We know there's a God because...

I wonder, what with the evolution of super-natural texts. How long it will be before a new, more our time-frame, with modern countries and technology book of God is 'published'. What will this new God be like? almost certainly nothing like Zeus, Allah or Jesus. No doubt however it will demonstrate beautifully how are evolved brains can adapt.But to the latest Jesus followers, when God stopped being audible to people, did he throw them a book?....or did that have to wait to be evolved from the human brain....

I'm pretty sure it's already happened. It's called "Scientology."Apparently "god" doesn't exist, but there's an evil space emperor named Xenu you might want to watch out for. Hear he like to freeze folks, stick them in a spaceship, and drop them into alien volcanoes a few lightyears away along with a few nuclear warheads. Then he brainwashes their souls so that they forever wander the Universe without discovering "the truth." Oh, and those brainwashed souls are the casue of all human suffering and previous religions. Nice chap.In this case, the mode of revelation was a science fiction writer. Go figure.Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

I wonder if in a few hundred years time scientology will still be around.
I wonder if it will be up there with, or even have surpassed, Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc.
Is there a holy book of Scientology? If not is it only a metter of time.....? Do all religions ultimately need a holy book if they are to survive and thrive in the longer term?

"Dianetics," by L. Ron Hubbard. You know, same guy who wrote "Battlefield Earth." Though apparently it doesn't go into everything they believe - apparently, if you discover the SECRET HORRIBLE TRUTH! before you're ready for it, you die. TO become ready, you need to pay very large sums of money for "auditing" your Thetan levels.Yes, you gain levels in Scientology. It really is pretty much what you'd expect a religion created by a slightly crazy science fiction writer as a scheme to generate cash would look like. Except even more retarded. I think they need a form of brainwashing and personal investment to grow from "cult" to "lasting religion." Scientology looks like it's going to be around for a while, unless more countries go the way of Germany and outlaw it as a harmful cult.

Scientology is alive and well in Germany. My daughter did a number of courses there and the experience was invaluable. She has learned to never be manipulated again.

Is it? I had heard that Germany had ruled Scientology to be a harmful cult as opposed to an actual religion, and as such it had been outlawed.Oh well. Honestly, I think Scientology should be legal. People should have the right to believe whatever they'd like to believe, after all. I just reserve the right to laugh at them for it. It's the right to believe that should be respected, not the actual beliefs themselves.

I also believe in the freedom to believe in anything you want but I do see scientology as a dangerous cult because it preys on vulnerable people. The vulnerable and the egotistical (Tom Cruise) are drawn in to a brainwashing excercise that is very powerful. However, they aren't so big to cause global harm but they do intend to reach numbers that will affect the world. I wait in anticipation of the future of scientology and other 'spiritual' movements that all believe they are right. Intriquing. regards

True democracy is a myth, and so is absolute freedom. People are irrational beings and as such should be controlled by the state, not by some horseshit, god-begging religion. A total ban on religions is inevitable.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

The same could be said about many versions of Christianity. Various televangelists, for example, actively try to encourage people to donate their very last dollar to the church in anticipation of spiritual or monetary rewards in the future.There really isn't any difference between scientology and any other religion except for popularity and scientology's overtly litigious nature.I dont think we'll ever have a global ban on religion, and I really don't think pursuing such a thing is a good idea. Religion can be positive, for people who need a crutch to get through life, or people who haven't been able to develop their own system of morality. The problems with religion are significant, but societies that have tried to bad one or all religions have tended to be extremely oppressive.If religion dies out all on its own because we as a species no longer need it, I'm all for that. But actively seeking to ban it would simply repeat the sins we attribute to religion.

Any hypothesis that can be empiricaly tested by means of prediction and verification is potentially scientific at least in principle.If an alien civilisation formed life on Earth then somewhere in the universe it is at least possible that there is empirical evidence of this.
If this alien civilisation designed life and then 'seeded' it here on Earth and elsewhere as the paper you cite is suggesting then logically we can predict that there is life elsewhere in the universe that is derived from the same basic building blocks and design mechanisms as life on Earth.This would be a prediction borne of the logical consequences of the hypothesis in question. This is, in principle, empirically verifiable.If we were to find evidence of an advanced alien civilisation that existed billions of years ago and life in other parts of the universe that was based on the same DNA basis as life as we know it -
THEN there would be scientific evidence in favor of the hypothesis.
NOT conclusive verification necessarily but evidence all the same.Rob - It is all about deriving the logical consequences of a theory, making preedictions and then verifying or refuting them empirically. This is how science works.The alien design hypothesis is at least potentially scientfic in principle (I didn't say it was likley or even possible in practise)An omnipotent omniscient supernatural God that abracadras things into and out of existence is empirically untestable and as such can never be a scientific explanation for anything.(AbE) In the world of science theories that have not been empirically tested are merely hypotheses. Theories that cannot be empirically tested even in principle can never be more than unreliable assumptions that more often than not are derived from desire driven interpretation of evidence. I am afraid that ID of the sort you advocate falls very squarely into this latter category.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Assuming that your scenario is plausible, why should we trust "The State" if people are irrational? Would not the members in positions of authority also be prone to irrational tendencies?Its like The Who says in the song, "We Won't Get Fooled Again" :Meet the new boss....same as the old boss.Edited by Phat, : added title

quote:

---

Assuming that your scenario is plausible, why should we trust "The State" if people are irrational? Would not the members in positions of authority also be prone to irrational tendencies?

​

Its like The Who says in the song, "We Won't Get Fooled Again" :

​

Meet the new boss....same as the old boss.

---

Haha. Good point. If you elect lowlife and crackheads for government- the country will go down very fast(some countries in latin america come to mind). If you elect educated and capable people to govern the state - things can get going pretty soon. This of course has to take place after a serious load of work has been done for legislature, law and institutions. And I am not saying/implying all believers are lowlife/crackheads.

Hi, Percy.I missed this thread because I haven't been around. I took a quick glance at the last few posts, and I don't think there's anything substantial to throw off by jumping in unless I missed something.We've discussed some "proof of God" issues before. I want to throw in this, though: If I had to reason, as I've seen Rrhain reason on this board, about the kind of world a good God would create, I'd probably come to the same conclusion you suggest: "We seem to have enough of [wars, prejudice, disease, and disasters] to suspect the possibility of an absence of God in this world."So if that sort of reasoning is ALL we have, then I'd lean toward no God.I don't think it's all I have. You probably hate my stories. I have a new one today. Last night our prayer team prayed for the couple that lives behind the two houses we own in Memphis. The couple has been remarkably rude to the folks we have living there. Someone who's been in that neighborhood for decades told me they've always been like that.One lady on the prayer team prayed, "God, if you can't get through to him, at least get through to her."She came over today and apologized for being so rude.These are people who went out of their way to express their disdain for our friends there. There was nothing to indicate anything had changed, other than the prayer last night.I don't feel like I went looking for God. I was an atheist once, at age 21, and I came to that slowly, over 7 or 8 years. At that point, however, I feel that God came looking for me. I was only an atheist for a couple months. The things that happened to turn me around probably would not have turned someone else around, but they were perfectly designed to convince me to follow Christ.I know you don't consider these things proof of anything. I tell you that only to answer your question. So, having said all the above, my answer to your question is:1.) I don't really think this world looks like it was created by a good God.
2.) I think that nature, in a spiritual manner, really does testify to our spirits, not to our brain, that there is a Creator.
3.) I believe the Creator calls people to himself, and he reveals himself in ways that allow their spirit to believe, even if their minds can't.That's my answer. A spiritual belief is quite enough, because that deep-rooted belief is sufficient to change behavior--where mental belief isn't always sufficient--and the results of a spiritual belief are often astounding enough to help take care of the mental belief, too.

{Content "hidden". - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : "Hide" content.

{Content "hidden". - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : "Hide" content.