The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by ntubski I can see how logically there is circularity, but I think actual humans would mainly use intuition/gut feelings to decide, so it's not quite circular in practice. Reminds me a bit of smbc's biological solution to the liar's paradox What about those who claim they're not sure/don't know?

Maybe a example might help.

You and I see a purple cat and we pet it.

Now could either of us say, " I do not know or am not sure I saw that cat ?"

And exclude the possibility that either of us was under the influence. :-)

Originally Posted by Fixit7 Maybe a example might help. You and I see a purple cat and we pet it. Now could either of us say, " I do not know or am not sure I saw that cat ?"

Only a few people claim to have seen or physically touched god, but lots claim to believe god exists anyway, so this doesn't seem like a good example.

And exclude the possibility that either of us was under the influence. :-)

Now why would you go and exclude that?

Do you believe electricity and wind exist ?

Have you seen them ?

:-)

Both scientists and regular folks depend on certain laws.

These laws occur regularly.

If they did not, nothing could be predicted and we could not rely on anything.

Like gravity.

We can not see gravity but will experience it if we jump off a cliff.

As a result everyone without exception believes in many "invisible things."

He/she may not know where they come from.

Timothy Keller has a good book called "The Reason for God." Belief in an Age of Skepticism.

@ sundialsvc - In your previous post ( # 5324 ) you never state to whom you are referring to as "you". The only clues we have are that this "you" is apparently not a theist and instead one who subscribes to logic and Science. There are several here who fit that definition although I don't see any "bludgeons". There however may be condescension (I wouldn't go so far as to say mockery) similar to the way that kids treat other kids who still believe in Santa Claus despite the many obvious irrational descriptions not the least of which is the fundamental problems arising from growing from a tribe or village, where it might actually be possible to visit each and every household in a single 24 hour period. In a global environment of billions of households it is utterly impossible and so the entire house of cards falls apart. From a scientific point of view to continue to believe in an impossibility is superstition not worthy of respect. The situation with Theism is far more complicated because there is no one definition of God and while there are a few definitions of Santa Claus he is a far simpler, rather 2 dimensional figure. The one single definition of God common to all monotheistic religions is Creator of the Universe, so lets explore that and the means to consider the veracity of His/Her/Its existence.

Admittedly I am so immersed in the efficacy of testing and evidence I have little grasp of any other way of discovery and arriving at truth. We are going to have some difficulty because conversely it seems you. like many, do not seem to grasp the nature of the scientific method. This is evidenced by your equating The Big Bang with Creation Myth. This is rather common amongst people who equate Theory with opinion. Simply put, Creation Myths do not rely on any manner of testing or evidence whereas The Big Bang (originally proposed by the Catholic Science Director at The Vatican, Georges Lematre) which started in roughly 1927 from the logical extension of the observation that the Universe is expanding (and therefore at some point in the past, a point) and in nearly 100 years of unimaginable improvement in tools and uncountable learned man/hours, has only been strengthened. Much like the the Theory of Evolution formed at a time when deep, fundamental mechanisms like DNA were unimaginable and could easily have just wiped it from existence as a valid Theory (like phlogiston, The Ether or canals on Mars) The Big Bang and it's larger body of study, The Standard Model, could have easily been blown away by any number of advances from both ends, the Microcosm of Particles to the Macrocosm of Astronomy, and yet the very opposite has happened. None of this was pulled from a fever dream nor based on the "authority" of ancient superstition. It is not a closed model like those are. It is subject to further study and will be continually corrected much as one might drive from New York to LA by first just heading West and fine tuning along the way to get to a specific address. Any other method smacks of dart boards or Ouija boards and is why proponents of such methods often feel mocked.

There are Absolutes. Science, Logic, and Mathematics grows out of the most basic of Absolutes - Identity. "A" is "A". "A" is not "not A". 1 = 1. 1 + 1 = 2. Those are unassailable Absolutes, a solid foundation if ever there was one and all stands on those and inherit solidity, are encapsulated within limits, or crumble into dust.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not trying to talk down to anyone, here or anywhere. I am only trying to clarify my position in which I try to adhere to the proven Rules of Evidence and the methodology of Logic and Science. I freely admit that I could be like Indian tribes sending smoke signals unaware of radio broadcasts in the air, but I have confidence that the technology of smoke signals leads to radio waves and there is no other way I know of to get there.

In the realm of Science, there can be no evidence of Space or Time before the Big Bang that passes through to examine and test, including of a Creator, therefore at best, even assuming some information can pass through of which we are currently unaware (like Indians and Radio Waves) it is currently an unanswerable question and most certainly not likely in the province of ancient text(s).

This is not a bludgeon. This is beyond anything I, or anyone else, wishes to be true. In fact much of what many religions profess is in the form of wishes.... that there is life after death, that we will be reunited with loved ones. I, too, wish that were true but I see no evidence, so I cannot depend on it to be so. You are correct that there is much more that we don't know than that which we know, but that does not negate what we do know beyond a reasonable doubt.

Originally Posted by Lenny_Bruce That which is, is Truth. What should be is a dirty lie

If an answer can't be proven then a sucker can.

Recommended reading: Bad Science
jdk

Originally Posted by Fixit7 Do you believe electricity and wind exist ? ...gravity.

You keep listing well defined concepts. How about a comparably fuzzy concept: do you believe in Free Will?

JDK - Bad Link

Did you mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Science_28book%29

enorbet,

I say, "in the spirit of friendly debate," that your position seems to me to be remarkably exclusionary. As the Book of Job put it, "were you there when the foundations of the world were laid?" Now, before you answer, step back from the fact that this was penned -- many, many centuries ago -- in a book that is now part of a famous religious book. There is a key philosophical point here.

There are limits to what we "know." Most of it, actually, is conjecture ... an educated guess ... supported by what we think is corroborative evidence. But all of this is based on the limits of what we (think we) perceive at the time. If we choose to disregard that very-important constraint, then we have: "absolute," "proven rules," and "methodology." We have something that not only will tell us what we do not know, but that will "prove" it.

"Science said it, I believe it, and that settles it."

It doesn't matter who first thought of "Big Bang." To me, that's still "a creation myth," because no one knows, and because it's a silly extrapolation from what little we [think we] do know. Someone observed (from the point-of-view of an insignificant planet orbiting an out-of-the-way star ...) that "the Universe seems to be expanding," and worked backwards to the leap of faith(!) that "therefore, it must have come from a singularity point."

If I had to choose between that, and a God "speaking" a world into existence beginning with a planet covered by improbably-liquid water in the absence of a sun, or maybe First Man and First Woman popping into the Third World from a hole beneath an agave plant, "Big Bang" certainly wouldn't make the cut. No, it wouldn't stand a chance.

And so, my thoughts inevitably tend toward the middle ground of balance and compromise. I don't think that there is an "absolute God." Nor do I think that there is an "absolute Science." I do think that there is much, much more to our existence than what our senses and our intellect can tell us.

And, I follow my instincts. Pulling off the Interstate after a so-so meal, most of which I took home, I encountered a man sitting by the exit ramp. I had an instinct. I reached for the meal and handed it to him. In my rear-view I saw him consuming it, ravenously. "The thought popped into my head," and I acted on it. Will I get "eternal brownie-points" for doing that? I don't think so.

You don't get something from nothing so if you want, think "god" as matter and molecules, then yes it's always existed. If not I got a cloud I could $ell ya?

As for me, I don't particularly think the Judeo-Christian "God" (original name: "El" ...) has any particular claim to anything. But, at the same time, I also don't think that "Science" has any particular claim to everything.

I don't agree with the folks who say that I am condemned to "billions of years in a fiery furnace" in exchange for "give-or-take seventy-odd years of screw-ups." (Nor that my alternative is an equally long period of singing lessons.)

I can read and appreciate a creation myth ... it could be "and God said" over a miraculously un-frozen planet, or it could be a singularity, or it could be First Man ... without thinking that any of them are "TRVTH" ... or particularly needing to.

Originally Posted by enorbet JDK - Bad Link Did you mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Science_28book%29

Sorry about that. Yours came out with an error message as well. I think the problem is that left bracket is replaced by _ and right bracket is replaced by %29 and similar replacements were done on my link by the LQ website.
jdk

You're hitting the % eating bug (left bracket is supposed to be %28, that's how it's encoded for URLs). You can avoid it by posting from the "advanced" editor.

Originally Posted by ntubski You're hitting the % eating bug (left bracket is supposed to be %28, that's how it's encoded for URLs). You can avoid it by posting from the "advanced" editor.

Finally something relevant...

if we can't think past what is taught t∞ us then we are screwed.

Edit\add: If you think anyone should "rain "supreme"" (as in being) you are also wrong.