, or killed.

Other times, I 'hear' a voice in my head, which I have learned to recognise. I cannot give you any evidence that it is not wishful thinking or delusional, except that it has a nasty habit of always being right, of often making a decision on the basis of information I don't have, and is always in line with what the Bible teaches.

The other way I 'hear' from God, is not direct communication at all, but by learning what sort of thing He likes, my conscience will prick if I am stepping outside of those boundaries - that is no more supernatural than your slave knowing what you do and do not like, because she has made a study of you.

That's a contradiction. Just saying "god thought of it" is just avoiding the issue. A supernatural model of the universe is a lot more complex than a non-supernatural, because you have so much more variables. The plain fact is that the supernatural model has more holes in it than the non-supernatural. Just because on a very superficial level it looks simpler doesn't mean the maths of it are any simpler.

Again, just because you or I don't understand the maths of a theory, doesn't mean nobody does.

I think we have been round this one before. I fully agree that a model of the universe which includes the supernatural is bound to more complex, because there is an additional dimension. That in itself does not indicate whether it is right or wrong.

To me, the supernatural model has less holes in - but I fully admit that is because I temporarily suspended disbelief to view it with an accepting mind, (ref my much earlier comment about choosing which circle to stand in).

Because you and I don't fully understand any theory, of either 'side', does not prove it one way of the other.

But you're only talking about your personal journey. It's as if it's an emotional standpoint. A bit like going with what ever feels the best for you. The supernatural elements of religion is a scientific theory. A model. As with all scientific theories we can have leanings toward one or the other model. But if the theory is too flimsy, like all the supernatural theories of the world. Then having a firm faith in it is stupid. There's a number of serious scientific theories on the mechanics of the universe works, (no, christianity isn't one of them) and no scientist would say, this is what I believe the rest of you are all wrong. They might sound like that's what they're saying, but it's not what they mean.

Why do you say that the supernatural elements of religion are a scientific theory? I would say (if I have to find a discipline for it) that it is closest to a psychological theory - in that, to me, it is a study of a force with personality. In all the years of physics which I studied, personality was never a factor - with the possible exception of the sadistic temperament of one of my physics masters.

Believing in a scientific theory as a scientist is diametrically different than believing in a scientific theory as a religious follower. It has to do with comparing theories and doing the maths. If you don't have a degree in quantum mechanics it's a bit arrogant to pick your own version and just go for it, just like all religious people have to do. I think popular science is fun. I do my best in following the research but I don't have the proper education in the subject to formulate my own complete theory on the mechanics of the universe works or even evaluate what christianity says about it. That would be arrogance to the extreme.

Well, my quantum mechanics does not progress past a foundation unit I did at university, which was a shame, I loved that unit and found a real beauty in it, in the same way that I loved the unit I did on astrology, so I don't have the knowledge either to follow latest papers. That does not mean however that I reject the science. I agree popular science is fun, but I do get frustrated when initially theories are expounded, and after a few trips round the press they return as facts.

If religious people on top of this have the bad taste to vote for laws based on religious ethics, then I feel like grabbing for my gun. Hobby philosophers pissing those who have done their homeworkd and actually know better, (most often scientists) in the face. Yes, I think we should leave the big decision to the proper scientists, of the simple reason that they understand things that we don't.

Do I understand that you are suggesting leaving governing our countries to a group of scientists? *shudders at the thought* I live with someone who has a PhD in a physical science, and most of the people he works with have the same. Many of them work in ground breaking research, so they are still actively exploring their small area of science. I also regularly attend dinner parties with some of these people - and yes, I am very grateful for the work they do, and without doubt our world is a better place for it - but the thought of them governing the country. Please, no.

The religious comunity disregard serious science and treat all these big questions like a big joke. If they didn't they'd learn the maths. They might look all sinceare when they're pondering the bible, but it requires that you selectivly ignore critical problems of the model and only vote with your heart.

I disagree that the religious community disregards science. I am sure there are a few small groups which do, but I am sure I can find you a corresponding group of nutty scientists - so please don't discredit a whole community because one small subgroup is wacky. I personally refuse to ignore critical problems of the model which I have embraced. That does not mean that I have all the answers, but then, nobody, of any discipline does.

I think you are right when you said I voted with my heart when I decided to step into the circle of belief. After that I have been very analytical and critical.

I think religions are good for humanity simply based on the fact that they exist. They aparently fill a need. Practices that humanity doesn't need has a tendancy to disapear. That's the beauty of evolution. It may very well be that with the good bits we get some bad bits, but over the whole, it's aparent that it does a lot of good. Again, simply based on the fact that religions exist. Why? I have no idea. If anything in this thread, it should be aparent that I'm the wrong person to ask.

I think faith is good for humanity, and we are also social beings. I think they are two needs which we have. I don't think we have a need for religion.

I do know one thing that this thread has shown me Tom; you are great guy to get me thinking about some of the basics which I have accepted for too long - so I sincerely thank you for the challenge. We may not agree, but I have a great respect both for what you say, and how you say it.

cariad