Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Detecting God
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 166 of 271 (573611)
08-12-2010 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by sac51495
08-12-2010 7:10 AM


Re: Science: objective? Nah.
sac51495 writes:
Give me an example of a scientific proof for the existence of something.
We can't, for the simple reason that science doesn't deal with proof, it deals with evidence.
Edited by Huntard, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by sac51495, posted 08-12-2010 7:10 AM sac51495 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by riVeRraT, posted 08-12-2010 7:49 AM Huntard has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 167 of 271 (573616)
08-12-2010 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by bluescat48
08-10-2010 11:43 AM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
"bluescat48" writes:
That is one of the problems. If one goes to a Bible study from church A and then to one from Church B, one gets to different interpretations of a Biblical story, totally subjective. Back when I was still theist, I had gone to six different Christian denomination churches and that was like going to six different universes.
Yea, I used to get piano lessons. Not ever teacher was the one for me either. I switched until I found one that I like.
I mean, I am telling you that the bible is subjective, and your faith is subjective, so what else would you expect from going to different churches? People read the bible, and many times, every time they read it, they learn something new from reading the same verse over and over. That's the beauty of it. If God exists, and we are to be able to have a relationship with Him, and He created us to be individual then, it's ok that it means something different to all of us.
Just like if we both went to a concert together. The concert exists, yet the feeling we each experienced is individual, and subjective from each other.
The foundation of everything that Jesus tried to teach us, is to Love God, and love others like we love ourselves. The problem is when people use the bible, and religion to justify anything that deviates from that concept. Religion=man, God=Love.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by bluescat48, posted 08-10-2010 11:43 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by hooah212002, posted 08-12-2010 11:47 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 168 of 271 (573623)
08-12-2010 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Stile
08-11-2010 2:05 PM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
"Stile" writes:
...but it's not objective at all. There's nothing about it that can be shown to be objectively true. It's just a unverified claim that is claimed to be shown in an objective way. That's not objective in the sense of being any help in detecting God, objective things can be verified.
I think you are mixing up objectivity with scientific consensus.
But that wasn't the point. The point was that there is a fail-safe "love detector" for me to identify if my wife loves me. Based upon the rational and reasonable indications that my wife loves me. The additional point was that there is not any rational and reasonable indications that can be used to detect God.
Love in itself is subjective. You have no way of proving it from your own personal standards, because the person who "loves" you may have different standards. Yet, it all exists.
[b][u]Objectively detected[/b][/u]. I didn't say He couldn't be subjectively detected.
People glimpse UFO's, and think they see aliens. Do they exist or not? Just because we haven't objectively tested the existence of aliens, does not mean that they do not exist. Even if I don't believe in them.
You subjectively detect your wife's love for you, and that is good enough for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Stile, posted 08-11-2010 2:05 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Stile, posted 08-12-2010 2:01 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 169 of 271 (573624)
08-12-2010 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Huntard
08-12-2010 7:15 AM


Re: Science: objective? Nah.
"Huntard" writes:
We can't, for the simple reason that science doesn't deal with proof, it deals with evidence.
Jesus's walk on the earth, and the miracles He performed are evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2010 7:15 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2010 7:56 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 172 by jar, posted 08-12-2010 10:41 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 175 by Theodoric, posted 08-12-2010 12:15 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 170 of 271 (573628)
08-12-2010 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by riVeRraT
08-12-2010 7:49 AM


Re: Science: objective? Nah.
riVeRraT writes:
Jesus's walk on the earth...
Great, if you would kindly point to where he walks, we could settle this issue once and for all.
...and the miracles He performed are evidence.
Since we don't even know if he even performed any miracles at all, I wouldn't know how they could be.
Also, what has this to do with the fact that science deals in evidence and not proof?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by riVeRraT, posted 08-12-2010 7:49 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 171 of 271 (573660)
08-12-2010 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by sac51495
08-12-2010 7:10 AM


Re: Science: objective? Nah.
sac51495 writes:
Give me an example of a scientific proof for the existence of something. For example: gravity, the sun, etc...We'll see just how objective that proof really is...
Which of course is not just a silly request but also another attempt to change the subject, palm the pea, smoke and mirrors.
Nothing has been said about proving the existence of God rather the topic is "Detecting God".
We can detect gravity, certainly well enough to be able to point to an event and all agree "Gravity caused the apple to fall".
We can detect the sun, certainly well enough for folk to tell when it is night or day.
How do we detect God with the same level of confidence we have about detecting gravity or the sun?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by sac51495, posted 08-12-2010 7:10 AM sac51495 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 172 of 271 (573661)
08-12-2010 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by riVeRraT
08-12-2010 7:49 AM


Re: Science: objective? Nah.
riVeRraT writes:
Jesus's walk on the earth, and the miracles He performed are evidence.
Very weak evidence.
We may believe Jesus walked on the earth and that Jesus performed miracles, but honestly there is almost no evidence that is true and even if true that is not really evidence of God.
Miracles are simply events that cannot be explained. They offer no strong evidence of God.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by riVeRraT, posted 08-12-2010 7:49 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by riVeRraT, posted 08-17-2010 8:25 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 173 of 271 (573674)
08-12-2010 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by riVeRraT
08-12-2010 7:34 AM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
I mean, I am telling you that the bible is subjective, and your faith is subjective, so what else would you expect from going to different churches? People read the bible, and many times, every time they read it, they learn something new from reading the same verse over and over. That's the beauty of it.
Which is exactly what you would expect from a book of (sometimes) feel good, allegorical fables; not a book of facts. Which one is the bible touted as being?

"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by riVeRraT, posted 08-12-2010 7:34 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by riVeRraT, posted 08-17-2010 8:30 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 174 of 271 (573678)
08-12-2010 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by sac51495
08-12-2010 7:10 AM


Re: Science: objective? Nah.
sac51495 writes:
Give me an example of a scientific proof for the existence of something. For example: gravity, the sun, etc...We'll see just how objective that proof really is...
The point of the thread is to show a method of detecting God that's as good as the methods we have for detecting gravity and the sun.
As the OP suggests, we can detect gravity by dropping a ball and watching it hit the ground. Anybody can do that, whether he's a Sikh or a Mormon or an agnostic, and make the same observation. That's the level of detection that we're asking from you. Please devise an experiment to detect God to that same level.

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by sac51495, posted 08-12-2010 7:10 AM sac51495 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 175 of 271 (573679)
08-12-2010 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by riVeRraT
08-12-2010 7:49 AM


Re: Science: objective? Nah.
Jesus's walk on the earth, and the miracles He performed are evidence.
Since you have no evidence for either of these, they are not evidence for anything.
Edited by Theodoric, : added quote

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by riVeRraT, posted 08-12-2010 7:49 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 176 of 271 (573700)
08-12-2010 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by riVeRraT
08-12-2010 7:47 AM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
riVeRraT writes:
I think you are mixing up objectivity with scientific consensus.
Then perhaps you could show something that is objective, yet cannot be verified? Otherwise, no, I am not confusing anything.
But that wasn't the point. The point was that there is a fail-safe "love detector" for me to identify if my wife loves me. Based upon the rational and reasonable indications that my wife loves me. The additional point was that there is not any rational and reasonable indications that can be used to detect God.
Love in itself is subjective. You have no way of proving it from your own personal standards, because the person who "loves" you may have different standards. Yet, it all exists.
Except I do have ways of showing it from my own personal standards. That's exactly what I showed you before.
The fact that the person who loves me may have different stanadard does nothing to reduce the objectivity of my own standards if I choose to make those standards public and hold to them.
All those rational and reasonable things I listed show that my wife loves me according to my own personal standards.
They can all be objectively falsified.
You subjectively detect your wife's love for you, and that is good enough for you.
You seem fond of saying such, and yet I've shown you that you're wrong.
The feelings of love I have when I think of my wife are subjective.
However, I certainly can (and do) objectively detect my wife's love for me according to the rational and reasonable things I've already listed.
If you're going to claim I can't do this, you're going to have to show how the things I listed cannot be objectively tested for, or why it would be impossible for these things to be indications of "love". Here's the list again:
Stile writes:
-she doesn't cheat on me
-she smiles and laughs and appears to enjoy my company
-she says she loves me
-she goes out of her way to help build our lives together
...sounds pretty objective to me, also sounds like love as far as any average couple in North America goes... but perhaps you can think of something I can't.
...perhaps what you are trying to get at is that I cannot read my wife's mind and it's possible (however slim) that she is deceiving me and actually does not love me. This is true, but again, irrelevant. The same objective, rational, reasonable list of things I have still exists and it's still objective, rational and reasonable. There does exist a possibility that it will lead to an inaccurate conclusion... but this is the same with any and all scientific theories as well. It's called "tentativity".
Just because we haven't objectively tested the existence of aliens, does not mean that they do not exist.
Exactly. Of course, this is a useless statement in trying to detect that aliens do, actually, exist.
Without confirmed objective tests, it is irrational and unreasonable to think that aliens exist... and the same with God. Even if it might be true.
Take the planet Pluto, for example. It's always existed (as long as humans have been around, anyway). However, before there was any verified, objective indication that Pluto existed, it was irrational and unreasonable to believe it existed. You would have been right... you just wouldn't be rational or reasonable about it.
Similar to me saying there are 50 more planets in our solar system beyond Pluto. Maybe we haven't detected them yet. Maybe they actually exist. Regardless... it is currently irrational and unreasonable for me to think that they actually do exist until there is some way to detect them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by riVeRraT, posted 08-12-2010 7:47 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 177 of 271 (574672)
08-17-2010 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by jar
08-12-2010 10:41 AM


Re: Science: objective? Nah.
"jar" writes:
We may believe Jesus walked on the earth and that Jesus performed miracles, but honestly there is almost no evidence that is true and even if true that is not really evidence of God.
I never said it was (objective)evidence of God. You and Huntard made that leap. It's just evidence. My point was that evidence existed, and you confirmed it.
It is pretty funny how the most documented events of that time are some how today "not true". Guess everyone was writing about fairy tales, and thousands of people started believing, "just because"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by jar, posted 08-12-2010 10:41 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Theodoric, posted 08-17-2010 8:58 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 178 of 271 (574673)
08-17-2010 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by hooah212002
08-12-2010 11:47 AM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
"hooah212002" writes:
Which is exactly what you would expect from a book of (sometimes) feel good, allegorical fables; not a book of facts.
That is completely false. There are several books of facts that you would read, and get something different from it every time you read it. Several atheists have admitted to that on this forum.
If you read about love, does it have the same meaning to you when you were a child, as it does today? As your view on the world changes, and your intelligence grows, the same wisdom read in a book can easily take on a new meaning.
Which one is the bible touted as being?
That is left for you to decide. The Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of truth. Once you know that truth, then the truth will set you free.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by hooah212002, posted 08-12-2010 11:47 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by hooah212002, posted 08-17-2010 10:23 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 179 of 271 (574676)
08-17-2010 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by riVeRraT
08-17-2010 8:25 AM


Re: Science: objective? Nah.
My point was that evidence existed, and you confirmed it.
How is the bible evidence for jesus. Stories are not evidence. Show some something from outside of the bible that is contemporary. That would be evidence. Using your argument, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer is evidence for the existence of Tom Sawyer.
It is pretty funny how the most documented events of that time are some how today "not true".
Where is the documentation? Show me the documentation.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by riVeRraT, posted 08-17-2010 8:25 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by riVeRraT, posted 08-19-2010 7:49 AM Theodoric has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 180 of 271 (574697)
08-17-2010 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by riVeRraT
08-17-2010 8:30 AM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
If you read about love, does it have the same meaning to you when you were a child, as it does today? As your view on the world changes, and your intelligence grows, the same wisdom read in a book can easily take on a new meaning.
Not at all what I meant. Love is a feeling. "Wisdom" is not intelligence or knowledge. I said a book of facts. If I read a nuclear physics book 10 years ago, it still says exactly the same thing and means exactly the same thing today. It is inconceivable that I would pull a different "meaning" out of it.
The Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of truth. Once you know that truth, then the truth will set you free.
Ahh, the christian "trvth". What is true for you may be true for YOU, not for me. I don't deal in truths, I deal in reason, logic and evidence. Facts are facts and are not up for discussion. Sure, the way we come to those facts are up for discussion, and the way those facts fit the evidence can be up for discussion. This is NOT the case for any denomination of any religion. You ALL interpret the same book in your own way and assert that YOUR way is the "truth" and the ONLY way.
Again, this is simply the assertion that only people who believe what you believe and have already accepted on faith can see the "evidence". If your close friend told you he had a pink and blue zebra standing right next to you, but it could only be seen if you believed in it's majik powers, would you believe him? Would you take the leap of faith? What happens, then, if you do take the leap of faith and nothing happens and he says "oh, well you must not truly believe". Would you run and tell a bunch of strangers about his pink and blue majik zebra? That's what you religious types do, in my opinion. I was a believer at one point, quite recently. The only feeling I got out of it was a sense of belonging to a group. While a nice feeling it was, it wasn't a magic spirit or any such thing. It was comforting at the time, nothing more.
Edited by hooah212002, : spelling error

"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by riVeRraT, posted 08-17-2010 8:30 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by sac51495, posted 08-17-2010 11:36 AM hooah212002 has replied
 Message 197 by riVeRraT, posted 08-19-2010 8:06 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024