| From: echelon | 14/08/00
17:33:46 |
| Subject: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116584 |
| Reasons to believe in the
existance of God: 1) Origin of the earth. Nothingness requires no explanation. But something requires an explanation. Look around you. Do you see nothing or something? Physical rules of the universe exist. Someone defined them. Matter exists. How did it come into existance? *Design* is evident everywhere you look. Look at your motherboard in your computer. Could this have come about by an explosion down at Dick Smith? (A crude example but try to grasp the principal.) 2) Moral Code: Each individual has a moral code, a conscience deep within. We are made in God's image. Love is preferable to Hate. Truth is preferable to Lies. Inanimate gas\particles, no matter how they are arranged, simply cannot have a conscience. 3) The christian experience: testimonies of countless people, who are intelligent beings just like you have experienced the presence and true power of God first hand. I am not talking about *religion* but a realtionship with your creator. Many Great minds accept that a God must exist, despite the theory of evolution. 4) Science has limits: Science does not disprove or replace God, it simply deconstructs and studies what has been created. The book of Genesis in the bible declares the origin of the material universe. Interpretations of the *method* of God may vary but the truth of the fact still remains. God's creative work was progressive: 1st the world of matter, 2nd the system of life, 3rd humans. This does not conflict with science. 5) Follow the ladder: Everything in the universe is dependant on something. Follow the hierachy of dependancy, up and up. Eventually it must stop somewhere at something *outside* of the system. It's God! He does not depend on anyone or anything. His word holds everything. I urge you, don't make the mistake of dismissing that which science cannot explain. Science is just another tool we have invented for understanding that which has been created. It does not provide an alternative answer, because it is an incomplete answer. It cannot answer the most fundamental scientific question, *WHY* is there a universe? We *assume* in our rational minds, that something which cannot be proven cannot be possible. But what evidence could there possibly be to prove the universe was created if it was infact created? The bible states is was created out of nothing. We cannot disprove creation, so we must accept it may be possible. Use your own judgement. Neither science nor philosophy nor any other man made 'tool' can answer everything. Why do I choose the answer in God over the answer in science? This is really like comparing apples and oranges. Most of what science states does not contradict the bible. It's the questions that science DOES NOT answer that makes God so very believeable. Unless science explains such questions as, 'Why does the universe exist?', then creation by God is the only possible answer. | |
| From: Andrew ® | 14/08/00
17:41:06 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116585 |
| Though I, (and I'm sure many
others), could scientifically counter all of those points relatively
easily, out of respect for your faith I won't. But for the record, the
reason I believe in science more so than God is that it makes a lot more
sense. | |
| From: sam | 14/08/00
17:42:09 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116586 |
| I have a problem here. You are
looking for an answer, because you say things had to have started. For
some reason, you can accept that God had always existed, but why not that
the universe has always existed? The existence of God does not explain the
"where did we come from" question, it just lets you take it back one step
more. If you insist that things must have started somewhere, then where
did God come from? | |
| From: Terry Frankcombe (Avatar) | 14/08/00
17:44:06 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116587 |
| I was going to let this lie.
Belief in God is up to the individual, which is why I don't go around on
religious sites telling everyone there that they are wrong and I am right
like people do here. But I couldn't let this logically incorrect statement
go: Unless science explains such questions as, 'Why does the universe exist?', then creation by God is the only possible answer. No it isn't. You are assuming that there is a single answer. Another possible solution (and there may be many more) is that there is no reason for the universe to exist. If you want debate on a rational level then you must address this sort of solution. | |
| From: sam | 14/08/00
17:45:29 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116588 |
| 2) Moral
Code: Each individual has a moral code, a conscience deep within. We are
made in God's image. Love is preferable to Hate. Truth is preferable to
Lies. Inanimate gas\particles, no matter how they are arranged, simply
cannot have a conscience. This also falls down. How does this explain cultural relativity? We're right and they're wrong? How does this explain temporal moral relatvity? (ie why things that were 'right' 500 years ago are 'wrong' now.) | |
| From: Terry Frankcombe (Avatar) | 14/08/00
17:45:41 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116589 |
| *mutter* Once more, with
feeling... Unless science explains such questions as, 'Why does the universe exist?', then creation by God is the only possible answer. No it isn't. You are assuming that there is a single answer. Another possible solution (and there may be many more) is that there is no reason for the universe to exist. If you want debate on a rational level then you must address this sort of solution. | |
| From: Richard C | 14/08/00
17:47:33 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116590 |
| Most of what you have written, I
understand. I also sympathise with your search for meaning in a complex
and perplexing universe. I don't personally find any satisfaction in
postulating a God to explain it all, but I respect your right to your
philosophy - But - I don't even begin to understand the reference to Dick
Smith. I have met him and spoken at some length with him and, whilst he is
an interesting and dynamic person, he didn't strike me as an argument for
the existence or non existence of God (or at least, any more than any
other Human Being) - in the words of Pauline - please
explain. | |
| From: echelon | 14/08/00
17:49:50 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116592 |
| How does this explain temporal
moral relatvity? (ie why things that were 'right' 500 years ago are
'wrong' now.) Sam, thankyou for your response. I would like to draw a distinction between cultural morals, and a moral code (although possibly dulled) that exists within each person. | |
| From: sam | 14/08/00
17:53:48 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116595 |
| Sam, thankyou
for your response. I would like to draw a distinction between cultural
morals, and a moral code (although possibly dulled) that exists within
each person. As you wish. Personally, I don't think that the distinction you draw exists, but it is not worth arguing over because it will just come down to an argument between objective morality and subjective or relative. And that's a dead end. | |
| From: Purple ® | 14/08/00
17:56:22 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116596 |
| Moral Code:
Each individual has a moral code, a conscience deep within.
Rubbish! We have laws and ways to behave that are taught to us. There have been countless times when I've wanted to breal one of the "ten commandements" (which I believe are the basis for the law in this and other christian countries) but I don't because I know the consequences....not bcause I don't want to perform the action. As Sam said, there are too many cultures all believing in some god or other and their set of morals are far different from ours. eg Muslims and their many wives - this is in the koran, it is a "by-law" if you will. We (in this country) not only keep just one wife (by law) but also do "not covet" another, and yet they all supposedly believe in the same god. The name of god is different and the prophet is different but it is the same god. more to come. tea time. | |
| From: Purple ® | 14/08/00
18:00:19 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116599 |
| I would like
to draw a distinction between cultural morals, and a moral code (although
possibly dulled) that exists within each person. They are one and the same thing. | |
| From: echelon | 14/08/00
18:03:03 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116601 |
| Hello Purple, You said: "There have been countless times when I've wanted to breal one of the "ten commandements" If I could just say that from a biblical perspective this is due to our fallen nature. We are still aware of wrong and right despite going with these instincts. Thanks for your reply. Ill try and shed light on what the bible says, if you have any other questions. | |
| From: spud(adonai) ® | 14/08/00
18:08:16 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116606 |
| there is an 11th commandment, but
it said "Doth any of these disagree choose not to follow" This is the only
commandment the christian faith belives in.
| |
| From: Richard C | 14/08/00
18:08:41 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116608 |
I don't believe you, Purple. You're so virtuous that you can't even bring yourself to type "break one of the ten commandments" let alone do it. | |
| From: Purple ® | 14/08/00
18:12:42 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116610 |
| lol Richard C OK
BREAK!!!!!! And echelon - I've read the bible. | |
| From: echelon | 14/08/00
18:18:12 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116613 |
| I don't believe you, Purple.
You're so virtuous that you can't even bring yourself to type "break one
of the ten commandments" let alone do it. haha.. are these allogations correct Purple? | |
| From: Robert ® | 14/08/00
18:23:12 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116615 |
| Interpretations
of the *method* of God may vary but the truth of the fact still remains.
Interpretations vary, but the fact still remains .... how? If two interpretations say completely different things, how can any truth remain? | |
| From: Manfred ® | 14/08/00
18:23:24 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116616 |
| My dear echelon, Your heart is in the right spot, no doubt about that, but this is not a site to make a sermon in the simplistic way you have. What you have said has been said a thousand times before by others as well meaning as you and to read such words on this site is really a turn-off to many bright minds pondering the meaning of life, or even God. You really have to come up with something new and challenging, in other words, something truly inspiring and you'll find people will acknowledge that and give you a guernsey for it. I for one hope to read your further entries on this site with interest. | |
| From: B.C. ® | 14/08/00
18:27:10 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116617 |
| "I may not agree with what you
say or believe but I will fight to the death for your right to say
it"--Francois Marie Voltair and BC | |
| From: Robert ® | 14/08/00
18:28:29 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116618 |
| 1) Non-sequiteur; Chance strawman
similar to anti-evolution arguments 2) Just an observation, not an argument/reason 3) Authority fallacy 4) Genesis (when taken literally) certainly does conflict with science - next time, make the Sun first. 5) Slippery slope fallacy | |
| From: Miscellaneous | 14/08/00
18:31:04 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116620 |
| Echelon, I don't believe that I
can agree with you. For a start, there is no definitive proof that the universe actually began anywhere - it's merely a concept. In addition, there are no actual proofs that any of what you say is true. Prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that God exists, then I'll believe you. And to those who decide that it doesn't matter, let's just believe in God because if God exists, you benefit, and if God does not exist, there is no loss, I say, read the works of Terry Pratchett. At some point in there he deals with this. | |
| From: Robert ® | 14/08/00
18:32:15 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116621 |
| Perhaps the list should
read: Reasons* to believe in God: 1) Faith. ? If in fact faith is deemed reasonable | |
| From: Manfred ® | 14/08/00
18:54:55 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116632 |
| You said: "Prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that God exists, then I'll believe you." God does not need to be proven and people should be asked to prove the existence of God because they then fall into the trap of wanting to provide a proof which isn't there. Believing in God is a personal matter and space on this site could be used for more productive topics than giving testimonials of ones belief or arguing whether God exists or not. | |
| From: Alan McLachlan ® | 14/08/00
18:58:50 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116637 |
| echelon, I have no fundamental problem with you espousing religious views; since you live in a free country you're fully entitled. However, I do have a problem with a single book being used as "evidence" for anything. You stated: "The book of Genesis in the bible declares the origin of the material universe" Who cares? It's a book. Written by humans ('inspired' or otherwise). If science texts didn't contain repeatable experiments and observations I would have no reason to believe them. Fortunately science texts DO tend to contain repeatable observations and experiments. The Old Testament is primarily a history text written by a bunch of different people. As a guide to living it is so riddled with contradictions and now-irrelevant advice as to be nearly useless. And the New Testament isn't much better. Great reading though. I have several versions (King James, Good News, Gideons). But it isn't "evidence" of anything. I am sick of JW's, Mormons and other doorknockers saying "it must be so - it's in the Bible". Science is progressive and self-correcting. Sure, there have been plenty of fallacious ideas upheld in the name of science. But eventually the weight of evidence tends to promote advancement of truth. There may be temporary excursions into perception bias, but that just slows progress for brief periods. Blind faith in a dead text is a different story; it does no-one any good. If I were to take the text of the Old Testament literally, I'd be out there sacrificing a calf next weekend (probably will anyway - over the barbecue!). So please, please don't quote the Bible as "evidence" for as a declaration of physical fact in a science forum. It is about as relevant as quoting the Koran, the Torah, or Mein Kampf. For the record, I accept the possibility of the existence of God. I have seen no (real) evidence for or against God. However all RELIGIONS are the product of human beings. Who is to say who is right, the Roman Catholics, the Muslims, Buddhists, ancient Mesopotamians who worshipped Marduk long before David or Jesus were born, a jungle tribe of sun-worshippers??? You get the point (I hope). | |
| From: Janet ® | 14/08/00
18:59:19 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116638 |
| 2) Moral Code:
Each individual has a moral code, a conscience deep
within Yep, I guess you're right on that one....but I'm glad mine isn't the same as Chopper Reed's(sp?).... | |
| From: lucifer ® | 14/08/00
18:59:50 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116639 |
| I got nuttin to say on the
subject. Big D Ps. Dont forget to vote in Trev(TAO)s poll if you have not already done so. | |
| From: DangerousAngel ® | 14/08/00
19:01:46 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116640 |
| How, my friends, have we come so
far? A large number of threads have become thrashing matches between Religion and Science. This is not a Scientific argument. We are not here to dispute the existence of God, Christian or otherwise. We are here to discuss Quantum mechanics, the space-time continuem (sp), and the design and creation of Light Sabres. Echelon believes that God is around, a number of us have faith in science. So what? Where two scientific theorys disagree, then we have have a discussion about it...I don't think that this is the place to have science v. religion slanging matches. DangerousAngel | |
| From: Manfred ® | 14/08/00
19:08:31 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116643 |
| Well said, DangerousAngel. You probably might have an inkling then that the world was created a long, long time AFTER it ACTUALLY was. May the force be with you. :-) | |
| From: Miscellaneous | 14/08/00
19:10:16 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116644 |
| Besides, if you really want, I
think I remember a couple of quotes from MZLs work "The Book of Genetics"
in the Jolly Libel [no prizes for guessing the name] - "In the beginning
there was Physics," Actually [embarassed], that's all I can remember. | |
| From: DangerousAngel ® | 14/08/00
19:11:28 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116645 |
| Wasn't the universe created in a
galaxy far far away, Manfred? :) There were subtle undertones to your post that I will not acknowledge... Because I didn't get it. DA. | |
| From: DangerousAngel ® | 14/08/00
19:15:00 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116650 |
| Misc, I'm sure in the beginning
there were Physics, along with (depending on which camp you subscribe
to...) A. Nothing (well, and physics). B. Everything. C. God. E. Coruscant. DA. (I vote for A...) | |
| From: DangerousAngel ® | 14/08/00
19:17:02 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116651 |
| By the way, D. was just too
silly... So I left it out. DA. **feeling pretty silly*** | |
| From: Alan McLachlan ® | 14/08/00
19:29:54 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116656 |
| Manfred, "You probably might have an inkling then that the world was created a long, long time AFTER it ACTUALLY was." I have seen this posted often. What the heck do you mean "created after it actually was"? Doesn't make sense. Want to explain??? | |
| From: Min-Zhao Lee (TRO) | 14/08/00
20:03:39 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116665 |
| An entire science forum is a bit
much to convert, eh? I don't recall any commandment that said, "Spread these beliefs at any cost, using any means you see fit." Then again, I live by principles, not morals. I don't see any inherent "good" in myself, just a weak attempt at reason. | |
| From: allan | 14/08/00
20:33:42 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116680 |
| Is there a need to explain the
meaning of everything.Does not religion mean belive in something without
prove. | |
| From: allan | 14/08/00
20:34:17 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116682 |
| Is there a need to explain the
meaning of everything.Does not religion mean belive in something without
proof. | |
| From: Alan McLachlan ® | 14/08/00
21:01:22 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116694 |
| allan, Absolutely. But my point was that a whole bunch of fundamentalist nutbags go around trying to "prove" their faith to others using the Bible as "Evidence". If they came and said "I beleive in God, and I need no proof" I would have a lot more respect for them. The time they spend justifying their arguments with oblique references to obscure passages in the Bible could be better put to doing good deeds to convert by example. | |
| From: Cam ® | 14/08/00
21:06:54 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116696 |
You may not agree with what I say or beleive but I will fight to your death my right to say it. - Someone Else. :o) | |
| From: Richard C | 14/08/00
21:11:54 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116698 |
| Cam, CD quoted that earlier tonight, it is neonetheless, very appropriate. Long live the spirit of tolerance. | |
| From: DangerousAngel ® | 14/08/00
21:14:00 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116699 |
| Yes, very apt guys. Are we done with the theological discussion yet? DangerousAngel | |
| From: Richard C | 14/08/00
21:14:52 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116700 |
| neonetheless (!) I'd better give
up big words that I can't spell. | |
| From: Grant¹ (Avatar) | 14/08/00
21:15:58 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116701 |
Are we done with the theological discussion yet? If any of the previous threads are any indication, it hasn't even started yet. | |
| From: Richard C | 14/08/00
21:17:43 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116702 |
| I'd been wondering if this topic
was really appropriate to a Science Forum, but if Paul Davies and Freeman
Dyson can win the Templeton prize - why
not. | |
| From: DangerousAngel ® | 14/08/00
21:18:38 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116703 |
| Grant and everyone, I still
maintain that this is neither the time, nor the place to have such
discussions - especially considering it always seems to be Echelon on to
everyone else - and He/she seemd to have left the building... Kind takes the fun out... DA. | |
| From: standing up for God | 14/08/00
21:23:27 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116704 |
| hey! dangerous when is the right
time? when its too late for you I guess!!! | |
| From: Trev(TAO) ® | 14/08/00
21:24:36 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116705 |
yes lets get on to the hard
questions like who is the dominant group Mutants or Velvets
;-P Trev(TAO) Ps. Dont forget to vote if you have not already done so. | |
| From: DangerousAngel ® | 14/08/00
21:27:56 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116707 |
| SUFG (good name!), my father
always used to say never to talk about religion and politics amongst
friends. ;) DangerousAngel. | |
| From: standing up for God | 14/08/00
21:29:29 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116708 |
| if he used to say that then what
does he say now | |
| From: DangerousAngel ® | 14/08/00
21:33:51 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116709 |
| Father DangerousAngels Tips for
living... A. Don't buy cheep tools, because expensive ones will last a life time. B. Girls often make passes at Guys who wear glasses. C. Don't angst during sex - it's not an exam. D. If you tell her you'll call, them call - if you don't intend to call, keep your mouth shut. E. If you have an erection in company don't hide it, you never know where it might lead... I hope you all get as much from my fathers guidance as I have! (personal fav is B.) DA. | |
| From: James R (Avatar) | 14/08/00
23:35:59 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116749 |
| Here we go again... echelon: Your reasons for believing in God are as valid as anybody else's reasons. People believe in God for lots of different reasons; belief tends to be a very personal thing. I respect your beliefs, and your right to express those beliefs, and I will be the last to say that you are wrong to believe in God. While you might be quite satisfied with your reasons for belief, these reasons are not scientifically water tight. That's not to say that your reasons are wrong. It is just that you have set yourself an impossible task. If you could give sound scientific, logical reasons for believing in God, this would be tantamount to providing strong scientific evidence of the existence of God. But God's existence has not been scientifically verified yet, and it might never be. I must say that it is unusual for me to be taking the side of the non-believers, but I will make a few negative comments here and try to provide another perspective below. Physical rules of the universe exist. Someone defined them. Matter exists. How did it come into existance? *Design* is evident everywhere you look. Look at your motherboard in your computer. Could this have come about by an explosion down at Dick Smith? (A crude example but try to grasp the principal.) This is the commonly expressed argument from design. The universe appears equisitely designed, and design seems to imply a Designer. But this argument doesn't hold up. A good comparison is the evolution of complex lifeforms on Earth. The processes of natural selection and mutation have resulted in species superbly adapted to their environments, but there is no requirement for a God to intervene in the evolutionary process. I should add, for what it's worth, that I personally find the argument from the design one of the most convincing arguments in favour of God's existence. I'm merely pointing out that it is far from a proof. Each individual has a moral code, a conscience deep within. We are made in God's image. Love is preferable to Hate. Truth is preferable to Lies. Inanimate gas\particles, no matter how they are arranged, simply cannot have a conscience. Conscience requires consciousness - true. But moral codes are culturally (and probably biologically) relative. Whilst I personally agree with you that "love is preferable to hate" and so on, I don't think these things are self-evident truths. And even if they are, they can exist without God. testimonies of countless people, who are intelligent beings just like you have experienced the presence and true power of God first hand. I am not talking about *religion* but a realtionship with your creator. Many Great minds accept that a God must exist, despite the theory of evolution. Countless people could be wrong. Besides, people may arrive at similar conclusions about morals without necessarily referring to the idea of God. One further point worth mentioning is that God need not exist "despite the theory of evolution". Evolution and God are quite capable of co-existing in harmony with one another. One is a scientific theory; the other is beyond scientific enquiry. 4) Science has limits: Science does not disprove or replace God, it simply deconstructs and studies what has been created. The book of Genesis in the bible declares the origin of the material universe. Interpretations of the *method* of God may vary but the truth of the fact still remains. I agree with your first sentence (with some reservation about the word "created"). Genesis, on the other hand, is a fairly shaky foundation on which to build a belief, since much of it is in direct conflict with accepted science. Everything in the universe is dependant on something. Follow the hierachy of dependancy, up and up. Eventually it must stop somewhere at something *outside* of the system. It's God! He does not depend on anyone or anything. His word holds everything. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "dependent" in this context. Dependent for what - existence? We *assume* in our rational minds, that something which cannot be proven cannot be possible. This is not always true. Even in the rigid field of mathematics it is accepted that there are some undoubtedly true statements which cannot ever be proved. (cf. Godel's theorems). Unless science explains such questions as, 'Why does the universe exist?', then creation by God is the only possible answer. This is a false dichotomy. If science can't explain the origin of the universe, there are other alternatives in addition to the "God made it" explanation. Even if you could establish that science is at a loss to explain the universe, this gets you no closer to establishing | |
| From: James R (Avatar) | 15/08/00
0:04:38 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116753 |
| Now, for some balance, I'd like
to make a few comments for the other side of the debate: Andrew: But for the record, the reason I believe in science more so than God is that it makes a lot more sense. It doesn't have to be an either-or thing. Science and God are not opposites. They can co-exist without conflict. Saying that you believe in science more than you believe in God is really comparing apples and oranges. The requisite types of belief are quite different. What you're really saying here is "I don't believe in God", which is a statement which has nothing to do with science. spud: there is an 11th commandment, but it said "Doth any of these disagree choose not to follow" This is the only commandment the christian faith belives in. I suggest you study the Christian faith before you start making such authoritative pronouncements about it. Miscellaneous: Prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that God exists, then I'll believe you. Prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth goes around the sun. If you can't, tell me why you believe it does. DangerousAngel: This is not a Scientific argument. We are not here to dispute the existence of God, Christian or otherwise. We are here to discuss Quantum mechanics, the space-time continuem (sp), and the design and creation of Light Sabres. I agree that this isn't a scientific argument. However, I don't mind discussing these issues. There are few forums in which religion and science can be usefully discussed by people who actually know about science. Also, since scientists now seem to be intruding into areas previously reserved for theologians, I think it is fair that the theologians should be able to have a say. If this particular topic is not to your taste, you don't have to read this thread. In fact, you could ignore all threads with "God" in the title if you like. Personally, I find that this type of discussion is usually more interesting than the 5132nd repeat of "What would happen if I travelled faster than the speed of light?" Manfred: You probably might have an inkling then that the world was created a long, long time AFTER it ACTUALLY was. This is not the first time you have posted this statement. As far as I am aware, you have never explained what you mean by it. Would you care to elaborate, please? Do you know something the rest of us don't? MZL: I live by principles, not morals. I don't see any inherent "good" in myself, just a weak attempt at reason. What do you mean by "principles"? Everybody has some type of value system. There are no absolute moral standards. We choose between different moral stances.* * Or perhaps there are absolute standards. This is a philosophical discussion in itself. Hmmm.... Alan M: No complaints at this time :) JR | |
| From: James R (Avatar) | 15/08/00
0:13:32 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116754 |
| [Damn! The word limit chopped
off the end of my first post, above. Continuing...] This is a false dichotomy. If science can't explain the origin of the universe, there are other alternatives in addition to the "God made it" explanation. Even if you could establish that science is at a loss to explain the universe, this gets you no closer to establishing the existence of God. ---- echelon, I am not saying that your reasons for believing in God are bad reasons. I am simply pointing out that they do not add up to a good scientific argument for God. This is not surprising, since at this stage I don't think that such an argument exists. Again, this doesn't by any stretch mean that God doesn't exist; that's a separate issue. JR | |
| From: Andrew ® | 15/08/00
0:16:04 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116756 |
| Jim - I'll clarify - I can more easily accept claims made by scientists and suchlike that have a logical, proven basis, than I can those made by most religions, which rarely have a sound basis and are more likely to be based on such things as faith. But religion and God have been pretty much spoiled for me. Growing up in a very christian environment where my father is a minister (and my mother soon to be one) meant religion and God were not fundamental anchors in my life - just Dad's job - what we did every Sunday. People say they go to church and have moments of self-revelation - it all seems to make sense now, that kind of thing. I feel that way about science. I ask alot of questions in life. I prefer answers like, "The chlorine atom bonds to the sodium atom because they have complimentary outer shell configurations" (doesn't make too much sense the way I've said it but I'm not going into specifics), to "Stop questioning the ineffable will of God, and accept your place in His Plan." I don't like His Plan. I prefer His Chemisty. Makes a whole lot more sense to me. | |
| From: Andrew ® | 15/08/00
0:18:39 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116757 |
| To be more specific with regards
to your comment, James, I do realise that it's not an either/or thing. I
know alot of people that are quite comfortable with both the teachings of
science and religion, despite the fact that quite alot is mutually
contradictory. I do believe that science is closer to the truth than
religion. Hence I do believe in science, but not God.
| |
| From: Terry Frankcombe (Avatar) | 15/08/00
0:20:20 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116758 |
| JR, just to pick up on one of
your points... There are no absolute moral standards. This is why I get slightly annoyed when people start going on about "basic human rights". There are no such things, in my opinion. There are things that we all like and want, and a lot of people believe that it's A Good Thing to let other people have them too. These are not rights, just preferences. | |
| From: James R (Avatar) | 15/08/00
0:26:29 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116760 |
| Thanks for clearing that up for
me, Andrew. I can see your point about the teachings of science and religion sometimes being contradictory. Certainly a belief in the literal truth of the bible is unsustainable. However, no viable religions these days are this fundamentalist. I would say that valid (for want of a better word) modern religion is quite distinct from science. The spheres in which science and religion operate are totally different. Science tells us how the world works. Religion sets moral standards, and attempts to answer questions beyond the scope of scientific enquiry. There is little room for overlap between religion and science, and where such overlap exists I think the two can be reconciled. JR | |
| From: DV (Avatar) | 15/08/00
0:28:35 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116762 |
| 1) Origin of
the earth. Nothingness requires no explanation. But something requires an
explanation. Look around you. Do you see nothing or something? Physical
rules of the universe exist. Someone defined them. Matter exists. How did
it come into existance? *Design* is evident everywhere you look. Look at
your motherboard in your computer. Could this have come about by an
explosion down at Dick Smith? (A crude example but try to grasp the
principal.) Complexity does not imply design. Much of the complexity we see in the world is more than adequately explained by simple laws. This leads to the question of the origin of the laws. THis is an interesting question, but in part the fact that this question is asked points to an assumption: that everything requires a cause or origin. Even if we chose to arbitrarily invoke the existence of Gos to account for the laws, it wouldn't solve the problem, but simply shift it, since we would now be forced to ask "What is the origin of the laws that allow God's existence." If we can accept that God exists without cause, then we may as well "cut out the middle man" and accept that the universe exists without cause. 2) Moral Code: Each individual has a moral code, a conscience deep within. We are made in God's image. Love is preferable to Hate. Truth is preferable to Lies. Inanimate gas\particles, no matter how they are arranged, simply cannot have a conscience. Clearly, a glance at the history of the world shows that much of the hate that has existed has stemmed from religion. Nothing in the past or present would lead one to the notion that a belief in God reduces hate. The comment about inanimate gas particles seems to reflect a confusion of levels. Water droplets in the air are not dazzling arrays of colour, but when viewed from a certain angle, they come together to make rainbows. Although I am made of atoms, none of the atoms shows evidence of being DV. A carbon atom stolen from my body would not be distinguishable from a carbon atom taken from a lump of marble. The complexity that is DV comes from the arrangement of the atoms. There is nothing about DV that is incompatible with the notion that my atoms behave under the regular laws of physics and chemistry. 3) The christian experience: testimonies of countless people, who are intelligent beings just like you have experienced the presence and true power of God first hand. I am not talking about *religion* but a realtionship with your creator. Many Great minds accept that a God must exist, despite the theory of evolution. Many great minds accepted that the sun went about the earth, that birthmarks were indicators of witchcraft or that eclipses portended evil. Your argument from authority is worse than meaningless. But lets run with this: your argument seems to be that A) Many people have had spiritual experiences that they explain by the existance of God. (undisputed) B) Therefore God exists. This seems to rely on an unstated rule: C) If many people have had spiritual experiences that they explain by the existance of X , then X must exist. I present to you the following, which I presume you will argue. E) Many people have had spiritual experiences that they explain by the existance of the Greek pantheon headed by Zeus. (undisputed) F) Many people have had spiritual experiences that they explain by the existance of Jehovah. (undisputed) If C) is true then this would imply: G) The Greek pantheon headed by Zeus. H) Jehovah exists. The specific properties of each of these two precludes the existance of the other. In other words, either G) or H) (or both) must be false, therefore C) must be false. Therefore, we cannot go directly from A) to B): the fact that many people have had spiritual experiences that they explain by the existance of God does not imply the existance of God. This is not proof that God does not exist. It is simply a proof (known as a reduction to the absurd) that the evidence presented in your part 3 does not lead us to accept that God exists. 4) Science has limits: Science does not disprove or replace God, it simply deconstructs and studies what has been created. The book of Genesis in the bible declares the origin of the material universe. Interpretations of the *method* of God may vary but the truth of the fact still remains. God's creative work was progressive: 1st the world of matter, 2nd the system of life, 3rd humans. This does not conflict with science. Science does indeed have limits. It is constrained by evidence. The book of Genesis (as you must surely be aware) is completely at odds with the physical evidence available to anyone who cares to examine the matter. The first three chapters alone contain more contradictions and absurdities than one would normally expect in an enti | |
| From: DV (Avatar) | 15/08/00
0:29:34 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116763 |
| continued... 4) Science has limits: Science does not disprove or replace God, it simply deconstructs and studies what has been created. The book of Genesis in the bible declares the origin of the material universe. Interpretations of the *method* of God may vary but the truth of the fact still remains. God's creative work was progressive: 1st the world of matter, 2nd the system of life, 3rd humans. This does not conflict with science. Science does indeed have limits. It is constrained by evidence. The book of Genesis (as you must surely be aware) is completely at odds with the physical evidence available to anyone who cares to examine the matter. The first three chapters alone contain more contradictions and absurdities than one would normally expect in an entire library. 5) Follow the ladder: Everything in the universe is dependant on something. Follow the hierachy of dependancy, up and up. Eventually it must stop somewhere at something *outside* of the system. It's God! He does not depend on anyone or anything. His word holds everything. I urge you, don't make the mistake of dismissing that which science cannot explain. Science is just another tool we have invented for understanding that which has been created. It does not provide an alternative answer, because it is an incomplete answer. It cannot answer the most fundamental scientific question, *WHY* is there a universe? We *assume* in our rational minds, that something which cannot be proven cannot be possible. But what evidence could there possibly be to prove the universe was created if it was infact created? The bible states is was created out of nothing. We cannot disprove creation, so we must accept it may be possible. Use your own judgement. Neither science nor philosophy nor any other man made 'tool' can answer everything. Why do I choose the answer in God over the answer in science? This is really like comparing apples and oranges. Most of what science states does not contradict the bible. It's the questions that science DOES NOT answer that makes God so very believeable. Unless science explains such questions as, 'Why does the universe exist?', then creation by God is the only possible answer. And so we are back to the objection I raised in part 1. Suppose we accept that the existance of any thing depends upon something else. You state (without evidence) that this chain of existance eventually leads to God. The sensible question is then: "on what does God depend?" Your answer "He does not depend on anyone or anything." Obviously, if we can accept this, then we need not go this far: if something can exist without depending on anything, then why would we introduce the complexity of dependance? The "chain of dependance" has been broken. Rather than arbitrarily invent a character to hold the top of the rope for us, we can simply say that if God can exist without cause, then the same could just as easily (and without less evidence) that anything else does. The same objection applies to your last statements. "Why does the universe exist?" You answer, "because of God". This only moves the problem back a stage, since we now have to ask "Why does God exist?" These philosophical problems are very deep and interesting and it may be that we will never solve them, but it should be understood that simply making up an answer on the basis of no evidence is not the same as solving the problem. | |
| From: Andrew ® | 15/08/00
0:33:59 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116764 |
| True However, there are alot of people, if not whole religions then at least large portions of them, that do still take the bible or other religious texts at thier literal word. For instance I have a friend who resolutely will not budge from preaching that homosexuality is a deadly sin (interestingly enough, it's ok to be gay, so long as you don't have gay sex, according to her it's the act that's the problem) because Paul can be quoted as openly condemning it. However, when I showed her a post someone made a while back qouting a letter to Dr. Laura (any help people? as to where that is and who made it and such?) talking about a bunch of things the bible says, such as killing your neighbour for working on the sabbath, she said that kind of thing wasn't meant to be taken literally. Back to science, the people I've met who are cool with both religion and science tend to realise that the bible is not meant to be taken at it's word all the time. Most of the Genesis and earlier books are the annals of a people, complete with myths and stories for the campfire to explain something they didn't really understand. | |
| From: James R (Avatar) | 15/08/00
0:34:14 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116765 |
| Terry, A "right", as opposed to a "like" or "want", is based on law. "Basic human rights" are things which all civilised societies agree should have the status of law. Law, in turn, is based on morality, so "basic human rights" are things which a majority of civilised people consider A Good Thing, as you say. Yes, they are preferences - the preferences of the majority. But they are strongly expressed preferences, with the status of International Law (see Universal Declaration of Human Rights). It is a pity that international law is not always enforced (or even enforceable). JR | |
| From: Alan™ ® | 15/08/00
0:43:29 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116770 |
| Without reading through the
entire thread.... Echelon, I really don't care what you believe in, whether it's God or pixies in your back garden. Can you remember his is a science forum and not a religous forum. | |
| From: Andrew ® | 15/08/00
0:48:13 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116775 |
| Good point Alan, though alot of
science minded people, as in those who populate this forum, do like to
discuss abstracts, such as religion. Also, alot of religious minded people
like to find a bunch of scientists and evangelise. But it is getting kinda
annoying - massively long religious arguements - which are all really
saying the same thing as all the previous. But of course, like echelon,
everyone likes to have their say, make their point. And while I'm here, I can never remember - is "thier" "ie" or "ei"??? | |
| From: Alan™ ® | 15/08/00
0:51:12 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116777 |
| their | |
| From: Andrew ® | 15/08/00
0:55:40 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116781 |
| Thanks Alan - that's about the
only word I've never been sure of. :) | |
| From: DAZZA ® | 15/08/00
2:39:17 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116793 |
| |
| From: Indigo | 15/08/00
8:19:35 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116808 |
| 'Morning all... I'm enjoying this thread immensely, as I always find intelligent discussion of spiritual matters to be valuable. No specific comments this morning except to say that those who think that this is not an appropriate forum might revisit some recent topics before displaying an anti-religion bias. I haven't been a visitor to this forum for long, but I am thinking of some very entertaining discussions recently on moisturising cream, and lingerie, amongst others. Surely this is as appropriate to this forum as those... ...Chris :) | |
| From: Cerian ® | 15/08/00
9:58:52 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116820 |
| I'm with Alan on this
one..... It's not science, it's bloody nonsense, and I don't know why the rest of you are even bothereing to respond......... [ like I just didn't ;-) ] | |
| From: Joseph | 15/08/00
10:13:30 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116824 |
| echelon, I do not believe in
god. | |
| From: Paul H. | 15/08/00
10:18:30 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116825 |
| Indigo-Chris opined, I haven't been a visitor to this forum for long, but I am thinking of some very entertaining discussions recently on moisturising cream, and lingerie, amongst others. Surely this is as appropriate to this forum as those... Right, ie; not at all. I still think Aunty should create a seperate Forum where inane entertainment is the goal. Call it the Self Service Social Forum, where football tipping and the Taste of Sperm-type topics would be right at home. I think the guff-to-content ratio in SSSF is way too high. Re: the immortal Does God Exist topic; I think each of the endlessly repeated 'arguments' presented by Believers should be addressed in the FAQ, and each time an argument (from Design, from Authority, etc) is raised, the Believer should be pointed at the FAQ. It would save a lot of well-meaning (but let's face it, pointless) typing by athiests. You could start with http://icarus.uic.edu/~vuletic/cefec.html" target=new>this. No Thiest has ever changed their mind because someone pointed out the errors in their reasoning. regards, Paul 'Add-this-to-the-Guff-Pile' H. | |
| From: DangerousAngel ® | 15/08/00
10:19:43 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116826 |
| James R, I agree, and in direct opposition to what I said last night - I do enjoy reading these threads. I just don't like the way they tend to become slanging matches between everyone (myself included). I'm sure, now, that we have flogged this dead horse enough. Echelon, Can the bible tell us what color that bloody orange is? :) DangerousAngel | |
| From: Joseph | 15/08/00
12:18:56 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116933 |
| echelon, you may need to draw a
distinction between reality and fantasy. Reality and fantasy both exist,
but only one of them is real. This forum tends to explore reality, rather
than indulge in fantasy. Religion is a fantasy. Science is a
reality. | |
| From: DangerousAngel ® | 15/08/00
12:21:18 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116940 |
| This is a perfect example of the
slanging that I was refering to before, Joseph. I don't think it is necessary. DangerousAngel | |
| From: echelon | 15/08/00
12:52:29 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116969 |
| Hello to all. Well it seems that
the flaming fury of the list has calmed down now, so I feel safe
to return and give my final thoughts. I find such topics extremely interesting. We cannot assume that all aspects of the debate have been covered in the FAQ. So I feel there is benefit to openly discuss the possible existance of God. For the record I'd like to say that I do respect peoples right to have there own view. My main motivation for raising such a taboo subject was not to provide undeniable evidence for the existance of God, (because I dont believe such evidence exists) but rather to, 1:promote pondering on such an important and intriguing question 2:point out problems with using proof as ones foundation when not everything in the universe can be proven.Thus (hopefully) promoting a more rounded approach to life's many questions. In regard to these two points, you may or may not agree, but that is the whole beauty of an open and unmoderated list. Isnt this the best way to advance ourselves. What benefit is a list where we all think the same? Id like to thank those who maintanied balance in the debate and kept it from a becomming a slanging match. In response to those people who questioned the relevance of my topic, Id like to say two things. The thread was titled appropriately so that those not interested could simply skip it. And secondly, I find it no less relevant than many other highly interesting threads posted in the past. Best wishes to you all. I look forward to many more interesting discussions. | |
| From: Paul H. | 15/08/00
13:01:18 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116978 |
| ...raising such a
taboo subject. Taboo, my lost ass! It's one of the hot favorites! Right up there with Black Holes, Speed of Bloody Light and the Taste of Sperm (No, I've been scarred, I'll never forget that one). I find it no less relevant than many other highly interesting threads posted in the past. Amen. If you know what I mean. | |
| From: Dusty ® | 15/08/00
13:04:53 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116979 |
| problems with using proof as
ones foundation when not everything in the universe can be
proven Seems as good a foundation as any. Certain better than most, since it offers a reasonable consistency. And it also offers flexibility, the chance to change direction as needed rather than stagnating under the weight of the status quo. That said, every belief has some form of underlying support. Every belief system has a point at which things are not questioned because they are self-evidently so. The difference is where those systems of belief chose to rest their respective cases. Religion did so thousands of years ago. Science keeps poking around the edges trying to make the "self-evident" as small an area as possible. Little wonder then that religions often find themselves without relevance in the modern world, and thus with followers. Or at the very least, without senseless, easily lead mobs they once had. Dusty | |
| From: DV (Avatar) | 15/08/00
13:05:25 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116981 |
| Good luck to you,
echelon. BTW, although some specific religious questions might be deemed unrelated to science, I have to say that I think that the broad question "Does God exist" is entirely within the scientific ambit. By this, I don't mean that science can answer the question, but that it can certainly focus and comment on the issue. I would also like to say that I am pleased by the current balance in this forum. If you look down the topic list, the huge bulk of the topics are science related. If non-science topics occasionally pop up, then I don't mind. If we were to severely restrict the topics, some of the colour would go from the place: I'm happy that this is a science "hangout" rather than an online form of a peer-reviewed journal. | |
| From: Terry Frankcombe (Avatar) | 15/08/00
13:08:21 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116985 |
| We cannot assume
that all aspects of the debate have been covered in the
FAQ. You're right. Assumptions have not been made. That's why a common response to this sort of question is: "Go off and read the previous threads. If you still feel you have something to contribute that hasn't been said before, fire away." It is you who has assumed that you have something new to add to the debate. | |
| From: CJW ® | 15/08/00
13:09:38 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116986 |
| "Long live the spirit of
tolerance." We should be out there bashing tolerance down people's throats. | |
| From: Paul H. | 15/08/00
13:11:45 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116991 |
If you look down the topic list, the huge bulk of the topics are science related. 'Topics' perhaps. Individual posts, I'm not so sure. I think the huge bulk of posts are about off-topic stuff. I'd like to see an analysis of this. I reckon two-thirds of posts are not science related. | |
| From: echelon | 15/08/00
13:11:45 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116992 |
| Hi Terry, I admit I didnt read
the FAQ, I am new to the list and could have used a gentle push towards
the FAQ. On another note, I think some people engaged in a stimulating
thread that they otherwise would niot have. take care. | |
| From: Terry Frankcombe (Avatar) | 15/08/00
13:20:04 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116996 |
| JR A "right", as opposed to a "like" or "want", is based on law. I guess we can play the definitional game. Down deep I am still a motorbike-riding, trout-tickling, deer-poaching Tasmanian farm boy with a healthy disrespect for the law. | |
| From: Mjr | 15/08/00
13:23:15 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
116998 |
| deer-poaching "How do you like your deer, Dear?... Sunny side up, or sunny side down?" ;) Mjr (NUFAH) | |
| From: CJW ® | 15/08/00
13:26:23 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
117000 |
| Echelon: "stimulating thread that
they otherwise would not have." Thankyou. Do you have any concrete walls we can bash our heads against as well. We like doing that. | |
| From: echelon | 15/08/00
13:34:04 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
117004 |
| What do you mean by the concrete
wall bit CJW? | |
| From: CJW ® | 15/08/00
13:55:05 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
117018 |
"What do you mean by the concrete wall bit CJW?" I'm saying that until you concede that there may be lies or incorrect information in the bible, then you are not really listening to a thing we are saying. So, it is not stimulating, so much as frustrating. Didn't you pick a bit of that up? | |
| From: CJW ® | 15/08/00
14:26:47 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
117034 |
So, to elaborate on this a bit more, so I can go to lunch. Say you have a child who repeatedly says "1+1=3". You can have many stimulating conversations about fundamental mathematics trying to prove to the child that 1+1=2. But, if the child then says 1+1=3, then the child has not really been a part of the conversation. I get the impression from previous threads that you would not be satisfied with the geological explanation for the "ark" in Turkey, unless you had become a geologist yourself and had gone over there and studied it. Let's say you did. And your conclusion (after 15 years of study) was that the ark was just a rock. Would you then turn around and agree with the 99.9999% of geologists who also said this? How would you feel if fundamentalist Christians then ignored you, and said, "you are in with the conspiracy"? Would you re-evaluate your position, or would you just go off and look for another ark? At some point you have to choose roughly who to believe. That way, you don't have to go off and study every "ark" which pops up. There are, of course, thousands of "arks" from every belief. If you are open minded on a topic, there is usually a way of harvesting the information from others to come to a pretty good conclusion. | |
| From: Robert ® | 15/08/00
15:49:12 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
117063 |
| Prove to me
beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth goes around the sun. If you
can't, tell me why you believe it does. I'm not sure about this equating acceptance of scientific data/facts with faith in God, pseudoscience etc. There seem to me to be a couple of fundamental differences: When people accept scientific facts, they are accepting the word of multiple sources which they normally don't provide in cases where the sheer range of sources is so multifarious as to seemingly defy enumeration - they are quoting the work of others who have put in the time and effort into actually making sure the Earth goes around the Sun. What they are accepting is not "The Earth goes around the Sun", but rather "The Earth goes around the Sun, according to this/these source(s)" or they are saying, "I think the best theory as to what goes on in our solar system is that the Earth and all the other planets in the Solar System go around the Sun (unless you want to be pedantic and talk about frames of reference and the like), and if you want supporting evidence look here, here and here." However, whenever a fact is accepted (or a source, etc.) it is implicit that it is, like all things scientific, open to examination if someone feels it is necessary. What appears as a blatant example of the authority fallacy, accepting the words of 'experts' as gospel, is only used as a guide not as a rule. Although the evidence is indirect and relatively weak compared to doing the work yourself, it is a far cry from unreserved acceptance without anything at all. Which brings us to the next point -scientific facts are accepted with implicit qualifications, such as pending evidence to the contrary, unlike faith which is by nature acceptance without such a qualification on the nature of the supporting evidence or on the possibilty of contrary evidence. What happens with scientific facts is that they become the 'null hypothesis', and the burden of proof is anything to the contrary. There is room there for challenge with the scientific 'fact'. Nobody can challenge someone's faith in numerology, the nature of their faith is such that it is a personal assumption, therefore other people / the outside world is only useful as a base for building more assumptions, not gleaming evidence to test that faith. An astrologist's faith will not be affected if you point out the problems of sharing fate with ~1/12 of the world's population, discrepancies when feeding different astrologists identical information, magnitude of gravitational effects from the outer galaxies etc. A person's acceptance of the speed of light in a vacuum being ~3*108m/s can easily be overturned if mistakes in the experiments that indicated that can be pointed out in a rational manner. So surely to say that faith is the same as the acceptance of scientific facts is a gross oversimplification and generalisation of the nature of the assumptions involved? In one case the assumption is admitted, in the other the assumption goes by another name and is thought to be true and not worthy of investigation* * I am guilty of throwing religion and psuedoscience in the same basket here (a simplification), obviously there are some people who would ditch their belief in God in the face of rational evidence, it is just that none exists; I am referring to the type of faith that is stubborn ----------- (Don't be offended by my laziness in not putting in "I think...." and "In my opinion...." at the start of every sentence) | |
| From: Robert ® | 15/08/00
16:02:10 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
117065 |
| That was also in response to
this: We accept many things on faith. How many of the scientific facts which you believe in have you personally verified? You may accept that Alpha Centauri is 4 light years from Earth, but have you measured it yourself? Or do you take the word of others you agree that it is that far away from their own measurements and experience? I would argue that a belief in God can be arrived at in a very similar way. (From another thread) Actually, you may prefer to elaborate on this instead: When you're talking about belief in God or other "higher" power, I don't think it is true to say that people believe without evidence You then go on to say that it's just the evidence isn't scientifically verifiable, but if evidence isn't objective, or there is no indirect evidence that is a consequence of such a thing, is there really any evidence at all? I suppose it comes down to semantics (typical), and whether you are treating the word 'evidence' as a scientific term, or as just a word that means "something that make me think this is true". | |
| From: James R (Avatar) | 15/08/00
21:07:04 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
117201 |
| Hi Robert, Taking your last comment first: You then go on to say that it's just the evidence [for God] isn't scientifically verifiable, but if evidence isn't objective, or there is no indirect evidence that is a consequence of such a thing, is there really any evidence at all? I suppose it comes down to semantics (typical), and whether you are treating the word 'evidence' as a scientific term, or as just a word that means "something that make me think this is true". I used the term "evidence" in the general sense of "facts which give reason for a belief". Evidence can be objective or subjective, even in science. Where God is concerned we have oodles of indirect evidence - millions of people assert a relationship with God, or at least a belief. Then there are religious texts which tell us all about God. Add to this the evidence in nature. Now, you can argue that some or all of this is not good evidence, but that's just a personal statement saying that you aren't willing to subscribe to the relevant belief on the basis of the evidence. What I am saying is that this evidence is good enough for many people, even if you are not convinced by it. People don't (always) believe on the basis of no evidence. When people accept scientific facts, they are accepting the word of multiple sources which they normally don't provide in cases where the sheer range of sources is so multifarious as to seemingly defy enumeration... When people accept religion, they are similarly accepting the word of multiple sources. Some of these sources are "authorities". Others are personal experiences. As is the case with science. [S]cientific facts are accepted with implicit qualifications, such as pending evidence to the contrary, unlike faith which is by nature acceptance without such a qualification on the nature of the supporting evidence or on the possibilty of contrary evidence. Non-fundamentalist followers of religions are open to the possibility that some of the tenets of their faith may turn out to be incorrect. See the comments of the Dalai Lama in The Demon Haunted World. What happens with scientific facts is that they become the 'null hypothesis', and the burden of proof is anything to the contrary. There is room there for challenge with the scientific 'fact'. Similarly, religions have their "null hypotheses", usually written down in an appropriate text. Modern religions have been forced to reassess some of their ideas which have turned out to be wrong. This hasn't resulted in the demise of those religions, but rather a strengthening. As in the case of science. Nobody can challenge someone's faith in numerology... An astrologist's faith will not be affected if you point out the problems of sharing fate with ~1/12 of the world's population, discrepancies when feeding different astrologists identical information, magnitude of gravitational effects from the outer galaxies etc. There are cases in science where people have refused to take notice of evidence which tends to contradict their pet hypothesis. Individuals can be mistaken or stubborn. This does not invalidate the whole of their beliefs. * I am guilty of throwing religion and psuedoscience in the same basket here (a simplification), obviously there are some people who would ditch their belief in God in the face of rational evidence, it is just that none exists; I am referring to the type of faith that is stubborn I would draw a distinction between pseudoscience and religion. Pseudoscience tries to gain credibility by masquerading as science. Religion does not attempt to do this; it survives on its own merits. Pseudoscience makes statements which are demonstrably wrong. The statements of religion are simply unproved. (Don't be offended by my laziness in not putting in "I think...." and "In my opinion...." at the start of every sentence) No worries. I read every statement on this forum as if it had "In my opinion..." prefacing it. I hope people read my posts with the same caveat. JR | |
| From: Alan™ ® | 15/08/00
23:13:58 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
117335 |
| My comments last night, were more
for the original post in thi thread. What you believe in and why, Echelon
is totally up to you. But I don't see the need to go and put up[ what you
believe in on a science forum. Philosophical debate is one thing, but but
the way you went about it, is not what this place is about. It is probably
of even less relevance than a thread devoted to what I'm going to have for
breakfast tomorrow morning (although that is probably more
scientific). | |
| From: Edward ® | 15/08/00
23:27:08 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
117341 |
| Quite so Alan, when I first saw
the thread title I thought there might be an accompanying thread "Why I
feel the need to tell everyone in a science forum why I believe in god",
which may have touched on psychology. Anyway, what's for breakfast? | |
| From: Joseph | 16/08/00
12:19:35 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
117534 |
| Dangerous angel, a belated
defence...if saying that religion is a fantasy is slanging, then I'll
...slang till the cows come home. | |
| From: Robert ® | 16/08/00
16:12:03 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
117722 |
| JR, Ok. :-) | |
| From: James R (Avatar) | 16/08/00
17:06:16 |
| Subject: re: Why I believe in God ! | post id:
117778 |
| What, no argument, Robert?
;) All right then. Good. JR | |