God vs Science: Is there a point?

[jonathan180iq]

I have to ask both sides:

Why is it necessary to prove or disprove the existence of any god from any belief system?
Say someone SOMEHOW proved that God is real, ok.
Say someone SOMEHOW proved that God isn't real, ok.

Either way, we are battling each other, not literally, over supernatural beings that we as humans know almost nothing about. Either way, whats the point?
Non-Believers, given everything you found out thus far, and say God is proven real (SOMEHOW), would your beliefs or stances on such a being change at all? And same in reverse to Believers, say God was proven to be not real (SOMEHOW), your beliefs change at all?

Based on how Science & Religion works, neither can honestly prove the other wrong. Science & Religion has a guess for what happens after death (I say guess cause frankly no one really knows for a fact), so even if we die, comeback & try to say "I saw God!" even if the person in question was a well-known Scientist who was highly against anything to do religion & deities, the rest of the science community would still find a way to discredit that person (ex. Hallucinated). And same for Religious people, a highly devout believer comes back from death & says "Nothing happened, I saw nothing", the religious side would simply say "Oh that person is lying" or "The devil got to them!" etc.

Does anyone honestly think that this debate will end with one side actually winning the debate?

I think people should want to believe things that are true. That's the point of the debate.

This whole post is essentially about false equivalency.
Belief based on faith is fine and all, but it's no more valid than the belief that ancient aliens built the pyramids under the watchful eye of their warlock king, Bigfoot...

If I can derive great meaning and a deep-seated,,uplifting view of my life because of my faith in King Bigfoot and his pyramid-building minions, then surely that's just as legitimate and accurate as what the hard sciences can tell me about pyramid construction, right?

If you disagree with me, then there's a problem with your argument.

 

[godnotgod]

Actually, no, I am not meaning the normal limited sense of self so, in a very real sense, you are attacking a straw-man. I know it rattles your thinking to its core, but I am promoting the idea of a multidimensional identity that straddles all ordinary concepts of self. What we know as ego is only the outermost layer of the multifaceted reality of personal identity.

Beats me, I don't pretend to know. No doubt you have a pat answer though and will likely feel a need to embellish that answer with random capital letters for mock emphasis. . .

Your limited sense of being and identity have no bearing on the model I am presenting as it exists outside of your pat fundamental definitions.

Actually, what I described as Being is unlimited consciousness.

If you don't understand the nature of personality and identity, how can you even begin to talk about them? You even said that personality and Being are inextricably intertwined. So you must not have a clue as to the nature of Being either.

So what in hell can you tell me, other than the fluff you posted?

 

[godnotgod]

Who cares. Your "cosmic consciousness" is just a God substitute.

C'mon, now. Use your head instead of your jerking knee.

If the mind is a self-created principle, (ie 'self-view') then the only thing remaining is cosmic consciousness (ie not-self-view), or universal consciousness. There is no other answer.

 

[godnotgod]

Buddha save me from new-agers and PPNs! ( Pretentious Proper Nouns ).

BUDDHISH: A PRETENTIOUS BUDDHIST

 

[YmirGF]

Actually, what I described as Being is unlimited consciousness.

True, but then you set up little parameters of what is does and does not do or include. I take "unlimited" a tad more literally that it appears you do.

If you don't understand the nature of personality and identity, how can you even begin to talk about them?

Forgive me, I hadn't realized you wanted vapid speculation. I'm a bit more aware of identity and personality than you are inclined to give credit. What you find untenable is that someone actually dares to see things differently from your myopic view. Would You Feel Better If I Used Pretentious Proper Nouns More?

You even said that personality and Being are inextricably intertwined.

Indeed, I did.

So you must not have a clue as to the nature of Being either.

Oy vey. You asked me, "But please tell me where personality and identity come from." Personally, I don't believe anyone can answer that one with a straight face and expect to be believed. Our origins are speculative, at best. If you pretend to have the answer... feel free trotting that little mutt about the fair grounds of life. I hope it works for ya.

So what in hell can you tell me, other than the fluff you posted?

Not a lot, apparently. Then again, I can't tell a lot to a religious fundamentalist or a raving drunk either. Jus' sayin'...

 

[arthra]

Based on how Science & Religion works, neither can honestly prove the other wrong. Science & Religion has a guess for what happens after death (I say guess cause frankly no one really knows for a fact), so even if we die, comeback & try to say "I saw God!" even if the person in question was a well-known Scientist who was highly against anything to do religion & deities, the rest of the science community would still find a way to discredit that person (ex. Hallucinated). And same for Religious people, a highly devout believer comes back from death & says "Nothing happened, I saw nothing", the religious side would simply say "Oh that person is lying" or "The devil got to them!" etc.
Does anyone honestly think that this debate will end with one side actually winning the debate?

Of course in our history there's been a tension between science and religion.. but I would suggest they can be reconciled and there can be harmony between them. We've already seen how during war science can be used to develope horrific weapons ... I'm unsure of the current status but in India some years ago people had ultra sound to see if they had a female fetus. If they did they'd have an abortion.

See:

http://www.ibtimes.com/abortions-female-fetuses-creating-widening-gender-imbalance-india-790122

So we know sciene can be misused..

Religion without science can also be problematic..

If any religion rejected Science and knowledge, that religion was false. Science and Religion should go forward together; indeed, they should be like two fingers of one hand.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 71

Among other principles of Bahá'u'lláh's teachings was the harmony of science and religion. Religion must stand the analysis of reason. It must agree with scientific fact and proof so that science will sanction religion and religion fortify science. Both are indissolubly welded and joined in reality.

Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 175

So science need not be opposed to religion and religion through ethics and spiritual values can be in harmony with science.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

C'mon, now. Use your head instead of your jerking knee.

If the mind is a self-created principle, (ie 'self-view') then the only thing remaining is cosmic consciousness (ie not-self-view), or universal consciousness. There is no other answer.

Mind is not self-view. You are talking nonsense as usual.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Then again, I can't tell a lot to a religious fundamentalist or a raving drunk either. Jus' sayin'...

It is pointless trying to discuss anything with preachy new-age fundamentalists.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

BUDDHISH: A PRETENTIOUS BUDDHIST

Not at all. And I don't post fake Buddha quotes like you do.

 

[Segev Moran]

I have to ask both sides:

Why is it necessary to prove or disprove the existence of any god from any belief system?
Say someone SOMEHOW proved that God is real, ok.
Say someone SOMEHOW proved that God isn't real, ok.

Either way, we are battling each other, not literally, over supernatural beings that we as humans know almost nothing about. Either way, whats the point?
Non-Believers, given everything you found out thus far, and say God is proven real (SOMEHOW), would your beliefs or stances on such a being change at all? And same in reverse to Believers, say God was proven to be not real (SOMEHOW), your beliefs change at all?

Based on how Science & Religion works, neither can honestly prove the other wrong. Science & Religion has a guess for what happens after death (I say guess cause frankly no one really knows for a fact), so even if we die, comeback & try to say "I saw God!" even if the person in question was a well-known Scientist who was highly against anything to do religion & deities, the rest of the science community would still find a way to discredit that person (ex. Hallucinated). And same for Religious people, a highly devout believer comes back from death & says "Nothing happened, I saw nothing", the religious side would simply say "Oh that person is lying" or "The devil got to them!" etc.

Does anyone honestly think that this debate will end with one side actually winning the debate?

First of all, You are right, No one really knows.. and i think that's the whole base to the debate between atheism and theism...
Many (It seems that you also) refer to atheists as people who blindly follow science... and this is far from the truth.
The biggest issue with Theism for most atheist, is the notion of knowledge without proof.

This, If you dress it on any other subject other than religion, is something humans will not accept.

The problem with religion is that it affects so much in people lives and it can cause much harm rather than benefit.
There are a lot of theists who abandoned the scriptures for the favor of their own interepation of religion.. this is fine and a great thing in my POV.
The other side of that however, is what causes a lot of problems in our cultures today.

I AM NOT SAYING RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE BAD!!!! (I emphasize this because it seems that whenever you say something bad about religion, people take it personally and treat it as if it was directed to them directly)
I am saying however, that the religion concept is a bad practice...
In every purview of our life, we will never accept what we are willing to accept in religion.

If I told you I can cure cancer with nothing but my touch.. will you take my word on it?
If I told you I can earn you Billions, you just need faith.. Will you take my word for eat?
If I told you of a new super drug that can cure cancer.. Will you take my word on it?

I Can only guess that you will do a broad research, you will try to figure out as much as possible about my claim and only then consider the odds of it being true.

In religion, It is not so... (Not talking about you specifically, rather a major part of religious people), Millions of people just accept truths without bothering to check the basis for these truths.

The Atheist, Is not blindly following a belief.. The atheist claims you shouldn't believe what is not :
A. Eventual
B. Fits our Reality
C. Seems possible based on what we (Humans) do Know
D. In the worst case, Fits the patterns and information we already have

Why is that? Why are Atheists seeing things like that? Usually, its due to studying scientific subjects and realizing that Every single thing we experience, every aspect in our (life no matter how big or small) have a natural explanation.
The big difference between the Science and Religious POV, is that in science, if you don't really know.. you just say you Don't know yet.
Never Have i heard a theist saying they don't really know...
It will always be a claim in the form of : "I know because I have faith"...
Which are two very different things.

I Know this is quite a long answer.. but bare with me just a bit...

So eventually, The reason for the debates that are rising more and more lately, is because people are starting to understand that religion (With all its great benefits) causes humanity to "Neglect" reality.

We live in a material world, yet we try to explain everything immaterially.
We have 5 senses, yet we try to explain everything with other senses.
We have things we can't understand yet we try to understand them with theories and ideas that have nothing to do with our day to day lives.

Me, as an Atheist, Sometimes see people that are so narrow minded in their religious views, that it actually scares me to think what might happen if everyone thought the same.
There are people who reject scientific alerts just because the bible doesn't say so.. just because they can't believe God will allow this planet to be exterminated..

I Am not saying all bead things happen because of religion and I am not saying everything about religion is Bad.. But i do say that we shouldn't give people the tool to abuse others.

Think how much suffering and violence we had because of religious beliefs...
Think how much torture and misery could have been spared without the religious concept as we know it.

I Think religion is important, But it should be clear that it is nothing but an attempt to understand things we don't really understand...
It is not some mystical truth given to a selected few...
It is not the Light in the end of the tunnel that only those who believe in that specific tunnel can get to...
It is not a source of endless knowledge about everything there is to know about the universe and our existence...

It is a great thing to find comfort in,
It is a great way to try and understand things you can't understand otherwise,
It is a great subjective answer for some people

What has the pope Got that you don't?
What has your Rabbi got that you don't?

Do you really think that there are people who are holier than you??
Do you really think that there is someone on this planet that can actually hear God??

So eventually, the question is not whether you should believe Science or God... it is whether or not you should believe things without ANY proof?
Using nothing but your own mind.. tell me what seems the right answer here?

 

[Tabu]

In Vedic Sanskrit, yoga (from the root yuj) means "to add", "to join", "to unite", or "to attach" in its most common literal sense.
There are very many compound words containing yoga in Sanskrit. Yoga can take on meanings such as "connection", "contact", "union", "method", "application", "addition" and "performance". In simpler words, Yoga also means "combined". For example, guṇáyoga means "contact with a cord"; chakráyoga has a medical sense of "applying a splint or similar instrument by means of pulleys (in case of dislocation of the thigh)"; chandráyoga has the astronomical sense of "conjunction of the moon with a constellation"; puṃyoga is a grammatical term expressing "connection or relation with a man", etc. Thus, bhaktiyoga means "devoted attachment" in the monotheistic Bhakti movement.
Rajyoga means connecting with the divine.
Yoga Sutras of Patanjali
Abbot George Burke (Swami Nirmalananda Giri)

Sutras 24 through 26 of Book One of the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali

24. Ishwara is a particular Purusha who is untouched [aparamrishta] by the afflictions of life [kleshas], actions [karma] and the results [vipaka] and impressions [ashayai] produced by these actions.

Ishwara, God, is not a mere conglomerate of all that exists, but is a distinctive Person or Spirit, the sole independent Being on Whom all else depends. God is a particular Spirit in the sense that He can be experienced as a definite, definable Being–even pointed out by the Masters of Wisdom.

Part of His uniqueness is the fact that He “touches” and rules all things, but is absolutely untouched by anything. (The Bhagavad Gita emphasizes this, especially.) Although the Source of Existence and Action, Ishwara transcends them and is therefore untouched/unaffected by the kleshas–taints or afflictions inherent in relative existence. The kleshas are: ignorance, egotism, attractions and repulsions towards objects, and desperate clinging to physical life from the fear of death (Yoga Sutras 2:2-9). No action affects Ishwara in any degree (again, see the Gita).

I consider the mind to be a self-created principle. Only consciousness is real. The Yoga Sutras say that 'yoga (ie; 'divine union') is the cessation of all of the activities of the mind'.

If this is true, then all thought about attaining union with God is false. Union with God can only occur where no thought is present. It is at that point that it is realized that union with God is already the case, because there has never been a separation from God in the first place. All such notions of separation and re-union are projections of the ego, where the idea of God is some 'other' with which one needs to re-unify.

 

[godnotgod]

Mind is not self-view. .

Yes, it is. Without mind, there is no self-view, and vice-versa. However, there is consciousness without either, as it is present before mind or self-view come into play. Mind and self-view are associated with the sense of 'I', an illusion.

 

[godnotgod]

Not at all. And I don't post fake Buddha quotes like you do.

You have not shown them to be fake. Again, were you to have any insight into the CONTENT of the quote, you would SEE instantly that it is indeed, genuine. But you don't, so you can't.

 

[ENTP Logician]

I have to ask both sides:

Why is it necessary to prove or disprove the existence of any god from any belief system?
Say someone SOMEHOW proved that God is real, ok.
Say someone SOMEHOW proved that God isn't real, ok.

Either way, we are battling each other, not literally, over supernatural beings that we as humans know almost nothing about. Either way, whats the point?
Non-Believers, given everything you found out thus far, and say God is proven real (SOMEHOW), would your beliefs or stances on such a being change at all? And same in reverse to Believers, say God was proven to be not real (SOMEHOW), your beliefs change at all?

Based on how Science & Religion works, neither can honestly prove the other wrong. Science & Religion has a guess for what happens after death (I say guess cause frankly no one really knows for a fact), so even if we die, comeback & try to say "I saw God!" even if the person in question was a well-known Scientist who was highly against anything to do religion & deities, the rest of the science community would still find a way to discredit that person (ex. Hallucinated). And same for Religious people, a highly devout believer comes back from death & says "Nothing happened, I saw nothing", the religious side would simply say "Oh that person is lying" or "The devil got to them!" etc.

Does anyone honestly think that this debate will end with one side actually winning the debate?

Im not trying to disprove a deity. I am trying to promote people to think rationally.

 

[ENTP Logician]

You have not shown them to be fake. Again, were you to have any insight into the CONTENT of the quote, you would SEE instantly that it is indeed, genuine. But you don't, so you can't.

How does one prove they are not Buddha quotes?

You are simply flipping the burden of proof.

 

[godnotgod]

How does one prove they are not Buddha quotes?

You are simply flipping the burden of proof.

The issue is that Rick jumped to the conclusion that it is fake, based upon his inability to locate the quote, when he does not actually KNOW that it is fake.

 

[ENTP Logician]

The issue is that Rick jumped to the conclusion that it is fake, based upon his inability to locate the quote, when he does not actually KNOW that it is fake.

The problem is your quoting something without naming the source and attributing it to a person. If it is clearly a quote from Siddhartha then simply show us how it is it is not our job to try to make sure your not incorrect.

 

[godnotgod]

Im not trying to disprove a deity. I am trying to promote people to think rationally.

The nature of God, which is beyond Reason, Logic, and Analysis, cannot be proved or disproved rationally, which is exactly why the mystic abandons these approaches, and seeks higher ground, which amounts to divine union. The believer, however, just accepts that God exists based on faith.

 

[ENTP Logician]

The nature of God, which is beyond Reason, Logic, and Analysis, cannot be proved or disproved rationally, which is exactly why the mystic abandons these approaches, and seeks higher ground, which amounts to divine union. The believer, however, just accepts that God exists based on faith.

The nature of the unicorn, which is beyond reason, logic, and analysis cannot be proved or disproved rationally.

If mysticism was reliable it could be proven with logic, but since it cannot then it is not reliable.

I can accept the unicorn on faith as well but that does not make the unicorn exist.

 

[godnotgod]

The problem is your quoting something without naming the source and attributing it to a person. If it is clearly a quote from Siddhartha then simply show us how it is it is not our job to try to make sure your not incorrect.

As I already explained, I have lost touch with the original source, so cannot provide one. All I can tell you is that there was such a source originally. Having said that, the understanding of the quote in question comes as an intuitive one, and so stands upon its own. That process is an internal one, and amounts to one tapping into one's own Buddha nature. IOW, the Buddha nature by which he realized the message of the quote is the same nature everyone possesses as well. It is not knowledge that comes via Reason, Logic, or Analysis.

Siddhartha was not the only Buddha. There are many. There is Buddha, then there is universal Buddha nature.