The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by enorbet So despite any single person's desire to corrupt, interpret, or borrow the power of The Scientific Method. just like Mathematics, it is pure and incorruptible and eventually casts out such impurities. It is by design a dynamic, self-correcting system as opposed to static, cast-in-stone systems that resist any sort of change. It can be difficult to wait for Science to exert it's self-correction but what does it better, more consistently or faster? It took 300 years for Christianity to admit Galileo was correct that the Earth was not the center of the Solar System (or anything beyond human existence) and that the "infallibility" of Popes is a "Naked Emperor" snow job.

This position is eerily similar to those of 17th and 18th century philosophers, such as Leibniz, who were looking to mathematics as a source of "perfect truth."

But, once again, we have humans in the center of these conflicts. Humans, reading ancient and not-so ancient religious writings, concluding from them that "the Earth was the center of the Universe" (and that, for all they knew, stars might be holes punched in a gigantic cosmic tent). But, what's very distinctive is a very un-scientific twist: that they were prepared to kill you for daring to disagree with them. Now, are we going to say that "this was God's will?" Likewise, are we going to seriously say that "God said that" the Earth was the center, when we know this to be false and that, if God had said such a thing, God would be silly and wrong? Not exactly.

(I kinda sorta think that, "if God wants you to be dead, He doesn't need a man to do the dirty deed for Him ...") One moment you're alive, next moment you're a pillar of salt. Or a frog. Or what have you.

Humanity ... humanity ... humanity. There are humans throughout every bit of this. Human politics, power struggles, agendas, lust, warfare, simple cruelty and even psychopathy. Almost everything that the Ten Commandments said that "thou shalt not" do.

And, humans still "fill in a'plenty of gaps" in what Science says. They also interpret(!) what the gathered data means, fitting it to hypotheses and then theories.

And, "gentlebeings™" ... ... I guess that's why I push-back against all this talk of "pure absolutes." We are mostly talking about humans here. Good, bad, beautiful, and ugly. Almighty deities do as They please, but for the most part we have ourselves to blame. (And we blame the Deities for it.)

Extending it very slightly farther now: "and so, is philosophy, and religious belief, really that separated from "science," given that human beings are deeply involved in all of it? I don't think so. Hence, I would never suggest it to be "a fairy tale." (For one thing, I think that's belittling another person at his expense.) I think that all three modes of thought are both important and significant, and I do not believe that they contradict one another ... even though they might seem to.

I think it's especially important that we realize that it's perfectly okay to think in all three ways. No one should be a subject of rebuke or ridicule for doing so. A deeply religious scientist might (non-)smoke away an evening in an engagement of empirical philosophy with some friends, and have a wonderful time. You might even hear him/her say, "Well, science says this, but I believe that ..."

It's all good.™

Also, we can observe that "a heck of a lot of 'quantum physics' is scientific philosophy," because at the moment that's all we really have to work with. We're exploring things that we cannot (yet) directly observe. "Pure science" is blind without "data," and it can be misled by misunderstanding of the data ... which "misunderstanding" it might or might not be able to detect! So it goes. Like it or not, we are exploring a great big elephant as best we can. Thus, for very practical reasons, we exploit other modes of thought.

And, you know, "religion" is really not that terribly far removed from that. Sometimes, the pragmatic distinctions between them seem quite indistinct! (And this ought not to surprise anyone.) We should tolerate and embrace all three forms of thought: science, philosophy, and religion. No one is wrong for thinking "that way."

Originally Posted by enorbet IMHO it is exceedingly important to keep Science and Scientists separate.

Sure, scientists are people who exist, whereas "Science" seems to be some platonic ideal. But we can play that game with religion too, no? Let's keep the worshipers, priests, etc (who are humans capable of doing bad things) separate from the platonic idea of "Religion" which causes no harm to anyone.

Originally Posted by BW-userx <snip> Mans soul is what is important to God not the flesh.

Here, in a nutshell, is why I will not even attempt to address every minute comment/opinion you express here. IMHO your being so convinced that not only does God (and your particular one) exist, but this entity capable of creating SpaceTime (all we know there is and will ever be... and in just a few days, no less, [whatever a "day" means absent the Earth and Sun]) yet your (or anyone's!) puny, ephemeral mind can comprehend what is important to He/She/It.

What's more, you and others like you believe this arrogant arrangement, based on words written thousands of years ago (and translated and rewritten many times) by people who were so superstitious they believed that all manner of "supernatural" beings walked, rode or flew around the countryside with nothing better to do than to harass or protect we humans but who also demanded sacrifice and worship.

At the most fundamental level all of this depends entirely on one thing - Is there an Immortal Soul. Even if the existence of a Creator could somehow be proven, what would it matter if we were but "dust in the wind"? In Math if we are to disprove all or any part of it the avenue of attack is best at it's most fundamental. That fundamental is "1 = 1" or "A = A", Identity.... and the exclusionary "A != Not A" (by the way I used this format of notation, specifically the "!=" which is a negation not an assertion, because you expressed an understanding of software code but I saw later that you did not understand that notation, thus this explanation). The next step up from "1 = 1' is "1 + 1 = 2". Disprove that and nothing else need be disproved as it all falls down like a House of Cards.

So before I respond to you on higher levels, please show evidence that an Immortal Soul exists, or we are done here.

Originally Posted by ntubski Sure, scientists are people who exist, whereas "Science" seems to be some platonic ideal. But we can play that game with religion too, no? Let's keep the worshipers, priests, etc (who are humans capable of doing bad things) separate from the platonic idea of "Religion" which causes no harm to anyone.

Hmmm you could be correct and I merely blinded to it because I have no idea what Religion, absent people, is or could be, but I have a clear and distinct concept that Mathematics and Physical Law exists in some form whether sentient beings do or do not. Example - 2 Atoms of Hydrogen combine with 1 atom of Oxygen to make a molecule of water whether anything capable of understanding that exists at that time or not. I have high confidence in this because Geology, the fossil record, ice cores from glaciers, even Astronomy etc etc show that water is ubiquitous in both Time and Space.

From that I can conclude that while not perfect, the odds are best that trusting in the Scientific Method will minimize human error and over time, correct for it. Maybe that will not pan out. Maybe despite our best efforts we, as a species, will turn out to be only slightly more successful than Neanderthals and will go extinct in far less time than ants, cockroaches, crocodiles and horseshoe crabs. I bet with the odds while being fully aware that even a one percent chance can occur. Serendipity and chaos do exist.

Additionally Science is essentially unconcerned with the morality of things That would be left to Philosophy and it's adjunct, Religion. There exists, therefore, no moral imperative to burn heretics, behead infidels, or oppress some moderately identifiable group in Science. That remains true as far as I can tell so it seems the safest bet.

Most Christians do believe in the existence of immortal souls, but actually Christianity doesn't require them to exist. The distinctive doctrine in both the New Testament and the creeds is the resurrection of the body, not the survival of the soul. Belief in a soul that is completely separate from the body probably came into Christianity from platonism some time after the New Testament period.

This puts Christianity in a unique position compared with other religions when it comes to the scientific evidence linking consciousness and reason to the brain. If this can be proved, it's a death blow for Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism, but Christianity can survive it. I find it rather eerie that New Testament Christianity anticipated 20th Century Science so well.

Originally Posted by enorbet Here, in a nutshell, is why I will not even attempt to address every minute comment/opinion you express here. IMHO your being so convinced that not only does God (and your particular one) exist, but this entity capable of creating SpaceTime (all we know there is and will ever be... and in just a few days, no less, [whatever a "day" means absent the Earth and Sun]) yet your (or anyone's!) puny, ephemeral mind can comprehend what is important to He/She/It.

why did you just lie to yourself?

I do not even believe all what you believe that you just said I believe.

what is wrong with your way of thinking?

Originally Posted by enorbet What's more, you and others like you believe this arrogant arrangement, based on words written thousands of years ago (and translated and rewritten many times) by people who were so superstitious they believed that all manner of "supernatural" beings walked, rode or flew around the countryside with nothing better to do than to harass or protect we [us] humans but who also demanded sacrifice and worship.

AGAIN you are just lumping in too many assumptions about me and others in what they did or believed against facts.

I only believe in one God. And that He has every right to be worshiped in the manner He demands to be. BUT because you have no idea how that is that He seeks others to worship Him in manner that He prescribes to be worshiped in else suffer the consequences. I expect no more out of your then pure conjecture.

Because that is all you've done so far.

Originally Posted by enorbet At the most fundamental level all of this depends entirely on one thing - Is there an Immortal Soul. Even if the existence of a Creator could somehow be proven, what would it matter if we were but "dust in the wind"? In Math if we are to disprove all or any part of it the avenue of attack is best at it's most fundamental. That fundamental is "1 = 1" or "A = A", Identity.... and the exclusionary "A != Not A" (by the way I used this format of notation, specifically the "!=" which is a negation not an assertion, because you expressed an understanding of software code but I saw later that you did not understand that notation, thus this explanation). The next step up from "1 = 1' is "1 + 1 = 2". Disprove that and nothing else need be disproved as it all falls down like a House of Cards. So before I respond to you on higher levels, please show evidence that an Immortal Soul exists, or we are done here.

no you are done here and in the after life you will get your proof that you should have listened to me, and if not me then the one that came before me that spoke the truth about me.

because we all all created in the image and Likeness of me and you and the God that created us all.

You spoke of "Even if the existence of a Creator could somehow be proven, what would it matter if we were but "dust in the wind"?"

that is for one a half baked thought. what would it matter if we were but dust and wind if the soul existed?

You have to put that part of the belief that yes a soul does exist, into Christianity when you or anyone addresses it in the manner of trying to state that God is a psychopathological killer.


people remove that part of it to state their case (which is a lie) about God. You and they that do this keep removing the belief of eternal life of the soul, then apply only what they see to the equation to draw that conclusion about God so they can continue to not believe in Him.

ever staying in there selfish ways.


If He was proven to you to exist by that means you seem to need then by what you stated afterwords to disprove it. You'd still call him a liar.

.


I am not even going to justify my programming skill and how I use A != NOT A

 if [ a != to itself ] then 
do 
something

something less then can be brought up to be equal to something else a like matter of the same thing. But the soul is sprit, and
sprit = sprit
flesh = flesh

flesh is not equal to spirit
and
spirit is not equal to flesh

put the two together then what do you have?

they are two separate things that because of their substance cannot be equal to each other. the flesh cannot be brought out of existence nor can the soul. because one cannot actually destroy matter in by the definition of to utterly destroy something so that nothing of it exist anymore.

even though man that understands this still uses the word destroy to describe a condition of something what once was. someone that drives a car into a wall at a rate of 100 miles an hour.


one that sees the aftermath of it could then say, He destroyed that car. even though it is actually still there in front of him.

but one that loves to argue points uselessly will say no he did not, matter cannot be destroyed. To prove that one that stated it a liar. Just to make himself feel like he is better then that other. It is a means of demeaning that other person just so they can feel like they are better then that person. not to prove a fact at all.



Man is just one big variable that can change. He is not an absolute truth by birth. He is actually a empty void. with no idea of anything. He does not even understand his own existence in how he came to be.

all he knows it nothing other then what he sees feels hears taste and smells. then he still has no idea what that is that his senses picks up and sends to his brain for analyzing. that first experience is when he or she starts their journey seeking truth. All they have at their disposal is their senses and that brain in there head to try and figure it out so they will find it(truth). The senses do nothing but give the brain the truth. it is the brain that can screw it up.

so yes as a result there are brains out there that only learn to rely on their sense and what it tells them, they no longer relay on there brains to try and help them figure it out.

these are the ones that say I have to see it to believe it.


it is the characteristics of that which are added to that can be changed to equal something better then itself.


In other words I am flesh and spirit and you are flesh and spirit. we are equal in that manner. but that does not mean you are more morally correct then I just because we both are made up of the same like substances or vias a versa.


the flesh and sprit in itself being one cannot be morally correct just because of its properties. It is the mind that controls it that is what is the variable that is able to change to make it better then it started out to be - it is morally and justly speaking that I am talking about. not math and the sciences that even God uses.

Time and space are two separate things. Space is not created. time is just a unit of measurement.


so what do I use for comparison to gauge my behavior to be morally correct and to be a just person?

another man that is worse off them I am, that uses his or hers own selfish reasons to change whatever moral laws he sets up for himself to live by?

he can start out, it is not ok to have sex with a prostitute. then it lets his carnal urges get the best of him, he ends up having sex with a prostitute. He now has now broken his own moral law. In order to not feel guilty about what he did. what does he have to do?

he then changes the moral laws he governs himself by to justify his own selfish actions so he can be made right again. (in his own mind)

he then rids himself of personal guilt and now believes it is ok to have sex with a prostitute. after all who is he hurting by doing so? no one is dying for that one. because no one can die by the simple the act of penetrating a woman's vagina with his penis.


therefore he has now fully justified his action once again, he is a self-righteous person.

something that most if not all non believers in God love to accuse them that do believe in Him as being.

Them that do truly believe in Him are not self-righteous persons. They have not made themselves rightful by their own means but by Gods.

Originally Posted by enorbet Additionally Science is essentially unconcerned with the morality of things That would be left to Philosophy and it's adjunct, Religion. There exists, therefore, no moral imperative to burn heretics, behead infidels, or oppress some moderately identifiable group in Science. That remains true as far as I can tell so it seems the safest bet.

thou shalt not kill

Originally Posted by enorbet I have no idea what Religion, absent people, is or could be, but I have a clear and distinct concept that Mathematics and Physical Law exists in some form whether sentient beings do or do not.

I think I've almost understood what you're getting at, but will need some more time to digest this.

Originally Posted by hazel If this can be proved, it's a death blow for Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism,

It's funny that you think proof of anything would be "a death blow" for a religion.

I find it rather eerie that New Testament Christianity anticipated 20th Century Science so well.

I find it kind of amusing that Muslims frequently say similar things about the Quran.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs This position is eerily similar to those of 17th and 18th century philosophers, such as Leibniz, who were looking to mathematics as a source of "perfect truth."

Considering Leibniz was born (1646) just a few years after Galileo died (1642) it is little wonder that he defaulted to (at least publicly) holding with Classical ideology which was his most basic mistake. However that mistake takes only a little away from his entire body of work, much of which is fundamental and still in wide use today. Leibniz was a truly brilliant man, and as an example of how men, for a host of reasons, can get off track but the Body of Knowledge to which they contribute still grows on, "separating the wheat from the chaff", he is an excellent example.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Also, we can observe that "a heck of a lot of 'quantum physics' is scientific philosophy," because at the moment that's all we really have to work with. We're exploring things that we cannot (yet) directly observe. "Pure science" is blind without "data," and it can be misled by misunderstanding of the data ... which "misunderstanding" it might or might not be able to detect! So it goes. Like it or not, we are exploring a great big elephant as best we can. Thus, for very practical reasons, we exploit other modes of thought.

I enjoyed this post and agree with most of it and only wish to quibble with minor points. One such point is being careful with terminology which is easy to fall into in the realm of QM. QM is somewhat new, perhaps an analog might be Electricity pre 20th Century. Neither was or is largely philosophy in that much actually can be directly observed, it's just that we have so little frame of reference at that scale that it can seem like Alice Through The Looking Glass at times. What works "up here" doesn't necessarily work "down there". It's just counter-intuitive for most people yet.

However just as Electricity was at first only noticeable through instrumentation as Pure Science, by the 20th Century it was rapidly also becoming Applied Science. Relativity was becoming a common issue in Applied Science in many areas, one of which was computer circuit board design as long as 40 years ago and Quantum Mechanics is a real issue in Integrated Circuit design. Now, complete Quantum Computers exist and get more effective all the time, so already we do understand enough to begin the process from Pure to Applied Science. QM is only license for dodgy Science in Hollywood. If we list what Philosophy and/or Religious precepts have contributed to understanding our Universe at this scale the answer is exactly Zero.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs And, you know, "religion" is really not that terribly far removed from that. Sometimes, the pragmatic distinctions between them seem quite indistinct! (And this ought not to surprise anyone.) We should tolerate and embrace all three forms of thought: science, philosophy, and religion. No one is wrong for thinking "that way."

I have no problem with two of the three (Descartes, Piaget, Kant, even Nietzche welcomed argument) but the third doesn't play by any rules that make any sense to me as it actively thwarts and punishes dissent and dissenters. That may not seem "too far removed" for some but it's a "bridge too far" for me.

Originally Posted by ntubski I think I've almost understood what you're getting at, but will need some more time to digest this.

I was just making the point that numbers of things and relationships of things (1 + 1 = 2, opposite poles of a magnet attract) exists even without people. Religion however is a construct apart that is Man's struggle to comprehend the Unknown and at the deepest level, the Unknowable... at least unknowable while still alive. So I find it easier and more appropriate to separate practice and practitioners in Science than I do Religion.

Re: My Post

Originally Posted by enorbet Here, in a nutshell, is why I will not even attempt to address every minute comment/opinion you express here. IMHO your being so convinced that not only does God (and your particular one) exist, but this entity capable of creating SpaceTime (all we know there is and will ever be... and in just a few days, no less, [whatever a "day" means absent the Earth and Sun]) yet your (or anyone's!) puny, ephemeral mind can comprehend what is important to He/She/It. What's more, you and others like you believe this arrogant arrangement, based on words written thousands of years ago (and translated and rewritten many times) by people who were so superstitious they believed that all manner of "supernatural" beings walked, rode or flew around the countryside with nothing better to do than to harass or protect we humans but who also demanded sacrifice and worship.

You responded ...

Originally Posted by BW-userx why did you just lie to yourself? I do not even believe all what you believe that you just said I believe. what is wrong with your way of thinking?

While it is entirely possible that I misunderstand since I hope we at least agree on the definition of a "lie" as willful deception, please explain where you think I tried to deceive myself or anyone else. As for deductions...

You have stated you believe that God, as The Creator, exists and you also stated that (paraphrased) "souls are what's important to God" so it is obvious that you think you understand what's important to The Creator.

What exactly have I attributed to you that is untrue or misguided? I have no problem with criticism as I never assume I am infallible knowing I make lots of mistakes. I also work hard to correct those mistakes so criticism is no threat to my self-image and in fact helpful, so please, do elucidate.

Originally Posted by enorbet Re: My Post You responded ... While it is entirely possible that I misunderstand since I hope we at least agree on the definition of a "lie" as willful deception, please explain where you think I tried to deceive myself or anyone else. As for deductions...

you willfully lied to yourself about what I believe about God because you willfully choose to not bother to ask me first. Instead you just willfully took it upon yourself to just believe everything you said I believed about God first then willfully told me what is what I believe.

when in fact it is not what I believe in God.

and I so find it not so curious that all it is that you want to do about what I said in your post in reply to what you said is justify yourself in what you did to yourself. SO you can be made self righteous again in your actions.

Originally Posted by enorbet You have stated you believe that God, as The Creator, exists and you also stated that (paraphrased) "souls are what's important to God" so it is obvious that you think you understand what's important to The Creator. What exactly have I attributed to you that is untrue or misguided? I have no problem with criticism as I never assume I am infallible knowing I make lots of mistakes. I also work hard to correct those mistakes so criticism is no threat to my self-image and in fact helpful, so please, do elucidate.

right here.

Originally Posted by enorbet Here, in a nutshell, is why I will not even attempt to address every minute comment/opinion you express here. IMHO (in your honest option) your being (that is me) so convinced that not only does God (and your particular one) exist, but this entity capable of creating SpaceTime (all we know there is and will ever be... and in just a few days, no less, [whatever a "day" means absent the Earth and Sun]) yet your (or anyone's!) puny, ephemeral mind can comprehend what is important to He/She/It.

you cannot even believe that I or anyone else can comprehend what is important to someone else? what is wrong with you?


if that was a truth then no one would be able to cater to anyone else's needs.

as far as what is important to GOD well then you are sadly mistaken. where did you get that idea?

just because you by what you've said cannot comprehend it does not mean I cannot.

Originally Posted by enorbet What's more, you and others like you believe this arrogant arrangement, based on words written thousands of years ago (and translated and rewritten many times)

Originally Posted by enorbet by people who were so superstitious they believed that all manner of "supernatural" beings (plural, more than one) walked, rode or flew around the countryside with nothing better to do than to harass or protect we humans but who also demanded sacrifice and worship.

where do you even get your information?

How do you know exactly what it is that they believed?

Did you even ask them like you asked me first before coming up with what you believe that I believe about the God I believe in?

is that how you get all of your information about others by making it up first using only prices of what someone else said and things you came up with on your own to draw a conclusion about what it is others believe then put it all together as a whole then stamp it as a TRUTH?


and YES I do know that the God I believe in cares about mans soul.
go study the source.

Originally Posted by enorbet I have a clear and distinct concept that Mathematics and Physical Law exists in some form whether sentient beings do or do not. Example - 2 Atoms of Hydrogen combine with 1 atom of Oxygen to make a molecule of water whether anything capable of understanding that exists at that time or not.

Sure, but these things aren't "Science" per se, right? (I'm still trying to work out exactly what you mean by "Science")

As I understand it, science requires some sentient beings to be performing it, so I'm not sure what relevance these platonic ideals have to anything.

In Buddhism, sentient beings are beings with consciousness, sentience, or in some contexts life itself. Sentient beings are composed of the five aggregates, or skandhas: matter, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness.

but that is only in Buddhism? So I do suppose one then too has to be a Buddhist?

Cats?

Are cats sentient? Cats (as all higher animals having the five senses and central nervous system) are sentient but they do not think about their sensations, pains, delights, miseries. They instinctively follow them. Plants are extremely sensitive in interactions with outer world but they are not sentient (they do not see, hear, smell …)