|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Detecting God | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
sac51495 writes:
We can't, for the simple reason that science doesn't deal with proof, it deals with evidence. Give me an example of a scientific proof for the existence of something. Edited by Huntard, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
"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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
"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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
"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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
riVeRraT writes:
Great, if you would kindly point to where he walks, we could settle this issue once and for all.
Jesus's walk on the earth... ...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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
sac51495 writes:
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. 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... 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
"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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
"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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024