My Beliefs- GDR

It has failed to prove it as there is no hard evidence and all our conclusions are subjective. There are still more people who believe in Tom than those who don’t but so what. Also, I don’t just read those who agree with my position I also read those who agree with your position and find that in my opinion those views are simply wrong. No you haven’t actually. You have given me speculations of how it could have evolved naturally but even if you’re right there is no evidence that tells us that the natural evolution of the Golden Rule was part of a plan or not, nor is there any evidence that discounts the possible intervention by Tom whispering the Golden Rule into our consciousness. There have been many answers found and many of them contradictory. I agree that there is no certainty and we don’t know it in the same way that we can when we test reality. The thing is that we do all form our own conclusions. I disagree with the views of many other Christians and that there is considerable ambiguity. None of that makes me either right or wrong. There is the one common thread throughout mankind of the belief that the Golden Rule is a universal truth. Religions are an attempt to explain why that is, how we should apply it in our lives and what it means to us. Well actually many of the advances were made by religious people. However all of those advances were made because we have the intellectual capacity to make them happen. If I am right and that intelligence is part of Tom’s plan then ultimately they were only made because Tom gave us the intelligence in the first place.

You realise that having said that, it's the end of the argument? You might as well have said "I believe, because I believe." So what indeed.You might consider also, that whereas a little more than 200 years ago practically everyone on the planet believed in some kind of supernatural entity or entities but as societies advance they tend give up their superstitions. (They could never agree on the same one(s) of course because they all made up different deities.) We've provided a pretty strong hypothesis supported which is consistent with all our other knowledge about evolution and quite a lot of evidence to back it up, but of course, it isn't a proof.Normally we regard evidence as cumulative - it's when you add it all up and balance it against the counter arguments that you realise the the God case is defunct. Yes, well, you've heard this before but anyway, there is no way that anything science finds can prevent you imagining a defence. As you say, if biologists find a mechanism for the golden rule, you'll just say "well, isn't god clever" and so on until we're down to the quark or whatever.It's what believers have done through the ages. Those like Faith cling on to ridiculous beliefs despite the facts around her, some like you allow their beliefs to flex away from the beliefs that have become untenable. But year on year, the beliefs are being diluted.On the other side of the argument we have had nothing new for thousands of years - it's been the longest retreat in human history.

If we go between cause and effect of the first cellular life on the planet we had to go from a highly entropic world to a low entropic cell. A couple of points. From a theistic POV they may have been part of the process as a part of an intelligent plan, or there may be that Tom brought them about by working subtly through consciousness. The evolutionary record for our physical attributes can be tracked through a trail of DNA. I think you would agree that the greatest impact on morality in particular and emotions to a lessor degree are the social replicators in our lives. That is where they stop for you, but if there is more to what life is about then we can currently know based on scientific evidence, then I think that you are removing yourself from a huge tract of human thought and experience.You either have to make the argument that all natural processes required another natural process as a cause or revert back to the to the time reversal that is seen in QM. How do either of us know that either your subjective conclusion about the non-existence of Tom is right or wrong, or that my subjective conclusion about Tom's existence is right or wrong?

...in the same way you have come to disbelieve in Tom. However, having said hard evidence isn’t all that there is. There is soft evidence or things that suggest or infer one conclusion or the other. It isn’t that they all made up different deities, it was just that they couldn’t come to agreement on the details about the nature of a deity and what that should mean to our lives.The evidence isn’t cumulative as there is no evidence. We can find out all we want about the way things are, but that is not evidence of whether the way things are, is the result of an intelligent planner or not. It is funny that your subjective conclusions are based on evidence but if one doesn’t come to the same conclusion while considering the same facts, you no longer call it evidence. You want it both ways. If Faith says that science is wrong and that a specific Biblical record leads her to reject the science then you have no use for that. If others like myself embrace the science and view it as a natural theology then you knock that.It isn’t a case about theistic views being diluted. It is a case of realizing that like everybody else, we don’t have all the answers so we adjust to new information. That’s wrong? On the natural side we have found that Tom used an evolutionary process for life. Also it was under the leadership of people like the Christian Wilberforce that slavery in most of the world was brought to an end.

Hard to say, I was just a kid. The rational bit came later. However, I did take it as further evidence for God's non- existence, after all, why would any god diasbuse me of a belief in him? There's no evidence at all - just some vague musings that never arive at anything. Um, no. They were not in contact with each other. They each made up their own God's, superstitions and rituals. When they did meet each other, they tended to be rather unpleasant about it. Any clues why this Tom guy has so many aliases and like to stir up so much trouble amongst his subjects? Well yes, exactly. Everything and also nothing is the result of an intelligent planner, or pixies, or gremlins or whatever else you want to make up. There are no facts and no evidence to form conclusions from - if there were facts and evidence, we wouldn't be having this conversation and there would be no requirement for belief. You make stuff up, then challenge rationalists to disprove it - that isn't the way things work.

I’ve seen you say that before and it never did make sense to me. I don’t suggest that God made me change from agnostism to believe in Him. Why would you think that any god would disabuse you of a belief in him? Do you not think that you had the freedom to believe or not believe? If there was concrete evidence it wouldn’t be faith and there wouldn’t be free will. I think that God does influence our thoughts but at the same time we are subjected to a myriad of other thoughts and we choose what it is that we believe. Mind you, the particular theology we choose is interesting and I believe important, but the primary thing is that we take on board His message of love for his creation and the Golden Rule There is no shortage of soft evidence. We review the soft evidence, including the Bible for that matter and make up our own mind about what we believe. Tom is Tom and anything we call him is derived from our individual languages. A name is just a name. People are tribal and if it isn’t religion it is something else they’ll fight about. It is the human lust for power and influence. It isn’t Tom that stirs up the trouble. If people just followed the Golden Rule which IMHO Tom inspires us to, in other words if we actually paid attention to him instead of all following our selfish desires, then there wouldn’t be all that trouble. You can put it anyway you want but we just don’t know in the empirical sense. It is my belief that the soft evidence strongly supports the view that at a minimum or consciousness with its intelligence, emotional capacity and morality is the result of an intelligent planner. Yes I believe more than that but ison different grounds. I’m not asking you to disprove it, just as I agree that I can’t prove it. There are facts. Consciousness, intelligence, love, morality all exist, and in the case of the last two we can choose or reject them. Those are facts. However it is what we make of those facts that we disagree on.

We're just recycling now, so I'm only going to pick up on a couple of points. No, of course not. I was taught to believe what my parents were taught to believe just like everyone else is and like a good child, I then believed. (This is why you never come across a believer in Christianity anywhere where there have never been Christians.)It's really only when you're exposed to other ideas - philosophical, scientific and cultural - that you can begin to shake of the superstitions of your elders. I like to know more about how you think that this rule is activated in us - you said somewhere that it was god whispering in our ear - which I took to be a metaphor, but you've also claimed that god actually influences us directly through it.

Hi GDR,I've been following this with some interest from the POV of my job and the thinking involved. The way you are thinking is exactly the same as I need to use to find unknown and undiscovered oil and gas deposits.There is no objective verifiable evidence of an unknown and undiscovered oil and gas deposit, if there was it would already be found. They cannot be found using Tangle or Stragglers thinking. That is a path to finding nothing new, and going broke if you are an oil company.You are able to separate those things which you know from those you believe, or those which suggest something. Others here don't seem able to do that, they believe all kinds of things but claim they believe nothing. Which is untrue.For those reasons you strike as the most rational participant here.A few questions:Have you looked everywhere for evidence of God? If you left something out you cannot claim there is no evidence.The most important thing about you is you are conscious. When did that occur? Seems to me you would be able to recall such a very important event. Have you even looked?Is the story of Adam and Eve about some fool named Adam and his chick, or is it about you? If it's about you it means you decided to leave God. You should be able to remember that. The person who wrote the story did.Tell me what important thing Jesus tells you in John 17-5. Looks to me like JC remembered being with God before the world was. I'll bet you can remember that as well.If you recalled this you would understand why someone might say the world is an "illusion" and what that means.Better get to work, figuring this out depends on you, and time is slipping by.

What?We know that oil and gas exists. We know the geology that it exists in, we know how to find that geology and we know how to drill. The ONLY thing we don't know is whether we'll actually find it when we drill where we expect it to be.The quickest way to going broke if you're an oil company is to not know what oil is but drill holes randomly anyway.

Agreed That wasn’t my point. You had asked why God would disabuse you of your belief. You had the freedom to reject the faith that you had as a child. It wasn’t God who did that.As far as Christianity only existing where there have been Christians I absolutely agree. The knowledge of Christianity specifically is passed on by humans. However, the one thing that does remain constant is that deep down the belief that the Golden Rule is the gold standard for human moral behaviour is virtually universal. Here is something Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4.

quote:

---

4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.

---

Paul’s point is that judgement is for everyone including Christians and the judgement is based on the motives of our heart. Are our motives self-serving or do we genuinely love our neighbour and treat him/her as we would want them to treat us?The religion of Christianity is passed on by humans but that is a quite different manner than God reaching out to us through our hearts and minds. I’ve been exposed to all of those things and IMHO the Christian faith is anything but superstition which of course does not make me right. Certainly by being exposed to all of that has caused me to change my thoughts about much of what I took to be true earlier. Well I have described God speaking to us in that still small voice as it is sometimes called and yes that is a metaphor as I don’t see it as being audible. I think when we experience twinges of conscience that is God touching our hearts and minds. There have been a couple of times in my life when I had an idea come into my head that were not things I would have normally considered, and when I followed through on those ideas they seemed to have had a purpose.Also I think that we are all strongly affected socially, and so when one person responds to that still small voice and responds, other people wind up being influenced by that person has done or said. So I believe that we are influenced as individuals but the individual then passes it along with what Dawkins calls social replicators.

It all depends on your definition for evidence. I think that we can consider the complexity of a single cell evidence, as well as consciousness love and morality, but they aren't hard evidence so I have started calling those things as something that is suggestive of the existence of God. I'm sure I have looked everywhere. Any suggestions on what I might have missed? I think it would be pretty hard to remember a time prior to being conscious so consciousness is all I have ever known so I would be unable to recall the event. I'm afraid you've lost me here. I'm really not sure what point your are trying to make. Actually I don't see that verse as saying that Jesus remembered being with God before the world was. IN the first place there are two many other verses that would be in contradiction of that idea. Jesus was the incarnate WORD of God.It was the WORD that has existed eternally. The WORD which would incorporate the "Golden Rule" for example. Jesus embodied Yahweh's return to Israel as a man. I just don't see it in a contextual understanding of the Gospels that Jesus had a supernatural understanding that had Him walking around remembering a time prior to this life.I have no idea how you see me in all that. I guess when you consider that the all of our perceivable universe is made up of non-dimensional or uni-dimensional particles it is an illusion. I'm inclined to believe it exists as that is how our consciousness perceives it. I'm gong to need that fleshed out more as I have no idea what I'm to get to work, why I should and why the rush.

As I don't believe in God, I'm aware that it wasn't god that did it.My point was that I did believe in God, so it's a little odd that the god that intervenes in our lives directly through 'his still small voice' allowed me to believe something that is false and would harm me. But I guess he's mysterious. Agreed, that's because we're the same species. We all have opposable thumbs too. This is problematic for you because this is god intervening directly with reality. So there should be evidence for it but we have none. In fact we have the reverse - when we look for these effects, we don't find them - when healers are examined we find them to be frauds, when prayers are tested they don't work.Secondly, god whispering in my ear is a direct contradiction to free will - it's an attempt to persuade subliminally.

I realize you don’t believe in God but you are essentially making a point that IF he did exist then why did he allow you to believe something that is false. Yes, I believe that He speaks to us in a still small voice but we have all sorts of other voices in our lives that aren’t so still or small. We can reject that still small voice in favour of any number of other influences in our lives. This isn’t a direct intervention. It becomes one factor in our thoughts that can be rejected in the same way we can any other factor. I don’t pretend to understand prayer but I know that we are called to do it. If we see prayer as a method of controlling God in order to get Him to do our bidding then I agree that it isn’t likely to be answered in the way we would like. We have the example of Jesus in Gethsemane but in the end Jesus prays that the Father’s will and not His be done. I understand prayer as more about changing us as opposed to changing God’s actions. Look at the Lord’s Prayer. This is the model for prayer that we have from Jesus and the only thing that we ask for ourselves in it is for our daily bread which is really just an acknowledgement that all things come from Him. It isn’t a contradiction to free will. Firstly it gives us an understanding of morality and a sense of what the right or moral decision is, but we always are able to accept or reject it.

By whatever definition you choose, God whispering in my ear is an intervention.Moreover intervening with reality is testable - we should be able to see it. Is this some sort of miraculous intervention that we can't test? - if so, you just made it up, if not why can't we see it?

No it isn’t. He isn’t forcing us or even coercing us to make moral choices. He is giving us the knowledge and opportunity to know what the right moral choice is, and the option to choose it. How is it testable? How do you test an idea that just comes to you and know the difference between that thought and thoughts from our personal experience. Our whole brain is a jumble of thoughts and ideas. Let’s say I saw a particularly bad car accident yesterday and so today I drive a lot more cautiously than I did yesterday. How do we test that? We have a myriad of influences in our lives that result in our thoughts and actions, but that aren’t testable.