I'm pretty sure there's no god now

[Ben Dhyan]

But now after watching this video, I'm thinking to myself "Nope! No way there can be a god. He's just not there!" because this is just effed up! My stance on god goes from simply being a lack of belief, to pretty much disbelief!

So do you think belief can change reality?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

can't be defined in scientific terms.

Another reason to consider it invalid.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

So do you think belief can change reality?

That depends what you mean by "changing reality".

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Another reason to consider it invalid.

It's invalid only by scientific criteria. Remember. Religion is based on it's own criteria. So, basing it off of scientific criteria is completely useless.

It's not invalid, in general.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That depends what you mean by "changing reality".

Well I mean...the reality of cosmic nature is what it is...you believing in it, not believing in it, or being agnostic about it does not change it... Iow, deciding to not believe in it is an ineffectual response to seeing nature at work....

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Well I mean...the reality of cosmic nature is what it is...you believing in it, not believing in it, or being agnostic about it does not change it... Iow, deciding to not believe in it is an ineffectual response to seeing nature at work....

Your point? I was never trying to change nature through pure belief.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

It's invalid only by scientific criteria. Remember. Religion is based on it's own criteria. So, basing it off of scientific criteria is completely useless.

It's not invalid, in general.

Science is really the only valid criteria to have. That may sound narrow-minded, but it's the only thing that ever works. If it's not scientifically valid, it's not valid.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Science is really the only valid criteria to have. That may sound narrow-minded, but it's the only thing that ever works. If it's not scientifically valid, it's not valid.

It depends on what you are using science to validate. If you are talking about how old the earth is or how long Pluto "lived", science may do the trick of validating what is true and what is not.

Religion does not work that way. It is valid on it's own terms and can only be tested within it's own criteria.

It's like some Christian's trying to tell me how their god will judge me and what are the protocols for that judgement etc. When they don't realize what they measure as truth or not is isolated. It is not an overall guide to proove invalid not only other religions but scientific claims to.

It's extremely personal.

Can you understand that it is valid in it's own terms; and, that is not wrong?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

It depends on what you are using science to validate. If you are talking about how old the earth is or how long Pluto "lived", science may do the trick of validating what is true and what is not.

Religion does not work that way. It is valid on it's own terms and can only be tested within it's own criteria.

It's like some Christian's trying to tell me how their god will judge me and what are the protocols for that judgement etc. When they don't realize what they measure as truth or not is isolated. It is not an overall guide to proove invalid not only other religions but scientific claims to.

It's extremely personal.

Can you understand that it is valid in it's own terms; and, that is not wrong?

I would say that's wrong. We occupy one reality. Something can't be true and not be true at the same time. If a Christian is making claims about how God does x, y, and z, they're making a claim about reality. Nothing is isolated.

Science is about finding the truth by any means possible. Whatever works in that regard, is the criteria in the broadest sense. There isn't any non-scientific way of finding the truth. It's why it's deemed non-scientific.

The only way truths can be isolated to religious people, as you say they are, is if religious people quite literally live in a separate reality from non-religious people. But that's not the case. We all share the same reality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your point? I was never trying to change nature through pure belief.

Well because you were so overwrought......"But now after watching this video, I'm thinking to myself "Nope! No way there can be a god. He's just not there!" because this is just effed up!".....that you decided to unfriend Him...."My stance on god goes from simply being a lack of belief, to pretty much disbelief!".....and I explain that this is an ineffectual response because nothing changes.... It's like shaking your fist at the storm....

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

.....and I explain that this is an ineffectual response because nothing changes....

Like I said, I'm not trying to change nature through simply having a belief.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Like I said, I'm not trying to change nature through simply having a belief.

So what was the point of starting a thread in the Science and Religion forum that informs us all that you have gone to DEFCON 5 wrt your disbelief in God due to your dislike of the natural order? ..

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

So what was the point of starting a thread in the Science and Religion forum that informs us all that you have gone to DEFCON 5 wrt your disbelief in God due to your dislike of the natural order? ..

Why does anyone ever make a thread on a forum?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why does anyone ever make a thread on a forum?

On this one?..to discuss issues that pertain to Science and Religion I would have thought....

But never mind....it doesn't matter...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I would say that's wrong. We occupy one reality. Something can't be true and not be true at the same time. If a Christian is making claims about how God does x, y, and z, they're making a claim about reality. Nothing is isolated.

Science is about finding the truth by any means possible. Whatever works in that regard, is the criteria in the broadest sense. There isn't any non-scientific way of finding the truth. It's why it's deemed non-scientific.

The only way truths can be isolated to religious people, as you say they are, is if religious people quite literally live in a separate reality from non-religious people. But that's not the case. We all share the same reality.

I agree, we live in the same reality. The fact is how we see reality is different based on our worldview or religion. If a Christian makes a claim god exists, I would not use science to try to varify that claim. I cannot judge whether god exist based on a "formula" not written for religous belief systems. So, it stays as a claim and nothing more (objectively speaking).

If one person says god exist and the other says he does not, there are some philosophical questions that could be asked instead of scientific (since that doesn't apply). Which god? What is the nature of this god? How does this god relate to reality? Questions like that.

Science doesn't ask these types of questions therefore; it will not find anything a person like yourself will find satisfactory. However, Plato and Sacrates may find it intriguing, especially Plato. Though he has a political twist to it.

I know there is one reality. However, science is not the only "test" that validates what is true and what is not. We find contradictions in claims; and, that does not mean all of them are wrong just because there are contradictions and/or we can't find whatever it is with our five senses.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Science doesn't ask these types of questions; it will not find anything a person like yourself will find satisfactory

I thought you knew nothing about science. How can you say what science does and doesn't ask? Or what it will and will not find? Or what answers will and will not satisfy me in particular (it's the only thing that ever gives me satisfying answers)

In any case, science asks what is true about reality. There's no problem in asking if God exists in science.

However, science is not the only "test" that validates what is true and what is not.

I'm sorry, but yes it is.

We find contradictions in claims; and, that does not mean all of them are wrong just because there are contradictions and/or we can't find whatever it is with our five senses.

That's why in science, we use technology that grants us perception beyond the abilities of our five senses.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Romantizing science makes it confusing. I'll just say using tests that confirm with our five senses and can be tested both natural and "in the lab."

I thought you knew nothing about science. How can you say what science does and doesn't ask? Or what it will and will not find? Or what answers will and will not satisfy me in particular (it's the only thing that ever gives me satisfying answers)

In any case, science asks what is true about reality. There's no problem in asking if God exists in science.

If you're talking about terms like what you can test in a chemistry lab, theories, etc; no, I don't know it. If you're being naturalistic and romanticizing the "common sense" nature of what nn-religious people call reality, that I know. However, I don't separate the supernatural and the natural. So how I see reality incompassas all claims etc. Whether they are true or not, science cannot proove it all.

Its like people saying god knows everything. Putting science on a petalstool shocks me.

I'm sorry, but yes it is

I disagree.

That's why in science, we use technology that grants us perception beyond the abilities of our five senses.

There are things that are beyond our five senses; and no, psychology and phisiology doesn't always pick up on these things.

Unfortunately, you feel reality is only what can be tested by our five senses. That is putting yourself in a box just as people can't step out of the box and think what if god does not exist. Same difference.



Your using science with religion is like using bycycle training wheels on a car or even trying to put a puzzle piece in a whole that isn't shapped for that piece.

You see it on t.v. with these "ghosts catchers" and things like that. Give it up. If you are unable to sense anything supernatural, that's okay. That doesn't mean it's false. It's just you personaly can't experience it.

That is okay. Give it up man.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

However, I don't separate the supernatural and the natural. So how I see reality incompassas all claims etc. Whether they are true or not, science cannot proove it all.

Whatever science can't prove, nothing else can. More importantly, if it can't be proven, it doesn't exist.

Again, science is about figuring stuff out. Whatever doesn't work in figuring stuff out, isn't science, by definition. There can't be non-scientific ways of proving something. If it could prove something, it would be considered science.

I disagree.

It's a definition. Get over it. It's like saying there are four-sided triangles. There aren't, and there aren't any non-scientific methods of figuring out reality that actually work. If they worked, they would be deemed scientific.

If you disagree, you have the wrong definition of science.

There are things that are beyond our five senses; and no, psychology and phisiology doesn't always pick up on these things.

Like what? Give me some examples. What's beyond, not only our five senses, but anything that could ever be detected by technology? I'm curious how you would even know about them if they're beyond these things.

Unfortunately, you feel reality is only what can be tested by our five senses. That is putting yourself in a box just as people can't step out of the box and think what if god does not exist. Same difference.

I feel reality is what can be tested, period.

If something can't be figured out or tested ever, it's as good as not existing. It might as well be deemed non-existent, because it's quite literally indistinguishable from things that don't exist.

It goes without saying that things that don't exists, certainly can't be detected by our five senses, or any other detecting instrument. If you're arguing that something utterly undetectable and unknowable exists, then it's not worth talking about. It's not worth speculating on, and it might as well be deemed non-existent.

Your using science with religion is like using bycycle training wheels on a car or even trying to put a puzzle piece in a whole that isn't shapped for that piece.

I'm using science to figure out reality, because that's what science is about.

You see it on t.v. with these "ghosts catchers" and things like that. Give it up. If you are unable to sense anything supernatural, that's okay. That doesn't mean it's false.

Those so called "ghost catchers" try to pass of what they're doing as science. It's not, but at least they understand the definition of science... that is, whatever works in figuring out reality. They think whatever they're doing works.

Yeah it does mean it's false... in practice. If it can't be detected, it's false. If it can be detected, science will eventually find it. Science is about detecting stuff. Whatever works in that regard.

You can't argue that there are non-scientific ways of figuring out nature, by definition. Just like you can't argue that there are four-sided triangles. Because anything four-sided, by definition, isn't a triangle.

If you're arguing some method, ability, meditation, ESP, crystal ball, whatever, allows you to figure out stuff. You're effectively arguing that it's science! You're arguing that it works! Science is whatever works! If it doesn't work, it's not science!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Whatever science can't prove, nothing else can. More importantly, if it can't be proven, it doesn't exist.

Again, science is about figuring stuff out. Whatever doesn't work in figuring stuff out, isn't science, by definition. There can't be non-scientific ways of proving something. If it could prove something, it would be considered science.



It's a definition. Get over it. It's like saying there are four-sided triangles. There aren't, and there aren't any non-scientific methods of figuring out reality that actually work. If they worked, they would be deemed scientific.

If you disagree, you have the wrong definition of science.



Like what? Give me some examples. What's beyond, not only our five senses, but anything that could ever be detected by technology? I'm curious how you would even know about them if they're beyond these things.



If something can't be figured out or tested, it's as good as not existing. It might as well be deemed non-existent, because it's quite literally indistinguishable from things that don't exist.

It goes without saying that things that don't exists, certainly can't be detected by our five senses, or any other detecting instrument. If you're arguing that something utterly undetectable and unknowable exists, then it's not worth talking about. It's not worth speculating on, and it might as well be deemed non-existent.



I'm using science to figure out reality, because that's what science is about.



Those so called "ghost catchers" try to pass of what they're doing as science. It's not, but at least they understand the definition of science... that is, whatever works in figuring out reality. They think whatever they're doing works.

Yeah it does mean it's false... in practice. If it can't be detected, it's false. If it can be detected, science will eventually find it. Science is about detecting stuff. Whatever works in that regard.

You can't argue that there are non-scientific ways of figuring out nature, by definition. Just like you can't argue that there are four-sided triangles. Because anything four-sided, by definition, isn't a triangle.

If you're arguing some method, ability, meditation, ESP, crystal ball, whatever, allows you to figure out stuff. You're effectively arguing that it's science! You're arguing that it works! Science is whatever works! If it doesn't work, it's not science!

I believe in the supernatural and all my "evidence" is based on experiences and just things I put together from psychology (is it in my head) to external things I can't control. I don't use science to measure these things. A lot of us religious don't and we don't see it as false all because it cannot be proven naturally.

A lot of things you are missing with religion is the psychological and sociological aspect of it. The culture, the myths, the stores, etc are all part of the "belief in god" (or whatever the religion worships or believes in). It can't be proven wrong by science because the essense of that culture, the people, etc are embeded in their beliefs and their beliefs are embedded in them.

They may not see god with their eyes, but they see god in thier family, their friends, strangers. They see god in how they interact with people and visa versa. They see god in their stories that mirror themselves and the world around them.

God is an experience. It is not something you can proove true by science. It is true because it exists through people, their experiences, their interpretations of reality no matter how far fetch 10 percent of people may think it is, and so forth. There are a lot of things that proove, in this case, god is real.

Like I said, what you are doing is trying to use training wheels for a car with flat tires. It doesn't work.

If you want to proove Christianity is true, go to the Bible. Read it not with a critical eye, but an eye that you want to make these beliefs, these teachings your life. Follow and experience what the Bible says without belittling it's far fetched ideas and see how that changes your life. You do not need science to experience the God of Abraham.

Likewise with paganism. This is from my point of view. If you want to find proove that divination and rituals work in relation to revering the Earth, try it out. Don't be spectical or use it as a science project. Again, that is not what religion is about. Spend time with the sun and learn about it first hand not by books. Spend time in the woods and learn the language (not metaphorical) of the wind not reading it in mythology books. Paganism is alo an experience. A lot of pagan religions believe that their religion is not a belief (thereby not something that science can proove false) but a practice (science doesn't need to proove what people do. Watch them and see the results. No need for study.

God exists because people exist. Religion exist because of people.

You can't proove it false by science; and, the only way you know it is true is your experience and involvement in it.

If you can't get over that fact, then you won't be satisfied.

Again, science is about figuring stuff out. Whatever doesn't work in figuring stuff out, isn't science, by definition. There can't be non-scientific ways of proving something. If it could prove something, it would be considered science.

This is personal opinion not a fact. Science does not know everything. That's like the famous phrase "playing god". I don't put stock in science to the point of making it god.

Get over it.

We do not know.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I believe in the supernatural and all my "evidence" is based on experiences and just things I put together from psychology (is it in my head) to external things I can't control. I don't use science to measure these things. A lot of us religious don't and we don't see it as false all because it cannot be proven naturally.

How do you distinguish yourself from the delusional? Or do delusional people not exist?

God is an experience. It is not something you can proove true by science.

In other words, it's not something that can be proven. Science concerns it self with whatever can be proven. Things that don't exist, also can't be proven.

If you want to proove Christianity is true, go to the Bible. Read it not with a critical eye, but an eye that you want to make these beliefs, these teachings your life. Follow and experience what the Bible says without belittling it's far fetched ideas and see how that changes your life. You do not need science to experience the God of Abraham.

Likewise with paganism. This is from my point of view. If you want to find proove that divination and rituals work in relation to revering the Earth, try it out. Don't be spectical or use it as a science project. Again, that is not what religion is about. Spend time with the sun and learn about it first hand not by books. Spend time in the woods and learn the language (not metaphorical) of the wind not reading it in mythology books. Paganism is alo an experience. A lot of pagan religions believe that their religion is not a belief (thereby not something that science can proove false) but a practice (science doesn't need to proove what people do. Watch them and see the results. No need for study.

God exists because people exist. Religion exist because of people.

In other words, God exists only inside the minds of people? Is that what you're saying?

How do you distinguish this from delusion? Keep in mind, delusional people never think of themselves as delusional. What makes you so special?

You can't proove it false by science; and, the only way you know it is true is your experience and involvement in it.

If you can't get over that fact, then you won't be satisfied.

This is your opinion. It's not fact. Especially since, in your own words, you know nothing about science. You shouldn't even have an opinion on it, let alone try to pass up your opinion on it as fact. You don't know what it can and can't prove. If God exists outside the minds of people (meaning he actually exists), he can be proven.

This is personal opinion not a fact. Science does not know everything. That's like the famous phrase "playing god". I don't put stock in science to the point of making it god.

It's a definition, not an opinion. And I never said science knows everything. I said science can figure out anything that's part of reality.

Let me put it another way. For something to be undetectable by science, it has to be completely and utterly isolated. It can't interact with anything. Therefor, nothing can experience it. Not even people. Because for you to experience the effect of something, it has to not be isolated, and has to have a degree of interaction with you. If it's interacting with you, it's giving you information about it. That's a technical detection.

The thing about personal experiences though, is you also have to know that whatever your perceiving isn't originating inside your mind, and that it's actually coming from some external stimulation. Your mind can have all kinds of experiences even though nothing external is going on.