Can science prove or disprove "God"?

[Mr Walker 6,397]

On 14/08/2017 at 0:15 AM, Blood_Sacrifice said:

First provide an unambiguous definition of God.

Based on the popular definition, I'd say no. Science is a tool to study the natural world through objective, testable and repeatable evidence. God is supernatural, and trying to 'prove' faith totally defeats the entire purpose of holding a belief.

 

The definition of god does not have to include that gods are supernatural. In actuality  the only real, possible, gods are natural.

Either advanced alien beings OR thought constructs and archetypes ( like jung's philemon)  constructed to help our minds cope with the effects of self aware consciousness in a world we don't comprehend. 

[Mr Walker 6,397]

8 hours ago, Podo said:

No. Science can't prove a negative, because if something doesn't exist there is nothing to measure or test. It's also not a similar situation to gravity waves or dark matter because no deity exerts any tangible force on the physical world, probably because no deity exists. If something doesn't quack, doesn't smell like a duck, doesn't look like a duck, and doesn't do duck things, it's probably not a duck.

But if it walks like a god, speaks like a god, acts like a god,   and looks like a god,  (and perhaps smells like a god, with a whiff of ozone in the air as it materialises and dematerialises ) then it is best to    consider it might be a god, and treat it as such 

[Mr Walker 6,397]

16 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

"If" is a really big word there. If as in if it happens which it won't. Because they do not exist. God's, spirits, all that. It's nothing but self-delusion. A fools game. 

The " if" goes to the condition of the point i was making   If i met a godi i would recognise him (it might take some time research and study  to do so)  If i met a chinese dragon i would recognise it.

The argument you present is that we cannot define gods or be able to tell a god from a non god.

Now dragons are entirely mythical beasts, yet i can tell you the characteristics of different coloured dragons,  the mannerisms,  habitats and wild behaviours of oriental vs european dragons.  Things do not have to be real for humans to know and recognise them in art, literature, or conversation . 

Your opinion is noted but is a belief position which is  factually inaccurate.

Such entities exist I am open to how we label and categorise them But without the physical  existence, capabilities/ power, and the interest, of such an entity, my wife and I would have died many years ago It is pointless trying to tell me such beings are not real  no matter how fiercely you need to hold onto your disbelief 

This is extraneous to your main point ,however . Humans can recognise an angel in a painting or in a story because they have certain characteristics which identify them as angels. This is true for entities humans call gods as well.  

[XenoFish 106,608]

Some people live in such fantasy world that they've lost touch with reality. 

[Mr Walker 6,397]

30 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Some people live in such fantasy world that they've lost touch with reality. 

lol And some people's reality is different to others. You are trying to impose the limits of your own physical world upon those of mine. It is like telling me that it always snows at christmas because, in your life it does, while in mine 40 degree (C) temps are the norm. 

The real question is WHY ? What drives you to such hopelessness and  despair, that you state  categorically that gods   spirits(and i assume many other so called  supernatural things) do not exist. It is impossible for you to know this, and thus an incredibly strong disbelief construct must exist in your mind,  which is causing to you to express beliefs as if the y were knowledge you hold. 

Does this psychological block extend to the total dismissal of the possible existence of  advanced alien beings, who have been in contact with humanity for many millennia AND, while they cannot directly intervene on a large scale,   are allowed to educate, motivate,  mentor and  protect, on an individuaL level? Or is just the concpet of "gods" you have a pathological aversion to.?  

I know absolutely and clearly the differences between reality and fantasy.

I write and construct fantasy for entertainment and enjoyment

 I live in a fantasy world of constructed dreams every night

But i have very efficient reality checkers, which determine, absolutely, if something exists inside my mind or outside of it. and which parts of anything are physically independent and which are psychologically dependent Eg   suppose a dog is real and can be shown to be so by reality checking .  None the less,  how i feel about and treat that dog is dependent on my perception of it   Food? pet? companion ? danger ? pest?  

 I struggle to understand humans who have Not developed this psychological skill. I feel sorry for people who don't understand the interface between the independent objective environment around them  and their minds perception of it. I see the limits on humans who don't know or understand themselves well enough to distinguish objective reality from subjective interpretation of that reality, and who don't realise that that dog is BOTH  an independent physical reality AND a cognitive construct in their mind..  

. How "you" respond to the dog is NOT determined by the dog's physical existence, but by the mental perception you have constructed around the nature of the dog.  

Edited August 15, 2017 by Mr Walker

[Only_ 2,068]

3 hours ago, XenoFish said:

"If" is a really big word there. If as in if it happens which it won't. Because they do not exist. God's, spirits, all that. It's nothing but self-delusion. A fools game. 

dog·mat·ic/dôɡˈmadik/

adjective inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Be.cause

[Stubbly_Dooright 14,536]

22 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Will do later. 

Do you meditate?

During the actual death process (with my lady) (who chose to die at home) on the third day (when her kidneys shut down) she conveyed fear, she would say "Sheri" I would respond I am here and held her hand, she would say "okay" this went on all day.  She didn't want to suffer physically, she didn't know what would happen or what death held for her, we had talked extensively about this for months. Of course, I had no answers. It was her show as they say.  She didn't have any issue with religion or god, but really wasn't what I would call a church goer, or staunch believer,  she did ask for a pastor the  day she realized she was about to experience death. She told me he brought her a lot of comfort, she felt better! They sang songs...for  some, the illusion of god in tandem with a person who is there gives a sense of comfort to deal with the fear of impending death, it seems to be from my vantage point the idea of suffering, we spend lifetimes trying not to suffer. I personally think this is natural instinctive ( an opinion only) And god constructs were made up as a tool to cope with inevitable--death. Of course, this is just my two cents.

Though, I would think what you have come to (probably by observation) would sound understandable. As you have pointed out in your opinion, we have the natural instinctive to avoid suffering and we try to avoid it. Including coming to many subjective conclusions about as to how. 

My thoughts on this would be, since we are all different, ( and have different levels of feeling different types of suffering ) it would be in the path of avoiding it, our environment wraps us in what it has to what we can see it us. Maybe I think this, because despite growing up secular, my unique belief came as I saw various things ring true for me, and thus I more than likely saw this in what I perceived as messages. I didn't have church and the bible being read or read it as a kid, so something else filled it for me to come to the conclusion. 

If this makes a lot of sense. 

16 hours ago, Sherapy said:

20 hours ago, Podo said:

No. Science can't prove a negative, because if something doesn't exist there is nothing to measure or test. It's also not a similar situation to gravity waves or dark matter because no deity exerts any tangible force on the physical world, probably because no deity exists. If something doesn't quack, doesn't smell like a duck, doesn't look like a duck, and doesn't do duck things, it's probably not a duck.

Indeed, and we can have hunches, intuitions, "think things" reward centers get tripped, make us feel great, ( compliments of natural selection), but if there is no theory or even a loose hint of a theory from the area or even neighborhood of science, it is most likely( just my two cents) the mind doing a whole lot of chattering which is heavily influenced by how we feel about things, (CBT) Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has broken a lot of ground in this area. I think we all find comfort in something, what we want to be hip to is to keep that in mind, even if one beleives in god, no problem, but there has to be a humble mention of taking things on faith somewhere. Simply because righteousness leads to conflict, no matter the mask it shows up wearing. For ex:  because I just don't feel there is a god at the of the religious rainbow, or think that there is "enlightenment" at the end of the Buddhist rainbow, it doesn't matter, it is what works for the person my objective is to steer clear of harm, not fuel it. 

I think this is how I see how what is part of the path of everybody, is important to them. And that I see it as something for them to be guided by, not to expect others to live by. 

With the latest posts here, I think it makes me reflect on the question of 'can science measure religion' ( I know, it was originally God, but I would think it means any religion and gods. ) Since science is an objective path, so it much have an objective result. Considering religion, faith, beliefs, and spirituality tends to end up subjective, I don't think an objective environment (science) can measure a subjective environment. Kind of like Podo saying there's nothing there to measure. 

Though, I'm not saying entirely that there's nothing there, (because as we know, I feel there is something on a subjective level that's for each person.) But, if I could use an example, it's like a vacuum cleaner trying to suck in wifi. 

14 hours ago, Be.cause said:

I could claim that the Old gods will return in 500 years from now and reveal everything we need to know. That would be putting 'blind faith' in a concept without any real evidence of that ever happening. It seems to me you were doing a similar thing with science, that in due time it will reveal the truth about the world and reality, rendering the God hypothesis meaningless. I was asking about potential clues, or ideas on why we should reasonably expect that to happen.

Many physicists argue that the Multiverse view is not science. It cannot be 'tested', like some conceptions of God. It also leaves many questions unanswered that cannot be resolved empirically. Are we really more advanced?

 

Is it we or science we're talking about here? 

13 hours ago, simplybill said:

It is difficult for me, because the discussion is often erroneously framed as an either/or choice: Science or God. I don't believe they're mutually exclusive at all. 

The statement: "Science is the only avenue to truth" can't be proved scientifically. The sciences do not provide proofs of where reality begins or ends, or of what the dimensions of truth are. (Those are paraphrased quotes from different sources).

 

Science has several examples of possible 'unknowns' that appear to affect reality: dark matter, multiverses, the possibility of a 10th planet that causes fluctuations in the orbits of the other 9, and so on. In the same way, an unseen but hands-on, proactive, benevolent God affects reality also. Even an ardent non-believer such as Richard Dawkins can see the affect that Christianity has had on the world: “I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse."

In spite of its stumbles (and sometimes outright apostasies) Judeo/Christian ideology has had a very pronounced and positive affect on the world. When held accountable to its own principles, Judeo/Christian ideology has provided the greatest amount of justice and freedom for the greatest number of people. 

I have often met very devout Judeo/Christian individuals who seem to be very trapped by their beliefs. I have met varying individuals in other beliefs, who seem to be free and at peace. (I have waited on a lot of Muslims, who seem to hold that, both men and women). Atheists seem to have the most appearance of peace and freedom to me. Though, it's those practice varying parts of New Age that seem to feel one with everything, and I can tell. (And yes, more the one reason I'm a bit of a New Ager) I sometimes would think that what some have said to be wonderful, it isn't really based on some who are on their paths. I think it's one thing to come to the conclusion about it, and another when observing it in action by some who don't seem to feel that same feeling within it. 

But, I want to express that this is my observation and that I have come to a subjective summery about it. Maybe that's why we have some confusions on how science would have trouble measuring religion. There is so much subjective ingredients in religion, that an objective environment, like science, will have a real hard time measuring it in it's entirety. 

12 hours ago, Be.cause said:

Quote

Your statements about the God hypothesis are interesting though, what specifically is the 'truth about the world and reality' referring to, what phenomenon is the god hypothesis explaining?

A 'creator-god' explains why we might live in an holographic Universe. Whether that God is alien and/or supernatural in nature I make no firm claim. But this is an interesting philosophical topic based on a modern scientific question. The origin of our Universe may very well be illusionary, or counterfeit.

But we're going on maybe's. Can we measure something, that we already have come to the conclusion of that it might be?  And how did we come to the conclusion of that? 

12 hours ago, XenoFish said:

"If" is a really big word there. If as in if it happens which it won't. Because they do not exist. God's, spirits, all that. It's nothing but self-delusion. A fools game. 

Well, for me, I don't see that. I see too many situations and experiences to consider the brain putting in in your head. I do feel that there are outside influences. But, I'm saying that in a subjective point of view. 

Now, as to that part being observed in the same ideal over and over again, by different people. No, I don't think that could happen. And it could be that half of it, is in the head. Yes, I'm saying there is room for assuming the brain is doing something to you. I'm just thinking, not every time. Though, when it comes to the experiences and the varying situations, that also could be construed as a natural reasoning behind it too, and that some use it to have them see it being divinely inspired. So yeah, that can't be measured. But, and I say this in the subjective thought, there are just somethings that occur without normal explanations that I feel I cannot explain away. 

Makes me wonder if individual scientific investigations should be done a case by case situation.    

 

[Stubbly_Dooright 14,536]

11 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Some people live in such fantasy world that they've lost touch with reality. 

Oh, trust me, (having worked in retail all of my adult life in varying of areas and environments) I have found that to be so true.   And the reasoning behind those situations could be varying as well. And yes, there could be physical and chemical explanations, I think. I also feel, outside influences too. 

 

[Sherapy 30,030]

3 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Though, I would think what you have come to (probably by observation) would sound understandable. As you have pointed out in your opinion, we have the natural instinctive to avoid suffering and we try to avoid it. Including coming to many subjective conclusions about as to how. 

My thoughts on this would be, since we are all different, ( and have different levels of feeling different types of suffering ) it would be in the path of avoiding it, our environment wraps us in what it has to what we can see it us. Maybe I think this, because despite growing up secular, my unique belief came as I saw various things ring true for me, and thus I more than likely saw this in what I perceived as messages. I didn't have church and the bible being read or read it as a kid, so something else filled it for me to come to the conclusion. 

If this makes a lot of sense. 

I think this is how I see how what is part of the path of everybody, is important to them. And that I see it as something for them to be guided by, not to expect others to live by. 

With the latest posts here, I think it makes me reflect on the question of 'can science measure religion' ( I know, it was originally God, but I would think it means any religion and gods. ) Since science is an objective path, so it much have an objective result. Considering religion, faith, beliefs, and spirituality tends to end up subjective, I don't think an objective environment (science) can measure a subjective environment. Kind of like Podo saying there's nothing there to measure. 

Though, I'm not saying entirely that there's nothing there, (because as we know, I feel there is something on a subjective level that's for each person.) But, if I could use an example, it's like a vacuum cleaner trying to suck in wifi. 

Is it we or science we're talking about here? 

I have often met very devout Judeo/Christian individuals who seem to be very trapped by their beliefs. I have met varying individuals in other beliefs, who seem to be free and at peace. (I have waited on a lot of Muslims, who seem to hold that, both men and women). Atheists seem to have the most appearance of peace and freedom to me. Though, it's those practice varying parts of New Age that seem to feel one with everything, and I can tell. (And yes, more the one reason I'm a bit of a New Ager) I sometimes would think that what some have said to be wonderful, it isn't really based on some who are on their paths. I think it's one thing to come to the conclusion about it, and another when observing it in action by some who don't seem to feel that same feeling within it. 

But, I want to express that this is my observation and that I have come to a subjective summery about it. Maybe that's why we have some confusions on how science would have trouble measuring religion. There is so much subjective ingredients in religion, that an objective environment, like science, will have a real hard time measuring it in it's entirety. 

But we're going on maybe's. Can we measure something, that we already have come to the conclusion of that it might be?  And how did we come to the conclusion of that? 

Well, for me, I don't see that. I see too many situations and experiences to consider the brain putting in in your head. I do feel that there are outside influences. But, I'm saying that in a subjective point of view. 

Now, as to that part being observed in the same ideal over and over again, by different people. No, I don't think that could happen. And it could be that half of it, is in the head. Yes, I'm saying there is room for assuming the brain is doing something to you. I'm just thinking, not every time. Though, when it comes to the experiences and the varying situations, that also could be construed as a natural reasoning behind it too, and that some use it to have them see it being divinely inspired. So yeah, that can't be measured. But, and I say this in the subjective thought, there are just somethings that occur without normal explanations that I feel I cannot explain away. 

Makes me wonder if individual scientific investigations should be done a case by case situation.    

 

The area that I am speaking of as measurable is the brain, namely, what parts light up. There is the split brain experiment, and a few others that I have to get together. There is Theory of Mind, the brain as modules, if you will. 

Of course, I am not suggesting science has  rock solid evidence against god, just that Neurobiology has a lot of interesting studies IMHO. 

I deeply apologize for not providing links, just limited on time and have been deacclimating from my last death journey.

An add too, On day 2 of the death journey, I want to add that my lady told me that god talked to her, that he was nice and she was going home, she also was on a lot of morphine and methadone, which are known to produce hallucinations. 

[XenoFish 106,608]

33 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Oh, trust me, (having worked in retail all of my adult life in varying of areas and environments) I have found that to be so true.   And the reasoning behind those situations could be varying as well. And yes, there could be physical and chemical explanations, I think. I also feel, outside influences too. 

 

Because fantasy is safer that the truth of life. That we have to make a meaning. For some its best to shut off their mind and believe the words of others, without question. 

[freetoroam 40,843]

12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

But if it walks like a god, speaks like a god, acts like a god,   and looks like a god,  (and perhaps smells like a god, with a whiff of ozone in the air as it materialises and dematerialises ) then it is best to    consider it might be a god, and treat it as such 

can you show me what a god looks like?  

can you show me how a god walks?

can you tell me what a god smells like?

can you tell me what a god acts like?

the others i am not going there, because they can be heard everyday = in some believers minds, but this is no proof of a god outside their own inner fantasy. 

(i somehow feel the answers are going to be as abscure as god is)

[Sherapy 30,030]

11 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

lol And some people's reality is different to others. You are trying to impose the limits of your own physical world upon those of mine. It is like telling me that it always snows at christmas because, in your life it does, while in mine 40 degree (C) temps are the norm. 

The real question is WHY ? What drives you to such hopelessness and  despair, that you state  categorically that gods   spirits(and i assume many other so called  supernatural things) do not exist. It is impossible for you to know this, and thus an incredibly strong disbelief construct must exist in your mind,  which is causing to you to express beliefs as if the y were knowledge you hold. 

Does this psychological block extend to the total dismissal of the possible existence of  advanced alien beings, who have been in contact with humanity for many millennia AND, while they cannot directly intervene on a large scale,   are allowed to educate, motivate,  mentor and  protect, on an individuaL level? Or is just the concpet of "gods" you have a pathological aversion to.?  

I know absolutely and clearly the differences between reality and fantasy.

I write and construct fantasy for entertainment and enjoyment

 I live in a fantasy world of constructed dreams every night

But i have very efficient reality checkers, which determine, absolutely, if something exists inside my mind or outside of it. and which parts of anything are physically independent and which are psychologically dependent Eg   suppose a dog is real and can be shown to be so by reality checking .  None the less,  how i feel about and treat that dog is dependent on my perception of it   Food? pet? companion ? danger ? pest?  

 I struggle to understand humans who have Not developed this psychological skill. I feel sorry for people who don't understand the interface between the independent objective environment around them  and their minds perception of it. I see the limits on humans who don't know or understand themselves well enough to distinguish objective reality from subjective interpretation of that reality, and who don't realise that that dog is BOTH  an independent physical reality AND a cognitive construct in their mind..  

. How "you" respond to the dog is NOT determined by the dog's physical existence, but by the mental perception you have constructed around the nature of the dog.  

This entire post is based in anger (you have  personalized a statement ) which now produces a post that is defensive and righteous. 

The problem is this righteousness leads to a lot of conflict and undue harm. 

Some people live in fantasy and think they don't. Heck, I have been this way myself. The brain at times can get so overwhelmed it can slip into fantasy or denial. 

I would say for you the way it applies is you measure your reality subjectively and call it objective reality. I looked at your reasoning for proof of gods in the past few posts, you said ( I paraphrase) "that if it walks, talks like a god it is a god, this is not evidence of one whose reality checkers are verified, because It doesn't give us any facts to consider.." IMHO, you are motivated by anger that you say you don't have. Indecently you can be angry and not see/acknowlegde it. You then go on to say " you struggle to understand humans that have not developed skills...." this is anger that has lead to righteousness, now fueling bullying. 

The way to "reality check" is to take what we beleive subjectively and we must have some external "fact" to support it., even loosely. This is basic Philosophy 101, I say this not to poke the bear, but to say I know you know this and am reminding you. 

You could say you beleive in god on faith and not have an issue, you could say you beleive in god and that you have faith that the Bible is true for you and never have an issue. 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Sherapy

[White Unicorn 1,949]

On 8/12/2017 at 10:10 PM, nephili said:

Is there a branch of science that could prove or disprove "God" beyond speculation? Could a type of technology detect or measure "God"? Is there any proof or otherwise of "God"? Anything at all that is beyond just speculative belief or disbelief?

I personally believe if "God" exists, science and technology will be able to prove or disprove it.

Opinions please.

My opinion is no science can't do that yet, but will be able to do it in the future. 

First we would have to define what we mean by God to determine what the best way of proving or disproving it. So we use the right now tools and methods. 

I  liked the poster comment that it's like looking for WiFi with a vacuum cleaner. I believe that's just about where science is at this  point. We don't know what we are looking for and what tools to use yet. 

To prove or disprove a God of a religion could be done if we discovered how to use time travel  as another poster said. But time travel like that is as mysterious to us as the term God is to us, so I don't think we  could use the science now to prove or disprove anything. 

On the mystical point of view the Gods of religion that had a personalities and consciousness and a power over creation would be  a higher  entities not really the higher god force that connects us to the rest of the universe, whether we realize it or not. If God is considered as the force outside of time and creation, it needs our own minds of higher awareness to shape itself to communicate in a way we can perceive it as a physical being in matter. 

The evolution of our own psyche beyond emotions and subconscious delusions can  be developed to a cosmic consciousness where there our others like and unlike ourselves who can perceive each other and the source of creation that connects everything at the same point of time. We become part of  the hive consciousness and remain the bee. Cosmic consciousness of new agers is a developed psyche beyond the physical world just as we are aware of in the lower physical  realms though the normal undeveloped senses. The connection comes when the source of creation within us touches the outer consciousness of  the universe, that is still a mystery to the scientific methods of today. It is so different than us we can never know it but through glimpses of our own perceptions if it wants to connect with us but our awareness of it still doesn't know all that it is. It is beyond us to know, we are like dust that can't know of all of the rest of the universe around it. The dust can only know it's environment and what touches it. 

 

 

 

 

[Will Do 6,598]

Science will never prove the existence of God. 

The MOST pointless thing possible, is to debate the existence of God, in my opinion. It's undignified. 

To me, the veracity in the way some feel the need to argue that God doesn't exist is proof that they know that he does. Why else be so focused on him? 

Being confused about God and having honest questions is valid, who he is and what he is. Especially since we live on such a confused and dark world.

The most that can be said to relieve this confusion is to reinforce the greatest truth about God. That he is our Father and we are his sons and daughters.

It's because of this fact, which your given free will can deny if you choose, that we are able to know anything for sure. Know what is real.

Remember, no father ever keeps any of his children in suspense about their standing with him for long. But until your free will rebellion against him ceases, if it exists in your soul, he is not likely to do so. He will never force anyone to change their perception about anything, against their will.

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Will Due

[Sherapy 30,030]

7 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Science will never prove the existence of God. 

The MOST pointless thing possible, is to debate the existence of God, in my opinion. It's undignified. 

To me, the veracity in the way some feel the need to argue that God doesn't exist is proof that they know that he does. Why else be so focused on him? 

Being confused about God and having honest questions is valid, who he is and what he is. Especially since we live on such a confused and dark world.

The most that can be said to relieve this confusion is to reinforce the greatest truth about God. That he is our Father and we are his sons and daughters.

It's because of this fact, which your given free will can deny if you choose, that we are able to know anything for sure. Know what is real.

Remember, no father ever keeps any of his children in suspense about their standing with him for long. But until your free will rebellion against him ceases, if it exists in your soul, he is not likely to do so. He will never force anyone to change their perspective about anything, against their will.

 

Would you think it is fair to say that at present on the god topic we don't know one way or the other? 

[Hammerclaw 28,000]

2 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Would you think it is fair to say that at present on the god topic we don't know one way or the other? 

Absolutely--but I'm sure he does.

[Hammerclaw 28,000]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Because fantasy is safer that the truth of life. That we have to make a meaning. For some its best to shut off their mind and believe the words of others, without question. 

Is not the truth of death equally as important as the truth of life? The only truth that matters is the one we hold inside ourselves. To thine own self be true.

[XenoFish 106,608]

2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Is not the truth of death equally as important as the truth of life? The only truth that matters is the one we hold inside ourselves. To thine own self be true.

That depend on the truth. Is it constructive or destructive. A personal truth in all its subjectiveness is expressed by the words and actions who hold it true. 

[Hammerclaw 28,000]

Just now, XenoFish said:

That depend on the truth. Is it constructive or destructive. A personal truth in all its subjectiveness is expressed by the words and actions who hold it true. 

True and on this topic you could say both our minds are concluded. Now, whose words do we believe as to whether it is you or I who are the more deluded? You believe in your own truth, as do I and none can gainsay it.

[freetoroam 40,843]

43 minutes ago, White Unicorn said:

We don't know what we are looking for

So how can people believe in something if they do not even know what it is? 

43 minutes ago, White Unicorn said:

My opinion is no science can't do that yet, but will be able to do it in the future. 

No...what could happen in the future is science will discover something related with evolution or nature and god believers will attribute it to being a god or sign of a god...so to cling on to their faith they will take any new object or discovery. 

We have seen this with many events in the past caused by nature....its gods will or it is god punishing man or lets kill ourselves and jump on that comet in the process.

there is no heavens gate and there is no god out there which created man. The universe and nature  did create man....for sure, but to believe something is watching over us or has the slightest interest on what we are up to, is imo ridiculous.

[XenoFish 106,608]

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

True and on this topic you could say both our minds are concluded. Now, whose words do we believe as to whether it is you or I who are the more deluded? You believe in your own truth, as do I and none can gainsay it.

Again it depends on truth. My truth and your truth are different, we act in accordance to our truth yet occasional find common ground. Yet taking a subjective truth to far and you end up with escapism, living in a fantasy world.

I think you'll agree that prayer backed by action leads to far better results. Correct?

[freetoroam 40,843]

14 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Is not the truth of death equally as important as the truth of life? 

Yes, especially when a murder has been committed. 

Life is not a rehearsal for death. Thats my truth of life.

 

 

[Will Do 6,598]

12 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Would you think it is fair to say that at present on the god topic we don't know one way or the other? 

Well, I'm not sure much in life is fair.

Personally I'm beyond certain. But if ever there was one with rebellion in his soul against God's existence, it was me. I finally could not continue one day when my exhaustion with it brought me to dare to contenplate the joy that God did exist, and that he cared about me.

It was only a matter of minutes later that I felt he had interjected in my life to let me know he was there and that he was pleased that I excersised my faith.

It was a sudden conversion which I believe happened because I finally forgot myself. I stopped thinking for just long enough that my life wasn't fair and accepted it, that life is joyful, which was probably the first time I had done that. I must have given thanks to God in some way, but didn't know I did, until some minutes later.

 

 

[Hammerclaw 28,000]

Just now, XenoFish said:

Again it depends on truth. My truth and your truth are different, we act in accordance to our truth yet occasional find common ground. Yet taking a subjective truth to far and you end up with escapism, living in a fantasy world.

I think you'll agree that prayer backed by action leads to far better results. Correct?

The efficacy of prayer is subject to debate. A propitiary offering of prayer serves to reinforce faith not only in belief in deity, but also in one's own actions that precede or follow.

[XenoFish 106,608]

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

The efficacy of prayer is subject to debate. A propitiary offering of prayer serves to reinforce faith not only in belief in deity, but also in one's own actions that precede or follow.

Not much different than a well worded affirmation.