The Truth about Religion

[Dyothelite]

Nevermind, ignore me. I never said not believing in God is logically flawed

[catholiboy]

As there is no evidence for, there is no evidence against.

There is no evidence that the world around me isn't a subtle illusion. Then again, that's no basis for going around saying "I know the world doesn't exist"; it's just a possibility.

That's what God is; a definite possibility.

I also agree with Dyothelite; don't cancel something out because we thought about it. There's a difference between theorizing and inventing.

Abstruce, you have still not answered my question in a satisfactory way. This still does not answer the question on whether a theory counts as evidence - you have just postulated a theory, and expected me to take it as evidence.

[ughaibu]

But there is a world around you, and there is no god around you, not even a "subtle illusion". The comparison fails.

[Pyrotex]

But there is a world around you, and there is no god around you, not even a "subtle illusion". The comparison fails.

Just for grins, I'm gonna play devil's advocate here, if'n you don't mind.

 

Assume, just for the moment, that there IS a god around you. Now, how would the world be different? Should it be any different? How would you tell it was different?

[InfiniteNow]

Assume, just for the moment, that there IS a god around you. Now, how would the world be different? Should it be any different? How would you tell it was different?

Lol... There is no spoon.

 

It's a matter of interpretation. Faced with the same stimuli, and controlling for all other factors, different people will see the same thing differently. Your science is my God, and my God can kick your God's... :hihi:

 

 

It's like asking, what is art? [/Channeling Jim Morrison]

[ughaibu]

Pyrotex: I'll indulge you, but on the understanding that this is a separate matter from the question I previously answered, as assumptions aren't evidence and I have no reason to make such an assumption other than to explore this fantasy.

If I assume there's a god around me but the world is as it is, I would be unaware of that god and have no reason to believe or even consider that such a god existed, it would worry me that I suffered an unwarranted assumption of the presence of something unapparent. On the other hand, if that god were perceptible, I would know what god is, how it smells, the shape of it's footprints, or whatever it is that distinguishes god as a feature of the environment.

[Freddy]

As there is no evidence for, there is no evidence against.

There is no evidence that the world around me isn't a subtle illusion. Then again, that's no basis for going around saying "I know the world doesn't exist"; it's just a possibility.

That's what God is; a definite possibility.

I also agree with Dyothelite; don't cancel something out because we thought about it. There's a difference between theorizing and inventing.

Abstruce, you have still not answered my question in a satisfactory way. This still does not answer the question on whether a theory counts as evidence - you have just postulated a theory, and expected me to take it as evidence.

You really believe that there is no evidence proving that the physical world is not an illusion?

[Dyothelite]

Even Special Relativity suggests that individual measurements are inherently illusory at face value, time dilation, length dilation. It's not that its not real it is just illusory at face value.

[Abstruce]

You can only believe or not believe in God, you can't prove or disprove God by declaring personal statements to be fact.

 

The same could be said about Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairies, and many other pagan gods.

 

With research of history, (not found in religion) one can make an educated conclusion.

 

The mind is a wonderful object. It has the ability to alter reality of the individual.

 

Reality is the quest, some of us prefer down to earth answers as apposed to mystical out of this world explanations. It is simple to believe in the latter, effort is required for true knowledge.

 

JQ

[Dyothelite]

Ok wow were on the same page... but here's my viewpoint:

 

I study theology, but I grew up a scientist (with ministers for parents). I have never been convinced by a theological statement unless it can be backed up logically. If you say God, or any other phenomenon (Santa Claus, Quantum fields, 10D string theory dimensions) exists you have to be able to last in a logical discourse about why your statement is valid. I challenge you to see past the usual theology of everyday christians and seek the logic of those who tried to stand ground in first millenia logic.

 

My point is so many people believe on faith.... I never settled for that, and there is science if you look hard enough. But someone who says they believe in God but can't last two seconds in a logical arguement needs to do their religious studies homework (coming from a future professor).

 

And in addition any scientist who can't last two seconds in an academic discourse with a theology scholar (not with me... well maybe) shouldn't push their ideas on people if they don't truly understand theology. Just like a theology scholar shouldn't try to declare to a physicist declarations if they have no knowledge of science.

 

One more point, there should be a forum where you have to pass a fundamental test on physics (sophomore college level with a C), and a fundamental test on theology (sophomore with a C), and then you have the humble right to begin discourse on a comparative inter-disciplinary study.

 

I'll write the theology questions if someone will write the physics questions.

[Abstruce]

Abstruce, you have still not answered my question in a satisfactory way. This still does not answer the question on whether a theory counts as evidence - you have just postulated a theory, and expected me to take it as evidence.

 

All gods, are man made.

 

There exists no gods, whom were not man made.

 

This paradox points to a logical conclusion.

 

Folklore is more tradition than reality, it should be respected for what it is, pias myth, history is complex, however every structure of society had it's purpose in the past. Remember, religious structure was invented as more of a government, to control and tax the masses, it created structure and order in times of anarchy.

 

JQ

[Dyothelite]

All gods, are man made.

 

There exists no gods, whom were not man made.

 

This paradox points to a logical conclusion.

 

Folklore is more tradition than reality, it should be respected for what it is, pias myth, history is complex, however every structure of society had it's purpose in the past. Remember, religious structure was invented as more of a government, to control and tax the masses, it created structure and order in times of anarchy.

 

JQ

 

When all gods were created by man it was the first attempt to define a concept that has cosmological relevance.... Abraham was the first to suggest a mono theistic principle. If you look at India every man made theological school of thought is early man's attempt to define the true nature of the universe.

 

So yes you are right.... but why does that make it any less valid than a philosophical solution to world war? or ecological destruction based on natural interconnectedness of the environment?

 

Don't take this the wrong way... I'll be the first to recognize that religion was a simple solution to social disorder of early civilization, but if a man made international social ploicy is developed by the State Department based on man made constructs does that make it completely invalid because man conceptualized it?

 

Again, realize I am playing devils advocate.. but to say just because religion and philosophy play a role in world peace that they are merely human constructs and in turn invalid isn't fair to the logic of the schools of thought that base those declarations.

[Abstruce]

Ok wow were on the same page... but here's my viewpoint:

 

I study theology, but I grew up a scientist (with ministers for parents). I have never been convinced by a theological statement unless it can be backed up logically. If you say God, or any other phenomenon (Santa Claus, Quantum fields, 10D string theory dimensions) exists you have to be able to last in a logical discourse about why your statement is valid. I challenge you to see past the usual theology of everyday christians and seek the logic of those who tried to stand ground in first millenia logic.

 

My point is so many people believe on faith.... I never settled for that, and there is science if you look hard enough. But someone who says they believe in God but can't last two seconds in a logical arguement needs to do their religious studies homework (coming from a future professor).

 

And in addition any scientist who can't last two seconds in an academic discourse with a theology scholar (not with me... well maybe) shouldn't push their ideas on people if they don't truly understand theology. Just like a theology scholar shouldn't try to declare to a physicist declarations if they have no knowledge of science.

 

One more point, there should be a forum where you have to pass a fundamental test on physics (sophomore college level with a C), and a fundamental test on theology (sophomore with a C), and then you have the humble right to begin discourse on a comparative inter-disciplinary study.

 

I'll write the theology questions if someone will write the physics questions.

 

 

Dyothelite

 

Theology is similar to psychology, they are not an exact science.

 

Physics is more of an exact dynamic science, like chemistry or biology. we can repeat experiment's to prove calculated results.

 

We developed different areas of study for that express reason.

 

They require different disciplines.

 

Theology is a fascinating field, I have enjoyed all I have studied in the field.

 

Physics is an exciting science for it is on the brink of an great discovery that will happen possibly in our lifetimes hint (it involves what is understood as gravity).

 

From what you have written, I can understand how your education has interfered with your faith.

 

Remember we all are products of our environments and in most cases not much more.

 

I can only say faith in its self is defined as (a processes of non-thinking) the definition alone should yield a conclusion, faith should be questioned.

 

JQ

[Dyothelite]

Yeah man I wish I could build with you Abstruce without going off topic here. I no longer base my theology on faith. There is a marginal gap where I could be worng but my theology isn't faith based. But that's why I'm here in a science forum.... I can't conclude theological statements based on science if my science is off. But you won't get me to say God exists because I say so or the Bible says so. I back up what I think with logic and when my logic fails I am a scientist about it and keep building and ask for help not sermons (my mother gives the best eulogies by the way)

[Abstruce]

When all gods were created by man it was the first attempt to define a concept that has cosmological relevance.... Abraham was the first to suggest a mono theistic principle. If you look at India every man made theological school of thought is early man's attempt to define the true nature of the universe.

 

So yes you are right.... but why does that make it any less valid than a philosophical solution to world war? or ecological destruction based on natural interconnectedness of the environment?

 

I'll be the first to recognize that religion was a simple solution to social disorder of early civilization, but if a man made international social ploicy is developed by the State Department based on man made constructs does that make it completely invalid because man conceptualized it?

 

 

Religion is a valid form of government, I never said religion was not a functional entities. This is evident today, the church is still alive and well.

 

Religion is not perfect like most all man made things.

 

The myth incorporated in religious structures, is to explain the unknown.

 

This is the major difference between Religion and Science.

 

Judea based religions provide the answers to all things.

 

Science is trying to find answers to all things unknown.

 

They are branches of the same tree. One dynamic the other stagnate.

 

To error is human to know everything is divine.

 

JQ

[Dyothelite]

Don't we all seek to define the unknown? Whether it is the unknowable reality of death, or the unknowable nature of the center of a black hole?

[ughaibu]

Dyothelite: Your subsequent words suggest that you mean 'describe the unknown', not "define", and if this is the case, my answer is no.