Lest we forget

[cariad]

Not quite, sorry. We can't even work out whether we need a supernatural fillling. First we need to have any working modell at all. That's still pretty far off. If we'll ever get one.

Perhaps we should try discussing the equally serious topic of chocolate then. This was why a number of posts back I suggested that moving onto a discussion of supernatural theories was premature, without first agreeing on a need for one.

The supernatural theories are only on the table of all the other theories. They're not any more complete or offer any more a comprehensible picture of reality. You might say, "this one makes sense to me because of [this] and [the other], this is what I believe is true". That's fine and something we all need to do. But having faith in it, and banking on a thing like, you'll go to heaven after you die, is drawing a much too strong conclusion. At best it could be something you wish might be true.

You have slightly lost me here – yes I do believe that I will go to heaven when I die, and I suppose you could say I bank on it, but it does not effect how I live now, or the rest of my belief.

Praying to god to help you with some disease IS deluded. That if anything is wasting energy, and we should all be well aware of it. Even saying stuff like, "I have nothing to lose by preying to god so I might as well do it" is still deluded. If you open up the possibility of a supernatural entity listening, the chances that god is evil and punishing anybody making a request is just as great. They're unsuported by the same amount of non-evidence.

I have known too many people to have long term healings as a result of prayer not to do so. I would fully agree that some healings are psychological, but enough are very real for it to approach delusion. I would go as far as to say that there is a lot to be lost by not doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cariad<U_E>
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.
the nature of God does not mean that he does not exist. [/quote]

I'm going to go right ahead and attack step one.

I would have been disappointed in you if you had not – grins

How did it "make sense". When we're discussing a thing like whether heaven exists, I don't think it's too much to ask qustions like how? Where is it? What is it? What do people do there? Is there even people there? Will I be me or transformed into something different? Will my thought be retained? What is the soul? Can it be measured? How is it transported? What medium does it use?
None of these are answered in the Bible. I'm not saying the claims in the Bible isn't true. It might very well be. But just settling for, "sounds good to me" or "nobody can prove it isn't true", shouldn't satisfy anyone in these modern times, with sofisticated measuring devices. Strictly speaking, you have no reason to believe anything in the bible is true, so being a little bit more explanation might not be all that amiss. Granted that the Bible is old, but if it's true they should have had all that information back then, right?

The existence or otherwise of heaven, and what happens after death, did not form part of my decision to belief. I know that often evangelists preach the believe or you will go to hell theme, but I made my decision without either the threat of hell or the promise of heaven. I based it solely on the desire to have a relationship with God. There are many things which the Bible does not cover – far more than it does if you are after details, although there are a significant number of broad principles. I only have the broadest idea of how my car works, and I have only read a few pages of the manual. I know enough about it to trust it to do what it is supposed to. In the same way, although some of the questions which you have raised I would be interested to know the answer to, I am not going to let not knowing effect the things which I do.
The supernatural is not the only thing which cannot be proved, the much quoted example is emotions. These are felt, they are demonstrated and expressed, but as for ‘proof’ it is only circumstantial, yet I would be surprised it you were to deny them. Even the natural which world I know is far broader than anything which can be proved by a scientific rule or set of equations.

I've also got issues with your experiences of the supernatural. We discussed this earlier. The problems are:

1) Human perception is fallible. We can't trust our senses. We tend to see what we want to see.
2) Science has never ever been able to register anything that breaks the rules of nature as we know them.

1. That does not mean that what we see is wrong.
2. Why try and measure everything by science? And to take what you mentioned above, physical healings. There science has been able to measure, and have been unable to provide an explanation.

Your next problem you've yet to solve is that the satanists could be right and the christians wrong. Even if your experiences with god are correct, you have no idea if "your" god is the christian version of it. That's just an assumption you've made. A pretty big assumption. For all you know, it could be little alien jr, in a saucer in orbit, stealing dadies mind-control laser for a laugh. Aren't you just being effected/swayed by the religious beliefs of people around you? People tend to stick to a faith most people have in their vicinity. That in itself is a argument against any of the supernatural being true. Just based on the fact that there are so many different ones.

I know I'm a bit silly now, but how did you test it?

Well, I asked God and a little alien to a meeting and only God showed up, so he sort of got it by default.
Not quiet sure what you asking here. How did I test what?

Again, I've got no quarel with christian ethics. Only it's supernatural claims, and I've got no wish in discussing the ethical parts of it. I can well imaging that studying the Bible gives you spiritual awareness, but that's no case for you going to heaven, is it?

No it is not.

I think my work is done here. So you admit that you problably wont go to heaven once you die? Is that what you're saying?

Sorry – your work is not done. Just because something has not been proved does not make it not so, it merely makes it unproven. And for the record I have every expectation of going to heaven when I die – and I have heard they have great calorie free chocolate cake there.

The sheer number of christians alone means that their religious experiences should be taken with masses of pinches of salt.

Not sure I take your point there – because a significant number of believe something is so, you are saying that it is less likely to be so? Looks confused.

I'm willing to bet most christian miracles are witnessed in south America. Just a wild guess based on the fact that it's the most devout christian area in the world.

That could well be the case, however the only miracles I would quote or rely on are those where I have personally seen the evidence and know the people involved. I have seen too many well meaning people claim miracles when there are more likely explanations.

It just doesn't prove a thing. If you can't work it into a credible model then you've got nothing.

If you have a model into which you cannot slot all the evidence, the model ceases to be credible. It is a weak defence to claim that the evidence must be wrong since it does not fit the model.

We know for a fact that their are things in the Bible that can not be taken litterarily, right? So how do you know which parts should be? For all we know, it could all be metaphores for the highly regular and un-supernatural.

An interesting discussion – but another one.

But it's interesting that you call god "he". It's the second time in this thread you've given god human qualities.

Because that is the limit of my language. The God I know is not a machine or just a force therefore cannot be called ‘it’. There is personality there, and many of the attributes which we attach to humans, therefore God has to be he/she. Why do I choose to call God he – well it is easier than using he/she all the time, and a short answer as to why I opt for he because it is convention to do so. Again – that could be a discussion in its own right, but I believe that God encompasses both male and female attributes.

That's exactly my point. The difference is that I'm well aware that we might go to heaven, but we probably wont. Only based on logic. As you have told me before, you do in fact believe strongly in heaven. This to me makes no sense. Not if you agree that the non-supernatural model makes just as good a case for it as the supernatural.

Same evidence, different conclusion, I guess because we put different weight on different elements. To me the supernatural model is more sound than the non-supernatural one. Complexity does not make something wrong, unless the complexity is being used to disguise a flaw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cariad<U_E>
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.

Because they are. They make scientific claims. They make claims that, if true, would invalidate the non-supernatural theories. Priests pretend like it's only about taking a stand on the ethical issues. That is only one part of christianity. The part, if you will, within the realm of psychology.

I am not aware of Christianity making any claims which invalidate non-supernatural theories, it merely makes claims as to an explanation of the gaps in those theories.

We haven't proven yet if there is such a thing as the supernatural. Let's wait with attributing it things like personality until we've settled that one.

Happy to go along with that one!

You seem to have a good grasp of how science works. That's great. You are also aparently great at breaking down this problem into bits, and attacking each one. As I see it, your main hole is linked directly to your own experiences with the supernatural. Since those are easy to explain with the non-supernatural, it's beyond me how you can subscribe to the supernatural claims of christianity. You seem a little bit too smart.

Whilst I will lap up the compliments I cannot agree that a reasonable balance suggests that my experiences with the supernatural can be explained by the non-supernatural.
I really think we have to go back to what you said at the very start of this discussion about circular arguments. I am convinced we are probably both as guilty as each other of it, and I am honestly not sure how possible it is to step out the circle which we are in because of our beliefs and see things from the other circle. Which is, as I said then, where the step of faith comes into play. That tiny bit of faith which gives a person the confidence to step out of the circle of non-belief into the circle of belief, of accepting that there could possibly be supernatural explanations. At that point everything falls into place, but without doing that, I am not sure it is possible to see it. I am sure the reverse also applies.

Priests don't study quantum mechanics in school, so they shouldn't tell people god exists. They are most probably the right people to interpret the Bible and teach us about it's ethical merits, but they do not have the education or qualifications to argue for gods existance. Which is why they don't off-course. They all say stupid stuff like, "it's up to us all to decide for ourselves". That's just avoiding the issue.

Why do you need to have studied quantum mechanics to be able to know if God exists? By suggesting that he can only be proven by that particular discipline you are not taking a very narrow view.

Granted that I was a bit harsh here. But as I've said earlier in this thread. The only thing the christian supernatural theories have going for them is personal experiences not reproducable in a laboratory. Science is great at measuring which stimuli our brains react from. If no scientist has ever been able to measure a message from god, then well...chances are pretty good nobody ever has recieved a message from god. This must be the one most studied field in history, so you can't blame it on nobody trying. The plain fact is that all of the evidence christian supernatural theories has are all highly circumstantial. Maybe O.J. was in fact guilty? Who knows? But are you willing to bet on it? I mean really? If you are then I do think you take this issue very lightly.

Regarding OJ, I could not be bothered to follow the trial, so I cannot give an opinion on it. I have read that science has shown brains functioning differently when people pray, but I would not offer that as evidence, since it could also be to do with a psychological state. I have also read of studies being done in hospitals of blind tests were some people where prayed for by a community of believers and others were not, and the apparently the evidence is fairly conclusive. However without knowing the full background to such tests I am not prepared to rely on them in argument, which is why I can only fall back on my own experiences and those of people I know and trust.

cariad

[TomOfSweden]

[COLOR="Navy"]
Perhaps we should try discussing the equally serious topic of chocolate then. This was why a number of posts back I suggested that moving onto a discussion of supernatural theories was premature, without first agreeing on a need for one.

I agree, but you in spite of this continue to believe in the supernatural which off-course means it needs to be adressed if we want to reach a conclusion.

[COLOR="Navy"]
You have slightly lost me here – yes I do believe that I will go to heaven when I die, and I suppose you could say I bank on it, but it does not effect how I live now, or the rest of my belief.

I took it as an example since I thought most christians believe that non-repentant sinners didn't get in. But still, reaching heaven still does have an impact, since it'll effect your level of fear of death. If the 9/11 terrorists wouldn't have believed that they'd go to heaven, I'm certain their actions would have been different.

[COLOR="Navy"]
I have known too many people to have long term healings as a result of prayer not to do so. I would fully agree that some healings are psychological, but enough are very real for it to approach delusion. I would go as far as to say that there is a lot to be lost by not doing so.

You've got a causality issue. In logic it's known as Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because B takes place after A, doesn't mean that A causes B.

There's been so much research into this that it's silly. Maybe your friends is the special case, but I saw research where they evaluated sick pilgrims at Lourdes. If I remember correctly, from about three million a year who visit the shrine there are 50 000 reported miraculous healings which correlated exactly to the same number for the population in general. None of these healings are stuff that science can't explain. No regrown limbs or anything the medical proffesion would label as impossible.

Science can tell us that there is no link between praying and healing from diseases. I'm not trying to be cheeky or anything but this was too easy to shoot down.

And then off-course you still have to link the healing to christianity. Good luck.

[COLOR="Navy"]

The existence or otherwise of heaven, and what happens after death, did not form part of my decision to belief. I know that often evangelists preach the believe or you will go to hell theme, but I made my decision without either the threat of hell or the promise of heaven. I based it solely on the desire to have a relationship with God. There are many things which the Bible does not cover – far more than it does if you are after details, although there are a significant number of broad principles. I only have the broadest idea of how my car works, and I have only read a few pages of the manual. I know enough about it to trust it to do what it is supposed to. In the same way, although some of the questions which you have raised I would be interested to know the answer to, I am not going to let not knowing effect the things which I do.
The supernatural is not the only thing which cannot be proved, the much quoted example is emotions. These are felt, they are demonstrated and expressed, but as for ‘proof’ it is only circumstantial, yet I would be surprised it you were to deny them. Even the natural which world I know is far broader than anything which can be proved by a scientific rule or set of equations.

But now you're back into making this some emotional stand point.

Chosing which authority figures to trust is important, since we cannot understand everything. A very valid and important thing to do. You've chosen to make the authors of the Bible trusted authority figures in your life. But wouldn't it be nice to have the figures of authority in our lives actually have to prove they've got the goods. If the engine runs you know the mechanic did his job. How do you check the priest did his? What do you measure? Or do you just go on faith and vague feelings? Treat your priest the same way as you would a car salesman. There's no reason to have any more respect for the priest. They're both salesmen.

It's nice that you have a relationship with god. There's many names for the super-ego. You don't need anything supernatural for that.

[COLOR="Navy"]
1. That does not mean that what we see is wrong.
2. Why try and measure everything by science? And to take what you mentioned above, physical healings. There science has been able to measure, and have been unable to provide an explanation.

No, but if I'm the only one who saw/heard it then maybe I should find something to back it up with. Especially if I'm claiming something as whacky as talking to god.

We need to measure it somehow. Science is a good measuring system. Again, science is only a method to judge the truth, not a model by which we compare against. Science doesn't have the truth, but it may allow us to find it. The alternative to science is to not be systematic and just go on vague feelings. Common sense is the most common non-scientific method of judging the truth. You tell me which method is the most likely to come up with the best result?

Just because science can't measure it, doesn't mean science is wrong. Shouldn't that rather lead us to suspect that there's probably nothing to measure? We really don't have any other way to reason. We can make wild theories and dream a little, but from that to having faith is a pretty big plunge into the dark.

[COLOR="Navy"]
Well, I asked God and a little alien to a meeting and only God showed up, so he sort of got it by default.
Not quiet sure what you asking here. How did I test what?

You don't know that. It's only assumptions. In spite of the large amounts of religious people in the world, nobody ever has been able to produce any tangible evidence that they've spoken to god. If you make this claim, you'll need hard proof of it, or it is bullshit. I'm not calling you a liar. I'm calling you, "person who draws faulty conclusions". No, it's not a case of "either you have faith in it or you don't". The brain can only recieve messages in a few limited number of ways. We can measure it. God has yet to show up in any experiments.

[COLOR="Navy"]

Sorry – your work is not done. Just because something has not been proved does not make it not so, it merely makes it unproven. And for the record I have every expectation of going to heaven when I die – and I have heard they have great calorie free chocolate cake there.

sigh. Not this again. Look. The christian supernatural model doesn't have any more proof suporting it than the muslim, budhist, satanist, raelian, aum shin ri quo or heavens gate. No more. It doesn't make more sense or is any way more logical. They are equally as plausible. They are also equally as plausible as the infinate number of religions that nobody has thaught up yet. If I would make up a religion now on the spot, that version of the after-life would be equally plausible. This is pretty much what I've spent all this time exemplifying.

If your only demand on a theory is that nobody can invalidate it then you are gullible. I've got this great car here that is in tip top condition. I know it works because I've never driven it. Would you like to buy it?

[COLOR="Navy"]
Not sure I take your point there – because a significant number of believe something is so, you are saying that it is less likely to be so? Looks confused.

I'm only talking about belief in the supernatural modells of the universe. Ok, I'll let you do the work. Why do you think that Americans tend to be christians, Arabs muslim and Asians budhists?

People are off-course effected by the opinions of people around them. This is why, the more people believe in something that cannot be proven, the smaller chance it is being anything to the claim.

[COLOR="Navy"]
That could well be the case, however the only miracles I would quote or rely on are those where I have personally seen the evidence and know the people involved. I have seen too many well meaning people claim miracles when there are more likely explanations.

To quote my slave on this subject the other day, "Even if the pope himself would shoot lightning bolts from his fingers and pull rabits out his ass still would not prove a single word in the Bible is any less bullshit. It's not a case for anything".

There's no correlation between miracles being performed and any religion. None. Not even if the voices in your head tell you it is.

To reitterate. Proving the supernatural is true is only step one. You've got the same causality problem. You cannot link the miracles to any particular supernatural force, intelligent or not.

We've yet to find a link between suposed miracles and anything. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. A miracle has yet to be a likely explanation for anything. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it was a divine intervention.

[COLOR="Navy"]
If you have a model into which you cannot slot all the evidence, the model ceases to be credible. It is a weak defence to claim that the evidence must be wrong since it does not fit the model.

It's the other way around. If there's any evidence that doesn't fit, the model by necesity must be wrong. Since the supernatural models have no evidence, niether for nor against and the models will stick around for all eternity. But I have a sneaking suspicion that they'll never be any more credible.

[COLOR="Navy"]
Same evidence, different conclusion, I guess because we put different weight on different elements. To me the supernatural model is more sound than the non-supernatural one. Complexity does not make something wrong, unless the complexity is being used to disguise a flaw.

No, we use different evidence. You also draw faulty conclusions from it. You have somehow managed to link your personal experience that you claim are proof of the supernatural, to christianity.

You assume the miracles performed and the voices you've heard in your head come from a supernatural force as the one you have identified in the Bible. This in logic is Affirming the consequent.

[COLOR="Navy"]
I am not aware of Christianity making any claims which invalidate non-supernatural theories, it merely makes claims as to an explanation of the gaps in those theories.

The non-supernatural models we have are based on the universal laws being constant. If they are not, (as in the supernatural) then we cannot draw conclusions. If the supernatural would exist then we would not be able to draw conclusions since the laws would keep changing. All scientific models for the universe today are built on the assumption that god doesn't exist.

Then there's always level two. If god would exist, what laws govern the supernatural. Saying that he's god so he could do what ever he wants is pure assumption. You cannot say anything about what god is or isn't capable of.

[COLOR="Navy"]

Whilst I will lap up the compliments I cannot agree that a reasonable balance suggests that my experiences with the supernatural can be explained by the non-supernatural.
I really think we have to go back to what you said at the very start of this discussion about circular arguments. I am convinced we are probably both as guilty as each other of it, and I am honestly not sure how possible it is to step out the circle which we are in because of our beliefs and see things from the other circle. Which is, as I said then, where the step of faith comes into play. That tiny bit of faith which gives a person the confidence to step out of the circle of non-belief into the circle of belief, of accepting that there could possibly be supernatural explanations. At that point everything falls into place, but without doing that, I am not sure it is possible to see it. I am sure the reverse also applies.

So basically. When we take a step into a realm where we don't aply logic systematically and where there's been no conclusive scientific find ever...then it makes sense? You're making it far too easy for yourself. No, I'm not guilty of circular argument. I'm too careful.

I'm open to the possibily of the supernatural. When any evidence shows up I'll be the first convert. And not necesarily to any existing religion.

[COLOR="Navy"]

Why do you need to have studied quantum mechanics to be able to know if God exists? By suggesting that he can only be proven by that particular discipline you are not taking a very narrow view.

ok, that's just me. I trust people who've studied subjects that are scientific. I might trust un-scientifically schooled people on other subjects rather than explaining to me complex mathematics. If all a person has to say is that it's a matter of faith, then it's a dead give away that the guy hasn't a clue.