Do you believe in God?

Post Reply New Topic

Thinking about this again I should probably post something about that - I usually get zero feedback when I talk about these sorts of things so I have no idea whether it's polite disagreement in a lot of places or people thinking I make this stuff up out of whole cloth.

One guy who's been particularly big in the modern plant and mineral alchemy movement:

The last world wide "flood" was snowball Earth about 600,000,000 years ago which did not wipe out all life. And there was no human alive back then to build an Ark. There is not enough water in the atmosphere which when added to the seas will cover Mt. Everest (almost 30,000 feet above sea level). That water trapped in the mantle cannot emerge as free running water at the surface. In short Noah's world wide flood never happened.

The Bible was written (mostly) by late bronze age, early iron age dudes who believed the world was flat, that the sun and the stars moved around the world and who knew nothing about atoms. In short the Bible was and is a pre-scientific collection of stories and myths, which happenstantially to have some sound morality and ethics embedded within it. There are no ethical principles in the the Bible which are not found in other "holy books".

I actually consider this to be the bedrock of all religions. A codified set of rules to ensure survival. I do not think it's happenstance at all that it, and other religious tomes, have this as the core message.

Most basic tenants set forth by religions in certain regions make a lot of sense.

Ways to halt disease. Ways to cut social strife.

But, it and science can be bastardized. Look at all the basic 'science' out there that is cherry picked to serve one purpose or the other. Usually to benefit a few.

An excellent example of this would be Clair Cameron Patterson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson

Or other whistle blowers. Look at the tainted science the tobacco companies used and the methods used against them.

Science is just as subject to being misused as religion by unscrupulous people.

Have you even studied in depth the creationists side of the argument? Or are you only assuming that evolution supporting scientists are right without considering in depth the other side?

I have looked at both sides of the argument.

Thank you. I find this to be a very reasonable assessment.

If we are left to interpret bones, rocks, stars, and religious books with only our own limited tools and logic, we will still fall short. Scientists can't even seem to agree on whether or not salt and coffee are good or bad for us. How can we trust them to flawlessly explain God and the totality of creation or this universe for that matter?

However, if God were to somehow reach out to us and open our minds to understanding a Holy book, then that is receiving insight from the author Himself.

Then He [Jesus] opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
Luke 24:45 NIV

Working backwards:

Never trust anything without reasoning. From any side.

Actually, the vast majority of scientists do agree on whether salt and caffeine (And many other contentions in society today) are good or bad for you. It's the idea of moderation. Period. That has been consensus for as long as I can remember. It's the 'grab headlines' type of thing that sours everybody, intentional or not. And, it can happen without consent of the parties being written about. An example is the Higgs Boson being called the 'god particle.' Most scientists are on record as hating that term.

What many people do is take everything as an absolute. The person who works in the field, construction, out in the heat need a whole lot more salt in their diet than an average office worker who just 'works out', who needs more than the couch potato.

We are left to interpret these things and we get better over time. Interestingly, things that were once common knowledge are lost because as we advance, we lose track of the things that we knew when more connected to our environments and the natural processes. We are rediscovering things the ancients actually knew thousands of years ago, but had no way to explain them.

Without any critical thought, through the prisms of the times that things were formulated, we do a disservice to the people who had true insights without the vocabulary to explain wonderful things. And, we do a disservice by limiting those insights to narrow minded literalisms.

It is not different than ourselves. Many of us are hampered by communication issues. People think were odd, idiots or worse just because we cannot make ourselves understood. But our thoughts can be quire wonderful.

Some of the things I read here astonish me on both extremes.

I liked Paul Harvey's Easter Message on YouTube.

The beat up bird cage story....

And how much less trustworthy is religion, who doesn't even use the tools of logic and reason?


How do you know that's God, and not your own mind?

That would be an ad hoc argument as it would actually apply to all forms of thought. This would include Science. Just think of the damage that doofus did with the Vaccines cause Autism foolishness.

Considering that would be the only means of any being making communication, that would seem to be a false equivalency unless you expect there to be a phone call or email from such a being.

And it was science which determined that Andrew Wakefield's study was flawed. It's not an ad hoc argument. Science is more trustworthy, even though it is sometimes wrong.


If god is omnipotent, why is he limited to communication that can never be verified? And e-mail or phone call would not be any less possible for him than walking on water.

It is an ad hoc argument because you make the assumption that religion doesn't change either. For instance, one of the leading authorities of science and scientific investigation is no less than the Vatican. Sooooo, the institution that messed with science in the dark ages to the renaissance is leading the charge these days in science.

There you go again. I am not saying it wouldn't be possible. But why would he/she/it? Just because you want something to satisfy your idea of what is acceptable doesn't mean that an omnipotent being would need to satisfy you. Kinda part of that free will thing that's woven into most religions.

What's interesting is that the most progressive people are the ones that do not see the schism and accept possibilities. And, possibilities are what science is all about. So, I am bewildered by the people who want to remove all possibilities from either side. It's the either/or crowd on both sides of the fence that seem to be the most bigoted in this argument. Both sides forget how ignorant we were and still are, demanding absolution of all things mysterious and unknown now!

Things are revealed in strange ways. Both scientific and spiritually. Things that were once magical and mysterious are our every day lives now. Looking at the past through the prism of today is a messy and fallacious exercise. Plenty of error and growth on both sides.

Edit: The bit about the vaccine/autism link being disproved doesn't mean it has been accepted as being disproved. Even here there have been posts about people believing it. And it even made a ruckus with the Tribeca Film Festival because it was removed after originally being approved. This was after Autism experts, De iNiro, who's child is autistic and other scientists reviewed the movie after originally approving it. And that launched a whole new round of conspiracy theories that are now making the rounds.

So bad science has very long lasting repercussions. Especially when the overwhelming majority of anti-vaxxers are middle class and up, educated people.

Catholicism make the unfounded assumption that God exists. Is that science? Has the Vatican shown that prayer works?


God doesn't need to satisfy my expectations. He can continue to provide no reliable evidence for himself. But the problem is distinguishing between communication from god and one's own mind. I accept that a god is possible. But minds are subject to hallucinations, internal dialogue, mistakes of perception, personal bias, etc.. Why would you trust such perceptions?

You just make an ad hoc rationalization when you seem to accept that god doesn't communicate except within one's mind and you ask the question why would he? That's ad hoc.

And now you're taking what I askeed and making an assumption based on your own narrative.

I asked why would he/she/it need to do so. I have done nothing but defend possibilities. There can be nothing ad hoc about that.

I have not presented false equivalencies or use one sided arguments that are actually applicable to both sides. That by its very definition prevents it from being ad hoc.

The ad hoc arguments you have made are to attack an institution based on a very narrow and cherry picked set of arguments.

The best ad hoc argument you have made basically ignores the 'faith' great scientists have had. Whether it be a deity or their ideas, they had faith. Most have been wrong. But the few that have been right, on both sides of the fence have succeeded spectacularly.

You always hear about Einstein and those people. But when it comes to religion, people jump to every bad thing possible such as jihads, the crusades, the inquisition (because nobody expected it) but will overlook the great people of faith such as Ghandi, King, Christ, Mohammed.

So far, Ghandi is the only one who's principles have not been corrupted....yet.

Even science has been used to justify racism and eugenics.

OK then, why would God want to communicate in a manner that can't be mistaken for purely internal mental processes? Because he might want rational people to believe in him. I don't care how many scientists with faith you quote, they haven't used science to justify their faith in a reliable manner.

And if I think certain religious people have been great, it has nothing to do with their religion.

1.) Who says god doesn't communicate in ways that the receiver would be able to differentiate? And, would you believe them if they did?

2.) Who says rational people don't believe in a god?

3.) Doesn't really matter to me whether you care or not about how many scientists that have no trouble with the schism. It is valid within the parameters that I am debating: The lack of absolute knowledge of whether this is true or not. From either side.

I would seem that you want it your way and your way only.

You keep circling this 'receivership' issue while ignoring all the other things you presented that were refuted.

Kinda makes no sense you say that if you think a religion is great, it's not because of the religion?

That's the exact same argument that is sued to denounce religion. So, it's a no win situation with close minded people on either side.

The difference is this: I am debating for an open mind from both sides.

It would seem that if you don't get the validation of what you want, the way you want, it can't be real. If there is a god, why would you think, and even insist, that your desire for a specific confirmation, on your terms, is more important than than the way things are revealed?

Reminds me of the old joke about a man lost at sea. Prayed for days to be sent a sign. Next day a Muslim ship comes by and they hail him. He refuses by saying that 'God will provide for him." They sail off.

The next day a Chinese ship came by, same thing.

The next day a Russian ship sails by, same thing. He dies that night. The next thing he knows, he's answering to St. Peter. He says that he was waiting for a sign. St. Peter replies, "We sent three ships, didn't you get the message?"

I like that story.

I used to scoff
And now I pray and read the Bible daily.

Love and prayers
To those that accept them.