who believes in god

[Rose Immortal]

The logical and scientific axioms I accept as truths are indeed taken on faith, but the difference with these fundamental principles and religion is that they are basic observable elements which are provable as far as human senses are concerned and advanced theories are built from these. The concept of God on the other hand seems to have no basis - it's not derived from evidence and relies on ancient texts for proof. You could then argue that proof of God is incomprehensible to our senses, but then why did he talk to people all the time and give people signs in the old testament of the bible? If they got direct proof then, why don't we now? Was Jesus our last chance? Did God change, or did we?

Pardon me if this comes off as stupid, but it actually shows we've thought along similar lines (despite different conclusions).

While I HAVE heard of signs like strange healings and things of that nature, I have found myself wondering if indeed WE have been the ones to change. I think that as we have become more and more worshipful of our own intelligence (not saying all people do, but there are definitely some loud ones who do), two things have happened. The first is that we may miss the significance of events in our rush to analyze the mechanisms by which they happen. NOT that we should not analyze these mechanisms--I don't think it would be right to simply refuse to learn. But I think sometimes in our haste we may forget to stand back for a second and appreciate the beauty and the meaning in things...therefore we could be missing miracles right under our noses. It's not unlike when you show little kids violent TV from when they're tiny and by the older time they're inured to it. Nasty example, but same principle.

The other thing is...I think when some of us make it clear to Him that He is not wanted, He doesn't respond with a strike of lightning or something like that--I think He responds by just biding His infinite time and waiting for that person to approach Him themselves, of their own free will. And that can come off as nothing being done.

Sorry for the ramble (you know by now I'm good at that! ), but I found this point interesting because it's one I've given consideration to myself.

Beez--glad you see it that way. I've encountered people who DID try to humiliate people of faith by trying to make them feel stupid...and it doesn't feel good at all. To me it's just the other side of the "you're going to Hell" browbeating lecture. I've had both directed at me (that's what one gets for being a moderate!), and it is hurtful.

 

[jo jo]

dang you guys can really talk i dont have that much goin on in my mind besides music but i do beleive there has to be a god becaus ei cant imagine us just rotting in a grave forever i believe there is a ultamate paradise yes where i can play guitar and eat tons of food all day so yes i do beleive that there is a god and that we have j man as our saviour

 

[Beelzebub]

dang you guys can really talk

Just some stimulating conversation while we wait for the new album to come out

 

[Rafaga]

Well...

I think the keyword here is Faith. I have found a renewed faith recently, my baby girl born a month ago, and nobody I know, could deny God existence after watch his/her first born child coming out of the womb and cry for the first time... the miracle of life.

I teach Geology, and at some point we have to learn the origins of the universe. This class always cause controversy because of the theories (is a catholic school) I always try to stay analitic but the questions of the boys are the same as mine: If there's no God... where the hell did all came from? the big bang, sure, but before that? The proccess is cyclic, it's been repeting itself for aeons. Sure, they say, but .... how it began?...who or what started it?

I believe only with the presence of God, one can answer these questions.


Notice that I didn't say I was a religious man.

 

[Rose Immortal]

Congratulations on your new daughter!

I can understand why the theories could cause controversy among some. But for me, there simply is no conflict whatsoever between science and religion. It matters not what process God used to create everything, the way I see it, nor how long it took. The point as far as I'm concerned is that He did it.

One interesting question is, how do you define the word "religious"? Some people use it to refer to someone who believes deeply in a particular religion--others use it more to refer to those who are very particular about following every little ritual of a religion. That's why I'm asking...people's reactions to each definition can be very different.

 

[Fossil Records]

I think we need a couple of definitions.

Theist - Believes in the existence of a diety or dieties. Has nothing to do with religion, truth, or faith. Only belief (which is perceived truth).

Atheist - Believes in the non-existence of a diety or dieties. Again, nothing to do with religion, truth, or faith. Only belief (which is perceived truth).

Agnostic - An agnostic believes it is impossible to know the truth of theism. Again, nothing to do with religion, truth, or faith.

I've definitely had the experience of atheists trying that, though. It seems to me that both ideological extremes share a lot of behavior.

Were they trying to "convert" you, or argue against religion or theism? Religions convert people and, typically, atheists (by definition) belong to no religion. I have a feeling these people were arguing against religion and theism and (if they were jerks) were saying that you should be an atheist. In the literal sense, they can't "convert" you. Again, it's all about belief.

logic and faith are both integral parts of reasoning. even science relies on faith, though of a different sort. one does experiments to collect data, and based on the sample results, one assumes (on faith, mind you) that something is either true or not. the same can be said of religion.

Actually, this is completely erroneous (with all due respect). Science relies on truth - NOT faith. Faith is based upon an unprovable belief (again, by definition). Science is not science unless it can be proven time and time again. Sure, there's been faulty "science" done (cold fusion, anyone?), but that's not considered science by scientists (as myself).

But for me, there simply is no conflict whatsoever between science and religion.

Nor should there be. Many scientists believe that their work is merely an attempt to understand and measure God's creation. I have no problem with that, I just feel that I am attempting to understand and measure the universe. In a broad sense, it's all really the same thing.

 

[ThornsOfSorrow]

I don't see why people even try to gain followers for their religion in the first place. Does it really matter how many people follow the same belief system that you do (not aimed at anyone in particular...just to clarify)? If you believe in something, even though no one else does, why should you care if you're the only one? I mean, for ages, people have been arguing over religion and fighting wars over it. Although I'm not religious, I think that religion could be a very good thing. It gives people something to believe in, and it gives them hope in times of hardship. Unfortunately, no one respects the beliefs of anyone else, so religion has become the opposite of what it was meant to be. This just proves that nothing should be taken too seriously. Sorry if I was rambling...

 

[kazahana]

Agnostic - An agnostic believes it is impossible to know the truth of theism. Again, nothing to do with religion, truth, or faith.

Some definitions say impossible to know the truth. Others say that the truth is just unknown - maybe it won't be some day. I go with the latter.

Actually, this is completely erroneous (with all due respect). Science relies on truth - NOT faith. Faith is based upon an unprovable belief (again, by definition). Science is not science unless it can be proven time and time again. Sure, there's been faulty "science" done (cold fusion, anyone?), but that's not considered science by scientists (as myself).

Not true, because observations are based on our senses which are fallible and at some point any scientific theory will have relied on human observation. I'm no philosopher, but you can't speak about truth when you don't know if reality is real or not. All you can say is that as far as you are able to tell, observations we make are the truth and that is where you rely on faith, since you can never know absolutely that what you observe is the truth.

Not only our senses, but our perception may be flawed - if our understanding of traditional logic is based in the way our brains work, then we may incorrectly deduce things. Logic may be no more than a product of our brains and all mathematics as we know it completely false. Again I'm not saying this is likely but you can't prove logic as it's something you inherently take as a truth.

I think logic and observations are the nearest approximation to the fundamental concepts of science, but it must be known that these are not the truth - they are truths relative to us which we believe in without evidence or that we have faith in. They are the only things I have faith in though, and that all things can be derived from them.

 

[kazahana]

It might also be an idea to note that all our concepts of god are realised through language and so our understanding of god is bound by what we are able to say in words. That's not an argument for or against, but a reminder of the limitations of our minds.

 

[Rose Immortal]

It might also be an idea to note that all our concepts of god are realised through language and so our understanding of god is bound by what we are able to say in words. That's not an argument for or against, but a reminder of the limitations of our minds.

Good points about words and logic. Words are finite, and thus we attempt (without meaning to) to limit the infinite when we speak or conceptualize in words.

 

[Thraxz]

Not only our senses, but our perception may be flawed - if our understanding of traditional logic is based in the way our brains work, then we may incorrectly deduce things. Logic may be no more than a product of our brains and all mathematics as we know it completely false. Again I'm not saying this is likely but you can't prove logic as it's something you inherently take as a truth.

SO, are you saying that all of our senses and thoughts are in collaboration to make logic and first hand experience only seem correct? Your logic leads down a path that is wrong. For example, if our perceptions were at fault for a physical error, nothing we'd do that builds on that error would work. For example, If our perceptions were wrong about hot air being less dense than cold air, our hot air balloons wouldn't work. Granted, this is a very simplistic portrayal, but I think you get the idea.

 

[kazahana]

SO, are you saying that all of our senses and thoughts are in collaboration to make logic and first hand experience only seem correct?

I'm saying that's a possibility. In fact a likelihood, but not to the extent you proceed to describe.

Your logic leads down a path that is wrong. For example, if our perceptions were at fault for a physical error, nothing we'd do that builds on that error would work. For example, If our perceptions were wrong about hot air being less dense than cold air, our hot air balloons wouldn't work. Granted, this is a very simplistic portrayal, but I think you get the idea.

Not necessarily - maybe hot air balloons don't work, but you only think they do. There's no way you could ever absolutely prove they do work. There's also the possibility it does work, but for none of the reasons we think, or that everything is random and just by amazing coincidence happens in the way we expect. Again, you can't prove otherwise.

I'm not saying that's the case - I'm saying what we perceive isn't necessarily absolute reality. You can take any scientific principle and be unable to say for certain exactly that it is true because it's based on approximation from human senses somewhere down the line.

 

[Fossil Records]

Not true, because observations are based on our senses which are fallible and at some point any scientific theory will have relied on human observation.

That's correct, scientific THEORY is fallible and theories get modified or thrown out all of the time. Scientific LAW however is based on fundamental truths.

I'm no philosopher, but you can't speak about truth when you don't know if reality is real or not.

Huh? Is this the "What is 'is'?" defense? If so, then we've lost all ability to debate.

 

[Korona]

Science relies on truth - NOT faith.

This has so many holes, I kinda feel bad attacking it. If only it were true that science offered us any type of certainty. If you are serious about science and (haven't already) check out this book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

Science relies on assumptions. It is perhaps more insidious than the assumptions of logical arguement (axioms) because the language itself is saturated with these fundamental beliefs, hiding them and making them inescapable. This means its not even possible to form an attack on the theory because using the language that such an attack would be formed in requires making the assumptions you want to go on to refute. Try and refute E=MC2 in the language of relativistic physics... It not only cant be done but its not even possible to think of how such a refutation could be sensibly formed.

Our reality is formed of many elements, the world of consciousness, of science, is very much at the mercy of the powers of our ordering and structuring mind. Even seemingly fundamental tennets of science like causation (which forms the bedrock of the atheist attack on God linked to in the earlier post) are products of our mind, added to rather than contained within the empirical sense data of our immediate experiance. In the structuring and ordring process we create a conscious world, but forces just as powerful create a subconscious world. Understanding these, (of which God is one of the most powerful and central) is central to understanding ourselves and our reality. The fundamental misunderstanding of theology today is the faliure to realise our world has more than just conscious elements. Any attempt to apply God to the rational world is doomed to end in agnosticism.

 

[kazahana]

That's correct, scientific THEORY is fallible and theories get modified or thrown out all of the time. Scientific LAW however is based on fundamental truths.

Truths which cannot be proved and are therefore assumptions. Highly likely assumptions in my opinion, but assumptions nonetheless so they are not truths.

Huh? Is this the "What is 'is'?" defense? If so, then we've lost all ability to debate.

It's not a defense - I'm clarifying that there is no absolute truth and everything is based on the assumption that what we experience is real. You believe your eyes work, and that logic is correct without reason from birth. That's faith. I'm saying those are reasonable assumptions as they are the smallest we can make, while the idea of a god is a much larger assumption.

 

[Rose Immortal]

A scientific "law" is something we can claim to a very high level of confidence--but if you're familiar with statistics, you know that there IS still a small probability of being wrong.

I would clarify the "absolute truth" thing, though. There HAS to be one. The only thing is we cannot understand it IN ITS ENTIRETY because of our finite minds.

Funny how even though we come to different conclusions, I understand your point perfectly...

 

[kazahana]

I would clarify the "absolute truth" thing, though. There HAS to be one. The only thing is we cannot understand it IN ITS ENTIRETY because of our finite minds.

I'm clarifying that there is no absolute truth

Oops, I meant to say "that we are able to perceive" after that. I agree that there must be an absolute truth

 

[Fossil Records]

Truths which cannot be proved and are therefore assumptions. Highly likely assumptions in my opinion, but assumptions nonetheless so they are not truths.

It depends on how you define "proven". If you come from the belief (it is only a belief, mind you) that NOTHING can be proven, then there's nothing that can change your mind. However, if you live in reality (that is, That which is real; an actual existence; that which is not imagination, fiction, or pretense -- NOT the philisophical "reality") there are fundamental laws which are truths. For example, if I observe that standing on the Earth and releasing a stone causes it to fall to the ground AND everyone else on the Earth can observe the exact same thing - THAT is truth. You can make philosophic arguments about "is the stone really falling" or "is it really a stone" all you want, but that isn't truth. That is taking a Reality (an actual existence) and turning it around using logical arguments (but non-provable) to support a "what if" scenario (aka "fiction").

It's not a defense - I'm clarifying that there is no absolute truth and everything is based on the assumption that what we experience is real. You believe your eyes work, and that logic is correct without reason from birth. That's faith. I'm saying those are reasonable assumptions as they are the smallest we can make, while the idea of a god is a much larger assumption.

That's fine - this is why I said we can't debate. You have the belief that what you see is refutable ("do I really exist?") and I have the belief that what I see is irrefutable ("yeah, you're standing right in front of me, 100 other people can see you, I'd say you exist.")

 

[Fossil Records]

A scientific "law" is something we can claim to a very high level of confidence--but if you're familiar with statistics, you know that there IS still a small probability of being wrong.

Actually no, a scientific law is a fundamental - that means there cannot be any lack of confidence. It is an absolute. It has always been perceived to be as it is and it will always be perceived as it is (well, unless you're standing on the surface of a black hole). eg. A rock released on the surface of the Earth will always fall towards the earth (Newton's Law of Gravitation).

Perhaps what we need to clarify isn't truth, but what a law, theory, and hypothesis are? A law is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. If it wasn't a statement of fact it never would have made it out of the theory or hypothesis stage. In all actuality, there aren't THAT many scientific laws (I seem to remember there being around 50 if we drop out mathematics). Of course there are plenty of math laws (A+B is the same as B+A, etc).

A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. There are LOTS and LOTS of theories - if there is any possibility for the theory to fail, it will never become a law. It's true that both Scientific Laws and Theories are used every day by scientists to make predictions of events as they are both assumed to be true. But again, theories are only assumed to be true. eg. Ptolemy's Geocentric theory showed that (according to the evidence he had at the time) the Sun revolved around the Earth. It could never be proven by him so his observations were always given the moniker "theory."

A hypothesis is an educated guess based upon observation. We make these every day. eg. There is water falling from the sky accompanied with dark clouds that I've seen produce rain in the past. (or is it someone on the roof with a hose on a cloudy day?)

And yes, I'm very familiar with statistics (as a pharmaceutical research chemist in charge of analytics I had to be). I'm also fond of quoting Ben Franklin - "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

 

[Rafaga]

Congratulations on your new daughter!

I can understand why the theories could cause controversy among some. But for me, there simply is no conflict whatsoever between science and religion. It matters not what process God used to create everything, the way I see it, nor how long it took. The point as far as I'm concerned is that He did it.

One interesting question is, how do you define the word "religious"? Some people use it to refer to someone who believes deeply in a particular religion--others use it more to refer to those who are very particular about following every little ritual of a religion. That's why I'm asking...people's reactions to each definition can be very different.

Thank you very much!! She's our first baby after 11 years married and 2 miscarriages, so you can imagine how happy we are.

I was raised as catholic, and when I was a kid, I did follow almost every aspect of the religion. But I grow up, and learn about the church's atrocities through history, and of course, disappointed. Now I almost never go to mass or follow my religion. But that has nothing to do with my faith in God and/or Jesus.