[barmar]

PassedOut, on Dec 5 2007, 11:12 AM, said:

Similarly, one can participate in all the rituals and ceremonies of a particular religion in hopes of gaining a promised after-life. But ceremonial participation is not quite the same as a firm belief in the specific claims of a religion.

And if there really is an omniscient god, surely he would be able to tell the difference between really believing and just going through the motions. Unless you think that he's satisfied by the rituals, and doesn't really care whether you truly believe. Then again, you have to wonder why we even need all the ceremonies in the first place, since he could just look into everyone's heart to see whether they believe. For instance, would a god need people to stand up and say "I do" at a wedding ceremony to know whether the couple will really love each other and honor their commitment?

This basically goes to show that if god is as powerful as he's claimed to be, all the ceremonial trappings are mainly for the benefit of the church and its members, not for god himself.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Dec 5 2007, 09:52 PM, said:

luke warm, on Dec 5 2007, 06:14 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Dec 5 2007, 07:21 AM, said:

nige1, on Dec 5 2007, 06:42 AM, said:

I'm a Roman Catholic because if a Christian God exists, then it behooves us to act accordingly;

People say this, I know, but can one actually believe a particular religion on this basis?

no

Yes. This action shows even more faith than that of a mustard seed - a seed cannot even say "if".

i disagree, winston... i don't think there's any faith involved at all

[Fluffy]

barmar, on Dec 9 2007, 09:30 PM, said:

This basically goes to show that if god is as powerful as he's claimed to be, all the ceremonial trappings are mainly for the benefit of the church and its members, not for god himself.

The fact that god can know something doesn't mean he is willing to do a tedious research to find it out.

[jdonn]

Fluffy, on Dec 11 2007, 09:59 AM, said:

barmar, on Dec 9 2007, 09:30 PM, said:

This basically goes to show that if god is as powerful as he's claimed to be, all the ceremonial trappings are mainly for the benefit of the church and its members, not for god himself.

The fact that god can know something doesn't mean he is willing to do a tedious research to find it out.

You are serious? You think God would have to do tedious research to find something out? Isn't the whole idea of a God that he just 'knows'?

[Fluffy]

of course not, otherwise he could not decide to ignore something, and he is omminiscent remember?

[Edmunte1]

Very interesting posts, thank you everyone for nice ideas. I read some time ago an interesting book about this topic called "Scientific Creationism" by Henry M. Morris, and i recommend it to everyone intrested.

I'm not saying that Scientific Creationism is a better theory than Darwin's Evolution Theory, but it's a certain alternative. Many people pointed out that believing in a superior creature has nothing to do with science, but i should remind you that every theory starts from a set of "axioms". Axioms are things that cannot be demonstrated, in other words they are "beliefs". "I believe that through a point you can make only one paralel to another straight line" (one of Euclid axioms).
So in other words, everyone of us has his beliefs, based more or less on his knowledge and understanding of the world, and faith (beliefs) are a part of it. Let's us remember that in time theories modified due to new knowledge and understanding of the universe. Newton's laws were improved by Einstein's Relativity Theory and when Quantum Mechanics appeared everyone tghought it was bullshit. Nowadays The String Theory gains more followers, though it's a certain thing that it will be almost impossible to be proven, so you have to admit its axioms (beliefs), but it's the only theory that can unify the big universe and the small one.

Humans are rational beings. They try to organise the universe, they try to give it numbers, laws and theories that can help them in understanding the universe. In other wordds they're trying to give it sense (ration). But they have to start with some initial assumptions, beliefs. I don't know why one of them cannot be that our creator used similar instruments for making different beings

[han]

Edmunte1, on Dec 11 2007, 06:04 PM, said:

I'm not saying that Scientific Creationism is a better theory than Darwin's Evolution Theory, but it's a certain alternative.

I disagree.

Quote

Axioms are things that cannot be demonstrated, in other words they are "beliefs".

I disagree.

Quote

Nowadays The String Theory gains more followers, though it's a certain thing that it will be almost impossible to be proven, so you have to admit its axioms (beliefs), but it's the only theory that can unify the big universe and the small one.

I disagree at least twice with this sentence, and I doubt string theory affects the daily life of anybody.

Quote

Humans are rational beings.

I disagree.

Quote

But they have to start with some initial assumptions, beliefs. I don't know why one of them cannot be that our creator used similar instruments for making different beings

Just because we cannot prove that something isn't false doesn't mean we have to give it serious thought does it? Let alone teach it in a science class.

[kenberg]

Anyone who claims religion is scientifically based might want to imagine an experiment we could do to resolve the issue of the existence of God. For example, as I was getting interested in science a half century ago there was considerable disagreement between the Big Bangers and the Steady Staters about the evolution of the universe. Thanks to certain scientific measurements, that debate is now more or less over. If the existence of God is really a scientific issue then there must be some sort of experiment or measurement that that could be suggested which, depending on its outcome, would support or disprove the God hypothesis. What is it? No, I don't mean arguments (proofs, he optimistically called them) from Saint Thomas. Those were not decent exercises in logic, let alone science. I mean we think up some sort of experiment, the likely outcome of which is not currently known, which reasonably could be taken to demonstrate the existence of God if it turns out one way and would refute the existence of God if it turns out another way. Just as was done with the Big Bang, Relativity, and a host of other scientific theories. In other words, we do some scientific investigation.

So: What experiment shall we do?

If you think this facetious, I actually did my own version of it. After my confirmation in 1952 I began moving away from religion. Pat Robertson suggested (see the original post) that bad things might befall the town in Pa that stopped teaching Intelligent Design. Similar suggestions were made about my fate. So I found an isolated spot and spent some time shouting obscenities at God with the goal of testing this out. I tried this several times and when nothing happened I decided that the threats were all bluster. No doubt a more rigorous scientific test could be designed, but I found my experiment convincing enough. If you think I was certain of how this would turn out I assure you that, at the age of 14 and with fire and brimstone indoctrination, I was not at all certain. Perhaps the fires await me. Could be.

Anyway, I await the suggestion for how the existence of God, true or false, can be investigated through scientific experimentation

[Fluffy]

all this babling about finding out if god exists by doing something is nuts.

If you do something to see if god exists your intention is not to do something, is to see if god exists. And it won't work. You have to really mean it.

Intention is very important.

[mikeh]

Fluffy, on Dec 12 2007, 03:54 AM, said:

all this babling about finding out if god exists by doing something is nuts.

If you do something to see if god exists your intention is not to do something, is to see if god exists. And it won't work. You have to really mean it.

Intention is very important.

How insightful! In order to 'prove' god exists, one 'really' has to believe in god. Impregnable reasoning In other words, substitute faith for thinking. Life is so easy when one abandons reason.

[Fluffy]

Real inference is that you should actually believe in him in order to be able to proof he does not exist.

But what I actually think is you can't prove he does or doesn't exist, but he can prove it to you if he wills.

[kenberg]

Fluffy, on Dec 12 2007, 03:54 AM, said:

all this babling about finding out if god exists by doing something is nuts.

If you do something to see if god exists your intention is not to do something, is to see if god exists. And it won't work. You have to really mean it.

Intention is very important.

Oh I meant it! I took my religion very seriously, I came to doubt that it was true, I was strongly warned about the ill effects such doubt might have on the well being of my soul, and I decided to take on the issue directly. The fact that I came to the conclusion that it was not for me is not proof that I wasn't serious about it. I was very serious and my transition from believer to non-believer took place over a number of years.

One of the effects of taking it all seriously, I think, is that I am completely comfortable with others who have taken it seriously and have come to different conclusions. I don't care much for people like Robertson who browbeat and threaten in order to impose their views on others, and I am unhappy with someone running for president as the Christian candidate just as I would be if he were running as the Protestant candidate or the Baptist candidate or as the White candidate. Either you want to be president of all the people or you don't. My discomfort is not with their faith but with their attempts to push their faith onto the rest of us who do not share it. I am not at all uncomfortable with, say, John McCain's faith, one of the reasons being that he seems to feel no need to inform me of what it is. Or to ask about mine either, for that matter.

My suggestion that we ask for an experiment to resolve the issue was to see if anyone thought that this could be done. You seem to think it cannot, and I agree. I am no more likely to develop a belief in God as a result of a scientific experiment than a religious person would be likely to drop his faith as a result of science. Possibly someone can come up with an experiment that would cause me to rethink this, but I doubt it.

[blackshoe]

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent — it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills."

"History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it."

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973.

[luke warm]

heinlein was a wonderful author and a clever man, but logic wasn't his strong suit, as his quote above shows

[mike777]

I thought we settled this thread ages ago...NO to the question.

I thought it was settled we are godless, souless animals with no more right to plunder the universe's resources or survive than any other replicating virus or selfish gene.

[blackshoe]

luke warm, on Dec 12 2007, 12:13 PM, said:

heinlein was a wonderful author and a clever man, but logic wasn't his strong suit, as his quote above shows

ROFL!

Which quote?

[helene_t]

mike777, on Dec 12 2007, 08:37 PM, said:

I thought we settled this thread ages ago...NO to the question.

I thought it was settled we are godless, souless animals with no more right to plunder the universe's resources or survive than any other replicating virus or selfish gene.

Sounds like a reasonable conclusion. I didn't know we settled on that.

[luke warm]

blackshoe, on Dec 12 2007, 06:22 PM, said:

luke warm, on Dec 12 2007, 12:13 PM, said:

heinlein was a wonderful author and a clever man, but logic wasn't his strong suit, as his quote above shows

ROFL!

Which quote?

"History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it."

i'm sure he was just stating his opinion... of course it's possible he's read all histories of the world written anywhere at anytime, i don't know... and it's possible he knows all religious people everywhere well enough to recognize their fear of the unknown

[helene_t]

Edmunte1, on Dec 12 2007, 01:04 AM, said:

I'm not saying that Scientific Creationism is a better theory than Darwin's Evolution Theory, but it's a certain alternative.

Alternative for what purpose? Maybe for the layperson who doesn't aspire to understand evolution but nevertheless feels a need to have an "explanation", any pseudo-scientific explanation would do.

But if the brighter pupils at elementary school ask questions starting with "why?", there is no alternative to natural selection. A few alternatives like Lamarchism have been proposed but they failed.

And if a biology teacher is supposed just to teach dump facts like "insects have six legs and don't ask me why and don't ask me what justifies the notion of the category 'insects' ", then you're not teaching any theory at all.

[nige1]

Edmunte1, on Dec 11 2007, 06:04 PM, said:

I'm not saying that Scientific Creationism is a better theory than Darwin's Evolution Theory, but it's a certain alternative.

Edmuntel makes good points but his main thesis is questionable. I don't know what "Scientific Creationism" is but it is probably OK as a religion.

I doubt that it would qualify as Science. If it requires more hypotheses than conventional Evolutionary and Genetic models then it would be emasculated by Occam's razor.