God vs Science: Is there a point?

[godnotgod]

And you would be very wrong. They are primarily diagnosed in the west because we often have more logic and reason while in many other places they cannot be due to the lack of sciences.

And yet, it is this very science which is blind, not allowing that there may be other pathways to higher knowledge, even surpassing science, or at least encompassing it, thereby making science whole.

 

[ENTP Logician]

And yet, it is this very science which is blind, not allowing that there may be other pathways to higher knowledge, even surpassing science, or at least encompassing it, thereby making science whole.

And again incorrect.

Science is a form of logic.

Logic is used for finding truths because it has proven it can.

Do you have anything that has shown it can reliably find objective truth without fail?

 

[godnotgod]

Do you have any proof of that?

If not then why should I believe you?

I am not asking you to believe me. If you want to see if this is true, you must go find out for yourself. The methods to do so are readily available. But you must leave any baggage behind first.

 

[ENTP Logician]

I am not asking you to believe me. If you want to see if this is true, you must go find out for yourself. The methods to do so are readily available. But you must leave any baggage behind first.

Does that "baggage" include skeptical thinking?

 

[godnotgod]

And again incorrect.

Science is a form of logic.

Logic is used for finding truths because it has proven it can.

Do you have anything that has shown it can reliably find objective truth without fail?

Science can only provide us with data and factual knowledge about the phenomenal world, in order to predict certain behaviors about that phenomena. It cannot tell us what the true nature of Reality actually is. Only the enlightened mind can do so, because enlightenment is Reality itself.

 

[ENTP Logician]

Science can only provide us with data and factual knowledge about the phenomenal world, in order to predict certain behaviors about that phenomena. It cannot tell us what the true nature of Reality actually is. Only the enlightened mind can do so, because enlightenment is Reality itself.

Im not talking about science specifically im talking about logic and reason.

Anyone can say the things you are saying.

 

[james bond]

Incorrect. The part of our minds that processes rational thought are suppressed during both delusions and religious experiences.

You call yourself an advocate for reason, but from your one statement I do not think you're a doctor and qualified to determine delusions nor understand when comparing to religious experiences. In other words, you're wrong.

Here is an explanation of delusions:
"This entry focuses on the phenomenon of clinical delusions. Although the nature of delusions is controversial, as we shall see, delusions are often characterised as strange beliefs that appear in the context of mental distress. Indeed, clinical delusions are a symptom of psychiatric disorders such as dementia and schizophrenia, and they also characterize delusional disorders. The following case descriptions describe one instance of erotomania, the delusion that one is loved by someone else, often of higher status, and one instance of Cotard delusion, the delusion that one is dead or disembodied."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/delusion/

What about religious experiences?

Here is one explanation:
"Religious experiences can be characterized generally as experiences that seem to the person having them to be of some objective reality and to have some religious import. That reality can be an individual, a state of affairs, a fact, or even an absence, depending on the religious tradition the experience is a part of. A wide variety of kinds of experience fall under the general rubric of religious experience. The concept is vague, and the multiplicity of kinds of experiences that fall under it makes it difficult to capture in any general account. Part of that vagueness comes from the term ‘religion,’ which is difficult to define in any way that does not either rule out institutions that clearly are religions, or include terms that can only be understood in the light of a prior understanding of what religions are. Nevertheless, we can make some progress in elucidating the concept by distinguishing it from distinct but related concepts."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religious-experience/

 

[godnotgod]

Does that "baggage" include skeptical thinking?

Actually, healthy scepticism is encouraged. The Buddha himself was very specific about this, encouraging people to question others claims about the truth. But there is an important difference between scepticism and cynicism.

The prisoners in Plato's Cave were sceptical upon hearing of the Sun for the first time. The only cure would be for them to go see for themselves.

 

[james bond]

Uh... by definition an atheist does not believe in any form of god.

See, you're using the small 'g.' That is what I am referring to. What is the small 'g?' Does it stand for a false god?

Here is what I learned about atheism, "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."

 

[godnotgod]

Im not talking about science specifically im talking about logic and reason.

Anyone can say the things you are saying.

No, they cannot.

But logic and reason do not tell us what the true nature of Reality is, because their methods are dissection and reduction. Reality must be apprehended whole, just as it is, alive and conscious, via seeing, and not via clinical analysis, which only yields a dead reality.

 

[ENTP Logician]

You call yourself an advocate for reason, but from your one statement I do not think you're a doctor and qualified to determine delusions nor understand when comparing to religious experiences. In other words, you're wrong.

Here is an explanation of delusions:
"This entry focuses on the phenomenon of clinical delusions. Although the nature of delusions is controversial, as we shall see, delusions are often characterised as strange beliefs that appear in the context of mental distress. Indeed, clinical delusions are a symptom of psychiatric disorders such as dementia and schizophrenia, and they also characterize delusional disorders. The following case descriptions describe one instance of erotomania, the delusion that one is loved by someone else, often of higher status, and one instance of Cotard delusion, the delusion that one is dead or disembodied."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/delusion/

What about religious experiences?

Here is one explanation:
"Religious experiences can be characterized generally as experiences that seem to the person having them to be of some objective reality and to have some religious import. That reality can be an individual, a state of affairs, a fact, or even an absence, depending on the religious tradition the experience is a part of. A wide variety of kinds of experience fall under the general rubric of religious experience. The concept is vague, and the multiplicity of kinds of experiences that fall under it makes it difficult to capture in any general account. Part of that vagueness comes from the term ‘religion,’ which is difficult to define in any way that does not either rule out institutions that clearly are religions, or include terms that can only be understood in the light of a prior understanding of what religions are. Nevertheless, we can make some progress in elucidating the concept by distinguishing it from distinct but related concepts."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religious-experience/

First of all: I doubt you are a doctor and even if you are that would mean you are making an argument from authority which is a logical fallacy.

Second of all: I did not claim they where exactly the same, only that they have been shown to have the same effects on the brain in a specific aspect.

Third of all: Your ad hominem was petty.

 

[ENTP Logician]

See, you're using the small 'g.' That is what I am referring to. What is the small 'g?' Does it stand for a false god?

Here is what I learned about atheism, "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."

Incorrect.

You capitalize the name of your god just like many people of many religion do.

But theism is the belief in the existence of any form of deity not just yours.

I do not believe in any form of deity including yours.

 

[ENTP Logician]

No, they cannot.

But logic and reason do not tell us what the true nature of Reality is, because their methods are dissection and reduction. Reality must be apprehended whole, just as it is, alive and conscious, via seeing, and not via clinical analysis, which only yields a dead reality.

Yes, anyone can say what you are saying.

You are not backing any of your claims with evidance, I am done trying to talk to you.

bye.

 

[ENTP Logician]

Actually, healthy scepticism is encouraged. The Buddha himself was very specific about this, encouraging people to question others claims about the truth. But there is an important difference between scepticism and cynicism.

The prisoners in Plato's Cave were sceptical upon hearing of the Sun for the first time. The only cure would be for them to go see for themselves.

Well sorry, but you have not shown me any evidence.

You can talk all you want without any, but anyone with a rational mind will not believe you.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, anyone can say what you are saying.

You are not backing any of your claims with evidance, I am done trying to talk to you.

bye.

No, sir, only a few understand and can say what I am saying. Most live in the world of Identification, their minds conditioned by Logic, Reason, and Analysis, and think this material world to be reality, when it is just a dream from which they must one day awaken.

If you want proof of what I am saying, you will simply have to go see for yourself. There is no other way. The spiritual path leaves no trace, so no 'evidence'. But once seen, no shadow of doubt will remain as to its authenticity.
The first step, if you are interested, is to go from the Third Level of Consciousness, Waking Sleep, which you are now on, to the Fourth Level, which is Self-Transcendence, the first step toward Awakening.

 

[godnotgod]

Well sorry, but you have not shown me any evidence.

You can talk all you want without any, but anyone with a rational mind will not believe you.

If you truly possessed a rational mind, you would stop seeking evidence that does not exist, and instead open your mind and go see for yourself that what I am saying is absolutely true. But, as I stated, you must leave your baggage of Reason, Logic, and Analysis at the door. Don't worry. It will still be there when you return, but I promise you, they will have become transformed forever, and you will still use them, but from an entirely different perspective.
*****

A Cup of Tea
Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”
“Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”

 

[james bond]

First of all: I doubt you are a doctor and even if you are that would mean you are making an argument from authority which is a logical fallacy.

Second of all: I did not claim they where exactly the same, only that they have been shown to have the same effects on the brain in a specific aspect.

Third of all: Your ad hominem was petty.

I do know when someone is professing to be an advocate of reason and then comes out and makes a wrong and insulting statement like the one you made. You stated,

"The part of our minds that processes rational thought are suppressed during both delusions and religious experiences."

What made you state that? Is it from The God Delusion by Dawkins? Are you saying theists are irrational and under delusions for believing in God or theism?

What gives you the right to determine what is rational and what causes a person to act suppressed? I assume you mean irrational by suppressed.

What I am saying is you're not really an advocate for reason if you believe a statement that you made.

 

[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.

The issue is not the source of the quote, but the content, but here there is no issue, because the content perfectly reflects Buddhistic thought, primarily that of The Middle Path.

 

[james bond]

Incorrect.

You capitalize the name of your god just like many people of many religion do.

But theism is the belief in the existence of any form of deity not just yours.

I do not believe in any form of deity including yours.

Last point first, you are entitled to believe in atheism, but being an advocate of reason is not your strong suit. Most people who are strong in reasoning provide a valid argument.

Wrong again. You're right that I usually go by one God, but in this instance I was referring to The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. At least, he knows what he is talking about. Too many atheists think the small 'g' is the correct use of language. It can be, but not in terms of "sophisticated" theism or monotheism.

"‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

 

[serp777]

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?

Is there a point to asking questions about God period? We can't prove anything about him. We probably can't know anything about him. He's probably incomprehensible to even the smartest possible being in the universe.