Got faith?

Post Reply New Topic

I really don't know what the hell is going on with this conversation. Everything I see as you are saying is denied so I seemingly cannot converse with you. Perhaps we had better forget it. Evidently communication is not taking place.

Maybe I am wrongly assuming you are taking/holding an adversarial position of some kind? If you are, then I am simply refusing to get sucked into a senseless encounter within a rhetorical arena. But if that is not what you are about ...

Maybe you have been schooled to presumptuously hear things in certain pre-defined ways? If so, you will have to find your way out of that box on your own if you do not want any help from me (or from anyone else) there ... and I do not mean to be insulting while/when saying that.


That is your call to make, but just do not either wittingly or unwittingly toss the blame at me!

What I am saying is that this conversation is going nowhere. I am not seeking your advice nor attacking you, I am trying to understand you and I have failed totally. I have presented my viewpoint as best I know how and you seem to see my standards for examining the world and accepting or rejecting proposals as an aggressive effort to depreciate your point of view. Since I lack any comprehension of what your viewpoint is I can hardly attack it or even examine it under my standards. Whose fault it is that we do not communicate is irrelevant. The point remains that our interaction is unsuccessful.

All considered there, I willingly accept any blame possibly due anyone.

There is more than just one question here, and the entire discussion began on the allegedly "scientific" thought, evidence or "position" (dogma) saying there must obviously be no "God" (or any need for one or whatever else) the alleged "scientist" -- the strident/militant atheist -- might have to say about the entire/overall matter of "God" ...

... and yet, and as just indicated, there is no actual science truly involved there. Rather, the true scientist has only been conveniently misrepresented and/or poorly plagiarized ...

... and at that point, the PPR-typical strident/militant atheist's argument is no different than my own in the sense of stemming from personal will, desire or belief (and at times even admittedly for evangelistic purpose) rather than upon any true science (even though at least the principles of true scientific practice -- taste/try/experiment and see for yourself -- actually can lead to a positive experience within the supernatural (where the same within the atheistic community is not even really possible since its own dogma is but its own dead-end street)).

This is not atheist dogma?

Is there any reason to believe that the creator of natural law would have to be all powerful? I think the point Lee is trying to make is that it is just as silly do define what attributes a deity would have to have in order to exist as it is to claim that you know what those attributes are. I think what you fear is if natural had been made, then it can be changed and that would diminish the importance of science. I don't agree though. As you say, science is only concerned with discovering what those laws are and how the knowledge can be but to use; religion is more concerned with why they are what they are. I really don't see any conflict.

well if a deity isnt above all natural laws then it wouldnt really be a deity would it?
then it would simply be another sentience, more advanced maybe, but still a normal existence.

Admittedly there some atheists who claim there is no God. But there are also many atheists who point out that there is no acceptable evidence of a God and, beyond that, that there is no necessity of a God required in the operation of the universe as it has been perceived. This seems to be Hawking's viewpoint and I can accept that. On that second basis there is no need to concern one's self about the existence of a God. Dogma, as defined, concerns unsupported claims and science, insofar as I have examined it, makes no unsupported claims. It does make proposals and then attempts to find supporting evidence for them. If evidence is not discovered, those proposals are either rejected or put on hold until evidence is obtained. Religion does make claims that are not supported by evidence and also proclaims that these claims must be supported wholeheartedly without evidence. That is the nature of faith. One of the religious claims I have heard is that God is all powerful. I did not invent this in order to demolish it. If you have never heard of this you are amazingly uninformed, to use a polite term. If the God you believe in is not all powerful, then it is a rather personal God with characteristics I have never heard of and I cannot possible delve into your personal version of God without being thoroughly informed on it. If you wish to let me know all about your personal God perhaps I can see what it's relationship to known science might be. Or, like me, perhaps you are getting tired of kicking rubbish around.

Yes, as perceived.


Same here.


Yes, and that is what I know actual science to be.


Oops ...


Some religious sects, theistic or not (and including some within atheism, overall), do that, but not all.


Essentially, yes.


I think we already agree on this kind of answer there: Within the realm of pure physical science, there is none.


Never!

Last edited by leejosepho on 24 May 2011, 9:50 am, edited 2 times in total.

If there is a deity and it did create the natural laws then obviously it has the prerogative of uncreating them or, as in the acclaimed miracles, manipulating the universe so that the natural laws do not apply. The very definition of a natural law in the perspective of science is that it cannot not function. If t ceases to function then it is science's business to see how that happens and perhaps reproduce the effect to create a new and useful relationship in knowledge. But, as I pointed out, if natural laws are so malleable as to be twisted any which way, then natural law doesn't exist and there is only uncontrollable chaos.

The question "why" which religion poses carries with it the inevitable freight of intent which is chained to something that intends to do something with the universe. In other words teleology requires a plan. As you say, it is a knot that science is unconcerned to untangle. But one would think there would be some indication in the universe of the intent that would be discernible by observation. Even you must acknowledge that modern science in all its branches does a tremendous amount of all sorts of observation. And no intent is evident. That is the conflict.

Interesting question on the relationship between God and natural law. I tend to think of them as related.

And I knew dogma was an imperfect word for my point back a few pages, but for the context in which it was originally used, the transfer works.

Back to work.

I yam what I yam.

Most are not.

I know what I know.

Few others do.

They do it all the time. The special thing about the 1994 and 2011 ones is that the nuts preaching it had a great source of money to do adverts.

I don't see anything in the purported miracles that suggest that natural law had been nullified. Modern man scoffs at the idea of Jesus casting out demons because they dismiss the possibility of there being a spiritual realm. Nevertheless, if there is a spiritual realm that governs the natural realm, then the removal of a spirit that is causing an illness would be a cause of healing without changing natural law. Could this not have been what happened in the case that Leejosepho is so found of reporting?

I agree there is nothing observable in the natural world to indicate this but we do have clues to what the intent may be in the teachings of Jesus. You surprised me when you made [url=http:///www.wrongplanet.net/postp2370500.html#2370500]this[/url] post stating you didn't mind being associated with him. Though I am sure the comment was made in jest, I think there is some truth at the bottom of it. Unlike many atheists you don't seem to have a problem with his actual teachings and might even agree that the world would be a better place if more people took him seriously. Some might think that he should have given a physical sign, as the religious elite at the time kept demanding of him, but what if he had. Wouldn't that have drawn the wrong kind of people to him? If you need proof to take him seriously than you are thinking of yourself.

even if there is a "spiritual" realm i think the thought of "demons", wills intent on causing us harm.
is detrimental, as it moves responsibility away from people.

If I am hearing you there ...

The teaching of my own past says all spirits were once "good", but then one or more "rebelled" and thereafter came to be know as "bad" or "evil" ...

... and then we have the caricaturization of "angels" and "demons" sitting on our shoulders with us having to decide, to discern and/or to "choose" which to heed ...

... and within that kind of scenario, and at least after either being or becoming well-informed, we are ultimately (held?/deemed?/found?) responsible and accountable.

The concept of demons evilly intending to cause harm is a mere application of the same delusion of intention onto natural forces. Evil is a purely anthropomorphic insertion of intent into the mere progression of natural consequences, A tornado, a lightning strike, the impact of a huge meteor, malaria, termites, cancer, or whatever else damages humanity is nature working out cause and effect and there is no intent nor demons involved. That is pure superstitious nonsense.