Is God All In The Mind?

[psyche101]

I just finished writing a post in the other Spirituality board where I posted This from a while back, it explains why I would strenously argue against your statement that religion has been "proven incorrect". It was never intended to be taken as literal in the first place. Even ancient theologians note that the account in Genesis is not necessarily a literally historical account, so on all counts your argument fails. I do agree that there was a significant period of time where people did literally believe the Adam-and-Eve account, but that has not always been so (as noted, even ancient theologians questioned the veracity of the text).

Perhaps I missed it, but who are these ancient theologians, I would be interested to know when the Bible was first interpreted.

I feel reformed baptists makes many observations that I would, it does indeed sound like a mix of old world and new world beliefs and indeed I am reminded of the Muslim Uni students who try to rationalise the violent verses in Islam. Problem being that a significant amount of people use these same verses in a very different manner. Just like Westboro or any Creationist would reject your version of the Bible.

It's not what I would call proof, it is more what I would call yet another independent evaluation, but this is where religion seems incredibly blinkered to me, you are taking what even you describe as poetry, and ascribing historical record to it. Words do not do that, data does. And data is where science made God redundant, you do not have anything on that level, and claiming that this is a non material subject simply does not help matter.

What you have written is interesting and well thought out, but that is it, it is not researched, it is well thought out, no data backs these assumptions. It strikes me as a theologians modern view of the Bible rather than a convincing interpretation.

And I have to say, considering Plato, I feel your references to poetry allude to the bible being a fabrication with a good thousand years of amendments, it almost reminds me of how the tale of Atlantis got blown out of proportion by Ignatius Donnelly, and now many people think Atlantis was a real place, when it was only ever in Platos head.

Tenure is not proof. One cannot start from a default position of "this is correct because it is old" and then mitigate incorrect references. That just strikes me as hindsight, not forethought.

At the end of the day, your interpretation is not the one that is being taught by the Church, the literal view is.

That would be a matter of faith, wouldn't it? Things like Jesus' resurrection, feeding five thousand people with a few loaves of bread a couple of small fish, that kind of thing.

More so than.

Again, we are back to being asked to consider a verbal as fact without actual evidence. No modern miracles seems a bit of a red flag to be honest.

Nevertheless, having had experiences that I can only put down to supernatural involvement, I cannot ignore my personal experiences. How could I, and then turn around and claim to be a seeker of truth? As such, while I cannot empirically prove my position, I am still happy to hold it.

Well, as I said, I do not expect you to share those, but it is a big ask to expect a critical thinker to believe you have actually had a supernatural experience. Too many mundane things happen that people consider supernatural every single day. With all due respect, I cannot fathom why you would simply not be another one.

I think you found what you wanted to find, it worked with your perceptions, and that was that. I feel if you were a seeker of the truth you would not stop at religion, as it really is not answer, it is just Have faith that an answer exists which is beyond you, but held by a supernatural being. People like James Randi demystifies these experiences, and I have no doubt that with proper investigation, everything can be explained adequately without needing to refer to the Supernatural, which really is just another word for imagination.

As noted in an earlier post, if you can't handle that, maybe it's your problem and not mine (and going by your comments, it seems you can't [or perhaps more correctly, don't want to] handle it).

Handle what? I do not care how you live your life, that is not for me to say. I am here for discussion. If you prefer to be theologian, go right ahead, I am not going to say your are bad or stupid to do so, I feel religion itself shows it's own faults, and mentioning that has created several avenues of hostility. People feel threatened, but I can only put that down to their faith not being as strong as they state it is, and deep down, know this is what I say it is. Not real.

Hard facts are that science can tell us how the Universe and we got here, and there are mountains of evidence which stand behind a natural Universe, not one created by God. Religion goes back to man, no two ways about it, but man claims this is the word of God imparted to man. That is not fact, the former is which is supported by swathes of evidence.

Either way, your non-belief does not affect me at all, I celebrate your right to act as you feel is best. And if that means not accepting supernatural explanations, then that is fine by me. One day we'll find out, one way or the other (maybe neither of us is right, have you considered that - I have!?!?).

Of course, in the very same way your belief does not affect me. I have been there, done that, and I feel moved on. Some have the arrogant audacity to state what my life is like, and how I am, which is not AT ALL Christian, yet claim to be devout, I have seen many very non Christian attitudes from people claiming to be Christian over the last 6 months, which are personal as your experiences be, but greatly disillusion me with regards to a Christian outlook. What I have seen insists that morality is not at all related to Christianity.

No I do not consider that neither of us is right, as I say science gives us ultimate detail, but we do not have a say in it like we do with religion. We are observers where science is concerned, so there is nothing to get wrong other than description and further observation tends to correct any error there, we are not part of the process. All we do is explain what we see. Religion relies on a tenuous claim that God spoke to man.

As far as I can see, the supernatural is disqualified, it simply does not exist and all claims of it are personal. To me, that just does not make sense, but indicates ego, man feeling so important that the most powerful being in the Universe consults him. Personal assurances that it does exist are not supported by anything more than personal assurances so from a rational point of view, until someone can prove to me that the supernatural does exist, for all intensive purposes, it appears very much to be another tall tale. To say science is the study of nature I find a strawman. Even that which is beyond nature has some sort of substance to exist, even if one we cannot identify, and therefore is subject to laws of science. We do not know exactly what happens is in a black hole either, but we know what goes into it, and how it works.

[psyche101]

On the section in bold and red, I would like to go on record as saying that I have never stated this, this is your interpretation of my words. I have never said there is a realm that science is "baffled by".

In this case, I beg to differ.

It simply cannot be addressed. Science measures the material universe, and it does that very well. Because that is what it was designed to do. But it cannot answer questions about God since God is not part of the material universe.

For the rest, your primary argument seems to be "Science has disproven God and religion, it can't help you make the decision to accept that fact, but it gives you everything you need so you should accept that God and religion have been disproven by science". To that, psyche, I call poppycock, Science has done no such thing.

How do you keep getting that?

How many times have I said science makes religion redundant by way of providing verifiable answers that the Bible has incorrect? That is not disproving God, that is removing reliance on God one bit at a time until there is nothing left for God to do, other than exist like us.

Can you point out where I said Science disproved God? I bet you can show where I said science disproved claims in the Bible, but as far as God goes, my only remark is that he did not create the Universe, he did not create man, science has made God redundant, he does not need to exist for the Universe and everything in it to exist.

The most interesting thing about that is that only the non religious people seem to Understand that, the rest of you see it as an attack.

It is better within its own field, but not necessarily better outside it.

There is no "outside" of it. Not even in a theoretical non material Universe, personal choices are not affected by science, which is what religion is. It is not a physical "thing"

1- You'll see in a later post that I have already addressed the idea of Adam's rib, and while it is true that for periods of our history this is what we believed, it hasn't always been so, and several ancient theologians questioned it on its poetic grounds (and I shared a link to an old post of mine that covers the situation pretty well if you're willing to take the time to read it).

Again, I need to see what these alleged theologians say, for all I know you may have misinterpreted that as you did the Berkley link. They are your thoughts that I did bother to read, and the rest of that thread.

2- I have no interest in sharing my personal experiences with you. I've shared one or two in my time here at UM, but I sense it would be a colossal waste of time with you. Being personal, the experiences were enough to convince me that they were real, but just like your personal experiences won't convince me of your internal truths, mine won't convince you either, so I won't waste my time trying.

How does that not sound like you think I may have a rational explanation for your claims, and might dispel that mysticism?

I did not expect you to share a personal experience at all, but obviously you have, and only willing to do so with people who you feel will agree with you that it was supernatural. Mate, that does not sounds like string faith. Not the sort of faith that I have in empirical results. It does not bother me, but actions speak louder than words.

You know I didn't grow up a Christian, right? Though my upbringing was "religious", it wasn't Christian, and I wasn't forced to believe.

And here I was........

Funny how opposite upbringings have given us opposite conclusions or is it?

As a teenager I moved away from religion altogether, I thought people who followed it were a little silly, actually. I still believed in God, but in a non-specific Deistic concept (moments of doubt led me to agnosticism, but those periods were brief).

To be honest, most teenagers do to my experience.

But that grain of belief was already planted. It is how anyone before 1980 grew up here pretty much, belief was what you were taught. Gods words was the be all end all, and Atheist was a dirty word.

I was never taught as a child that Jesus rose from the dead, that he was the son of God, that kind of thing. I became a Christian while studying Music at university (in my first stint at university, as a 19-year old; I quit the course and returned a few years later to do a Theatre degree instead). So while I had heard of Jesus and the whole Christian movement, I didn't turn to Christ seriously until an adult. There was a brief moment as a 12-year old, the first time I heard of Jesus where a fire-and-brimstone preacher scared me into belief - that lasted about three weeks before I realised living my life in fear was stupid. From there I was in and out of Christian groups, and very occasionally professed belief, but I never really accepted the belief as true until that time at university. From there, I've never looked back, and I've been all the better for it.

It is a good thing that it turned out for you well, as you know Church tore my parents apart, and did not improve my life at all, but the opposite, But you know what? That grain had been instilled in me too. I also had this niggling nugget of faith that ate away at me. I went to Church groups of my own bat. I would snap at atheists the same way so many "Christians" snap at me here, the people who deride my views here would be more than surprised to see how much religious background I have.

And yet here I am now.

Nobody really "turns" to Religion until they are adult, Child years are spent instilling that belief, yes we have confirmation and all that, but one really considers themselves part of a Church Community when they walk in there under their own will on a regular basis. One of my colleagues arrived back from Sri Lanka today. Now he is a Buddhist.

When theologians nearly two thousand years ago already observed the poetic nature of the creation account, you haven't proved squat, I'm afraid.

You keep making this claim without references....... hard to discuss when I don't know what yu are talking about.

I guess I missed that. Sorry

~ Regards,

No Probs!! Nice to lighten the mood, it is after all a discussion and I am not trying to convert people, and have said that if religion was to be made redundant, it would be by disseminating better educational standards that allow people to understand the scientific model from a young age. That is not saying people are stupid for embracing religion, it means that I feel most people do not get two sides to the story, and that is why we have so many religious, and why Atheism is only an emerging concept that has been recently allowed to exist. In some places in the world, you will still get murdered by authorities for being an atheist. That alone says just how much religion fears a level playing field.

[psyche101]

I would have thought you knew your own post well enough to know what you wrote, but in the future I will be more specific

I have made quite a few, and feel it is a big ask to get me to go back through each and every one when referenced.

But thank you, appreciated.

And I often interpret your posts as angry, I guess it's just the nature of beliefs.

Fair enough, I come form the construction Industry, most people find construction workers a little hard edged. Nothing personal, it's just how I talk all the time. Straight to the point, in my industry, one simply has to.

When we're talking about footy, it's just a game. When we talk about deeply held beliefs it is much more personal, and you can't expect the same level of emotional engagement, or the interpreted words that come from there. Heck, when it comes to State of Origin I'll sledge Third Man Thaiday every time, and you won't interpret that as an insult, it's just sledging, banter between two supporters of two teams with a long and storied rivalry. Try the same thing with deities and it's so much more personal.

And fair enough, perhaps I misinterpreted frustration as anger. It's just really hard to put what I am trying to convey in any other way, often it is the fault of those reading my posts too, I feel I have been more than clear in stating that my answer is to make religion redundant, yet every second poster thinks I want to outlaw religion. A lot of what I have to say is very generic, but being taken rather personally.

Edited January 15, 2015 by psyche101

[psyche101]

No it's not their work is. People can be good scientists and have average brains. Hardwork and presistance usually gets people farther than say IQ. People are famous for lots of reasons. I have learned never to trust famous people actually. Generally fame is a sell to the public

So you judge a book by it's cover then?

Their work is what they devoted their lives to and it is good because they were given certain advantages, and have been able to figure out things we cannot. These people have both sides of the story from an early age, and have the ability to expand upon that better than most having the right conditions to pursue them in depth.

It sounds like you agree with me, (their work is) but want to direct the conversation, are you something of a control freak at home or what?

Brains can be exercised like any other part of the body, and when these people utilise that ability better than others, they manage to understand more. Their minds have more information, they are better exercised and spend more time than probably all the posters here combined have on the specialising. That makes for a better brain. No need to be jealous, I am not, I know my limits, and admire those who stretch theirs.

Incorrect. Winnie the Pooh is not a superstition he is a cartoon cahracter and upon scientific investigation this will be found to be true, and even more incorrect Leprechauns are falsifiable and may actually have a base in reality. Most likely microcephlects or island dwarfism. The existance of God is not falsifiable and there for is not a scientific question. It can however be examined from a more legal way of sifting through evidence that does not have the restrictions good science does. http://en.m.wikipedi.../Falsifiability

So is claiming there is no God

Nonsense!! Leprechauns are NOT people with dwarfism!! Some aspects of literature might be inspired by people with Primordial Dwarfism, but Leprechauns wear Green and Live in Rainbows where they store gold, dwarves do not do any of that except perhaps intermittently wear green! Just like God lives in heaven, how would you prove to me that a rainbow is not a poetic version of a gateway into the non material Universe that God resides in? What if I say I have hidden proof that AA Milne found that gateway? How does that differ from an omnipotent being in a non material universe?

If a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it is therefore not actually testable so it's not a very useful hypothesis because it cannot be corroborated as either true or false. This kind of hypothesis has no use in the real world because our understanding of the world does not change regardless of whether it's actually true or false. As such, any hypothesis indicating God does not exist has no practical applications as there is no kind of test result that would convince you that God does not exist because you insist that there is no such test, so you will keep insisting God is real no matter what.

In science, yes absolutely.

Despite yours and PA's protests, science has no boundary, it cannot make personal decisions for one, that is not the same thing. There is no heaven, no non material Universe, you lot made that up.

No I dont. And man did not make God up. God is an exsperince rooted into our evolution and generally associated with altered states of conciousness though it dosnt have to be. See the paper I linked to earlier. There has been a lot made up about God though.

An experience is also "made up" It's not a tangible physical thing.

No NOT associated with altered states of consciousness, that is a dangerous tradition left over, and we know what drugs do, they do not bring you to god, they mess with your brain. What brings you closer to God might make another person tear the flesh from their own face.

That some people see giant tennis balls in altered states ought to be an indicator I would think.

Indeed. Philosophy that is testable can be investigated by science. A good example is the philosophy of materialism. The existance of God cannot be investigated though there might be some traces hanging about. Ther are some things we can look for if the universe is indeed created by an intelligence.

That depends on if God is a construct of the mind, or an actual entity, of a construct of the mind, then that is a personal choice, which is beyond the realms of science. You seem to be in two frames of mind on that. He cannot be both.

[psyche101]

but, there are bounds in science.

Personal choice is not science.

you have to know what questions to ask before you can understand them.

I'm good there, science has accommodated me.

jesus said the way to god was easy for the idiot to understand and impossible for the wise. paraphrased.

LOL, convenient!

[psyche101]

Except that observations pretty much fit what might be expected form a universe created by an intelligence. I'm not even a creationist but they have a case if you look close enough.

Absolute nonsense.

But no. A creator God is not needed for the universe that we see to exist, but those very principals also show us that a God like being or beings is likely to exist possibly even must.

That is not the case at all I am afraid, I have no idea where you are getting this mumbo jumbo from, but it is simply not true.

I'm going to say this again so you might be inspired to actually look it up.

What makes you think I am unaware of the creationist argument?

Is any person in this board unaware of the creationist argument?

There has been a long discussion about it and I have linked to a very good source. Gods and God concepts are not made up. They are a part of human experience and psycological evolution. They don't have to be real entities, but they certainly are not made up.

I have just been back through a whole bunch of pages and not found it, I do not mean to be rude, but I do not have all day, can you link to it again please.

What ? you don't think a supreme being ( If it existed) could not make a decision like that?

Quite frankly it seems an easy out, so yes, I find that a little convenient to your argument to accept.

Sigh...... God is not man made and that has been prooven with academic standards.

Still waiting for that proof, sounds like nonsense to me. God has not been proven to exist outside of the human mind by scientific method.

Yes we do direct science. I think you are confusing natural processes with science.

Funny, I am under the same impression regarding yourself.

You don't know what God has a say in or if it even exists. You are shooting blanks in the dark at and invisible beryl full of minows while not being able to hit a bullet with the broad side of a barn. The basic truth is that if God is what religions say it is, then God decides what evidence is available to us. I certainly don't beleive in that kind of God, but that dosnt matter. This is one of the reasons the question is not falsifiable and therefore is not a scientific question.

I do not take verbal assurances, an you should not either.

My "blanks" have substance, I am the only one here who can provide evidence that can be agreed upon that shows God is not required to exist for the Universe to exist. If God exists within the universe, then that is not a God is it.

Would you mind telling me what facts there are about the existance of a God?

If you like.

Gods threw lighting bolts - refuted fact.

Gods make Thunder with hammers - refuted fact

Gods are why we love each other - refuted fact

Well hey, what a shock, all the God facts have been refuted.......... despite physical demonstrations!! I can hit a rock with a hammer and make a thundering noise!! Just imagine that but bigger.

Hahaha ok bro. You are shooting yourself in the foot here. It was you who started naming off names because they confirm your bias that intelligent people are atheist and it was you who are appealing to their authority as if they are an authority on the existance of God. They are not even philosophers, but are makeing philisophical assertions. This is why the really smart ones only pick on the obvious incorrectness of certain myths. You might want to look at my post a little closer I was simply mimicking your ilkogical assertions to show you "I can do it too". I don't think for a second that Somones intellectual prowess is diminished or heightened by their philisophical or spiritual beleifs. It's illogical to even think such a think. I was just trying to demonstrate how silly it is by showing how many good scientists are religous. I in no way think this Validates religous beleifs just as I don't think somone like Hawkins validates his philosophical belifs

No I am not shooting myself in the foot, you cannot attribute your failure to me. I gave you set examples of people to illustrate a point, you blanketed a response with an appeal to authority, that the first two examples show is not at all accurate. Where did you find the same level of fault with my examples? You did not "do it too" You made an appeal to authority with a blanket list.

Not even philosophers!! They exceed philosophy!! Philosophy is dead!! Science supercedes philosophy!!

Intelligent people are atheist because they get both sides of the story from an early age, whereas most of us are ingrained with some type of faith from birth. They are smarter because they had better advantages than most, Stephen Hawkins Daughter Lucy will get more advantages than my children do because they have more of a head start. If you have both sides of the story, and can avoid all the brainwashing from youth, it seems to me that there is only one logical direction to follow.

I'm asking no such thing. You see now that you are makeing my point about how illogical it is to tie philosophy with the people behind good science. I was never atempting to validate beleifs on accomplishments of the individual. That's what you were doing.

Do you understand that in science we are not creators, but observers? It only takes one answer to be right. In that case, everyone cannot be right.

You are completely wrong. I question everything, I look at the evidence and i make a decision. I consider the possibility that I am wrong all the time. Luckily I consider the possability that everyone else is also. fortunatly I'm bound by calling it how I see it. I do not feel that religous people have secret knowledge. Im not religous. Quit the oposite. I feel spiritual exsperience is available to everyone and I don't feel any particular methos has it right or knows the mind of God. I don't even think God is omnipotent or omniscient though it might be, but that is a very unsettling isea

So you do not go on visions quests, and bring your family and depart the native knowledge you have to them? Could have sworn you said that was the case previously. That's investment. Are you going to tell yu family, hey, got it wrong, this is all in the mind and made to look mystical when it is not? I really do not think so.

You might see yourself that way, but I have seen you comment on religion, the afterlife, martial arts and gun culture, you may not want to believe it, but you are more set in your ways than you like to admit.

Noit is not. And the existance of creator God/gods is a philosophical question. Science dosnt even touch it. Science investigates physical phenominon.

[psyche101]

Hard atheism is a philosophy, soft atheism is very reasonable. Anybody makeing hard assertions about the non existance of God is makeing a philisophical point. Let's take Suskind as an example. He is a soft athiest just looking for what the evidence reveals and not worrying about what is beyond it. Then somone like Dawkins that makes a living off of trying to prove a negative.

Nonsense, Atheism is not philosophy. You can have atheist philosophers, you can include atheism in a philosophy, but atheism is not a philosophy

LINK - Atheism is Not a Philosophy:

A person's philosophy is their "system of principles for guidance in practical affairs." Like ideology, a philosophy comprises of two key elements: it must be a group of beliefs and it must provide guidance. Atheism is not a philosophy for the same reason that it is not an ideology: it's not even a single belief, much less a system of interconnected beliefs, and by itself atheism does not guide anyone anywhere. The same would be true if we defined atheism narrowly as denial of the existence of gods: that single belief is not a system of principles. As with ideology, atheism can be part of a philosophy.

Logical positivism will ways turn up a wrong answer.

I'm not sure if science allows for God to exist or not. I think a theist would tell you God allows for science to exist. I'm not so sure about that either, and just because you cannot see a reason for God to exist dosnt mean that there isn't one. In fact if you actually think a God is possible the chances are that it does indeed exist. Evolutiin and eternity is likely to produce evolved beings far far beyond our comprehension both in scope and temporal being.

Science has no absolutes, so it has to allow for a God, it is just that science also tells us there is nothing for God to do, and no reason to exist. The only reason we have God is because man insist that is the case, there is no actual reason to believe in any God.

Where are you going with evolution? I do not buy an evolved God after the Big Bang.

I don't have faith other than a basic faith in myself. I don't know who you are preaching to. I don't accept any word of God like a Christian. I am a hard agnostic theist. This means i am certain their is something like a God, but I have no clue as to its ultimate nature. I do not have faith. My opinions are based off of logic and observation, and my certainty is based off of personal wittiness.

Meditation lets the mind wander, drugs make the mind think it is seeing things that are not there, I do not find seeing God in an altered state convincing in any way. I used to be a hard agnostic too, pushing that boundary makes it break, and beyond that wall is the wisdom of science which in turn can only see atheism when looking at the claim objectively.

Mysticism is not science, it too is just smoke and mirrors, it's not any form of answer of proof.

Edited January 15, 2015 by psyche101

[psyche101]

In reality they are all a little religion with different narritives often more fantastic than abrahamic narritives but that's just the mythology taboos and such. there is a core concept in traditional spiritual practices that is built upon the direct experience of the spirit world. But these methods and beleifs are not ridged like middle eastern oriented beleifs. A Native American spiritual person might beleive his people were created by Ant people and yours by deer people. Advanced dogmas are not really present. The spirits ( either within or outside of us) are perceived in ways that we can understand. I once me an African shaman here on UM and we had a very interesting discussion about a local African God that he met personally rumbling through the forest complete with a hat and a cigar. We could have the conversation knowing we didn't doubt each other and there is a cross cultural understanding of shamanic exsperince and the fluid nature of interacting with the..... well..... The other places. Native Americans originally accepted the abrahamic God as the God of the white people, but after it was being forced down their throats even by gun point, they started to think it might be a devil. But if course this is the actions of people.

I honestly think you see it that way because you want to see it that way because there is a common theme. The afterlife. In that way you support each other. You once claimed that native Americans and Indigenous Australians met, and found common ground, personally, I find that very hard to believe.

[psyche101]

UH? Where did I say anything about good people?

When you said religion improves the human condition.

You aren't responding to my post but to some concept of your own.

If you wish.

Religions are organised responses to human needs and their very effective results in meeting those needs is the reason religions thrive and endure, and have done since humans evolved self award sapience. There is a temple in Turkey 10000 years old where people worshipped for millennia, gradually changing their gods, beliefs and religions, as their needs changed from hunter gatherers to city dwellers. I did not say one needs god to be good. But humans seem to need gods.

In my opinion, the species is ready to move on from this precursor.

Right? what does right mean? They are understandably angry at having their most important beliefs criticised. A religious person gets angry for the same reason. An attack on their belief is the same as an attack on a persons belief in their right to control their own body or that their own sexuality is normal. Right'' or wrong doesn't enter into it. In each case a belief which forms the basis of a world view is being attacked. Arguably there is no factual/logical right or wrong answer to any of those questions. There is only a belief.

It means we are dealing with ego. Not facts.

Edited January 15, 2015 by psyche101

[psyche101]

to you and i this is not right. but, the Muslims are brought up thinking that it is not only right but ordained by Allah. they think their savings souls. just like christian think when they try to convert someone.

Exactly what I am saying, all religions have agendas, they are not a direct link to an omnipotent being that will make you burn in hellfire for eternity if you do not worship them.

That premise alone is just altogether wrong. And Islam takes that a step further, and dishes it out for God, seeming as God never shows up. They have this twisted idea that God will reward them for their atrocities. And it's the same God who tells people to go to Church on Sunday. Rather schizophrenic this God is.

[White Crane Feather]

Nonsense, Atheism is not philosophy. You can have atheist philosophers, you can include atheism in a philosophy, but atheism is not a philosophy

LINK - Atheism is Not a Philosophy:

A person's philosophy is their "system of principles for guidance in practical affairs." Like ideology, a philosophy comprises of two key elements: it must be a group of beliefs and it must provide guidance. Atheism is not a philosophy for the same reason that it is not an ideology: it's not even a single belief, much less a system of interconnected beliefs, and by itself atheism does not guide anyone anywhere. The same would be true if we defined atheism narrowly as denial of the existence of gods: that single belief is not a system of principles. As with ideology, atheism can be part of a philosophy.

Science has no absolutes, so it has to allow for a God, it is just that science also tells us there is nothing for God to do, and no reason to exist. The only reason we have God is because man insist that is the case, there is no actual reason to believe in any God.

Where are you going with evolution? I do not buy an evolved God after the Big Bang.

Meditation lets the mind wander, drugs make the mind think it is seeing things that are not there, I do not find seeing God in an altered state convincing in any way. I used to be a hard agnostic too, pushing that boundary makes it break, and beyond that wall is the wisdom of science which in turn can only see atheism when looking at the claim objectively.

Mysticism is not science, it too is just smoke and mirrors, it's not any form of answer of proof.

I have been successfully philibustered. No more energy im afraid to wade through all the terrible logical problems here I spent way to much time on it already WCF bows out.

[psyche101]

The big bang theory is accepted by nearly all people, even religious leaders. That include the Pope and the Dalai-Lama. It is a proven concept. So is eternal inflation, the idea that the Universe is expanding infinitly and it does not contradict most people's beliefs. As I understand it, only the fundamentalists and biblical literalists are against the scientific method. You can have beliefs, theories about the origin of it all, religious or not, while being passionate about science and yes, possibly become a great scientist. I don't think I need to provide you a list. As long as you don't let your beliefs interfere with the scientific method and are willing to reassess them in light of new evidence, I don't see where the issue is.

When did this happen?

And how is that not "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"?

Preaching a magical God for how many years? Now all of a sudden, when there is nowhere left to go, it's "lets hold hands"

As far as I am concerned, that boat has sailed.

I am aware of that, I've read quite a few books on physics in language made accessible for the laypublic as I am not an expert. Greene and Kaku are great scientific popularizers. But that's just not the point I am trying to make, one you seem to dismiss for some reason.

Well in the previous post, you did not seem to be aware of that, and you have a multiverse confused with the clashing of dimensions, which is that progenitor you ask for. That's what Greene speaks of.

You see, even if Linde and Guth are right and that the theory of inflation lead us to a Multiverse, that still doesn't answer the nagging question of utlimate origin. There is a Multiverse, great! But why should it exist at all? In my opinion, that certainly doesn't rule out the hypothesis of a metaphysical progenitor, this overarching structure, of which all things are made. That which we call God in common language. Utlimately, it may require it. In fact, a Multiverse would mean we are part of some reality far greater than we could possibly imagine. Some people would have to readjust their beliefs to take into account these new elements added to our understanding of the world or choose to deny it. But sorry, I am not seeing how that should favor Atheism in any way.

How is "God always existed" more plausible than something from nothing? Our brains have evolved to assume that everything has a cause, we can't imagine any event ever not having one, but 100 years ago, we couldn't imagine that our galaxy was only one in an ocean of one hundred billion.

That being said, there is no proof for the Multiverse theory and a brane-worlds collision. It's theoritical. So, unless observation and experimentation should provide solid evidence that confirm these theories I would still place a caveat as to try to present it as a fact of life.

Yes, I already said that, it;s why I use the term "string" as opposed to "String Theory".

"It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse," Alan Guth, an MIT theoretical physicist unaffiliated with the new study, said during a news conference Monday. "It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously."

Source: http://www.space.com...onal-waves.html

We did not need to observe the Big Bang to figure it out, I do not see this as a never ending mystery, but I am sure when the Multiverse theory is better supported that religion will then find an entire new realm for God to exist and and do stuff.

Edited January 15, 2015 by psyche101

[psyche101]

I have been successfully philibustered. No more energy im afraid to wade through all the terrible logical problems here I spent way to much time on it already WCF bows out.

No problem

Not the first proverbial white flag I have seen in debate.

[psyche101]

:tu:

[eight bits]

psyche

Not the first proverbial white flag I have seen in debate.

I notice you are from Australia, so perhaps you missed a peculiarly American word used by another poster from California.

Philibuster.

That is not debate, but rather one-sided talking of indefinite length, often to an empty hall. It refers to a parliamentary maneuver which delays votes by pretending to debate, but really just saying the same things over and over.

All that can be done with a philibuster is to let it run its course; it is pointless to "engage" in it. One doesn't so much wave a "white flag," but rather holds onto an unmbrella. Preferably something plastic, so it doesn't leak and can simply be thrown away afterwards, because you wouldn't want to clean a brolly after it's been philibustered on.

Hope that clears things up for you.

[+Hammerclaw]

. No surprises here. Scientific evidence, evidence of the formation of the Cosmos in so far as we understand it, is quite compelling. Most intelligent Theists incorporated science and it's continuous revelation into their belief systems along time ago. It is understandable that some might conclude there's no need for a creative impulse to set it all in motion. For others, everything science discovers confirms the opposite. As science expands the realm of knowledge, theological awareness explodes outward into the night's bright abyss to touch the gates of infinity. The same indisputable evidence leads to radically different conclusions, confounding the material mind, incapable of such insight. The astonishing vistas of the limitless cosmos, the great wheel of time and space and galaxies plunging through the vast ocean of night fills our hearts with awe and reverence and humility. It in no wise shakes our Faith it affirms it! When I consider the heavens the works of Thy fingers, the moon and the stars that Thou hast ordained, What is man that Thou art mindful of him and the son of man that Thou visitest him?

Edited January 15, 2015 by Hammerclaw

[Leonardo]

Indeed. Philosophy that is testable can be investigated by science. A good example is the philosophy of materialism.

I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make/support here, WCF, but materialism is not subject to scientific inquiry. While it is true that the material universe is subject to such inquiry, the philosophical position maintained in materialism is that there is no 'non-material' aspect of the universe. Since science is, by its very nature, unable to examine such a claim then materialism is not able to be 'examined by science'.

Philiosophies lie on a different branch of academic discipline than science does, and while aspects or claims of some philosophies may be able to be subject to scientific inquiry the philosophies themselves are not.

[eight bits]

On the general subject of science and religion, I'd like to post a link to the late Stephen Jay Gould's essay on "non-overlapping magisteria" from the U. Colorado Boulder website:

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys3000/phys3000_fa11/StevenJGoulldNOMA.pdf

I don't agree with everything in it. One important thing is that because Gould, a scientist, emphasizes science, he doesn't say much about secular philosophy whose "magisterium" necessarily does overlap religions'. Even so, I think this is a good essay, and it's brief. Maybe everybody here has already read it, but maybe not, and maybe some people will enjoy it.

[+Hammerclaw]

On the general subject of science and religion, I'd like to post a link to the late Stephen Jay Gould's essay on "non-overlapping magisteria" from the U. Colorado Boulder website:

http://www.colorado....JGoulldNOMA.pdf

I don't agree with everything in it. One important thing is that because Gould, a scientist, emphasizes science, he doesn't say much about secular philosophy whose "magisterium" necessarily does overlap religions'. Even so, I think this is a good essay, and it's brief. Maybe everybody here has already read it, but maybe not, and maybe some people will enjoy it.

That was beautiful, eight bits! Thank you.

[danielost]

Sorry PA, you guys had posted while I was putting together that last post. Although psyche has said specific things I agree with (heaven and miracles are for the most part unscientific), I can see when taken as a whole his posts do assert exclusivity. I can agree with some things he's said but not things like arguing without qualification, 'most smart people don't believe in God' and such.

The only reason that science cannot measure it is because there is no evidence, which to some suggests questions why then people believe in it. Incorporeal things could be studied by science potentially if there was something to examine; science hasn't walled off 'supernatural' things from being able to be studied because of their nature, it's because of the lack of evidence. In this respect, the problem with science not being able to study spiritual things is the same as its inability to study leprechauns and centaurs, there is no evidence, and thus, 'science is silent' on these issues to the same degree.

If God broke the laws of nature to create a miraculous event, then there could feasibly be evidence of that that could be studied depending on what the miracle was. Again, I don't know why you think the resurrection is a matter of science, I think because it has a physical/material component to it, but from our perspective now given the current lack of evidence, the resurrection is no more able to be studied than the afterlife.

I'm not sure you are arguing against this, but the reason I keep repeating the point that it's the lack of evidence, not necessarily the very nature of the spirit world, that prevents scientific study is because I think there are attempts to 'shield' spiritual assertions from the implications of its inability to be studied, by asserting that science is in principle unable to study them. I don't think that's the case, again, all it takes is one ghost.

i figured out what a centaur is/was. a horse and rider. the greeks were foot solders. when they first encountered calvery they made the same mistake the Aztecs did. they thought horse and rider were the same creature.

[+Hammerclaw]

i figured out what a centaur is/was. a horse and rider. the greeks were foot solders. when they first encountered calvery they made the same mistake the Aztecs did. they thought horse and rider were the same creature.

I suppose that makes a Unicorn a prissy Rhinoceros.

[FLOMBIE]

i figured out what a centaur is/was. a horse and rider. the greeks were foot solders. when they first encountered calvery they made the same mistake the Aztecs did. they thought horse and rider were the same creature.

The greeks had cavalry troops. Google for 'hippeis'.

[Occult1]

:tu:

Exactly as I was saying above, Atheist preachers are telling us that 'nothingness' and 'pointlessness' is the ultimate origin. According to Krauss, we are living in a Universe that sprang from 'nothing' and that it just so happen that we are 'insignificant' being living pointless lives, thanks to quantum mechanics. Alas, he doesn't say where the laws of quantum mechanics come from!

But... Here's a merciless smackdown of Krauss's book by physicist and philosopher David Albert in the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.c...e-m-krauss.html

Also worth the read!

Edited January 15, 2015 by sam_comm

[spacecowboy342]

Exactly as I was saying above, Atheist preachers are telling us that 'nothingness' and 'pointlessness' is the ultimate origin. According to Krauss, we are living in a Universe that sprang from 'nothing' and that it just so happen that we are 'insignificant' being living pointless lives, thanks to quantum mechanics. Alas, he doesn't say where the laws of quantum mechanics come from!

But... Here's a merciless smackdown of Krauss's book by physicist and philosopher David Albert in the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.c...e-m-krauss.html

Also worth the read!

A difference between what Krauss does and what preachers do is that Krauss has observational evidence and math to back up his "sermon" not just "God said so." And philosophers make a;; sorts of assumptions for which there is absolutely no evidence. Worthless Edited January 15, 2015 by spacecowboy342

[+Liquid Gardens]

On the general subject of science and religion, I'd like to post a link to the late Stephen Jay Gould's essay on "non-overlapping magisteria" from the U. Colorado Boulder website:

http://www.colorado....JGoulldNOMA.pdf

I don't agree with everything in it. One important thing is that because Gould, a scientist, emphasizes science, he doesn't say much about secular philosophy whose "magisterium" necessarily does overlap religions'. Even so, I think this is a good essay, and it's brief. Maybe everybody here has already read it, but maybe not, and maybe some people will enjoy it.

Yea, definitely a classic, and as far as a high-level approach to the supposed 'conflict' it conveys the right and rational tone. It seems to me that he's a little too absolute that they do not overlap. Religion is not just about morals and the meaning of life, believing in the Resurrection or a young earth are statements about the 'empirical constitution of the universe' which directly overlap the domain he just defined for science.