God's purpose

Well, the idea the any sufficiently technolgically advanced society might appears as Gods to those less advanced. This has happened many times in the past. Well, I think GOD is much more than creator. I believe that GOD is a personal friend, a guide, a mentor, a a cmpanion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But I have seen no evidence to suggest that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist......should I therefore believe in him/her/it?

This is in the "Faith and Belief" forum so I think we are ok.You are talking about the hypothitical idea that we create a universe. The difference once again is the same as for abiogensis. We have been given the basic ingredient which is time. Abiogenesis requires matter and a new universe requires time. We cannot replicate what the creator of this universe accomplished because this universe was created without those basic ingredients, being availble. (At the time. )When you are considering the concept of the creator of time, then the question of what came before has no meaning.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Correlation is not causation. And in the USA, there are some concerns that the power of religion might be increasing. No, it isn't. Science is an enabler of a lot of mass culture, but it is not a producer.My main disagreement was with your earlier statement

Doesn't history show us that science has indeed removed God and Gods repeatedly from the equation?

You have moved a long way from that statement. Perhaps we are leaving the topic behind.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

I don't know. Only you can answer that.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

How do you actually know that?Can we be absolutely certain that for example that our universe is not the creation of a technologically advanced species which already inhabits a universe with space and time???

Is there any area that science has adequately explained that is still widely attributed to any god?In that sense has science not effectively replaced religion?The only areas left to large scale religion as far as I can see are the three I listed earlier i.e. universe origin, life origin and after death. science has removed all else from the domain of religion.If you have any examples that contradict this what are they?

How about what science tells us about what existed at the time of the BB and about the formation of the Earth.

Well obviously I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster either but you said And my point is that if you apply that reasoning there is no reason not to believe in all sorts of obvious and crazy nonsense.Given that there are many like you that believe with absolute certainty in various equally unprobable and unprovable gods many of which are mutually exclusive, the only rational resonse seems to be to accept none of these on faith and believe only that which there is sufficient evidence for.

Science has only educated speculation on what actually caused the BB. I don't understand how the formation of the Earth (or any other planet) poses a problem for my imaginary scenario???

>>The only areas left to large scale religion as far as I can see are the three I listed earlier i.e. universe origin, life origin and after death. science has removed all else from the domain of religion.<<Universal origin, life origin and after death are pretty big areas.>>Is there any area that science has adequately explained that is still widely attributed to any god?<<Pretty much all supernatural or seemingly supernatural events.Science does not claim that these don't occur, though many atheists and other skeptics do. Science simply says these are beyond science to test and explain, because they are not repeatable.I personally saw my nephew's blindness in one eye disappear within a week after we devoted a night to prayer, and it had been progressing (and recently spread to other eye, an infection of some sort) for over a year. Similar stories are abundant. I know there are many who believe all these things either didn't happen or have other explanations than divine intervention, but there are so many such stories that in my opinion, it definitely consitutes an "area...that is still widely attributed to God."True, it is not an area that "science has adequately explained," but it does apply to your question "has science not effectively replaced religion." The fact is, there are areas that science has *not* adequately explained--consciousness, for example--and some of those--all supernatural events--have been declared outside the realm of science, so science will possibly never adequately explain them.

I thought I'd better respond to this, too, just to clarify. What you say here is just historical fact. However, that does not mean that the things you said, which I responded to in my previous post, follow from this.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "adequately explained."From some points of view, science has not explained anything. Science is full of explanations, but these explanations don't explain.We study X, which is unknown. As a result of our study, we explain X in terms of Y. But Y is unknown. And then we explain Y in terms of Z, but Z is unknown. And so on.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Why?First, where have I said I believe with absolute certainty?Second, there is much in this world I will never know. The exact nature of GOD happens to be one of those things.Since I do not know the exact nature of GOD, how can I know that the gods are mutually exclusive, and why would that matter? What people call GOD is a human construct. It is something we create as an individual and it is not GOD.What I or anyone else knows about GOD is but a charicature, a human conceptualization, as I often say, a Map. It may be more or less accurate, but regardless, it will never be the reality, the Territory.As I have said, I see no evidence that GOD does not exist. I believe that I see evidence that GOD does exist.The evidence that I see for GODs existence is varied. It is in the order and consistency of the most basic forces that control this universe. It is in the wonder of things like love, of taste, of beauty, of music, of thought.We can determine the mechanics of all of these, we can learn about taste buds, about the chemical makeup of a Bartlett pear and compare that to the chemical makeup of an Anjou or a Bosc or a Comice.But that is not the experience of eating one. It is not the afternoon on a checkered tablecloth spread out on the grass eating pears and cheese while watching the Hunt Cup with a most beautiful young lady with long black hair held in place by a pearlescent bow.We may well determine all of the hows of life. Someday we may be able to explain all that is there to be learned about the mechanics.Yet even then, there remains the wonder and awe, the love and experience that can never be reduced to mechanics.I do not suggest that you, or anyone else should believe in GOD. For me, the evidence of GODs existence is overwhelming and I see no evidence that GOD does not exist.Could I be wrong? Certainly.Is it possible that there is no god? Certainly.Will any of us ever know the answer while we live? Unlikely.If GOD exists, She exists regardless of any evidence or belief that She does not exist.If GOD does not exist, It does not exist regardless of any evidence or belief that It does exist.I happen to believe that GOD does exist. Others may not.Edited by jar, : change sub-title

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Interesting. But are there really areas that we cannot investigate scientifically and if there are in what way can religion (for example) claim to have any knowledge that science cannot provide?Anecdotal evidence is not scientific. We all have stories of someone who used to smoke 90 a day but lived till 93 years old and was only outlived by his wife who smoked twice as much but.....would anyone really claim cigarrettes are not bad for you?? Anecdotal evidence is not scientific and if there are things that cannot be studied scientifically we should be able to explicitly explain why they cannot be!Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.