Spiritual or science

[cormac mac airt]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I still feel there is a point where irreconcilable differences meet. 

Also... 

Science doesn't disprove a God candidate because nothing exists to disprove. As such, recognising new information, the God theory becomes a superseded theory. As such unless new information comes to support the God theory, its effectively defunct. 

Now, now psyche101, strictly speaking that’s NOT true. It’s assuming a conclusion to say nothing exists BEFORE it’s tested. What IS true is that if there’s no way to test it then it can’t be said to exist. Its existence can thus only be taken as belief, NOT fact. It also depends on one’s definition of God/a god as well as whether existence REQUIRES a god. The latter of which has been shown to NOT be required. 

cormac

Edited August 13, 2019 by cormac mac airt

[Stubbly_Dooright]

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I tend to agree. The two exist in parallel. A religious man need not reject physical science. And a scientific man need not dismiss the spiritual.

Now, this is me and my warped perspective, but I feel there might be a slight difference on that. I also think the two exist in parallel. (In the way I personally see it.) But, I think one has more limitations than the other. Granted, I think a religious person need not reject physical science, because I think it’s the logical thing to not ignore. I feel this way, through out my life as a spiritual person who cannot deny the logic and nature right in front of me. But a scientific person need not to dismiss the spiritual, well I think that might be a tall order for all of them. I think, there is a basis of that logic, and there might be the instinctual need to reject the spiritual. Logic will still come up as the go to. 

I think psyche pretty much explained it well: 

3 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I still feel there is a point where irreconcilable differences meet. 

Also... 

Science doesn't disprove a God candidate because nothing exists to disprove. As such, recognising new information, the God theory becomes a superseded theory. As such unless new information comes to support the God theory, its effectively defunct. 

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

The fact that we still have mystery in our observations of the universe means science doesn't have all, (ALL) the answers so there is still room for philosophy and belief and exploration outside of science.   Any one who thinks science has proven god does not exist or that there is not a creator force is not a true scientist.  No real scientist would ever think we have proven beyond a doubt how Everthing works/interacts/ came about. I don't beleive in the judgemental, lazy punishing god that the judaic religions believe in, but I also can't accept that there is not some uniting force in the universe, most likely it is not some overseer or meddler, most likely it is beyond that and we are just tiny cells in the whole of the universe.  But that is my conclusion based on my experiences.  I am not going to ever try to convince someone else that it is TRUE, because there is no truth when god vs science is debated.

That is pretty much how I see it as well.   

[Stubbly_Dooright]

1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

3 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I still feel there is a point where irreconcilable differences meet. 

Also... 

Science doesn't disprove a God candidate because nothing exists to disprove. As such, recognising new information, the God theory becomes a superseded theory. As such unless new information comes to support the God theory, its effectively defunct. 

Now, now psyche101, strictly speaking that’s NOT true. It’s assuming a conclusion to say nothing exists BEFORE it’s tested. What IS true is that if there’s no way to test it then it can’t be said to exist. Its existence can thus only be taken as belief, NOT fact. It also depends on one’s definition of God/a god as well as whether existence REQUIRES a god. The latter of which has been shown to NOT be required. 

cormac

Well, much to that I agree with you and Desertrat, I do like to agree with psyche, in that well, to me it makes sense there is just nothing there to disprove it. I can see that. 

I wonder, if I could go back to that ole thing of the tree falling in a peopleless woods and wonder if there is sound to deny. In the end, for me, in that reflection, there is no sound for me to objectively logicfy. (<————— I think I made up a word there, and I’m damn proud of it! Insane, but proud! Love me Stephan Colbert!!!!   ) 

[VastLand]

On 7/16/2019 at 11:32 AM, God Lover said:

I was about to hop in the shower but I heard in a whisper Ashhhlynnnn, and I turn around to discover nothing.And so my thoughts believed that it was a fly.But was it a fly or were spirits trying to tell me something or get my attention, we will never know what do you think and believe?

All great sciences and mathematics were developed by the curious minds of philosophers and mystics. Today dogs hold this dogma-tised knowledge, and they do not much ponder it themselves. But in the beginning, spiritual mindsets were not separate from scientific observation.

Why have mainstream scientists not paved new understanding and breakthroughs? Why do they repeat the same old garbage theories? Because they do not observe abstract phenomenon, they limit their scope.

Why do they accept theories as fact? They do not critically think.

Philosophy is the basis for theology, personal beliefs, science, and all else... Philosophy is also directly tied to language.

Edited August 13, 2019 by VastLand
Grammer

[XenoFish]

Sense you do not make. Try again you should.

['Walt' E. Kurtz]

On 7/18/2019 at 4:36 PM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Have you been visiting me in the mornings?!?!?!?     

I once asked a babe "How would you like your eggs in the morning " and got a cold reply back "unfertilized" 

[+DieChecker]

7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I still feel there is a point where irreconcilable differences meet. 

Also... 

Science doesn't disprove a God candidate because nothing exists to disprove. As such, recognising new information, the God theory becomes a superseded theory. As such unless new information comes to support the God theory, its effectively defunct. 

The irreconcilable differences are due to one side or the other insisting that they must conflict. If I said you are wrong, and you say I am wrong, must either of us actually be wrong? Or is it a matter of opinions?

There is nothing in religion that must require proof. And nothing in science that must require religious kinds of belief. 

I would agree with what Cormac wrote in that something believed that is based on zero facts can not be factually refuted. It can only be concluded to be wrong due to lack of proof.

Given the underlying assumption of a very powerful being, saying you would notice things it sought to hide, is like an infant believing it would know how to fly a 747 passenger plane. Very unlikely.

That such a being could hide, is beyond doubt. WHY the being would hide should then be the question. 

Edited August 13, 2019 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

3 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Now, this is me and my warped perspective, but I feel there might be a slight difference on that. I also think the two exist in parallel. (In the way I personally see it.) But, I think one has more limitations than the other. Granted, I think a religious person need not reject physical science, because I think it’s the logical thing to not ignore. I feel this way, through out my life as a spiritual person who cannot deny the logic and nature right in front of me. But a scientific person need not to dismiss the spiritual, well I think that might be a tall order for all of them. I think, there is a basis of that logic, and there might be the instinctual need to reject the spiritual. Logic will still come up as the go to. 

I think psyche pretty much explained it well: 

 

I believe scientific minded people believe they must reject religion due to that being what they've been told to believe. They are programmed as much as any Young Earth Creationist. 

I don't believe it is instinct, unless it is the instinct to defend what one has been taught and what one has accepted as true.

[+Desertrat56]

15 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I believe scientific minded people believe they must reject religion due to that being what they've been told to believe. They are programmed as much as any Young Earth Creationist. 

I don't believe it is instinct, unless it is the instinct to defend what one has been taught and what one has accepted as true.

Science acolytes might believe that but many real scientist do not reject religion or belief in a god or creator, they find ways to integrate it into their lives, and find ways to reconcile the cognitive dissonance that most religious beliefs create.  Sometimes they decide they are agnostic, sometimes they see god in the very science they study.

Edited August 13, 2019 by Desertrat56

[cormac mac airt]

37 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

The irreconcilable differences are due to one side or the other insisting that they must conflict. If I said you are wrong, and you say I am wrong, must either of us actually be wrong? Or is it a matter of opinions?

There is nothing in religion that must require proof. And nothing in science that must require religious kinds of belief. 

I would agree with what Cormac wrote in that something believed that is based on zero facts can not be factually refuted. It can only be concluded to be wrong due to lack of proof.

Given the underlying assumption of a very powerful being, saying you would notice things it sought to hide, is like an infant believing it would know how to fly a 747 passenger plane. Very unlikely.

That such a being could hide, is beyond doubt. WHY the being would hide should then be the question. 

I would amend this to say that the question prior to WHY should be IS the being hiding? If so, THEN "why". If not, then is there an actual being to even discuss? 

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

35 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I believe scientific minded people believe they must reject religion due to that being what they've been told to believe. They are programmed as much as any Young Earth Creationist. 

I don't believe it is instinct, unless it is the instinct to defend what one has been taught and what one has accepted as true.

If you're talking about organized religion then I can only speak for myself, but I would say NO that's NOT what I believe. I was raised Southern Baptist (Independent) BEFORE I was ever given a chance to learn much either about religion OR ancient history. Having subsequently done my own research I found that the foundations of Christianity ARE NOT what they are presented as being, nor is the deity at the center of said religion what it's been presented as being. THAT'S how I made my decision. 

cormac

[XenoFish]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

WHY the being would hide should then be the question. 

Why does it hide? Why does it only speak to one group of people? If it speaks to different groups, then why is the message so different? If god answers prayers, then why only selective ones? 

It's as if god doesn't care or doesn't exist. 

[cormac mac airt]

4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Why does it hide? Why does it only speak to one group of people? If it speaks to different groups, then why is the message so different? If god answers prayers, then why only selective ones? 

It's as if god doesn't care or doesn't exist. 

Or he/she/it is bipolar or suffers from Dissociative Identity Disorder. 

cormac

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

Or he/she/it is bipolar or suffers from Dissociative Identity Disorder. 

cormac

Or god is an idea created by humans in order to make sense of life. We put into our gods what we wish to be. 

[+DieChecker]

2 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

I would amend this to say that the question prior to WHY should be IS the being hiding? If so, THEN "why". If not, then is there an actual being to even discuss? 

cormac

I did give the assumption of such in the question. But I would agree, each person should judge IF there is a God for themselves.

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Why does it hide? Why does it only speak to one group of people? If it speaks to different groups, then why is the message so different? If god answers prayers, then why only selective ones? 

It's as if god doesn't care or doesn't exist. 

God speaks to everyone, many simply aren't listening.

[cormac mac airt]

3 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

God speaks to everyone, many simply aren't listening.

I'll bite, how do you rationalize that with the last sentence of your previous post? 

cormac

[+Sherapy]

7 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

God speaks to everyone, many simply aren't listening.

Wouch! This is a mighty bold claim for one who was just posting that religious stuff is all personal opinion anyhoo. 

 

Edited August 13, 2019 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

8 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

I'll bite, how do you rationalize that with the last sentence of your previous post? 

cormac

Geez, how does one support this whopper of a claim? 

It sounds a tad arrogant, but it is Die and I am open to hearing him out. 

Edited August 13, 2019 by Sherapy

[XenoFish]

8 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

God speaks to everyone, many simply aren't listening.

What if it's not God? 

[+Sherapy]

2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

What if it's not God? 

Exactly and how would we know?

 

 

[XenoFish]

49 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

each person should judge IF there is a God for themselves.

Isn't that a problem though. If we are allowed to judge if god exist or not, what if we choose our own god. Not the god if such a god even exist.

Edited August 13, 2019 by XenoFish

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Exactly and how would we know?

 

 

Without any evidence for God's existence, we don't. It's all a guess. 

[+DieChecker]

10 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

I'll bite, how do you rationalize that with the last sentence of your previous post? 

cormac

Here is my earlier quote.

Quote

That such a being could hide, is beyond doubt. WHY the being would hide should then be the question. 

And...

Quote

God speaks to everyone, many simply aren't listening.

These are not in conflict. In the previous post I was assuming the target audience to believe God is not real. So it was to establish God is real. And thus if that is so, then people must assume He was hiding. The post was to draw out just such a question as was asked.

Then I said that God speaks to everyone, many simply aren't listening. This was to meant to mesh with the other post, in that why if God speaks to everyone, why is He hiding? Answer is He is not hiding. God is right there, all people have to do is look.

People don't hear, because they are not listening. They think God is hiding, because they don't look.

When I posted, "Why is God hiding?". My intended response was, "He not...".